Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07MOSCOW827
2007-02-27 16:27:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Moscow
Cable title:  

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

Tags:  EAID KDEM PREL PGOV PHUM RS 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0006
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHMO #0827/01 0581627
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 271627Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7739
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
-------

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