Voice of America, March 5, 2013
Natasha Mozgovaya
A discussion on future relations between Russia, the European Union, and the United States was held in the U.S. Congress last Monday with the participation of several prominent Russian human rights activists and opposition members. This discussion was billed under the heading “New Approach or Business as Usual? U.S.–EU–Russia Relations after Putin’s Crackdown.”
Congressman Jim McGovern, co-chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, declared that, unfortunately, the reports coming from Russia “paint a gloomy picture of deterioration of [human rights]. These actions make it very clear that Russia’s leadership is determined to narrow its citizens’ freedoms. . . . But in the atmosphere of unabridged corruption, the judiciary has become a tool for prosecuting those who uncover fraud.”
Rep. McGovern reminded the group that the Magnitsky Act was supported by both parties, and that the current law is a compromise achieved as a result of negotiations between lawmakers and the administration. He further warned that any attempts at weakening the law would face a “response from the Congress.”
Rep. McGovern continued by saying that the Dima Yakovlev Law, which bans adoptions of Russian orphans by Americans, was “a panicky and vindictive response of the Russian leadership” and applauded the refusal of the opposition members in the State Duma to vote for this law.
“I want to see our relationship with Russia normalized, functional, and productive,” Rep. McGovern stressed. “There are so many urgent priorities in the world that need Russia and the United States moving forward as partners. . . . We call today for Russian leadership to take a critical look at their policies. . . . I also encourage us to remember that as we scrutinize others, we should apply the same level of scrutiny to ourselves.”
Guy Verhofstadt, former prime minister of Belgium and leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Group in the European Parliament, noted that it is very important for the United States and the European Union to work out a common agenda on Russia with regard to the deteriorating human rights situation.
“This is not some sort of [Russophobic] hearing,” he stressed. “I have a great esteem for the Russian people. . . . The whole point of the Helsinki Agreements [as Andrei Sakharov said] is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems. . . . A reaction from Moscow [to the Magnitsky Act] proves that I think we are on the right track. . . . We show the people of Russia that Western democracies are fully behind them.”
In the course of the discussion, however, it was revealed that there are at least two Russias.
Russian State Duma member Dmitri Gudkov said that “as a result of this Internet revolution, our citizens are divided [into] so-called TV citizens . . . who just get information from . . . television—a ‘zombie box’ or ‘idiot box’—and Net citizens . . . who don’t watch television and get all the news from the Internet. . . . Protest leaders are nowadays being suppressed by the security services. . . . For example, dozens of false criminal cases were initiated against innocent people just for their participation in the protest actions of May 6th. . . . Alexei Navalny has been accused of four criminal cases, and [charges have been] absolutely fabricated, and now he’s restricted from leaving the Moscow region according to the Investigative Committee decision. At the same time, I think that no repressive methods of Putin can work now, because people continue taking to the streets.”
Gudkov noted that Russian authorities use the relations between Russian opposition members and the United States to discredit the former.
“When I was in Russia, I heard information spread by the state television that Dmitri Gudkov was going to the United States to sell some secrets and to get new instructions,” he said. “So I really like to be here for the first time in the United States . . . as a politician. This weekend I visited several American families who had adopted Russian orphans, and I want to say that I’m very grateful to them and other families taking care of our children.”
Ludmila Alekseeva, chairperson of the Moscow Helsinki Group, described the paradox of the bans directed against NGOs that have recently been passed.
“Unfortunately, human rights NGOs in Russia are financed with foreign donations, foreign funding from abroad. It might be that wealthy people . . . in Russia . . . are afraid of supporting such organizations as independent human right groups. . . . A businessman might think that if he . . . supports an independent human rights group, not only his business might suffer, but also [he] himself can suffer. . . . Human rights organizations in Russia . . . will continue to be supported from foreign grants and foreign sources unless Russian businessmen become independent.”
In the subsequent discussion, Senator Benjamin Cardin declared that the objective of American lawmakers is simple: “Our objective is to get change in Russia. We also want the [Magnitsky] list to be public. We want to see an independent judiciary in Russia. We want to see free press in Russia.”
When the discussion turned to the European reaction to the Magnitsky Act, Kristiina Ojuland, a member of the European Parliament and former foreign minister of Estonia, expressed hope that a similar law would be adopted in Europe, because, unfortunately, “Russia is today driving so much back[ward] and so fast. . . . We should be ready to support those people who need us today in the Russian Federation. . . . When I am watching Washington and other European foreign policy efforts regarding Russia, I have a hunch that . . . maybe the governments do not understand that they have failed in their policies towards Russia, or maybe they do understand. Maybe they are not able to admit they are failures. . . . This foreign policy, in most countries, follows the principle ‘let’s pretend.’ Even if Americans ignore Moscow, this will be a present for Putin.”
According to Lilia Shevtsova, a political scientist at the Carnegie Moscow Center, “EU member states, they still are . . . national states with their national interests. Take Cyprus, for example, where a lot of this Russian black money is taken in. So there are a lot of aspects . . . why they are so hesitant to come together and to decide upon even these Magnitsky sanctions. But nevertheless, I’m not pessimistic. And I can say that we continue the work in the European Parliament. . . . So I would say that this is not totally hopeless.” Shevtsova added that under current conditions, cooperation between the West and Russia can be effective “only on the Kremlin’s terms. . . . [These] terms are no preaching on democracy, stop lecturing us . . . [and] forget the word ‘Magnitsky.’ If you agree to these terms, the Kremlin will continue transactional cooperation, like it has been doing until recently.” The expert said that the most effective way to influence the corrupt Russian reality is to stipulate the following: “You want the benefits of the Western society, you behave at home.” And, she stressed, “the Magnitsky law is a breakthrough.”
Pavel Khodorkovsky, president of the Institute of Modern Russia, summed up the discussion: “The congressional activism that we have seen in the [last] couple of years has really outlined the path of engagement and has presented the new toolset that the foreign governments have now at their disposal that will allow them to really formulate this partnership with the Russian Federation, that will be both productive and long-term. That will lead to long-term stability.”
Pavel Khodorkovsky also reminded that this October will mark the tenth year of his father Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s imprisonment. “I . . . continue to engage as many people as I can to help bring my country and our society into the next phase of the relationship with the rest of the world and advance the democratic values that I believe the majority of Russian citizens have strong adherence to,” Mr. Khodorkovsky said. “They just need a little bit of help.”
David Kramer, the head of Freedom House, said in an interview with the VOA Russian Service that he does not anticipate that the Magnitsky Act will be either weakened or repealed: “[The] Magnitsky [Act] has passed by huge margins—92 to 4 in the Senate. There are not many things that pass by such a margin in the House or the Senate.” According to Mr. Kramer, Russia is talking big when it demands the repeal of the Magnitsky Act.
Mr. Kramer believes that the U.S. administration could give the Russian civil society more support: “The issue of a new nuclear arms agreement seems to be on the agenda for President Obama. I certainly hope that the issue of human rights will be on the agenda. It’s extremely important for President Obama himself to weigh in on the deteriorating human rights situation in Russia. I fear that if Putin doesn’t hear a strong message coming from the president of the United States, then he won’t take criticism seriously. It has to come from the highest levels of the United States. It’s a very long list [of repressions against civil society], and unfortunately, I do [believe that it can get worse].”
He noted that there are positive tendencies as well: “I think, despite the crackdown that we’ve seen, particularly since Putin’s return in May, we do see [that] civil society is resilient . . . in expressing displeasure with the current system. So I think that’s a positive development.”
