OFFICIAL RUSSIA BRISTLES AT SUPPORTING HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY REPORT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 001674 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/11/2017 TAGS: KDRM PGOV PHUM PINR SOCI RS SUBJECT: OFFICIAL RUSSIA BRISTLES AT SUPPORTING HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY REPORT Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns. Reason: 1.4 (d). -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) In its April 11 reaction to the release of the 2006 Supporting Human Rights and Democracy report, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs further stoked a fire that was set by an April 7 front-page article in the national DAILY Kommersant and fed with criticism by State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Kosachev, Duma Chairman Gryzlov, and others. All bristled at what they saw as USG interference in Russia's internal affairs. Embassy contacts traced Russian sputtering to increased sensitivity in advance of national legislative and presidential elections, pre-election posturing, a downturn in relations sparked by increasingly sharp disagreements over Georgia and Kosovo and, more worryingly, a desire to put the political opposition on notice that it might be tarred with the U.S. brush as this all-important campaign year progresses. End summary. -------------- Barrage of Criticism -------------- ¶2. (C) In what was perhaps a sign of worse to come, the national DAILY Kommersant April 7 featured a front-page article on the release of the Supporting Human Rights and Democracy Report (SHRD). Kommersant's generally restrained coverage this time gave way to criticism of what it saw as the USG's effort to manage Russia's political process. The Kommersant piece was followed at the beginning of the week by an equally stinging public rebuke by the generally more moderate Chairman of the Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev. Kosachev reiterated his complaint about the alleged U.S. intention to "finance projects within the framework of the. . .Duma and presidential elections" in an April 9 meeting with American Jewish Congress (AJC). AJC contacts told us that Kosachev seemed genuinely offended, as did Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov, who told AJC representatives in a meeting the same day that "it looks like the U.S. is trying to show us how to run a democracy." ¶3. (U) Duma Chairman Gryzlov April 10 was less politic than Kosachev, describing the SHRD exercise as "interference by another state in Russia's affairs" and a product of the "politics of double standards." Gryzlov was followed a day later by the MFA which lambasted the report in a five-paragraph statement. Official Moscow's reaction was, of course, re-played on all television channels the evening of April 11, and continued to get press play April 12, with articles in Izvestiya and in the official Rossiyskaya Gazeta, which featured criticism by moderate Federation Council Chairman Sergey Mironov, and United Russia General Counsel Vyacheslav Volodin. The MFA planned to continue its attack with an April 12 midday press conference by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Yakovenko. -------------- Why the Sensitivity? -------------- ¶4. (C) Embassy contacts traced Russian sensitivity to the election year and the frayed state of U.S.-Russian relations. Human Rights Watch's Allison Gill told us that GOR reaction to criticism had sharpened recently, and anything that smacked of foreign interference in the Duma and presidential elections would set it off. Ekho Moskvy Editor Aleksey Venediktov, who spoke to us before the MFA weighed in, thought that the reactions of leading politicians were designed for internal use as the election year unfolded. Venediktov noted that the Kremlin would not tolerate outside interference in an election process that was not as managed as it had hoped it would be. Kremlin-friendly analyst Andrannik Migranyan commented that simmering disagreements over Kosovo and Georgia had made Russia's opinion makers even more sensitive to criticism from the United States. -------------- Need for Cover -------------- ¶5. (C) United Civic Front's Garry Kasparov April 11 argued that the GOR's reaction in the end tapped into a popular sentiment here. He told us that the only way for even would-be opposition politicians in the current environment to establish their street credentials with the public was to credibly allege that they were not corrupt, that they were anti-Kremln, and anti-U.S. By "anti-U.S.," Kasparov clarified, he meant only, not in the pocket of the West. The MOSCOW 00001674 002 OF 002 NGO Golos's Liliya Shabanova agreed that the current atmosphere was poisonous, making it even more imperative that NGOs like hers seek cover by working with government-sponsored entities like the Central Election Commission-associated Russian Foundation for Free Elections (RFFE). Shabanova thought that in the current environment Golos needed RFFE assistance to establish and maintain relationships with the central election commission and regional commissions. ¶6. (C) The NGO Foundation for Information Policy Development's (FIPD) Director Svetlana Kolesnik seconded and amplified on Shabanova's remarks, noting that "in the current political environment, it makes sense to cooperate with organizations like the Russian Foundation for Free Elections," and not to work only with Russia's "strong opposition." -------------- Comment -------------- ¶7. (C) Official Russia's protracted blustering about the SHRD is traceable to the same sensitivity about the role of foreign entities in the country's domestic political processes that prompted the passage of the stringent NGO law in early 2006. As this all-important election year progresses, we can expect that sensitivity to only increase. This puts a premium on USG efforts to engage all sides here, including a truculent Russian government that wants to paint US engagement as focused on engineering a political outcome, rather than on strengthening an electoral process. BURNS