Putin Clears The Decks For Sochi Olympics With Pardons

In a surprise move near the end of his annual press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a pardon for rival, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and clemency for the Pussy Riot girls remaining in prison. These pardons signal Putin’s absolute confidence in his personal power and the importance to him of the Russian winter Olympics to begin in Sochi in February. Putin has placed his personal prestige on the line with his $50 billion investment in building the Sochi Olympic infrastructure. He cannot let anything happen to spoil his big day.

Putin’s move was timed to counter the growing list of heads of state including Obama, Harper, Hollande and Merkel who are refusing to attend. His pardons gave his Western rivals less to complain about.

Left unresolved is the world gay and entertainment community’s boycott of the Sochi Olympics in protest over Russia’s anti-gay laws and Putin’s own anti-gay stance. Even with a turnabout in policy towards gays, Putin must fear the threat of pro-gay protests in Sochi by attendees, gay participating athletes and their sympathizers.

go to forbes.com 

Storm Clouds Ahead for Putin as He Takes on McCartney, Madonna and the LGBT Community

Virtually the whole world now knows that three girls wearing colorful mini-skirts, tights and masks were arrested in a Moscow cathedral for performing a punk prayer: “Holy Virgin: Drive Putin Out.” After a half year in jail, undernourished and sleep-deprived, the three Pussy Riot feminist punk band girls were sentenced to two years in jail for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.”  The judge refused to allow testimony that their’s  was a political act aimed at Putin and the corrupt head of the orthodox church, Patriarch Kirill (widely known to have been a KGB agent during the Soviet era). The girls maintained they acted against Putin and Kirill, not against the church.

A new term is now ensconced in the Russian vocabulary – “khamsud”. Both the Pussy Riot and oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky trials were held in Moscow’s Khamovnichesky Court.  Khamsud, roughly translated, is a court run by dishonest judges and prosecutors.

The harsh sentence to two years in a labor colony shook the world diplomatic and artistic communities, but prison terms are an integral part of Putin’s strategy of  attacking “low hanging fruit” to show  that dissent will not be tolerated. Putin sentenced  Khodorkovsky, not once but twice, in  “khamsud.” Other oligarchs were silenced or fled the country. But Khodorkovsky was one of those crooked oligarchs, people concluded and paid no attention. Similarly, Putin calculates that few Russians will care about bizarre punk rockers, whose short skirts revealed their rears as they genuflected on the church altar.


go to forbes.com

An Open Letter to Vladimir Putin on Pussy Riot: Gregory Kataev (film and theatric director, Moscow)

Dear Paul,

I recently returned from France where my sister organized a musical festival.  An excellent group of international musicians and students from the French conservatories participated, with each concert being an event unto itself.  People from all over the globe were in attendance – friends, acquaintances, and strangers.

I was inundated by questions about why the girls from Pussy Riot were in prison.  A high ranking diplomat told me bluntly if the girls had danced on the altar of Notre Dame they would be sentenced to a fine or, barring payment, a week of public service.  It would never have occurred to anyone that girls who caused no physical harm or material damage to the church could be in prison.  Their punishment is purely political, he declared.

Others were equally incredulous:  A Belgian burst out:  “What is your court doing?  Not everyone approves of what they did, but the legal process produces nothing but a feeling of disgust!  The whole world is indignant about this inquisition, and the names “Nadia-Masha-Katya” now are symbols of political repression.”  An American complained to me:  “I admire Russian literature, music and the churches.  But the shameful stories about the Patriarch’s 40 thousand dollars Breguette watches and his self-serving apartment law suit case and the shameful trial of Pussy Riot have caused a general loathing of Russia around the world.  More and more people view Russia as a totalitarian, abnormal state with a medieval mentality.  Who can give credence to Putin’s ludicrous statements about democracy, rule of law, and the creation of favorable social and business climate?”

What could I possibly answer as someone who loves his country but completely shares this outrage?

Pussy Riot adds to the too many Russian trials over the last few years that have caused terrifying reputational damage to Russia.  No real or imagined CIA campaign could cause such psychological or ideological harm to the Russian image as this trial. The Patriarch’s silence is shameful.  The cowardly, Pontius-Pilate  Putin’s position, when he washes his hands of the case demonstrating that he has nothing to do with the show trial,  evokes even more international shame.  Civilized countries cannot remain indifferent to such abuses.

A friend invited two wives of Russian billionaires to the music festival.  At the end of the second day, during the final part of the concert, two young women entered the packed concert hall after ***knocking on the door.  They were met with scathing glances and they remained standing near the door, their expressions assured, if not haughty.  I found myself near them, and couldn’t resist asking if they were Russian.  They both proudly responded yes, but obviously took offense at the question.  I took note of their magnificently varnished nails and expensive clothes.

 After the performance, I told my friend not to bother introducing me to the two young women. I didn’t like them and didn’t want to meet them.  Regardless, after 15 minutes of subtle maneuvers through the crowd, my friend tapped my shoulder and introduced them.  They announced that they were both Natashas (or Svetas - I forgot) and that according to the Russian tradition I could stand between them and make a wish.  I stood between them and said that I wished the girls of Pussy Riot to be freed!  Another young Russian woman in their entourage exclaimed, “But why should they be released?!”  As I was trying to explain my position, she shook her head and covered her face with her hands, once again loudly exclaiming, “No, there was a cross, it was a sacred place, you can’t do such things there!  They are criminals and should be judged as such!”  The billionaires’ wives nodded agreement while smiling at me at the same time.  Their friend and I continued to argue, attracting distasteful glances from those who heard what was going on. After I slipped away, a vacuum formed around the billionaire’s wives’ group, and they quickly disappeared.

After returning to Moscow, I now suspect that too many Russians share the views of  the tackily but expensively adorned billionaires’ wives.  I read the comment sections of the press on Pussy Riot, and I see Russia itself.  These are not Europeans or Americans commenting, but Russians, with an almost childlike or fairy tale interpretation of the controversy, expressed primitively and agressivly.  Any intelligent discussion elicits vicious responses and these opinions continue to safely hover on the internet.  They cannot merely be explained away as nonsense and political naiveté. The only explanation I can come up with is the indulgence of the Russian intelligence services. The same story with the numerous illegal surveillance recordings of the Russian opposition on the internet. 

In any country that respects its own laws the publication of private information gathered illegally on regime opponents would cause a hurricane of indignation in the media, followed by criminal trials of  those responsible.  But in Russia, only starkly unjust criminal trials are initiated against  the political opposition and now the innocent girls of Pussy Riot.  But the outside world perfectly understands what is going on.  And morning, as the Russian song says, will eventually come.

Mr. Putin, you should pay attention to what the international community is saying - the words and deeds (or lack thereof) of  the church make it clear that Patriarch Kirill is your  puppet (or at least trying to be one).  Either you are not a very smart person, Mr. Putin, or it is your advisors (which does not preclude the first option). People are discussing this in every corner of the world… Paris, Orleans, Lyon, London, Edinburgh, Rome, Florence, Venice, Brussels, Antwerp, Amsterdam, the Hague, Washington, New York and most importantly…in Moscow.  And I, and the millions of others who love Russia and her culture, are terrified by the Pussy Riot process, along with the other unjust and shameful legal situations in Russia.  I urge you to speak in support of the girls from Pussy Riot, Mr. Putin.

Imagine how your prestige and authority (and that of the Russian Orthodox Church) would rise if you (or Patriarch Kirill) publicly denounce the charges against Pussy Riot.  The group acted in bad taste and offended parishioners, but they did not cause harm to any people or icons. These girls, whatever they are -  our children, we forgive them; we love them and would like to meet with them in order to explain something.  Imagine the shattering impression this would make on people around the world.  This would be similar to Pope John Paul II meeting with the Turk who had shot him in order to forgive him.  This was the event of the year, but I don’t urge you in order to follow a Roman Pope.  I urge you to switch on your mind (and your heart, if it still switches on) for the glory of Christianity,  the glory of the historical confessors of Orthodoxy - in the glory of Russia.

If you cannot do this, the impression will be justified that you have no spiritual  values and that  the president of Russia has only his own self-serving calculations and political interests at heart.  But, it seems to me that you will say nothing.  And it seems that you will craftily continue to refer Pussy Riot  back to the Russian Courts and await  “ their” decision.  You are crafty because this was the same position you took during the Khodorkovsky trials while at the same time you unsubstantially accused him of being up to his elbows in blood and applied pressure to the courts.  This is unfair and illegal.  And while you are the Egyptian Pharaoh of Russia you are beyond the law. 

But things can change. And I hope they will. And how will Russian history remember you?  Will you be remembered as the one who created self-destructing “vertical” of  power, primitive “manual control” and whose throne was propped up by the oil, gas and lumber that are the national resources of  the entire country?  Will you be also remembered as the one under whose name, with your consent, citizens were pursued, judged and sentenced as if Russian justice is  a medieval inquisition?  Just imagine what future school children and students will read about you in their textbooks in fifty years from now?  Or a hundred?  In your place, or that of Patriarch Kirill, I would feel fear and shame.

Update: Putin’s Pussy Riot Headache

Vladimir Putin unwillingly responded to reporters’ questions about Pussy Riot during his official visit to England. . When pressed by persistent reporters, he declared that he did not want really want to speak about this issue: “There is nothing good in this case. But I do not think it is necessary to judge them sternly for what they have done. I hope that they will draw their own conclusions about what they have done.”

In typical Putin fashion, Putin washed his hands of responsibility. It is up to the courts: “I hope the courts make the right decision. (This after the Khodorkovsky judge unwillingly announced the decision telephoned to him from above.). (Stalin also could do nothing to save his victims from the Soviet legal system. It was their decision not his!)

Putin went on to say that  Pussy Riot are lucky that they committed such a heinous crime in a civilized country like Russia: “I think that if the girls had committed such sacrilege in Israel – many of you know, there they have some pretty tough guys – they would not have gotten away. If this had happened in the Caucasus – you do not have to go very far -- and if they had insulted some Muslim practice, we could not have succeeded in protecting them.”

When asked whether he discussed Pussy Riot with Premier David Cameron: “No,  we did not mention it.”  

Back home, prominent members of the Russian Society of Advocates issued an open letter in support of  Pussy Riot. They wrote that criminal proceedings against the women contradicts Russian law and is a step towards the destruction of a rule of law in Russia.”

As we say: Putin has stepped into it. He had to parry questions about the imprisonment of a girl punk band on a state visit to a major country, and he has to face a rare bit of push back from his own legal profession, which appears to be embarrassed to work in a country with no laws. 

A question for Putin to consider: What would happen if one of the punk rock girls dies in prison?

Putin Is Scared of Girls! Is He Losing It?

Commentators predicted that the weakened Vladimir Putin would compromise with his political opposition as he began his third (actually fourth) term as Russia’s head of state. Our pundits do not understand Putin. For “once-KGB-always-KGB” Putin, compromise is an admission of weakness. Opposition is to be crushed, not bargained with. If  one hundred thousand demonstrators go on the streets, beat some of them arrest some, fine them a year’s salary, or jail them as “inciters of mass disorder.”  If anti-corruption bloggers attract too large an audience, pass anti-defamation laws, harass and interrogate then, and then stick them in jail to rot. If investigative reporters get too close, look the other way when they are murdered.

Putin’s persecution targets to date have been grown ups, such as  Oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, popular anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny, investigative reporter (deceased) Anna Politovskaya, Chess master Gary Kasparov, or ex-KGB (deceased) Alexander Litvinenko. Putin’s new enemies are young, naïve, and often female. Muscular, rock-ribbed, macho Putin is picking fights with girls! This doesn’t look good.

On February 21, Putin’s security forces arrested three members of the Pussy Riot feminist band, baklavas covering their faces, as they entreated the Virgin Mary to “get rid of Putin” in a “happening” performance in the Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral. Two band members escaped underground, where they are available for interviews. The arrested Pussy Riot girls –Nadya, Katya, and Masha -- are in their early twenties. They have husbands. Two have young children. In April, Amnesty International declared them prisoners of conscience.

go to forbes.com

What Happened to the Courageous Whistle Blower in the Khodorkovsky Case?

In February of last year, I wrote a blog on Moscow court employee, Natalia Vasilieva, who blew the whistle on the second Khorkovsky trial. She revealed in a television interview that the Khodorkovsky verdict was sent over to her boss, the judge, by higher authorities. Despite his own reservations, the judge sentenced Khodorkovsky to a second jail term as ordered. She was immediately fired and threatened with a defamation suit by the judge.

She was recently interviewed by a dissident producer:

            “Did they drive you from work?”

            “Yes.”

“Whom did you like most of all in the court?”

“Khodorkovsky.”

As she left the interview, everyone tried to shake her hand. “Are you not working now?” Asked one. “No,” she answered. By the way, her husband is also not able to get a job.

Natalia Vasilieva is an example of Putin’s use of “soft power.”  His soft power is becoming harder and more violent.

Russia, and the Putin Rules: A Pessimistic Assessment

Russia’s “Moscow Winter” is eating away at Vladimir Putin’s KGB state, but it will survive. Putin will be reelected easily on March 4 for a six year term, but he will have lost the halo of popular support. His political base will shrink to those who depend on him for patronage.

He will compensate for lesser popularity with more repression. He will eliminate the last vestiges of opposition and press freedom, but he cannot tame the internet, no matter how hard he tries. He will work to prevent the emergence of a true opposition figure around whom his opponents can rally. Putin cannot produce a strong economy in a regime rooted in corruption. He will embark on an aggressive anti-Western foreign policy to divert attention from his domestic weakness.

Realize that Putin is the CEO of Kremlin, Inc., a state-capitalist network of state companies, political directorships, and offshore companies, which runs the “national champions” of industry, finance, commerce, media, and even state religion. As CEO of Kremlin, Inc., Putin’s remit is to enrich himself and fellow board members, promote state interests as defined by Kremlin, Inc., and insure political survival by all means no matter how unsavory. If the CEO falls, he threatens to pull down Kremlin Inc. with him. The powers that be cannot allow political competition. Only Kremlin Inc. can replace Putin, but with a clone. Regime opponents, basking in the afterglow of their huge demonstrations, must grasp this reality.

Go to Forbes.com

If This Were Russia, Nancy Pelosi Would Own Google (But There Would Be No Google)

In my many conversations with Russian entrepreneurs, they repeatedly told me: “We cannot become too big or too profitable. If we do, ‘the structures’ will notice us and gobble us up.” Instead of rewarding success in business, Putin’s Russia offers entrepreneurs “deals” they cannot refuse. The “deal” is that powerful state and state-connected officials will take their share of your success.

I used to dread flying into Moscow’s Sheremetova airport, consistently rated the worst international airport in the world. There were no lights, the lines were endless, and restrooms were disgusting. In a word, it was terrible. I then learned to fly into Domodedova (airport code DME).

Under the private management of East Line Group, DME was transformed from the dismal hulk I flew out of in 1993 to a brightly-lit, passenger-friendly airport scarcely distinguishable from any other international airport. There were some 90 check-in counters, manned by friendly personnel. International carriers got the message: They switched operations to DME. DME’s revenues rose to $1 billion per year – one of the few success stories of private business in Russia.

East Line Group decided last May to go public with an IPO. It was time to cash in and to raise more capital for expansion.

Not so fast. The prosecutor general initiated an investigation that declared East Line’s offshore ownership “unacceptable,” designed “to hide the real owners.” Offshore ownership is standard in Russia and is a favorite tool of the Russian nomenklatura. We have no idea who owns the multi-billion dollar shadow offshore companies through which top government officials (including Putin himself) hide their considerable wealth.

With the threat of government reprisal, East Line shelved its IPO. Who would pay good money for a company that may share the fate of Khodorkovsky’s Yukos?

All hope is not lost. It turns out that a former energy minister under Putin and special deputy of Medvedev has come forward as a potential “peacemaker” between the government and the airport’s owners. His group of investors (imagine who they might be) will purchase a big chunk of East Line Group for pennies on the dollar, and in return they will call off the prosecutor.

Such a shakedown would make the New Jersey mafia proud. They could not have done it better. The difference is that, instead of thugs threatening murder and mayhem, this mafia is “respectable” state servants in business suits. The result is the same.

The outcome is obvious: East Line Group must cave to the state mafia. The return from its entrepreneurship will go to the bureaucratic mafia in business suits and they will be allowed to carry on.

What is going on at DME is the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi deciding she needs a 20 percent stake in Google for pennies on the dollar as a payment for shutting down an anti-trust suit.

Any U.S. company considering doing business in Russia must consider the East Line case. Any potential Russian Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Sergei Brin should think twice about founding any company, investing any capital, or taking any risk. The result: There will be no Microsofts, Apples, or Googles in Russia, despite the high-tech city that Medvedev and Putin are building in Skolkovo.

For more on this, see Joe Nocera, “How to Steal a Russian Airport,” NYT, June 6, 2011.

The Khodorkovsky Ruling: Something Fishy in Strasbourg?

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on May 31 that Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the jailed former owner of Yukos, had not proved political motivation in his prosecution on charges of fraud and tax evasion:

“While Mr. Khodorkovsky’s case might raise some suspicion as to what the real intent of the Russian authorities might have been for prosecuting him, claims of political motivation behind prosecution required incontestable proof, which had not been presented.”

The Strasbourg Court did rule that he had been illegally arrested and held under inhumane conditions and levied a nominal fine on the Russian government.

The Strasbourg ruling set off elation in Putin’s “power” ministries of justice and the procuracy. Although Khodorkovsky’s supporters welcomed the court’s rebuke for illegal arrest and inhumane conditions of confinement, no international court ruling was really necessary. Any picture of Khodorkovsky – a non-violent white collar defendant – held in a glass cage for months in a Moscow court was more than enough to prove this point.

The European Court of Human Rights exudes an aura of impartiality and stature. If we dig beneath the surface, however, we find it is a political institution that must consider member countries, like Russia. Suspicious is the fact that Russia blocked the court’s expedited review until it was guaranteed in January of 2010 that Russian judges would review complaints against Russia.

Up to that date, one third of complaints had been filed against Russia, and the Court had already found Russian officials guilty of corruption, torture and other misconduct.
Putin could not risk a similar ruling in the Khodorkovsky case.

Indeed, of the seven judges who wrote the Khodorkovsky decision, one was from Russia and another from a Russian ally (Azerbiajan) and another from Croatia. Decisions are by majority vote. There was no dissenting opinion issued.

Notably, the Strasbourg court did not review the facts of the case. It punted the football by basing its decision on fear of setting a precedent for others is a position similar to Khodorkovsky. I quote:

“The fact that Mr. Khodorkovsky’s political opponents or business competitors might have benefited from his detention should not have been an obstacle for the authorities to prosecute him if there were serious charges against him. Political status did not guarantee immunity. Otherwise, anyone in Mr. Khodorkovsky’s position would be able to make similar allegations, and in reality it would be impossible to prosecute such people.

The Court, persuaded that the charges against Mr. Khodorkovsky had amounted to a “reasonable suspicion” and hence had been compatible with the Convention, held that there had been no violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5.”

It seems that Strasbourg declined to examine the facts for fear of a rash of other complaints concerning Russia, asserting political motivation. Their docket is already bursting at the seams.

As far as I can see, the Strasbourg Court is a court in name only. It has no subpoena power, does not appoint a prosecutor, lacks power to punish perjury, etc. It seems more a political forum, and it cannot afford to have its business held up by an angry Russia.

The Strasbourg court’s “incontestable proof” standard makes any judgment of “political motivation” impossible for Russia cases. How can anyone establish “incontestable proof” in a country whose own President declares it has no rule of law?

The Strasbourg Khodorkovsky ruling means that “serious charges” brought by a non-rule-of-law country establishes “reasonable suspicion” for proceeding against a defendant. In such a setting, “incontestable proof” of political motivation is an impossible standard. Political and legal authorities make individual and arbitrary judgments in each case in non-rule-of-law countries. Political motivation can only be discovered by examining the facts, where the political motivation will be carefully concealed.

In the Khodorkovsky case, there exists no “smoking gun” whereby Putin issues a written order to jail Khodorkovsky because he represents a political threat. Perhaps the Strasbourg court would not find even that “incontestable proof.”

At the time of Khodorkovsky’s arrest, taxes were levied arbitrarily based on connections, bribes, and political considerations. Khodorkovsky himself gamed the tax system when he was an oligarch in good favor. After Khodorkovsky fell afoul with Putin, Putin’s tax police placed Yukos’s tax liabilities in excess of annual revenues – a common strategy at the time to force bankruptcy. Indeed, Yukos was purchased on the auction bloc by a shadow company headquartered in shabby storefront that immediately resold Yukos’s assets to Gazprom. At that juncture, Yukos’s tax liabilities miraculously disappeared into thin air as if they had never existed.

Amid such chaos, political racketeering, and incredible chutzpah, who in the world can offer “insurmountable proof” of anything? It is hard enough to believe what had just gone down.

If Strasbourg reviews Khodorkovsky’s second conviction, they must confront something closer to “incontestable proof” of political motivation. Two court officials have gone public to state that the Moscow court decision was dictated to the presiding judge by his superiors, over his objections. But by the time Strasbourg gets to the second conviction, these witnesses will have disappeared or will recant their testimony to save their skins.

It seems as if Putin and his power ministry gang can rest easily. So far, the European Court of Human Rights has proven itself as paper tiger. Such a court might work for countries that have a reasonable rule of law, but it is citizens of the Zimbabwes, Russias, and Chinas of this world that require the protection of such an international court.

Surprise, Surprise, Outrage, Outrage: Russian Supreme Court Upholds Khodorkovsky Conviction

The Russian Supreme Court today upheld former oil tycoon, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s conviction to a second prison term. Khodorkovsky, now Russia’s most prominent political prisoner, will return to his Siberian jail cell. He will stay there at least until 2017, well into what is likely Putin’s fourth term as president. His court case out of the way, he will conveniently disappear from view. Khodorkovsky went to jail as a young man. He will emerge (if ever) an old man.

The Russian Supreme Court ignored that the Moscow court decision under appeal was dictated by the Kremlin. Two brave court insiders publicly testified to this fact. It also ignored that the charges against him had no credibility. In fact, they bordered on the ridiculous (Khodorkovsky was charged with stealing the entire output of his Yukos oil company).

Khodorkovsky committed two sins: He used his vast wealth to support democratic political parties, and he, unlike the other oligarchs who retained their wealth and empires, sought to turn his Yukos Company into a transparent Western-style company.

The Supreme Court ruling opens further distance between Putin and Russian President Medvedev. In Davos, Medvedev’s economic advisor acknowledged that the Khodorkovsky case will reduce the flow of needed foreign investment into Russia. Medvedev is also on record that Khodorkovsky’s release would pose no public danger.

Let us hope the Khodorkovsky case will not be forgotten outside of Russia. The Council of Europe, Freedom House, and Amnesty International have concluded that Khodorkovsky was charged and imprisoned in a process that did not follow the rule of law and was politically motivated.

The U.S. Senate’s Magnitsky Rule of Law Bill proposes to deny visas to Russian officials involved in the denial of human rights to Russian citizens. The bill was inspired by journalist Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian prison after being denied medical treatment. The bill now includes the Khodorkovsky case as evoking “serious concerns about the right to a fair trial and the independence of the judiciary in the Russian Federation. The lack of credible charges, intimidation of witnesses, violations of due process and procedural norms, falsification or withholding of documents, denial of attorney-client privilege, and illegal detention in the Yukos case are highly troubling.”

Any company considering investing in Russia should think twice. Those companies who invested in good faith in Yukos lost everything. They were politically expropriated. Major international companies, such as Shell and BP, have suffered arbitrary treatment at the hands of Russian officials and have no recourse. Companies considering entering the Russian market are assured that such things will not happen to them. They should realize that anyone doing business in Russia could find themselves in Khodorkovsky’s shoes.

Let's face it. Khodorkovsky's only chance for release would be in the form of an act of bravery. Medvedev, as Russian President, has the power to pardon him. I doubt that Medvedev has the guts to do so.

Medvedev Can Restore Russian Democracy with Four Orders

Russia has been downgraded by Freedom House from “partially free” to “unfree” with good reason: regional and municipal officials are no longer elected, but appointed by the Kremlin. Opposition candidates are excluded from election lists, denied access to the media, beaten and harassed. Journalists are intimidated or killed with no repercussions. There is no rule of law.

The loss of Russian democracy is the work of Vladimir Putin and his “KGB state.” His partner, President Dimitry Medvedev, in the “tandem” that rules Russia is on public record as being opposed to these developments and promises to do better. If Medvedev is sincere, he has the constitutional authority as the duly elected president of the Russian Federation to restore Russian democracy, which he can do by issuing the following four orders:

First, fire his Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin.

The average tenure of Russian prime ministers is about a year and a half, and it is the prime minister who takes the fall when things go wrong. Medvedev can cite two reasons for firing Putin: First, Putin’s criticism of his Libyan foreign policy was an act of insubordination. Second, the Russian economy under Putin’s tutelage has suffered a crisis more severe than its neighbors and is still as dependent on oil as it was a decade ago.

Second, issue an amnesty for Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

It is clear to all that Khodorkovsky has been twice sentenced on sham charges under Putin’s direction for daring to challenge him. The Khodorkovsky case clearly reveals Russia’s lack of rule of law and discourages foreign and domestic investment. Khodorkovsky’s release signals that Russia intends to abide by the rule of law.

Third, order the Central Election Commission to allow opposition candidates on election lists and access to the media.

In previous national, regional, and municipal elections, opposition candidates have been arbitrarily excluded from election lists by illegal or arbitrary means and they have been denied access to the media. Such an order would tell the world that Russia intends on having free elections.

Fourth, order the police, militia and security forces to honor the constitutional guarantee of freedom of assembly.

Attempts to organize political demonstrations have been violently suppressed by the police and paramilitary thugs despite the explicit guarantee of freedom of assembly in the Russian constitution. A key safeguard of democracy is the freedom of assembly.

It is time to call Medvedev’s bluff. Does he only like to talk about lofty principles such as free elections and rule of law or is he willing to actually do something, even if the course is risky, to say the least. If Medvedev is brave enough to issue these four orders, he would go down as a significant figure in history.

The Khodorkovsky Trial, a Courageous Woman, and the Smoking Gun

Every now and then, acts of courage by ordinary citizens have big consequences. I still recall vividly (after twenty five years), the courageous women who demonstratively refused to count ballots stuffed for Fernando Marcos. The Marcos regime fell shortly thereafter.

A similar act of courage by Natalya Vasilyeva, the assistant to the presiding judge in the Khodorkovsky case, confirms that the verdict was dictated by higher ups in the Kremlin. Outside observers understood that the trumped up charges against Khodorkovsky were part and parcel of Putin’s vendetta against a potential political rival. We also knew this was a case of “telephone justice” where the presiding judge was given his verdict by superiors. But rarely do we have confirmation of such goings on from actual participants. To reveal such things is dangerous to say the least.

According to Vasilyeva’s understated statement to the online newspaper Gazaeta.ru, the judge “had to communicate with the Moscow City Court on all sorts of controversial issues that came up during the trial…. He had to provide information to the Moscow City Court and…. received from there instructions about how to behave.” Further, she stated that the judge “began to write the sentence…. I suspect that the higher authorities did not like something in it. And in connection with this, he received a new sentence, which he had to hand down.”

The judge denied Vasilyeva’s comments and threatened her with a lawsuit. The same day, a court spokesperson reported that the Ms. Vasilyeva had resigned.

I doubt that Ms. Vasilyeva’s courageous act will have the same consequences as the Philippine ballot counters, but we should give her the attention, coverage, and respect that she is due.

The New York Times is to be commended for its excellent coverage.

Stalin-Putin Justice: The Bukharin-Khodorkovsky Cases

Dec, 12: Vladimir Putin's reply when asked on a national TV call in show about the upcoming Khodorkovsyky verdict: "Thieves should remain in jail."


When the history of Russian justice is written fifty years from now, two landmark court cases will stand out: The death sentence of Nikolai Bukharin in his Moscow show trial of March 1938 and the second prison sentence of Mikhail Khodorkovsky expected December 27, 2010. Both processes teach the same object lesson: anyone who crosses the Kremlin will be punished without mercy. There will be no protection in the courts for the innocent, and the guilty verdict and sentence will be already predetermined behind the Kremlin walls. It also does not matter how preposterous or ludicrous the charges.

Vladimir Putin was born in 1952, only one year before Stalin’s death. But Stalin’s system of justice was institutionalized and survived Stalin and the collapse of the Soviet Union, for use by apt pupils such as Putin. We have intimate knowledge of Stalin’s use of the courts from his many telegrams ordering arrests and trials and dictating the sentence, such as his 1937 authorization to try a group of bakers in open court “with participation of prosecutor and defense, sentence all to death, and publish results in the press.” We lack such records for the Putin regime. We doubt that its sentences are dictated in writing. A safer approach is “telephone justice” whereby the judge is given the sentence by phone.

The weak link in Stalin-Putin justice occurs when the court proceeding is open and the defendant realizes the verdict is set in stone and there is nothing to lose. Nikolai Bukharin was Stalin’s last standing political rival when he was brought before the court accused of murder, assassination plots (including Stalin’s) and espionage for Germany in March of 1938. He had been worked over since his arrest in February. His “confession” was read before the court. In Stalin’s time, death sentences were carried out immediately; Bukharin understood that he had little to lose if he retracted his confession in his final statement. Here is part of what he said in his final statement before Stalin personally censored it for publication in the trial transcripts:

I declare myself politically responsible for the totality of crimes committed by the “Rightist-Trotskyite bloc.” I accept responsibility even for those crimes about which I did not know or about which I did not have the slightest idea. I deny most of all the prosecutor’s charge of belonging to the group, sitting on the court bench with me, because such a group never existed, and it is clear that such a non-existent group cannot be, contrary to the prosecutors’ conclusion, created by the orders of foreign intelligence.

Bukharin’s retraction of his confession sent the judge and prosecutor into a frenzy. They knew that failure could put them in the dock along with Bukharin. They quickly moved to silence him.

Khodorkovsky today stands accused of the ludicrous charge of stealing virtually all of the oil produced by his Yukos oil company. Brave expert witnesses have testified that such a crime was impossible, but Khodorkovsky, like Bukharin, faces an inevitable guilty verdict on December 27. At least he does not face shooting as did Bukharin. Like Bukharin, Khodorkovsky used his “final statement to the court” to tell the audience, including the foreign press, that his conviction has been ordered by the Kremlin and what it means for the justice system. I attach (with some deletions) his eloquent final statement to the court:

I can recall October 2003. My last day as a free man. Several weeks after my arrest, I was informed that president Putin had decided: I was going to have to “slurp gruel” for 8 years. It was hard to believe that back then. Seven years have gone by already since that day. Seven years – quite a long stretch of time, and all the more so – when you’ve spent it in jail. All of us have had time to reassess and rethink many things. Judging by the prosecutors’ presentation: “give them 14 years” and “spit on previous court decisions”, over these years they have begun to fear me more, and to respect the law – even less.

Nobody is seriously waiting for an admission of guilt from me. It is hardly likely that somebody today would believe me if I were to say that I really did steal all the oil produced by my company. But neither does anybody believe that an acquittal in the YUKOS case is possible in a Moscow court.

I remember the end of the last decade and the beginning of the current one. By then I was 35. We were building the best oil company in Russia. We were putting up sports complexes and cultural centers, laying roads, and resurveying and developing dozens of new fields. In short, – we were doing all those things that Rosneft, which has taken possession of Yukos, is so proud of today. We felt hope that the period of convulsions and unrest – was behind us at last, and that, in the conditions of stability that had been achieved with great effort and sacrifice, we would be able to peacefully build ourselves a new life, a great country.

With the coming of a new President (and more than two years have already passed since that time), hope appeared once again for many of my fellow citizens too. Hope that Russia would yet become a modern country with a developed civil society. Free from the arbitrary behavior of officials, free from corruption, free from unfairness and lawlessness. It is clear that this can not happen all by itself, or in one day. But to pretend that we are developing, while in actuality, – we are merely standing in one place or sliding backwards, even if it is behind the cloak of noble conservatism, – is no longer possible. Impossible and simply dangerous for the country.

I am ashamed to see how certain persons – in the past, respected by me – are attempting to justify unchecked bureaucratic behavior and lawlessness. They exchange their reputation for a life of ease, privileges and handouts. It makes me proud to know that even after 7 years of persecutions, not a single one of the thousands of YUKOS employees has agreed to become a false witness, to sell their soul and conscience. Dozens of people have personally experienced threats, have been cut off from family, and have been thrown in jail. Some have been tortured. But, even after losing their health and years of their lives, people have still kept the thing they deemed to be most important, – human dignity.

I think all of us understand perfectly well – the significance of this trial extends far beyond the scope of my fate, and even the fates of all those who have guiltlessly suffered in the course of the sweeping massacre of YUKOS, those I found myself unable to protect, but about whom I remember every day.
Let us ask ourselves: what must be going through the head of the entrepreneur, the high-level organizer of production, or simply any ordinary educated, creative person, looking today at this trial and knowing that its result is absolutely predictable?

The obvious conclusion a thinking person can make is chilling in its stark simplicity: the power bureaucracy can do anything. There is no right of private property ownership. A person who collides with “the system” has no rights whatsoever. Even though they are enshrined in the law, rights are not protected by the courts. Because the courts are either also afraid, or are themselves a part of “the system”. Who is going to modernize the economy? Prosecutors? Policemen? Chekists? We already tried such a modernization – it did not work.

A country that tolerates a situation where the power bureaucracy holds tens and even hundreds of thousands of talented entrepreneurs, managers, and ordinary people in jail in its own interests, instead of and together with criminals, – this is a sick country. I will not be exaggerating if I say that millions of eyes throughout all of Russia and throughout the whole world are watching for the outcome of this trial. They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all become a country of freedom and of the law, where the law will be above the bureaucratic official.
Where supporting opposition parties will cease being a cause for reprisals.
Where the special services will protect the people and the law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law. Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the tsar. Good or evil.

I am not at all an ideal person, but I am – a person with an idea. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail, and I do not want to die there. But if I have to – I will not hesitate. The things I believe in are worth dying for. I think I have proven this. And you opponents? What do you believe in? That the bosses are always right? Do you believe in money? In the impunity of “the system”?

Khodorkovsky Verdict Delayed

Former Yukos Chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky's verdict in his second Moscow trial was supposed to be delivered today, December 15. Without warning or notice, the court announced that the reading of the verdict has been delayed until December 26. The reason for the delay is obvious: Western newsmen leave Moscow between Christmas and New Year. Few will be in the Moscow court room to hear the predictable guilty verdict and the new prison sentence.

The Kremlin wants as little attention as possible. The Khodorkovsky case is becoming uncomfortable. There is widespread recognition that the charges are a sham and that Khodorkovsky is being kept in jail for political reasons. As a prisoner of conscience and a well known figure, a free Khodorkovsky could be a serious challenger to the Kremlin. The Kremlin needs to keep the verdict as quiet as possible because it is now attracting attention from civil rights advocates in Europe, who increasingly assign political dissident status to Khodorkovsky.

The Khodorkovsky case also exposes as false President Medvedev's so-called campaign to establish a rule of law in Russia. How can there be talk of rule of law when the most prominent rule-of-law case is the sham Khodorkovsky trial?