RUSSIA UNLIKELY TO BACK DOWN ON BRITISH COUNCIL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 005790 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/12/2017 TAGS: PREL SCUL RU UK SUBJECT: RUSSIA UNLIKELY TO BACK DOWN ON BRITISH COUNCIL CLOSURES REF: LONDON 4501 Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns: Reasons 1.4 (b, d). ¶1. (C) Summary: UK diplomats do not expect the GOR to back down from its threat to close two British Council centers on January 1, with the latest salvo from the MFA making the "tactical mistake" of linking Russian actions to the July measures taken by the UK in response to the Russian failure to cooperate in the Litvinenko investigation. Concluding that this campaign is FSB-driven, the UK Embassy expects the GOR to forcibly shut down the St. Petersburg-based British Council on or shortly after January 1, and the UK will not preemptively move Council operations to its Consulate in order to ward off a Russian raid. The Yekaterinburg-based British Council, due to its co-location with the Consulate, is unlikely to be raided but will face mounting unofficial barriers to conducting outside programs. The largest British Council operation in Russia, located in Moscow's Foreign Literature Library along with our American Center and Alliance Francaise, has not been a target of Russian government efforts. The UK will attempt to shame the GOR over the collateral damage that thousands of Russian students will face, and seeks strong EU condemnation, but no U.S. action, at this stage. We will reinforce our concerns privately with senior GOR officials. End Summary ¶2. (C) In December 11-12 meetings, UK emboffs provided an update on Russia's threat to close the British Council centers located in St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg on January 1, 2008 (reftel),underscoring again that Russian actions would be in violation of its international treaty obligations under the Vienna Convention and the legally binding 1994 UK-Russia Agreement on cooperation in the fields of education, science and culture. Following FM Lavrov's assertion during a recent diplomatic reception that the presence of the British Councils was illegal, UK Ambassador Brenton sent a letter citing Russian violations of its treaty commitments. In a letter dated December 7, Deputy Foreign Minister Titov responded. The letter: -- cited the "unfriendly actions" taken by the UK in July (i.e. the expulsion of four Russian diplomats, cessation of talks on a bilateral visa facilitation regime, and halt to intel cooperation, in response to the lack of GOR cooperation in the Litvinenko poisoning case); -- incorrectly set out Russia's legal basis for action; and -- reiterated that the two British Councils would be closed on January 1, absent a revocation of the July actions. ¶3. (C) The UK emboffs emphasized that while the GOR had targeted the British Councils since 2004, following Russian oligarch Boris Berezovskiy's residence and asylum in London, Titov's letter made the "tactical error" of linking in a ham-handed manner the British Councils' existence to the Lugavoy prosecution. The UK Embassy views Russian actions as orchestrated by the FSB, with several of its Embassy staff under intensified and unpleasant scrutiny. (Note: Brenton remains the subject of condemnation by the Kremlin-sponsored youth organization "Nashi," whose activists recently called for his diplomatic expulsion and continue to dog his public appearances. However, presumably under instructions, the obviously paid activists have not resumed their sit-in outside the UK Embassy and ceased harassing Brenton's family.) Separately, the GOR sent notice of an outstanding 100 million ruble Council tax obligation, following a previous round of tax inspections that had resulted in supplemental payments. The linkage drawn to UK policy measures taken in response to the Litvinenko poisoning, the UK diplomats noted, only served to underscore that the GOR was flaunting its treaty commitments for ulterior objectives. ¶4. (C) While Brenton is meeting with DFM Titov again today, the UK Embassy sees no Russian mood for compromise, with both St. Petersburg Governor Matvienko and the city's international affairs director declining to meet Brenton on December 11 to discuss the Council's status. (Note: On December 12, MFA spokesman Kaminin went public with Russian threats, and charges that the British Council centers were operating illegally.) Instead, the UK Embassy expects the GOR to forcibly close down the St. Petersburg Council on or shortly after January 1. Given the experience of the 2004 raid by tax authorities, the UK is braced for the worst: the breaking down of doors, seizure of equipment, and potential harassment of local employees. (While its UK staff are all diplomats, the Council's local employees could be subject to detention.) The St. Petersburg-based British Council is the most vulnerable, because of the high profile of its Director (who is Lord Kinnock's son) and due to the fact that it is not co-located inside the UK Consulate, as is the case in Yekaterinburg. While the GOR has sent four diplomatic notes protesting the Yekaterinburg British Council's use of MOSCOW 00005790 002 OF 002 diplomatic facilities, the UK Embassy predicts that no action will be taken against that Council, due to local officials' appreciation for the trade office and visa services provided; instead, the Council will continue to face unofficial barriers in hosting outside programs. ¶5. (C) The UK does not plan to make it easy for Russia by preemptively relocating British Council operations and personnel to the St. Petersburg Consulate, although in the event of the Council's forced closure that will be its fallback position. Instead, it hopes to shame the GOR with the collateral damage that its actions against the Council will cause for the thousands of Russian students who use the facilities, both as a resource and as a test-taking center for those seeking UK university admissions (and their numbers include many of the nation's elite off-spring). ¶6. (SBU) Curiously enough, the largest and highest profile British Council presence in Russia, the one in Moscow, has not been the subject of threats by the GOR. The Moscow-based British Council center is located in the Foreign Literature Library along with our American Center, Alliance Francaise, and the cultural centers of several other embassies. The UK Embassy had no clear explanation why Moscow was untouched, but speculated that the fact that Russia had a cultural center in London was probably the reason why. ¶7. (C) Comment: The UK Embassy tells us that it is seeking a strong and coordinated EU condemnation of Russian actions, which also violate EU-Russia agreements on cultural cooperation, but is not looking for U.S. involvement at this stage. We plan to underscore privately with senior GOR officials the negative message sent by Russian actions, and recommend that in the event of the forcible closure of the two British Council centers that we coordinate our public message with the Germans and the French -- whose criticism is more likely to register with senior GOR officials at this time. (Ambassador discussed this informally with French and German counterparts December 12, and also stressed our concern privately to First Deputy FM Denisov -- who was unmoved.) Complicating the issue for the French is the opening of their Yekaterinburg consulate in December, with the grand opening ceremonies planned for January. FYI, the U.S. with its 32 American Corners and French with its 12 Alliance Francaise centers have the most extensive cultural outreach operations across Russia of western countries. BURNS