The Future of the Foreign Agent Law

           Over the past week, there have been several developments attesting to the uncertain future of the “foreign agent law.”  Some developments suggest that there will be changes to the law, while others indicate that the law is working precisely the way many critics say it was designed to work—to reduce oppositional voices in Russian civil society.  In addition to discussions of the “foreign agent law,” there were several news articles that detailed the Russian government’s desire to expand its presence in civil society.

First, Kommersant and ITAR-TASS reported that representatives from the Council of Europe recently presented a report to Russia’s Public Chamber which stated that Russia’s “foreign agent law” does not comply with international standards governing NGOs.  The representatives included the President of the Conference of International NGOs and the Head of Democratic Initiatives within the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Democracy.  The experts questioned the law’s “definition of political activities of NGOs, registration, and the requirement of labeling NGOs as foreign agents.”  Other concerns included the Russian government’s oversight of NGOs and the penalties levied against NGOs and their leaders.  Mikhail Fedotov, head of the Presidential Human Rights Council, is confident that the law will soon be changed due to its vagueness.  Indeed, there is a possibility of such a change since the Constitutional Court of Russia has agreed to hear challenges to the law’s wording in December.  

Fedotov has strongly supported changing the term “foreign agent” to “an organization receiving funds from foreign sources.”  Putin has also indicated that the law’s wording could be more clearly defined.   Fedotov also introduced a new argument that might carry more weight in a reformulation of the law.  According to him, the word “foreign agent” has a negative connotation that infers that “foreigners are bad, foreign money is bad….this contracts our economic politics.  A mission of the president’s is that we want to attract foreign investment in the private sector. This is an intelligent, progressive, and promising idea.” Fedotov is referencing President Putin’s recent recommendation that the Human Rights Council organize an “International Investment Forum for the Attraction of Foreign Funds and International Charitable Organizations into Socially Oriented Russian NGOs.”  Putin’s recent statements may indicate that the term “foreign agent” will soon be deleted from the law’s language; however, most observers agree that clarifying what constitutes political activity in the law’s definition remains the true challenge—an undertaking of little interest to the Kremlin.  

Many critics of the NGO law received good news this week since Golos-Siberia successfully defended itself against a prosecutor’s warning that it was a foreign agent engaged in political activities.  Interfax and Kommersant reported that a Novosibirsk court ruled that Golos-Siberia is not a foreign agent, despite the prosecutor’s observation that the organization contributes to the development of civil society through the dissemination of legal knowledge and studies of electoral institutions and legislative bodies.  The Novosibirsk judge ruled that the prosecutor’s warning was “illegal and invalid.”  Observers are now awaiting the judge’s written explanation of his findings.  Many believe that “the decision could set a precedent for other regions” and NGOs wishing to challenge prosecutors' findings. 

Although Golos-Siberia’s victory was good news for critics of the NGO law, there were also two setbacks.  Yurii Chaika, Russia’s Prosecutor General, stated that he will not suspend current checks of NGOs despite a request from the Presidential Human Rights Council.  The Council has hoped that checks could be cancelled or postponed until the Constitutional Court evaluated the law’s language.  Chaika’s decision is unsurprising since he has been a driving force behind the application and enforcement of the “foreign agent law.”   Critics worry that the checks will continue to be carried out on an “arbitrary” basis.  

 An example of the arbitrary nature of the checks is the trial against Mikhail Savva which began last week.  The trial is the second setback for critics of the “foreign agent law.”  Savva is a Krasnodar human rights activist and professor at Kuban State University.  For over ten years, Savva worked as a director of grant programs for the NGO, “Southern Regional Resource Center.”  He has led seminars for NGOs and organized contests for their social projects. Novye izvestiya reports that Savva is facing fraud charges for allegedly stealing 370,000 rubles of grant money awarded to him to be spent on sociology research.  Savva’s supporters claim that the accusations against Savva are a form of punishment for his vocal critique of the inspections of NGOs in the Krasnodar region that he claimed were “abusive.”  Nezavisimaya gazeta also reported the story, but focused on the peculiar nature of FSB involvement.  The newspaper reported that, normally, local police would handle the investigation, but in Savva’s situation, the FSB handled the investigation.  According to the newspaper, the FSB removed a prominent regional sociologist from a train she was traveling on and held her in custody.  After her release, she became the key witness against Savva.  Observers believe that the trial against him is politically motivated, and that the FSB is now being used to punish opposition who critique the enforcement of the “foreign agent law.” 

Also in the news this past week are several developments that support my on-going argument that the foreign agent law is a small part of the Russian government’s larger campaign to inject itself more visibly into civil society.  First, Novye Izvestiya and Kommersant, reported that the competition for a second round of presidential grants to Russian NGOs working in the sphere of human rights has concluded.   More than 1,400 applications were submitted to three coordinating organizations. Each applicant is hoping to receive a share of the two hundred and fifty million rubles the government allocated to the month-long competition. Winners will be announced on December 10^th, and funds should be distributed by February 2014.  

Novye Izvestiya, published an interview with Ella Pamfilova, leader of the “Civic Dignity”—an NGO selected by the administration to coordinate the dispersal of the majority of the funds.  Throughout the interview, Ms. Pamfilova insisted that Civic Dignity has “complete freedom of action” to determine the recipients of the funds, and that no “administrative orders” have been given to her organization to dictate who receives the funds. According to her, organizations that best demonstrate how their proposal will address Russian human rights issues will be the most successful.  Her focus on the independent evaluation of proposals might be an attempt to assuage critics.  In previous posts, I have summarized reactions to the first wave of presidential grant awardees which included accusations of cherry-picking organizations that toe the Kremlin’s line.  In the past month, Vedomosti  featured an expose of the presidential grant awardees that revealed that grant recipients were former or current members of Russia’s Public Chamber, and that the grants were often given by and awarded to the same NGOs.  The Vedomosti report also noted that the selection of Ms. Pamfilova and her organization as one of three independent grant operators was in response to public criticism of the unfairness of the selection process. 

Second, official Rossisskaya gazeta, reports that the state is looking to partner with NGOs to provide essential social services.  The coordinator of this collaboration will be the Agency of Strategic Initiatives (ASI), created in 2011 by the Russian Government.  ASI recently prepared a draft proposal that will be presented to President Putin for his approval.  The draft already has the support of the Ministry of Finance that hopes to reduce expenditures in state salaries.  ASI plans to present the types of services needed, and then allow volunteers and NGOs to compete for the awarding of contracts.  The government is looking to privatize some of its social services and allow NGOs a place in the privatization. Observers will have to wait until the New Year to determine whether or not President Putin will be receptive to the idea.  The article also did not specify how much oversight the government will have in the selection and funding NGOs, but the draft would bring the government closer to the NGO sector.

One final development was yet another expansion of the term “socially oriented NGO.”  As I mentioned in an earlier post, the term was recently expanded to include religious institutions operating substance abuse treatment programs.  As of November 1^st, the term also includes NGOs who fight corruption and those that support cultural heritage. Funding for “socially oriented NGOs” is included in the state budget.  The Duma is also considering expanding the term to include NGOs who fight against illegal immigration.  The proposed expansion was widely reported in the Russian press two weeks ago and drew wide criticism from those claiming that the government was using NGOs to promote its anti-immigration agenda. 

Sources

Diatlvskaya, Ekaterina.  “‘U nas polnaia svobodna deistvii:’ Predsedatel’ dvizheniia ‘Grazhdanskoe dostoinstvo’ Ella Pamfilova.” Novye izvestiya. November 7, 2013. http://www.newizv.ru/politics/2013-11-07/192022-predsedatel-dvizhenija-grazhdanskoe-dostoinstvo-ella-pamfilova.html.

“FSB perekliuchilas’ so shpionov NKO.” Nezavisimaya gazeta. November 7, 2013.  http://www.ng.ru/news/448618.html

“Glava SPCh uveren, chto zakon ob NKO-‘innostrannykh agentakh’ budet skoro izmenen.” ITAR-TASS. October 31, 2013. http://www.itar-tass.com/c95/935658.html.

Goncharova, Olga. “Nachalsia syd po delu krasnodarskogo pravozashchtnika, obviniaemogo v khishcheniiakh.” Novye izvestiya. November 6, 2013.  http://www.newizv.ru/accidents/2013-11-06/191910-nachalsja-sud-po-delu-krasnodarskogo-pravozashitnika-obvinjaemogo-v-hishenijah.html.

Gorodetskaya, Natalya and Sergei Goriashko. “Za ‘inostrannykh agentov’ vzialis’ mezhnarodnye eksperty.” Kommersant. November 1, 2013. http://kommersant.ru/doc/2333229?isSearch=True.

Korchenkova, Natalya and Sergei Goriashko. “Za grantami prezidenta obratilis’ I ikh raspredeliteli.
Kommersant. November 6, 2013. http://kommersant.ru/doc/2336756?isSearch=True

Lavskii, Valerii, Iurii Belov, and Sofiya Samokhina. “’Golos’ uslyshali v novosibirskom sude.” Kommersant. October 31, 2013. http://kommersant.ru/doc/2332108.

Perova, Anna. “Professor Savva vyslushal obvinenie.” Kommersant.  November 6, 2013.  http://kommersant.ru/doc/2336742?isSearch=True.

Sardiev, Renat, Irina Mokrousova, and Elena Vinogradova.  “Kto tratit den’gi prezidenta” Vedomosti.  October 14, 2013.  http://www.vedomosti.ru/library/library-investigation/news/17429021/kto-tratit-dengi-prezidenta.

“Sud v Novosibirske ne uvidel inostrannogo agenta v fonde ‘GOLOS-Siber.’’” Interfax. October 29, 2013. http://interfax-russia.ru/Siberia/news.asp?id=446276&sec=1671.

Teslova, Elena.  “Genprokuratura otkazalas’ priostanovit’ proverki NKO po pros’be SPCh.” Izvestiya. November 8, 2013.  http://izvestia.ru/news/560294.

Zamakhina, Tatyana.  “Chastyi standard: ASI popytaetsia sosial’nuiu sferu chastichno peredat’ v biznes.” Rossiskaya gazeta. October 30, 2013.  http://www.rg.ru/2013/10/30/dorozhnaya-katra.html