Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday May 25 2015, @07:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the soviet-russia-ngo's-you dept.

Multiple news outlets have reported that Russia has passed a law allowing Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to be banned if undesirable.

According to the story on Euronews:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed into law a bill which will allow foreign organisations to be banned from operating in the country.

The new law will give authorities the right to prosecute non-governmental organisations if considered "undesirable" or a threat to national security.

From the CNN story:

Tanya Lokshina, Russia program director for Human Rights Watch, said the new law had "the potential to severely damage our work in Russia," and was a cause for grave concern for all international groups operating in the country.

Nevertheless, she said she did not believe the law was aimed at international organizations like hers. Instead, she said, it was aimed at Russians who might cooperate with, or support, international organizations.

NGOs are not always beloved around the world and have been accused of doing more harm than good. What is the correct role for NGOs in the world?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday May 25 2015, @11:52PM

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday May 25 2015, @11:52PM (#187784) Journal

    HRW is covert operation arm of US Dept of State.

    This wasn't always true - but like Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders, the org has been largely absorbed by the Borg collective.

    So called "Human Rights" Watch urged bombing of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

    Get this straight: Military airstrikes ARE NEVER "humanitarian".

    --
    You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Disagree=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday May 25 2015, @11:53PM

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday May 25 2015, @11:53PM (#187785) Journal

    Some mapping of officials and resumes:
    http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html [nl.net]

    --
    You're betting on the pantomime horse...
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:13AM (#187828)

    > So called "Human Rights" Watch urged bombing of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

    Dude. You can't just say something like that and leave it uncited. Googling it doesn't pull up anything. In fact the opposite, like:

    THE CRISIS IN KOSOVO [hrw.org]
    "Even if one could justify legal attacks on civilian radio and television, there does not appear to be any justification for attacking urban studios, as opposed to transmitters."

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:44PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:44PM (#188014) Journal

      I'm almost certain the grandparent was taking some "Genocide is bad and should be stopped" plea as if it were endorsement of the specific tactics used by the later UN intervention.

      Because the things going down in Kosovo were exactly the kind of human rights violations the organization would be opposed to, nominally.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:31PM (#188005)

    Get this straight: Military airstrikes ARE NEVER "humanitarian".

    Of course they are! Since only shit holes are bombed, they put people out of their misery. win-win!