RUSSIA: THE CASE FOR LIMITED U.S. FUNDING OF RFFE

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 000827 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/RUS USAID FOR D. LUTEN, J. ROBINSON, D. ATWOOD E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/12/2017 TAGS: EAID KDEM PREL PGOV PHUM RS SUBJECT: RUSSIA: THE CASE FOR LIMITED U.S. FUNDING OF RFFE REF: STATE 20055 Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns: reasons: 1.4 (b) and (d). -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) The U.S. Mission strongly supports continued limited USG funding for the Russian Foundation for Free Elections (RFFE) under its existing grant. U.S. monies would be used only to train election observers and to operate a voter hotline. While RFFE does receive some government support, continued USG funding of its activities is backed by IRI, NDI, and key Russian NGOs. These same organizations cooperate with the RFFE and view its work and access to the Central Election Commission as supportive of their own activities. USG funding for RFFE helps to create the political space for American and Russian NGOs to carry out election monitoring activities, as well as to reinforce the perception of USG objectivity among Russian officials. A mid-stream cutoff of USG support for RFFE would send the wrong signal and could endanger the operations of independent NGOs, which are crucial to carrying out our election monitoring strategy. End summary. -------------- Why Support RFFE? -------------- ¶2. (C) The RFFE is a GOR-sponsored NGO, which was formed initially by the Central Election Commission (CEC). While the RFFE does not receive budgetary support from GOR ministries, it benefits from GOR subsidized office space and is the recipient of competitively awarded grants from the Public Chamber -- an arrangement that has raised questions about the appropriateness of USG funding. Embassy understands that unease but, having met frequently with the RFFE, and seen it in action, we offer the following rationale for continuing funding of the organization: -- IRI, NDI, and independent Russian NGOs endorse U.S. funding of RFFE, since it is an organization that has access to and credibility with the GOR. The Mission entered into this limited, two-year, USD 600,000 grant relationship with RFFE after consulting with IRI, NDI, and the three major Russian election monitoring and training NGOs that receive U.S. funding -- Golos, Transparency International, and the Fund for Information Policy Development (FIPD). Each of the Russian NGOs had participated in RFFE conferences and events before the U.S. grant was signed in FY 2006. All five organizations encouraged the U.S. to provide limited grant support to RFFE, as a means of encouraging enhanced engagement between a GOR-trusted organization and independent NGOs, and in recognition of the RFFE's connections to the Russian CEC. The Mission judges CEC Commissioner Veshnyakov to be a positive force in advocating transparent and fair elections and NGO leaders generally judge that Veshnyakov has used his influence with some effect to push back against further legislative amendments to the electoral law. -- RFFE has a credible track record: RFFE has demonstrated respect for international standards, an ability to cooperate with our traditional NGO partners, like Golos, and professionalism in executing its projects. RFFE has been in operation since 2001 and performed substantial observation activity in the 2003 election cycle. The report produced by RFFE after the 2003 elections identified deficiencies in the electoral process, including voter access. Our NGO partners tell us that working with RFFE will provide them greater access to senior CEC officials, creating a "common space" in which they could interact with political parties to enhance the effectiveness of election monitoring and citizen complaint hotlines. RFFE Head Andrey Przhezhdomskiy is not a GOR mouthpiece, but has been critical of official corruption in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Chamber's Anti-Corruption Committee. At his instigation, the Committee has produced and distributed to key ministries an anti-corruption white paper. In his dealings with Mission officers, Przhezhdomskiy has echoed the critique of many opposition politicians regarding Russia's electoral laws, and has underscored to us that Russia's democracy is nascent and falls short of international standards. -- USG support does not condone flawed elections or GOR restrictions on monitoring: With over USD 6 million in FY07 election related-assistance, the U.S. is supporting a variety of organizations, of which the RFFE is only one. We are not in a position to prejudge the comments or conclusions that the RFFE may make -- to date, their commentary has been professional. Moreover, our work with RFFE is technical only: the RFFE is undertaking a "train the trainers" program -- in conjunction with our traditional NGO partners. These election observers are not RFFE employees, but representatives drawn from all registered political parties. Golos, Transparency, and FIPD all work within the same GOR restrictions. Under GOR law, only political party members or journalists are allowed to monitor polling stations. While not ideal, the Mission believes that it is better to work within these restrictions than to abandon election monitoring altogether, particularly since regional elections (e.g. Samara) have shown the ability of Golos and others to muster monitors on a broad scale. -- USG funding of RFFE is not at the expense of other independent NGOs: The USD 300,000 grant to RFFE is only a small portion of the U.S. monies being spent to promote a more transparent electoral process, with FY07 2.05 million devoted to political process grantees and over 4.4 million for independent media. Golos remains at the forefront of our election monitoring efforts, with a total of 2.3 million in grants (including, a FY06 1.3 million grant, a FY07 one million allocation, supplemented by an expected half million in 06 DA funds, and separate support from NDI). Redirecting money away from RFFE and to Golos would certainly heighten its profile in an unhelpful manner. When asked to reassess the desirability of U.S. funding for RFFE, Golos Director Lilia Shabanova reminded us that it was RFFE President Przhezhdomskiy who established an election coordinating council in which CEC and Public Chamber members participate, which has been instrumental in resolving problems and averting misunderstandings. Shabanova underscored to us that Golos and the RFFE share the same objectives and goals for the upcoming elections. Likewise, FIPD President Svetlana Kolesnikova asserted to us that "to support the RFFE is to support the electoral process in Russia." Kolesnikova urged the U.S. to avoid a mindset that only viewed strongly oppositional organizations as legitimate. She stressed that the RFFE strives to be independent and promote democratic values in its work. -- Support for RFFE does not contradict the Secretary's core principles in defense of NGOs, nor establishes a precedent that undermines longer-term democracy promotion efforts in Russia: Support for the RFFE provides proof of our commitment to the openness and transparency of the electoral process, rather than to a partisan outcome. It helps negate suspicions, expressed at the highest level of the GOR, over U.S. intent and refutes hard-line critics who seek to discredit NGOs as subversive or as foreign tools. Since assistance programs in many countries work with government or government-related organizations, funding for RFFE sets no precedent. The U.S. has a long history in Russia of working with the CEC in the 1990s. -------------- Implications of Not Funding RFFE -------------- ¶3. (C) Refusal of the second tranche of funding provided for in the grant signed in July 2006 would have serious implications for our ability to execute an election monitoring strategy and would deprive the USG of the opportunity to establish credibility and exert influence with the GOR in an effort to open the election process. Golos and our other partners, including IRI and NDI, have encouraged U.S. support for RFFE not only because they see it as a professional and cooperative partner, but also because it can be helpful in dealing with other elements of the GOR. In the Mission's view, denying further funding to RFFE could perhaps deprive independent NGOs of an influential advocate of cooperation from the CEC; furthermore, it could confirm suspicions among some segments of the GOR that our support to these NGOs is politically motivated, leaving them vulnerable to unwanted scrutiny. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶4. (C) The bottom line is that a mid-stream cut-off of USG funding to RFFE could undercut both our overall election monitoring strategy and the political maneuvering room for independent NGOs -- both Russian and American -- involved in election monitoring. Our top priorities include supporting independent NGOs and improving the electoral process. In our view, continued support for RFFE helps to advance our objectives on both fronts and to preserve the appearance of USG objectivity. BURNS