Russian "Foreign Agent" Law

[Ahriman238]

(By Natalia Taubina, first saw it published in the Boston Herald)

I recently found myself in a Moscow court explaining why the civil rights group I run would not be registering as a “foreign agent,” despite being ordered to do so by prosecutors.

According to Russia’s pernicious “foreign agent” law, which President Vladimir Putin rammed through the parliament in 2012, any advocacy group that receives foreign funding and engages in political activity must apply to be included in a special registry of foreign agents. The definition of “political activity” is so broad that it could cover any work in defense of the public interest.

Why won’t our group, Public Verdict, register? Because we aren’t “foreign agents,” a term with a single, unambiguous meaning in Russia: a spy, a traitor to the Motherland.

But we are taking a risk. Under the law, if an organization refuses to register, the group may face heavy fines (up to $17,000) and its activities may be suspended. As director, I could go to prison for two years.

Public Verdict is not alone, though. Russian civil society organizations have presented a united front against a law meant to demonize and silence them. Not a single rights group agreed to stigmatize itself by adopting the shameful and false label of foreign agent, and all the leading nongovernmental organizations have made strong public statements condemning the law.

But the government hasn’t backed down. This spring, prosecutors throughout Russia conducted punitive and aggressive inspections of hundreds of organizations, issuing dozens of warnings along with direct orders to register within 30 days.

Public Verdict received such an order: Either stop working or register as agents. We believe that this is fundamentally wrong. For 10 years we have been helping victims of abuse by law enforcement officers, handling more than 500 cases and winning more than 100 in court. More than 100 law enforcement officers have been punished for torture and other crimes, and dozens of torture victims have benefited from our psychological rehabilitation program.

Police torture and impunity for abuse of power are systemic problems in Russia. So, in addition to handling individual cases, we also advocate for comprehensive law enforcement reform.

It’s obvious to the people who come to us for help that our work is in their interest and in the wider interest of the country as a whole. Prosecutors, however, consider our actions to be political activity. The way they see it, trying to eradicate torture and ensure the right to a fair trial in Russia is in the interest of foreigners but not of Russians. We cannot agree with this absurd approach, and we will not register as something that we are clearly not. It is unclear whether that argument, which we used in court, will carry the day.

We are not alone in this struggle. In the approach to February’s 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, the international community has put a great deal of pressure on the government, demanding that it allow independent groups to operate freely. If this support continues after the Olympic Games are over, we can hope for victory. Our next court hearing is due in February. Wish me luck.

I never heard of this foreign agent law before now. How does that work? Does that extend to all the anti-LGBT groups pouring money and support into Russia?

[Sea Skimmer]

How does it work? Any way the Tsar wants. Any group that ever got a dime from overseas = foreign agent. No exceptions, and no definitions needed. Its all very simple.

[mr friendly guy]

From what I recall, there is a law which requires NGOs to declare donations / income if from foreign sources. I am not sure what the legal consequences are if you do, although if you don't, presumably their are legal consequences as the above article mentions.

Now before we go into conspiracy theory territory, some foreign NGOs openly do things which would be considered disruptive to how a country runs things. For example the National Endowment of Democracy which as well as promoting democracy, also channels money into separatist groups. So from that point of view, and with the more transparency mantra the West keeps chanting, I can understand why someone would want such a law.

The problem is, if the government unfairly targets a group, eg say a human rights group, it makes it easier to a) identify b) play the nationalism card as the government can claim foreign influence.

Now I don't have a problem per se with such a law, but, like with any law, if the rule of law is weak in that country, there is corruption, etc, such a law can be manipulated to other ends.

[Irbis]

Now before we go into conspiracy theory territory, some foreign NGOs openly do things which would be considered disruptive to how a country runs things. For example the National Endowment of Democracy which as well as promoting democracy, also channels money into separatist groups. So from that point of view, and with the more transparency mantra the West keeps chanting, I can understand why someone would want such a law.

I agree with the above. Russian law goes too far, but after absolutely shitty 4 years Poland had when a few right wing groups poured in money to help coalition of incompetents win 1997 election (so incompetent the winning party ceased to exist due to fractionation and lack of popularity after just 3 years) I'd agree with any even slightly political NGO being subject to this. Even small western NGO can often command money and access to skills no political group or party outside of first world countries can match.

[Simon_Jester]

The Russian government would normally have a right to demand that NGOs disclose any foreign donations they might receive, to ensure that foreigners do not interfere in matters where only Russians should have a vote.

The Russian government is transparently abusing this right, in an attempt to ensure that NO human rights organizations operate within their territory.

Under the circumstances, the NGOs resisting is reasonable, because the government is taking a power it lawfully has, and abusing it. Though perhaps it would be wiser for them to at least form some NGOs which simply flatly refuse to take foreign money for any reason and which can therefore trumpet their squeaky-cleanness. Then again, for all I know they have already done so.

[FaxModem1]

The problem there might be lack of local funding if that is done.

[Purple]

The problem there might be lack of local funding if that is done.

Well... an argument could be made that if there is a lack of local funding and support for a cause than perhaps, just perhaps in a democratic system such a cause should not be pursued. Will of the people and all that...

[Simon_Jester]

In this case, the argument is that if no one fights for democratic rights in Russia, Russia will not BE a democratic society.

Also, the state has systematically impoverished the general public to the point where they may lack the means to do anything to secure their own freedoms. But the oligarchs and government have bottomless oceans of wealth with which to enforce tyranny.

[Thanas]

The problem there might be lack of local funding if that is done.

Well... an argument could be made that if there is a lack of local funding and support for a cause than perhaps, just perhaps in a democratic system such a cause should not be pursued. Will of the people and all that...

That is a horrible argument. I hope you can see why.

[fgalkin]

In this case, the argument is that if no one fights for democratic rights in Russia, Russia will not BE a democratic society.

Also, the state has systematically impoverished the general public to the point where they may lack the means to do anything to secure their own freedoms. But the oligarchs and government have bottomless oceans of wealth with which to enforce tyranny.

On the other hand, if human rights groups have to rely on funding abroad, they inevitably become subjected to pressure from these funders to act in a way that may or may not be following their own wishes and their stated goals.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ralin]

That applies to all funding, foreign or otherwise.

[Ahriman238]

Announcing funding from foreign sources is reasonable. Putting your name down as a foreign agency is not.

[mr friendly guy]

The chances of being a foreign agency would depend on the how much of your funding comes from foreign sources. If its a little it seems unlikely. If its a lot its a different story. I suspect its hard for the authorities to work out exactly how much is from foreign sources, as opposed to whether funding from foreign sources > 0.

[Simon_Jester]

In this case, I think it's pretty obvious that the authorities want to be able to label groups as foreign agents, even if they get only a tiny amount of money from overseas.

The US used to do the same thing by accusing all groups that sought certain political changes of being "communists." Some of them really were communists, but the vast majority of people involved in such political movements had perfectly good reasons for wanting changes that they sincerely believed would make America better. But when the establishment didn't want to listen, they simply called these people communists too.

Or tried to find the handful of actual communists anywhere near the organization, point to them, and say "see? It's a communist front!"

That was red-baiting; this is foreign-spy-baiting.

[Siege]

Some of them really were communists, but the vast majority of people involved in such political movements had perfectly good reasons for wanting changes that they sincerely believed would make America better.

This may sound like nitpicking but I feel it's important to point out that some of them probably were communists and had perfectly good reasons for wanting changes they believed would make America better. Simply being of the communistical persuasion, after all, doesn't mean one is a moustache-twirling villain out to bring about the ruination of the United States. So it's probably best not to imply such distinctions.

[mr friendly guy]

In this case, I think it's pretty obvious that the authorities want to be able to label groups as foreign agents, even if they get only a tiny amount of money from overseas.
.

Oh I agree. I am pointing out even if they were serious in trying to work out which NGOs received a large percentage of foreign donations, it would require a bit of work depending on the amount of donations the average NGO received.

[PKRudeBoy]

Some of them really were communists, but the vast majority of people involved in such political movements had perfectly good reasons for wanting changes that they sincerely believed would make America better.

This may sound like nitpicking but I feel it's important to point out that some of them probably were communists and had perfectly good reasons for wanting changes they believed would make America better. Simply being of the communistical persuasion, after all, doesn't mean one is a moustache-twirling villain out to bring about the ruination of the United States. So it's probably best not to imply such distinctions.

While that is true of small-c communists and others with socialist leanings, at the time big-C Communist's either received aid or were at the very least sympathetic to an opposing superpower that was ideologically committed to, if not bringing about the ruination of the US, at the very least changing the social and cultural fabric to something that would be unrecognizable. While it was quite unfortunate that it got turned into a witch hunt, there were periods that the CPUSA was, for all intents and purposes, a branch of Soviet intelligence.

While Moscow has a legitimate interest in making sure that foreign intelligence agencies aren't hiding under NGO covers, this look like just another attempt to silence any opposition.

[Simon_Jester]

Some of them really were communists, but the vast majority of people involved in such political movements had perfectly good reasons for wanting changes that they sincerely believed would make America better.

This may sound like nitpicking but I feel it's important to point out that some of them probably were communists and had perfectly good reasons for wanting changes they believed would make America better. Simply being of the communistical persuasion, after all, doesn't mean one is a moustache-twirling villain out to bring about the ruination of the United States. So it's probably best not to imply such distinctions.

I beg your pardon, this is correct. I should have phrased it as:

Some of them really were communists following instructions from Moscow to promote certain social changes, for reasons that were in the interests of Moscow, regardless of their impact on America.

But the vast majority of people involved in such political movements had perfectly good reasons for wanting changes that they sincerely believed would make America better.