Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06MOSCOW861
2006-01-27 16:33:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Moscow
Cable title:  

NGOS CHILLED BY SPY ALLEGATIONS

Tags:  PGOV PHUM PREL PINR RS 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO4669
PP RUEHDBU
DE RUEHMO #0861/01 0271633
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 271633Z JAN 06
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9940
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 MOSCOW 000861 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/27/2016
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL PINR RS
SUBJECT: NGOS CHILLED BY SPY ALLEGATIONS

Classified By: DCM Daniel A. Russell. Reasons: 1.4 (B/D).

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 MOSCOW 000861

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/27/2016
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL PINR RS
SUBJECT: NGOS CHILLED BY SPY ALLEGATIONS

Classified By: DCM Daniel A. Russell. Reasons: 1.4 (B/D).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Five days after Russian television aired
accusations by the Federal Security Service (FSB) that four
UK diplomats and a Russian were caught spying and that one of
the diplomats was directly involved in transferring funds to
Russian NGOs, the fallout continues. The State Duma
denounced the spying activity in a January 24 resolution, and
a day later President Putin cited it as vindication of the
new NGO legislation he had signed earlier this month. A
January 26 announcement that the Procuracy had renewed tax
charges in a long-running case against the British Council in
St. Petersburg may be the latest twist in the story. A
number of NGO representatives told us they see the week's
events as part of a broader attack on independent and above
all foreign-funded NGOs, following the passage of the new NGO
legislation. Even if the present furor over foreign-funded
NGOs subsides, the pressure on those organizations will
likely remain high, with drafting of the NGO legislation's
implementing regulations yet to come. END SUMMARY.
.
ACCUSATIONS SPARK DUMA, PRESIDENTIAL REACTIONS
-------------- -


2. (SBU) State-owned Rossiya television channel's January 22
report of FSB accusations about spying and links to foreign
funding of NGOs has sparked a week of activity. The story
accused four British diplomats at the UK Embassy of spying in
conjunction with a Russian citizen, who reportedly has been
arrested. The report went on to link the story with civil
society by alleging that at least one of the four Brits was
directly involved in transferring UK financial assistance to
Russian NGOs. Two NGOs, the Moscow Helsinki Group and the
Eurasia Foundation, were featured in that and other reports.
(Other organizations listed among the twelve were the
Institute of Law and Public Policy, the Nizhniy Novgorod
Committee Against Torture, and the Center for the Development
of Democracy and Human Rights.) On January 23, an FSB
spokesperson also charged that a number of NGOs had been
created, financed and supported by the U.S. and other NATO

countries.


3. (SBU) The media reported January 25 that FSB Deputy
Director Yuriy Gorbunov briefed a select group of State Duma
deputies, meeting in closed session the previous day. In
that session, Gorbunov reportedly alleged that one of the
four diplomats had authorized official UK grants to twelve
NGOs. Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov emerged from that meeting
expressing indignation about the situation, saying that he
was concerned not only with the espionage but also with the
financing of NGOs by a foreign intelligence service. On
January 25, the Duma overwhelmingly passed a non-binding
resolution condemning the affair, including the UK Embassy's
alleged role. The Duma reportedly also called for an
investigation of the twelve organizations named by the FSB,
and indicated it would raise the issue of British espionage
before the OSCE. Speaking to reporters in St. Petersburg
that same day, Putin cited the incident as justification for
the new NGO legislation he signed into law earlier this month.
.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO BRITISH COUNCIL?
--------------


4. (SBU) The St. Petersburg Procuracy's January 26
announcement that it had renewed tax charges against the
British Council came parallel to the spying charges. The
Council has faced a long-running investigation over whether
it must pay taxes on income received from students paying for
its English-language training. The Procuracy had reportedly
dropped the case, but according to the January 26
announcement, renewed it on December 22. Despite the
Procuracy's statement that the case had been renewed a month
before the spy story broke, observers speculated that it may
be connected with the flurry of attacks against
foreign-funding of activities in Russia, in which the British
government features prominently.
.
NGOS DEFIANT BUT CONCERNED
--------------


5. (SBU) Reaction from NGOs, including the Moscow Helsinki
Group and the New Eurasia Foundation, were swift and defiant.
In a January 25 press conference also attended by Public
Chamber member Genri Reznik, representatives of both those
organizations publicly acknowledged that the UK, as well as
other foreign governments, had long provided support, but
they vehemently rejected any implication of involvement in
espionage. Moscow Helsinki Group head Lyudmila Alekseyeva
announced at the press conference that 85 Russian NGOs had
signed a statement charging that the FSB and some media
outlets aimed to undermine the relationship between the
authorities and civil society in Russia.

MOSCOW 00000861 002 OF 003




6. (C) Our conversations with NGO activists in recent days
have revealed mixed views about the implications of the
week's developments. Valentina Melnikova of Soldiers Mothers
told us the FSB had long been keeping close tabs on her
activities and had contacted her on many occasions, including
to find out about her 2004 conversations with Chechen rebel
leader Akhmed Zakayev. FSB officers had also always been
very interested in her interaction with foreign diplomats.
She added, however, that her organization had been thoroughly
investigated by the Procuracy and had never faced charges,
leading her to believe that she would not be subject to a new
attack, at least in the short term.


7. (C) In a meeting with us shortly before her January 26
press conference, Alekseyeva expressed determination to
continue with her work, including pursuing plans for election
monitoring. Animated, although looking tired, she described
the spy accusations as a GOR attempt to legitimize the new
NGO legislation and to incriminate organizations like hers.


8. (C) Human rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina, a member
of the Presidential Commission on Human Rights and the
Development of Civil Society Institutions, told us that NGOs
were under real threat. In her view, the Public Chamber and
the spy scandal were part of a broad GOR strategy to pressure
independent organizations. Gannushkina said that identifying
the Moscow Helsinki Group as having alleged involvement in
the affair was particularly alarming, given that Alekseyeva
enjoys broad international prominence and had maintained
reasonably good ties with Russian officials. In
Gannushkina's view, the FSB's message was that if Alekseyeva
was being targeted, no independent activist could feel safe.


9. (C) Aleksandr Petrov of Human Rights Watch echoed that
view. He told us the creation of the Public Chamber, the
passage of the NGO law, and now the spy scandal were all
interconnected. While some activists believed the spy
incident was an FSB "warning" to independent civil society,
Petrov said, he considered the FSB's depiction of NGOs as
tools of Western intelligence as an "attack."
.
MEDIA REACTION
--------------


10. (U) The Russian print media largely shared the views of
Gannushkina and Petrov, with most daily newspapers drawing a
connection between the spy incident and recent changes in NGO
legislation. "Vremya Novostey" observed that the FSB had
been instructed to find arguments to back Putin's hostile
attitude toward NGOs. "Noviye Izvetiyi" reported that "the
FSB had launched a campaign to discredit human rights
activists." "Gazeta" likewise categorized the incident as an
assault on Russian NGOs, arguing that the initial television
report depicted human rights organizations as the "de facto
equivalent of British spies" and adding that once the
"notorious" NGO law comes into force, life will be much
harder for these organizations. A respected commentator
asserted in "Kommersant" that such a "scandalous documentary"
could not have been aired on state-run television without
explicit approval from the station's top management and the
government-controlled media conglomerate that owns the
station.
.
COMMENT
--------------


11. (C) The latest FSB expose has sent a chill throughout the
independent NGO community. The developments of the past week
follow on FSB Director Nikolay Patrushev's warning last May
that some NGOs, working in concert with foreign backers,
might attempt to undermine the security of the nation. Putin
also expressed reservations about the activities of
foreign-funded NGOs on several occasions over the last year.


12. (C) The entire episode comes at a time when the Kremlin
is under pressure from the international community regarding
its commitment to civil society development, with the passage
of the NGO legislation coming under particularly harsh
criticism (most recently at the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe). The accusations against the NGOs appear
intended to bolster the Kremlin's arguments about the need
for such legislation to control foreign funding of
organizations that seek to influence Russian domestic
politics.


13. (C) The furor of the past week will eventually subside,
although the renewed charges against the British Council will
keep it bubbling for the moment. However, the atmosphere for
independent NGOs, especially those receiving foreign funding,
will have deteriorated. Implementing regulations for the NGO
legislation remain to be drafted, and the effect of this

MOSCOW 00000861 003 OF 003


whole episode will not be positive.
BURNS