OVERZEALOUS IN INGUSHETIYA: NGO BAN CLARIFIED

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 000396 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/18/2016 TAGS: PGOV PREF PHUM EAID RS SUBJECT: OVERZEALOUS IN INGUSHETIYA: NGO BAN CLARIFIED REF: MOSCOW 312 Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Kirk Augustine. Reasons 1.4 (b and d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: We have confirmed, as reported reftel, that one foreign NGO has been banned from working in Ingushetiya, while Ingush authorities have acknowledged that a republic Procuracy announcement that another was banned was erroneous. A third, American NGO apparently is still under investigation, but its director attributes prosecutors' interest to a disgruntled former employee. While these incidents take place against the backdrop of new NGO legislation, they appear to be a localized, inept effort. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) According to our contacts, press reports, and the republic Procuracy website, the Ingush Supreme Court has prohibited the Center for Peacemaking and Community Development from further work in Ingushetiya. CPDC staff told a British Embassy contact that the ruling was issued after CPCD sued Ingush authorities over their refusal to re-register it. CPCD staff told our British contact that they had expected the court to rule against them, and the suit was a last resort after months of contradictory messages from Ingush officials. Ingush officials had initially refused re-registration, approved a second request, and then apparently reversed the approval. Separately, CPCD staff told UN contacts that Ingush officials had never provided a reason for denying its re-registration. ¶3. (SBU) CPCD Russian staff have subsequently reconstituted the organization in Ingusheitya as a local NGO and are working on CPCD's former projects there. CPCD continues to work in Chechnya and North Ossetia, where it has been re-registered, and Moscow authorities re-registered its headquarters. ¶4. (C) Ingush authorities on January 18 retracted reports that the German NGO HELP had been banned as well. An Ingush Supreme Court justice publicly stated that the court had not banned HELP. The Procuracy website, which was the initial source of the action against the NGOs, corrected its statement, noting that prosecutors had reviewed HELP's registration, and the NGO had provided all necessary documentation of its legal status. ¶5. (C) Prosecutors maintain they are reviewing USG-funded American NGO International Medical Corps (IMC),according to the website. IMC Country Director Lia Tavadze told us January 18 that IMC had secured all the approvals it needed to work in the republic, and the Procuracy had not raised any question about IMC's status previously. She speculated that any action against IMC could be the result of a disgruntled ex-employee with a highly placed relative in the Procurator's Office. Tavadze hoped to meet with court and government officials to resolve the situation. ¶6. (C) UN officials and NGO contacts said that Ingushetiya continues to present problems for the humanitarian assistance community, and Ingush officials are far less cooperative than their counterparts in Chechnya and North Ossetia (reftel). Some speculate that the Ingush fear the shift of humanitarian and development aid increasingly into Chechnya and are trying to browbeat IOs and NGOs into commitments for projects in Ingushetiya. Others attribute it simply to the republic government's inexperience, weakness, and disorganization. In either case, initial discussion has begun about whether the aid community should leave Ingushetiya. ¶7. (C) COMMENT: By all accounts, the latest flurry of activity regarding NGOs in Ingushetiya appears to be a local initiative, rather than what some had postulated to be the beginning of a widespread GOR attack on NGOs under the new NGO legislation. NGOs have long complained about the Ingush Government for its ineptitude and clannishness, and the relationship is likely to continue to be uneasy at best. BURNS