Why is everything different in Russia than in the USA, including NGOs

On Independence Day, US President Barack Obama congratulated 25 immigrant military personnel on receiving American citizenship. The immigrants were from 17 countries, including Russia, Cameroon, Guatemala and Mexico.

Under The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, signed by George W. Bush in 2004, US military residents were able to apply for citizenship after only one year of active duty (instead of three previously). ). Those. in this case, the grant of citizenship is a gift for “loyal and selfless” service to the United States.

In my opinion, a very competent approach. In the United States, there is a problem of illegal immigrants, on the one hand, and a problem of a shortage of recruits in the armed forces, on the other. The state solves two problems in one move - it gives immigrants a chance to follow a legal, rather than criminal, path of assimilation, and it replenishes the ranks of the armed forces.

In Russia the situation is similar. In terms of the problem of illegal immigrants and the recruitment of the armed forces. It would seem that one could run away and suggest that United Russia quickly introduce yet another advanced American experience. But, as one well-known movie character said: “There’s no need to bullshit.”

First, the value of obtaining American citizenship for migrants in the United States and Russian citizenship for migrants in Russia can be very different. For the sake of the first, recruits are sent to Afghanistan, Iraq and many other “hot spots”. Whether for the sake of the second, Moscow landscapers, janitors, and builders will want to go at least to Samara, also, mainly, to plant landscaping, to build and to build, that’s a big question.

Secondly, is the army ready to accept such “recruits”? The USA has always been a country of immigrants and remains so. They have had the same army since the Civil War, when entire regiments and divisions did not speak English. 21 years have already passed since the times of the Soviet Union, when our army was staffed by people from 15 union republics, and you won’t be able to enter that lost “water” of the spirit of internationalism and “friendship of fraternal peoples” a second time.

Thirdly, is society ready to accept such an army? The level of tolerance towards “newcomers” still also differs in American and Russian society, due to the same centuries-old traditions in our country and three-century traditions in the Americans.

Fourthly, is the state ready to admit that it can’t be done without foreign “mercenaries”? In the United States, at one time, initiatives to increase the conscription of foreigners did not take place without controversy, however, the need to “protect against terrorism”, the level of trust in the authorities, and again the traditionally weak influence of the “come in large numbers here” factor, gave the law its impetus.

Why did I bring this up? Yes, all to the same notorious amendments to the law on NPOs. It is obvious that, as if by analogy with American law, their main goal is to block foreign channels of financing NPOs. However, in addition to those fundamental differences in the American and Russian approaches to this issue, which I wrote about yesterday ( “Sidyakin’s half-truth” ), there are also other “national” features.

In principle, neither I nor the NGOs themselves, I think, would be against completely abandoning foreign funding and switching exclusively to domestic sources. But do the “people’s” representatives offer anything in this area? No. Or they could offer it, at least based on the same notorious American experience.

US tax policy encourages private donations from citizens to all kinds of non-profit public foundations and organizations. These payments reduce the tax base, and Americans widely take advantage of this. The logic is simple: rather than pay the state, I’d rather pay “my church,” “my party,” the defenders of my beloved animals, etc. In Russia, a similar norm exists, but only for donations to non-profit organizations with budgetary funding. Those. the state encourages private financing only for its “wards”. In addition, “uncivilized” methods of tax evasion are much more widely developed in our country than “civilized” ones, unlike the United States.

Thus, American and Russian NPOs operate in private donation infrastructures that are completely different in terms of the level of development and scale of financing. Unlike their American “brothers,” Russian NGOs operate in conditions of acute shortages in the “private donation market.” And when the state now tries to cut off one of the main sources of funding for NGOs, without offering anything in return, this is obvious repression.

Many of those who are now advocating to crack down on “foreign hirelings” very often ask the question: why on earth do foreign foundations finance our NGOs?

I can explain one of the reasons. Again, it is necessary to take into account the difference in financial capabilities between them and us, as well as in the level of public (and not just state) control over the activities of NGOs. Many Western organizations and foundations finance Russian NGOs, if only because, due to their stated goals, they cannot help but finance Russian organizations. They cannot spend all their funds intended for foreign programs on one or two “selected” countries. They should not have “favorites,” otherwise sponsors, founders, and members of supervisory boards will have questions. In addition, the problem of human rights observance in Russia, widely circulated in the Western press, not without the assistance of the Russian authorities, significantly simplifies the process of justifying expenses. It’s not in Holland, after all, to fight for gay rights, and it’s not in Germany and France to watch the elections.

Therefore, the best way to “expel” Western “liberals” and human rights activists from Russia is to make sure that they simply do not have work here. Then, when trying to “pull out” another million for the Russian program, the director of Fund N will say to his employees: “What, you want to go to a resort? Watch the elections in Moscow and Sochi? No, friends, go to Uganda. In Moscow, even without you, everything will be calculated as it should be (in their, not our understanding).

At the moment, with all the wealth of countries where there is something to observe, and the unlimited resources of Western NGOs, for any European or American, a business trip to Russia looks more preferable, and not only from the point of view of the scale of the “work front”. After all, there are also people working there, not robots.