#20 - JRL 9142 - JRL Home
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005
From: "Mary Holland" <HOLLANDM@juris.law.nyu.edu>
Subject: Conference Report

The full report can be found at

http://www.russiainfocus.com/pdfs/NYU_4252005.pdf

[DJ: Only executive summary here.]

RUSSIA and U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS
The YUKOS and Khodorkovsky Cases
Threats to Civil Society
Russia’s Actions in the Near Abroad
Russian Oil as a Weapon?

Conference Co-sponsored

by

New York University School of Law
and
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Friday, February 18, 2005

Conference Report
By Mary S. Holland and Michael H.C. McDowell

Executive Summary

Russia today is a society in peril. Human rights, the rule of law and democracy are at grave risk. Once again, Russia has political prisoners. And in Chechnya, a brutal, ten year war has no end in sight. Governmental corruption flourishes. Separation of powers is a myth -- President Putin completely controls the Parliament and judiciary. Putin’s autocratic government largely controls the media, and it is exerting ever greater pressure on business and civil society. Russian oil has replaced nuclear weapons and the military as the regime’s foreign policy weapon of choice. Relations with neighboring states, especially Lithuania and Ukraine, are tense. And relations with the United States are uneasy at best.

The New York University Law School and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies held a major conference to explore these Russian realities on February 18, 2005. Distinguished panelists and attendees came from Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Western Europe and the United States; they included legislators, policy makers, academics, lawyers, business people, journalists and others concerned about Russia’s future. The meeting, a whirlwind, intensive one-day-tour of Russia, concluded with two recommendations:

1. That international support be given to a newly created Russian foundation that proposes to identify and advocate on behalf of the growing number of political prisoners imprisoned today in Russian jails. Those attending the New York University Conference expressed the view that more must be done to draw attention to these prisoners.

2. That a non-governmental Democracy Summit in Moscow be convened as soon as possible to highlight Russia’s democracy deficit and deteriorating human rights record.

The conference included five panel discussions on different dimensions of Russia's troubled state of affairs. In this executive summary, we outline those discussions in brief; following the executive summary are more detailed notes from the presentations. While the texts that follow are not a verbatim transcript of speakers' presentations, they are based on a transcription of the conference, which can be found at www.mbktrial.com. In the interests of clarity, coherence and brevity, speakers' comments have been edited, and some remarks, particularly during the question and answer sessions, have been omitted. We have endeavored, however, to be as true as possible to the tone, spirit and meaning of each speaker's presentation. We have highlighted in bold blue text those statements we found particularly important in each presentation. At the end of the summaries, you will find the conference program, the speakers' and moderators’ biographies and suggestions for further reading.

The panel presentations painted a picture of an increasingly authoritarian government in Moscow that is bullying its neighbors and reversing its commitment to democracy and human rights, with insufficient response from the West. Some highlights from the discussions include:

Evidence of pervasive human rights abuses of prisoners in Russian jails, similar to the Abu Ghraib prison abuses by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, as well as a growing number of political prisoners throughout Russia. Human rights groups in Russia that have tried to stop the abuses or have called attention to the political undertones of many prosecutions have been labeled criminal collaborators, while other critics have been silenced due to government control of Russia’s broadcast media.

The Council of Europe recently declared that the prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in Moscow has breached the European Convention on Human Rights, concluding that Khodorkovsky’s arrest and trial are politically motivated.

Russia recently shut off oil supplies to the Mazeikiu Nafta gasoline refinery in Lithuania for a week, confirming fears that Russia will not hesitate to use its oil and natural gas exports to Europe and elsewhere as levers to gain political advantage and intimidate governments that disagree with its foreign policy objectives.

Stanford Professor Michael McFaul and other panelists called on the current U.S. Administration and other Western nations to give higher priority to human rights concerns and governance issues in their dealings with Russia. “America and Europe have failed to recognize the depth of lawlessness and human rights abuses in Russia,” Ari Vatanen, a Member of the European Parliament, told the conferees. “There should not be a trade off between our strategic interests and core values,” according to Professor McFaul.

Panel I: The YUKOS/Khodorkovsky Cases and Rule of Law in Russia: Setting the Scene

The first panel focused on the events surrounding the Russian government’s takeover of YUKOS Oil Company and prosecution of its former CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev are currently on trial in Moscow on charges of fraud and tax evasion. During the court proceedings, widely acknowledged to be politically motivated, they are locked in a steel cage while numerous YUKOS officials have been arrested on dubious charges or have fled the country fearing reprisal. Russia’s leading human rights groups have recognized Khodorkovsky as a political prisoner and called on international human rights organizations to do the same.

Three of Mr. Khodorkovsky’s lawyers spoke Yuri Schmidt, Karinna Moskalenko and John Pappalardo. All agreed that these cases are politically motivated and without legal foundation. Mr. Schmidt argued that the state’s abuse of criminal process in the Khodorkovsky case exemplifies the fact that “never has [Russia] had a regime…so treacherous, hypocritical, so corrupt and so preoccupied exclusively with personal, rather than national, interests.” Mr. Pappalardo considers the trials “nothing more than a shameless effort to recast two of Russia’s foremost businessmen and economic reformers as nefarious criminals” and the expropriation of Yuganeftegas as “state-sponsored larceny.” Ms. Moskalenko made clear that while the subjugated Russian judiciary will convict Khodorkovsky on false charges, Khodorkovsky will win on appeal in the European Court of Human Rights.

Panel II: Threats to Civil Society: The Human Rights Perspective

The second panel examined human rights and civil society more broadly. Sergei Kovalev, Lev Ponomarev, Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Tatyana Lokshina and Rachel Denber, leading human rights advocates, collectively painted a grim picture. Political reprisals are becoming commonplace. The government is cracking down on civil society, but especially on human rights organizations. Those outside the big cities are the most vulnerable. Lyudmila Alexeyeva saw the Khodorkovsky trial as a stark lesson for business leaders so that “no Russian tycoons would ever again consider freeing themselves from the bureaucrats’ power or supporting human rights activists or opposition political parties.” Tatyana Lokshina focused on Russia’s “war on terror,” and how the “government increasingly portrays human rights as inimical to both national security and the preservation of territorial integrity.” Lokshina lamented that the country is “immersed in war rhetoric and war practices.”

Panel III: Russia’s Actions in the Near Abroad: Back in the USSR?

The third panel focused on Russia’s foreign relations, especially its relations with its closest neighboring states and the United States. Ukraine figured prominently in the panel discussion, in light of the disputed 2004 presidential election that led to a popular victory for Western-leaning candidate Viktor Yushchenko, despite President Putin’s public efforts to install Moscow’s preferred candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. Several speakers noted the potential impact on Russia of Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” and its strong movement towards Europe. Ethan Burger, speaking on Belarus, believes that President Lukashenko’s dictatorial regime and policies may be models for President Putin.

Michael McFaul, commenting on U.S. policy towards Russia, argued that U.S. bilateral discourse with Russia should be about human rights and democracy as well as about national security and the war on terror: “There should not be a trade-off between our strategic interests and core values.” Ari Vatanen, Member of the European Parliament, discouragingly concluded that: “America and Europe have failed to recognize the depth of lawessness and human rights abuses in Russia. In Chechnya, in the name of the fight against terrorism, we condone massacres. Through our neglect, we are creating a breeding ground for terrorism.”

Panel IV: Russian Oil as a Weapon? Challenges to Business and International Investment

The fourth panel tackled the issue of Russia’s oil industry. The Kremlin has tightened the reins over the energy sector and expropriated YUKOS’ assets. Russia is asserting its influence as a major energy supplier. Jonas Cekuolis, a member of the Lithuanian Parliament, contemplated Russia’s attempts to control Lithuania by manipulating oil flows. Cekuolis saw these attempts as bound to fail, but noted hopefully that, “democracy in Russia is not a lost cause, but the key to democracy in Russia in the short term lies in Kiev and Tblisi.” Ian Bremmer acknowledged that the climate for foreign investors has deteriorated significantly over the last six months. Edward Chow questioned whether President Putin has prepared Russia for the day when world oil prices may drop from their current all-time historical high of $40-$50 per barrel to their traditional price of $20 per barrel. Sanford Saunders highlighted Russia’s strategic use of oil to re-establish itself as a superpower.

Panel V: Looking into Putin’s Soul: Choices for U.S. Policymakers

The fifth and final panel was an open discussion to address the age-old Russian question: what is to be done? Clifford May, the moderator, urged Russian participants to voice their concerns. Yuri Schmidt decried the lack of official U.S. government interest in human rights abuses in Russia. As an example, he compared the overwhelming U.S. interest in the Nikitin espionage case in 2000 with its current indifference to the Khodorkovsky case. He argued that “The U.S. is not using even a fraction of its power to seriously change the state of affairs in Russia.” Sergei Kovalev exhorted foreign governments to speak the truth about Russia. He described the West’s disturbing disregard of President Putin’s unrepentant pride in his past KGB service, pointing out that the Soviet KGB killed at least twenty million people for political reasons. Ms. Alexeyeva discussed the concept of a new Russian human rights organization to support political prisoners. She hoped that such an organization would establish that, “once again, Russia has political prisoners,” and by so doing, shame those in the West who support Putin’s regime. Lev Ponomarev called on Western funding sources to help. Karinna Moskalenko called on Amnesty International to reevaluate its unfortunate decision to deny political prisoner status to Mr. Khodorkovsky. Michael McFaul noted with sadness how low Russia is on the U.S. government’s list of priorities. He suggested several ways that Russian human rights activists might draw attention to the grave situation in Russia, including a Moscow Democracy Summit in May 2005 during the international commemoration of the Soviet victory over Fascism.

For more information on the Conference, please contact Mary Holland at: hollandm@jurislaw@nyu.edu.