Authorities
in both countries apparently aim to cripple NGOs with foreign patrons or
partners.
Over
the past few years, Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart
Vladimir Putin have commenced nationwide crackdowns on civil society.
Authorities are attempting to cripple non-government organizations (NGOs) with
foreign patrons or partners. Which factors drive Russian and Chinese
decision-making? Are the two nations acting independently, learning from each
other, or even collaborating with each other? Most importantly, what are the
ultimate objectives of leaders in Moscow and Beijing?
Securing Secrets and Spotting Spies
President Vladimir Putin signed a controversial new treason law in July 2012.
Russia’s previous law defined
high treason as threatening the state through “espionage, disclosure of state
secrets, or any other assistance” to foreign nations or organizations. The new law expands the
definition to prohibit “financial, technical, advisory, or other assistance” in
pursuit of damaging Russia’s security, especially its
“constitutional order, sovereignty, and territorial and state integrity.”
Critics argue that Russian
authorities are using the law to target domestic NGOs and activists who share
documentation of human rights abuses – including open source information – with
foreign governments; intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations
and the Council of Europe; and international organizations. “Russia is
tightening the noose around groups that are critical of the government, propose
reforms, and promote human rights,” asserted Human Rights
Watch Europe and Central Asia Director Hugh Williamson. “The government seems
intent on suffocating prospects for independent scrutiny.”
Prominent human rights lawyer Pavel Chikov also criticized the new
treason law, arguing that its sheer breath could enable Russian authorities to
“target absolutely legal, lawful activities of nongovernment organizations,
civic activists, journalists, and even businesspeople.” Yet, during a meeting with the Russian Council for Civil
Society and Human Rights, President Vladimir Putin insisted that the NGO law
was meant solely to “ensure that foreign organizations representing outside
interests, not those of the Russian state, would not intervene in our domestic
affairs. This is something that no self-respecting country can accept.” He
added that he does not believe “there is anything in this law that contradicts
democratic development in our country.”
Moscow began inspecting hundreds
of NGOs in early March 2013. According to Human Right Watch, “at least 55
groups received warnings not to violate the law and at least 20 groups received
official notices of violation directly requiring them to register as ‘foreign
agents.’” The Russian Ministry of Justice and prosecutor’s office subsequently
“filed at least 12 administrative cases against NGOs for failure to abide by
the ‘foreign agents’ law and at least six administrative cases against NGO
leaders. Additionally, the prosecutors brought civil law suits against six NGOs
for failure to register under the law.” Domestic human rights groups attempted
to fight the new law, but were largely unsuccessful. By October 2014, at least
six NGOs decided to cease operations rather than allow Moscow to label them as
“foreign agents.” The government nevertheless continued to insist that the term
did not possess negative connotations and was not mean to “persecute or
discredit” NGOs.
On June 4, 2014, Moscow signed
into law amendments that gave the Ministry of Justice authority to
single-handedly register any NGOs
accepting foreign funds and involved in “political activity” as “foreign
agents.” It has since garnered the ire of civil society actors by registering
16 NGOs as “foreign agents” without their consent. Human Rights Watch maintains
a comprehensive list of
NGOs registered as “foreign agents” as well as information regarding those
legally threatened or prosecuted by the government.
Back in the People’s Republic of
China, the official media reacted favorably toward the new law. CCP mouthpiece
The People’s Daily stated:
Last year, following the Russian
national Duma elections, mass protests and a chaotic situation took place
inside Russia. Putin…. pointedly said that some foreign powers attempted –
through their “foreign agents” in Russia – to use NGOs to disrupt the elections.
Putin said that some “opposition politicians are just like jackals and
scavengers, obtaining funding from foreign embassies and consulates.” He stated
that these anti-Russian people want to turn Russia into a destabilized problem
country.
Before signing the new “NGO Law,”
Putin met with Russian State Duma legislators on July 19th [2012], where he
called for democratic development on the basis of existing laws.
Putin stated, “Don’t be afraid of democracy. We must understand that democracy
is different from a state of anarchy. Of course democracy implies a rule of
law. [If we] fail to comply with existing national laws, democracy cannot
exist.”
Imitation as Flattery?
Two years after the passage of
Russia’s high treason law, China’s National Security Commission
(NSC) began to officially investigate foreign NGOs. A notice posted
on the Yuncheng City, Shanxi Province government website on June 17, 2014
(since removed) stated that “according to requirements outlined by the National
Security Commission of the CPC, a nationwide probe into overseas NGOs and
their activities will be carried out between May and the end of July, to
prepare for the strengthening of regulations in the future.” Authorities will use the results of
their investigations to facilitate the strengthening and standardization of NGO
management in China, with the ultimate goal of “safeguard[ing] the security of
the national political system and social stability.” A number of NGOs confirmed that security officials
approached them to conduct surveys, resulting from their work with foreign
patrons or partners.
Prominent Maoist website Utopia
– which provides insight into the left-wing faction of the Chinese Communist
Party – spoke out in praise of both the Russian crackdown on NGOs as well as
China’s own recent efforts to constrain their activities. In a June 2014 essay, Utopia called upon the government to “guard
against malicious Westerners who seek to split China with the help of local
funding recipients.” Author Chen Jia argued that “In today’s China, U.S. proxy
forces nurtured by NGOs are already powerful, spread out among government
organs, academies and higher learning institutes…. The forces have already
misled Chinese economic policy-making, causing huge losses and posing
substantial political risks.” Leading NGOs, such as the National Endowment for
Democracy and the Ford Foundation, allegedly further U.S. “global hegemony”
and commit “gross interference” in China’s internal affairs. It also argues
that American NGOs use their relationships with PRC universities, the Academy
of Social Sciences, and other research institutions to cultivate careful
relationships with Chinese scholars. These individuals “become spokesmen for the United States in
China, misleading people regarding socialist economic policy and subverting the
Party’s ideological sphere.”
The essay references a People’s
Liberation Army film that accuses Western governments, NGOs, and Chinese
dissidents of attempting to undermine the CCP through the spread of so-called
American values. A video produced by the Chinese military, Silent Contest
also condemns continued
American support for the Dalai Lama and Uyghur leader Rebiya Kadeer, who the
Chinese blame for unrest in ethnic minority regions.
Utopia describes “foreign penetration by
U.S. NGOs” as part of an “American global strategy” to meddle in the affairs of
foreign countries. It cites United Russia parliamentarian and former FSB
Director Nikolay Kovalyov, who argued that American NGOs are simply
attempting to create a disorderly situation in Russia by agitating for another
color revolution.
This fear is mirrored in China,
whose leaders watched the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent “people
power” movements with great anxiety. The abortive February 2011 Jasmine Revolution
caused the Chinese Communist Party to crack down further on political
dissidents, foreign journalists, and the Internet in a successful attempt to
thwart regime change. Such concerns arise in Silent Contest, which
“bemoans the fall of the Soviet Union and warns that China faces a similar fate
if it fails to counter Washington’s nefarious efforts to infiltrate Chinese
society.” Consequently, as the Hong Kong protests garnered international
attention and support, The People’s Daily published a strongly worded editorial
that warned against holding similar protests in China: “As for the minority of
people who wish to initiate a ‘color revolution’ inside China via Hong Hong,
they are simply daydreaming.”
As China completed its nationwide investigation into NGOs, retired
People’s Liberation Army Major General and former military attaché to Russia
Wang Haiyun published an article on foreign agents, their proxies,
and the specter of a color revolution in the PRC. Wang continues to hold a
number of influential positions. He serves as vice chairman of the History of
China-Russia Relations Research Institute at the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences, senior consultant with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and as
a senior advisor to the China Institute of International Studies, a think tank
attached to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In an op-ed for the Global
Times, General Wang asserts that although many scholars and officials believe
that a color revolution could never take place in China, they must in fact
remain on guard against constant “mass incidents that target the government.” Arguing
that “the conditions for a color revolution have already been brewed,” he
accuses the United States and Japan of not only attempting to contain China,
but also colluding with individuals within the PRC to foment “social
disturbances” or spark a color revolution to topple the Chinese Communist
Party. “Chinese authorities should eliminate the danger brought by pro-Western
agents when easing social conflicts and striking at corruption. We can learn
from Russia by introducing a “foreign agent law,” so as to block the way for
infiltration of external forces and eliminate the possibilities of a color
revolution.”
The Utopia essay praises Putin’s “highly effective” NGO law.
Chen Jia argues that after the Russian President accused Western countries of
funding extremist elements in Ukraine and ultimately overthrowing the
government, Putin recognized that Russia also faced the same threat from the
“foreign interests” backing NGOs. “Today’s Russia is always alert in regard to
NGOs, because the harm they do cannot be overlooked.” The essay
concludes that “Russia’s serious treatment and management of NGOs serves
as useful inspiration for our country.” It urges the Chinese National Security
Commission to “arrest officials and intellectuals who have clearly been
infiltrated by foreign forces,” in order to prevent the United States from
“succeeding in its peaceful transformation of China” while “defend[ing] Chinese
socialism.”
It thus appears that Beijing has
indeed turned west for answers, but not as far west as leaders in Washington
would like. According to Chinese
researcher Chen Min, an outspoken former Southern Weekly columnist and
visiting fellow at Columbia University, the CCP has “reportedly sent agents to
Russia and Central Asia to study how to prevent” a “color revolution.” Chen,
who is better known by his pen name, Xiao Shu, argues that “Xi
Jinping has clearly shown he is fond of Putin. Xi doesn’t want to go back to
Mao’s path, but he doesn’t agree to Western democracy, either. So Xi will
follow the third path – Putin-style democracy, a controllable democracy – by
shutting down the NGOs that are not submissive and supporting NGOs that are
useful to government.”
Similarly, during a speech at the Lowy
Institute for International Policy in Australia, former White House National
Security Advisor Stephen Hadley expressed his fear that Vladimir Putin is
privately arguing to Xi Jinping that the United States and its Western allies
are “seeking to destabilize and change both governments; that it is this effort
that is responsible for the instability and demonstrations in both Ukraine and
Hong Kong; that the agents of this Western effort are civil society groups,
NGOs, free media, and dissidents; that these “agents of foreign influence” must
be stamped out in both Russia and China; and that the United States and its
allies need to be confronted at nearly every turn.” Hadley argues that these
ideas are not simply “fanciful,” but rather supported by “the fact that Chinese
authorities seem to be adopting some of the same tactics against NGOs, the
media, and dissidents” as Putin.
Although it is difficult to
ascertain the precise extent to which Russia and China are in dialogue, both
governments believe that limiting the influence of civil society will enhance
their ability to stifle dissent in the name of stability and ultimately regime
longevity.
From Russia With Love: The SPECTRE of a New Chinese Law?
Approximately twenty governments
worldwide have either already placed restrictions
on NGOs receiving foreign funds, or are in the process of doing so. These
crackdowns overwhelmingly target NGOs promoting human rights or democratic development.
Rather than seeking to enhance transparency or bolster effectiveness of NGOs,
these new laws are meant to weaken them.
China now appears ready to pass its
own legislation. A draft foreign NGO management law was recently submitted to
the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. According to Vice Minister
of Public Security Yang Huanning, “overseas NGOs will have to register with and
be approved by Chinese authorities if they want to set up representative
offices in the mainland or temporarily operate on the mainland for a certain
program.” He added that “the bill aims to regulate the activities of overseas
NGOs in China, protect their legal rights and interests, and promote exchanges
and cooperation between Chinese and foreigners.” The law would regulate, manage
and supervise how foreign NGOs in China conduct their operations and engage in
fundraising. Authorities at all levels of government “are obligated to provide
policy consultation, assistance and guidance for overseas NGOs so that they can
effectively and legally operate.” NGOs that fail to follow the new law will
face punishment. As if to emphasize the urgency of the legislation, The Beijing
News stated that
the Guangxi Academy of Social Sciences estimates that there
are 6,000 foreign NGOs in China, 40 percent of which are American. Conversely,
a Tsinghua University report estimates that 10,000 foreign NGOs are currently
operating there.
Guangzhou City recently passed a law
regulating local NGOs, which came into effect on January 1, 2015. The draft law
originally stipulated that the city would ban organizations that received the
majority of their funding from overseas or otherwise had close links to
overseas institutions. Authorities removed the provision following public
outcry. The final version indicates that NGOs receiving overseas funding and
donations should “report to regulators 15 days before they accept the money.
The groups must provide details regarding their activities, personnel, funding
and location when organizing projects with the participation of foreign partners.”
Regardless, the local government may well pressure NGOs not to accept
substantial foreign funding, which could place severe financial strains on
their ability to operate and eventually force them to close.
Once passed, the national laws will
enable China to crack down further on
foreign NGOs. Many such NGOs have hitherto registered as businesses to avoid
the cumbersome NGO registration process. The registration process is so
difficult, in fact, that some domestic and foreign NGOs operate illegally in
China. Organizations that work with sensitive populations, such as sex workers
or drug addicts, face particularly close government scrutiny.
Prominent Chinese human rights
activist Zeng Jinyan argues that “fears of
collective expression and action – rather than individual acts of political
criticism or protest – greatly influence state policy.” Authorities in Moscow
and Beijing are clearly leaving nothing to chance. A toothless civil society
that can barely bark, let alone bite, cannot counter authoritarian overreach. The
Diplomat
No comments:
Post a Comment