The Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies (BISS) has recently found itself under increasing pressure from the Belarusian authorities. Furthermore, many of the events connected with BISS have been given various interpretations by the media. BISS has carried out an independent enquiry and thoroughly analyzed everything that has happened to the Institute during the last 10 months.
Although this is a sensitive issue that naturally increases the degree of subjectivity, we will try to remain impartial in our analysis and keep to certain standards – we will at least do our best to draw a line between facts and opinions.
Facts:
Since late 2011, the BISS think tank has been under pressure from the Belarusian authorities. In September and November 2011, BISS’s applications for lease of premises to hold annual conferences, in which European Commissioner Štefan Füle had confirmed his participation, were rejected by the authorities; in November 2011, BISS was denied registration at the phase of name approval (the official reason was “the use of these names contradicts public interests, principles of humanity and ethics.”) After that, all of the BISS associates underwent tax inspections encompassing the last 10 years.
In January 2012, BISS Academic Director Aleksei Pikulik had his laptop confiscated; in April, his civil passport was seized for the alleged purpose of checking his authenticity (the inspection has lasted for almost three months now). Finally, on 31 May, Pikulik was detained and sentenced to a five-day arrest under Article 17.1 “profanity in a public place.”
Opinions:
1) BISS is another EU hostage
BISS is perceived as an influential actor in the EU-Belarus relationship. Being certain that the excessive dependence on Russia fails to meet the national interests of the country, BISS has facilitated dialogue with the EU since its inception. We must emphasize here that the Institute was founded with an express purpose of promoting dialogue as a form of political process inside the country and as part of its foreign policy effort. BISS experts have not only conducted research on the relations between Belarus and the EU and made appearances in the Belarusian and foreign media, but also arranged and participated in many European forums and, as already mentioned previously, were working hard on organizing a conference in Minsk, in which Commissioner Štefan Füle confirmed his participation. In the framework of the EU-Belarus relationship, BISS advice was consistently focused on dialogue engaging all of the stakeholders, including the Belarusian government. This active policy pursued by BISS might have thwarted someone’s plans; possibly, neither the authorities nor the opposition need a volunteer intermediary, let alone an independent and uncontrollable intermediary.
2) BISS has entered politics
With the heated debate on sanctions, both the opposition and some representatives of the regime could believe that BISS has entered politics. In the black and white views on Belarusian politics, as well as in the rent-seeking behavior of the key actors (the regime is paid by Russia and the opposition, by the West), both sides could perceive us as a “new enemy.” Some opposition politicians have already called us “lobbyists for Lukashenko.” The pressure on BISS might be a response of the other party to the same circumstances.
3) BISS’s activity runs counter to Russia’s interests
Analysis of the economic situation in Belarus has revealed that the country is on its way to having its key assets privatized exclusively by Russian capital. We need to emphasize that when it comes to Belarus’ geopolitical choice, BISS has never been an anti-Russian institution. Being perfectly well aware of the objective geopolitical position of the country and subjective unwillingness of the elites to lose the Russian subsidies, BISS warned about the risks intrinsic in the liberalization of the economy without the involvement of both Western and Belarusian capital. Building on these assumptions, it may be concluded that BISS became an impediment to forces inside and outside the country, which are not interested in Belarus’ getting back to the real multi-vector policy.
Conclusion
We believe that the most probable reason is mere misunderstanding of what the Institute is really working on. We admit that analysis of current political processes has turned into BISS’s predominant activity, while strategic research has taken backseat. At the same time, it is never enough to stress the fact that the situation that has developed in the country following the 19 December 2010 events, when all stakeholders tend to respond too emotionally and often employ emotion to conceal their mistakes, is a fertile ground for a variety of conspiracy theories.
BISS is an independent analytical institution that was established with a purpose of modernizing Belarusian society via expert endeavor and research. To this end, BISS pursues research and conducts analyses, openly and transparently, sets forth and promotes strategies for all societal groups interested in promoting change in the country. It is crucial that BISS is a purely Belarusian think tank that aspires to work in Belarus publicly and openly. This is why we stand “above the fray” in order to be equally distanced from both the regime and the opposition. Our goal is to hold an objective expert position despite the high price we have to pay for this.
BISS’s research and analysis are significant primarily because of their impartiality. We believe that the pressure on independent researchers will lead to a loss of the objective judgment of the situation in Belarus and produce a negative impact on the campaign to modernize the country.