Europe Betrays its Values – Again

Svante E. Cornell

On January 25, the Council of Europe restored Russia’s voting rights, which had been suspended nine months ago over the conduct of Moscow’s war in Chechnya. This decision was taken in spite of massive lobbying by Human Rights organizations to keep the symbolically important sanctions on Russia. The suspension may have meant little in practical terms. But being the first country in the council’s history to see its voting rights suspended did hurt Moscow’s prestige and its efforts to legitimize the war. More importantly, the lack of any reaction to the well-documented and systematic violations of human rights by other international bodies or individual states made the Council’s suspension all the more important. In fact, the Council was the only respected organ not to defer to Russia’s wishes or threats.

 The recent decision is surprising because it rewards the Kremlin where there is really nothing to reward. There have been no observable efforts by Moscow to find a political solution to the conflict. Russia has blatantly disregarded its obligations to curb human rights violations and to punish perpetrators. Far from being a period of ‘return to normal life’, as claimed by Russian authorities, the situation for civilians in Chechnya remains appalling. Arbitrary detention, systematic torture, ‘disappearances’, and the killing of male civilians by Russian officials, continue unabated. As Human Rights Watch noted in a recent memorandum, ‘violations of human rights and international humanitarian law have not lessened; they have become routine’. Only days prior to the Council ruling, the Kremlin showed signs of switching to a strategy of occupation. Control of the war effort was transferred from the army to the security forces, and all major Chechen villages are now to have permanent garrisons of Russian troops – neither move indicating an improvement for the treatment of civilians.

 Yet, the Council apparently found reasons to restore Russia’s voting rights. More puzzling still, the first line of a recent article in Le Monde (6 February) by Lord Russel-Johnston, president of the council’s parliamentary assembly (PACE), notes that ‘the abuses and harassment of the civilian population in Chechnya continue…this has created a climate of impunity…Russia is still failing its obligations as a member…’ Hence, Russel-Johnston acknowledges that nothing has improved in Chechnya. Why, then, have Russia’s voting rights been restored? The main reason given is a ‘beginning of a change in the attitude of our Russian parliamentary colleagues’. In particular, the Council acted on a call from liberal Russian parliamentarian claiming a ‘gesture’ from the Council would make their work for democracy and human rights easier. In addition, Russel-Johnston argues that had the voting rights not been restored, moderate voices in Russia would have been silenced.

 All of these arguments are flawed, and betray either a total misconception of the working of the Russian political system, or a dangerous policy of accommodation toward the Kremlin, or both. If the council expressed its readiness to listen to Russian parliamentarians, why did it refuse to hear Russia’s perhaps foremost human rights defender, member of the Duma, and member of PACE, Sergey Kovalev? Despite his presence in Strasbourg at the time of the decision, the council ‘did not have time’ to hear his address. Perhaps, this was due to an anticipation that Kovalev would reiterate his stated position: that not only should the Council keep the suspension in place, but that sanctions should be slammed on Russia because of its disregard for international norms.

 If Russian democracy has come to such a juncture that the enforcement of a pre-existing suspension would lead to the silencing of moderate views, then the logical question should not be whether Russia’s voting rights should be restored – but whether it should at all remain a member of the Council of Europe. If its commitment to democratic principles and freedom of speech is so low that moderate voices could arbitrarily and suddenly be silenced, the Council ought to think it as tarnishing its name to keep Russia as a member.

 But beyond this, it is the general thrust of the Council’s argument that is most disturbing. It reflects a view that Russia should be accommodated into becoming democratic and respecting human rights, a view that has been widely held in the west since the Soviet Union’s dissolution. In the early 1990s, President Yeltsin warned that unless the west assisted his government’s programs unconditionally, Russia would succumb to nationalist or communist forces. A few years later, Yeltsin was himself pursuing most of the policies advocated by the said extremists. Today, while Russia’s army drops vacuum bombs on Russian citizens in Chechnya, and security forces crack down on dissenting media, President Putin tours European capitals, detailing Russia’s progresses in democratization and human rights.

 Time and again, accommodative policies have invariably failed. Far from convincing authoritarian leaders to change their policies, accommodation sends a signal of weakness and malleability, which only strengthens the conviction of the leader that he can continue to manipulate his opponents, while conducting policies with impunity. Kovalev put this most succinctly: ‘don’t they understand that if they ease the pressure on Russia, it will only encourage the kind of excesses that are being committed?’ Unfortunately, the Council’s decision comes as no surprise. It admitted Russia in 1996, during the first war in Chechnya, just as it was engaging in massive violations of the body’s most central principles. The April decision to suspend voting rights was therefore a milestone, a bold move that put principles over politics – and showing an understanding that only though clear signals of disapproval can any change of policy be expected. With its recent retraction, Europe has forsaken an important responsibility: to uphold the existence of non-negotiable norms on what constitutes a state’s acceptable behavior.

Dr. Svante E. Cornell is a visiting fellow at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, The Johns Hopkins University (SAIS) and lectures at Uppsala University, Sweden.