Human Rights Watch has presented its 23rd annual World Report. The 665-page document assesses the situation in more than 90 countries. IMR Analyst Boris Bruk notes the increasing pessimism of human rights activists with the return of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency.
The starting point of the report is the Arab Spring because of its global significance and the challenges it presents in the world arena. According to the report, the “euphoria,” which accompanied the events that resulted in the fall of authoritarian regimes, has been replaced by the necessity to solve a variety of complex problems. The establishment of democratic procedures and institutions based on human rights are tasks of primary importance. To accomplish these, Human Rights Watch (HRW) believes that the international community must assume an active role.
The report is highly critical of a number of countries, including the United States (this will be “happily” welcomed by those who are inclined to think that human rights violations in the U.S. are routinely ignored). While recognizing the existence of a “vibrant civil society” and broad constitutional protection of press freedom, the HRW report indicated that it is the most vulnerable members of the population who become the victims of human rights violations in the United States: “immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, children, the elderly, the poor, and prisoners.” HRW accused the West of “hypocrisy” and recommended that U.S. and European leaders who speak about protecting human rights in other countries “respect rights” themselves. As Kenneth Roth, executive director of HRW, pointed out, “It is difficult to preach what one does not practice, yet the rights records of the major powers have fallen short in areas of relevance to Arab Spring states, reducing their influence.”
The report is highly critical of a number of countries, including the United States.
Much like the Freedom House in its recent study, HRW documents a number of negative trends in Central Asia and some countries in Europe. According to the report, the human rights situation remains “poor” in Belarus, Ukraine, and Tajikistan. In Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, “[t]he level of abuse and overall decline in respect for fundamental freedoms … is shocking.” Turkmenistan is described as one of the most repressive and closed states in the world.
The human rights situation in Russia is analyzed on 10 pages. According to the report, the year 2012 was marked by an unprecedented attack on human rights and freedoms. In the words of Hugh Williamson, HRW Europe and Central Asia director, “This has been the worst year for human rights in Russia in recent memory.” At a news conference in Moscow, HRW Europe and Central Asia deputy director Rachel Denber said that, “…[S]ince the so-called ‘color revolutions,’ the Russian authorities have been attempting to marginalize, demonize, and discredit opposition politicians, human rights activists, civil society organizations... This current encroachment by the authorities on all fronts seems to be especially fierce.”
According to HRW, respect for human rights deteriorated sharply after the recent presidential election: “[A]fter his return to the presidency, Vladimir Putin oversaw the swift reversal of former President Dmitry Medvedev’s few, timid advances on political freedoms and unleashed an unprecedented crackdown against civic activism.” Despite its overall criticism of the situation in Russia, during the Mevdevev presidency HRW also made some positive comments. The 2010 report remarked on Medvedev’s positive rhetoric that emphasized the importance of civil society. Another positive trend was seen in the establishment of a working group to make amendments to the NGO law. In 2011, HRW opined that Russia had become more open to international cooperation on human rights. The 2012 study commended two “liberalizing” presidential initiatives: reducing the electoral threshold for parties to gain representation in the State Duma from 7 percent to 5 percent; and a bill to decriminalize defamation.
In 2012, the State Duma passed one repressive law after another, becoming known among opposition activists as a “printer gone mad.”
According to HRW, the key achievement of the Russian authorities in 2012 was “President Medvedev’s final present”—ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In general, however, as Kenneth Roth has pointed out, Putin’s return to the presidency has sent the country into “a steep authoritarian backslide.” The report is especially critical with respect to the adoption of a package of laws restricting the freedoms of assembly, association, and expression. The report criticizes the legislation that raises fines for unsanctioned rallies, the law on “foreign agents,” and the law that re-criminalized defamation. The report mentions multiple cases where Russian authorities have tried to intimidate opposition and civil society representatives. Among the examples are Investigative Committee Chairman Alexander Bastrykin’s threats against Sergei Solokov, chief editor of Novaya Gazeta, the attack against journalist Elena Milashina, andthe abduction of Left Front activist Leonid Razvozzhayev.
The situation in the North Caucasus remains of particular concern. Attacks on the regime’s opponents and pressure on human rights organizations continue, among other human rights violations. HRW criticizes Russia for its failure “meaningfully implement” decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. According to HRW, the Russian authorities do not conduct effective investigations “failing to hold perpetrators accountable.”
“This has been the worst year for human rights in Russia in recent memory.”
HRW took note of the much publicized case of Pussy Riot: “The authorities could have brought misdemeanor charges … under the code of administrative offenses but instead pursued criminal charges.” In addition, HRW noted the failure to provide appropriate medication to patients suffering from painful diseases, and Olympics-related human rights violations, such as forced evictions of people from their homes to erect Olympic facilities in Sochi.
A highly negative assessment of the human rights situation in Russia is not a bolt from the blue. Last month, at least two reports – the one issued by Freedom House and the other presented by “Reporters without Borders” – offered a very similar picture. Comparing the findings from the latest HRW report with its studies from many years ago, it is apparent that there is a great difference between the late 1980s and today in terms of expanding dialogue on human rights issues. The 1989 HRW report suggests that a number of Soviet leaders were more critical of the human rights situation in their country than even their foreign counterparts, including the U.S. State Department. In the same year, a report prepared by HRW–Helsinki Watch was encouraged by “the apparent willingness of the Soviet government to speak with Western human rights organizations.”1 According to those findings, the “deepening of respect for human rights” helped to lay the foundation for ending the Cold War.2
Two decades later, conditions in Russia are quite different. A good example is the predictable official reaction to criticism from HRW. Last year, speaking about the 2012 HRW report, Konstantin Kosachev, who at that time served as first deputy chairman of the Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, and, as of last year, heads Rossotrudnichestvo (which, ironically, is tasked with advancing Russia’s positive image abroad), said that only Russian human rights, nongovernmental, humanitarian, public, and/or political organizations can make assessment of the situation in Russia. This year, the Kremlin is continuing its campaign against international human rights reports. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich indicated that Russia’s human rights situation “is not the worst” and recommended that authors of such reports “look at themselves” before criticizing others. In the same vein, Sergei Markov, a member of the Public Chamber, claimed that, “with respect to Russia, such reports are developed on the basis of political considerations, rather than factual … That is why they can be unconditionally ignored.”
The 2013 World Report suggests that the Arab Spring gave hope to residents of a region where it was traditionally believed that resistance to democratic change might never be overcome. Human Rights Watch also has hopes—hopes of establishing at least some dialogue with the Russian authorities. In the words of Rachel Denber, “We would like to have a two-way street and constructive dialogue with the authorities … that just didn’t work in 2012. We are ready for dialogue. We would be happy to have talks with Peskov, Putin, anyone else. We are ready, open – let us do this.” Considering the almost unanimous official position, this is highly doubtful. Even if rights are violated, it does not matter that much. The Kremlin does not want any help from “annoying advisors.”
References
1. Helsinki Watch. (December, 1989). Toward the rule of law: Soviet legal reform under perestroika. The U.S. Helsinki Watch Committee.
2. Thomas, D. C. (2005). “Human rights ideas, the demise of communism, and the end of the Cold War,” Journal of Cold War Studies, 7(2), 110-141.
