Russia’s ‘welcome’ of a damning judgment on the detention of Mikhail Khodorkovsky says much about the rule of law in Russia.
The Queen of Hearts in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” once ordered her guards to change the colour of white roses to red, because that was the colour she liked best.
The Russian authorities did similarly this month. Having long denied any problem with the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, their most famous prisoner, they swiftly moved to ‘welcome’ a ruling on 31 May by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), despite the severe criticisms it included.
The ECHR’s comments were only the latest in a series of rebukes by the international community, which began soon after the businessman’s arrest in 2003. The court considered the degrading conditions of detention and the humiliating way in which Khodorkovsky has been kept and found grave violations of his fundamental rights. In doing so, it threw down the gauntlet to Moscow, by urging swift action to redress such failings.
This is significant, as the primary objective of the legal challenge itself was to show that Khodorkovsky’s rights had been violated from the start. What was not attempted was to prove that his arrest and detention were politically motivated. Despite that, the judges stated that “the court admits that the applicant’s case may raise a certain suspicion as to the real intent of the authorities”.
Indeed, the ECHR all but excused itself from not being able to take the further step of concluding that political calculations lay behind the initial arrest. It explained that its procedures, precedents and standards of proof for finding ‘political motivation’ are much more demanding than those used by other courts. The ECHR went on to note that such a threshold has only been met twice before, and that the politically motivation in those instances was well documented. Accordingly, it could not make an official finding of politicisation based on the absence of “incontrovertible” evidence.
How extraordinary, then, that Russia’s justice minister, Aleksandr Konovalov, should confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence. He suggested that the ECHR’s decision ought to calm the many critics of “improper allegations about the Russian justice system”.
It says much about the state of respect for the rule of law in Russia that a judgment that finds eight serious breaches of human rights can be ‘welcomed’ as vindication by the Kremlin.
Konovalov’s statements indicate that President Dmitry Medvedev’s promises of reform and modernisation, which once formed a core part of his wider strategy, now ring hollow. Instead of realising those ideals, the Kremlin has begun to send out a different message. The white flowers are indeed turning red.
The consequences of Russia’s denials are far-reaching. Investors have looked at the Yukos case and subsequent machinations and concluded that Russia is far too risky an investment prospect. The failed sale of a Moscow airport just last month was an ominous sign that the ‘Khodorkovsky discount’ is alive and well.
The main victim of this outflow of capital is the Russian economy, which now rests precariously upon high oil prices. Any drop in the price of crude could lead to major crisis.
The Arab spring demonstrated that citizens are no longer willing to sit by while authoritarian regimes squander natural-resource wealth, and use autocratic power to privilege themselves. It is contingent upon Russia’s political leadership to realise that their country is not immune to the winds of change sweeping the Arab world. Taking a hard look at the judgment in the Khodorkovsky case, which makes for a sobering read, ought to be a priority. Dismissing it out of hand simply is not good enough.
Medvedev, who has long proclaimed his respect for the ECHR, should seize on the ruling as an opportunity to assert his own position. Freeing Khodorkovsky would demonstrate that the rule of law remains alive and well. Ignoring the growing body of international criticism, as well as the economic consequences of state-sanctioned corruption, risks turmoil.
That would have consequences far beyond Russia’s borders. To use the leitmotif of recent years, Russia is simply ‘too big to fail’.
Malcolm Rifkind is chairman of the UK’s Intelligence and Security Committee and a former foreign minister of the UK.
As you have tired Russian people.
Khodorkovsky the thief and it should be imprisoned.
It would be better if certain parties in the West left the Khodorkovsky matter alone. You cannot blame Mr. Khodorkovsky’s defence team for trying all possible venues available to them in Europe in the hopes that they might shame the Kremlin into backtracking on previous statements, but that is unlikely. However, outspoken Western support for Mr. Khodorkovsky raises suspicions in Russia of duplicitous games. There are thousands of human rights violation complaints from Russia pending review in international courts and in many cases the crimes are far more horrendous than those purportedly perpetrated against Mr. Khodorkovsky, yet they are given little media attention. The above comment is rather characteristic of the general Russian reaction when they hear Western leaders criticize Russia’s treatment of Mr. Khodorkovsky. It hurts more than it actually helps. Mr. Khodorkovsky has earned the respect of many Russians because of his dignified demeanor throughout the entire ordeal, and his periodic sober writings on the state of modern Russia. If the West doesn’t mess it up for him, Mr. Khodorkovsky may yet emerge from prison as a prospective Russian leader, if not political then moral. Otherwise, his release might happen silently, his credibility already soiled by accusations that it was only his money and influential Western friends which guaranteed his case got the amount of attention it did. We Russians are team players, and we never take kindly to those that seek the help of outsiders. Nice fellows in the past like Kerensky, Witte, Gorbachev and others, who were full of bright ideas became political corpses in Russia shortly following their reaching out to the West. Such is the reality in Russia. He has already been in prison for 8 years, what does it matter if he stays a bit longer but emerges with some real influence with which he can effect positive change?