Statement by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy at informal Arria-formula VTC of UNSC members on Media Freedom in Belarus
I would like to advise the organizers from the outset that my statement will not be “limited to 3 minutes” because, obviously, one needs to balance briefers and the co-sponsors speaking at average 5 minutes each and presenting one-sided politicized approach.
Let me say it clear to my Estonian colleagues. Today’s “Arria-meeting” runs contrary to the working methods of the Security Council, clarified in the Note 507 of the President. This document clearly defines that an “Arria-formula” meeting is “an informal forum for enhancing deliberations”. But Belarus is not on the Council’s Agenda and the Council has not been deliberating on the situation in this country.
Therefore today’s meeting represents a clear provocation and a blatant attempt of interference into internal affairs of a sovereign state.
I was also impressed by the way our Estonian hosts summed up the outcome of this meeting even without listening to all Security Council members and Belarus itself. This novelty clearly shows that you do not need an open discussion on this topic but rather an illusion of international unity and a chorus of like-minded states. I was also very much surprised to learn that Mr. Navalny is also a Belarusian journalist. Maybe you should correct your files.
Let me ask our Estonian friends a question – as you know, Arria-formulas are supposed to be interactive meetings. Are you deliberately creating a precedent of discussing in this format internal country-specific situations which do not even slightly jeopardize international peace and security? Because if you do, there are many more interesting cases to study.
Situation when a loosing side doesn’t accept the results of elections and claims that they were “fraudulent” and “rigged” is not rare in international practice. We all have been living for quite some time already when in our host country the outgoing president refused to concede his defeat and claimed wide-spread election fraud. And, according to the opinion polls, he is supported in these claims by at least one third of the population. Should we be discussing this issue in Arria-Formula meeting, given the fact that any potential unrest may affect UN-headquarters?
There are further similarities in US and Belarus cases. The loosing side instigates popular protest. But there is a big difference in how these cases are presented by the Western media. Whereas actions here are characterized as criminal, the actions of Belorussian opposition are being praised and its appeals are supported with sanctions while self-proclaimed leaders are being presented as legitimate leaders of the country “a la Guaidó”.
How can such blatant double standards be explained? Do we have somewhere a list of bad countries, where our western colleagues by default support anti-government protests and actions, and good ones, where authorities are always right? Why do you pay exaggerated attention to such situations in only certain countries and dismiss similar cases in the US, France, UK, Germany and Estonia itself, by the way? Why do you try to baselessly cite foreign interference in the situations of unrest in the countries of so-called liberal democracies and consider your open interference in internal affairs of other states as a normal thing?
In the case of Belarus – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland immediately condemn government’s actions to protect constitutional law and order and not just support opposition figures, but give shelter to them. Claims that Ms. Tikhanovskaya allegedly received 80% of votes are presented as proven facts without any proof of this whatsoever. Opposition openly receives foreign financing, disseminate appeals on social media for further unrest and even assassination of the members of the police and their families. Moreover, Western countries openly finance and support some Belarusian media. We heard a number of confirmations of this today. Don’t you realize that such support deprives them from independence and de facto renders them your mouthpiece? Would such practice be tolerated in your countries?
Organizers might claim that today’s topic is not situation in Belarus after the presidential elections but media-freedom in this country. I would reply to this that there are problems with media in many countries, almost no one is immune. There are special international bodies and organizations that issue reports and prepare documents on these facts. Why then an Arria-formula meeting of the Security Council?
And once again, there are much more resonant situations with media freedom that might deserve better attention. It’s enough to remember outgoing president Trump’s complete media blockage without any legal reasons, with his social media accounts suspended by decisions of several non-elected personalities in clear violation of freedom of speech.
Such examples are numerous. Since we are gathering on Estonian initiative, why don’t we pay attention to the situation with the media in this country? There are a lot of things to be mentioned in this regard as Tallinn together with his Baltic neighbors has been involved for more than a decade in a kind of a crusade against media freedom, namely domestic and foreign Russian-speaking media.
Various methods of administrative pressure and other repressions against politicians, public figures, human rights activists and journalists who represent a different point of view from the official one, as well as defend the rights of the Russian-speaking community, are enforced. The local mass media is de facto heavily censored. To give you a fresh example: the “Sputnik-Estonia” media-agency has been closed since January 1, 2020. Doesn’t it hinder the “free flow of information” and “seriously undermine the international community’s objective view” of Estonia, as you put it in your Concept Note to today’s meeting?
Since March 20, 2020, under pressure from state and law enforcement agencies, the daily news TV program "News of Estonia" on the First Baltic Channel has ceased to be broadcast.
Almost all Russian media outlets operating in Estonia, as well as local Russian-language media, face similar problems. It is almost impossible for a Russian news agency to open a bank account in the country. The most common form of its discrimination is a formal refusal of accreditation for official national and international events, and a boycott by state authorities.
This deplorable trend expands to unjustified visa restrictions and prohibitions on the entry of Russian journalists, especially representatives of VGTRK, "Lifenews", "Zvezda", "the Fifth channel", "NTV".
Psychological pressure is also practiced by the Estonian special services, who conduct the so-called "explanatory conversations” with employees of Russian news agencies.
On December 21, 2019, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Desir, noting that no sanctions were imposed on Sputnik news agency on the territory of the European Union, appealed to the Estonian authorities to "refrain from unnecessary restrictions on the work of foreign media, which may negatively affect the free dissemination of information."
The European Federation of Journalists called on Tallinn to avoid "arbitrary interpretations of EU restrictions and unnecessary restrictions" on the Agency's work. According to the Secretary General of the Federation, Ricardo Gutiérrez, we are talking about an "excessive interpretation" of European sanctions. On January 9, 2020, Gutiérrez, on behalf of the Association, submitted a notification about threats from the Estonian police against Sputnik journalists to a specialized section of the Council of Europe website.
Given all the above-mentioned facts, wouldn’t it be logical for today’s briefer Ms. Irene Khan to pay attention to the abuses of media freedom in Estonia and to not let this country escape a well-deserved international condemnation?
Mr President,
With regard to the general human rights situation, Estonia is a systematic violator of obligations under universal and regional international treaties that guarantee the basic rights of national minorities.
The Russian-speaking community of Estonia is about 30% of the population – around 365 thousand people. In fact, it cannot even be considered as a minority in conventional sense, but rather a state-constituent nation, bearing in mind the size of the community and its historical role in nation building. But, despite that fact, the Estonian Constitution enshrines the privileged position for the Estonian nation, its language and culture, continues the policy of political, socio-economic, cultural and linguistic discrimination of the non-Estonian population that ignoring numerous recommendations from universal and well-respected international structures and declining to join basic instruments governing the rights of national minorities.
One of the main human rights problems is the preservation of mass statelessness. Estonia is among the top ten countries in the world with the largest number of so called "non-citizens": 69 thousand people, which is about 6% of the population, the vast majority of whom are Russians and their descendants are deprived of basic rights in this country.
Stateless persons while being abiding taxpayers are deprived of voting rights (cannot vote in elections for President, Parliament, European Parliament), are unable to work in state and municipal bodies, to serve in the army or the police.
The Estonian Government cynically states that the number of "non-citizens" is steadily decreasing. This decrease is due to the natural mortality of this category, mostly old people.
This is the truth. I feel obliged to tell you all this truth – be it revolutionary act or not – because this is the truth you try to ignore. Shouting about problems in Belarus is much easier for you than fixing these shameful problems at home.
Mr President,
To conclude I want to once again stress that no country is perfect. But Security Council is not a place to bring upon to your discretion issues which fall under your arbitrary criteria of justice which is based on double standards. We have a clear mandate and an Agenda which is being formulated according to certain rules. They need to be respected and observed unless we want to undermine Council’s authority, even if we speak about “Arria-formula” meetings.
I appeal to our Estonian and other Western friends to bear it in mind and look in the mirror before they launch such initiatives. Do you want us to consider following your example? I hope not!
