Posts Tagged ‘european voice’

04
October 2013

The Kremlin starts punching

European Voice

Ways to respond to Russia’s efforts to prevent agreements between the EU and its eastern neighbours. Making friends is one thing. Influencing them is another. Russia has no desire to make friends out of its former empire. It settles for bullying them instead.

In startling form in recent weeks, the Kremlin has taken off the gloves in its dealings with its neighbours. It started trade wars with Moldova, Ukraine and Lithuania, and terrified Armenia into giving up, for now, its plans to do a deal with the European Union at the Vilnius summit in November.

A big Russian-Belarusian military exercise, Zapad-13, supposedly rehearsed counter-terrorism operations, but with warplanes and missiles – to intimidate the Baltic states and Poland. A Finnish lawyer, Kari Silvennoinen, who has written books denouncing Stalinist aggression, was detained at Moscow airport and deported.

The response so far has been modest. The EU is considering opening its market to Moldovan wine. Estonia’s President Toomas Hendrick Ilves hurried to Chisinau this week to lend support. The EU has protested about the treatment of Lithuania, which currently holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers, and of Ukraine. Ukraine is trying to buy gas from Slovakia, reversing the normal flow of the east-west pipeline, to get round the impending squeeze from Russia. But political considerations in Bratislava are slowing this down.

On the military front, NATO’s Steadfast Jazz exercise in early November is much smaller than Russia’s effort. And NATO is bending over backwards to insist that this drill, the first such exercise to be held in the new member states, is all about interoperability and certification, and absolutely nothing to do with showing the means and will to deter any Russian mischief on the alliance’s north-east flank.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
13
June 2013

Fright follows flight

Fright follows flight

A growing number of Russians want to emigrate; but even those who leave have cause for fear
Sergei Guriev admits that his wife was right. Two years ago she left for Paris, saying that it was not safe to live under the regime of President Vladimir Putin. Now the leading Russian economist is joining her. The trigger was a request from the authorities to seize his emails, apparently in preparation for a case against him. His crime is unclear: it may have been giving an expert opinion about the legal status of Yukos, once Russia’s largest oil company, which was spectacularly dismembered in a Kremlin-sponsored raid ten years ago.

Guriev’s departure is part of a trend. Garry Kasparov, the chess champion and opposition leader, says it is too risky to return to Russia. Friends of Alexei Navalny, another opposition leader, fear he has left it too late: he faces jail on trumped-up fraud charges.

The mixture of lawlessness and repression is chilling. Overall, nearly a quarter of Russians want to emigrate. The figure is striking: 22%, up from 13% in 2009. The survey is by the Levada centre, Russia’s best-known opinion pollster, which the authorities are harassing because it receives some money from abroad and is therefore a “foreign agent”.

The unhappiest are the middle classes, who should be the biggest beneficiaries of the boom of the past 13 years: 45% of students and 38% of entrepreneurs want to leave, with the highest figures in Moscow and other big cities. So far emigration is a ripple, not a wave. About three-quarters of the discontented say they will stay put. Only 1% of those surveyed are actually taking practical steps to go.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
08
May 2013

Russia’s child-shields

European Voice

To prevent corrupt Russian officials being barred from Europe, Russia is now using the threat of an adoption ban against European states.

I am no great fan of the international adoption business – it can easily turn into a corrupt, unregulated and even sinister market in children. It is much better to deal with the reasons that the children end up in institutions in the first place and to encourage people to provide homes for them in their own country.

Now Russia is threatening to ban international adoptions. Not as part of a big push to improve child welfare, but to punish foreign countries for their temerity in imposing visa sanctions and asset freezes on the people – mainly officials – involved in the death of the auditor Sergei Magnitsky, and the $230 million (€176m) fraud that he uncovered.

It is worth bearing in mind the nature of the fraud. My email inbox is peppered with complaints from foreigners who have fallen foul of officialdom or local competitors in Russia. My answer is always the same: tough. If you go mud-wrestling, in a seemingly lucrative contest where the referee is known to be corruptible, and where your adversaries are rich and unscrupulous, you will certainly get dirty and may well lose.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
04
April 2013

Why the EU needs a Magnitsky act

European Voice

The European Union should show that it is prepared to act against human-rights abuses in Russia
If there is one thing that truly alarms the Russian elite, it is the prospect of being denied access to their European villas and Europe’s shops. Indeed, within hours of returning to the presidency last May Vladimir Putin passed an executive order pointedly prioritising the fight against “unilateral extraterritorial sanctions” against Russian “legal entities and individuals”.

Although he did not mention Sergei Magnitsky by name, Putin’s move was an unambiguous reference to the threat of targeted sanctions against the Russian officials identified as having played a role in the detention, torture and death of Magnitsky, a lawyer who uncovered the embezzlement of $230 million (€180m) of state money.

Putin’s executive order specifically mentioned the United States. Undeterred, seven months later Congress passed the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act, which imposes a travel ban and asset freeze on those who were involved in the events that led to Magnitsky’s death.

Russia’s reaction was furious, expressed most evidently in a hastily adopted law banning the adoption of Russian children by US citizens.

Imagine, then, how much harsher Russia’s reaction would have been if that legislation had been passed by the European Union. For Russians, Europe is closer physically, and more significant economically than the US. Europe’s fashion, private schools and, increasingly, the certainties of its legal systems and free societies are profoundly attractive to wealthy Russians.

But the probability of a tough reaction should not dissuade the EU from doing what it should. Russia has been allowed for too long to lead and manipulate its relationship with the EU.

A European Magnitsky list would be a powerful sign of solidarity with Magnitsky’s family, and a carefully targeted affirmation of European values.

But the EU could go further still. Last October, the European Parliament voted in favour of a recommendation that called for sanctions not just against those who connived in Magnitsky’s death, but also for similar measures against those thought to be responsible for other serious human-rights violations.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
13
December 2012

Avenging a whistleblower

European Voice

The passage of the ‘Magnitsky list’ puts the US back on the moral high ground. What does ‘eastern Europe’ think about the new American administration? That was the question that CEPA, a Washington, DC think-tank where I am a non-resident fellow, set me last month.

My answer was “not much”. For a start, I argued that the idea of a homogenous ‘east European’ region of ardent Atlanticists is out of date. Only Poland and Estonia pay their real dues to NATO (spending 2% of gross domestic product on defence). They and a few other countries still have specific expectations of US military involvement in Europe, exemplified by NATO’s contingency planning and next year’s Steadfast Jazz exercise. This will defend a fictitious chunk of NATO from a fictitious adversary. It just happens to take place mostly in Poland and the Baltic states. But most countries when they think about the US do so as Europeans, not as ‘ex-communist countries’. Just like most Europeans, they want the US to be strong and friendly.

But expectations are modest. After 1989, the US was the single most important country for newly free Europe. Not any more. For those in search of an economic and political model, the Nordic countries offer the best example of dynamic capitalism and high-quality public services. The US is a friend, but for the most part a far-away and distracted one.

I pooh-poohed the US’s role a bit prematurely. It is true that the administration is not greatly focused on Europe. But the US is more than the administration. Congress has put the US back on the moral high ground, by passing a law containing the ‘Magnitsky list’.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
13
July 2012

Words of wisdom for a captive audience?

European Voice

Barack Obama’s Captive Nations Week speech will likely favour blandness over stirring rhetoric.
As regular readers of this column may know, since 1959 the United States has marked the third week in July as Captive Nations Week. It arrived on the political calendar thanks to a joint resolution of Congress and it has remained there ever since. It decries the enslavement by communist imperialism of “Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia, White Ruthenia, Rumania, East Germany, Bulgaria, mainland China, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, North Korea, Albania, Idel-Ural, Tibet, Cossackia, Turkestan, North Viet-Nam, and others”.

It was a rum list even then: it ignored Yugoslavia (captive to communism but not the Soviet empire), and nations such as the Circassians whose history gives them every cause to complain. It includes some obscure candidates (Cossackia) but ignores Russia itself, which has a good claim to be the first inmate of the communist prison and its greatest victim. Eleven of the nations mentioned, or the countries that they now form, are safely in NATO or the EU or both.

Yet the job is only half-done. Most of the countries that were unfree before 1989 are unfree now. So the main message should still be clear. That the US, “the citadel of human freedom” (in the words of the original law), cares about their plight is a powerful, encouraging message for, say, Tibetans – a truly captive nation in the old sense of the phrase – and for those in the slave labour camps of communist China, or in the still more barbarous conditions of North Korea.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
17
May 2012

Time to staunch the flow of dirty money from Russia

European Voice

What to do in the face of 12 more years of Putin? Follow the money, for a start.

The bombast and luxury were spectacular, but the foreign guestlist was on the sparse side. Two former European leaders, Gerhard Schröder and Silvio Berlusconi, were there to see Vladimir Putin inaugurated as Russia’s president in Moscow on 7 May, but almost nobody else from abroad.

That highlights the friendlessness of the Putin regime. But even if foreigners had turned up, what would they have said? Europe and the United States are finding it hard to know what to do as they face perhaps 12 more years of Putin.

One school of thought counsels rapprochement. We have to deal with Russia as it is, rather than as we would like it to be. In Britain, this camp is urging Prime Minister David Cameron to take the opportunity of Putin’s visit to the London Olympics in June to try a British ‘re-set’.

That approach is the triumph of hope over experience. The dire outcome of the American ‘re-set’ highlights the difficulty of trying a fresh start. The Russian regime, burdened with the distorting and paranoid prism of the KGB mind-set, pockets concessions rather than reciprocating them. Indeed, nothing being said or done in Moscow suggests that a softer line will bear fruit. The chief of the Russian general staff recently threatened a pre-emptive strike against US missile-defence installations in Europe.

Another school is ‘business as usual’. That is the approach of Germany and Poland. They have no illusions about Putin (and did not make the US’s error of wasting time and energy dealing with his token stand-in from 2008 to 2012, Dmitry Medvedev). Putin may or may not survive his full term. The regime may even tweak its business model. The main thing is to be sober and realistic, neither provoking nor conceding.

That is wrong too. One reason is that it leaves the countries in Russia’s shadow dangerously exposed. People in this camp have no worries about humiliating Georgia. They are loathe to stand up to Russia if it interferes in the internal politics of the Baltic states. They tend to be overly sanguine about the tide of dirty Russian money swilling through the West’s financial markets.

That is bad not only because the money corrupts those it touches. This stance also makes the West complicit in the misdeeds of the Russian regime. An interesting new note in the opposition protests in Moscow recently is anti-Westernism. Europe and the US are in fact propping up the regime, so goes the argument, because it has invested so many hundreds of billions of dollars in the Western financial system.

This is paradoxical in a sense: Putin thinks the protestors are Western puppets, just as they think he is part of a plutocratic and rapacious global elite. But it is not absurd. Although Western governments may in some cases discreetly wish the protestors well, their efforts are trivial compared with those of banks, law firms, PR companies and others who have their snouts firmly in the Kremlin trough.

Laundering Russian money in the West is lucrative. But it is risky too. What happens when the regime changes? New rulers in Moscow (perhaps liberal, more likely with a nationalist tinge) will have some hard questions for countries that have connived in the looting of the past decade.

The West’s best policy, as the brave and brilliant Russian commentator Lilia Shevtsova points out, would be to “practise what you preach”. Recent steps against Belarus, and a move taken by Swiss investigators arising out of the $230 million (€178m) fraud uncovered by the murdered lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, show what can be done. But so many bigger and juicier targets remain untouched.

The writer is central and eastern Europe correspondent of The Economist. займ на карту без отказов круглосуточно займ на карту срочно без отказа https://zp-pdl.com/fast-and-easy-payday-loans-online.php https://zp-pdl.com/online-payday-loans-in-america.php займы на карту срочно

деньги на карту без отказов срочно credit-n.ru взять займ на карту без отказа онлайн
online кредит на карту credit-n.ru онлайн кредит без процентов на карту
онлайн кредит на киви кошелёк credit-n.ru займ на киви кошелек без отказов мгновенно
быстрый кредит без проверок credit-n.ru кредит под 0 на карту

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
26
March 2012

An outdated sanction impedes leverage over Russia

European Voice

What measures could be taken to exert pressure on the Kremlin without punishing ordinary Russians?
The US senators Scoop Jackson and Charles Vanik are dead. The country they sought to pressure – the Soviet Union – is gone, and Russia, for all its faults, does not restrict the emigration that they wanted to liberalise.

Yet the ghosts of the Cold War still haunt the US’s relations with the Kremlin. So too do other more recent ghosts, such as the ‘re-set’ – a useful gimmick in its day, perhaps, but now an embarrassment overdue for retirement.

The big argument in Washington, DC now is not about binning the re-set but about the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which restricts ‘most-favoured’ (ie, normal) trade relations with countries with non-market economies that restrict emigration.

In practice, Jackson-Vanik is an irritant, not an obstacle. The administration routinely waives its provisions. But would it send the wrong message to Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin to lift it unilaterally, as common sense demands now that Russia is joining the World Trade Organization? And if so, would visa restrictions on those involved in the Magnitsky affair be a sufficient counterweight? (It may be worth reminding some readers that Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who uncovered a $230 million – €175m – fraud perpetrated on the Russian taxpayer by corrupt officials, was jailed as a result, kept in horrific conditions when he refused to snitch on his client, and died after a savage beating.)

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
15
March 2012

An unbeatable insight into the minds that control Russia

European Voice

Foreigners seeking to explain the paranoia of Kremlin’s elite need only look to the country’s state-sponsored television.

Russia Today, the state-financed television channel for foreigners, is a must-watch. Not because of journalistic excellence: it has glitzy presentation but huge holes in its coverage and bizarre quirks in its editorial outlook. But it does give an unbeatable insight into the minds of the people who run it – and into the regime that sponsors it.

To be fair, I should note that the channel has substantial strengths. It reports thoroughly on official utterances and it covers most of the headline stories in Russia with reasonable professionalism. In that sense it is quite different from the old Soviet media, which simply ignored topics that did not fit the official line. Russia Today has reported, for example, on the grotesque posthumous trial of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who died in prison after exposing a $230 million (€175m) fraud against the Russian taxpayer, perpetrated by officials. It also rarely misses a story about UFOs or life on Venus.

But the hallmark of Russia Today is anti-Westernism. It gleefully highlights weaknesses, anomalies and double standards in countries that like to criticise Russia. The message is blunt: get your own house in order before lecturing others. Human-rights violations, political corruption and economic weaknesses get a particularly enthusiastic outing, even when the factual basis is tenuous or non-existent. One commentator says that the US is fascist. Another report claims that Nazism is on the rise in Germany and the Baltic states.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg