He is not a sympathetic character. He may be hard to read. My conviction that he is leading Russia down the wrong path is shared by millions of people. However, the public excoriation we are witnessing in London about the leader of the Russian Federation is not something which should be joined in by anyone, much less a lawyer, who believes in the foundations of modern law.
For three years now I have been confronted with the blatant illegalities of the Kremlin’s campaign against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yukos. I have been advocating respect for fundamental principles of due process, fair trials, and the presumption of innocence. The universality of these principles means that there can be no shortcut to achieving the rule of law. Justice must be done, and justice must be seen to have been done.
In the past week comments have been widely circulating in the European press accusing the Russian president of involvement in the poisoning of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko. These comments are extraordinarily inflammatory and wrongheaded. In accusing Vladimir Putin personally, we do not advance the rule of law in Russia by one iota. Such accusations are giving in to hysteria and lowering ourselves below the standards of our own legal systems that we so cherish and promote worldwide.
Russia has been faced with mounting European criticism over its widespread human rights abuses and disrespect for fundamental principles of the rule of law and democratic processes. Yet pointing the finger at Vladimir Putin personally will rightly be seen in Russia as deeply hypocritical. Vladimir Putin has full rights to the presumption of innocence, just like anyone else.
All those suspected for responsibility behind this attack in London will face the full onslaught of a Scotland Yard investigation. Hasty assertions about Vladimir Putin’s guilt are not only inappropriate, but may well backfire. These statements give great play to the arguments of Kremlin hardliners who have been telling Vladimir Putin that he cannot trust his European neighbors; that Europeans are deeply Russophobic; that he must stand apart as an independent center of power in the world. Mr. Putin may well be convinced that he has nothing left to lose in terms of his reputation in the West – and then matters will certainly take a turn for the worse.
In contrast to my views about the person of the Russian presidency, I do believe that there is a reverse onus on the Russian state to cooperate fully in disgorging information relevant to this case. In the court of public opinion there is a pervasive presumption of guilt weighing upon the Russian authorities. This is an unavoidable consequence of the brazen impunity with which the Russian authorities have flaunted law and due process in recent years. When state actions amount to grand-scale theft, when corruption is endemic, when opponents are locked away and when political legitimacy is maintained through near-total control over the press, the Kremlin should not be surprised to find that it has a tremendous credibility problem.
In respect however to the President of Russia, there is no such reverse onus. Vladimir Putin deserves the full shield of a wholehearted presumption of innocence. Taking that away from him is lowering ourselves to the same kind of demagoguery that we have been so vociferously opposing. In the meantime, speculation and oversimplified accusations will not help Scotland Yard to do its work.
| Permalink
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
Comments (8)
Vladimir Putin, possibly, relates no to the matter of Лytvynenko. In the Russian medias about Лytvynenko talk, as about a betrayer which from offense on power of Russia desecrated PUTIN. And death of Лytvynenko will appear after a while, as ridiculous death at the enigmatic circumstances. Death of Лytvynenko Alexander needs to be investigated carefully without some secrets from public. Sorry to my english, I from Russia
Posted by Egor | November 28, 2006 5:43 PM
Posted on November 28, 2006 17:43
I think you are making two assumptions which are not appropriate.
First, you assume that evidence could ultimately be obtained which would permit conclusions about Putin's involvement, when in fact this is almost impossible. The KGB is not that ham-handed; we will never know for sure that Putin was involved, and hence must make educated guesses and act on them if we are to protect ourselves.
Second, you assume that Putin has subjected himself to the sanction of international justice in the event he is proven guilty, the same way people do when they choose to live in a given country, therefore justifying a presumption of innocence. This is, it seems to me, the opposite of the case. Putin holds himself above the law exactly the way his government does (with, as you correctly say, "brazen impunity").
Further, I'm not sure I see the point of your "defense." After all, if we are free to take action against the Russian state based on its credibility then Putin is irrelevant (unless we get to the Sadaam trial phase, at which point I too would support a presumption of innocence). Nobody is saying we should grab Putin right now and put him on trial, they're just saying he's a maniac and his country is a neo-Soviet juggernaut that must be opposed.
The time has passed when we could hope that addressing Putin with respect would cause us to be respected in the eyes of Russians. The time has come to do the opposite, and show Russians that they must choose between Putin and cold war .
Posted by La Russophobe | November 28, 2006 7:17 PM
Posted on November 28, 2006 19:17
I agree that Putin deserves the presumption of innocence. Let Scotland Yard do its job. But Putin and his governmant should clearly answer for crimes that were commited and proven. Like for example for murdering Chechen president Yandarbiyev. And somehow after this murder he continous to be greeted with honors in France, UK, US and other countries. Lets' start telling murderers that they are murderers and let's do that very loudly, so theworld is not surprised next time. not
Posted by mariusz | November 28, 2006 7:17 PM
Posted on November 28, 2006 19:17
You are absolutely right.
Thank you for that statement.
Posted by L'Observatrice | November 28, 2006 9:12 PM
Posted on November 28, 2006 21:12
Access to polonium-210 is very restricted.
It must be made in a nuclear reactor and it must be used very soon after production
because it has such a short half-life
and is very perishable.
There are only a few nuclear reactors in the world that can make it
since a reactor must be specifically designed
to generate such isotopes.
No one can get polonium-210
without official approval
or at least without official acquiescence
by government officials somewhere.
Every batch of polonium-210
leaves a paper-trail somewhere.
If the poison in this case
originated in Russia
then Mr Putin certainly knows about it
and if he fails to disclose such information then he is guilty at least of being an
accessory to murder after the fact and of obstructing justice.
The problem is how to prove that the poison originated in Russia and not elsewhere.
The Soviet Union of Canada
is also very corrupt and it is possible that the poison originated there.
For example, four Canadian prime-ministers managed to frustrate proper investigation and prosecution in the Air-India 182 case in which 239 people were instantly mass-murdered off the Irish coast.
Canada is also well-known as the single largest exporter of illegal drugs to America
with Toronto functioning as a giant drug-laboratory and marijuana grow-op.
The psychopathic idiots of Canada and various other countries are just as capable of supplying
polonium-210 as are the psychopathic idiots of Russia.
We can be sure that if the poison originated in Canada
or any other country then their local authorities will deny this just as vigorously as do the Russians in order to avoid international censure.
Thus unfortunately the murderers of Mr Litvinenko will be protected by the privileges of sovereignty.
They might not have committed the perfect murder but most likely they will elude discovery and prosecution.
Posted by Afton | November 29, 2006 1:49 AM
Posted on November 29, 2006 01:49
A question occurs to me: Suppose Putin WERE proved to have personally ordered the killing of Litvinenko, beyond a reasonable doubt, with full due process. What should we do then?
Posted by La Russophobe | November 29, 2006 10:12 PM
Posted on November 29, 2006 22:12
Russophobe, we could treat it as an international crime worthy of the attention of the new International Criminal Court. Or, much more likely, Putin could be tried domestically under a future anti-Putin regime when he no longer enjoys sovereignty, and before any statute of limitations runs out. Personally, I think Amsterdam's comment about Putin has more to do with not succumbing to double standards than any realistic hope of a real trial ever happening. Amsterdam is taking a principled position and I think that its important for him not to jump on bandwagons that treat everyone in the Kremlin as under Putin's direct order.
Posted by Alexei | November 30, 2006 3:11 PM
Posted on November 30, 2006 15:11
Russophobe, I meant to say when he no longer enjoys immunity, rather than sovereignty.
Posted by Alexei | November 30, 2006 3:13 PM
Posted on November 30, 2006 15:13