Law on NPOs: analogy or forgery?

On May 15, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation announced its intention to petition the court for the liquidation of the Golos association if it does not register as a foreign agent

Many of the repressive measures taken by the Russian authorities against the opposition are often justified by references to "Western experience." And in recent months, the Kremlin and official media have been actively promoting the analogy between last year's Russian NPO Law and the US Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA for short). This analogy is an outright forgery. In addition to the name, American and Russian laws have practically nothing in common.

The FARA Act (originally enacted in 1938 to combat Nazi and Communist propaganda and substantially amended in 1966 and 1995) applies to organizations engaged in political lobbying in the United States "for the benefit of a foreign principal" (customer) and operating "on the orders of , at the request, under the direction or under the control of a foreign principal.” The FARA registry includes such organizations as, for example, the Tourist Office of the Netherlands, Tourism Switzerland and other structures whose functions are reduced to representing the interests of the respective countries in the United States.

Human rights organizations are not subject to FARA. The mere fact of foreign origin or funding is not a basis for inclusion in the register. No one in the United States would think of calling Reporters Without Borders a French agent and Amnesty International a British agent. In addition, structures whose activities are of a “religious, academic, scientific or artistic nature” or “serve predominantly non-foreign interests” are excluded from FARA.

In Russian law, however, the concept of a “foreign principal”—under whose control and in whose interests “agent” organizations can operate—is not spelled out at all; it only contains vague language about activities “including in the interests of foreign sources”.

In a recent ruling in the case of the Golos association, Elena Semenchenko, Magistrate of the Presnensky Court of Moscow, confirmed that in order to recognize an NPO as “acting as a foreign agent”, it is not necessary to prove that the funds received from foreign sources were spent on “political activities”, nor that that the organization acted in the interests of a foreign customer. The very fact of foreign funding is sufficient.

Ironically, the difference between the two laws is best illustrated by Russian-funded American NGOs—the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation (headed by Andranik Migranyan, office in New York) and the Center for Global Interests (headed by Nikolai Zlobin, office in Washington). Neither organization is registered with the US Department of Justice as "foreign agents". Zlobin even asked whether he should register under the FARA law, and received a negative answer, because, as explained in the department, his center does not aim to represent the interests of Russian structures in the United States.

Of course, those who are trying to convince the Russian society that the two laws are “similar” understand the difference between political lobbying in the interests of another state and human rights activities. They are deliberately changing concepts.

If we compare the current bacchanalia around "foreign agents" in Russia with anything, it is with spy mania in the Stalinist USSR. But the current Russian government is still shy about such an analogy.