[Senate Hearing 112-367]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-367
THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN RUSSIA: U.S. POLICY
OPTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 14, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-919 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania MARCO RUBIO, Florida
JIM WEBB, Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE LEE, Utah
William C. Danvers, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JIM WEBB, Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Wyoming, opening statement 2
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from Maryland, statement.. 4
Gordon, Hon. Philip H., Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of State,
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of
State, Washington, DC.......................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Kramer, David, president, Freedom House, Washington, DC.......... 29
Malinowski, Tom, Washington director, Human Rights Watch,
Washington, DC................................................. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Melia, Thomas O., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Verona, Edward, president and CEO, U.S.-Russia Business Council,
Washington, DC................................................. 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Hon. Roger F. Wicker, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, prepared
statement...................................................... 51
December 13, 2011, New York Times article, ``2 Leaders in Russian
Media Are Fired After Election Articles''...................... 52
Letter in support of S. 1039 from Boris Nemtsov, cochairman,
People's Freedom Party (Russia)................................ 54
Prepared statement in support of S. 1039 from Garry Kasparov,
chairman, United Civil Front, London, England.................. 55
(iii)
THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN RUSSIA: U.S. POLICY
OPTIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on European Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne
Shaheen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Shaheen, Cardin, Barrasso, and Corker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Good morning, everyone. We're going to try
and begin right on time because we have votes scheduled.
Obviously, since we're doing a hearing in Foreign Relations we
will have votes scheduled. So hopefully we will have someone
here who can continue to cover the hearing during the votes.
But if not, we may have to recess between the panels. So I will
just advise everyone that we expect that to happen about 10:45.
So thank you all very much for joining us. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee meets today to discuss the state of
human rights and the rule of law in Russia, a particularly
timely topic given the protests over the past week in response
to national elections that have been marred by fraud and abuse.
This month, the world commemorates the 20th anniversary of
the fall of the Soviet Union. The leadership in Russia chose to
mark this anniversary by manipulating elections and engineering
a carefully orchestrated political switch at the top. Misters
Putin and Medvedev plan to swap spots, with Putin returning as
President and Medvedev taking the Prime Minister post.
Following Russia's parliamentary elections, independent
domestic monitors as well as international observers on the
ground in Russia reported vote stealing, fraud, and abuse from
Putin's United Russia Party. Initial protests saw a swift
response from riot police, who unjustly arrested hundreds of
peaceful protesters, opposition leaders, and human rights
activists, some of whom are still in jail today. Despite the
dangers, protesters continue to take to the streets, calling
for the release of those arrested, new parliamentary elections,
and an investigation of the recent fraud.
Despite President Medvedev's strong rhetoric on fighting
corruption, the absence of an adequate rule of law doesn't just
mean that the judicial system is weak. It also undermines
entrepreneurial business leaders in Russia and scares off
foreign investment. This leads to an anticompetitive
environment where connections to the ruling regime matter more
than business models.
A strong, successful, and transparent Russia that protects
the rights of its citizens is squarely in the interests of the
United States and the entire international community. So, even
as we work with Russia on areas of mutual interest through the
Obama administration's ``reset'' policy, we still need new
tools to press its leaders on areas where we disagree.
One way currently being considered is the Sergei Magnitsky
Rule of Law Accountability Act. This legislation, introduced by
Senator Cardin--you arrived just in time--cosponsored by 25
Senators, including myself, is currently pending before this
committee.
Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who exposed
government corruption and who died under questionable
circumstances during his detention. The legislation, named in
his honor, would blacklist any Russian believed to be
responsible for major human rights violations from receiving a
visa to travel to the United States. The measure would also
subject these individuals to a possible freezing of their
assets.
This summer the State Department barred dozens of Russian
officials from traveling to the United States over their
involvement in the detention and death of Mr. Magnitsky. I
appreciate the administration's efforts, but hope there is more
that we can do. I hope our witnesses today will provide their
views on the current legislation and we look forward to a very
constructive dialogue.
I also want to call attention to one more immediate action
that the Senate could take. Right now Dr. Michael McFaul, a
renowned human rights and democracy expert, still awaits
confirmation as the next U.S. Ambassador to Moscow. Given the
ongoing volatility in Russia, we need a strong diplomatic
presence in the country as soon as possible, and I hope the
Senate will act very soon on his nomination.
Now, before introducing our first two witnesses, I want to
recognize our ranking member, Senator Barrasso, as well as the
cochair of the Helsinki Commission and, as I said, the author
of the Magnitsky legislation, Senator Cardin, both of whom have
some brief opening remarks.
Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Following up on your remarks about the election, widespread
election fraud, there was an article in today's New York Times,
``Two Leaders in Russian Media Fired After Election Articles.''
And it talks about how there was an apparent conflict over
coverage that appeared to highlight the widespread anger across
the country with results of parliamentary elections this month.
So I'd like to, if I could, Madam Chairman, put that into the
record.
Senator Shaheen. Without objection.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you.
So I just want to thank you. I want to welcome the
witnesses, thank all of you for being here today, because it's
a critical time to be examining the status of the rule of law
and human rights. The United States has always been a strong
advocate for democracy, for rule of law, and for human rights
abroad. These are incredibly important issues and deserve the
attention of this committee and of the entire United States
Senate.
Over the last 3 years, the administration has touted their
reset of United States-Russian relations. I perceive the reset
as not successful and I believe it has simply amounted in a
number of ways to a series of appeasements to Russia. Even in
the few areas where the administration does claim progress,
Russia has taken several steps back or even reversed course.
I have serious concerns with the actions being taken by the
Government of Russia. Some of these concerns include Russia's
attempt to undermine U.S. missile defense, Russia's continued
occupation and interference in the sovereign territory of the
Republic of Georgia, Russia's supplying of weapons to the
Government of Syria as the Assad regime continues a violent
crackdown against its own citizens, Russia's extensive
corruption throughout its government, Russia's ongoing
violations of human rights, Russia's disregard for the rule of
law, and Russia's repression of the freedom of speech and
expression.
Several reports and studies continue to emphasize the
problems and deteriorating conditions in Russia. The Department
of State's 2010 Human Rights Report included a 92-page section
describing the human rights violations in Russia. The report
outlines serious human rights abuses, including the killing of
journalists, extremely harsh and life-threatening conditions of
prisons, violations of the freedom of speech, failure to abide
by the rule of law, as well as a number of arbitrary
detentions.
If you take a look at how they rank the 183 countries in
perceived levels of public sector corruption, something called
the Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index,
Russia is seen as more corrupt than 142 other countries. The
Reporters Without Borders ranked Russia as 140th in the 2010
World Press Freedom Index.
So, Madam Chairman, I believe that today's hearing is
particularly timely to the recent electoral fraud and protests
taking place in Russia that you have mentioned and that are in
today's New York Times. Secretary Clinton has characterized the
December 4 elections as neither fair nor free, and I agree with
her. The preliminary report from the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe outlined numerous problems with the
elections, including attempts to stuff ballot boxes, to
manipulate voters lists, and other abuses.
Our Nation believes in a fundamental value of democracy. We
believe in the right of people to freely express their views
about their government and have their votes counted. The people
of Russia are expressing this same desire.
Last week, the world watched as tens of thousands of
Russian citizens gathered to protest the rigged elections. It's
important that we support the people of Russia in their pursuit
of free, fair, and transparent elections.
So thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to the
testimony.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, Madam Chair, first of all thank you
for convening this hearing, and thank you for allowing me to
make just very brief opening comments.
Let me thank our witnesses for their work. Russia is an
important country for the United States and our relationship
with Russia. It's important in our fight against terrorism.
It's important in our work within the United Nations, within
Europe, and around the world. So it's an issue that we all take
very, very seriously as to how we can improve the relationship
between our two countries.
But what we have seen in Russia are troubling trends. We
saw that most recently in the Duma elections, which were
anything but fair and free and open, the intimidations that
were used, and now the concern as to how Russia will handle
legitimate protests against the manner in which that election
was conducted.
We see that in the safety of journalists, who have been
intimidated against investigative reporting. And we see it in
widespread corruption within the Russian Government.
As the chairman indicated, I have the honor of being the
Senate chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which is one of
our oldest human rights organizations. We monitor human rights
certainly within the OSCE geography, but basically globally,
and we will bring out what's happening in countries. In Russia
it's very concerning to us, the amount of human rights
violations.
But people sort of gloss over the numbers, but when you
have an individual case I think people can relate to just the
tragedy of what's happening. Sergei Magnitsky is an example of
a person who tried to do the right thing, as the chairman
pointed out. He was representing a client and discovered
corruption within the governmental system. So he did what he
should have done, brought it to the attention of the Russian
authorities, and he paid a heavy price for doing that. He was
arrested on trumped-up charges and thrown in prison. He was
tortured. Then we believe the higher authorities instructed the
prison system not to give him health care to meet his needs,
and he died in prison.
So that's why we all get concerned about this, is that
there are so many Sergei Magnitsky's that are out there and
unless we put a spotlight on this it will just continue. So we
are concerned about this, and we are concerned about how Russia
is responding to this.
The bill that I filed on behalf of many of my colleagues
makes it clear that if you violate basic human rights, don't
ask for the privilege to visit the United States. We think that
is something we should all be doing. And I applaud the
administration for taking action under the authority that they
have--which, by the way, I pointed out with a letter that we
wrote before filing our legislation, that that authority
exists--of denying people the right for a visa to come to
America if they have violated basic human rights. That needs to
be done.
But because the United States acted, the international
community is now acting, and we're finding other countries are
passing similar statutes to deny the rights of those who have
violated human rights to visit their country. That's
leadership.
Madam Chair, we know at the same time that Russia is moving
for admission within the WTO, and in order for that to be
effective in the United States we have to repeal what's known
as the Jackson-Vanik law. Jackson-Vanik was passed by Congress
to speak about human rights, the basic right for people to
emigrate from the former Soviet Union. That's how Jackson-Vanik
came about. It was a human rights connection.
I think it's right for us to be asking that if we want to
have normal trade with Russia, we have a right to expect that
they will adhere to basic human rights.
That's why, Madam Chair, I am so pleased that you're
holding this hearing, where we can explore the human rights
record within the Russian Federation.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
I'm pleased to welcome our first panel this morning: Dr.
Phil Gordon, who's the Assistant Secretary of State at the
Bureau for European and Eurasian Affairs; and we also have
Thomas Melia, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State at
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Thank you
both for being here. Dr. Gordon, would you like to begin?
STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP H. GORDON, PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF STATE, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Gordon. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Ranking
Member Barrasso, and other members of the committee. We very
much appreciate the opportunity to discuss the question of
human rights and democracy in Russia. With your permission,
I'll submit my longer statement for the record and focus on
some critical elements here.
Madam Chairman, thanks also for your remarks about the
nominee for Russia, Mike McFaul. Mike is a supremely qualified
nominee for Russia and, as you suggested, given everything
that's going on there, it would be very useful to have him out
there as soon as possible.
The topic of today's hearing is particularly timely
following the parliamentary elections in Russia 10 days ago.
Secretary Clinton and the White House have publicly expressed
serious concern about the conduct of these polls, which were
marred by numerous irregularities. This past Saturday, tens of
thousands of Russians took to the streets across the country in
demonstrations that were notably peaceful and free from
official interference.
As Secretary Clinton said following the election--and I
want to reiterate here--``The Russian people, like people
everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and
their votes counted.'' And that means they deserve free, fair,
transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.
We believe that's in the best interest of Russia and we're
going to continue to speak out about it.
Now, of course speaking out about democracy and human
rights in Russia is not new for this administration. Our policy
has been and remains guided by clear principles that enable us
to have an effective working relationship with Russia's
Government while also strongly supporting civil society,
democracy, and human rights.
Let me start with a word on foreign policy cooperation in
general. President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary
Clinton have invested significant time in the bilateral
relationship with Russia. The thinking behind this investment
is clear: The United States and Russia have many common
interests, in nonproliferation, in counterterrorism, regional
security, economic relations, and other areas, and we should
pursue those interests even as we stand firmly behind our
principles and our friends in cases where we may disagree, and
there are such cases.
The benefits of this engagement strategy are particularly
relevant in the foreign policy arena. We signed, ratified, and
implemented the new START Treaty, brought into force a 123
agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation, and reached and
implemented a critical military transit accord on Afghanistan.
We have also been effective partners in the development of
multilateral solutions to global challenges, working together
to address shared concerns such as Iran, North Korea, and
Middle East peace.
However, there are foreign policy matters on which we
disagree, for example our responses to events in Syria, as well
as issues related to the territorial integrity and sovereignty
of Georgia, which the United States strongly supports. We
regularly raise these subjects at all levels of the Russian
Government and we will continue to do so.
Now, having achieved many concrete goals in the first 3
years of the administration, our aim now is to deepen this
engagement and widen the arc of our cooperation. In particular,
we want to expand economic ties, which remain underdeveloped.
While two-way trade flows grew in the past year, they still
comprise less than 1 percent of our total trade.
The pending accession of Russia to the World Trade
Organization matters to the United States economy, as it will
create new markets for American exporters in one of the world's
fastest growing markets and support new jobs at home. In
addition to the economic benefit, Russia's membership in the
WTO will oblige Russia to comply with WTO rules that underlie
open, transparent, and fair global economic competition.
As part of the accession process, Russia has also agreed to
predictable tariff rates and will be subject to an enforceable
dispute resolution mechanism.
Now, for American companies to take advantage of this new
market opening, Congress must terminate the application of the
Jackson-Vanik amendment and extend permanent normal trading
relations to Russia. Russia has met, as Senator Cardin said,
the freedom of emigration criteria under the Jackson-Vanik
since the early 1990s. This has been certified annually by
every administration since 1994, demonstrating that the
amendment long ago achieved its historic purpose by helping
thousands of Jews emigrate from the Soviet Union.
But until permanent normal trading relations are extended
to Russia and we can apply WTO agreements to Russia, American
companies will not fully benefit from nondiscriminatory terms
of trade and the United States will not be able to use WTO
mechanisms to resolve trade disputes. So just to be clear, it
would be a very unfortunate result, to say the least, if we
achieved the historic goal, not just of Jackson-Vanik, but of
bringing Russia into the WTO, only to leave United States
companies as the only ones in the world unable to benefit from
Russian accession.
In the coming weeks and months, the administration looks
forward to consulting with Congress on the way forward to
address the question of the repeal of Jackson-Vanik and to
continue to address the question of human rights in Russia.
Terminating the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia is,
as I have suggested, critical for United States business and
foreign policy interests. While we believe that Jackson-Vanik
has long since accomplished the goals for which it was adopted,
we do want to work together with Congress to address our shared
concerns about human rights and democracy in Russia.
In that regard, the administration has strongly welcomed
Senator Cardin's campaign for justice after the tragic death of
Sergei Magnitsky following the denial of necessary medical
treatment while he was in pretrial detention. Congressional
calls for travel restrictions against officials responsible for
his death have helped keep global attention focused on this
case.
The State Department has taken important actions, using the
existing authorities of the Immigration and National Act, as
well as the expanded powers provided by the Presidential
Proclamation 8697 issued in August, to ensure that no one
implicated in Mr. Magnitsky's death can travel to the United
States.
In Russia two prison officials involved in Mr. Magnitsky's
death have been arrested and several investigatory commissions
have been established. These actions are steps in the right
direction, but we are absolutely clear that more needs to be
done. Deputy Assistant Secretary Melia and I look forward to
discussing these issues with you during the hearing today.
Now, unfortunately the Magnitsky case is not the only human
rights challenge in Russia. Well-known journalists, such as
Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov, and Natalya Estemirova,
have been killed. Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains in prison on
politically motivated charges. And Russian activists encounter
difficulties while attempting to exercise their rights to free
speech and assembly.
As already noted, last week Secretary Clinton and the White
House expressed concerns about the conduct of the December 4
elections, as, by the way, did the European Union and other of
our key partners in Europe. These concerns are reflected in the
preliminary report issued by the OSCE's international election
observation mission, which noted the lack of a level playing
field and a process marked by limited political competition.
As I said at the start, the administration welcomes the
fact that following the election tens of thousands of Russians
were able to hold a peaceful political demonstration in Moscow
this past Saturday. In a democracy the people have the right to
make their voices heard in a lawful way, the authorities have
the responsibility to provide the safe and secure conditions
for the pursuit of that right. We were greatly encouraged to
see these rights and responsibilities carried out so well. We
look forward to the results of President Medvedev's call for an
investigation into allegations of electoral fraud and
manipulation.
We also, again, look forward to working with Congress to
promote our national economic interests, as well as our
interests in democracy and human rights in Russia.
To conclude, let me assure you that the United States will
continue to be forthright in our firm support for universal
human rights, as well as our conviction that democratic
institutions and rule of law are the keys to unlocking Russia's
enormous human potential. We do not seek to impose our system
on anyone else. Change within Russia must ultimately be
internally driven. Nevertheless, we will continue to work with
Russian partners to foster democracy and respect for human
rights by encouraging transparent and accountable government
and strengthening civil society.
I look forward to your questions and the discussion during
this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Philip H. Gordon
Chairman Shaheen, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the state of
human rights and the rule of law in Russia. These issues have always
been central to the administration's strategy toward Russia. As
President Obama said in July 2009, ``Americans and Russians have a
common interest in the development of rule of law, the strengthening of
democracy, and the protection of human rights.'' There are real
challenges in these areas, as you well know. And there are not always
easy solutions. But we believe that our policy is guided by clear
principles that enable us to have an effective working relationship
with Russia's Government and civil society on a wide range of important
foreign and domestic policy concerns. I welcome the opportunity to
discuss these principles and challenges with the committee.
When President Obama and President Medvedev first met in London in
April 2009, bilateral relations in the wake of the Russia-Georgia war
were as contentious as they had been in more than 20 years. The
decision to make a fresh start, to reset relations between the United
States and Russia, has brought practical benefits for both countries as
well as for the rest of the world. U.S. policy toward Russia in this
administration has been guided by several defining principles. First,
we recognize that the United States and Russia have many common
interests. Second, we believe that engagement with Russia's Government
can produce win-win outcomes, by rejecting ideas such as ``privileged
spheres of interest'' or ``great game'' politics as well as the notion
that we cannot engage on human rights concerns. Third, we have sought
to develop a multidimensional relationship that goes beyond the
traditional security arena and advances core U.S. national interests.
And finally, we remain guided by the belief that we can engage
effectively with Russia's Government and civil society at the same
time, that we can cooperate with its government without checking our
values at the door, and that we can pursue a reset with Russia without
compromising our relations with countries that have difficult relations
with Russia.
To be sure, few things come quickly or easily in U.S.-Russian
relations and it will take considerable time and effort to overcome a
legacy of mistrust. Our interactions are often an uneasy mix of
competition and cooperation. We are not so naive as to think that areas
of common ground can be fully insulated from areas of friction, but our
starting point has been that problems in one area of our relationship
should not preclude progress in others. We have much to gain by working
together on global security and economic challenges, as opportunities
for effective collaboration far outweigh our differences.
President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Clinton have
invested significant time in the bilateral relationship with Russia.
Their diplomatic efforts, as well as constant contact between working-
level officials, have produced practical results. The benefits of our
engagement strategy are particularly evident in the foreign policy
arena. We signed the New START Treaty. We brought into force a 123
Agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation, and agreed to dispose of
enough weapons-grade plutonium for 17,000 nuclear warheads. We reached
a military transit accord on Afghanistan that--as of this week--has
allowed over 1,700 flights across Russian airspace, carrying more than
275,000 U.S. military personnel to the region. Our law enforcement
agencies have stepped up information-sharing and conducted joint
operations to slow the flow of narcotics.
Russia and the United States have been effective partners in the
development of multilateral solutions to global challenges. We are both
key participants in the six-party talks and resolute in our
determination to achieve the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
We are also working together to hold Iran to its international
nonproliferation obligations and prevent it from developing nuclear
weapons. Russia remains an important partner in the Quartet, which is
working to implement the vision for Middle East peace outlined by
President Obama in his May 2011 remarks. As cochairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group, the United States and Russia coordinate closely, along with
France, on efforts to achieve a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the
conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
There are certainly foreign policy issues on which we have
different perspectives; these remain the topic of regular discussion.
Our governments differ in their preferred responses to events in Syria.
We disagree fundamentally about the situation in Georgia. The United
States strongly supports Georgia's sovereignty and territorial
integrity and has raised consistently and at high levels the need for
Russia to fulfill its obligations under the 2008 cease-fire agreement.
We have participated in the Geneva talks to help resolve the conflict
through direct dialogue between Georgia and Russia. We have repeatedly
urged Moscow to provide transparency regarding Russian militarization
of the occupied regions and reestablish an international monitoring
presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We also remain concerned about
the insurgency in the North Caucasus. While we recognize the Russian
Government's right and duty to protect its citizens, we remain troubled
by security forces who--in the name of fighting the insurgency--have
engaged in human rights abuses.
Our aim now is to deepen the reset and widen the arc of our
cooperation. In particular, we need to expand our economic ties. This
remains one of the most underdeveloped areas of our relationship, yet
is vitally important--especially amidst a global financial crisis.
After a decade of growth, an emerging generation of Russians
aspires to belong to a wealthy nation that boasts an economy able to
compete in the global marketplace, a culture of entrepreneurial
success, and a strong middle class. Russia's realization of these
aspirations would have profound importance for Americans. In the last
year alone, we have seen major business deals such as Boeing's sale of
50 aircraft to Aeroflot and 40 planes to Russian airline UTAir, the
ExxonMobil-Rosneft joint venture to explore the oil and gas fields of
the Arctic, and General Electric's joint ventures with two Russian
partners.
Yet much more could be done. While two-way trade flows grew last
year, they still reached just $31 billion--less than 1 percent of our
total trade. Russia is the world's seventh-largest economy, but it is
our 37th-largest export market. Today, Russia is the only member of the
G20 that does not belong to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
However, this is about to change as Russia is on the verge of
completing procedures to become a WTO member. The simple fact is that
Russia's accession to the WTO matters to the U.S. economy, as it will
create new markets for American exporters in one of the world's fastest
growing markets and support new jobs at home.
In addition to the economic benefit for American companies and
workers, Russia's membership in the WTO will deepen its investment in
the success of the global economy. For the first time, Russia has
pledged to comply with the WTO rules that underlie open, transparent,
and fair global economic competition. Russia has agreed to predictable
tariff rates and will be subject to an enforceable dispute resolution
mechanism. History shows that economic and political modernization goes
hand in hand, as Vice President Biden said in his speech to the
students of Moscow State University this past March. As the first
generation in Russia that never lived under communism begins graduating
from universities and taking its place in the Russian workforce, there
is good reason to expect considerable change in coming years.
For American companies to take advantage of this new market
opening, Congress must terminate the application of the Jackson-Vanik
amendment and extend permanent normal trading relations to Russia.
Because this step has not yet been taken, the United States will invoke
``nonapplication'' of the WTO agreements with regard to Russia because
of the conditions on normal trading relations status applied under
Jackson-Vanik. Russia has met the freedom of emigration criteria under
Jackson-Vanik since the early 1990s, demonstrating that the amendment
long ago achieved its historic purpose by helping thousands of Jews
emigrate from the Soviet Union. But until permanent normal trading
relations are extended to Russia and we can apply the WTO agreements to
Russia, American companies will not fully benefit from
nondiscriminatory terms of trade and the United States will not be able
to use WTO mechanisms to resolve trade disputes. If this situation
remains unchanged, foreign competitors will benefit fully from Russia's
accession to the WTO and American firms will be disadvantaged.
After meeting with President Medvedev in Hawaii last month,
President Obama said that Russia's pending entry into the WTO meant
``this is going to be a good time for us to consult closely with
Congress about ending the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia, so
that the U.S. businesses can take advantage of Russia's membership in
the WTO, and we can expand commerce and create jobs here in the United
States.'' Our timeline is short, as the Russian Parliament is likely to
act on ratification in the spring of 2012. In the coming weeks and
months, the administration looks forward to consulting with Congress on
a way forward.
Terminating the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to
Russia is critical for our business interests. While we believe that
Jackson-Vanik has long since accomplished the goals for which it was
adopted, we want to work together with Congress to address our shared
concerns about human rights in Russia. The administration has already
shown it is committed to this objective.
The administration has welcomed Senator Cardin's campaign for
justice after the tragic death of Sergey Magnitskiy following the
denial of necessary medical treatment while he was in pretrial
detention. Congressional calls for travel restrictions against
officials responsible for his death have helped keep attention focused
on this case. The State Department has already taken important
actions--using the existing authorities of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as well as the expanded powers provided by the
Presidential proclamation issued in August--to ensure that no one
implicated in Mr. Magnitskiy's death can travel to the United States.
In Russia, two prison officials involved in Mr. Magnitskiy's death have
been arrested and several investigatory commissions have been
established. These actions are steps in the right direction but more
needs to be done. We look forward to continuing to work with the
committee on these issues.
Unfortunately, the Magnitskiy case is not the only human rights
challenge in Russia. Well-known journalists--such as Anna
Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov, and Natalya Estemirova--have been
killed. Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains in prison on politically motivated
charges. And Russian activists encounter difficulties while attempting
to exercise their rights to free speech and assembly. Last week,
Secretary Clinton and the White House expressed concerns about the
conduct of the December 4th Duma elections. These concerns are
reflected in the preliminary report issued by the OSCE's international
election observation mission, which noted the lack of a level playing
field and a process marked by limited political competition. The
administration welcomes the fact that, following the elections, the
Russian public was able to hold a peaceful political demonstration in
Moscow this past Saturday. In a democracy, the people have the right to
make their voices heard in a lawful way; the authorities have the
responsibility to provide the safe and secure conditions for the
pursuit of that right. We were greatly encouraged to see these rights
and responsibilities carried out so well.
Let me take the opportunity of today's hearing to review the
administration's Russia human rights strategy, which relies on
simultaneous engagement with both governmental and nongovernmental
actors to advance democratic development and human rights promotion.
First, there is considerable government-to-government engagement at
all levels on these issues. The President and Secretary regularly raise
human rights concerns in meetings with their Russian counterparts. In
fact, administration officials have made 84 public declarations on
Russian human rights issues over the last 35 months--all of which are
compiled for public access on the State Department's Web site [see
www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/rs/c41670.htm].
Second, the United States continues to use the full range of legal
measures to impose serious consequences on those involved in serious
human rights abuses in Russia. As I noted earlier, we have restricted
travel to the United States by such individuals.
Third, the United States provides financial support to Russian
civil society. Since 2009, the U.S. Government has given approximately
$160 million in assistance to support programs on human rights, rule of
law, anticorruption, civil society, independent media, good governance,
and democratic political processes. Most recently, U.S. funding was
used to support independent Russian monitoring of the Duma elections
and education for independent media on professional and unbiased
reporting, encourage informed citizen participation in elections, and
enhance the capacity to conduct public opinion polling. We are grateful
to Congress for continuing to provide these resources, especially in
this difficult budgetary environment.
As part of our democracy strategy, the administration has been
consulting with Congress on an initiative to create a new fund to
support Russian nongovernmental organizations that are committed to a
more pluralistic and open society. The fund would not require an
additional appropriation, as necessary funding would be drawn from the
liquidated proceeds of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund--an example of
successful U.S. foreign assistance to Russia. We are working with
several congressional committees to address their questions and hope to
resolve these issues soon.
Fourth, American officials engage regularly with Russian
nongovernmental leaders involved in strengthening democracy, human
rights, and the rule of law. For example, President Obama met with
hundreds of civil society leaders and opposition political figures
during his July 2009 visit to Moscow. Vice-President Biden and
Secretary Clinton have similarly engaged with civil society and
opposition leaders.
Fifth, the United States supports the modernization of Russian
civil society organizations by, among other things, taking advantage of
new technologies to make their work more effective.
Sixth, we have supported a range of Russian Government efforts to
fight corruption, provide more transparency about government
activities, and improve the rule of law. For example, at their June
2010 meeting in Washington, Presidents Obama and Medvedev issued a
joint statement underscoring the need to cooperate on open government.
The U.S. Government has been providing small grants to civil society
organizations in Russia to work with local governments to identify and
address community priorities. In addition, the United States has
strongly backed Russia's efforts to become a member of the OECD--a key
part of Moscow's efforts to address endemic corruption. We welcome
Russia's membership in the OECD Working Group on Bribery, which it
joined in May; we look forward to Russia's deposit of the instrument of
ratification of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public
Officials in International Business Transactions.
Seventh, a credible dialogue about democracy and human rights
should involve direct communication between American and Russian NGOs
and policy experts. Through the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential
Commission and its 20 working groups, we have built new partnerships
and engaged our citizens, businesses and nongovernmental institutions
in areas such as health care and energy efficiency. We have launched a
U.S.-Russia Civil Society Partnership Program to build peer-to-peer
relationships between U.S. and Russian civil society organizations. In
addition, concrete steps have been taken to improve the daily lives of
our citizens. Last July, Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Lavrov
signed an agreement to build trust on intercountry adoptions. They also
approved a reciprocal visa agreement to make it easier for business
people and tourists to travel between our countries.
Let me assure you that the United States will continue to be
forthright in our firm support for universal human rights, as well as
our conviction that democratic institutions and the rule of law are the
keys to unlocking Russia's enormous human potential. We do not seek to
impose our system on anyone else, and change within Russia must be
internally driven. Nevertheless, we will continue to work with Russian
partners to foster democracy and respect for human rights by
encouraging transparent and accountable government and strengthening
civil society. We believe, as President Obama said in his speech to the
New Economic School in Moscow in July 2009, that ``the arc of history
shows that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive
. . . governments which serve only their own power do not.''
In conclusion, the reset in U.S.-Russia relations remains a work in
progress. We are proud of our accomplishments to date, which have
advanced core American national interests. However, we recognize that
there is much more to be done--including on the important issues of
human rights and the rule of law. This is a moment of domestic
preoccupation in both Russia and the United States, when election-year
decisions and political personalities dominate the headlines. While
personalities matter, national interests don't change. Both nations
have pragmatically approached issues such as arms control and Iran's
attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. We expect to continue our
successful approach of cooperating with Russia when it is in our
interests, addressing our disagreements honestly, building links to
Russian society and government, and maintaining the United States long-
held commitment to keep our values at the center of our foreign policy.
With that, I welcome your questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Dr. Gordon.
Mr. Melia.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS O. MELIA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Melia. Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Barrasso,
Senators Cardin and Corker. Thank you for the invitation to
appear before you today. Assistant Secretary Michael Posner is
on a mission to Bahrain at present and he asked me to convey
his regards and to emphasize how much we value our cooperation
with this committee. He and I look forward to continuing to
work with you to ensure that robust support for human rights
and the rule of law, the issues you have identified for today's
hearing, continue to be integral elements of our Russia policy.
I have a longer statement I'd like to ask be submitted for
the record. But I want to emphasize that President Obama's
policy of dual-track engagement with Russia includes very
explicitly support for democratic advancement in our public and
private statements with Russians and in our very public
assistance program, even as we engage the government on other
issues of importance to our two countries. We appreciate that
Russia has been a good partner on some security and economic
issues and we want that to continue, and we will continue to
support those many Russians who want to see a strengthening of
the rule of law and democratic processes in their country.
We have no illusions that this will be easily or quickly
done. The 92-page report that Senator Barrasso mentioned that
we produced in cooperation with Embassy Moscow makes very clear
that we're fully aware of all of the shortcomings in Russia's
human rights environment.
Last week's flawed Duma elections and the Russian
Government's initial response to citizen protests dramatically
underscored how this dual track policy works. Over the last 3
years, we have sought to support the modernization of aspects
of Russia's institutions, its economy, and civil society. Yet
when we witnessed Russian Government actions inconsistent with
these goals, the Secretary of State spoke out, both privately
and publicly.
For instance, in the months prior to the elections, the
Obama administration expressed our concerns about the conduct
of the campaign, in which independent political parties such as
Parnas were denied the right to participate, and about the
unequal treatment of parties and candidates in the mainstream
media. We supported the effort very vigorously to get observers
into Russia from the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights, and in this we were successful, in contrast
to the previous elections in 2007 and 2008, which had no
observers from the OSCE. This was critical, as we now know, as
ODIHR reported on the fraudulent practices on election day and
in the period just before election day, and it was echoing
those reports Secretary Clinton spoke plainly about the need
for honest elections, stating that ``The Russian people, like
people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard
and their votes counted.''
We would also like to see an independent investigation of
the distributed denial of service, DDOS, attacks on the Web
site of Golos, the domestic nonpartisan election monitoring
organization, and on other independent media outlets that were
echoing their findings and tracking election fraud. These
attacks underscore broader concerns we have about the parlous
state of media freedom in the country, where virtually all of
national television, most radio, and much of the print media
are government-owned or influenced. While free expression still
remains largely possible on the Internet, the Government of
Russia has begun to take steps to monitor and control the
online media space. We will watch that space closely.
We have also expressed concern repeatedly about the
detention of the hundreds of protesters and at least six
journalists and the sentencing last week of democratic
activists like Ilya Yashin and Alexei Navalny. They are still
behind bars today, notwithstanding the peaceable protests over
this past weekend.
We welcome President Medvedev's call for investigations
into allegations of election fraud and were encouraged about
the peaceable way in which last weekend's protests unfolded.
Moscow's police have now demonstrated that they can facilitate
large gatherings when instructed to do so. We urge Russia to
make this type of respect for free assembly the norm going
forward.
Madam Chairwoman, the United States cannot make Russia
respect human rights and we cannot build democracy in Russia.
Only the citizens of Russia can do that. What we can do is act
in support and defense of civil society organizations that are
already working to promote human rights, the rule of law, and
democracy.
Prime Minister Putin's assertion that the funds that the
United States and other donors provide to civil society groups
constitute unwarranted interference in Russia's internal
affairs is a tiresome cliche, a well-worn canard, and without
foundation. After all, it was just 1 year ago at the OSCE
Astana summit when Russia joined all the other participating
states in reaffirming ``categorically and irrevocably that the
commitments undertaken in the field of the human dimension are
matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating
states and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of
the state concerned.''
Let me briefly address now the mutually reinforcing
elements of our democracy strategy. First, as we have
discussed, we are committed to a frank government-to-government
dialogue as President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and others of
us regularly engage our counterparts on human rights and
democracy concerns. In addition, the Bilateral Presidential
Commission Civil Society Working Group has broadened our
dialogue into other areas: anticorruption, migration,
protection of child welfare, prison reform, other very
important matters.
Recently I was named to be the U.S. cochair of this
commission, this working group, and I hope to be able to use
this vehicle to address our continuing concerns about
fundamental freedoms, the enabling environment for civil
society. We are consulting with Russians both inside and
outside of government and without Americans inside and outside
of government on future directions for this working group.
Second, we make public statements that are critical of
human rights abuses and constraints on democratic processes. We
have voiced our concerns about violence and harassment against
those in Russia who dare to speak truth to power, uncover
corruption, call out abuse of others--murdered human rights
activists and journalists Anna Politkovskaya, Natalya
Estemirova, and victims of selection prosecution and unpunished
abuse, like Sergei Magnitsky, and the members of groups like
Strategy 31 and the Khimki Forest Defenders, whose exercise of
the right of peaceful assembly has made them the victims of
violent attacks.
We met with them just a few weeks ago. Mike Posner and I
were in Russia. We met with people from all of these groups, to
demonstrate very visibly our support for their work.
We and other U.S. officials continue to raise concerns
about the serious human rights violations by security forces,
including the brutal and corrupt administration of Ramzan
Kadyrov in Chechnya. We also continue to raise concerns about
antisemitism, xenophobia, and homophobia in Russian society and
the lack of tolerance for nontraditional peaceful religious
minorities and the misuse of the antiextremism law against
them. This is all covered in the 92-page report that we produce
every year.
Third, we're taking action to deny human rights abusers
entry into the United States. In compliance with the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the proclamation issued by
President Obama last August, we restrict travel to the United
States by those in Russia, as elsewhere, involved in gross
human rights violations. As you know, the State Department has
taken action to ensure that individuals involved in the death
of Sergei Magnitsky do not have U.S. visas. We share Senator
Cardin's concerns about this case and about the rule of law in
Russia more broadly. Congressional attention to this issue has
been instrumental in building demand for accountability in the
Magnitsky case in the international community. We very much
appreciate Senator Cardin's initiatives and his tenacity in
keeping this issue in front of all of us.
Beyond travel restrictions, we've taken other actions
against human rights abusers. For example, even though the
United States may not be able to keep brutal and corrupt
Chechen leader Kadyrov from committing human rights abuses in
Chechnya, we can deny him the opportunity to showcase his
newfound wealth in the United States.
Fourth, we demonstrate solidarity with and help strengthen
and modernize Russian civil society. On his first visit to
Moscow in 2009, President Obama spent one of his two working
days in Russia meeting with civil society and opposition
leaders. The Vice President makes a point of doing this when he
visits. Secretary Clinton does. Assistant Secretary Gordon,
Ambassador Beyrle, Assistant Secretary Posner and I, we all
reach out, spend time with, very visibly, with civil society
and opposition leaders in Russia, to demonstrate that we think
they play an important role in any modern society.
We do this to demonstrate very visibly our support for
their efforts. Change in Russia will be driven by the people of
Russia and we will continue to look for opportunities to
support Russian citizens seeking reform. Since 2009, the United
States Government has provided approximately $160 million to
Russian groups working to advance democracy and the rule of
law. In October, the Obama administration submitted a
congressional notification on the creation of a new $50 million
fund that would support Russian civil society. The money would
come from the liquidation of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund
and so would not require any new appropriation. We would
welcome your support in allowing this proposal to move forward
quickly.
We believe that Jackson-Vanik has fulfilled its stated goal
of ensuring freedom of emigration and that its application to
Russia should now be terminated. Termination would not mean
that the United States Congress and the Obama administration
would cease to press our concerns about human rights in Russia.
We look forward to working with the House and Senate to
ensure that our efforts on behalf of human rights, the rule of
law, and democracy in Russia continue to be robust. I want to
echo the call that has been made here already, that we hope the
full Senate will soon provide its consent to the President's
nomination of Michael McFaul to be our Ambassador to Russia.
Mike is supremely qualified, perhaps uniquely qualified, to be
our Ambassador at this vital time.
Secretary Clinton has repeatedly stated that when
governments push back against their citizens, the United States
will not waver in its support for those working at great
personal risks for democracy and human rights.
Thank you. I look forward to our discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas O. Melia
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Barrasso, Senator Cardin and
members of the committee, Thank you for the invitation to appear before
you today. Assistant Secretary Michael Posner is not able to be here
today--he is on a mission to Bahrain--and he asked me to convey his
regards and to emphasize how much we value our cooperation with this
committee on a wide range of shared interests. He and I look forward to
continuing to work with you, and with Assistant Secretary Gordon and
his bureau, to ensure that the issues you have identified--human rights
and the rule of law--continue to be integral elements of our Russia
policy.
Senators, we agree with you on the challenge we face in trying to
support those many Russians who want to see a strengthening of the rule
of law and democratic processes in their country. Indeed, President
Obama's policy toward Russia throughout this administration has been to
support democratic advancement quite explicitly--in our public and
private statements, and in our very public assistance program--even
while engaging the Russian Government on the full range of security and
economic issues described by Assistant Secretary Gordon. We all
appreciate that Russia has been a good partner on a range of security
and economic issues important to our two countries, and we want that
cooperation to continue.
Our policy is one of dual-track engagement, where we are
simultaneously engaging Russia's Government officials and Russia's
civil society leaders to advance democracy and defend human rights.
Madame Chair, last week's flawed Duma elections and the Russian
Government's initial response to citizen protests dramatically
underscored how our dual-track engagement works.
Over the last 3 years, we have engaged with the Russian Government
and civil society to support modernization of Russia's state, economy,
and civil society. When we witnessed Russian Government actions
inconsistent with these goals, we spoke out, both privately and
publicly. For instance, in the months prior to the elections, the Obama
administration expressed our concerns about the conduct of the
campaign, where PARNAS and several other independent political parties
were denied the right to participate, and where parties and candidates
had unequal access to the mainstream media. We supported the effort to
get observers into Russia from OSCE's Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights, and in this we were successful (unlike
the previous elections in 2007 and 2008). Obviously, this was critical,
as the OSCE observers reported fraudulent practices on Election Day,
such as ballot box stuffing and the manipulation of voter lists.
Echoing these reports, Secretary Clinton spoke plainly about the
need for honest elections, stating that ``the Russian people, like
people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and
their votes counted.'' We also urged that Russia's Government
immediately investigate the concerted distributed denial of service
(DDOS) attacks on the Web site of Golos (``Voice''), a nonpartisan
election monitoring organization and other independent media outlets
tracking election fraud.
These attacks underscore broader concerns about the parlous state
of media freedom in the country, where all of national television, most
radio, and much of the print media already are government-owned or
government-influenced. This has broader implications. While free
expression still remains largely possible on the Internet, which was
used to organize Saturday's protests, the Russian Government has begun
to take steps to monitor and control the online media space. We will
watch that space closely in the period ahead.
We have also made it clear that the authorities' initial response,
including the detention of hundreds of protesters, including at least
six journalists, and the sentencing of democratic activists like Ilya
Yashin and Alexei Navalniy, raised serious questions about the Russian
authorities' respect for fundamental freedoms of expression and
peaceful assembly. We welcomed Medvedev's call for investigations into
allegations of electoral fraud, and were encouraged to see that the
Russian Government authorities in most, but not all, cities allowed
peaceful demonstrations to occur last Saturday. We urge Russia to make
this type of respect for free assembly the norm throughout the country
going forward.
Madame Chair, the United States cannot make Russia respect human
rights and we cannot build democracy in Russia. Only the citizens of
Russia can do that. What we can do is support those in Russia who are
working to promote human rights, the rule of law and democracy,
including civil society organizations. Prime Minister Putin's assertion
that the funds the United States and other donors provide to civil
society groups constitute interference in Russia's internal affairs is
a well-worn canard and without foundation.
After all, just 1 year ago at the Astana summit of the OSCE, Russia
joined all the participating states in adopting a Declaration
reaffirming ``categorically and irrevocably that the commitments
undertaken in the field of the human dimension are matters of direct
and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong
exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.'' That
Declaration went on to state: ``We value the important role played by
civil society and free media in helping us to ensure full respect for
human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, including free and fair
elections, and the rule of law.'' Change in Russia is being driven by
the people of Russia, and we should and will continue to look for
opportunities to support Russian citizens seeking reform.
Madame Chair, let me now briefly address the mutually reinforcing
elements of our strategy of dual-track engagement--simultaneous
engagement with both governmental and nongovernmental actors to advance
democratic processes and human rights promotion. This is the basis of
our democracy strategy.
First, as I mentioned, we are committed to a frank government-to-
government dialogue. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other U.S.
Government officials regularly engage the Russian Government on our
concerns about ongoing abuses that are contrary to human rights, the
rule of law, and democratic governance.
The creation of the Bilateral Presidential Commission (BPC) in July
2009 has helped to facilitate ongoing contacts and discussions between
our two governments on these concerns. As part of this Commission, the
Civil Society Working Group has broadened our dialogue on such issues
as anticorruption, migration, child protection, and prison reform--all
real issues affecting people's lives in both countries.
I am honored to have been recently named the U.S. cochair of the
Civil Society Working Group, and I look forward to using this vehicle
to address directly our continuing human rights and democracy concerns.
I plan to lead an interagency delegation that draws upon a wide range
of U.S. expertise on issues of civil society. The Russians have named
Ambassador Konstantin Dolgov, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs'
Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, to be
their new cochair. During my October trip to Russia with Assistant
Secretary Posner, we consulted with Russians both inside and outside
the government on future directions for the Working Group.
In addition, through the Open Government Partnership, the U.S.
Government engages the Russian Government to support efforts to fight
corruption, provide more transparency about government activities for
citizens, and improve the rule of law.
Second, we make public statements that are critical of human rights
abuses and constraints on democratic processes. [A list of statements
can be found at: www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/rs/c41670.htm] This year, the
Department of State and the White House have spoken out through press
statements and public remarks about specific threats to the fundamental
freedoms of religion, expression, and assembly, and, most recently,
regarding the already mentioned deeply flawed conduct of Russia's
parliamentary elections. The United States also has raised concerns
about human rights and rule of law in Russia at international fora.
Most recently, as I mentioned, Secretary Clinton's speech at last
week's OSCE Ministerial Meeting in Vilnius made specific references to
Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia--with their Foreign Ministers seated at
the table--and garnered worldwide media coverage. In September, I
represented the United States at the OSCE Human Dimension
Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, where we raised the full range of our
concerns regarding Russia, as Ambassador Ian Kelly does throughout the
year at the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna.
More generally, we have voiced concerns about violence and
harassment against those in Russia who dare to speak truth to power,
such as: murdered human rights activists and journalists Anna
Politkovskya and Natalia Estemirova; victims of selective prosecution
and unpunished abuse as exemplified by the case of Sergei Magnitsky;
and members of groups like Strategy 31 and the Khimki Forest Defenders,
whose exercise of the right of peaceful assembly has made them the
victims of violent attacks.
Meanwhile, in the North Caucasus, serious human rights violations
by security forces and other parties continue unabated, with ongoing
reports of killings, torture, and politically motivated abductions.
These occur with near-total impunity. In particular, the brutal and
corrupt administration of Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya is creating an
atmosphere of fear and intimidation for human rights groups, the media,
religious communities, and anyone else who might raise an independent
voice.
We also remain concerned about anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and
homophobia in Russian society, and particularly about the lack of
tolerance for ``nontraditional'' religious minorities. Russia's
antiextremism law is used to ban the literature and prosecute
individual members of religious communities, such as the followers of
Turkish theologian Said Nursi, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists,
and the Falun Gong. During our recent visit to Kazan, the capital of
Tatarstan, a majority Muslim region, I observed good relations among
Christians and Muslims. But I also learned that even this vaunted
example of tolerance has limits. Nontraditional religious groups face
harassment and isolation by the two large religious denominations and
by the regional authorities.
Third, we are taking action to deny human rights abusers entry into
the United States. The United States has used and will continue to use
the full range of legal measures to impose consequences on those
involved in serious human rights abuses in Russia. Consistent with the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and President Obama's
``Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Non-
immigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights Abuses
and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses,'' issued on August 4,
2011, our administration has taken action to restrict travel to the
United States by those in Russia--and elsewhere--involved in such
abuses.
For instance, the Department of State has taken action to ensure
that individuals involved in the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky do
not have U.S. visas. We have and will continue to prevent the entry of
those responsible for human rights violations. We share Senator
Cardin's concerns about the Magnitsky case and about rule of law in
Russia more broadly, and believe that congressional attention to this
issue has been instrumental in building demand for accountability in
the Magnitsky case in the international community.
Beyond travel restrictions, we have taken other actions against
human rights abusers. For example, the United States may not be able to
keep brutal and corrupt Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov from committing
human rights abuses in Chechnya, but we can deny him the opportunity to
showcase his newfound wealth in the United States.
Fourth, we are committed to engaging with, strengthening and
modernizing Russian civil society. Parallel to our engagement with
Russian Government officials, U.S. officials engage regularly with
Russian nongovernmental leaders involved in strengthening democracy,
human rights, and the rule of law as well as civil society more
broadly.
On his very first visit to Moscow in 2009, President Obama spent
nearly an entire day meeting with civil society and opposition leaders.
The Vice President did the same when he visited. The Secretary of State
does so regularly as well. Assistant Secretary Gordon and Ambassador
Beyrle do so, as do Assistant Secretary Posner and I, along with other
U.S. officials in Moscow and Washington.
In fact, just 6 weeks ago, Assistant Secretary Posner and I
traveled to Moscow, Nizhniy Novgorod, and Kazan, and earlier this year
I traveled to Yekaterinburg and Perm. Our visits have received
notable--and generally objective--coverage in the local and regional
press in Russia. We took the opportunity to reiterate the United States
longstanding commitment to human rights and democracy and to highlight
our concerns about specific cases, most recently the beating of
environmental activist Konstantin Fetisov (with whom Mr. Posner met in
October), the murder of activist Maksharip Aushev, and the imprisonment
of activist Alexei Sokolov (with whose family I met in March).
We also actively encourage the development of peer-to-peer ties
between Russian and U.S. civil society groups. In 2009 and again in
2010, Russian and American nongovernmental leaders convened parallel
civil society summits that took place at the same time that President
Obama and President Medvedev met. We firmly believe that a credible
dialogue about democracy and human rights should involve not only
contacts between the American and Russian Governments, but also direct
communication and linkages between American and Russian nongovernmental
organizations, independent policy experts, and regular citizens to
confront common challenges and learn from different experiences faced
by our societies. Thus, USAID has launched a U.S.-Russia Civil Society
Partnership Program to build, leverage, and expand peer-to-peer
relationships between U.S. and Russian civil society organizations. The
program will include three conferences of civil society leaders from
our two countries, a small grants competition to support collaborative
projects, and an Internet resource platform that will enable
participants to exchange information about their activities and publish
news and events.
In addition, the Obama administration--working with the U.S.
Congress--has continued to secure funds to support Russian efforts to
advance human rights, civil society, rule of law, independent media,
and good governance. Let me emphasize: we are helping Russian groups,
like Golos, already working in these areas. Since 2009, the U.S.
Government has provided approximately $160 million in assistance to
advance democracy and promote civil society in Russia. We have
prioritized small, direct grants to Russian civil society
organizations. And we help them take advantage of new technologies to
make their work more effective.
In October, the Obama administration submitted a Congressional
Notification proposing to create a new $50 million fund to increase our
support of Russian civil society. Once established, the fund would
provide new and long-term support to Russian nongovernmental
organizations committed to a more pluralistic and open society. This
proposal would not require additional appropriation because the
$50 million would come from liquidated proceeds of the U.S. Russia
Investment Fund. We would welcome your support in allowing this
proposal to move forward as quickly as possible.
I have laid out for the committee the variety of mechanisms and
instruments upon which the United States draws in our efforts to
support democracy, human rights, and rule of law advocates in Russia
and around the world. Before concluding, I would like to say a few
words about the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
We believe that the Jackson-Vanik amendment has fulfilled its
stated goal of ensuring freedom of emigration first from the Soviet
Union and then from the Russian Federation, and that its application to
Russia should now be terminated.
Termination of Jackson-Vanik would not mean that the U.S.,
Congress, and the Obama administration will cease to press our concerns
about human rights conditions in Russia. Secretary Clinton, my
colleagues at the Department of State, and I look forward to working
with the House and Senate to ensure that our efforts on behalf of human
rights, the rule of law, and democracy in Russia continue to be robust
and effectively channeled. Indeed, we continue to stand firmly with
Congress and the human rights community in calling for improvements in
Russia's human rights record, knowing that our best partnerships are
with countries that share our commitment to universal democratic
values.
Secretary Clinton has repeatedly stated that when governments push
back against their citizens, the United States will not waiver in its
support of those working at great personal risk for democracy and human
rights.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Melia.
Over the last week the world really has been watching, I
think, the growing protests in Russia and the courageous stand
that thousands have taken by coming out into the streets to
protest. You both mentioned that. I know we all agree that it's
critical for the United States to stand behind these protesters
and it's important that they know that we hear what they're
doing and support their right to demonstrate.
Obviously, the reports from the elections detail
significant tampering, abuse, and fraud. In some areas turnout
exceeded 140 percent. In Chechnya, reports suggest that United
Russia was able to garner 99.5 percent of the vote. Nobody
familiar with democracy believes that that's a real number.
I think equally important, as you both mentioned, was the
significance of the Kremlin's first response to what happened
in the elections and to the protests, the cyber attacks that
hit, as you pointed out, Mr. Melia--and I was pleased to hear
you say that we are continuing to watch any efforts to shut
down the Internet and access to it. The people who have been
jailed and who remain in jail; and of course, Prime Minister
Putin's initial reaction playing the anti-American card and
accusing us of being behind the efforts to discredit the
elections.
I think all of it gives us all reasons for grave concern.
There have been some who have indicated that they don't believe
that the administration has been forceful enough in calling
attention to what happened in Russia and in supporting the
protesters.
So I wonder if first you, Dr. Gordon, might respond to what
again our official reaction has been to the elections and what
more we can do to point out our grave concerns about what's
happening in Russia.
Dr. Gordon. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think I can say
that our official response to the allegations of fraud and
irregularities in the Russian election was immediate and
forceful and clear. I was with Secretary Clinton at the Bonn
conference on Afghanistan and when the word started to come out
about how the Russian election went, we waited to hear what the
OSCE observers were going to say about it, in addition to the
reporting from our Embassy and social media and other. And once
it became clear that there were these serious irregularities,
the Secretary went on record, and I already quoted what she
said about our concerns, and you listed some of them.
It was the cyber attacks that preceded the election. It was
the nonregistration of parties in advance of the election, that
precluded an open playing field. And then it also included
serious allegations from those on the ground, including the
OSCE observers, about stuffing ballot boxes and other serious
irregularities.
So I think if anyone has questioned whether the United
States response was clear and serious, that doesn't seem to
include the Russian leadership, which noticed what we had to
say about it. The White House immediately followed up and
issued a statement of its own, and I think we have consistently
expressed those concerns.
I would note, first of all, it was a welcome thing that
Russia allowed OSCE observers in the first place, and that was
not least at our vigorous urging, and that allowed some
independent authority to assess how the elections went on. We
also note that President Medvedev has called for investigations
into these allegations and we hope to follow up on that, and
that's as it should be. Foreign Minister Lavrov today said that
there would be followup on what the OSCE report said.
So we will continue to draw attention to the
irregularities. To take this back to the very first thing I
said about our government-to-government relations with Russia,
we will continue to pursue our common interests in the foreign
policy area because it's in our interest to do so. But we said
all along we would never be shy about talking frankly about
differences, and here's a case where there were differences and
I think we've been pretty frank in talking about it.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Melia, what are we hearing from people on the ground in
Russia, some of those civil society leaders, about how they're
responding to the administration crackdown in Russia?
Mr. Melia. Well, in the last 10 days since the elections we
have seen unprecedented mobilization of citizens in Russia. The
most visible aspect was the demonstration of perhaps 50 to
70,000 people in Moscow, but there were demonstrations in
scores of cities across Russia. I read one account that said as
many as 60 places across Russia had demonstrations of 500,
1,000, 3,000 people.
So it is a nationwide awakening, if you will, of citizens
who want to see their government be accountable. They want to
see elections that matter. What's interesting is that in most,
not all, but most of those places, the demonstrations over the
weekend were allowed to proceed in an orderly fashion, again
underscoring that the authorities in Moscow and the police in
all the cities know how to do this if they get the right
orders.
So we're hoping that--having demonstrated that citizens can
demonstrate peacefully and that the authorities can accommodate
that--that that becomes the new normal. Time will tell going
forward. The Moscow city authorities have granted permission
for a demonstration of up to 50,000 people in Moscow on
December 24. We'll hope that that goes at least as well.
Those demonstrators are asking for a revisiting of the
announced election results, for dismissal of the chairman of
the election commission, and some other things. How and whether
the Russian Government responds to those, we will see. The
President of Russia has said that there will be an
investigation. We hope that that's genuine and we hope that the
results are made public.
So we're in a very interesting moment right now, where some
things have changed, and we'll see how much things have changed
as we go forward.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
I'm almost out of time, so I'm going to turn over to
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Gordon, how would you characterize Russia's
record on adherence to its international treaty obligations?
Dr. Gordon. I don't know, Senator, if there are specific
treaties that you have in mind. But broadly, I think it's
accurate to say that they're in compliance generally with their
treaty obligations.
Senator Barrasso. I'm thinking about the Strategic Arms
Reduction Talks Treaty from last time and some of the concerns
that we have in terms of missile defense and what they have
said in terms of their actions and how they interpret it may be
different than the way that it's been interpreted here.
Dr. Gordon. Well, since we have been absolutely clear that
nothing in the New START Treaty constrains missile defenses or
should constrain missile defenses, any position they take on
that issue is not inconsistent with what's in the treaty. Now,
as you suggest, they may like to see a linkage between
offensive reductions and constraints on missile defenses, but
from the start we rejected any such linkage and no such linkage
appears in the treaty.
Senator Barrasso. I'm going to switch to Syria for a
second. There has been, obviously, a lot of concern about
Russia's lack of cooperation on the situation in Syria. Russia
blocked efforts to pass a resolution at the United Nations that
U.S. Ambassador Rice described as ``a vastly watered-down
resolution which did not,'' she said, ``did not even mention
sanctions.''
Also we see the Assad regime continues its brutal
crackdown, reportedly killing over 5,000 of its own citizens.
Russia recently delivered cruise missiles worth about $300
million, I understand, to the Syrian Government.
What kind of cooperation does the administration expect
from Russia regarding Syria and what's the administration's
response to what's happened there?
Dr. Gordon. Thank you, Senator. We are clearly not
satisfied with the degree of cooperation on Syria. As I've
said, there are issues on which we are cooperating well in our
mutual interests, in the United States national interest, and
there are others on which we are not and continue to address it
with the Russian Government, and Syria is clearly one of them.
The United States believes that, at an absolute minimum,
the international community should be on record at the Security
Council in denouncing Assad's use of violence against his own
people and that consequences and sanctions should be part of
our international response. Russia disagrees and we vigorously
disagree with that disagreement and continue to raise it with
the government.
Senator Barrasso. A final question on corruption. Russia
ranked 143rd of 183 countries in terms of transparency and
corruption issues. Does the administration continue to work
with those Russian officials and branches engaged in what we
view as corrupt practices and are listed internationally as
corrupt practices?
Dr. Gordon. Well, we certainly continue to work to try to
confront and eliminate those corrupt practices. There is
clearly a long way to go. One of the reasons we want to see
Russia accede to the WTO is that the transparency that comes
along with WTO membership should be an important tool in
opening the Russian economy and helping to confront the
corruption that undermines them and those they deal with.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I do have a statement from Senator Wicker.
I ask unanimous consent to----
Senator Shaheen. Without objection.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Shaheen. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me start, Secretary Gordon, in thanking you and the
administration for the manner in which you have been very clear
about the human rights agenda and the problems within Russia. I
very much support your efforts in that regard. I do want to
just underscore from your statement, which I totally agree
with, when you say, ``We do not seek to impose our system on
anyone else and change within Russia must be internally
driven.'' I completely agree with that. ``Nevertheless, we will
continue to work with Russian partners to foster democracy and
respect for human rights by encouraging transparent and
accountable government and strengthening civil society.''
The United States must be in the leadership in this regard.
The international community looks to the United States. If we
don't stand up, unfortunately, it's not going to happen. So we
have to be unambiguous as to the expectations.
You mentioned the fact that the advantages of Russia
entering the World Trade Organization from the point of view of
transparency and other issues. But let me just point out that
the WTO is not a panacea. China is a member of WTO. We have our
problems with China on trade. And I remember very vividly when
China entered the WTO we said that would be an opportunity for
America to advance human rights in China, and we, of course,
enacted a mechanism, a commission that does meet, that has some
impact. But I would hope that what we have learned from that
experience is that we have to set the bar higher when we have
opportunities to advance human rights.
Then recently in the OSCE Kazakhstan, a former republic
within the Soviet Union, came forward and wanted to be chair in
office, and the United States was very clear about that, that
we welcomed a Central Asian nation to take on the chairmanship
of the OSCE, but we expected human rights advancements. For the
chair to be of the OSCE, the premier international organization
on human rights, we want to see the country that hosts the
chairmanship make the advancements. We got some progress, but
we should have set the bar higher.
But I point this out as to what we can expect to come out
as you seek to enact permanent normal trade relations with
Russia and repeal the Jackson-Vanik law. You point out that,
while we believe Jackson-Vanik has long since accomplished the
goals for which it was adopted, we want to work together with
Congress to address our shared concerns about human rights in
Russia. Then you go on to point out that more needs to be done.
We're in agreement.
So what should we do? We have an opportunity to advance
human rights. The international community is looking at us. The
issue that I have brought forward with many of my colleagues on
the Magnitsky bill is to say that we should at least use the
visa applications and look at asset freezes for human rights
violators. That has gained international credibility and
support. Europe is looking at similar restrictions.
My question to you is, can you give us a roadmap as to how
we can use the next several months to come together with the
expectations of what we should be doing to establish human
rights advancements in Russia and hold them accountable as we
look to enact permanent normal trade relations with Russia?
Dr. Gordon. Thank you, Senator Cardin. You make a number of
important points. Let me try to address all of them, starting
with thanking you for your leadership on this issue. What you
said about leadership is absolutely right. Somebody has to get
out there and lead the charge, and what you have done has been
a spur to our actions and the actions of others across the
world, including in Europe, and we're very grateful for that.
WTO membership for Russia is indeed not a panacea, either
on the trade matters or on human rights. There are no panaceas
in that regard. We do think it will help. We think the
transparency will help. We think the rules-based organization
will help. But we're not pretending that this is going to be a
magic wand that will really achieve all of our goals on human
rights in Russia.
We agree, therefore, that we need other mechanisms to
continue to promote human rights and democracy in Russia. I
guess the point I would make about this constellation of issues
having to do with Jackson-Vanik and the WTO is that Jackson-
Vanik is not the answer, either. So when some may suggest that,
since WTO itself isn't the answer, we need to keep Jackson-
Vanik as some sort of lever to get the Russians to respond on
democracy and human rights, that's not the lever. It's been on
the books for 40 years. Its specific aims have been achieved
and it is standing in the way of what we think are some really
important benefits we would get from Russia's WTO membership.
And I stress that we would get. This is not a gift to Russia.
It is in the interests of U.S. exporters, businesses, and the
United States in general.
So we agree that WTO alone won't do it. I would argue that
Jackson-Vanik isn't the answer. So then you ask, what is? What
can we do? I think we have presented to you today and in
previous discussions the reality of what we are already doing,
even as we're ready to work and look at other things we might
do. Tom listed a number of steps very specifically that we have
already been taking through the bilateral Presidential
Commission, through our direct engagement and other means, to
promote democracy and human rights in Russia.
We also have, as for the very specific set of issues you
mentioned in terms of visas and denying visas to those guilty
of human rights abuses--as we have been clear, the Secretary
has already used the authorities in the Immigration and
Naturalization Act to make clear that we will not give a visa
to anybody who we believe is guilty, either in the tragic death
of Sergei Magnitsky or, more generally, guilty of grave
violations of human rights. Those authorities were strengthened
by the President's August proclamation, which makes it clear
that it's the policy of the United States not to give a visa to
anyone responsible for grave violations of human rights,
including arbitrary detention, which is one of the most
relevant aspects of the Magnitsky case.
Senator Cardin. Let me point out, I think we are in
agreement on many of those issues. Where we will be talking
during the next several months is how we provide a more
permanent basis for these types of issues. Action by one
administration can be forgotten by a second administration. So
how do we institutionalize the standards for human rights,
taking a look at this opportunity as we move toward Russia's
integration in the WTO, it gives us a chance to advance
institutional changes for human rights. We look forward to
seeing how we can advance legislation that achieves that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for having this
hearing and for your being here as witnesses.
It's interesting. First of all, I appreciate the efforts
that Senator Cardin has put forth in a one-off situation, and I
think he's talking about trying to figure out a way to
implement greater efforts on human rights.
At the same time, as I listen it seems like Russia sort of
evokes different emotions in people than countries like China--
the elections process there is certainly very different even
than it is in Russia, nonexistent--and the Congo, Saudi Arabia,
where a woman was beheaded yesterday.
So is it your experience that there is sort of a general
sense here about Russia that's very different than other
countries that maybe have even worse human rights records
within Congress?
Dr. Gordon. Senator, I think it is fair to say that we have
very high standards for Russia. We see Russia as a European
country. We believe it belongs in this European space, which is
predominated by democracies and countries that have strong rule
of law and fight corruption and well-developed institutions and
good relations with their neighbors. So yes, we are holding
Russia to a high standard, the standard that their leaders
themselves have talked about wanting to reach, and will
continue to do so.
Senator Corker. And I assume that in holding them to that
high standard and hoping that there is an evolution that
continually moves in a more pro-West direction, the best way
for us to do that is to have even greater ties to them as it
relates to trade and other activities; is that correct?
Dr. Gordon. That is correct. That's one of the things we're
trying to achieve.
Senator Corker. And Jackson-Vanik I think is sort of one of
those things. I mean, people want to use it as leverage, but
it's a ``cut your nose off to spite your face.'' It's basically
saying we're going to leverage Russia by not repealing Jackson-
Vanik, and if we don't we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot.
Is that basically what's happening?
Dr. Gordon. You said it very well, Senator. One could argue
that even before the WTO accession process Jackson-Vanik was
anachronistic and should have been taken off the books. And
surely, once they ratify the WTO agreement it would really be
cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Senator Corker. And generally speaking, as it relates to
just pro-democracy, pro-human rights efforts, I think it's been
fairly well realized that the more interaction that U.S.
companies and citizens have with countries like this and
citizens in these countries see how the United States acts in
that regard and see how our citizens regard them, that
generally speaking over time there is an evolution toward
Western cultural acceptance; is that correct?
Dr. Gordon. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Corker. So I think what you're saying is that we
can talk about human rights, which we all care about, and we
certainly can promote efforts from within, like you're talking
about the administration has proposed, but to hold Jackson-
Vanik up as some kind of leverage is just one of the most
foolish things Congress could possibly do. Is that what you're
saying?
Dr. Gordon. We believe Jackson-Vanik should be repealed,
Senator.
Senator Corker. OK. We thank you for being here today and
look forward to the second panel.
Senator Shaheen. Perhaps you'd like to send Senator Corker
out on the speaking circuit. [Laughter.]
I think I was quite surprised looking at the returns that
we did get from Russia and what happened to Prime Minister
Putin and his party in those elections. I was surprised that he
didn't do any better despite efforts to manipulate the election
results. I think I certainly have had a perception, that I
think is shared by many, that President Medvedev has been
easier to deal with in terms of human rights concerns, that he
seems to have expressed more concern about some of the human
rights abuses than we had heard previously from President
Putin.
So as we look at Mr. Putin's return to the Presidency and
the switch that they have orchestrated, how does that
complicate our future efforts to address some of the human
rights concerns that everyone here has spoken to very
eloquently? Maybe you could both address that question if you
would.
Dr. Gordon. I'll just make two brief points, Madam
Chairman. First, on the election result itself, obviously it's
our view that it's up to Russians to decide who they want to
elect. The one comment I would make about it is not so much who
ended up getting what proportions of the vote, but the fact
that some of the parties that ought to have been able to
campaign and compete for votes weren't given the opportunity to
do so, and that's an irregularity that should really be
addressed moving forward so we can see a true expression of
what the Russian popular will is.
As far the possible return of President Putin, I don't want
to get into analysis of different personalities, but I would
just note the fact that, even as we have reached the various
agreements that I have alluded to over the past 3 years and
developed our relationship with Russia and pursued the reset
and so on, Mr. Putin was the Prime Minister of Russia, not
apparently without power, and didn't stand in the way of the
significant progress that we've made.
So all we can do if he were to come back is continue to
test the proposition that we have common interests and we will
continue to pursue them.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Melia, Dr. Gordon didn't really
address the human rights piece of my question. Can you shed any
light on that, whether we expect a return of President Putin to
be more hard-line than we've seen, to the extent that that's
possible?
Mr. Melia. Well, sometimes we have to take leaders at their
word, and in a couple ways that's relevant here. One is that
President Medvedev in announcing the plan for the March
elections and the return of Mr. Putin to the Presidency, he
said that decisions have been taken collectively by the two of
them these past 4 years. So I think we have to think that
that's at least a possibility, that the two of them have been
jointly managing Russia and that most of the things that have
been done reflect some kind of consensus between them or a
balance between them.
Whether that balance will continue to be played out and be
continuing after next March, we'll have to see. I don't think
it's the case that things will be altogether different after
March. Mr. Putin has not been far from leadership in Russia
these last 4 years.
So all of that means that it will continue to be difficult.
It will continue to be something for Russian people to address
what the nature of their political system is, how free their
society is. Our role is as a supporting actor in this. The
Russians are the leading actors in this drama, and I think that
the curtain has gone up on a new act right now since last
weekend's elections. I think it was--clearly something happened
the day before, the day of, or the day after last week's
elections that mobilized a lot of people to come out into the
streets in a way they had not done in 20 years.
So what that means going forward we don't know. But I think
that it's at least as much up to these Russian people who've
been mobilized as it is up to Mr. Putin what the future course
will take. And our job will continue to be to demonstrate our
support, not for particular candidates or electoral outcomes,
but for a process that is more open and genuine and for people
that speak for the values that we support. We'll continue to do
that.
Senator Shaheen. You mentioned in your testimony the
interest in creating a new fund to support civil society in
Russia. I think you both mentioned that in your testimony. Can
you talk about what we're hearing from civil society leaders on
the ground in Russia about how helpful that will be to them and
whether it will exacerbate efforts on the part of the current
administrations in Russia to crack down on their activities?
If we're being accused of being behind efforts to open up
Russia, is it helpful for people on the ground there to have
this kind of a fund to assist them?
Mr. Melia. Well, as with the funding opportunities that
have been available in Russia from USAID, from the National
Endowment for Democracy, from our own grants program at DRL
within the State Department, Russians make their own decisions
about whether to apply for or receive those funds, and we
respect their decisions about how visibly they want to be
associated with us.
So as around the world, that's generally the rule of thumb
that I would subscribe to, is that we should indicate that
we're prepared to help and to help in ways that people on the
ground ask us to and respect their wishes for how directly they
want to be associated with us or whether they want to take our
money or not, and leave the decisions about how they best use
that funding largely to them.
So I think what would be significant about the new fund is
that it would be a substantial new amount of money that would
be available over a period of time. We haven't worked out all
the modalities of that. But it would I think, particularly at
this moment, it would send a very powerful signal to the
Russian people that the United States is stepping up its
willingness to invest in their future.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Did you want to add anything to that, Dr. Gordon?
Dr. Gordon. No, thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Well, let me just make an observation
following up on the chairman's comment. President Medvedev has
been outspoken about a lot of the human rights tragedies in
Russia, promising full investigations, et cetera, et cetera.
Then somewhere along the line that doesn't happen, and at least
the common belief is that Mr. Putin has been involved in
stopping the reforms and independent investigations, et cetera.
So I just really want to follow up on the chairman's
question. It seems to me that, with it likely that Mr. Putin
will be ascending to the Presidency again, we're not exactly
sure how to decisions will be made under his Presidency. But
one thing becomes at least clearer to this Senator, that it's
going to be more hard-line on the human rights advancements and
that it even puts more of a spotlight in importance on how we
deal internationally with the human rights dimension.
Any comments on that?
Dr. Gordon. Maybe just a couple of things, Senator. I can't
comment or speculate on who may have been responsible for
halting different investigations.
Senator Cardin. The President did make certain pretty
strong statements.
Dr. Gordon. He did, and he has supported the work of a
number of commissions in Moscow that have actually been quite
clear about what happened in the Magnitsky case, the most
recent one essentially admitting that there was no due process
and that he was inappropriately jailed and he was likely beaten
and held in arbitrary detention. That's progress, to have
Russian officialdom on the record stating what many of us
believe to be true.
There hasn't been full followup, as I think I said in my
opening statement. A couple of prison officials, doctors, mid-
level, have been charged, but the more senior people
responsible for what took place have not been.
So yes, it is a positive thing that he's called for these
investigations, but followup needs to happen. Again, I don't
know why it hasn't, but I would say, taking us back just
briefly to this point about leadership, without your efforts
and I would hope to be able to say our collective efforts, we
wouldn't have gotten as far as we have, and that's why we are
in complete agreement about the need to keep the pressure on.
Whether that will have the same result if there's a President
Putin remains to be seen. But again, what's in our hands is the
ability to keep the spotlight and the pressure on.
Senator Cardin. And I appreciate that diplomatic answer.
Mr. Putin's reputation is much more concerning,
problematic, from our point of view, and it seems to me that
with the elevation of his position--he may very well have been
calling the shots over the last 4 years; we don't know--it just
puts an additional burden on the human rights dimension. At
least we have seen some action in Russia that may not be there
under the Putin administration. It just I think underscores the
need why we need to pay even a little bit closer attention to
make sure we get the strongest possible policy we can to
advance human rights.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Shaheen. Go ahead, Mr. Melia.
Mr. Melia. I think Senator Cardin has very aptly described
the challenge we face. I think Mr. Putin has demonstrated that
he's certainly more pugnacious in the way he responds to our
statements and what he says about the West and the United
States in particular.
I think it's all the more important, therefore, going into
this next year and whatever period he might be in office that
we stay steady on our course, that we maintain the course of
engagement, principled and purposeful engagement, not
engagement for its own sake, but principled and purposeful
engagement with Russia in all its facets--the government, civil
society, the business community.
It's a large, complex relationship we have with one of the
largest, most complex countries in the world, and we need to be
engaged on all fronts, including not least focusing on
supporting the efforts of Russians to strengthen democracy and
the rule of law, for all the reasons that we've talked about
today, and we will remain focused on that.
Certainly the European Bureau and our Embassy in Moscow
place a lot of effort on this. We have some of the best shoe
leather reporters in the business in Moscow, fluent Russian
speakers, out and about across the country. We learned a lot
about these elections from our front-line diplomats there. They
do an outstanding job demonstrating our commitment to civil
society and democracy every day they're there, and we try to
use that good information to elevate the information and make
policy points with the Secretary of State, as she did, not just
once last week, but repeatedly when challenged.
So we're going to remain focused on this, hopefully with
your support.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you both very much. I know we have
lots of other questions and comments that we could raise, but
in the interest of trying to get the second panel on before
voting starts I'm going to thank you very much and hope we will
see you again, and appreciate the efforts that you're both
making to address the human rights issues in Russia.
Now I would like to turn to the second panel, who I will
introduce as we're making the switchover. First is David
Kramer, who's the current President of Freedom House in
Washington. We also have Tom Malinowski, who is the Washington
Director of Human Rights Watch; and finally, rounding out the
second panel is Edward Verona, who is the current President and
CEO of the U.S.-Russia Business Council. Given all of the
comments about Russia's participation in the WTO, I think I'm
particularly looking forward to your comments as well.
So again thank you all for being here, and I'm going to
ask, David, if you would like to begin.
STATEMENT OF DAVID KRAMER, PRESIDENT,
FREEDOM HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Kramer. Chairwoman Shaheen, Senator Cardin thank you
very much for holding this hearing today. I know this hearing
was considered even before the latest developments in Russia on
December 4 and since, and I think this is an incredibly timely
and important hearing and I commend you for doing it.
Despite the Kremlin's concerted efforts, including rampant
harassment of opposition, civil society groups, cyber attacks
on liberal platforms like LiveJournal, the efforts to go after
the independent election monitoring organization Golos, and
pervasive fraud and ballot-stuffing, the ruling United Russia
Party still couldn't muster 50 percent of the vote on December
4. And given the extensive ballot-stuffing and vote
manipulation, United Russia undoubtedly received even less
support than the official 49 percent that was announced. By
comparison, it managed to secure 64 percent, according to
official results, in 2007.
So what happened between 2007 and December 4? Well, I think
the level of frustration among many Russians reached a point
where they decided enough is enough. Concomitantly, I would say
United Russia's, Putin's, and Medvedev's polling have hit new
lows. A growing number of Russians have been talking about
emigrating from their country, fed up with Russia's political
stagnation and never-ending corruption, and on December 4 many
voters decided that it is the authorities who should leave, not
they.
Russians did not react well to the plans announced by
Medvedev and Putin on September 24 that they were going to
switch jobs and have Putin come back as President for possibly
another 12 years. The prospect of 24 years under Putin, from
2000 until 2024, was simply too much for many Russians to
stomach. To many, this undemocratic return to the Presidency
was made so that Putin could preserve the status quo and the
corrupt system that he's overseen since 2000.
It's true that during Putin's time many average Russians
have seen an improvement in their standard of living. But the
corrupt nature of the regime meant that their enhanced personal
situation was never safe from thieving officials. So Russians
decided on December 4 that it was time to retake control over
the future of their country and said enough is enough.
After casting their ballots against the status quo, tens of
thousands of Russians across the country reinforced their
desire for real change by taking to the streets peacefully. The
vote on December 4, I would argue, can really be considered a
vote against United Russia, against Putin, against the status
quo. Missing for many Russians, though, is what to vote or whom
to vote for. That's going to be for Russians to determine, not
for us.
The current authorities are desperate not to lose the reins
of power and may resort to desperate measures. And because he
has so much at stake in preserving the status quo, Putin will
not merely stand still. Just last week, as you've already
discussed with Phil Gordon and Tom Melia, Putin blamed the
United States and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally
for instigating the protests last week.
Since his early years as President, Putin has always been
blaming others, seeing threats in particular from the West.
Whether after the Beslan tragedy in 2004 or in his infamous
Munich speech in 2007 or in his comments last week, Putin sees
threats to Russia from beyond the country's borders, coming
from the West, and it's simply patented nonsense.
The greatest threats to Russia come from the Kremlin's
ineffective and destabilizing policies in the North Caucasus,
the lack of a sound ethnic policy, lawlessness among the
security services and law enforcement sector, and a rotting
ruling clique with an insatiably corrupt appetite. To find a
real threat to Russia, Putin and those around him would need to
buy mirrors.
Russia's future, it goes without saying, will be decided by
Russians themselves, but there are steps that this Congress and
the Obama administration can and should be taking. Let me
identify four.
The first is to raise the profile of democracy and human
rights concerns as it relates to Russia and speak truth to
power.
Second, pass S. 1039, the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law
Accountability Act of 2011. I commend Senator Cardin in
particular for his outstanding leadership on this piece of
legislation.
Third, graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik, but do it only
if there is the Magnitsky legislation to take its place or
something comparable.
Last, I agree with both of you and with the previous panel:
Confirm Mike McFaul as the new U.S. Ambassador to Russia.
Very quickly, Secretary Clinton had a good week last week
when it came to Russia. She did a very good job abandoning the
administration's previous reticence to criticize Russian
authorities for the human rights abuses, corruption, and
electoral fraud. Her clear and repeated condemnation of the
Kremlin's efforts to rig the Duma elections was the clearest,
strongest language uttered by a Cabinet-level Obama
administration official to date. Clinton unambiguously stood
with those who protested against Putin and United Russia.
Despite Putin's attacks against her, she didn't back down.
Her candor, however, should have been reinforced by the White
House and President Obama in particular. When Putin went after
his Secretary of State, the President should have been out
there defending her personally and stating unambiguously that
he supported her criticisms of the elections. Since a laudable
speech and a good visit to Russia in 2009, the President,
sadly, has been virtually silent when it's come to Russia's
deteriorating political situation. The President should lay
down the expectation that the United States will be watching
the government's treatment of protesters and the conduct of
next March's Presidential elections, dispelling any myth that
the reset policy means that the United States will remain
silent when things go wrong in order to keep relations friendly
and warm.
If the Presidential election next March is riddled with as
many problems as the Duma election 10 days ago, then the United
States should raise serious questions about the actual
legitimacy of the next Russian leadership. Some are even
raising questions about the new Duma, and given how much time
President Obama has invested in the reset, it is important for
him personally to speak out and reinforce Secretary Clinton's
assessment. It matters who in the U.S. Government conveys these
messages.
When Russian officials behave in blatantly undemocratic
ways, as they did on December 4, as they've done on many other
occasions, they should not get a pass from the White House
because of fear that criticism of their actions might upset the
reset.
On the Magnitsky legislation--and Senator Shaheen, I also
commend you for your cosponsorship of this bill--this is an
extremely important measure that Congress needs to pass as
quickly as possible, and I strongly urge the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee to take this up in as soon a schedule as
possible.
You've already discussed, Senator Cardin, the tragedy that
befell Sergei Magnitsky, his family, and all who knew him, and
you've also talked about the importance of other Parliaments in
Europe and Canada that are moving forward with legislation. It
is important that this is not just a U.S. initiative, but that
it is a trans-Atlantic initiative, in order to demonstrate to
Russian officials that if they engage in gross human rights
abuses there will be a penalty to be paid, and that penalty
should include not just depriving them of the privilege, as you
said, Senator Cardin, not right but privilege, to travel to the
United States, but we should also go after their assets. They
shouldn't be allowed to deposit their ill-gotten gains in
Western financial institutions and we should freeze their
assets. They put their money, by the way, in the West, they
don't keep it in Russia. There's $70 billion in capital flight
estimated for this year. They don't put it in Chinese banks.
They put it in Western institutions, and that means we do have
leverage and we do have means by which to go after them.
It is critically important that we demonstrate to Russian
officials, that we demonstrate to Russian society, that we
demonstrate to Russian opposition figures, that if Russian
officials engage in human rights abuses they will not be
allowed in the West either personally or fiscally.
I strongly urge rapid passage of this legislation, which
has forced Russian officials to take this case more seriously,
although the lag since it was first introduced has given the
Russians the sense that it is not going to pass. We need to
disabuse them of this notion and let them know that this
legislation will in fact be passed by this Congress and will be
signed by this administration.
I know I'm out of time. Very quickly, Madam Chair, Jackson-
Vanik. As I've mentioned, I agree with Senator Corker that it
should be lifted, and it will only hurt ourselves if we don't
lift it. But we also have to keep in mind the symbolism of
lifting Jackson-Vanik if we don't do anything else
legislatively.
There has to be another piece of legislation that addresses
modern-day problems and challenges in Russia, and that
legislation is the one that Senator Cardin has introduced. I'm
all for lifting Jackson-Vanik and replacing it with a current
piece of legislation that addresses today's Russia.
Last, Mike McFaul is as qualified as anyone could be to
serve as Ambassador to Russia. On democracy and human rights
issues he has an outstanding record. I strongly urge his
confirmation as soon as possible, though I also recognize that
there are some Members of the Senate who have some serious
issues that need to be addressed by the administration.
In conclusion, contrary to Putin's claims that last week's
developments were the inspiration of the United States, it was
Russians who took to the streets, with the hope that their
voices would be heard and their government held accountable.
Last week was a victory for the Russian people over
authoritarianism, corruption, and repression. There's a long
way to go, but last week for sure was a promising beginning.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry that, Mr. Malinowski and Mr. Verona, I'm going to
have to ask you to hold on your testimony for a little while.
We're almost out of time on the first vote. There are two
votes, so it will take us a little while to come back, but
hopefully not any longer than about 10 minutes--10 or 15
minutes.
So we will break for a few minutes and we will--at least I
will see you back here shortly.
[Recess from 11:20 a.m. to 11:47 a.m.]
Senator Shaheen. We will resume the hearing. I should
realize voting always takes longer than I thought it was going
to. But we will continue with Mr. Malinowski's testimony. Go
ahead.
STATEMENT OF TOM MALINOWSKI, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS
WATCH, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you very, very much, Madam Chairman,
for having me, for holding the hearing, for doing it now, when
we so need a spotlight on these events.
The events we've seen in Russia in the last few days are
extraordinary and I would argue they're extraordinarily
important. For all the talk about resets with respect to Russia
in the last 3 years, the Russian people have now brought about
the biggest reset of them all. We don't know where this is
heading or what's going to happen, but I think it's safe to say
that Russia is not going back to what it was before this
awakening on the part of the Russian people, and our policies
can't go back either. We have to realign as well.
A few words about what's happened, why it happened, and
what I think we should be doing in response. As David stressed,
this came about because of the frustrations of the Russian
people, and I would stress that those frustrations have been
building for a very long time. They've been building because in
the last 10 years the Russian Government has either weakened or
dismantled every institution that might have limited its power
or increased the power of its citizens--judicial independence
increasingly undermined, independent broadcast media brought to
heel, local and regional governments coming under Kremlin
control.
In the eyes of most Russians, their country has become a
place where those with power can do essentially whatever they
want, without regard to the law, without regard to what the
people of the country think.
Now, the most terrible consequences of those policies, if
we're thinking about the human rights situation in Russia, have
been felt by the people of the North Caucasus--Chechnya, and
its neighboring provinces. You mentioned the 99.5 percent of
the vote that the ruling party got in Chechnya. We need to
think about what lies behind that. It's a climate of complete
terror that people are living in there. Security forces
routinely disappear people, execute people, torture people in
custody, and exercise just absolute control over the political
life there.
Serious human rights abuses haven't been limited to those
conflict areas. Outside of Moscow and most cities, if you want
to hold a demonstration before these latest events, it's going
to get broken up. If you want to protest something like the
Khimki Forest problem, you get beaten up by the police before
you can do anything. If you go to prison, you'll be abused. And
of course, we've seen, as in the case of Magnitsky, that
powerful people can basically purchase the justice system to
arrest you and hold you in detention as a form of extortion.
Now, a lot of people, I think, have wondered in the face of
all this, why were the Russians so silent? Is it because
they're apathetic or cynical or just resigned to their fate? Is
it because Putin somehow bought them off with all of the oil
money? So this sudden outburst of protest I think took a lot of
people by surprise. It's interesting, we've been taken by
surprise a lot in the last year in a lot of parts of the world.
It's become kind of a habit.
But I think there are analogies one can draw. In a lot of
these countries, whether it's Egypt or Syria or Russia or you
name it, the absence of popular resistance to repression is
rarely a sign of real apathy. It's more often a case that
people choose not to resist because their governments make it
seem like resistance will be futile. If you come out, you'll be
one of 10 people and there will be 100 riot police to stop you,
and no one wants to do it under those circumstances.
But beneath the surface in these societies, there's a
different kind of resistance that builds. People have private
conversations with each other. They ridicule their leaders in
private. They vent on social networking sites. A friend of mine
recently said that protests in Russia have gone from second
life to real life. That's what we saw in the last few days.
Members of the elite may project a lot of confidence, but
deep down they're not all that confident, and all it takes is
one spark to light a fire. The spark in this case was this
announcement that Putin and Medvedev would change places.
People just couldn't tolerate that, kind of like Egyptians
couldn't tolerate Mubarak passing down power to his son, as if
their views just didn't matter and it's going to be like this
forever. They just didn't want that.
Now, it's very critical what happens in the next few months
before the Presidential elections. I don't think Putin is going
to massacre people in Red Square. I don't think he can do that.
I also don't think it's in his nature to give up. So we have to
look for kind of the old tricks of trying to coopt the
opposition, to give them a little space while hoping that this
all goes away.
But I don't think that works any more all that well. People
no longer feel they're alone in Russia if they go out and
protest, and a government that loses its legitimacy doesn't
have the same kind of options that it used to have.
What can we do? No. 1, I totally agree we need to keep
speaking about this in a very clear and public way. The more
angrily that Russian leaders insist that they don't care what
the world thinks, the more I think they actually really do
care. So when Secretary Clinton spoke out as she did, I thought
that was extremely eloquent and powerful. She doesn't need a
compliment from me because she already got the best compliment
that any Secretary of State can ever get, and that is being
denounced by Vladimir Putin. My life won't be complete if that
never happens to me. [Laughter.]
No. 2, the United States should apply targeted pressure
against those elements of the security apparatus in Russia that
tortured and killed the very individuals who were trying to
make the government accountable. That's what Senator Cardin's
legislation, which you have supported--and I thank you for
that--seeks to do.
Obviously, the Russian people have to change their country.
It's up to them. But in some ways inadvertently, the West, the
United States and Europe, do play a role in enabling these
problems in Russia, in the sense that we provide an escape
valve for the people who are creating those problems, a place
where they can spend and shelter their money, a place where
they can go when things get a little bit tough inside their own
country. What this bill does is it closes that escape valve. It
says that if you have committed murder, if you are responsible
for torture, you can't come here, you can't park your money
here. And if the EU were to adopt it, it would be especially
powerful.
So this is the reason for it. It's not just a way of
expressing our anger. It's actually something that the worst
elements in Russia I think fear a great deal.
Now, the State Department has said it's not necessary to do
legislation because they've already taken action on visas. But
if you notice, what they're stressing is, and the only thing
they've really stressed publicly, is we've taken action against
the people guilty in the Magnitsky case. Of course that's very
important, but that's one case. It happens to be very
prominent. But it's not the way one would respond if one were
really aggressively, proactively trying to deal with a range of
human rights abuses in Russia. There are a lot of cases like
Magnitsky that deserve equal attention.
So whether it's done by legislation or executive action, it
needs to be done right. It needs to cover people responsible
for the range of very serious, the most serious human rights
abuses in Russia. Very, very importantly, it needs to be joined
by the Europeans. One thing I really want to see the
administration do is to make an active effort to persuade the
European Union to adopt similar measures. If they don't want
Congress to do it, that's fine, but they should be asking the
European Union to join them so that it actually works in the
way that we intend.
Now, is this going to undermine cooperation with Russia on
other important issues? I can't guarantee that it won't, but I
would note that the people who are targeted by this legislation
are people who are despised by the majority of Russians. Most
Russians I think are going to be quite happy if these people
are unable to park their money in the French Riviera or New
York City. And I think it's going to be politically dangerous
for the Russian Government to be seen as standing up too much
for those people in opposition to this legislation. So, the
Russian Government's duty is to convince you that it will end
the relationship, but I don't think that that's the case. In
fact, I also think a good case can be made that the Cardin
legislation would be as good for the Russian economy as joining
the WTO if it does, in fact, help stop capital flight by these
individuals. So I think it's actually a fairly popular measure
among the Russian people.
Then, finally, I completely agree that we need a strong
Ambassador in Russia and no gap when the current Ambassador
leaves. So absolutely I would join your calls and David's for
the Senate to act very quickly on the President's nomination.
There are other important concerns that have been expressed in
the context of this nomination. I don't want to diminish their
sincerity, but this is the time to prioritize our response to
these incredible events inside Russia which are going to
determine the outcome of everything that matters in our
relationship. That should be the priority right now.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Malinowski
Madam Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your
invitation to testify this morning.
Over the last several days, Russians have come out in numbers not
seen in years to express frustrations long simmering beneath the
surface--about abuse of power, corruption, and their political leaders'
complete lack of accountability and infantilizing of the public. We do
not know where this popular awakening will lead. But it is safe to say
that Russia is not going back to what it was before it began. We've
heard a lot about ``resets'' with respect to Russia in the last 3
years. The Russian people have now brought about the biggest reset of
them all.
The concerns that led to these demonstrations have been building
among Russians for some time. To many Russians, their country in the
last few years has once again become a place where those with political
power, or political connections, can do what they want without regard
to the law or to the will of the people they are supposed to serve. As
the death of Sergei Magnitsky and other activists who have challenged
the authorities suggests, it has again become a place where the
powerful can, literally, get away with murder.
That's not to say that Russia today is what it was during the days
of the Soviet Union. Russians enjoy vastly more freedoms in their
personal lives than they did then. They can own property. They can
travel throughout the country and abroad. They can inform and express
themselves more or less freely through the Internet. Opposition parties
struggle, but do exist. There are still newspapers critical of the
government. Some of the forms of democracy are still respected,
including semicompetitive elections. But the substance of democracy--
the checking and balancing of authority that make governments answer to
people--has gradually evaporated.
During the Presidency of Vladimir Putin, the Russian Government
weakened or dismantled every institution that might have limited the
power of its leaders or increased the power of its citizens. Under
President Medvedev, some reforms were carried out, such as the
decriminalization of libel, improvements to the criminal code, and
somewhat greater openness to domestic and international scrutiny of
government policies. But there was no notable improvement in respect
for civil and political rights. Over the past decade, local and
provincial elected governments were made subservient to the Kremlin.
Strict and arbitrary registration requirements made it hard for
opposition parties to function (practices that the European Court for
Human Rights found in 2011 to violate the European Convention on Human
Rights). Television networks that once featured independent political
coverage and commentary were brought to heel. Courts, never fully
independent after the fall of the Soviet Union, increasingly became
tools of the state--or of those who could afford to purchase the legal
judgments that served their interests.
The most terrible consequences of these policies have been felt by
people in the North Caucasus region. In Chechnya, ruled by the brutal
pro-Kremlin warlord Ramzan Kadyrov, the 99.5-percent support that the
pro-Kremlin United Russia Party was recorded as receiving in the recent
Duma elections testifies to the shameless rigging by local authorities
there, and the degree of control they exercise. Law enforcement and
security agencies in Chechnya have routinely forcibly disappeared
people suspected of supporting insurgent groups and those who
challenged Kadyrov's authority. The European Court of Human Rights has
ruled over 185 times that the Russian Government and its proxies were
responsible for extrajudicial executions, torture, and enforced
disappearances in Chechnya; in none of these cases have those
responsible been brought to justice. Far from eliminating terrorism,
this repression has contributed to the spread of violence by insurgent
groups and state security forces alike--to other provinces, such as
Dagestan, Ingushetia, and Kabardino-Balkaria.
But serious abuses of human rights in Russia have not been limited
to conflict areas--far from it. Though small freedom assembly rallies
have been permitted in Moscow on the 31st day of each month, similar
demonstrations have rarely been allowed in other cities. In all parts
of Russia, torture and abuse is common in prisons and pretrial
detention facilities. Powerful individuals and well-connected companies
can arrange to have their political enemies or business competitors
placed in detention as a form of revenge or extortion.
Many human rights defenders and those who challenge these
injustices risk harassment and violent attack, whereas those who
threaten them enjoy continued impunity. Those responsible for ordering
the murder in Moscow of Anna Politkovskaya, the courageous journalist
who exposed atrocities committed in the North Caucasus, remain
unpunished. No one has been brought to justice for the murders of three
activists in Chechnya in 2009--Natalya Estemirova, Zarema Saidulaeva,
and Alik Dzhabrailov. Local citizens and journalists who protested the
construction of a highway through the once protected forest reserve of
Khimkhi near Moscow have been subjected to brutal assaults. Whistle
blowers, like Sergei Magnitsky, have been persecuted by the same
judicial system that should be protecting them.
All of this has been clear for some time. Many people have
therefore wondered why most Russians seemed so passive in the face of
such injustice and indignity. It was often said that Russians were
somehow historically apathetic or apolitical or simply cynical and
resigned. Or that they had simply been bought off by the greater
prosperity that came to them, courtesy of Russia's energy exports,
during the Putin era.
And so, the sudden outburst of protest in Moscow and other big
Russian cities in the last week took many observers by surprise.
Then again, so did the revolution in Tunisia, where a repressive
government had also maintained stability for years by making its people
more prosperous than their neighbors. When the government in Tunisia
was toppled, many experts quickly cautioned that the same could not
happen in Egypt, given how weak and divided the pro-democracy activists
there had been, for as long as anyone could remember. When revolution
did spread to Egypt, it was said that the same lightning could not
strike in Libya or Syria, where dictators exercised near complete
control, and where civil society barely existed.
The absence of popular resistance to repression is rarely a sign of
true apathy; more often, people choose not to resist because their
governments work hard to make resistance futile. This has been the
Russian Government's strategy (just as it was the strategy of the
Egyptian Government under Mubarak)--to persuade people that if they
challenge the state, they will stand alone and surely lose, and thus
endanger themselves for nothing.
But beneath the surface in such societies, a different kind of
resistance can gradually erode the legitimacy of a state. People share
their disgust with their families, coworkers, and friends. They lose
respect for their leaders and greet their pronouncements with ridicule.
Children of the elite confront their parents and ask how they can be
part of such a lie. Members of the elite project confidence to the
outside world, but often recognize, privately, that they are not
telling the truth, and sometimes feel doubt and even shame as a result.
Under such circumstances, a single spark can ignite unstoppable
movements for change and cause a seemingly powerful state's authority
to crumble.
There were always reasons to believe that this would be an
interesting period in Russia, because of the parliamentary elections
and next year's Presidential transition. You can stage-manage an
election, but it is hard to control, or predict, how people will react
to being managed on such a massive scale. But the real spark turned out
to be Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev's public announcement
back in September, more than 2 months before the parliamentary vote,
that they would switch places and even more so, that this decision was
made ``years ago.'' This was not even the pretense of democracy. Two
men--or more likely one--would decide who would rule Russia. They
weren't even going to pretend that the views of the millions of
Russians they were asking to ``vote'' to confirm their arrangement
mattered.
Even worse, it became clear that the injustices and indignities
many Russians had been enduring would continue for perhaps another 12
years. And then, adding injury to insult, observers found widespread
evidence of cheating in last week's Duma elections, soon confirmed by
videos showing just how brazenly, and clumsily, pro-Kremilin forces
tried to increase their advantage.
And so, activists took to the streets in protests. Security forces,
behaving as usual, violently suppressed those protests and arrested
hundreds of people. But this time, ordinary Russians responded by
coming out in even greater numbers--tens of thousands over the weekend.
This time, they seemed to know that they would not be standing alone.
And it was the government, for once, that decided resistance would be
futile. Indeed, police worked cooperatively with protest organizers,
discussing security arrangements well in advance of the rally--
hopefully a precedent for the coming months.
During the period between now and the Presidential election,
scheduled for March 4 next year, we will see if the protests continue
to grow, and if so, how the state will respond. A critical question
will be whether the government allows a credible, independent
investigation of allegations of vote rigging during the Duma elections.
Of course, no one can know now what will happen. The Russian state is
still strong. Civil society is still rather weak. Putin and his
security apparatus may lash out in ways that increase the degree of
repression in Russia in the short term. We have already seen some signs
of that the government has pressed online social networks to censor
calls for demonstrations, and prosecutors have questioned executives of
networks that have refused to do so.
But many of their old tactics--whether arresting protest leaders,
or blaming the West--not only are not working, but are backfiring.
What can the United States do to support the Russian people and to
increase the chance that they will be able to exercise their rights and
freedoms? Of course, the United States cannot play a decisive role in
these events, and should not try. But there are some steps the United
States could take that would help.
First, the Obama administration and Members of Congress should keep
speaking--calmly but firmly and publicly--against abuses by the Russian
Government and in favor of Russian's struggling for universal rights.
The more angrily Russian leaders insist that they do not care what the
world thinks, the more I think that they care a great deal.
International legitimacy matters to the Russian political elite, as it
does to elites in most countries. They would prefer to be respected
than looked down upon. Many value their connections to the West and
abilities to travel and do business internationally. They try to
convince their people that all this Western talk about human rights is
insincere and inconsistent; that Americans will bend their principles
whenever it suits them. It is important to disprove that argument.
Secretary of State Clinton does not need me to praise her for her
recent words about the Russian elections, since she's already received
the best compliment any Secretary of State can ever get--a denunciation
from Vladimir Putin. But I thought that her comments--her insistence
that Russians, like people everywhere, have a right to choose their
leaders and have their voices count--were eloquent, principled, and
effective. I hope that she and President Obama will continue to speak
out.
Second, the United States should apply targeted pressure against
those elements of the Russian security apparatus that have tortured and
killed the very individuals who are trying to make the government
accountable. This is what Senator Cardin's legislation--the Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act--seeks to do. It is not
designed to sanction Russia or the Russian Government or to interrupt
any diplomatic or economic cooperation between the United States and
Russia. It targets individuals inside Russia who are reasonably and
objectively suspected of having committed terrible crimes--such as
extrajudicial executions and torture--and whom the Russian Government
cannot legitimately embrace or seek to protect. It says that such
people should not be allowed to travel to the United States or to pass
their money through U.S. banks--something that the U.S. Government has
a legitimate interest in preventing.
Especially if joined by the European Union, such measures would
help to isolate and disadvantage these elements in Russia vis-a-vis
other members of the elite who are more open to reform and respectful
of dissent. Targeted visa and financial restrictions would also help to
cut off the escape valve enjoyed by many of the worst human rights
violators in Russia--their ability to convert power into wealth and
then to spend and store that wealth from New York to London to the
French Riviera.
Now, the State Department has said that this legislation is not
necessary because it has already imposed sanctions against Russian
officials linked to the death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky. I
appreciate the administration's action in that case. But the
administration has not announced whether it has taken such measures
against those responsible for other, less prominent, but equally
horrible crimes committed against Russians fighting for their rights
and freedoms. Any targeted measures imposed by the United States should
address all such cases in a principled and consistent way, not just one
emblematic case. The administration should also exercise its existing
legal authority to deny visas to Russian officials implicated in
corruption. And--very importantly--it should make it a priority to
persuade the European Union to apply similar visa and financial
restrictions as well.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether all this is done
through legislation or executive action. But it should be done right.
It should be done publicly. It should be done as much as possible in
concert with other nations. It should be done as part of a real
strategy to support the cause of human rights in Russia, not as a do-
no-more-than-is-necessary response to pressure from the Congress or
activist groups. If the administration won't act in this way, then the
Congress should advance and ultimately enact Senator Cardin's bill.
I appreciate the concerns some in the administration have expressed
that such measures might undermine the bilateral relationship between
Russia and the United States, and cooperation on important issues such
as nonproliferation and maintaining transit routes to Afghanistan.
Russian officials must, of course, try their best to convince you that
this will be the case. I cannot guarantee that it will not be. But keep
in mind that the people targeted by Senator Cardin's bill and the visa
bans already imposed by the administration are despised by many
Russians. Many Russians would be happy to learn that these people will
no longer be able to make shopping trips to the United States or to
park their money overseas, adding to the capital flight that so hurts
prospects for broad based prosperity in Russia. If push comes to shove,
it will be risky for the Russian Government to defend the targets of
this legislation, or to denounce international action against them, or
to use such action as a pretext to end cooperation with the West that
advances Russia's national interests.
Finally, Madam Chairman, it is very important that the United
States have the best possible diplomatic representatives on the ground
in Russia as these historic events unfold. The United States should
have an ambassador in Moscow who is not only a good diplomat, but who
sincerely believes in the cause of human rights, and can convey that
conviction effectively to the Russian Government and to the Russian
people. I hope that the Senate will act to ensure that such an
ambassador is in place the moment America's current ambassador to
Russia leaves his post. Whatever the reasons for delay--and I do not
question their sincerity--what should matter to the Senate now, above
all else, is how best to seize the historic moment presented by
Russia's political awakening and the promise it holds.
This is one more lesson of the Arab Spring that perhaps does apply
to Russia and indeed universally. Whether one believes that these
struggles for dignity and freedom that have been joined by millions of
people around the world should be a primary preoccupation of American
foreign policy is academic. For wherever such struggles arise, they
will be a central preoccupation. Most foreign policy experts never
imagined 2 years ago that the President of the United States would
spend far more time thinking about how to promote democratic change in
Egypt than he's spent contemplating Egypt's role in the Middle East
peace process.
But he has. Few imagined that any issue would be more important to
America's relationship with Syria than the complex role it plays in
supporting or undermining regional security in the Middle East. But the
Syrian people did something this year that caused us to set aside those
concerns to defend a set of values that trump all else.
What happens next in Russia is up to the Russian people. But if
they choose to keep taking risks to regain their democratic freedoms,
then their struggle will become everyone's preoccupation. The ways in
which the United States relates to Russia not only should change, but
will change. The question will not be whether to support a democratic
struggle, but how to do so most appropriately and effectively. For
virtually everything that matters in this relationship to Russians and
Americans alike will depend on the outcome.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Verona.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD VERONA, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
U.S.-RUSSIA BUSINESS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Verona. Thank you, Chairman Shaheen. It's an honor and
a privilege to testify before you today on behalf of the 250
member companies of the U.S.-Russia Business Council. In
offering my views today on rule of law issues with respect to
business, trade, and the investment climate in Russia, I would
suggest you consider the broader context of affecting change in
a legal and regulatory system that to date has not lent itself
easily to transparency or much external input, but that has
nevertheless achieved progress in recent years in rule of law
with respect to the commercial sphere.
In recent years there have been a number of positive
developments in the rule of law in Russia and I don't want to
conflate the progress made in commercial law with the ongoing
problems in the criminal court system and continued concerns
about the overall lack of an independent judiciary. However, I
would point out that there has been significant progress in the
implementation of commercial law and its application by judges
within the commercial court system.
Among these advancements have been the creation of an on-
line commercial law library and a database of cases pending
before the commercial courts that can be accessed at any time
by both parties to a dispute. Thanks in part to the efforts of
organizations like the Open World Leadership Center, which is
sponsored by Congress, many Russian judges and prosecutors have
come to the United States to meet with their counterparts, to
exchange ideas and to share views on best practices.
Another important step in the strengthening of rule of law
with respect to foreign investment in Russia was the adoption
of the law on foreign investment in strategic sectors in 2008.
The USRBC is encouraged by what we see as the professional
manner in which the provisions of that law have been
implemented by the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service.
Now I would like to turn to a question of great topical
importance to the business community, Russia's membership in
the WTO, and address the influence it may have on the
development of the rule of law in Russia. By the end of this
week, Russia will formally be invited to join the WTO. I don't
think there's any doubt about that. Barring some unlikely
reversal, the State Duma should ratify Russia's WTO accession
agreement within the stipulated
6-month period. So at the very latest, Russia will be a full
member of the WTO by mid-July of next year, allowing for a 30-
day period after deposit of the instruments of ratification.
We believe that this will bring multiple benefits to Russia
and to United States companies doing business there. First,
Russia will be required to implement its commitments on lowered
tariffs for a broad range of imported goods. Some of those
tariff reductions will be phased in over time and some will
become effective immediately. The United States industries most
likely to benefit are those that have already developed
successful export-based businesses with Russia--manufacturers
of commercial aircraft, farm equipment, automobiles and
automotive parts, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, communications
equipment, oil and gas producing equipment, and a variety of
other goods too numerous to cite here.
United States goods exports to Russia increased
significantly over the last decade, from $2 billion in 2000 to
a peak of $9 billion in 2008, an amount that we think we'll be
coming very close to matching this year. American exports of
components to third countries for assembly and re-export to
Russia account for a possibly significant, if unsubstantiated,
amount of additional exports.
It's difficult to estimate the precise number of United
States jobs that exclusively depend on trade with Russia, but
using recent Department of Commerce calculations for average
number of jobs created per dollar of exports, and they use one
job per $165,000 of exports as their benchmark, we can assume
that trade with Russia supports about 55,000 U.S. jobs. It
bears emphasizing that these are by and large high-value
exports with a significant human capital component. Moreover,
this does not capture those service sector jobs that will
increase as a result of Russia's WTO accession.
Second, there are indirect benefits that will improve the
business climate and create the conditions for a virtuous cycle
of increased investment, economic growth, and expansion of the
middle class. Russian membership in the WTO is a prerequisite
for membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, the OECD, which in turn requires that all members
adopt certain international standards in the financial and
business realms. Collectively, this will lead Russia in the
direction of better corporate governance and transparency in
many areas of economic and social policy. WTO membership in
particular carries with it specific commitments to improve
transparency, such as advance publication of proposed laws and
measures that affect trade in goods, services, or intellectual
property rights and ample time for interested parties to
provide comments on those proposed measures.
In addition, Russia has undertaken a commitment to provide
a right of appeal to interested parties. As a WTO member, it
will be required to consult with other members on a wide range
of issues at their request and will provide for member
consultation both before and after the adoption of new rules
and regulations.
By joining the WTO, Russia will also accept the principle
of international review and arbitration in the event of trade
disputes. This is crucial to U.S. companies and farmers, who
have complained on numerous occasions about tariffs, quotas,
and nontariff barriers against their exports.
Third, encouraging trade, tightening Russia's integration
into the global economy, and greater access by Russian
consumers to transformative technologies, such as the Internet
and hand-held communications devices, is likely to contribute
to growing societal demands for accountable government and
vigorous action to combat corruption, which first and foremost
affects the average Russian citizen.
One should not underestimate the effect of an increase in
the size of the middle class on Russia's political and economic
system. Our members have developed lucrative businesses trading
with and investing in Russia and we perceive a major market in
that country for the types of goods and services in which the
United States has a very strong competitive advantage. We
believe that United States companies' presence in the Russian
market exerts a constructive influence and has a positive
effect on many Russian companies.
However, we are at risk of falling behind our global
competitors if the United States is the only country in the WTO
that is unable to extend permanent normal trade relations to
Russia, which would be the case for as long as the Jackson-
Vanik amendment applies to Russia. I was very gratified that
Senator Corker made it very clear that that would be the case.
Jackson-Vanik fulfilled its purpose admirably and for that
we should be very grateful. With respect to Russia, however,
its time has passed and it provides no leverage in our
relationship now that Russia will be a full member of the WTO.
Failing to lift Jackson-Vanik will have no other effect than to
harm American commercial interests and to put American jobs at
risk. Therefore we urge Congress to act quickly to ensure that
we are able to have PNTR by the time that Russia's accession
becomes effective.
I would like to add the voice of business to those who have
urged the Senate to confirm Michael McFaul as the new
Ambassador to Russia. We believe it's critically important that
we have the best possible representation in Russia as we go
through this next critical phase in our bilateral relationship.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Verona follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward S. Verona
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the
Subcommittee on European Affairs, it is an honor and a privilege to
testify before you today on behalf of the 250 members of the U.S.-
Russia Business Council. The USRBC provides business development,
dispute resolution, government relations, and market intelligence
services to its member companies, which range from Fortune 100 firms to
small businesses in the United States and Russia that support increased
trade and investment between our two countries.
In offering my views today on rule of law issues with respect to
business, trade, and the investment climate in Russia, I would suggest
you consider the broader context of effecting change in a legal and
regulatory system that to date has not lent itself easily to
transparency or much external input, but that has, nevertheless,
achieved progress in recent years with respect to rule of law in the
commercial sphere. It is in both Russia's and the United States
interest for Russia to conduct its commercial operations and adapt its
corresponding legal and regulatory environments with greater
transparency and accountability.
I will begin my testimony today by highlighting specific regulatory
developments in Russia that indicate progress toward stronger rule of
law in the commercial sphere. Then, I will proceed to address the
specific benefits that we expect to see from Russia's membership in the
World Trade Organization (WTO) and the successes that American
companies have achieved in exporting to Russia and the potential for
increasing the volume of goods and services that the U.S. exports to
Russia. I will conclude by underscoring why it is critically important
for American businesses and American jobs that Congress lift the
Jackson-Vanik amendment as it applies to Russia.
regulatory developments in russia
In recent years, there have been a number of positive developments
in the rule of law in Russia motivated by the need to attract foreign
investment as well as the necessity to adapt to the rules and norms
required for membership in the WTO and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD).
I do not want to conflate the progress made in commercial law with
the ongoing problems in the criminal court system and continued
concerns about the overall lack of an independent judiciary. However, I
would point out that there has been significant progress in the
implementation of commercial law and its application by judges within
the commercial court system.
Among these advancements have been the creation of an online
commercial law library and a database of cases pending before the
commercial courts that can be accessed at any time by both parties to a
dispute. Thanks in part to the efforts of organizations like the Open
World Leadership Center--which is sponsored by Congress--many Russian
judges and prosecutors have come to the United States to meet with
their counterparts to exchange ideas and share views on best practices.
Another important step in the strengthening of rule of law with
respect to foreign investment in Russia was the adoption of the Law on
Foreign Investment in Strategic Sectors in 2008. While this law may
have been too broad in defining which sectors are ``strategic,'' it
codified a clear procedure for vetting foreign investment in these
sectors. In the past, foreign investment in areas that could be deemed
to be strategic was a matter of trial and error. The process
established by the new law has been compared by some to the Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process in the
United States.
The Russian Government has since amended and modified the Law on
Foreign Investment in Strategic Sectors to liberalize rules for
investment in that area. Specifically, it increased the threshold for
review of investment in the oil and gas sector from 10 percent
ownership to 25 percent.
Further, the USRBC is encouraged by what we see as the professional
manner in which the provisions of the Strategic Sectors Law have been
implemented by the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (FAS). This agency has
a mandate to enforce competition law and oversight of foreign
investment in strategic sectors. Thanks to professional and technical
exchange programs with the United States and Russia's other trading
partners, FAS has developed a cadre of highly qualified specialists who
are recognized for their impartiality and transparent enforcement of
the law. The FAS is led by General Director Igor Artemyev, who has been
extremely accessible to the private sector and remarkably candid in
expressing his views on the need to combat monopolistic and
oligopolistic tendencies in the Russian economy.
These advances will be extremely important as the Russian
Government launches its privatization initiative, intending to sell
upward of $40 billion in state assets and shares in state-owned
enterprises. It is in the Russian Government's interest that these
sales are conducted in a manner that will achieve the greatest possible
proceeds. Investors expect well-defined rules and absolute transparency
in the conduct of these tenders.
Additionally, through the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential
Commission, we have had a constructive dialogue about the importance of
the electronic procurement process as part of the wider effort to
reduce corruption in Russia. Various Russian Government officials have
come to the United States under the auspices of the Commission to learn
about e-government and how it is implemented in the United States.
implications of russia's wto accession
Now, I would like to turn to a topical question for the business
community, Russia's membership in the WTO, and address the influence it
may have on the development of the rule of law in Russia.
By the end of this week, Russia will be formally invited to join
the WTO. Barring an unlikely reversal, the State Duma should ratify
Russia's WTO accession agreement within the stipulated 6-month period.
At the very latest, Russia will be a full member of the WTO by mid-July
of next year. What has been an elusive goal during 18 years of on-
again, off-again negotiations will finally have been realized. We
believe that this will bring multiple benefits to Russia and to U.S.
companies doing business there.
First, Russia will be required to implement its commitments on
lower tariffs for a broad range of imported goods. Some of those tariff
reductions will be phased in over time, and some will be immediate. The
U.S. industries most likely to benefit are those that have already
developed successful export-based businesses with Russia: manufacturers
of commercial aircraft, farm equipment, automobiles and automotive
parts, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, communications equipment, mobile
communications devices, oil and gas producing equipment, and a variety
of others too numerous to cite.
U.S. goods exports to Russia increased significantly over the last
decade, from $2 billion in 2000 to a peak of $9 billion in 2008--an
amount that we will come close to matching this year. American exports
of components to third countries for assembly and re-export to Russia
account for a possibly significant, if unsubstantiated, amount of
additional exports.
It is difficult to estimate the precise number of U.S. jobs that
exclusively depend on trade with Russia, but using recent Department of
Commerce calculations for average number of jobs created per dollar of
exports (one job per $165,000), we can assume that trade with Russia
supports about 55,000 U.S. jobs.
It bears emphasizing that these are, by-and-large, high value
exports with a significant human capital component--in other words,
these are quality jobs. Moreover, this does not capture those service
sector jobs that will increase as a result of Russia's WTO accession.
Second, there are indirect benefits that will improve the business
climate and create the conditions for a virtuous cycle of increased
investment, economic growth and expansion of the middle class. Russian
membership in the WTO is a prerequisite for membership in the OECD,
which in turn requires that all members adopt certain international
standards in the financial and business realms.
Collectively, this will lead Russia in the direction of better
corporate governance and transparency in many areas of economic and
social policy. One important example of this is Russia's signing of the
OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in May, which establishes benchmarks for
compliance with international anticorruption standards.
In accordance with the requirements of OECD membership, Russia will
be expected to provide economic and financial data with an
international baseline, including information on publicly traded but
state-controlled enterprises; to adhere to guidelines on procurement,
public tender policies and internal costs; and to comply with
internationally accepted competition policies. These issues have been
raised by some of Russia's most prominent activists in areas of
financial and economic reform, such as Alexey Navalny.
WTO membership in particular carries with it specific commitments
to improve transparency, such as advance publication of proposed laws
and measures that affect trade in goods, services, or intellectual
property rights and ample time (not less than 30 days) for interested
parties to provide comments on these proposed measures. In addition,
Russia has undertaken a commitment to provide a right of appeal to
interested parties--including recourse to the Eurasian Economic
Community (EurAsEC) court that has jurisdiction over Customs Union
disputes--as well as ensure transparency on issues such as the
application of price controls and fees charged for importing and
exporting goods. As a WTO member, Russia will be required to consult
with other members on a wide range of issues at their request and will
provide for member consultation both before and after the adoption of
new rules and regulations.
By joining the WTO, Russia will also accept the principle of
international review and arbitration in the event of trade disputes.
This is crucial to U.S. companies and farmers, who have complained on
numerous occasions about tariffs, quotas, and nontariff barriers
against their exports.
In a broader sense, joining the WTO will be a signal to exporters
and to foreign and domestic investors alike that the Russian economy is
becoming more predictable and that governance in the areas that affect
business is on a path of gradual improvement. Membership in the WTO
and, later, the OECD will apply subtle but firm pressure on Russia to
adhere to international norms and standards.
Third, encouraging trade, tightening Russia's integration into the
global economy and greater access by Russian consumers to
transformative technologies (i.e., smartphones and the Internet) is
likely to contribute to growing societal demands for accountable
government and vigorous action to combat corruption, which, first and
foremost, affects the average Russian citizen.
One should not underestimate the effect of an increase in the size
of the middle class on Russia's political and economic system. For
example, the World Bank estimates that WTO membership will result in at
least a 3.7-percent increase in GDP in the next 5 years. According to
several socioeconomic studies, when per capita GDP exceeds roughly
$15,000, individuals become more attentive to quality of life issues,
including quality of government. Russia's current per capita GDP of
nearly $12,000 (at market exchange rates) places it at the threshold of
that category.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prosperity enables societies to acquire the very instruments
that have been demonstrated recently to have a powerful effect on the
public consciousness and to provide motivation to affect constructive
change. Some historical examples are South Korea, which began the
process of democratic transition in the late 1980s, assisted greatly by
membership in the OECD in 1996 when per capita GDP was about $12,000.
Mexico is another example. It joined the OECD in 1994, providing added
momentum to a process that would result in the PRI party losing its
influence, resulting in its electoral defeat in 2000 after 72 years in
power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
Our members have developed lucrative businesses trading with and
investing in Russia. We perceive a major market in Russia for the types
of goods and services in which the United States has a strong
competitive advantage. We believe that U.S. companies' presence in the
Russian market exerts a constructive influence and has a demonstrably
positive effect on many Russian companies.
We welcome Russia's WTO membership and wish to take advantage of
the market opportunities that it creates, many of which are the result
of the hard work of U.S. negotiators over the last 18 years. However,
we are at risk of falling behind our global competitors if the United
States is the only country in the WTO that is unable to extend
permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Russia, which would be the
case for as long as the Jackson-Vanik amendment applies to Russia.
Jackson-Vanik fulfilled its purpose admirably, and for that, we
should be grateful. With respect to Russia, however, its time has
passed and it provides no leverage in our relationship now that Russia
will be a full member of the WTO. Failing to lift Jackson-Vanik will
have no other effect than to harm American commercial interests and to
put American jobs at risk.
We, therefore, urge Congress to act quickly to ensure that we are
able to have PNTR by the time that Russia's accession becomes
effective.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee
today. I will be pleased to address any questions you may have.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Verona.
I'm going to start with you and with where you ended, which
is in the confirmation of Michael McFaul. I'm sorry that there
aren't more Senators here to have heard your comments. Can you,
just for the record, relay what you have heard from the
business community about Dr. McFaul and about the importance of
having an American Ambassador on the ground in Russia?
Mr. Verona. Certainly. First, I would like to say that we
have worked very well with Ambassador Beyrle and have the
highest regard for him and all that he has accomplished in the
almost
4 years that he has been there. And we have also worked very
closely with Mr. McFaul in his current capacity. He has kept
the business community apprised of issues that are relevant to
them. He understands our concerns. He certainly understands the
broader perspective. He's spoken on numerous occasions in
public forums, and we feel very comfortable that he would
adequately convey the concerns of business once he is at post
in Moscow.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
You, as I think almost everyone this morning, talked about
the importance of repealing Jackson-Vanik. Senator Cardin in
his comments pointed out that both with accession to the WTO
and in thinking about the repeal of legislation like Jackson-
Vanik we should think about how we can set the bar high in
terms of expectations for those actions. Can you talk about
where you think the business community is on what some of those
expectations ought to be as we look at potential repeal?
You talked about the benefits of WTO accession, but are
there areas where we should be trying to set the bar higher in
terms of what that means in some other areas for Russia?
Mr. Verona. Well, I think every company has to decide for
itself if the business climate presents opportunities or if the
risks outweigh those opportunities. So it's an individual firm-
level decision.
As a community, we support the obligations, the
conditionalities, of WTO membership, of the OECD, which
requires every incoming member, incidentally, to sign its
anticorruption convention, which Russia has already done in
advance of its eventual accession to the OECD. I think we would
like to see continuing emphasis on--by the U.S. Government--on
engaging with Russian leaders in the commercial and economic
realm to ensure that there is a level playing field, that
Russia lives up to the obligations that it has incurred by
joining the WTO.
We certainly, with respect to the Magnitsky case, because I
know that's really what you may be referring to, personally I
believe it was a reprehensible act against a man who has worked
for an American law firm, who was representing an American
investment fund, and who did what an individual of integrity
would have done. He called--he brought it to the attention of
the authorities.
We have written an open letter to President Medvedev. I
have spoken in various forums, not only here but in Russia,
about the Magnitsky case and pointed out that, with or without
any action by foreign governments, the Magnitsky case is an
indictment of the Russian judicial system, a failure of
justice, and that it does not help Russia in its efforts to
become more integrated with the world community, to encourage
new foreign investment, and that something should be done about
it in Russia's own best interests.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
I wonder, Mr. Kramer, if you would also pick up a little
bit on those comments with respect to the Magnitsky case,
because I think you referred to it in your testimony as
striking a chord in Moscow among the population. Can you talk
about how the Russian people view this case or elaborate a
little more, and whether you think that was a factor in
Medvedev's decision to review and reopen the case?
Mr. Kramer. Senator Shaheen, the push in the U.S. Congress
and also consideration in Europe for Magnitsky-kind of
legislation forced President Medvedev to announce he would
reopen the investigation. And he had his human rights council
do an investigation of it. The human rights council came to the
conclusion that Magnitsky had been beaten and then left to die
by depriving him of necessary life-saving medication. So
essentially Magnitsky was murdered.
But nothing happened of either President Medvedev's call
for a new investigation or of his human rights council's own
report. And in fact, the Ministry of Interior, in a remarkable
display of defiance, has awarded and promoted a number of
officials who were involved in the investigation and detention
and arrest and murder of Magnitsky. They rejected President
prevention's human rights council's report, and they have
engaged in a gross coverup of what happened to Sergei
Magnitsky.
It was the serious talk earlier this year that there might
be legislation passed by the U.S. Congress that forced Russian
officials to take this case more seriously, to reopen the case,
to look at the doctors at the prison who were involved. Absent
outside pressure, none of that would have happened. There was
only the possibility, and it has subsided because there is, I
fear, among Russian officials a sense that the legislation may
not pass after all, but there was the possibility that justice
might be served, at least with some of the officials involved
in the murder of Magnitsky.
The problem with the reinvestigation is that it is being
done against the wishes of the family, which runs counter to
Russian law, where you have to have permission of the deceased
family member to move forward with a reinvestigation. But the
possibility that some officials will be held to account is
somewhat encouraging. I think the only way to get further into
the list of those involved in this case is to pass this
legislation, because the people who were involved--it's an
indefensible case, and so, as Tom rightly said, it is hard to
imagine that Russian officials will go back to the outrageous
rhetoric that they uttered in June and July, saying this will
destroy the reset. Over officials who were responsible for
killing a lawyer in jail? I doubt it.
Senator Shaheen. Well, and just to be clear for anybody who
missed it, one of the reasons for holding this hearing is to
hopefully bring some more momentum to passage of this
legislation, which I believe and I think most of the Senators
who were here today believe is very important.
Mr. Kramer. Absolutely.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Malinowski, we've heard a lot of
discussion about the tragedy of the Sergei Magnitsky case.
There have been a number of other murders of particularly
Soviet journalists that have been reported in the West. But I
think for the most part many of the abuses that have occurred
in Russia we don't hear about.
I wondered if there are any particular cases that you have
been following or been involved in that you would like to raise
today at this hearing and talk about some of those individuals
who have gone unknown and unnoticed by the international
community?
Mr. Malinowski. Well, thank you for that question. The
Magnitsky case is powerful because it was so terrible and it
was politically important because he was a member, in effect,
of the Moscow elite, and had connections to the United States.
So people thought, if it can happen to him it can happen to me.
Powerful people felt that way.
But there are just so many ordinary people across the
length and breadth of Russia to whom that sort of thing just
happens routinely. There is one young guy who we've written
about at Human Rights Watch recently because we've come to know
him, and maybe I'll tell you his story because I think it's
emblematic in its ordinariness. He's a 24-year-old guy named
Islam Umarpashaev who lives in Chechnya. He was caught posting
very undiplomatic statements about the police on an Internet
chat room.
So the local pro-Kadyrov militia picks him up and they take
him to a detention facility. They beat him, they torture him,
electric shock, all the rest. When they realize this guy is not
a militant, that they're not going to get any information out
of him, instead of letting him go they say: Well, we're going
to keep you here, we're going to feed you, we're going to let
your beard grow, and once your beard is fully grown we're going
to turn you into a suicide bomber. What that means, of course,
is they were going to kill him, because the local security guys
get a reward every time they resolve a terrorism case of that
sort, and that has happened to a lot of people in Chechnya.
Now, this young man was saved because his family refused to
let that happen. They found a group of very brave Russian
lawyers, who started filing complaint after complaint after
complaint. They went to the European Court of Human Rights.
Eventually he was let go. Holding him was more trouble than it
was worth. But he had to promise he would not reveal any of
this. He made that promise, but once released he did actually
want to speak.
So now he's in a safe house. The interesting end of the
story is the family actually found a journalist working with a
national television network, NTV, who was willing to do a story
about this, and they produced a 10-minute program about this
case. And he almost became famous, because the story was seen
by Russian television viewers in Siberia. What happens is,
sometimes they put these things on TV, they're seen in the Far
East, and then as the time zones shift someone catches it and
presses the ``Off'' button, and in the rest of Russia all
people saw were commercials for those 10 minutes.
So a very ordinary case and the sort of thing that people
are just fed up about throughout the country.
Senator Shaheen. Can you talk about what--recognizing that
we may not see dramatic shifts in the near term in addressing
some of the human rights abuses, but looking at least at the
response to the election results and seeing a shift in how
Putin and Medvedev have responded, so their changing approach
in responding, are there actions that you would like to see
that they could take or that we might expect them to take in
response to some of the human rights abuses that would be
positive, that would indicate an effort to begin to address
some of the worst practices that have existed?
And how would you--I mean, if you were going to detail they
should do these three things?
Mr. Malinowski. Well, it has to begin with the elections
because that's what's on everybody's mind right now, and it's
the key to creating some accountability in the system. Medvedev
has promised an investigation. Very few Russians believe that
regular Russian Government institutions can investigate in a
credible way what just happened.
So somehow, if he were serious, if Putin and Medvedev were
serious, about dealing with the election fraud, they would need
to create an independent commission or perhaps empower the
human rights and civil society council that David mentioned,
which has done good work, to lead an investigation of the
fraud.
There are a lot of things that they've promised. There were
a lot of promises about cleaning up abuses in pretrial
detention, what happened to Sergei Magnitsky and what happens
to so many other people who are railroaded into prison and then
abused as a form of extortion. We haven't actually seen action
taken, and in our experience you can talk about that all you
want, but if you don't hold accountable the people who are
responsible the system doesn't change. You can give all kinds
of speeches, you can issue orders, you can issue directives,
but if the people in the system see that the guy who's
responsible for murder or for rampant abuse in a prison or
taking bribes is not punished, they don't take it seriously.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Kramer.
Mr. Kramer. Could I just add? It doesn't help Russia's
image when British authorities are pursuing someone for a
murder investigation and that target is chosen to join the
Duma, Mr. Lugavoy. It shows utter defiance and utter contempt
for international human rights standards. There isn't
indifference among Russian authorities toward human rights;
there's hostility toward human rights among Russian officials.
And they send these signals, where they don't even have to
issue orders. People understand if they want to stay in the
good graces of the Kremlin they have to eliminate opposition.
The elimination of governors in 2004 by Putin was a
terrible blow to democracy in Russia, removing accountability,
removing connection between the population and voters and those
who serve in government. The move more recently to eliminate
election of mayors, further damage to any hopes that Russia
would move in a democratic direction.
So these efforts need to be reversed. There needs to be
resolution to the murders of Litvinenko, of Politkovskaya, of
Klebnikov, of Estemirova, of Magnitsky. Sadly, as Tom was
saying, there is a long list here. In very few cases do they
find the people who ordered these murders. Sometimes they find
the people who actually pulled the trigger.
They also need to get serious about corruption. But the
problem there, I would argue, is they can't. They're so deeply
involved in it themselves that they're incapable of launching a
serious anticorruption campaign. You need a change in the
Russian leadership in order for that to be done in a serious
way.
If I could just add one other thing. You had asked me about
the reaction to the bill in Russia, and I would be remiss if I
did not cite two letters that I think you also had received,
Senator Shaheen, from Boris Nemtsov and Garry Kasparov,
strongly endorsing and supporting S. 1039. So if I could be so
bold as to suggest these be admitted for the record, that would
be terrific.
Senator Shaheen. We will do that. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Let me just ask--the previous panel, Dr.
Gordon and Mr. Melia, talked about the efforts under way to
support civil society groups in Russia. Can you, either you or
Mr. Malinowski, elaborate on the effectiveness of this kind of
support and whether there is more we can or should be doing and
what the reaction is on the part of those people, of those
Russians who are part of those organizations and their ability,
given the current environment, to accept that kind of
assistance?
Mr. Kramer. Well, first, it is a positive development that
Mr. Serkov on the Russian end is no longer the cochair of the
U.S.-Russia Civil Society Working Group. It was a terrible
decision to agree to let him be the cochair.
I tip my hat to Tom Melia and Mike Posner for the trips
they've made to Russia and the outreach that they've made to
Russian civil society activists and others, to people in the
Embassy who have done the same. There are Russian organizations
that need Western support. They can't get that kind of support
inside Russia.
As Tom Melia I think rightly said, we should have that
support available and let Russians decide whether they want to
avail themselves of it, rather than to decide on our own that
it's too dangerous for them, and we, therefore, shouldn't try
to support these organizations. They would go out of business
in some cases were it not for Western support. So I think it's
critically important to look at the U.S.-Russia Investment
Fund, which expired but had $300 million left over, over $150
million of which has gone back into a new kind of fund. There's
still $150 million some odd of that left over, and I know that
a congressional notification has come up to put some of those
funds toward civil society and human rights and democracy work.
I would strongly encourage support for that and hope that there
would be more funds available should Russian organizations want
to avail themselves of it.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Do you want to add anything, Mr. Malinowski?
Mr. Malinowski. I can't comment on the effectiveness of
every dollar that's been spent, but I would note that the very
brave people and organizations inside Russia that have
documented, exposed, and challenged some of the cases that
we've been talking about, including the one that I mentioned in
Chechnya, life-saving work and life-risking work, many of them
have benefited over the years from assistance from the United
States, from their connections to the United States.
Yes, they get attacked for it, but I think those attacks
are resonating less today in Russia than they might have
elsewhere. I think so long as they are willing to have those
partnerships with us, I think we should be willing to have them
with them.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Verona, I just want to ask you to comment on something
that Mr. Kramer said about corruption. You talked about the
progress that's been made in the business community in terms of
addressing commercial and some of the economic issues--the
commercial issues that businesses face. Mr. Kramer talked about
an inability to really fundamentally address corruption without
a change in leadership in the government.
President Medvedev said that he was going to root out
corruption, that he was going to make that a real hallmark of
his Presidency. Have you seen his leadership in some of the
efforts that you referenced, and does the business community
feel that--I'm trying to think about how to phrase this in a
way that it will be possible for you to answer it, recognizing
that you can't answer for the entire business community. But
are you hearing concerns from the business community about the
leadership in the same way that Mr. Kramer referenced it about
the fundamental corruption that exists at the top levels?
Mr. Verona. I think all of our members are very aware of
the problem, are very concerned about it. I don't think it's an
exaggeration to say the problem's endemic. When President
Medvedev made his first speech, his major speech as President,
the inaugural address, he identified corruption, lack of rule
of law as major issues that his administration would tackle.
And on repeated occasions he's said much the same thing, and
that was very encouraging to the business community.
I would have to say that the implementation of that
aspirational rhetoric has been very minimal. But it did do one
thing. It gave license to speak about the issue, surprisingly
often within the Russian Government. You had the Defense
Minister acknowledge a couple of months ago that roughly 20
percent of defense procurement spending was unaccounted for.
You have the Russian accounting chamber issuing a report after
the initial concerns raised by Mr. Alexei Navalny about
corruption in the construction of the Eastern Siberia-Pacific
Ocean Pipeline, a report that revealed
$4 billion of capital expenditure that was somehow unaccounted
for.
The fact that people began to talk about it and felt it
wasn't something that was off limits suddenly made people, the
general public, much more aware of it or, if they were already
aware of it, of how extensive the problem was. You might say
that was a huge step forward, unintentional perhaps, but it did
have that impact.
And thanks, I think, to the transformative technologies
that I mentioned, awareness of these issues has been propagated
throughout the country, through the Internet, through these
mobile handheld devices that have been so effective in
organizing popular demonstrations.
Our companies, I think their presence in Russia has a very
salutary effect. We are all very sensitized to the risks of
violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and now a host of
other laws recently propagated in other countries. The new
British antibribery law is even more comprehensive and has
criminal provisions. So it's become very clear to our partners
in Russia that we're not a soft mark. It's not worth it to try
to get money out of American companies. There may be a couple
of rare exceptions, but I think it's given us a form of
protection or cover.
Our example I think is an encouraging one to those elements
in Russia that want to see an improvement in the society. I
think that, while many of the programs that have been mentioned
here and funding for civic organizations is a good thing, I
think it's much more fundamental that we've got this open
communication through the Internet. Let's hope it stays that
way.
I am just a little concerned sometimes if we become too
forward on these issues that the United States becomes the
subject of discussion, the issue, and not the violations of
human rights that Russians are very aware of, and when they
hear their own leadership speak about it and not simply those
who are well known to us, but people who have emerged sui
generis, it has a much greater impact.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Did you want to add something, Mr. Malinowski?
Mr. Malinowski. This reinforces something that David
mentioned--we should remember that systems like this are based
on the principle that you can't get rich without permission,
for Russian businessmen at least, and permission is purchased
through bribes, and by provision of political support to the
leadership. And that kind of corruption is a critical source of
power for the political leadership. They get to choose who the
economic winners and losers in Russia will be, at least in the
upper strata.
Losing that power would be a really radical shift in how
the Russian Government operates and would be very difficult for
them to do, a very difficult habit to break. Now, perhaps the
Putin administration, whatever we want to call it, like many
authoritarian governments, has a window of opportunity now to
adjust to the shifting political climate in Russia by beginning
to do things that will be popular and that address popular
demands.
But as we've seen, very few leaders in that position in
recent years have taken advantage of that window of
opportunity. They tend to revert to the methods that have
worked for them in the past, and then it's too late. Then they
come out with reforms that people reject because it comes too
late.
So we'll have to see what the Russian leadership does. But
I think we need to understand that dealing with corruption is
not something that can be done irrespective of the political
context, that corruption is a core element of the system that
the Russian Government has built up over the last 10 years.
Senator Shaheen. Yes, Mr. Kramer.
Mr. Kramer. Just very quickly, corrupt authoritarian
regimes never want to let go of power, and it's why we've seen
in Russia the elimination of gubernatorial elections, the move
to eliminating mayoral elections, the appointment of the
Federation Council, the upper house, rather than through
elections. It's why they rig elections, or at least try to, and
they didn't do a very good job this last time, fortunately,
because if they give up power then they may be subject to
prosecution and some of those Russian officials sitting in the
Kremlin today could be sitting in the jail cell that Mikhail
Khodorkovsky is sitting in instead. They don't want to risk
that.
They become desperate and they do desperate things. There
are concerns now that what happened in 1999 may be repeated
again, the bombings that killed 300 people, that turned the
political situation in Russia upside down. This concern that
there will be something else now because what happened on
December 4 and since has spooked the Kremlin, spooked Putin,
and that he may resort to some desperate measures. We really
have to be vigilant about this and make sure that nothing like
1999 happens again.
Senator Shaheen. On that note, I'm going to thank you all
very much, we very much appreciate your being here, and close
the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Prepared Statement of Hon. Roger F. Wicker, U.S. Senator From
Mississippi
I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for holding a
hearing today on this important and timely topic. The deteriorating
rule of law and respect for human rights in Russia is troublesome. For
many years I have spoken out against the continued imprisonment of
Russian businessmen, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. It has
long been my hope that Russia will choose the right path and that
justice will prevail in the Khodorkovsky case, but unfortunately that
is doubtful.
The case of Sergei Magnitsky is one of many in Russia that
highlight the lack of respect for basic human rights. Earlier this year
I joined my colleague, Senator Ben Cardin, in introducing the ``Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.'' The bill extends the
application of visa and economic sanctions to officials in the
Magnitsky case and in other cases of gross human rights abuses. The
legislation currently has 25 bipartisan cosponsors. It is my hope that
the list of cosponsors will continue to grow and that we will have the
opportunity to consider this bill on the floor of the Senate very soon.
The protests in Russia following the recent elections indicate that
the Russian people have grown tired of business as usual. I was
encouraged by the comments from our administration in support of a full
investigation of electoral fraud and manipulation. I urge President
Obama and Secretary Clinton to make human rights and rule of law in
Russia a central part of our bilateral relationship with Russia.
Without commitment to these basic principles, our efforts to find
common ground on other issues of mutual concern will continue to be
undermined.
______
[From the New York Times, Dec. 13, 2011]
2 Leaders in Russian Media Are Fired After Election Articles
(By Michael Schwirtz)
MOSCOW--A high-ranking editor and a top executive from one of
Russia's most respected news publications were dismissed on Tuesday
after an apparent conflict over coverage that appeared to highlight
widespread anger with the results of parliamentary elections this
month.
The dismissals followed the publication this week of an election
issue of the newsmagazine Kommersant Vlast, which detailed accusations
of large-scale electoral fraud by the ruling party, United Russia, and
included a photograph of a ballot scrawled with profanity directed
against Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin.
The firings came as tensions built between the Kremlin and a new
constituency of reform-minded activists who held a protest against the
election results here last weekend that drew tens of thousands of
people.
President Dmitri A. Medvedev announced on Tuesday that the first
session of the new Parliament would be held on Dec. 21, an indication
that the Kremlin would not concede to increasingly vocal calls for new
elections.
Meanwhile, the leaders of the protest movement met to plan what
they said would be an even bigger demonstration on Dec. 24, and vowed
not to relent in their demands.
The tremors from this standoff have been particularly acute in the
city's print and online newsrooms. Under Mr. Putin, the authorities
have generally tolerated a community of liberal-minded journalists
whose criticism of the Kremlin has often been withering, but not widely
broadcast.
``But there are rules,'' said Yevgeniya Albats, the editor in chief
of New Times, a magazine strongly critical of the Kremlin. ``Do not
touch Putin.''
Yet an apparent desire by journalists to test the limits these days
has brought some into confrontation with their bosses.
This week's issue of Kommersant Vlast had several articles
detailing bald attempts at falsification in the recent elections
apparently aimed at increasing the vote for United Russia. One article
warned that the declining popularity of United Russia would lead to a
``tightening of the screws.''
The magazine's cover showed Mr. Putin, lighted from the bottom and
with a sinister expression, standing before a voting machine.
But it was the photograph of the ballot, apparently defaced in
protest, that caused an uproar.
Scribbled across the ballot in thick orange marker was a searing
Russian expletive in reference to the male anatomy, suggesting Mr.
Putin should leave power. Beneath the profanity, which can lead to a
fine or arrest if uttered in public here, a caption read sarcastically:
``A correctly marked ballot that was ruled invalid.''
The swipe at Mr. Putin was clearly too much for the owner of the
Kommersant Publishing House, Alisher B. Usmanov, a billionaire metals
tycoon who, like many of Russia's richest people, is wary of alienating
the Kremlin.
Mr. Usmanov, who incidentally owns a stake in Facebook, immediately
fired Maksim Kovalsky, the editor in chief of Kommersant Vlast, and
Andrei Galiyev, the general director of the publication's holding
company. Another deputy editor announced that she was resigning. The
photograph of the ballot was removed from the magazine's Web site, and
printed copies were difficult to find on Tuesday.
``These materials verge on petty hooliganism,'' Mr. Usmanov told
Gazeta.ru, a news Web site that is also part of his media holdings.
News of the firings prompted a debate over journalistic ethics
here. Some questioned the decision to publish the profanity, though
many considered the response too severe.
``It's dead clear,'' Ms. Albats said. ``This is a signal sent to
the entire mass media in the country: guys, be careful. There are
limits.''
In a twist, a representative from an investment fund owned by
Mikhail Prokhorov, another Russian billionaire, who this week made a
surprise announcement that he was running for president, said he was
considering making an offer to buy the Kommersant publishing house from
Mr. Usmanov, according to Russian news reports. No further details were
offered.
Mr. Kovalsky, the editor of Kommersant Viast, said he had never
been pressured in his editorial decisions before.
``There have been difficult times when I knew that the Kremlin and
the owner were unhappy,'' he told the online news portal, Slon.ru.
``But usually I learned of this after the fact, after publication when
there was no possibility of changing anything. But in the last few
weeks there was none of this.''
Pressures did begin to surface in some publications even before the
elections. About a week before the vote, Grigory Okhotin quit his job
as a freelance editor at the government-controlled RIA Novosti news
agency when one of his managers recommended that negative material
about United Russia and Mr. Putin not be posted on InoSMI, a Web site
that publishes Russian translations of articles that appear in Western
outlets.
Mr. Okhotin then published a Web chat between himself and the
manager, who told him that ``ahead of elections there are additional
orders, because the situation is nonstandard. This will probably go on
until summer.''
RIA Novosti rejected Mr. Okhotin's assertion and threatened to sue
him.
Journalists at publications owned by Mr. Usmanov said that he had
rarely interfered in editorial decisions, but that they had come under
serious scrutiny for their coverage of this month's elections.
Roman Badanin, a former deputy editor at Gazeta.ru, resigned last
month after he was told to remove from the outlet's Web site a map
documenting campaign violations, mostly committed by United Russia.
``These were not simple elections,'' Mr. Badanin said. ``They were
very nerve-racking, showing little support for both United Russia and
Putin. And Alisher Usmanov is nervous. It is a fact that he has put a
lot of pressure on editors recently.''
______
Letter in Support of S.1039 From Boris Nemtsov, Cochairman, People's
Freedom Party (Russia)
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement in Support of S. 1039 From Garry Kasparov, Chairman,
United Civil Front, London, England
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
