MFA HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICIALS ON THE NGO LAW,

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 005760

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/29/2016
TAGS: PREL PHUM KUNR KREL RS
SUBJECT: MFA HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICIALS ON THE NGO LAW,
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

REF: MOSCOW 1025

Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Kirk Augustine. Reason 1.4
(b, d)


1. (C) SUMMARY. In a May 29 meeting with Mikhail Lebedev,
Acting Director of the MFA Department on Humanitarian
Cooperation and Human Rights, DRL Deputy Assistant Secretary
Barks-Ruggles underscored USG concerns that the new NGO law
be implemented fairly and transparently. Barks-Ruggles also
emphasized the importance of religious freedom issues, in
particular USG concerns about the treatment of religious
minorities and the possible inclusion of religious groups as
NGOs under the new NGO law. She noted the upcoming Smith
Amendment decision and the June visit to Russia of the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom. Barks-Ruggles
and Lebedev agreed that the opening session of the UN Human
Rights Council should focus on procedural issues. They
shared concerns about problems with the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Convention on Enforced
Disappearances. He also indicated that the GOR might oppose
efforts to terminate or substantially change the
Sub-Commission on Human Rights. END SUMMARY.


2. (C) On May 29 DRL Deputy Assistant Secretary Erica
Barks-Ruggles met with Mikhail Lebedev, Acting Director of
the MFA Department on Humanitarian Cooperation and Human
Rights, his deputy, Grigoriy Lukyantsev, and Tatyana Smirnova
also of the same department, as well as MFA officials from
other departments.

NGO LAW
--------------


3. (C) Barks-Ruggles expressed concern over the lack of
clarity in the implementation process of the new NGO
legislation. One of the areas that remained unclear was how
the law would affect religious organizations. She stressed
that the law should not overburden NGOs with excessive paper
work requirements and that the requirements on NGOs be
clarified. Smirnova agreed that many NGOs were worried about
the lack of clarity. While noting that the MFA does not have
primary jurisdiction over the law's implementation, Lebedev
expressed hope that few problems would arise. He said the
MFA was in contact with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) on the
issue. NGOs with problems could address a number of
different government bodies including the MFA, the MOJ, and
the Presidential Administration. The law was not created to
prohibit NGOs, but to bring clarity to the sector, Smirnova
argued, adding that tens of thousands of organizations listed
as NGOs were either non-existent or had been created as
fronts for business operations to gain tax benefits.


4. (C) Barks-Ruggles noted that it was important not to
create problems for legitimate NGOs. She expressed concern
that the law could be used too restrictively and that
legitimate but controversial NGOs could run into problems
with the law. She noted that in the U.S. NGOs were often
critical of the USG, but it was important for their voices to
be heard. The treatment of NGOs in Russia would continue to
be a sensitive topic, and Barks-Ruggles said the USG wanted
to continue our dialogue with the GOR on the issue.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
--------------


5. (C) Turning to religious freedom issues, Barks-Ruggles
noted that a final decision on the Smith Amendment was
pending and outlined the ramifications of the law. She also
noted that the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom would be coming to Russia in June and would want to
discuss issues such as the treatment of religious minorities
in Russia and the implications of the new NGO law for
religious groups. Barks-Ruggles said that Congress in
particular would be examining religious freedom in Russia
this year because of the G8 Summit. The strong condemnation
of the January 11 synagogue attack and follow-up
investigation by the GOR had been noted and appreciated in
the U.S., but the issue of violence was still a concern.


6. (C) Smirnova noted that the synagogue attack had shocked
many people in Russia. Especially because Russia was a
multi-confessional society, it was important for different
religious groups to coexist peacefully in Russia. Government
agencies like the Ministry for Regional Development and the
Council on Religious Entities were trying to strengthen
inter-confessional dialogue. The xenophobic attacks against
religious, ethnic, and racial minorities represented only a
small segment of the general population. Lebedev noted that

MOSCOW 00005760 002 OF 002


Putin had given the green light for the government to fight
against extremist groups and, it had taken a multi-agency
approach to the problem.


7. (C) Lebedev suggested the OSCE should take a more visible
role in dealing with the problem of religious tolerance.
Noting previous Russian attempts to combine the three
representatives of the Chairman-in-Office that combat
anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and discrimination against
Christians into one position, he said the GOR would likely
raise this issue again in October in Vienna. He said the GOR
had seen few results after two years of their work, and such
an approach might make them more efficient.

UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
--------------


8. (C) Barks-Ruggles said that although the U.S. was not on
the UN Human Rights Council (HRC),it would be an active
participant and observer in its first year, starting with the
June 19 opening session. She noted that the first session of
the HRC in June should address procedural issues and make
decisions on how the work of the HRC would proceed. It would
set a bad precedent for the HRC to take on contentious issues
such as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(DRIP) and the Convention on Enforced Disappearances at its
first session. On the DRIP, Barks-Ruggles noted that the
current draft did not address issues that Russia, the USG,
and others had been raising for ten years. Lebedev agreed
that the opening session of the HRC should focus on
procedural issues. He noted that the GOR had problems with
the DRIP, on which no consensus had been reached. As a
result it was difficult to accept the DRIP in its current
form, and it therefore may be necessary to call for a vote on
it. (Note: He implied Russia would do so and vote no. End
Note.) He also expressed concern about the Convention on
Enforced Disappearances.


9. (C) Barks-Ruggles said that the HRC should shift more of
its funding to technical assistance. One way to do so would
be to try and divert more resources to implementation rather
than ineffective experts such as the Sub-Commission on Human
Rights. The Sub-Commission had a budget four times the size
of the HRC. A slimmed down Sub-Commission would be more
practical, allowing resources to be used in the field to
produce more tangible results. Barks-Ruggles noted that the
USG supported the UN Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) expanding its field offices in countries
like Nepal and Pakistan that had requested assistance.
Lebedev said the Sub-Commission had done some useful work and
called for a balanced approach to the issue. He expressed
concern about the expansion of the field office in Russia.


10. (C) In response to Barks-Ruggles' question about Russia's
position on the peer review process, Lebedev said that "no
one imagined it as a topic to be discussed" in the upcoming
meeting of the HRC. He expressed concerns that the peer
review process would lead to duplication of existing treaty
obligation and submission of lengthy reports. Barks-Ruggles
noted that the USG did not want the issue of peer review to
dominate the HRC and suggested that discussion of this issue
should, perhaps, begin in Geneva after the first June
session.


11. (C) Barks-Ruggles reiterated A/S Lowenkron's invitation
from his January meeting at the MFA (reftel) to have the
Director of the Department on Humanitarian Cooperation and
Human Rights visit Washington. Lebedev welcomed the idea of
a more regularized dialogue, but said a trip to Washington
would best be undertaken once a permanent Director for the
Department on Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights was
in place.

COMMENT
--------------


12. (C) Lebedev clearly was uncomfortable addressing issues
concerning the implementation of the NGO law, and tried to
defer to other ministries and the Presidency. On the HRC, it
is likely that Russia will try to insist on some continuation
of an experts group even if the Sub-Commission is disbanded.
It will be helpful to clarify in Geneva that our support for
expanded OHCHR field operations will be to provide assistance
to countries that have requested it -- not to target
countries like Russia.


13. (U) DAS Barks-Ruggles has cleared this cable.
BURNS