Russia's ‘foreign agents’ law: no Bond thriller

Russia-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are up in arms now that President Putin has signed the so-called ‘foreign agents’ law. The controversial legislation requires politically oriented NGOs that receive funding from abroad to register with the Justice Ministry as “foreign agents.” The organizations will also be required to file a quarterly financial report. Critics, meanwhile, are slamming the new law as some kind of one-way ticket to the Gulag Archipelago.

Boris Vishnevsky, for example, an opposition lawmaker in St. Petersburg, compared the new law to the yellow Stars of David the Jews were forced to wear under the Nazis.
Meanwhile, a report by Reuters declared that “those who risk being branded, such as human rights campaigner Amnesty International and corruption watchdog Transparency International, will be seen by many Russians as traitors.” 

Is it possible, however, that the NGOs are exaggerating the new requirements? After all, has a Surgeons General Warning on a pack of cigarettes ever prevented a person from lighting up? Has displaying the fat and cholesterol content on a Double Whopper with cheese ever stopped somebody from devouring one? Has warning consumers not to remove that annoying tag from their pillow ever stopped them from removing that annoying tag? 

Somehow, I doubt it (personally, I don’t remove the tag on my pillow simply because I’m afraid the pillow will fall apart). Similarly, I don’t think that NGOs being forced to advertise their dependence on foreign pay masters will lead to a decrease in funding. In fact, it could actually have the very opposite effect.

Meanwhile, according to a recent public opinion poll, Russians seem overwhelmingly in favor not only of ‘foreign agents’ warning stickers, but the removal of these foreign-backed entities altogether. The All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research reported 64 per cent of Russians say foreign-funded NGOs should play no part in the country’s political life; just 21 per cent said such organizations should be allowed to operate without any governmental oversight.

The real irony of Russia’s ‘foreign agents’ bill and the uproar it has sparked is that it practically mirrors an American law on the same subject, entitled the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. On the front page of FARA’s website, it clearly states that the purpose of FARA “is to insure that the US Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws.

In fact, it was this piece of “draconian” legislation that led to the arrest of Anna Chapman and nine other less photogenic Russian nationals on US soil exactly two years ago. Despite all the media sensationalism that swirled around the story, and especially around Miss Chapman, what were the 10 Russians found guilty of? They were guilty of a simple bureaucratic technicality.

Chapman and Co. pleaded guilty to “a charge of conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the US Attorney General.”

Meanwhile, there seems to be some justification for Russia being concerned about outside forces bankrolling organizations that play havoc with the political winds. After all, the United States took precautions against this very possibility 74 years ago, yet somehow it is one of the most outspoken opponents of the new Russian law. That seems a bit odd in itself.
According to political analyst Sergey Markov, “it is no secret” that a number of “foreign centers” have decided to create a color revolution scenario in Russia. In an attempt to fulfill their plans, they are using NGOs.

So while it seems that Russia’s NGOs are seriously overestimating the full impact of the new ‘foreign agents’ law, Russia, just like the United States, has every right to inform its citizens as to the sponsors and financial background of these groups.