Friday, July 11, 2008

Operation Civil Elixir Relevant Political Climate

From YaleGlobal

(http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6607): In 2006, The Russian Federation began enforcing a law that many diplomats (including the U.S. Secretary of State) fear will strangle Russian Civil Society, enabling Putin to retain more political control than ever and reinventing Russia's old authoritarian regime. Already suffering from a declining independent press, Russia's democracy seems to grow ever frailer.
"The bill will have three primary effects. First, it will limit Russian citizens’ constitutional right to create unregistered but formalized civil society groups (those with statutes and governing bodies): registration authorities will have to be notified in all cases. The order of such notification will be regulated by the decree of the federal Government and not by law, while the list of reasons for refusal are ample and unclear.
Secondly, the bill will tighten controls over all existing Russian NGOs. The government will be able to exercise more control over NGOs’ work and expenditure, and will be able to ask any organization to provide any documentation at any time. In addition, each of the hundreds of thousand of existing NGOs will have to re-register with the authorities. Given the high level of corruption in Russia, this proposition will leave ample space for abuse. It will also immediately paralyze the work of thousands of charity, cultural, youth, social, human rights, environmental and other organizations.
Thirdly, particularly tough measures will be applied to foreign NGOs operating in Russia. The bill outlaws affiliates of foreign NGOs, and requires existing organizations to re-register as exclusively Russian, which may prove legally impossible. At the same time, foreign citizens who are not permanent residents of the Russian Federation will not be able to become founders or members of Russian NGOs."
"In a letter to the speaker of the State Duma, US Congressman Chris Smith - chairman of the US Helsinki Commission - said the planned new law 'would have a chilling effect on civil society in the Russian Federation...and seriously undermine the rights of individuals in Russia to freedom of association.'”

From Eurasia Daily Monitor (http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372897): U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates met with President Vladimir Putin and president-elect Dmitry Medvedev. They also met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov. But in response to the new NGO regulations, Condoleezza Rice met with Russia’s liberal intelligentsia--"critics" of the Putin administration on March 18. Reportedly, these delegates were handpicked by the Russian Foreign Ministry...

From the U.S. Department of State
( http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1006.html#entry_requirements): "The Government of Russia does not recognize the standing of the U.S. diplomatic mission to intervene in visa matters, including situations in which an American is stranded because of an expired visa. U.S. citizens should also be aware that Russian immigration and visa laws change regularly, and the implementation of new regulations has not always been transparent or predictable. The Russian visa system includes a number of provisions that may be unfamiliar to Americans, including: Sponsorship, Entry Visas, Limitations on Length of Stay, Exit Visas, Migration Cards, Visa Registration, Transit Visas, Restricted Areas...
Travelers should ensure that their visas reflect intended activities in Russia (e.g., tourism, study, business, etc.)...
In October 2007, the Russian government made significant changes to its rules regarding the length of stay permitted to most foreign visitors. For any visa issued on or after October 18, 2007, unless that visa specifically authorizes employment or study, a foreigner may stay in Russia only 90 days in any 180-day period. This applies to business, tourist, humanitarian and cultural visas, among other categories...
U.S. citizens should be aware that Russian police officers have the authority to stop people and request their identity and travel documents at any time, and without cause. Due to the possibility of random document checks by police, travelers should carry their original passports, migration cards, and visas with them at all times...
Acts of terrorism, including bombings and hostage taking, have occurred in Russia over the last several years. Bombings have occurred at Russian government buildings, hotels, tourist sites, markets, entertainment venues, schools, residential complexes, and on public transportation including subways, buses, trains, and scheduled commercial flights. Hostage-taking incidents have included a raid on a school that resulted in horrific losses of life of children, teachers, and parents...
There is no current indication that American institutions or citizens are targets, but there is a general risk of American citizens being victims of indiscriminate terrorist attacks. American citizens in Russia should be aware of their personal surroundings and follow good security practices. Americans are urged to remain vigilant and exercise good judgment and discretion when using any form of public transportation. When traveling, Americans may wish to provide a friend, family member, or coworker a copy of their itinerary. Americans should avoid large crowds and public gatherings that lack enhanced security measures. Travelers should also exercise a high degree of caution and remain alert when patronizing restaurants, casinos, nightclubs, bars, theaters, etc., especially during peak hours of business...
It is not uncommon for foreigners in general to become victims of harassment, mistreatment and extortion by law enforcement and other officials. Police do not need to show probable cause in order to stop, question or detain individuals. If stopped, travelers should try to obtain, if safe to do so, the officer’s name, badge number, and patrol car number, and note where the stop happened, as this information assists local officials in identifying the perpetrators. Authorities are concerned about these incidents and have cooperated in investigating such cases. Travelers should report crimes to the U.S. Embassy or the nearest Consulate General...




Posted by Paul Saputo

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Why Build Foreign Democracies?

Strong Democracies support the national security not only of the United States, but of the whole world. I'll explain this in terms of psychology: most people are in many important ways fundamentally similar. Natan Sharansky' book, The Case for Democracy, outlined an argument for freedom that relied on this belief. Essentially, people everywhere want the same things: peace, security, satisfaction, etc. Free societies will support these ends because people can act toward achieving what is in their best interest. Wars are truly not in the general interest of people. Free societies are safer because people will choose to be safe. When confronted with a simple choice between death and life, in a free society people will choose life.

I can already hear everyone shouting at me: "But they're different! If those people are free, they will all want war--they'll want the destruction of the United States and all the civility and culture of the West!" This doomsday scenario is actually a perfect example of the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE). Look it up on Wikipedia. Don't feel bad if you feel this way, but you are not looking at the whole picture. We all have a tendency to overemphasize the role of the person and under-emphasize the power of the situation. It's impossible to judge what people who are living a fear-based society would do if they were living in freedom. But why would you jump to the conclusion that they are somehow fundamentally different from us? I think people see themselves in a wholly separate manner from the way they see anyone else. Just assume with me for the moment that other people want the same things from life that you do. They want to survive, they have fears, they want to succeed, they want some modicum of happiness, etc. What would the world look like? Probably very similar to the world that we already live in, right? People are placed in different situations. It's hard to imagine someone who would want an ultimately different set of goals in life. And everyone wants to be free. And everyone wants to be safe. And war does not fit into this picture at all. Free societies support everyone's security.

Aside from our own collective security, some have mentioned that strong liberal Democracies have a moral duty to spread liberal Democracy to other countries. I find this argument weak so I won't go there. But you certainly can.

And aside from both of those, liberal Democracies support the progress of science, industry, and economic development. If you think these are bad, then A) I feel sorry for you, and B) ignore this argument and take one of the above. Free societies liberate the innate creativity, ingenuity, and curiosity of humanity. This is what fosters development in these areas.

Proposing "Conditioning Democracy"

After nine years in the Gulag, Natan Sharansky might have conclusively refuted the self-evident nature of inalienability of Liberty in the USSR. Instead, he emerged triumphant, voicing the universal appeal of freedom in his seminal book, The Case for Democracy. With the moral clarity of America at stake, Sharansky writes about the inevitable rise of freedom and Democracy with moral authority like Andrew Jackson spoke about Manifest Destiny and like Karl Marx wrote about Communism: people in every country yearn to be free, and non-democratic governments prohibit this freedom. However with growing resentment toward the War in Iraq, criticisms of the expenditures of the United States on democratizing foreign countries have grown vociferous. The United States is past due for an policy overhaul: Americans want to maximize the impact of every resource allocated to promoting Democratic initiatives. John Prados’s Safe for Democracy identifies five tools that the United States has utilized to promote Democracy: behavior examples, diplomacy, economic sanctions, military force, and covert operations (propaganda). Each of these tools relies on Sharansky’s argument in a large measure for their success; each tool requires that people yearn for their own Democracy.

“Conditioning Democracy” proposes Democratic Propensity Theory to shape the much-needed policy overhaul. With a unique focus on individual endorsement of Democracy, “Conditioning Democracy” relates psychological principles to Democracy initiatives. The United States is missing a sixth tool from its toolbox: conditioning people for Democracy, creating the yearning for freedom from within individuals. Exposing individuals from emerging Democracies to successful Democratic deliberation experiences increases the individual’s propensity for Democratic government. Conditioning Democracy proposes policies that incorporate professional “operational” psychologists into missions that “condition” denizens of emerging Democracies, whole communities at a time, to accept the potential both for participation in Democratic government and Democratic rule of law. If policy-makers consider the evidence that I will present in “Conditioning Democracy,” new policy should both more efficiently use resources and perhaps also save lives.

Search