The proposed passage of a bill in the Russian parliament restricting the activities of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has garnered widespread international condemnation from both foreign governments and civil society groups. Most prominent of the latter is the Human Rights Watch posting on their website stating that while the modifications proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin had softened the original bill, it was still “draconian” in nature and was an “unprecedented assault on the work of human rights groups”.
In discussing this matter, we should first ask ourselves the following: can we logically object to the operational government of a sovereign state democratically passing law that allows for the oversight of foreign organizations within their borders? If the Canadian government were to pass a bill designed to limit the work of foreign organizations that were deemed detrimental to Canada, would we accept American criticism? Should we accept?
While it can be doubted that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would publicize such criticism of a hypothetical Canadian law, the issue raises serious questions about the nature of sovereignty in an increasingly diffused international system. What role should the international community, both states and civil society, play in the formation of the domestic laws of a country?
Russia is a democracy (albeit not necessarily a model thereof) and the proposed bill has legally passed through the required channels of government, has been voted on and was passed by both houses of their elected parliament, it has the support of the Russian president and is well on its way to passage. Is it therefore the place of the international community to criticize a democratically passed law in a sovereign nation?
Yes. While I would hardly subscribe to the idea that the law is as dangerous as those Human Rights Watch would like the world to believe, it does pose a serious and very real threat to the actions of human rights organizations operating within Russia. There is no doubt that the current Russian administration is very much focused on building a stronger Russia, both economically and- more importantly- socially.
The proposed law is meant to allow for greater oversight of foreign NGOs that the Russian government fears are actively fostering civil discontent. While such groups, should they exist within Russia, have no place in society, there is nevertheless the absolute need to make room for the work of human rights organizations whose primary purpose is to administer many of the social programs that the state has been forced to curtail in effort to rebuild a stable economic base.
As Russia assumes the 2006 Presidency of both the G8 and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, it is crucial to remember that with these ascendancies come great responsibilities. Capitalizing on the momentum of last year’s G8 summit in Gleneagles will be crucial to the success of the upcoming summit in St. Petersburg. Already there has been expressed concern by several NGOs that civil society inclusion in the upcoming summit process will be significantly diminished from previous years.
While processes like the G8 were originally designed to be small in order to better facilitate the achievement of concrete goals, a balance must be struck between total exclusivity and an open forum. The UN is constantly criticized for being far too slow to act on issues precisely because it is there that everyone has a voice. Civil society can and must play a role on the development of international policy. Just what that role entails is a question that governments, both Russian and beyond, will be facing in the coming year.
Adrian Morson is Co-Chair of the Civil Society and Expanded Dialogue Unit for the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, and Administrator of Communications and Administration of Greenpower Canada.
