BRUSSELS –
Vladimir Putin’s return to the Kremlin as Russia’s
president was always a foregone conclusion. But, when he is sworn in on May 7,
he will retake formal charge of a country whose politics – even Putin’s own
political future – has turned unpredictable.
Instead, the Russian people have now challenged the status quo. Their reaction to Putin’s plan – from the announcement last September that President Dmitri Medvedev would stand aside for his mentor, to the deeply flawed parliamentary and presidential elections – and their accumulated resentment of Kremlin cronies’ massive enrichment, has placed pressure on Putin and the top-down system of government that he created.
How Putin, an astute politician, responds to that pressure will determine his political legacy. And the West’s response to Putin’s return to the presidency could have a marked effect on whether he presses for liberalizing reforms and survives, or follows his KGB-honed authoritarian instincts and stokes further protest.
Nothing illustrates Russia’s malaise under Putin better than the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer working for a British investment fund. He uncovered a massive tax fraud and alleged widespread collusion by the authorities. His reward for exposing this crime was to be imprisoned and mistreated until he died in mysterious circumstances. The Russian authorities are bizarrely continuing to prosecute him posthumously, as well as continuing to carry out the tax scams that he exposed.
The United States Congress is currently debating a law that would impose asset freezes and visa bans on the 60 people identified as having had some responsibility for Magnitsky's detention and death. Many of the law’s supporters want it to replace the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment, a Cold War-era law that restricts US trade with Russia – and that the Obama administration is pushing to repeal. Such a change would be doubly beneficial: it would both enhance trade and hold to account people responsible for egregious human-rights abuses.
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the House of Commons recently passed a resolution along the same lines as the proposed US legislation. London is a favorite destination for wealthy Russians, and the British government is now considering whether to support such an initiative, although there are indications that it will maintain an unofficial and unpublished list of the banned individuals in order to forestall legal challenges. In Ottawa, the Canadian parliament has called for similar measures, including asset freezes against those responsible for Magnitsky's death, as has the European Parliament, which has called for the European Union’s member states to take collective action.
Introducing such targeted sanctions would be an indisputable sign that the West will not compromise on its fundamental values – values that Putin’s Russia claims to share. It would also set a precedent that could be extended to all of those in Russia and other countries who regularly violate human rights, and not just those rights concerning physical inviolability.
For example, such measures could be extended to cover all of those who abuse the fundamental right of legal due process, such as the right to a fair trial. Doing so would highlight the famous case of former oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whose political ambitions alone landed him in prison, and who has been declared, after a second trial, a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.
Such measures could also include the abuse of prisoners’ rights, such as the case of Khodorkovsky’s former legal counsel Vasily Alexanyan, who was denied treatment for HIV in jail, and was released only after the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights. Medvedev’s announcement one day after Putin’s election on March 5 that the Khodorkovsky case will be reviewed is a hopeful start.
Imposing travel sanctions on suspected human-rights abusers is a sensible and practical way forward. It would show that the West does not seek to punish Russia or Russians generally, but only those individuals about whose role in human-rights violations the West has good evidence. And it would remind Russia of its international legal obligations, specifically as a member of both the OSCE and the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, including Russia and others who flout some its conventions.
In the past, Putin successfully marketed himself as a strongman, the epitome of stability, a guarantor against chaos. But now Putin’s style of government is Russia’s primary source of instability, as the country’s middle class takes to the streets in protest against the corruption and inefficiency of his rule. The West has an opportunity – and an obligation – to convince Putin that protecting his own interests requires profound and permanent democratic reform in Russia, starting with an unambiguous commitment to the rule of law. And Putin has a rare opportunity, as he begins his third term as President, to restore his deeply tarnished reputation.
Charles Tannock is ECR Foreign Affairs Spokesman in the European
Parliament.
普京的選擇
布魯塞爾——弗拉基米爾·普京重返克裡姆林宮擔任俄羅斯總統已成定局。但是，當他5月7日宣誓就職時，他將重新統治這個國家，而這個國家的政治，甚至普京自己的政治前途，已經變得不可預知。
在擔任總理擁有實際統治權之后，普京再次當選總統，這意味著他可以放心繼續領導 一個強大安定的國家，而沒有多黨制民主和爭吵的政治家埋下的潛在不穩定影響。
相反，俄羅斯人現在已經開始在挑戰現狀了。從去年九月公布計劃總統梅德韋杰夫將站在一旁為普京助陣，到有嚴重缺陷的議會和總統選舉，俄羅斯人民對普京的計劃及不斷積累的對克裡姆林宮親信的不滿情緒，給普京及其創建的政府自上而下的管理體系造成了很大的壓力。
普京這樣一位精明的政治家如何應對這種壓力將決定他留下什麼樣的政壇業績。西方國家對普京重返總統的回應將會對他是否推動自由化改革或他跟隨克格勃磨練出的獨裁本能和斯托克斯進一步抗議產生顯著的影響。
在普京的領導下俄羅斯萎靡不振，沒有什麼例子比英國投資基金工作的律師謝爾蓋·馬格尼茨基更合適了。他發現了一起大規模的騙稅，聲稱俄羅斯當局參與並勾結。他揭露這一罪行的獎勵是被關押和虐待直到他神秘死去。奇怪的是，俄羅斯當局在他死后仍繼續起訴他，繼續開展他暴露的稅收詐騙。
美國國會目前正在討論一項法律，該法律上將會對那些已經確定的對馬格尼茨基的拘留和死亡負有責任的60余人實行凍結資產和簽証禁令。許多該法律的支持者希望它代替所謂的杰克遜
·瓦尼克修正案，這是一項冷戰時期限制美國與俄羅斯貿易的法律，奧巴馬政府正在推動廢除該項法律。這種變化將加倍有益——既增強貿易，又使那些侵犯人權之人伏法。
與此同時，英國下議院最近通過了一項與美國議會相同的決議。倫敦是俄羅斯富翁最鐘愛的地方，英國政府正在考慮是否支持這種倡議，盡管有跡象表明，為防止法律上的挑戰，它會持有一份非官方的和未公布的被禁止的個人名單。在渥太華，加拿大議會也呼吁類似的措施，包括對那些為馬格尼茨基的死負責進行資產凍結，歐洲議會也採取了這樣的舉動，呼吁歐盟成員國採取集體行動。
推行這種有針對性的制裁將是一個不爭的跡象，這表明西方不會損害其基本價值觀，而這種價值觀普京統治下的俄羅斯聲稱是共有的。它還將開創一項先例，可以擴展到所有在俄羅斯和其他國家的經常侵犯人權的人，而不隻是那些有關身體不可侵犯的權利。
例如，這些措施可以擴展到包括所有濫用法律正當程序的基本權利，例如公正審判的權利。這樣做將突出前石油巨頭霍多爾·科夫斯基的著名案例——他的政治野心就足以使他入獄，而在二審過后被宣布為國際特赦組織的“良知囚犯”。
這些措施可能還包括虐待犯人的權利，如前霍多爾·科夫斯基的律師瓦西裡。他在監獄中被拒絕對其進行艾滋病治療，直到歐洲人權法院干預才被釋放。普京總統在3月5日的選舉后，梅德韋杰夫宣布霍多爾·科夫斯基的案子將會重審，這是一個充滿希望的開端。
對侵犯人權的嫌疑人施加旅行制裁是明智可行的方式。這表明西方國家並不尋求懲罰俄羅斯或俄國人，而隻針對那些西方國家有充分的証據可以証明侵犯人權的人。這會提醒俄羅斯要履行國際法律義務，特別是作為歐洲安全與合作組織和擁有47個會員國的歐洲理事會的成員國，其中包括俄羅斯和其他一些無視其公約的成員國。
過去，普京成功地將自己打造成一個強人形象，穩定的縮影，混亂的擔保人。但現在普京的政府作風是俄羅斯不穩定的主要來源，因為中產階級走上街頭抗議其政府統治腐敗和效率低下。西方有機會和義務說服普京，保護自己的利益需要進行深刻而永久的民主改革，而這項改革需要以明確的法治承諾開始。普京也有一個難得的機會——他開始了總統的第三個任期——以恢復他那被深深玷污的聲譽。
