United States

Russian media split in its reaction to a draft law on "Non-Commercial Organizations" (i.e. Non-Profit and Non-Governmental Organizations, or NGOs) being considered by the Russian Duma. The new law would require any organizations that receive funds from abroad and engage in politics to register as “foreign agents,” identify themselves as such when distributing materials, and submit to annual accounting audits. The law would impose high fines on organizations that failed to comply. Nezavisimaya Gazeta relayed the opinion of several political experts who argued that the new legislation would increase transparency and allow for greater civil control over NGO financing and expenditures. They said the law itself would not ban any organization, and some justified the rules as necessary given what they saw as a "worrying trend" of increased foreign money in Russian politics in recent years. Yan Vaslavsky, Associate Professor at the Department of Political Theory at MGIMO [Moscow State Institute of International Relations] said that foreign funding had grown to 7.5 billion Rubles, especially following the December 2011 political protests.

Bill co-author Aleksandr Sidyakin told Rossiiskaya Gazeta (RG) there was an entire network of NGOs in Russia “whose activities raise doubts regarding the goals of those who fund them.” In his rhetoric, he claimed only two options: either keep guessing about "enormous sums" of "supposedly" pro-democracy money coming from other governments, or “legalize the foreign agents and view them unambiguously as proponents of other governments' interests.” RG, like other Russian outlets, noted that the United States and other democracies had similar laws. Institute for Foreign Policy Research General Director Veronika Krasheninnikova told the newspaper that the US Department of Justice had made similar demands of her when she worked in the United States to develop economic relations with the Russian city of St. Petersburg. In another RG article, bill co-author and United Russia party member Mikhail Starshinov defended the term “foreign agent,” saying it was not a synonym for “spy.” In fact, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov noted that the Russian draft law borrowed the term “foreign agent” from US law, which was “considered one of the most advanced in the world,” said Kommersant, citing RIA Novosti.

Some of the draft law’s critics also turned to the American example to make counter arguments. Moskovsky Komsomolets (MK) author Mikhail Rostovsky briefly reviewed the history of the US 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and subsequent McCarthy era “witch hunts,” a time when “Americans lived in a constant state of fear.” He feared that this Russian “carbon copy” of FARA, being rushed through parliament “at the speed of light,” could have the same result, as it would allow “those in power [...] the official means to label their opponents 'foreign agents.'" Opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta (NG) criticized the criteria for defining an NGO as a “foreign agent,” as well as the mechanisms of the law’s implementation, which affirmed the absurdity of the law. All-encompassing characteristics and vague wording would make every Russian NGO eligible for the “foreign agent” label, including those promoting Russian culture and even charity funds for children. On that note, Presidential Human Rights Council head Mikhail Fedotov told MK that even the Russian Ministry of Defense would qualify as a foreign agent, since it receives foreign financial support for its disarmament program.

Meanwhile, other outlets directed attention to how the new law would limit NGO activities. Lyudmila Alexeeva, chair of the Moscow Helsinki Group, wrote in the Echo Moskvy blog that the draft law would challenge the ability of human rights groups to “influence public opinion” and “signal when citizens’ rights are under threat,” thus leaving this domain under the sole control of the government. Another blog post by Dmitri Kataev drew a parallel between a recently adopted law regulating demonstrations and protests and what he called “the law on banning NGOs.” The author highlighted the fact that both laws were rushed through the decision-making process and that the media generally underestimated the potential the laws offered for the abuse of power in the country to discriminate against organizations and individuals.

While speaking to students at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics on 25 May, US Ambassador Michael McFaul sparked a diplomatic scandal by alleging that Moscow had bribed the Kyrgyz government to try to “throw US troops out” of the Manas airbase, a critical logistics hub for operations in Afghanistan. McFaul also reportedly criticized Moscow for using an approach based on barter to resolve international problems. For the most part, the Russian reaction was extremely critical, but a few experts thought the incident would have neutral or even beneficial consequences for US-Russia relations. The official reaction as relayed by Rossiisskaya Gazeta (RG) was harsh, with the Russian Foreign Ministry (MID) stating that “the claims of the US ambassador go far beyond the bounds of diplomatic etiquette and represent an intentional distortion of the facts.” The editors wrote that State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland did the diplomat no favor by covering for him and advising the MID to “get used to McFaul’s directness,” which outraged Moscow. No one expected the ambassador to share Moscow’s point of view, RG said. “However, as in medicine, the main principle in diplomacy is ‘do no harm’.” The ambassador later apologized on Twitter with the admission that “maybe I shouldn’t speak so colorfully and directly. I agree and in the future I will try to speak more diplomatically.” According to RG, “such commentary hardly resembled an official apology.… What could be more awkward than a diplomat who promises to behave more diplomatically in the future?” Elsewhere, RG reminded readers of the diplomat’s gaffe in April, when he called Russia an “uncivilized country” and later apologized, saying he hadn’t expressed himself correctly while speaking in Russian. Izvestia cited an unnamed Russian diplomat objecting to McFaul’s assertion “that we supposedly offered to trade Iran for Georgia, and Russian human rights for North Korea.” In the diplomat’s opinion, that showed that the ambassador knew nothing about Moscow’s position, because issues such as nuclear nonproliferation were not subject to bargaining.

RIA Novosti spoke with several experts on the impact the scandal might have on US-Russia relations. Strategic Assessment Institute Director Sergey Oznobishchev was concerned that the ambassador’s actions would hinder the resolution of bilateral disagreements, and he thought McFaul might be less effective as a diplomat now, because some high-ranking officials might not want to receive someone who would make such blunt remarks. Vice President of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics Sergey Markov, however, thought McFaul’s comments could actually help both sides. In Markov’s opinion, an “unprofessional” diplomat could help Russia and the US overcome the mutual suspicions left from the Cold War, because people respect the way McFaul speaks openly about problems. He saw McFaul’s appointment as ambassador to Russia as an indicator of President Barack Obama’s “enormous respect for Russia,” actually. Instead of sending a bureaucrat, the president sent his personal advisor—the one who initiated the “reset.” An article in Kommersant pointed out that McFaul hadn’t actually said anything new. “When Russia offered Kyrgyzstan a large loan on unusually good terms, and the Kyrgyz government then announced it would close the American base, people started talking immediately about the obvious connection.” Of course, a diplomat should not say what he did, “but for an academic who only recently became a diplomat, some deviations from protocol are nothing surprising.”

En route to the International Conference on the Global Fight against Terrorism in Istanbul, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the three South Caucasus states on 4-6 June. Local media coverage of Clinton’s visit to Georgia reported on the agenda: US support for Georgian democracy and reforms, and the need for free and fair elections, and the overall US-Georgia partnership. Georgian media, however, also raised the question of Georgia’s role in a possible US-Iran armed conflict. Ahead of Clinton’s visit, there had been speculation that Washington was pressuring Tbilisi to “distance itself” from Tehran. Several outlets relayed Deputy Foreign Minister Nikoloz Vashakidze's denials, including pro-government 24 Saati, who cited him asserting that Georgia followed all UN resolutions regarding Iran and that Iran had not been the topic of any special discussion. He added, however, that Georgia did maintain ties with Iran in unrestricted economic and cultural spheres, “so there is no problem in this regard.”

Outlets speculated that Washington either intended to request or had already requested permission to use Georgian airspace in the event of a US strike on Iran. News agency GHN spoke about this with political commentator Nika Chitadze, who said he thought the US would not involve Georgia in any such attack because Washington would probably want to use its air force, which it could do more easily from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states than from Georgia. He said using Georgian airspace would require the US to fly over Armenia and Azerbaijan as well, which would pose more problems for the US since Armenia was a Russian ally and shared good relations—and a gas pipeline—with Iran. Even though Baku has tense relations with Tehran, he believed Azerbaijan would likely deny US permission to use its airspace given that approximately four million ethnic Azeris lived in Iran. Political scientist Soso Tsiskarishvili told Tribuna.ge that he thought it unlikely that Clinton’s visit to the Caucasus was connected with plans for an attack on Iran. He believed Georgia would in any case play a “minimal role” in any US-Iran confrontation because he expected Washington would be more likely to turn to Turkey, Israel, or Azerbaijan.

In an interview with the opposition Kviris Palitra, political expert Ramaz Saqvarelidze said the Iran issue could spell bad news for Mikheil Saakashvili's government, which had been developing relatively close ties with Iran. Saqvarelidze warned that with the US demanding partners consolidate around its position on Iran, then “this issue will be more important for Clinton than the fate of Georgian democracy. However, if the Georgian administration remains such a risk factor in this geopolitical process, it is possible that the survival of this administration will no longer be so desirable for America. Democracy might become grounds for the US side to become maximally critical toward Georgia.” Then Clinton might not prove to be a loyal “co-fighter” for democracy after all, he said.

US Marine Operation Geiger Fury (OGF), has been enthusiastically embraced by the local press in the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The training exercise, which began on 15 May and were to run through 8 June, involves about 200 Marines from Marine Aircraft Group-12 conducting expeditionary operations and rehabilitating the North airfield on Tinian Island - an island that, local press coverage frequently notes, had "the world’s busiest operational airbase with four parallel runways of 8,000 feet in length" during WWII.

Before the exercises, local public frustration about the lack of use of the large portion of Tinian Island leased by the US Defense Department had been running high. On 27 February, CNMI Governor Benigno R. Fitial sent a letter to US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking to renegotiate the 100 year lease on land covering 65 percent of the area of Tinian Island because the department had not developed the area 35 years after the lease began. After a minor backlash, the Governor backed off slightly, calling the letter "tongue-in-cheek." However, his frustration appeared to be widely shared, with even enthusiastic local officials on Tinian Island including words like "finally" and "it's about time" in their comments on the start of Operation Geiger Fury.

Local media reports have also highlighted a new proposal for the combined stationing and training of Japanese and US troops on Tinian Island. [For an in-depth analysis of this proposal, see Exovera's special report.] A fact-finding mission by a nine member delegation from Japan's Ministry of Defense to Tinian Island garnered widepread local coverage. Tinian Mayor Ramon Dela Cruz was particularly enthusiastic about the prospect after meeting with the delegation. He praised not only the potential positive economic benefit, but also the historic impact of such a move: “If the Japanese Self Defense Force and the Americans train together as allies, this will be history in the making. They were once bitter enemies during the war and now they are coming back as allies to preserve security in the region. […] Now we are the strongest of allies. It would be historic and heartwarming to see American Marines and Japanese soldiers training side-by-side on Tinian today.”