{
  "id": "R44458",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44458",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 596629,
      "date": "2016-04-08",
      "retrieved": "2020-01-03T15:14:12.674749",
      "title": "Closing Space: Restrictions on Civil Society Around the World and U.S. Responses ",
      "summary": "Civil society organizations (CSOs) around the world are confronting ever stricter limitations on their ability to operate, a phenomenon often referred to \u201cclosing space\u201d for civil society work. From restrictions on the types of funding they are allowed to receive to draconian registration requirements, the measures targeting CSOs are increasingly putting pressure on the entire civil society sector in certain countries. These restrictions are most commonly imposed by governments seeking to limit the influence of nongovernmental actors, though restrictions are also being imposed by a broad range of governments, including democratic allies. Increasing awareness of this phenomenon has elevated concerns among civil society advocates and some policymakers, including in Congress. Congress has also shaped U.S. policy toward civil society through funding, legislation, hearings, and oversight activities. \nMany experts assess that the closure of civil society space is likely to continue. Some experts and advocates warn that, even in already restrictive environments, civil society actors could face new or additional repressive action, particularly when civil society engages in politically charged or sensitive issues. This will likely impact the ability of donors\u2019\u2014including the United States government, private donors, foundations, and international partners\u2014to work with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) abroad. Closing space for civil society could also impact broader U.S. engagement on the freedoms of assembly, association, and expression.\nThe United States has long supported civil society abroad, which is often viewed as an important component of sustainable democracy and economic growth. The United States is the largest financial supporter of civil society in the world, according to a recent White House fact sheet, with more than $3.2 billion invested to strengthen civil society since 2010. Civil society groups are also in many cases the implementers of U.S. foreign assistance programs. \nMany experts view the results of the United States\u2019 efforts to support civil society as mixed. In the face of the rapid geographic and substantive expansion of measures designed to close civil society space, the Obama Administration is credited for launching the Stand with Civil Society initiative in 2013, a global call to action to support, defend, and sustain civil society. This effort saw Presidential attention to the effort through speeches and a Presidential Memorandum. The Administration has also devoted specific funding and programmatic responses to address the closing space phenomenon. \nWhile advocates generally praise the Administration for raising the profile of the closing space issue, some experts question whether the Administration\u2019s actions have fully matched its rhetoric, or whether the policies and structures put into place under the initiative are sustainable. Policy responses to the problem of closing space are complicated by a number of factors, including various competing interests in the policy process, such as balancing support for civil society with U.S. willingness to confront important bilateral partners, possible impacts on other programs or objectives, and the availability of suitable tools or sufficient leverage.\nCongress has at times treated the promotion of vibrant civil societies abroad as a key element of U.S. foreign policy and has taken action to support civil society through a range of activities, including legislation. While many such provisions are country- or issue-specific, others are global in scope. Congress may choose to further consider legislation, oversight activities\u2014such as reporting, hearings, or direct engagement\u2014and U.S. funding on this issue.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44458",
          "sha1": "6908527db7d0f6f7b52df5e9cc3dca489a6f7563",
          "filename": "files/20160408_R44458_6908527db7d0f6f7b52df5e9cc3dca489a6f7563.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44458_files&id=/1.png": "files/20160408_R44458_images_fdb8de4fa14a259fb6a02ca0d1bb1b74494ad494.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44458_files&id=/0.png": "files/20160408_R44458_images_d0c77467d8da5d77c79f28d3dc0cf294020338c6.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44458",
          "sha1": "70f12589bfd9f5285352843d7f2725870f7c693c",
          "filename": "files/20160408_R44458_70f12589bfd9f5285352843d7f2725870f7c693c.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "African Affairs",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}