The ruling ideology of Russia is to be on the rise. But the problem is that the economy is stangnating – there is no growth beyond oil and gas. And even in the oil and gas industries there is significant underinvestment.I can't say I agree with all of that analysis, and I'd love to know the name of the source, but it is all quite interesting nevertheless. The part that I focused on - about Putin being put on trial in some sort of international forum - is a somewhat bizarre idea (in my opinion) that I've heard repeated at least a couple of times in recent months. The reference must be to the International Criminal Court, which cannot prosecute any crimes committed before July 1, 2002. Furthermore, Russia is not a state party to the ICC, and any war crimes committed in Chechnya were committed on Russian territory, so the ICC would not have jurisdiction unless the UN Security Council voted to refer such a case to the ICC - not exactly a likely outcome given Russia's veto in the Security Council.
Ru is now hyper dependent on exports of declining commodities – oil and gas. Both gas and oil production, and gas and oil prioces are stagnating. And Ru also has growing gas consumption – Ru is heading towards a catastrophe.
Ru has a worsening foreign policy with ALL is partners. Ru rise is based on US’s (Iraq) and EU’s (internal crisis) weakening not on Ru rising power. Putin has crossed the boundaries. He is afraid to leave. Cause he will be sidelined – the same way he sidelined Eltsin. But Putin also has Beslan, Chechnya, the explosions in Moscow and Volgodonsk in 1999 – and consequently all the chances to end up in the Hague. The only guarantee is to stay in power – and they increasingly cross the limits and increasing authoritarianism.
Ru is very worried of the ENP [European Neighborhood Policy] – it means that ENP countries align to the ENP and the EU is becoming an internal actor in these states. And it strengthens the competitiveness of EU businesses in CIS because of legislative harmonisation at the expense of Russian businesses.
Ru is for silovaya (forceful) integration of the post-soviet space. Ru is not only threatening with higher gas prices – but is also offering a way out – to let Ru take over energy infrastructure. But the problem is that it is too late for “silovaya” integration. It was possible before the 2004 EU enlargement. But when Russia is doing this now – it gets the worst case scenario – it does not take over energy infrastructure and it scares away the CIS states.”
If the reference to the Hague was a nod to the tribunal there for war crimes committed in the fighting in the former Yugoslavia, there would be the same barrier to setting up a similar tribunal on Chechnya. I doubt that a special war crimes tribunal will be created for Chechnya, bearing in mind that the two such tribunals currently in existence (ICTY and ICTR) were created by the UN Security Council, and Russia could use its veto in this case also to nix the creation of any proposed Chechnya tribunal. So, to be honest, I don't see any legal threat from international institutions to Putin in his retirement. Even more odd is the thought that Putin would have any sort of international liability for purely domestic events which did not involve any ill intent (e.g., Beslan).
More recently, there has been speculation about Putin's potential liability (presumably under UK law) for the Litvinenko killing if he travels abroad when no longer head of state.
Killings May Leave Putin a Hounded Man (Times of London, March 11, 2007)
These statements were made and quoted in the context of not only Litvinenko's death but also the killing of Anna Politkovskaya and possible killing of Ivan Safronov; however, it is hard to see how Putin could be in too much legal trouble in other countries for the latter two incidents.[...] Some of Putin’s opponents intend to turn the tables on the Russian leader. Yuri Shvets, a former KGB major and friend of Litvinenko, believes Putin will be hounded abroad when his term expires in 2008, like the late Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet, who was accused of human rights abuses.
“The biggest concern for Putin is what he is going to do after he retires and loses his immunity as head of state,” Shvets said at his home in Virginia. “He should be afraid of turning into another Pinochet. Putin likes to travel abroad and one day he may go downhill skiing in Europe and find himself behind bars.”
Barry Carter, professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington, also said Putin had good cause to worry. “Heads of state are generally protected, but once he stands down, his legal status becomes very murky. If he travels, it will be at some risk.” [...]
None of those three alleged killings would give rise to international criminal liability (i.e., the potential to be tried in the ICC), as far as I can tell, so it would seem that the only way Putin could be prosecuted would be for Litvinenko's death in another country's (presumably the UK's) domestic courts. This, I suppose, is a possibility, but it seems like a remote one at this point. And I don't think that any domestic courts (other than Russian ones) would have the proper jurisdictional hook to try Putin for war crimes in Chechnya or anything else that happened in Russia, unless the victims were foreign nationals.
Incidentally, when Pinochet was tried outside of Chile it was in a Spanish domestic court, and the original basis for arresting him was alleged responsibility for Spanish citizens having been killed in Chile. No similar basis exists for Putin, except possibly with respect to Litvinenko. So, unless I'm missing something (and I'm definitely going to research this more thoroughly when I have time), I can't see any great likelihood of Putin facing prosecution if he leaves office.
It all seems like the sort of idea that would be really useful to those who have Putin's ear and want to convince him to stay on for another term. This may be the classic case where extreme forces on opposite sides help each other, if inadvertently - true Russophobes who always want to stick it to Russia may advocate going after Putin if/when he steps down, and those close to Putin who want him to stick around in office may remind him about this possibility, because there seems to be a (not entirely true, as there is no immunity for heads of state in the ICC) notion that a sitting head of state cannot be prosecuted.
This page (from a brochure distributed by the pro-government youth group Nashi at a recent demonstration in Moscow) tosses out the suggestion that trials of Russian Chechen War veterans will be in the headlines in 2008 and suggests that international legal processes are viewed by some in Russia as being simply an instrument of American domination. Note the "Saddam Executed" headline on the newspaper in the background, which also suggests a threat to Putin in an oblique way, by implying that the US just kills off foreign heads of state it doesn't like (other parts of the brochure talk about the US carving up and colonizing Russia).
Some articles alleging war crimes in Chechnya (and other articles somewhat on this topic) that I found when googling around on this issue:
Bush and Blair Could Face War Crimes Charges (2007)
Putin Urged to Seek Justice in Chechnya (2007)
Crime Without Punishment - Russian Policy in Chechnya (2003)
Could Putin Someday Join Milosevic in the Dock at the Hague? (2002)
No Indictment for Moscow War Criminals? (2000)
War Crimes and Human Rights Violations in Chechnya (2000)
Chechnya: Russia is Committing War Crimes and Genocide (1999)
4 comments:
Incidentally, when Pinochet was tried outside of Chile it was in a Spanish domestic court, and the original basis for arresting him was alleged responsibility for Spanish citizens having been killed in Chile. No similar basis exists for Putin, except possibly with respect to Litvinenko.
I suspect that there will actually prove to be quite a few people who were killed / kidnapped / tortured in Chechnya who turn out to have had dual nationality - both Russian and an EU state.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before a local court hears a case. I doubt (although don't rule out) that it will actually result in Putin actually standing trial somewhere, though.
Interesting. You're certainly right that Putin standing trial can't be ruled out, but I think it's a dangerous and somewhat irresponsible threat for "the West" to throw around at this point (other than to say that of course crimes are punished through legal means if there's a basis for bringing charges).
My thought would be that the people with any EU or dual nationality who were kidnapped or killed in Chechnya were much more likely to have met with their misfortune at the hands of the Chechens (e.g., the infamous cases of kidnapped journalists and beheaded aid workers) than at the hands of the federal forces. I'm not sure how any of the Chechen villagers who got caught in the zachistki would have other passports - if they did, would they have stuck around in Chechnya?
And the supposed foreign mercenaries fighting on the side of the Chechens, well, their deaths in combat would not be war crimes, and furthermore I can't see their states of citizenship particularly wanting to dredge up the fact of their nationals' involvement in Chechnya.
Then there's Fred Cuny's case (I highly recommend the book about him, by the way), where it looks possible that the Russians spread info that he was a Russian spy, possibly leading Chechens to kill him. Since there's no body, it's hard to imagine a prosecutor bringing charges in such a confusing case unless more evidence emerges. And in general, it's always important to remember the power of prosecutorial discretion - after all, criminal charges are not always brought when they could be.
Finally, even if such a case were to be brought, I think that in most imaginable situations some sort of "fog of war" / broken chain of command defense would be much more applicable for Putin than it turned out to be for Pinochet. So the local-level commander might get stuck with an EU country's arrest warrant, but then those folks aren't likely to be traveling to Western Europe anyway.
Anyway (as with so many things about Russia and its relationship with the West), who knows? You certainly raise an interesting point, and I guess my original post may have been too categorical. My main point was that I hope such charges wouldn't be brought against Putin frivolously, and I fear that people around him are working to convince him that this may happen. But perhaps it is a genuine threat to a post-Presidential VVP...
I am not intimately familiar with the Law of Armed Conflict, but I don't think that the commander-in-chief is necessarily responsible for any and all war crimes committed by the rank-and-file, unless there were orders that led to the crimes. Also, one of the things about the Int'l Criminal Court (excluding the fact that its jurisdiction over Americans is very limited indeed) is that people can't be prosecuted internationally if they are prosecuted by their own country (or, I think, if prosecution is seriously considered and not undertaken, although this is of course a difficult determination). In this way, the US court-martialling people accused of war crimes should get those individuals off the hook as far as international prosecution.
The difference between Putin and the US top leaders is that, unless I'm mistaken, Rumsfeld and Cheney have already been referred for prosecution to the Int'l Criminal Court, and the ICC prosecutor has declined to prosecute. I don't think this is the case with Putin. As the unfortunate Litvinenko/Lugovoi thing shows, prosecutorial discretion is a remarkably powerful thing, and potentially quite dangerous if abused.
I dont see how Putin would have problems. He is more than just head of a small country. When he leaves office he will not , in my opinion be stepping back. Putin has his controls in place and will most likely wield more power out of office.
You war crime Putin you must war crime Bush!
Just my two cents worth!
Kyle Keeton
Post a Comment