Kseniya Lutskina: “We Cannot Vote, but We Can Seek Allies”

Representatives of democratic Belarus have been working in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) for the second year. Why is their presence in PACE important? What practical results have they achieved, and how can the Council of Europe help political prisoners and Belarusians in exile? Journalist Reform.news discussed these questions with Kseniya Lutskina, a member of the Coordination Council delegation to PACE and a former political prisoner.

— You served as secretary during the first Coordination Council delegation’s work in PACE. In the second delegation, you are now a delegate. Can we speak of any results achieved by the Belarusian delegation?

— There are certainly results. We have developed experience and an understanding of how things work here, how delegations operate, and how to advance the Belarusian agenda. This includes the issues of transnational repression, the legalisation of Belarusians, assistance to political prisoners, and Belarusian culture. I am now beginning work on promoting the issue of Belarusian independent media and the repression they face.

But the most important thing is that we have established personal contacts. This is one of the key factors here. We now understand how to work on resolutions, reports and other documents, and then secure their practical implementation. Because Belarusians rightly ask: What are they even doing there? Well, this is not political tourism. It is genuinely hard work.

— Can you name several results that can, so to speak, be seen and touched? Adopted documents, legal mechanisms?

— One important result is that Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s name appeared in documents concerning the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. This was made possible in part by the tremendous work done by Pavel Latushka and the team at the National Anti-Crisis Management. We were all very pleased when this happened, because such decisions require an enormous amount of communication, technical, bureaucratic and political work. The issue of Lukashenka’s accountability for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children from temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine is also being actively discussed. A report on Belarusian culture is now being prepared. A resolution on Belarus will also be prepared.

Why do all these documents have practical significance? Because without them, it is very difficult to explain the actual situation in Belarus to a senior official—and even more so to a local official who decides whether to grant someone a residence permit. If there are no Council of Europe documents to refer to, it becomes much harder to do so.

— The Belarusian delegation still has no voting rights. You can take part in PACE proceedings and speak, but you cannot vote. How much does this limit your opportunities?

— We will be able to vote when Belarus, as a state, becomes a full member of the Council of Europe. We should strive for that. But we have discussed the possibility of expanding the so-called modalities of the Belarusian delegation so that we can attend not only the sessions in Strasbourg but also participate in the work of committees, where documents are drafted directly.

Yes, we cannot vote. But we can propose amendments, work with parliamentarians, and seek allies who will submit and support those amendments. We can contribute to the preparation of resolutions and reports, collect materials and provide reliable information.

— Two years ago, the first elections to the Coordination Council enabled its delegation to join PACE specifically as representatives of an elected body. The number of voters fell significantly in the latest elections. Has this affected the delegation’s legitimacy?

— No. What matters is that the Coordination Council is an elected body. This is the key difference between our delegation and, for example, the Platform of Russian Democratic Forces. People voted for us; we were elected. Of course, voter turnout was low. We also spoke here about the attacks that took place during the elections, threats against voters, pressure on candidates and other forms of obstruction of voting by the regime. Everyone understood perfectly well that holding elections with very high turnout under our circumstances would be extremely difficult. We had no illusions about that.

But we value every vote we received. The fundamental difference between our delegation and the Russian platform is precisely that we were elected: we received our mandate through elections, whereas the representatives of the Russian platform were selected by the Parliamentary Assembly itself from among the applications submitted.

— You are a former political prisoner yourself. How are you perceived in this capacity? Does this status help your work, or does it sometimes get in the way?

— It helps rather than hinders. Although I never exploit it. When I first came here and was given the floor at a briefing on the situation of political prisoners, there was a very long silence after my speech. Then people began raising their hands. Instead of the planned fifteen minutes, we spent an hour and a half discussing Belarus. Afterwards, someone told me: “I don’t know what you did to them. Maybe it’s because you’re a journalist. I’ve never seen these cynical people remain silent for so long.”

Perhaps it really is because I am a journalist. I talk about more than just myself. I corroborate facts with my personal story, and my personal story with facts. That is how I manage to convey the issue and get through to people. Over the past year, I have been working very closely here on human rights issues. We are constantly preparing documents and reports on the actual human rights situation and political prisoners.

There is a great deal of interest in this topic. For example, a meeting with the German delegation began with the question: “We have heard about the release of people. What is actually happening there? How many people were released with passports, and how many without them?” This means that the issue remains firmly in the spotlight, and thanks to constant communication, people in other countries are aware even of such specific issues as the forced deportation of political prisoners without passports.

— Does this help resolve specific problems?

— Exactly. Political prisoners, especially those who have been deported, provide an example that brings virtually all the problems faced by the Belarusian diaspora into focus. They are simply concentrated and amplified a thousandfold. Legalisation, bank accounts, documents—all of these affect many Belarusians, but the problems become particularly acute for former political prisoners and are brought into the public eye.

Of course, it is bad that these problems exist at all. But it is good that they are now receiving so much attention. This is a very important indicator of the work being done by all democratic structures—human rights defenders, journalists and politicians alike. After all, there are political prisoners in Azerbaijan, Russia and dozens of other countries. But the situation in Belarus is currently receiving particularly significant attention.

— Working in Strasbourg is not only about the institutions of the Council of Europe itself. National parliamentary delegations are also based here. To what extent have you been able to use these contacts to resolve specific problems faced by Belarusians in individual countries?

— We make full use of these opportunities. In addition to working in political groups and committees, we regularly meet with representatives of national delegations. We talk about the overall situation in Belarus, human rights and political prisoners. Each member of our delegation also has their own area of responsibility.

Then we look at the specific country: what problems Belarusians face there and which parliamentary mechanisms can be used to address them. Parliament cannot solve everything. But, for example, a parliamentarian can contact a ministry, pass on information or raise an issue with the executive branch.

Let me give you a specific example. In June, I gave the head of the German national delegation a detailed document on the problems faced by Belarusians in Germany. The situation with documents there is very complicated. For many people, the only options are effectively either to apply for protection—which has its own specific features and consequences in Germany—or to live without valid documents. We described the problem and possible mechanisms for resolving it.

I have now asked what happened to that document. I was told that it had been forwarded to the interior minister, and that the Interior Ministry had sent an information letter to local authorities. This is important because decisions in individual cases are made by local officials. There was already a case in which a Belarusian in Germany was told that there was supposedly no longer any threat in Belarus because Tsikhanouski had been released and could safely return home. Now, local German authorities have additionally been informed by the Interior Ministry that Belarusians cannot simply travel to Belarus to obtain a new passport. This is one concrete result that can be seen and touched.

— Imagine we meet here again in a year. What would need to happen for you to be able to say, “We really did a good job this year”?

— I very much hope that we will make significant progress on the issue of Belarusian independent media. I began this work back in June. We have already prepared documents and will continue. It is important to understand that everything moves rather slowly here. Of course, I will continue working on political prisoners. Resolutions related to repression are being prepared, and Belarus will feature significantly in them.

But if, in a year’s time, we manage to bring the issue of Belarusian independent media to roughly the same level of attention, I will be very happy. This matters to me both professionally and personally. It is deeply frustrating to me that Belarusian journalists and media receive far less attention than, for example, the persecution of journalists in Iran or Afghanistan.

I have a friend in Berlin, a photographer from Iran. We compared our experiences—how the security services came to his door and how they came to mine. They came to him in 2020, and they came to me in 2020. The only difference was that he managed to leave Iran, while I had no such opportunity. In my mind, Iran had always been the absolute empire of evil. But when we began comparing our own experiences, it turned out that in many respects the situation in Belarus was much worse. That is why working on a separate document about Belarusian independent media is truly important to me.