Congress Needs Human Rights Assurances To Support Russia MFN Vote

Originally Published by Inside US Trade
July 15, 2011

There is a growing sense in Washington that members of Congress will need assurances on human rights if they are to agree to grant Russia permanent most-favored nation (MFN) status, which is necessary if U.S. companies are to fully benefit from Russia acceding to the World Trade Organization.

In a July 7 statement, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) argued that extending permanent MFN and ushering Russia into the WTO is “simply not an option” until Russia is pressed to improve its human rights record. A congressional aide said this sentiment is shared by other members of Congress.

According to an informed source, the White House opposes directly linking improvements in Russia’s human rights situation to Russia’s WTO accession, but since January has nonetheless been advancing the idea that Congress should consider separate human rights legislation this year.

The White House wants to head off a situation where Congress would put off a vote on extending permanent MFN status due to objections on human rights abuses or lack of democracy in Russia, this source said.

President Obama raised both human rights abuses and WTO accession in July 13 discussions with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, according to a White House statement, although that statement gave no indication that Obama directly linked the two issues.

In particular, Obama discussed the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who died in government custody after uncovering a massive tax fraud by Russian government officials. Obama also reaffirmed U.S. support of Russia’s efforts to complete its accession to the WTO this year, and discussed other issues as well, according to the White House statement.

Ros-Lehtinen has no direct jurisdiction over the MFN vote, but she could use her chairmanship to sway the House leadership to take her position, sources said. Alternatively, she could devise her own human rights bill that would fall under the jurisdiction of her committee.

In April, Mike McFaul, the White House National Security Adviser on Russia, said that members alarmed about Russia’s human rights record could back legislation that would penalize Russian officials found to have contributed to Magnitsky’s death and are involved in other gross human rights abuses (Inside U.S. Trade, April 22).

The bill in question is sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and would authorize the United States to impose a travel ban and financial sanctions on Russian individuals believed to have been directly involved in Magnitsky’s prison death. It would also ban U.S. visas and freeze U.S. assets of Russian individuals found to be directly involved in other gross violations of human rights, such as murder, torture or imprisonment.

Cardin’s bill currently has 18 co-sponsors, including fellow Finance Committee members Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — who also serves as the Senate Republican whip — and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) has also signed on to the bill. The measure is pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In the House, a more limited bill is pending before the Judiciary Committee. The House bill would only apply visa bans and asset freezes to those directly involved in Magnitsky’s death but not other human rights violations.

The legislation may become a required trade off for some senators to support the administration’s push to get a vote on permanent MFN and the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment in Congress, according to a congressional aide. Delay in moving this legislation may lead to a delay in the Jackson-Vanik vote, he said.

Passing this legislation could give political cover to members who are nervous about voting in favor of permanent MFN for Russia because they could also support a measure that addresses Russia’s human rights abuses.

The congressional aide acknowledged that the asset freeze may not have a large financial impact due to the fact that many Russian individuals in question do not have assets in the United States or could easily pull their assets out once they know they are subject to an investigation.

But it will put pressure on the European Union, which is also considering a similar policy for freezing assets and banning visas for questionable Russian individuals, to adopt a similar model. This is significant because many Russian individuals keep many of their assets in the EU and travel frequently to EU member states, this source said.

By banning the entry of Russian individuals to the United States, this source said the bill would make a strong symbolic statement to a country whose population is eager to immigrate to the United States and find opportunity here.

The White House is considering formally supporting the legislation in response to growing criticism in Congress over Russia’s human rights issues, but is facing opposition from the State Department, according to an informed source.

The State Department has been cautious toward the White House fully supporting Cardin’s bill, asking instead for a non-binding version or a “sense of the Congress” resolution, according to a congressional source.

State is the lead agency in the bill to carry out the visa ban and will work with the Treasury Department to freeze assets of individuals listed.

State has made it clear that it wants sufficient due process provisions to accompany any kind of asset freeze carried out by the Treasury Department, such as a verification process to make sure assets frozen truly belong to someone listed.

Additionally, State is concerned that the bill’s provision that would allow any member of Congress to submit a request for an individual to be investigated for possible sanctions under the law and require a response within 30 days might expose the department to unreasonable requests by congressional members wishing to make political statements.

A congressional source said that some of its objections could be addressed by having the legislation limit requests only to the chairmen and ranking members of the relevant committees and giving State 90 days to respond to a request, according to a congressional source.

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, S. 1039, is a reintroduction of a bill first proposed by Cardin last year but not pushed in the lame-duck session so as not to jeopardize the ratification New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which Cardin supported.

The bill may have more traction this year not only because of Russia’s pending WTO accession but because many senators “went out on a limb” for the administration to approve New START despite human rights concerns at the end of last year.

Members of Congress this year were confronted by a spate of events this year that reflect poorly on Russia’s human rights record. These included the news that high-profile Russian prisoner Mikhail Khodorovsky was convicted a second time, extending his prison sentence to at least 2016, the congressional source said.

The 2003 imprisonment of Khodorovsky, a former Russian oil tycoon, has been criticized in the United States as a heavy-handed response to Khodorovsky challenging the power of then Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Additionally, Russia has stated that it will not honor the terms of New START if the United States pursues a missile defense program in Europe because Russia considers it a threat to its security. The terms of the treaty allow for the United States to pursue missile defense efforts, sources said.

The bill may also gain more support after Russia banned the formation of an opposition party this year and had, for a time, instituted a travel ban that prohibited two of the party’s organizers from leaving Russia. The travel ban was overturned last week, sources said, most likely in response to the fact that a travel ban was directly contradictory with the Jackson-Vanik amendment’s provisions on the free movement of people.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment is part of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 and makes MFN conditional on Russia’s emigration policy. For Russia the amendment was meant to pressure the country to allow the free emigration of its Jewish population but it applies to the movement of all people. If the amendment is repealed by Congress, it gives the president the authority to grant permanent MFN to Russia, which will allow the United States to take advantage of the tariff and trade commitments that Russia will make as part of its WTO accession.

The United States has granted Russia conditional MFN for many years recognizing the fact that Russia no longer restricts the movement of its people.

Agencies “cover” officials involved in Magnitsky case – rights activist

Originally published by Russia & CIS Business and Financial Newswire
July 1, 2011

MOSCOW – July 1 (Interfax) – Human rights activists intend to name the
officials who may be involved in Hermitage Capital lawyer Sergei
Magnitsky’s case, who died in a Moscow detention facility.

The names will be mentioned in the interim report on the Magnitsky case,
which the presidential Human Rights Council plans to pass to President
Dmitry Medvedev on July 5, Kirill Kabanov, the head of the public
organization National Anti-Corruption Committee, told Interfax on Friday.

“We will raise questions about the names of the people who may be
interested in the Magnitsky case,” Kabanov said.

The working group of the presidential Human Rights Council is actively
working with the Russian Investigations Committee, which is investigating
Magnitsky’s death.

“We have come to the following interim conclusion: Unfortunately, it may be
impossible to subject all participants in this trial to criminal liability.
Agencies are covering them. Courts have made many illegal decisions.
Dealing with courts is a big problem,” Kabanov said.

The interim report will not state the final conclusion on the cause of
Magnitsky’s death, Lyudmila Alekseyeva, a member of the presidential human
rights council, a member of the Council’s working group on the Magnitsky
case, and head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, said.

Magnitsky, a lawyer for the investment foundation Hermitage Capital, died
in the Matrosskaya Tishina detention facility on November 16, 2009, at the
age of 37. He was charged with tax evasion.

Magnitsky’s death drew a broad public response. The Investigations
Committee opened a criminal case on charges of failure to provide
assistance to a patient and negligence.

According to two forensic evaluations, Magnitsky died of acute heart
insufficiency. The experts confirmed that Magnitsky was suffering from the
illnesses he was diagnosed with earlier, but said those illnesses were not
at an acute stage.

Despite the dismissals in the Federal Service for the Enforcement of
Punishments, human rights activists believe no real investigation into the
causes of Magnitsky’s death was conducted.

War Crimes Prosecution Watch, Vol. 6, Issue 8 — July 18, 2011

Volume 6, Issue 8 — July 18, 2011

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Central African Republic & Uganda

Darfur, Sudan

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Kenya

Libya

AFRICA

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

EUROPE

European Court of Human Rights

Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Domestic Prosecutions In The Former Yugoslavia

MIDDLE EAST AND ASIA

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal

War Crimes Investigations in Burma

NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

United States

TOPICS

Terrorism

Piracy

Universal Jurisdiction

Gender-Based Violence

REPORTS

UN Reports

NGO Reports

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSIONS

Honduras

Ivory Coast

Kenya

Sri Lanka

Thailand

COMMENTARY AND PERSPECTIVES

WORTH READING

War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. For more information about War Crimes Prosecution Watch, please contact warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org.

Sri Lankan asylum seekers detained in Indonesia, denied entry to New Zealand

By Brianne Yantz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

WELLINGTON, New Zealand – Earlier this month the Indonesian Navy intercepted a boat containing over 85 Tamil Sri Lankan refugees bound for New Zealand.  Many were waving New Zealand flags or holding signs that read “Our future life is in New Zealand,” the New Zealand Herald reported.  However, the refugees were detained and New Zealand’s Prime Minister, John Key, publicly announced that the asylum seekers would not be permitted to enter the country.

Sri Lankan asylum seekers display signs after their boat was intercepted by the Indonesian Navy.  (Photo Courtesy of AP/ New Zealand Herald)
Sri Lankan asylum seekers display signs after their boat was intercepted by the Indonesian Navy. (Photo Courtesy of AP/ New Zealand Herald)

Key also noted that of the thousands of refugees that seek asylum in New Zealand only 750 a year are accepted. He firmly stated that New Zealand would not accept anyone who did not follow the normal channels.  Key stated that allowing the refugees into the country without going through the proper legal channels would promote smuggling.  As Key explained to The Telegraph, “if you are going to take this boat, there are just thousands and thousands of other boats which will come.”

Many have since criticized Key and accused him of exaggerating the issue.  To his critics, the probability of a mass influx of asylum seekers to New Zealand is not as likely or harmful as Key believes.

According to TamilNet, Keith Locke, the Green Party MP in New Zealand, stated “there is room in our country for more Sri Lankan asylum seekers.  In the last 3 years we have not even filled our 750 annual refugee quota.”  Locke further argued that Key’s mother was in fact an asylum seeker, fleeing Nazi Germany in 1939 for Britain.

TamilNet also reported that Tamil groups in New Zealand believe that Key’s stance is misguided; Key’s judgment has been clouded by poor advice and hostile propaganda from the Government of Sri Lanka.

The Tamil organizations pointed out that the Tamils in Sri Lanka are currently being suppressed by a military dictatorship and that the nation’s war crimes have received little to no international coverage.  Therefore, the lack of public sympathy for the refugees comes as no surprise.

Despite these criticisms, Key has maintained his stance on the issue and the refugees remain in Indonesian custody.

However, one major political figurehead, who is also the leader of the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) political party in Indonesia, has requested the refugees at least be set free.  According to MSN News, MDMK leader, Vaiko, reportedly wrote to Indonesia’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, arguing that the refugees were not illegal immigrants and “as per International Law, their right to seek asylum cannot be curtailed by Indonesian authorities.”

For more information, please see:

TamilNet – Prime Minister criticized in New Zealand’s parliament over Tamil refugees – July 16, 2011

MSN News – Vaiko wants PM to put pressure on Indonesia to release Tamils – July 14, 2011

New Zealand Herald – PM accused of overstating refugee issue – July 13, 2011

Radio New Zealand – PM criticised over stance on asylum seekers – July 12, 2011

The Telegraph – New Zealand shuts door on Sri Lankan asylum seekers – July 12, 2011

Thailand Waits on Election Commission

By: Greg Donaldson
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BANGKOK, Thailand – The Thai Election Commission has decided to hold off on certifying the newly elected prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, citing it needed to look into several legal matters regarding the election.  This act has many calling into question the intentions of the Election Commission.

Yingluck Shinawatra (Photo Courtesy of the Asia News Network)
Recently elected Yingluck Shinawatra. (Photo Courtesy of the Asia News Network)

In a historic election that had a voter turnout of seventy-four percent, Shinawatra and her party Pheu Thai (also called “red shirts”), won a projected 261 seats in Parliament, while the former prime minister’s party only took 162 seats according to the Election Commission. Other exit polls show Pheu Thai’s win to be even larger reports Reuters. However, the Election Commission has the ability to take away an elected candidate’s victory if it finds laws were broken during the election.

Much of the controversy that surrounds the elections revolves around the fact that the newly elected prime minister is the sister of former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Shinawatra was overthrown in a 2006 military operation. Since his overthrow, lower and upper class Thais have been sharply divided.

Thaksin has been barred from politics by the courts and currently lives in exile in Dubai to avoid prison sentences that he calls politically motivated. However, one of Yingluck Shinawatra’s slogans for her campaign was “Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts”.

The Thai news media have treated Ms. Yingluck as the presumptive prime minister.  The local newspaper Thai Rath stated on Wednesday the Election Commission “needs to clarify to the public why it is working so slowly.”

The paper further noted that “The role of the Election Commission in the recent election reeked like a bad odor,” and there were many suspicions about why the process was so jammed up.  The Bangkok Post explains that “only blatant cases of election fraud with strong evidence beyond reasonable doubt should bar anyone from initially entering public office.”

On Wednesday red-shirt leadership warned the Election Commission about their dissatisfaction over the delay in certification of newly elected members. Thida Thawornseth, chairwoman of the movement, called on the red shirts to “keep your batteries full and get ready for action in any situation.”

Thida described the Election Commission’s move as an attempt by the “ruling elite” to prevent the country emerging from its political crisis.” If the people’s interest is destroyed again, (the red-shirt movement) is ready to protect it,” she added.

The election results represent how sharply the country is divided into “red” and “blue” provinces. The blue areas, concentrated in Bangkok and southern Thailand support the departing government, while the reds support the Pheu Thai party whose members are generally poorer, less educated, and reside in the northern parts of the country.  More than half of the voters whose monthly income was less than $165 (USD) voted for Pheu Thai while less than a third voted for the Democrat Party.

For more information, please see:

Bangkok Post — Smooth Transition is Heart of Democracy – 15 July 2011

Asia News Network — Thailand’s red shirts warn of backlash if election body delays endorsement of Yingluck — 14 July 2011

Asia News Network — Thai election commission delays endorsement of Yingluck, partymates – 13 July 2011

New York Times — New Thai Government is Delayed by Legal Challenges — 13 July 2011

Time — Thai Election Board Delays Certifying Winners – 12 July 2011

Reuters – Thaksin party wins Thai election by a landslide — 3 July 2011