U.S. Helsinki Commission - 02.08.2006

U.S. Helsinki Commission

CSCE Hearing on Russian Democracy  

RUSSIA: RIGHTS IN RETREAT
Human Rights, Civil Society, and Democratic Governance in Russia 
Current Situation and Prospects for the Future

Summary by NCSJ

Click here for full transcript [Summary below is not verbatim, unless indicated by quotation marks.]

Click here for news coverage of NGO law

CSCE Chairman Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) presided. Commissioner Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD) attended, as did David J. Kramer, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Co-Chairman Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) submitted a statement for the record.

In his opening statement, Rep. Cardin observed that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “using whatever means to stifle debate” and called himself “very troubled” as to “whether Russia is complying with its commitments under the Helsinki Accords.”

Panel One
Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State 
Barry Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State 

Assistant Secretary Lowenkron testified about his visit to Moscow from January 17-19. Upon arrival, he received word that Putin had signed the NGO law on January 10. Although some problematic elements had been removed, Lowenkron said, many provisions are still uncomfortably vague, like those granting state control when it faces a “’threat to Russia’s sovereignty or its culture’” or “’extremist action’”. The new law allows religious groups to be taxed and overviewed; the United States has registered its concerns with the OSCE. The new law goes into effect in April, Lowenkron said.

Overall, he said, Russian politicians remain deeply suspicious of U.S. assistance to NGOs, which they see in the context of a “zero-sum game”, with U.S. influence displacing Russian influence.

Assistant Secretary Fried read verbatim from written testimony, identifying “areas of cooperation”: counter-terrorism, non-proliferation/CTR and counter-trafficking; conflict resolution in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Balkans; reform in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran; and greater integration of Russia with the international community (e.g. in WTO, NATO). He identified “areas of concern” (regional cooperation, Chechnya and democracy), and explained how the United States is strengthening democracy by engaging with Russian civil society.

Q & A
Brownback: So, Russia’s lesson from ‘color revolutions’ is “destroy these organizations before they get you.”
Lowenkron: Yes. Russia believes that U.S. money, because it was more adroitly used by NGOs, beat their money. Putin’s mindset is “'he who pays the piper calls the tune.'” Russians called the Orange Revolution “our 9/11” because it was “a wake-up call.” The Russian Justice ministry is now hiring thousands of new employees to “scrub” [clean] NGOs [remove elements inimical to Russia’s interests]. At its core, Russia has a sense that democracy can be mediated from the top down.
Fried: Russians misperceive successfully democratic neighbors as a threat. The Russian public has also come to associate color revolutions with a decline in Russia’s influence. Ergo, Russia apparently supports Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov in the wake of the Andijan uprising and subsequent massacre.

Cardin: If Russia is violating Helsinki Accords, then we should raise this in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
Lowenkron: Russia complains that the OSCE shouldn’t be a warlord, policing the CIS, but Russia made commitments to Helsinki. The OSCE must ensure that Russia applies laws transparently and fairly and if not, we’ll bring it up.

Brownback: Should we back away from Russia’s hosting the G-8 to express displeasure with democratic decline?
Fried: No. We should continue to engage positively, while criticizing declines, and leverage action from the increased international exposure at such meetings.


Panel Two
Natalia Bourjaily, Vice President (NIS), International Center for Not-For-Profit Law [late addition to panel]
Allison Gill, Director, Moscow Office, Human Rights Watch 
Andrew Kuchins, Russia and Eurasia Program, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
Nicolai Petro, Professor of Political Science, University of Rhode Island 
Andrei Piontkovsky, Senior Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute

Ms. Bourjaily is concerned about the NGO law regarding 1) reporting requirements on use and intended use of money, including identification of beneficiaries; 2) government’s broad ability to limit funding, and to participate in any public or private meetings; 3) vague definitions, including of goals contradictory to Russia’s unique cultural identity; and 4) monitoring and implementation.

Ms. Gill devoted her testimony to recounting repression in Uzbekistan, worrying that Russia is on the same path. The United States must coordinate responses to the law with European allies, and say loudly and clearly that our concern will remain part of the agenda, and that Russia must repeal or soften the law’s pernicious provisions.

Mr. Kuchins recounted Putin’s most outrageous anti-democratic actions. In Russia, democracy exists with form but without substance. Putin thinks centralized control is part of Russia’s DNA, and the Kremlin has a “leave nothing to chance” mentality in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election. As with attacks on the media and Yukos, the NGO law will be applied selectively and will create self-censorship. In response, the U.S. should maintain or increase funding for NGOs and exchange programs, and should have a high level government official make a major policy address on Russia.

Mr. Petro read verbatim from footnoted written testimony. He questioned the accuracy of criticisms against Russia: a contentious provision in the NGO law was in fact added in response to Western critics; Putin has a high approval rating because of a dramatic increase in real wages; Russians in a March 2005 survey rated the level of democracy higher than under Yeltsin; independence of the press, media and legal system has increased under Putin; and even Chechnya improved in 2005. He encouraged Russian NGOs to “wean themselves off foreign subsidies” and the United States to “defer to the institutions of Russian democracy and the wisdom of the Russian people” and “let [Russian civil society] emerge on its own.”

Mr. Piontkovsky condemned Mr. Petro’s testimony as “lies, damned lies and statistics.” While the government directly controls only a small part of the media, it’s the media that reaches everyone, and government has a chilling effect on other outlets. He noted an emerging phenomenon of anti-U.S. sentiment among Russia’s political elite and the public. He said that Putin, post-Beslan, has portrayed Islamic terrorists as pawns of powers, i.e., the United States, concerned with a nuclear Russia.

Q & A
Brownback: Do the Russian people support, and are they aware of, the steady deterioration of their democracy?
Kuchins: Putin is genuinely popular, because of the rise in the standard of living. So, Russia has economic but not political freedoms. Democracy is not yet a high priority for the Russian people, but that may change with a growing middle class, which will demand defense of their property rights.
Petro: The government mostly controls national TV, and leaves free local media, and radio newspapers and the internet.

Written statements of interest [excerpts]:

Rep. Smith
”[The United States and Russia] can also work together against the specter of anti-Semitism, something that sadly continues to plague our two countries. I was shocked by the brutal attack on worshippers at a Moscow synagogue earlier this year. While Moscow authorities are bringing stiff charges, local authorities in Rostov reportedly let the perpetrator of a copycat attack out of jail after only five days and charged him with mere hooliganism. This is unacceptable, and I urge officials to reconsider.”

Assistant Secretary Lowenkron
“With respect to religious freedom, the FSB has continued to depict some members of minority religious groups as security threats and tools of foreign governments seeking to undermine Russian society and culture. President Putin and other senior leaders have spoken out against religious intolerance, but with spotty response. Recent years have seen attacks on Baptist and Pentecostal churches, leaders, and citizens; anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim and anti-Caucasian rhetoric in the public space; and desecrations of cemeteries, mosques and synagogues. Authorities did respond swiftly to identify and charge with a hate crime the perpetrator of a violent attack on worshippers at a Chabad synagogue in Moscow on January 11. Under the new NGO law, religious groups that have canonical ties or receive foreign funding, as most non-Russian Orthodox faiths do, may be subject to review, taxation and special considerations regarding registration.”