|
|
|
|
|
|
30.01.08
|
A Match Made In Heaven Or A Marriage Of Convenience?
|
|
|
By Yelena Biberman
|
Does Russia Really Belong in the Council of Europe?
Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe has become driven by conflicting interests. Russia seeks global political legitimacy and to create for itself a European identity through its association with what Winston Churchill envisioned as the United States of Europe. Realizing that the European Court of Human Rights, a key institution of the Council of Europe, is the last resort for thousands of Russians seeking legal justice, many Europeans prefer the humane policy of keeping Russia close and patiently hoping for the best.
However, with a European identity comes responsibilities that Russia does not seem to be ready to accept. And it is becoming increasingly difficult for its Council comrades to continue to turn a blind eye to Russia’s puzzling path toward democracy.
A Black Sheep or a Bad Egg?
Anders Aslund, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, seriously questions the validity of Russia’s continued membership in the Council of Europe. According to him, Russia joined the organization when it was still “set to be a democracy and desired to integrate with the West.”
“Today, of course, Putin has abandoned democracy, rendering Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe an anachronism,” said Aslund. “The only remaining purpose is to gain a little international recognition. A new purpose appears to have emerged, namely to play an international clown, which [Vladimir] Zhirinovsky has long done at the Council of Europe.”
Russia’s rogue membership in what is widely viewed as Europe’s human rights watchdog is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Although President Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia seeks to strengthen its relations with the Council of Europe when he received Rene van der Linden, the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in the Kremlin on Jan. 17, Putin refused to commit Russia to a major international protocol designed to reform the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, Putin also declined to ratify a European protocol limiting the death penalty, despite Russia’s previous commitment to do so by February 1999.
Domestically, Russia is looking less and less like a proper Council of Europe member. In December 2007, the Council criticized the Russian State Duma elections for not being fair and failing to meet many of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) standards for democratic elections. According to the organizations’ observers, the Duma elections “took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition and with frequent abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favor of the ruling party, and an election code whose cumulative effect hindered political pluralism. There was not a level political playing field in Russia in 2007.”
Amnesty International’s 2007 Report condemns what it sees as the continued deterioration of Russia’s commitment to human rights. According to the report, throughout 2007, “Human rights defenders and independent civil society came under increasing pressure.” Amnesty International also underscores the Russian government’s limiting freedom of expression and assembly, insufficient action in response to widespread racism, homophobia, violence against women, and human rights abuses in Chechnya.
In July 2007, the European Court of Human Rights denounced the Russian government for its “acquiescence” in the Feb. 5, 2000 massacre of civilians in Chechnya after its failure to persecute the contract soldiers responsible for the deaths of 11 Grozny residents.
The court issued the second highest number of judgments finding at least one violation against Russia. The majority of cases brought to the court against Russia dealt with the right to fair trial and protection of property, but Russia also faced a significant number of accusations for assaulting the right to liberty and security and inhumane or degrading treatment.
Russian citizens appeal to the European Court of Human Rights more often than the citizens of any other country. The 20,300 Russian cases currently pending make up 26 percent of the court’s total.
Change through osmosis
Ironically, Russia’s membership in the Council remains intact due in large part to its poor human rights record.
“Although President Putin himself has complained about this court, Russia still recognizes it. In effect, it is the only serious recourse of law in Russia today, and this is a strong argument for other members of the Council of Europe to still accept Russia and not suspend its membership as happened with Turkey and Greece when they abandoned democracy,” Aslund explained.
Sven Hirdman, Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps in Stockholm and the Swedish Ambassador to Russia from 1994 to 2004, also underscores the fact that the Council plays an important role in “developing the Rule of Law in Russia,” but emphasized its role for Russia to “prove its European and democratic identity.”
However, Aslund and Hirdman disagree on the future of Russia's relationship with the Council of Europe. “Sooner or later,” said Aslund, “an authoritarian Russia is likely to denounce the European Court of Human Rights, since it mitigates legal arbitrariness in Russia and thus reduces the state’s authoritarian power. Then, European democrats would find little or no reason not to suspend Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe as such,” he argued.
Hirdman, on the other hand, is optimistic, foreseeing the development of a “more mature relationship, in particular with respect to the strengthening of the Rule of Law in Russia.” He also believes that the court cases in Strasbourg will have an impact on Russian jurisdiction.
Finally, as Aslund points out, “a suspension of Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe would manifest Russia’s distance from the Western and democratic world.” And neither Russia nor Europe wants to see Russia abandon its dream of becoming a European state and turn exclusively to the East for allies.
Andrei Piontkovsky, head researcher at the Institute of System Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Hudson Institute visiting fellow, believes that Russia's hostility toward the Council of Europe is linked to the Kremlin's increasingly assertive foreign policy against the West in general, one that requires a Western enemy. "The hostility is driven not by geopolitical considerations, but by internal politics," Poiontkovsky said. "If you look at most of the conflicts between Russia and the West, they are conflicts of choice."
According to Piontkovsky, Russia's membership in the Council is in part motivated by the Kremlin's desire to use the Council as a platform for "a propaganda war in Europe against the West." The contradiction, Pionkovsky argues, is that while the Russian elites enjoy spending their time in Europe as Council of Europe members, "they don't want Western standards of democracy for their own country." |
| The source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The virtual community for English-speaking expats and Russians
