The Top 10 Reasons You Should Support S. 1039

Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

When people think of President Barack Obama’s “reset” policy with Russia, the first things that come to mind are the deferral of the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a new nuclear arms reductions treaty, or maybe even the friendly hamburger summit with his contemporary President Dmitry Medvedev.

While there are no shortage of arguments disputing the advantages and failures of the reset strategy, when it comes to human rights, the most impactful policy proposal comes not from the White House or State Department, bur rather an item of legislation conceived last year by Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-Md). The draft law aims to become a model for the way governments can emphasize values and combat human rights abuses through the creation of specific disincentives targeted at those responsible. How does it work? Instead of punishing citizens who also suffer under these officials, the law would focus on visa restrictions of certain officials, and halt their use of Western financial institutions to launder ill-gotten funds.

The draft bill, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, or S. 1039, is nominally a response to international condemnation over the tragic case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer turned whistleblower whose horrific death in pre-trial detention exposed the darkest hue of Russia’s “legal nihilism.” More recently it is being updated to a “rule of law in Russia” list, containing the names of some of the officials responsible for the show trials of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev, and the theft of Yukos.

To be sure, the abuses in the Magnitsky and Khodorkovsky cases are universally deplored, but US voters may be questioning whether the new law is worth the potential cost to diplomatic and trade ties with a Russian government that, at least in terms of rhetoric, seems to be saying all the right things. The debate has ramped up in recent days, after Samuel Charap, director for Russia and Eurasia at the Center for American Progress, penned an editorial attacking the legislation. Charap’s main issue wasn’t that the human rights violations in question, but rather the proposal of S. 1039 as a forced sequel to the outdated Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974.

His article has raised some controversy, with a number of commentators firing back in support of the bill. One blogger argued that S. 1039 is not about individual cases, as suggested by Charap, but rather systemic features that are bound to pop up again in the future: “Magnitsky’s case isn’t an isolated one; it is an atrocity in its own right, given the numerous *deliberately cruel* facets of the system it exposes, but abusive pre-trial conditions and unfair trials – these are the norm for many people in Russia and for business people, it should stand as a huge warning.”

We think the bill’s many strengths outweigh its problems. Here are the top 10 reasons why we think you should support the bill.

1. Because we can set an example.

Over the past decade of Vladimir Putin’s rule of Russia, the basic corruption filtering through nearly all institutions of government has created a significant threat to rights, leading one Spanish prosecutor cited in the Wikileaks cables to describe the regime as a “criminal mafia state.” Forget about replacing the outdated, and frankly, in my opinion, unfair Jackson-Vanik legislation: S. 1039 is about making a statement on moral grounds to resist these developments in Russia and set an example. As argued by Garry Kasparov in a testimony before the Senate: “Putin’s oligarchs own global companies, buy real estate in London, Biarritz, New York City. The money they have pilfered from Russia’s treasury goes to buy art, yachts, and American and British sports teams. In short, they wish to enjoy the spoils and this makes them vulnerable. (…) Even the suggestion that their investments abroad might be investigated would cause shockwaves in the Kremlin power structure.”

2. The bill is targeted, not indiscriminate.

This bill represents an attempt to produce targeted disincentives toward specific individuals who violate human rights, instead of punishing the citizens of the country as a whole and ending up with possible collateral damage. (In Iran, for example, some have argued that blanket sanctions led to the disintegration of the country’s commercial airline fleet, and, possibly, a series of deadly crashes.) In other words, the Magnitsky bill rewrites the sanctions game in a new and creative way.

3. The act is not revolutionary

The Helsinki Final Act of 1974, and related agreements, defined human rights as not exclusively an internal affair of any signatory, but a basic stipulation. Thus, it is well within our rights to challenge Russia in this arena. Moreover, denying visas to members of organized crime syndicates has been done before, to members and leaders of the Italian Mafia. The situation in Russia isn’t very different. In poll after poll, Russians have let it be known that corruption and its violent ancillaries have proliferated to such an extent as to become systemic barricades to democracy, economic development, and human rights. When a country’s leadership becomes enmeshed in organized criminal activity, it’s time to lower the boom.

4. Because Russia has a history of breaking rules.

One of Charap’s principle arguments was that the U.S. needs to take a less aggressive route to take towards human rights compliance, by bringing Russia into more international “norms based institutions” like the WTO. That’s all fine and well, and I think we should all encourage Russia to join more institutions and abide by their rules to govern relations with neighbors. But the problem is that Russia already is a member of several such groups that condemn human rights violations, such as the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Nevertheless, Russia has failed to prosecute atrocities against Chechen villagers by Russian troops-a mandate of its CoE membership-opposed a UN Security Council resolution against Syria for political reasons, and when it comes to the OSCE, basically blocked democratic programs everywhere. Taking into account a recent draft bill in the Duma that will allow them to avoid any obligations resulting from decisions of the European Human Rights Court (ECHR) (an item of legislation directly aimed at escaping responsibility for the Khodorkovsky case), shows that we can hardly count upon “more rule-based institutions” to make any difference toward Russian conduct. In today’s international landscape, you need laws, and not promises, to get things done.

5. Values matter

Whenever we discuss the U.S. government’s position on human rights, we fall into a debate on values vs. interests. From the “realist” school of foreign policy, one favored by the likes of Henry Kissinger, values must play a secondary role to interests – such as economy and security – in relations with Russia. On the other side are the liberal internationalists, who argue that diplomacy must be executed on the basis of principles. Although this a reckless reduction of a complicated debate, we are presented with a false choice.

However realism falls apart the moment a given country is deprived of the reason and logic of a unitary actor. In the case of Russia, there are many competing camps within the power structure, and the question of “what Russia wants” represents a mistaken assumption of consensus. The overlapping and often mutually antagonistic interests inside the Russian government, especially in the context of the corruption of a low-ranking African nation, means that the policy outcomes that Washington thinks it is pursuing are illusory. The targeted disincentives of this draft bill will encourage the right kinds of minds to gain prominence in Russia, while those who favor their personal benefits under lawlessness become less influential.

6. It’s universal

There will of course be arguments against S.1039 citing the imposition of Western values upon a society that has a different culture. But democracy, justice, human rights, and rule of law are universal values that know no borders.

When you look at the long list of victims in Russia, ranging from Anna Politkovskaya to Natalia Estemirova to Stanislav Markelov, there are common systemic features that made these crimes possible, including but not limited to impunity, corruption, and politicized courts that only seem to be good at prosecuting fabricated cases. The values being sought in S. 1039 target these behaviors, trends, and actors, and have a direct connection to “interests” such as the country’s economic development, security relations, and nearly every aspect of the U.S.-Russia relationship. To pretend as though interests exist in vacuum, separated from values, is a dangerous mistake.

7. Past approaches have made zero progress

A key question is whether or not Russians themselves can change the system from within, independent of any outside assistance or encouragement. That appears to be the advice of Charap, who believes that the Russian opposition should be left to its own devices to combat the legal black hole created by the diumvirate.

But if that’s what’s going to work, we sure haven’t seen much progress yet. Although there is clear evidence that the Russian public has become increasingly frustrated with official corruption, they lack the means to do anything about it. Television isn’t allowed to criticize the state, the very small opposition movement has been denied the opportunity to even compete in the elections (one would think that if they are as small and harmless as the Kremlin likes to claim, that they would let them compete), and even general whistleblowers like Alexei Navalny face constant pressure and false legal probes.

Nothing has worked so far, so it’s time for Washington to consider a gamechanger – and this legislation provides a specific yet gentle item of leverage for citizens to bring accountability to officials that violate rights and break the law.

8. The bill will be highly effective

A common argument is that Russia is too strong for this kind of leverage; that so long as oil stays near $100 a barrel that the Kremlin doesn’t have to listen to anyone. If a minor sanction toward individual corrupt officials isn’t going to make a difference, some might argue, then why damage our relations by taking a moral stand on the Magnitsky and Khodorkovsky cases. But what’s missing from this analysis is how interwoven Russia’s success is to the Western markets, and how dependent Russia’s elite is on the international banking system. There might not be a “unitary, rational actor” in the Russian government, but what you do have is a collective desire for acceptance on the world stage, to assume the roles of leadership of a great country in every international institution it can – and frankly Russia deserves this. However, it is specifically these same wealthy state officials who distrust Russia’s own courts to protect their assets, and who prefer to move their money out to foreign accounts, go shopping in Paris and Manhattan, send their children to schools in these countries, and plan a retirement outside of Russia where one day a real court might come after them for their crimes. These people are indeed very concerned about S. 1039.

9. Let’s talk about legal corruption

The most important benefit of this draft law is not what will happen to this or that person if it is enacted, but rather the discussion that will ensue. Already some reactive elements in the Duma have tabled their own “blacklist” to target the assets and travel privileges of certain Americans as a tit-for-tat kind of response, however the initiative really isn’t catching on. Why, for example, would Russian people want to sign up to protect some millionaire bureaucrats that stole money and helped kill Sergei Magnitsky, a completely innocent guy who could’ve been your neighbor’s son? The Duma bill is attempting to create a connection between S. 1039 and ALL Russians, but nobody is buying that line. Who are these people on the list, and why did they get there? Why have Russian courts been unable to bring them to account?

These are all very interesting questions that Russian society will discuss, leading to more questions about the problems of corruption within Russia’s legal system and the official apparatus at large. Civil society will play the most important role in reforming Russia, and these conversations are what will push the public debate forward with new demands and calls upon politicians to take action.

10. Because it’s the right thing to do

Many people have suffered horrendously in Russia because of corruption in the courts. The inability to punish those responsible for these abuses of state power only encourages more and more violations of human rights. This goes way beyond any single one case, and encompasses a profoundly broken system that poses a danger not just to citizens, business, and Russia’s relations with the world, but also to the country’s economic and social development. It is in everyone’s interests that we stand up for basic universal humanitarian principles and support these efforts to curb corruption and violations of human rights.

By James Kimer, Guest Commentator to the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev Communications Center займ на карту без отказов круглосуточно займы на карту https://zp-pdl.com https://www.zp-pdl.com hairy women