View previous stories
	Repressive NGO legislation and practice in the post-Soviet region by International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR)   27/09/13   Joint statement to OSCE Human Rights Conference: Repressive NGO legislation and practice in the post-Soviet region.   2013 OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Working sessions 8 and 9, specifically selected topic: Freedom of association and assembly.   Written statement by International Partnership for Human Rights together with the Human Rights Center Viasna, the Human Rights Club, the International Human Rights Organization Fiery Hearts Club, Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, Nota Bene, Public Verdict Foundation, Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights and the Voice of Freedom Foundation.   In many OSCE participating States today, non-governmental organizations are operating in an insecure and hostile environment. Especially organizations that criticize and challenge government policies, such as human rights NGOs are met with suspicion and mistrust and denounced as "unpatriotic," "traitors," "national enemies" and the like. These groups are also the main targets of repressive laws that restrict the opportunities of NGOs to receive funding (especially but not only foreign funding), obtain legal status, and conduct their activities in unimpeded ways. We would like to use this opportunity to highlight a number of examples that illustrate this worrisome trend, which ultimately reflects fear of pluralism, open debate and accountability among those in power.   Implementation of the notorious 2012 "foreign agents" law has had a seriously chilling impact on NGOs in Russia. Hundreds of NGOs across the country have been subjected to intrusive inspections and dozens of groups (including leading human rights groups and their leaders) have faced warnings and crippling legal cases for refusing to adopt the stigmatizing label of "foreign agents." While President Putin has stated that the law may need to be amended, enforcement currently continues uncurbed, with a series of trials under way. The election watchdog Golos was the first NGO to be closed down, but is expected to be followed by others. The law requires NGOs to register as "foreign agents" if they receive foreign funds and engage in "political" activities, an extremely broadly defined term that implementing authorities have deemed to apply to core activities of human rights NGOs, such as monitoring and reporting about violations, organizing public discussion events and advocacy campaigns, and providing legal assistance to victims of violations.   Other recent Russian laws have also contributed to an increasingly hostile climate for NGOs, e.g. by allowing for the suspension of NGOs that receive funds from US-based donors and carry out "political" activities, re-criminalizing defamation, broadening the definition of treason so it may apply to international advocacy and banning propaganda of so-called non-traditional sexual relations.   While widely criticized by national and international experts, Russia’s "foreign agents" law has served as inspiration for lawmakers elsewhere, including most recently in Kyrgyzstan, a country that compared to others in the same region has been characterized by a more enabling environment for civil society. At the beginning of September, two members of parliament put forward a draft law, major provisions of which are identical to those of the Russian law. This draft law also requires NGOs that receive foreign funds and engage in broadly defined "political" activities to register and use the label of "foreign agents" and appears primarily aimed at the same category of groups that has been the main target in Russia, i.e. human rights NGOs and other groups that are inconvenient for those in power. Following the stir that the draft law created, Kyrgyz President Atambaev stated on 18 September that he thinks that this law is “not needed” and indicated that he may use his veto should it be adopted. At this time, the draft law remains under discussion.   Previously, among others, a parliamentary deputy in Kazakhstan used the example of the Russian law to propose an outright ban on NGOs that receive foreign grants. While this proposal did not receive any wider support, the fact that it was made was a disturbing indication of the kind of negative and suspicious attitudes that independent NGOs face also in this country, where pro-government media have covered the issue of foreign grants received by NGOs in the context of national security.   In Azerbaijan, legislation adopted at the beginning of 2013 further restricted funding opportunities of NGOs. NGOs may now be fined up to about 15,000 EUR and have their property confiscated if they receive donations of over 200 EUR without concluding a formal grant agreement and registering it with the government. The law prohibits any cash donations of sums higher than the set amount, a provision that particularly affects the country’s around 1,000 unregistered NGOs that cannot open bank accounts.   As has also been the case in Russia and Kyrgyzstan, the new regulations have been argued to be aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability of NGOs. However, existing legislation already imposed wide-ranging reporting obligations on NGOs and the new regulations were adopted in the context of a worsening climate for NGOs, manifested e.g. in media smear campaigns and obstruction of the work of human rights groups. For example, the Human Rights Club has been unable to obtain registration for more than two years, and a complaint to court filed by it has been dismissed. The Azerbaijan Human Rights House remains closed after being suspended in 2011 for allegedly violating a requirement to sign a government agreement as the basis for its work.   Legislation in force in Belarus requires NGOs to register foreign funding with the government, which may refuse to grant such registration, and to use foreign funding only for approved purposes. Violations of these rules may result in criminal penalties. Most human rights NGOs in the country cannot lawfully receive any funding since they have been denied or deprived of legal status, which means that they cannot operate bank accounts, and since the conduct of activities on behalf of unregistered groups also may result in criminal liability. It was these repressive policies that forced well-known human rights defender Ales Bialiatski to receive funds from international donors through his private bank accounts in Poland and Lithuania to sustain the human rights work of his organization, Viasna, which has been de-registered by the authorities. As punishment, he was convicted to four and a half years'' imprisonment on trumped-up tax evasion charges and remains in prison to this day. The case against Bialiatski is symbolic of the unrelenting crackdown on independent human rights NGOs and activists in Belarus.   Similarly to in Belarus, legislation in several other post-Soviet states also bans the conduct of activities on behalf of unregistered NGOs, while authorities enjoy wide discretionary powers to deny legal status to inconvenient groups, such as those dealing with human rights related issues. This is the case, among others, in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. In Uzbekistan, only one actively operating human rights NGO is registered and other groups carry out their work without legal status, rendering them extremely vulnerable e.g. with respect to receiving funds for their work. In Turkmenistan, no single independent human rights group is currently registered or able to operate openly.   A number of human rights groups from these two countries are based in exile as their leaders have fled abroad because of persecution. Even exiled NGOs have been subjected to harassment. For example, due to her efforts to draw attention to corruption under the Karimov regime, the head of the France-based Uzbek exile NGO Fiery Hearts Club was the target of derogatory statements and a police investigation initiated by the president’s daughter and then UN ambassador in Geneva Gulnara Karimova. The Austria-based Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights has repeatedly been subjected to cyber attacks believed to have been perpetrated by the Turkmen security services in an attempt to obstruct its independent coverage of developments in Turkmenistan.   In the current situation, where intensified attacks on human rights NGOs are being witnessed in different parts of the OSCE region, there is reason to fear that a growing number of groups and activists from other countries may also be forced to seek exile abroad.   Another matter of continued concern is legislation that allows for closing down NGOs on unsubstantial grounds. For example, Tajikistan''s law on public associations contains a broadly worded provision under which NGOs may be liquidated for violating any national law or for “systematically” carrying out activities contrary to their own statutes. In what has been assailed as politically motivated decision, one of the country’s most prominent human rights NGOs, Young Lawyers’ Association Amparo was liquidated by court in late October 2012 for allegedly failing to notify the authorities about an address change, acting outside the region where it was registered, operating a website without required permission and conducting trainings without a proper license. The group denied these alleged violations, saying that they were all groundless. The decision, which was upheld on appeal, was believed to be retaliation for Amparo’s work, in particular its activities to raise awareness about human rights abuses in the army.   Recommendations   To the governments of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in view of the concerns raised in our statement:   Ensure that any legislation affecting NGOs does not place unnecessary, disproportionate or discriminatory restrictions on the right to freedom of association and related fundamental rights. Reject draft legislation that does not meet these requirements and repeal or revise problematic legislation in force in accordance with the recommendations made by international human rights bodies and experts.   Protect and uphold the right of NGOs, including those based in exile, to carry out their activities without intimidation, harassment and undue interference; and refrain from imposing excessive controls and unreasonably heavy reporting requirements on NGOs that are not justified and necessary for reasons of transparency and accountability, put NGOs – or some categories of NGOs – in a discriminatory position compared to other groups, and have the effect of seriously obstructing the work of NGOs.   Respect the right of human rights groups to solicit, receive and utilize resources for their work, in accordance with the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, as well as the resolution on protecting human rights defenders (A/HRC/22/L.13) that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March 2013.   Abolish regulations that establish burdensome, inhibitory and discriminatory requirements and procedures for NGOs to access and use funding, in particular foreign grants, and/or that prohibit or criminalize human rights activities undertaken on the basis of such funds.   Put an end to government policies and rhetoric that stigmatize and discredit independent human rights NGOs and other NGOs that scrutinize and criticize the actions of authorities, in particular NGOs that receive grants from abroad; acknowledge publicly the legitimate and important role that human rights groups play in the promotion and protection of human rights; and take concrete steps, in accordance with guidelines and recommendations adopted by international human rights mechanisms, to create and maintain an enabling environment for human rights NGOs.   Rescind any bans or penalties currently in place for unregistered NGO activity and ensure that NGOs may obtain registration in a simple, transparent, expeditious and fair procedure that does not grant discretion to authorities or allow for refusing or depriving NGOs of registration on arbitrary grounds. Promptly reconsider cases where NGOs have been denied or deprived of registration, or their applications have been left pending, under procedures that do not meet these requirements.   Ensure that any sanctions imposed on NGOs for failures to observe legal requirements are proportionate to the violations committed and that the drastic measures of suspending or liquidating an NGO may only be ordered by court in exceptional circumstances, on the basis of compelling evidence of serious misconduct and as a last resort after an NGO has been warned and granted opportunities to rectify the violation. Immediately revise any decision where an NGO has been closed down in retaliation for its human rights work..   * This statement has been prepared with support in part by a grant from the Open Society Foundations.   http://www.iphronline.org/osce-hdim-joint-statement-on-freedom-of-association-20130927.html http://www.iphronline.org/partners.html Visit the related web page
	Grameen Bank Under Threat by Results International Bangladesh   Since 2010, the government of Bangladesh has waged a campaign against the globally respected microfinance institution Grameen Bank. Currently owned by the bank''s poor, rural borrowers – nearly 97 percent of whom are women – the government is threatening to take control of the bank. This move would undermine Grameen Bank''s longtime success, the power of the women who run it, and the independence of civil society throughout the country and microfinance institutions around the world.   Over the last two years, the Bangladeshi press has created a sustained drumbeat of pressure opposing the government''s plans by consistently publishing statements from leaders around the world defending Grameen. Continued international media attention is essential to efforts to prevent the government from taking over Grameen Bank.   On Wednesday, August 14, 32 members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives and 40 luminaries from around the world joined together to urge Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to reject any effort that would injure Grameen Bank and the Bangladeshi people.   The international community must join this call and continue to publicly speak out in support of Grameen Bank and its 8.4 million borrowers by:   Demanding Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina end the attacks on Grameen Bank. Telling the government of Bangladesh that Grameen Bank must remain independent, that the bank''s clients must retain ownership of the vast majority of the bank''s shares, and the client-shareholders must remain in control of a majority of the seats on the board of directors.   Urging influential governments to make clear to Prime Minister Hasina that they support the independence of Grameen Bank and will not tolerate a government takeover of the bank.   Add your name to the petition on change.org urging Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to reject the harmful findings of the Grameen Bank Commission. Spread the word! Ask your friends to sign the petition and talk with their Government Representatives about supporting Grameen Bank.   Background:   In the mid-1970s, Professor Muhammad Yunus helped establish the concept of microfinance through a personal loan of $27 to 42 destitute weavers and merchants in Bangladesh. In 1983, Yunus founded Grameen Bank by ordinance of the government of Bangladesh, fueled by the belief that credit and access to financial services is a fundamental human right. Today, Grameen Bank has nearly 8.4 million members – nearly 97 percent of whom are women – and has lent over $12.5 billion, allowing millions of women and their families the opportunity to lift themselves out of extreme poverty.   The Grameen model has been replicated in more than 100 countries around the world and now benefits tens of millions of others. In 2006, Yunus and the borrowers of Grameen Bank were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their groundbreaking work.   Professor Yunus received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from U.S. President Barack Obama in August 2009. In April 2013, the United States Congress awarded Yunus the Congressional Gold Medal.   Despite this success, since 2010 the government of Bangladesh, under the leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, has led a politically-motivated campaign of intimidation against Grameen Bank and Yunus. After a series of attacks by the government in the spring of 2011 targeted specifically at Yunus, he was forced to resign his position as managing director of the bank in May 2011. In May 2012, the government appointed a Grameen Bank Commission to review the operations of the bank and make recommendations as to its future.   The government went further in August 2012 when the Bangladesh Cabinet, presided over by Prime Minister Hasina, passed an amendment to the law governing Grameen Bank. This amendment transferred power to choose the next managing director of the bank from the existing board of directors, in which nine of the 13 members are women elected by the bank''s client-shareholders, to the government-appointed Chair of the board.   By removing this decision from the board, the government significantly weakened the power of the shareholders, who control 97 percent of the shares to the government''s 3 percent, to govern their own institution.   After releasing an interim report in February 2013, the Grameen Bank Commission issued a working paper this June with recommendations as to the future of Grameen. Their proposals include restructuring the bank so the government holds 51 percent of shares in the bank and a majority of seats on the board of directors; breaking up the bank into 19 or more totally separate bank entities with no legal relationship among them; and transforming the bank into a private company. Each of these scenarios would undermine the bank''s independence and jeopardize the success of the bank, its borrowers, and as many as 18.5 million family members.   The commission finished its term on July 20 but a final report has not yet been released. While it is not clear when the final report will be made public, it is believed that the same harmful recommendations made in the interim report will remain in the final report.   This attempt to take over the operations of Grameen Bank from its clients and shareholder-run board of directors is an extremely worrying threat to civil society writ large in Bangladesh. Bangladesh''s microfinance sector reaches some 35.6 million clients – second only to India with its outreach – and its top five institutions alone reach 24.4 million clients.   The concern is that if the government can go after Grameen Bank, they might decide that other microfinance institutions or civil society organizations are next. Grameen Bank''s fate could also affect the independence of other microfinance institutions worldwide.   Further, a government takeover of the bank would undermine the progress that Grameen has made empowering poor women in Bangladesh and providing them the means to lift themselves out of poverty. The international community must strongly defend the independent operations of Grameen Bank and its millions of shareholders. http://www.grameen-info.org/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories