Russian President Vladimir Putin’s pardon of the former owner of Yukos Oil Co, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and his declaration of an amnesty that has freed Greenpeace activists and two members of the punk rock group Pussy Riot are welcome gestures. However, that is all they are: gestures.
Putin was most likely motivated, above all, by a desire to ensure the success of the upcoming Winter Olympic Games in Sochi. It is also likely that Putin sought to show the world a kinder, gentler face in an effort to consolidate victory in his tug of war with the EU over Ukraine.
However, although freeing a few people who were unjustly imprisoned for long periods is significant, it should not obscure the Russian government’s ongoing major human rights violations at home and abroad. And here, little seems likely to change. Khodorkovsky’s pardon does not look like the start of a Putin thaw.
For example, within the Russian Federation, a law that entered into force just over one year ago requires nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that engage in “political activities” to register as “foreign agents” if they receive any funding from abroad. The law defines political activities as actions intended to influence government policies; therefore, they include the work of all human rights organizations operating in Russia. Because registering as foreign agents would be to identify themselves as the equivalent of spies, few organizations have done so.
Yet many NGOs in Russia can survive only with foreign support. Potential domestic donors fear that they could suffer the same fate as Khodorkovsky, who was the leading Russian supporter of human rights groups until Putin imprisoned him for more than 10 years. Some Russian human rights organizations have been raided or shut down. The law gives Russian authorities discretion to close, whenever they choose, every significant organization promoting human rights.
Internationally, Russia is the mainstay of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad’s brutal regime. Russia’s diplomatic, financial and military support has ensured that al-Assad remains in power, despite his government’s horrifying violence against Syria’s people.
Western governments are understandably reluctant to provide lethal aid for al-Assad’s opponents, given the large number of jihadists among them, and because important elements of the opposition have themselves committed severe abuses. Russia has no such inhibitions.
The al-Assad regime’s indiscriminate attacks have forcibly displaced, injured or killed millions of noncombatants. It is Russia’s role as a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council that has made it impossible to establish a tribunal to hold accountable those on all sides who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, or to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court. By providing steadfast support to the al-Assad regime and blocking measures that would bring war criminals to justice, Putin shares with al-Assad culpability for the largest-scale atrocities in the world today.
It may seem to some that a forceful leader like Putin and a powerful state like Russia are impervious to pressure to respect human and legal rights. More than any other political leader today, Putin seems to embody the characteristics of the “sultanist” leader described by the German social scientist Max Weber one century ago. To the sultanist, the state and its functions become “purely personal instruments of the master.” A figure like Khodorkovsky is imprisoned when Putin decides he should be imprisoned. And he is released when Putin decides he should be released.
Yet Putin’s recent actions make it clear that even a sultan must periodically make certain concessions. Of course, it will not be so easy to secure policy changes on matters that are more important to Putin than the freedom of a few people who have irritated him. However, the task is not hopeless, as the run-up to the Olympics has shown. Even someone as sure of himself and his power as Putin becomes susceptible to the pressure of international public opinion as soon as he seeks its approval.
Aryeh Neier is president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations and a founder of Human Rights Watch.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with