(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is a 27 September 2000 ARTICLE 19 press release: NEW RUSSIAN SECRETS PRINCIPLES IGNORE KURSK LESSONS – INVESTORS URGED TO ACT New and alarming ‘guiding principles’ restricting the flow of information on environmental hazards, military forces and the economy, and stepping up ‘counter-propaganda’ activities were signed into force by President […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – The following is a 27 September 2000 ARTICLE 19 press release:
NEW RUSSIAN SECRETS PRINCIPLES IGNORE KURSK LESSONS – INVESTORS URGED TO ACT
New and alarming ‘guiding principles’ restricting the flow of information on environmental hazards, military forces and the economy, and stepping up ‘counter-propaganda’ activities were signed into force by President Putin on 9 September 2000. They show that far from moving towards international standards and reacting to domestic demand for less state control of information following the Kursk disaster, the government is reverting to Soviet-style secrecy on public interest matters.
According to ARTICLE 19, the Doctrine of the Information Security of the Russian Federation indicates growing government paranoia about the potential for independent domestic and foreign information to undermine its own propaganda and highlights an intention to clamp down on such information and the technology behind it.
Andrew Puddephatt, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19 said:
“Government transparency and accountability will go out of the window if these principles are enforced (1). Investors should beware – these rules are likely to cancel out any moves Putin has made towards challenging corruption and opening up the economy.”
“The Doctrine clearly signals an intention to introduce strong and repressive legislation in this area, and indicates a worrying move away from democratic development. We have written to the President urging him to withdraw the document and publicly to refute the values it represents”, he added.
The Doctrine seeks to entrench in law increased government control over freedom of information and the media, for example by increasing state control over information dissemination, introducing penalties for spreading ‘false news’ and recommending mandatory licensing of journalists. Such measures clearly contradict international and constitutional standards and make a nonsense of references in the document to upholding such standards.
Ambiguous calls, such as for counteracting the “use of uncertified domestic and foreign technologies” and “defining more clearly the status of foreign information agencies, mass media and journalists as well as investors” should set alarm bells ringing for those with business interests in Russia.
ENDS
Note
1. The Doctrine is said to be a set of guiding principles which are not legally binding. However, it provides guiding principles for the bringing into law of a wide range of measures, starting from the assumption that official information should be protected.
