Why Russia’s Opposition Supports the Magnitsky Act

Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

Last week The New York Times published an interesting story articulating, somewhat by mistake, a profound irony at the heart of the Russia’s contentious political debate: both the opposition as well as their tormentor, Vladimir Putin, believe it’s high time to normalize trade relations with the United States. Where they differ, is on what should remain in place as a check on human rights abuses.

Currently Russia is denied Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) due to the antiquated Jackson-Vanik amendment, a Cold-War-era trade-restricting apparatus put in place to guarantee emigration rights for Soviet Jews. Russia’s opposition thinks repealing Jackson-Vanik-a top priority for President Obama-will deny Putin “a very useful tool” for his “anti-American propaganda machine…helping him to depict the United States as hostile to Russia using outdated Cold War tools to undermine Russia’s international competitiveness,” while Putin and his allies want the lower tariffs and other perks PNTR provides.

But most media coverage failed to capture the most significant position included in the opposition’s statement: they indicate their support for “smarter” sanctions such as the Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act to replace JV. In order for one antiquated law to be taken off the books, they are asking for a more modern one to take its place: legislation meant to promote human rights in Russia that is named for the anti-corruption lawyer who died in a Russian prison two years ago after being denied medical care. More importantly, the new legislation specifically targets individual bureaucrats who have been accused of human rights abuses and corruption in a high effective manner, leaving all other normal Russian citizens the full

Unfortunately, such a trade-off has been rejected by the Obama Administration. His spokesperson on the matter, newly appointed Ambassador Michael McFaul, spent the week trying to explain why the Magnitsky Act-which would freeze the overseas assets of Russian officials believed to have been associated with his death-is “redundant” to other American endeavors to improve human rights in Russia. Further, we will recall that State Department attempted to defuse any support for the bill months ago by announcing they already maintained their very own secret “list” of Russian officials not allowed in the country.

Debating whether or not repealing Jackson-Vanik should be part of a package deal to support human rights goes back to the familiar (and tired) debate over “values” in foreign policy. The Obama Administration takes a realist-oriented position on this one, essentially believing economic opportunities will naturally improve the human rights situation. It in fact coincides with the position of many Putin supporters – these sanctions are unhelpful in changing Russian behavior, they say, so if you want to help human rights, don’t do or say anything about them. Curious logic, but repeatedly disproven in practice.

That’s why diverse members of the opposition are coming out strongly in support of the Magnitsky Act. As Garry Kasparov and Boris Nemtsov argued in the Wall Street Journal: “Jackson-Vanik is a relic and its time has passed. But allowing it to disappear with nothing in its place, and right on the heels of the fantastically corrupt ‘election’ of March 4, turns it into little more than a gift to Mr. Putin. Our economy, like our people, will never truly flourish until Mr. Putin and his mafia structure are expunged.”

Added Navalny: “Such legislation is not anti-Russian. In fact I believe it is pro-Russian. It helps defend us from the criminals who kill our citizens, steal our money, and hide it abroad.”

And towards the end of last week, some American politicians listened to these pleas and came out to criticize the Obama-McFaul plan for unconditional PNTR for Russia coming so close on the heels of Vladimir Putin’s virtual fourth term.

Sens. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), and Roger Wicker (R-MS) wrote a letter Friday to Senate Finance Committee heads Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to let them know that they oppose Baucus’s effort to repeal Jackson-Vanik without replacing it with some check on Russian impunity.

“In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky legislation, we will strongly oppose the lifting of Jackson-Vanik,” the senators wrote. “Human rights abuses in Russia are widespread and severe, and a legitimate area of focus for U.S. foreign policy. For this reason, what is urgently needed is not merely the elimination of Jackson-Vanik, but its replacement with legislation that is appropriately tailored to the contemporary human rights problems facing the people of Russia. That is precisely the role that the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act would service.”

Undoubtedly the task of formulating a Russia policy that both improves trade relations (a very important goal acknowledged by all), while also providing the most minimal disincentives for Russian officials not to commit human rights abuses is going to be very difficult. But yet, given all good reasons to believe the Magnitsky Act would be successful, we haven’t yet seen a strong argument against it that goes beyond the possible personal interests of a handful of people.

By James Kimer, Guest Commentator to the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev микрозайм онлайн hairy woman https://zp-pdl.com/get-quick-online-payday-loan-now.php https://zp-pdl.com срочный займ на карту