Kommersant: Russia To Stick To Parity In Diplomatic Spat With U.S.; Russia To Deprive U.S. Diplomats Of Most Privileges


September 12, 2017

Kommersant: Russia to stick to parity in diplomatic spat with US

As a new round of the ‘diplomatic war’ between Moscow and Washington heats up, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the ministry is now examining the conditions in which American foreign missions in Russia and Russian foreign missions in the US are operating in a move to make them totally equal. This comes after US authorities closed the Russian Consulate in San Francisco, the Russian Trade Mission in Washington and its office in New York rented by Russia in early September. Currently, Moscow is looking into several options to respond, Kommersant wrote citing diplomatic sources. First, the number of entry points to the country may be curtailed for American diplomats. “For now, there are more of these points for Americans in Russia than they have for us,” a source said, pointing out that Moscow may add two more points – Sevastopol and Simferopol – but US diplomats are unlikely to use them since the country’s officials do not go to Crimea.

Second, the number of US diplomats allowed to freely leave certain zones around the diplomatic mission in Russia may be cut back, since it does not meet the parity principle now, the newspaper says. Third, the US diplomatic missions in Moscow and other cities may be stripped of special parking areas, since no such parking facilities are provided for the Russian diplomatic staff in the US. According to Yuri Rogulev, Director of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Foundation for United States Studies at the Moscow State University, “any dialogue is crucial for relations” between the counties. “The US side is full of uncertainty, and it is unclear who makes decisions there,” he said, adding that since “everything is focused on the anti-Russia campaign,” President Donald Trump will make all decisions on relations with Moscow “while looking over his shoulder at Congress and public opinion, which wants drastic action and is going for the jugular.”

Provided that they are undertaken, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s latest measures must be perceived as “a response to the US’ actions,” Rogulev told the newspaper. “I don’t think this is Russia’s choice. The country faces a situation where not furnishing any responses would be out of the question and giving halfway responses are useless,” he said. Meanwhile, the expert added that the new round of actions would not have a serious effect on bilateral relations, particularly due to the fact that the number of various events requiring the presence of US diplomats in Russian cities had declined earlier during the crisis. “But in any case all this creates a negative atmosphere, of course – an atmosphere that is playing a major role in Russian-US relations now,” the expert noted.


September 11, 2017

Russia to deprive US diplomats of most privileges

Russia will have to reduce the number of US diplomats by another 155 people to achieve full parity, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. However, according to diplomatic sources, other options are being considered as well.

For example, Russia may restrict the number of points, through which US diplomats will be able to enter the territory of the Russian Federation, the Kommersant reports. There are more of such points for US diplomats in Russia, whereas the number of such points for Russian diplomats in the USA is smaller. US diplomats, for instance, may not be allowed to enter Russia in the cities of Sevastopol and Simferopol (the Crimea).

The number of American diplomats, who are allowed to freely travel outside a certain zone around diplomatic missions in Russia is likely to be reduced as well. For the time being, Russian diplomats of junior and middle ranking may freely move inside the USA within a radius of 25 miles (40 km). All diplomats from Russia, of adviser title and above, are allowed to travel across the USA without hindrance.

Similar rules apply to US senior diplomats in Russia. However, there are more of such diplomats in Russia than the number of senior Russian diplomats in the United States. This, according to Moscow, does not correspond to the principle of parity.

Additionally, the Russian authorities may deprive US diplomats of a possibility to park their vehicles on specially designated places in Moscow and other cities of Russia. Interestingly, there is no such possibility provided for Russian diplomats in the United States at all.

On August 29, US authorities decided to close the consulate general of Russia in San Francisco. As soon as the diplomatic mission stopped working, US special services searched the building.

The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow was studying the conditions in which Russian agencies work in the US and vice versa. Russia intends to bring those conditions to full parity, the minister said.

“If they (the Americans) approach parity as a criterion, we are now analysing the conditions, in which US institutions work in Russia, and in which conditions Russian institutions work in the United States. We will bring those conditions in full accord with what is called parity,” Lavrov said at a press conference in the capital of Jordan.



September 11, 2017

‘The sensible time may have passed’ What happens to American journalists in Russia, if the U.S. government says ‘Sputnik’ is a foreign agent?

By Kevin Rothrock

[Text with links and graphicshttps://meduza.io/en/feature/2017/09/12/the-sensible-time-may-have-passed?utm_source=email&utm_medium=briefly&utm_campaign=2017-09-12]

On September 11, 2017, Yahoo! News reported that the FBI has questioned two former staffers at the Russian state Sputnik news agency, as part of an ongoing investigation into a potentially undeclared propaganda campaign by the Russian government that violates the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The effort to treat Sputnik and its older brother, RT (Russia Today), as foreign propaganda, rather than foreign news organizations, has been gaining momentum since last year’s U.S. presidential election, when Russian news coverage turned sharply against Hillary Clinton, inciting fears that Moscow was mounting a coordinated campaign to influence the American public. Meduza reviews the case against Sputnik and examines the consequences it could have for U.S. media outlets in Russia.

The FBI versus Sputnik

According to Yahoo! News, FBI agents have interviewed former Sputnik staffers Andrew Feinberg and Joseph John Fionda, who say they turned over work emails revealing the “internal structure and editorial processes” at Sputnik. The emails reportedly document the Kremlin’s strict control over news coverage, and how the outlet intentionally pursues fake stories and conspiracy theories to advance Moscow’s political goals.

Following the news that Sputnik is in the FBI’s crosshairs, Margarita Simonyan, the chief editor of RT, another Russian state media outlet, warned that Moscow would retaliate: “There is no doubt that Russia will respond to the FBI investigation in the same way and will check the work of American journalists in Moscow. It’s disgusting,” Margarita Simonyan said.

The U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors

Though Simonyan didn’t say which “American journalists” Russian police would target, it’s a good bet that Moscow would start with reporters from RFE/RL and Voice of America. Both these outlets are supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a U.S. government agency whose stated mission is “to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

RFE/RL is designed to produce independent reporting and promote democratic values – “uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate” – in places where this kind of journalism is believed to be absent. The Voice of America was created to represent America and present the policies of the U.S. “clearly and effectively,” along with “responsible discussions and opinion” on these policies. In other words, RFE/RL is supposed to create independent journalism about the outside world, while VOA is meant to report about America itself.

Formed in 1999, the BBG was designed to serve as a “firewall” against political interference in the journalism it oversees. The bipartisan board’s eight members are appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the Senate. There are currently only six members of the BBG, plus U.S. State Secretary Rex Tillerson, who is an ex officio board member.

Last December, with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the U.S. federal government rewrote the allocation of power within the BBG, transferring the bipartisan board’s authority to a chief executive officer appointed by the president. The new CEO will be able to hire and fire senior media staff and determine budget allocations.

Despite the overhaul, the BBG’s bipartisan board still meets, albeit in a diminished advisory capacity, and officials are waiting to see whom the Trump administration will nominate to take the place of acting CEO John Lansing, who’s been in office since September 2015, before the changes.

As recently as June 1, 2017, Politico reported that the White House’s leading candidate for the CEO position at the BBG was Michael Pack, “a conservative documentarian with ties to [now former] chief strategist Steve Bannon.” While Bannon’s ouster likely means curtains for Pack, Lansing is still waiting to be replaced. “The White House could theoretically use the BBG for any kind of messaging,” a senior Washington official told Politico.

So RFE/RL and VOA are America’s Sputnik and RT?

Nobody (currently) employed at Sputnik or RT embraces claims that they’re foreign propagandists. Journalists at RFE/RL and VOA similarly reject such accusations, along with the very suggestion that their publications are even remotely comparable to these two Russian state-funded media outlets.

Audiences will have to make up their own minds when it comes to judging the quality of journalism at these publications, but an important distinction to remember is that RFE/RL is designed to withdraw itself from areas where independent journalism has returned. This, for instance, is why RFE/RL stopped broadcasting in local languages in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and five other European countries in 2004.

Sputnik, on the other hand, describes itself as a “modern news agency” with “products on multiple platforms.” Like RT, the outlet is geared toward “stories overlooked by the mainstream media,” but there is no formula in place for Sputnik or RT to phase out their operations, once the media environment in a host country has reached a certain level of perceived freedom.

When it comes to Sputnik, the closest Russian analogue to the BBG would be Rossiya Segodnya, its parent holding company, which Vladimir Putin created by executive order in December 2013. Unlike the BBG, however, Rossiya Segodnya makes no effort to insulate its media projects from political interference in its journalism. As if to erase even the slightest doubts about this, Putin appointed pro-Kremlin TV pundit Dmitry Kiselyov to serve as the company’s CEO, with none other than RT chief editor Margarita Simonyan joining as Rossiya Segodnya’s chief editor (causing dizziness for more than a few people trying to understand the distinction).

FARA could be too little, too late

It’s important to note that Radio Svoboda has already lost access to radio waves in Russia. In September 2012, the outlet announced that it was switching to Internet broadcasts, following the enactment of a new Russian law limiting foreign ownership in radio stations to 48 percent. In June 2016, Radio Svoboda’s final shortwave radio transmissions hit the airwaves before the network went permanently silent.

In 2012, Russian lawmakers enacted their own version of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, requiring all politically active and foreign-funded nonprofit organizations to register with Russia’s Justice Ministry as “foreign agents.” RFE/RL is funded by the U.S. Congress through the BBG, and it operates under IRS rules as a private, nonprofit corporation.

In addition to saddling “foreign agents” with crippling police audits, Russia’s FARA-inspired legislation created a new felony offense under article 330.1 of the Criminal Code, making it punishable by up to two years in prison to commit “malicious evasion” of the law’s filing requirements. Russia’s Justice Ministry currently names 88 organizations on its list of foreign agents.

Since it was passed in 1938, there have been only a handful of criminal cases in the U.S. involving violations of FARA, whose registrants are often public relations firms hired to generate positive buzz for foreign governments’ initiatives in Washington. The maximum penalty for willfully violating FARA is 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, but even these harsh measures wouldn’t necessarily force a “foreign agent” media outlet off the air.

While serving on the BBG’s bipartisan board, Matthew Armstrong argued in an article that convicting RT of FARA violations could fail on two counts, reinforcing the outlet’s anti-establishment credibility while simultaneously imposing relatively weak penalties. According to Armstrong, even the Nazi news agency Transocean could have continued publishing after its top editors were hit with FARA violations in 1941, if only they had complied with the law’s registration requirements. The degree to which RFE/RL and VOA has been pushed from the Russian media market is already more significant than any impact a FARA case against Sputnik is likely to have. If U.S. officials do prosecute and convict Sputnik under FARA, the situation in Russia for American publications could only get worse.

“The sensible time to register RT as a foreign agent may have passed,” Armstrong wrote. That was more than two years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *