A War of Words – Social Leaders’ Attempts to Challenge Russia’s Foreign Agent Law

In early September, President Obama met with leaders of Russian NGOs during the G-20 Summit in Saint Petersburg.  He stressed that the “Russian law on NGOs will be harshly criticized at the ‘highest level.’” Obama also reinforced his belief that the Russian and American law have nothing in common, including the usage of the term “foreign agent.” 

President Obama hasn’t been the only one criticizing the foreign agent law.  Russia’s Human Rights Commissioner Vladmir Lukin filed a complaint in the Constitutional Court challenging the usage of the terms “foreign agent” and “political activity” claiming that they are “politically and legally vague.”  This vagueness allows for the arbitrary enforcement of the law which fines organizations and their leaders for anything perceived as “political.”  The basis of his complaint is fines imposed on four NGOs the government claims are engaged in foreign activities.  One organization mentioned was fined because it had invited the United States Embassy’s deputy political counselor, Howard Solomon, to participate in a roundtable discussion on America’s “reset” with Russia. Lukin’s complaint stated that the foreign agent law violates several articles of the Russian Constitution, including freedom of speech and freedom of membership in organizations. 

Even President Putin has been critical of the law’s wording.  In early August, Putin admitted that there needs to be a “clear cut definition” of what constitutes “political activity,” but he reaffirmed his position that the law does not need to be more strict or lenient. Since then, Putin has shown a willingness to work with NGOs in order to improve the law’s application.  On September 4^th, he attended a meeting with the Presidential Human Rights Council during which Council members shared three suggestions for the law’s improvement. First, they recommend that the term “foreign agent” be changed to “NGO financed from foreign sources.” The Council also agreed with Putin that “political activity” must be better defined, specifically tying it to “political party activity.”  Lastly, members believed that changing the term “foreign agent” in the civil code would improve the law. 

Vedomosti reports that a source close to Duma leadership believes that the Council’s suggestions have little chance for success since there is an “understanding that a conceptual revision will not occur since the law is effectively fulfilling its preventative function.” Although, the source admits that the law’s phrasing “may be clarified.”  President Putin seems to have affirmed this source’s predictions.  He agreed with the Council’s recommendation to better define “political activity,” commenting that “political activity is primarily in the sphere of political parties,” but he reaffirmed his position that NGOs “engaged in politics supported by foreign money should openly designate themselves as such.”  However, President Putin did not appear to support the suggestions to remove the word “agent.” Kommersant reported that, “judging by appearances, it is precisely this word that Vladimir Putin likes: it is impossible to find fault with it (it is a copy from English of an American law) and it sounds offensive, thus reaching its goal.”   Many NGO leaders claim that being labeled as a “foreign agent” carries negative connotations, including an association with spies.  The embrace of such connotations harms their work in society since the populace will be inherently suspicious of them. 

Whether or not President Putin will accept the Council’s suggestions is yet to be determined. However, an editorial published in Nezavisimaya gazeta offers its analysis of Putin’s possible actions and motives:

“The initiative of the Presidential Council is good because it will clarify the priorities of the government and the nature of the law. If the government wants to control the interference of foreign governments or foreign capital in Russian domestic politics, then the president would accept the proposals of the Council….If the purpose of power is stigmatization and marginalization, and thus weakening its [the government’s] critics among NGOs…the president is unlikely to accept the recommendation of the Council.”

During the meeting, Putin also hinted at the inherent anti-American nature of the law.  He quoted an Indian politician who stated: “We have not won our independence for the Americans to use our NGOs as puppets.” Indeed, a common trend in the application of the foreign agent law has been the Russian government’s attempt to link Americans with the financing of Russian NGOs, and to find ways to reduce foreign influence in Russian civil society, thereby cutting the puppeteers’ strings.  The day of Putin’s meeting with the Council, The Voice of Russia, the Russian government’s world radio service, released a report citing Foreign Ministry sources claiming that the U.S. State Department is intentionally interfering with Russian domestic politics through their continued support of NGOs.  This allegation, coupled with attacks on State Department supported grant programs and the fining of NGOs who invite State Department experts to round tables, illustrates that the Russian government is trying to crack down on Western influences in Russian civil society. 

The Russian government’s attacks on Western support of NGOs has also been coupled with the expansion of presidential grants to bring Russian NGOs closer to the government. Even more financial support is now on its way.  During Putin's meeting, he confirmed that the Russian government will contribute an additional 200 million rubles this year to NGOs working in the field of human rights.  Furthermore, during the next three years, the government will add an additional 500 million rubles to its support of human rights organizations. These funds will be distributed through a transparent contest administered by Ms. Ella Pamfilova, former head of the Presidential Human Rights Council.  However, Mikhael Fedotov, current head of the Presidential Human Rights Council, admitted that these additional funds will not be enough to completely end all foreign support of NGOs.  He also suggested two more ways to fund NGOs.  One idea is to create an “international investment forum in charitable work to attract foreign finds for Russian NGOs.”  He gave little detail as to who would organize such a forum and how it would be managed.  His second suggestion seems more plausible, but, again, draws Russian NGOs closer to the Russian government and its interests.  Fedotov suggested that that Russian businessmen give “transparent donations,” further adding that he didn’t “think they will become poor” by doing so.

The Russian government’s continued expansion of financial support for NGOs demonstrate that they are embarking on a multifaceted campaign to draw Russian NGOs away from foreign influences.  Government officials are also engaging in an open dialogue with NGOs in order to placate criticism of the law’s application as was evidenced by the president’s meeting with the Council.  Mr. Lukin, a well-respected member of government, and his complaint certainly strengthens NGOs battles against the wording and application of the law.  The Constitutional Court has three months to make a decisions regarding Mr. Lukin’s complaint, while President Putin has time to consider the suggestions of his Presidential Council.  It remains to be seen what influence, if any, these will have on the application of the law and the continuation of NGO inspections that will resume shortly. 

Sources:

Biriukova, Liliya and Anastasiya Kornia.  “SPCh obsudit s Putinom agentov” Bedomosti. September 3, 2013. http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/15880291/s-putinym-obsudyat-agentov

Gorodetskaya, Natalia and Irina Nagornikh.  “NKO dobaviat na pravozashchitnuyu deiatel’nost’” Kommersant.  September 5, 2013.  http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2271293

“Inostrannye agenty nuzhny vlasti” Nezavisimaya gazeta.  August 30, 2013.  http://www.ng.ru/editorial/2013-08-30/2_red.html

Kolesnikov, Andrei.  “Polupravozashchitniki.”  Kommersant.  September 9, 2013. http://kommersant.ru/doc/2271606

Kozlov, Viacheslav and Grigorii Tymanov. “Desiatka posle dvadtsatki” Kommersant.  September 7, 2013.  http://kommersant.ru/doc/2273981

---. “Vladimir Lukin poprosil agentskuyu skidku.”  Kommersant.  September 3, 2013.  http://kommersant.ru/doc/2270113.

“Novye mekhanizm finansirovaniia NKOv Rossii mozhet hachat’ deistvovat v 2014 godu.” Nezavisimaya gazeta. August 28, 2013.  http://www.ng.ru/politics/2013-08-28/2_nko.html

Petrov, Vitalii.  “Biznesmeny ne obedneiut.” Rossisskaya gazeta. September 4, 2013.  http://www.rg.ru/2013/09/04/nko-site.html

“Putin: zakon of NKO ne stoit uzhestochat’ ili liberalizirovat’” Novaya gazeta.  August 2, 2013.  http://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/74954.html

Raibman, Natalia.  “Ombudsmen Lukin poprosil Konstitutsionnii syd proverit’ zakon ob inostrannykh agentakh.”  Vedomosti. September 3, 2013.  http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/15882151/ombudsmen-lukin-poprosil-ks-proverit-zakon-ob-inostrannyh

Roth, Andrew. “Russian Group Fears Fine After Talk With Americans.” The New York Times.  April 16, 2013.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/world/europe/russia-prosecuting-kostroma-center-under-foreign-agent-law.html?_r=0

“US State Department and Russian NGOs: A Blatant Interference in Russia's Internal Affairs.”  The Voice of Russia.  September 4, 2013.  http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_09_04/US-State-Department-and-Russian-NGOs-a-blatant-interference-in-Russias-internal-affairs-1931/?from=menu