Skip to main content

How Amnesty went wrong in assessing Russian opposition leader arrested by Putin

Quoting a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) report, “Amnesty Move To Strip Navalny Of 'Prisoner Of Conscience' Status Sparks Outcry”, a Moscow-based journalist, Fred Weir, whom I peripherally during my Moscow days (1986-93), has brought into the light problems in which such top human rights organisations like Amnesty International, find themselves in while defending what they called “prisoners of conscience.
In a Facebook post, Weir, who is son-in-law of Prof Tatiana Shaumian, a veteran incisive Indologist, whom I used to meet for doing stories on Russian (then Soviet) perceptions on India and Indo-Soviet relations, points to how the recently arrested Russian opposition politician Aleksei Navalny “is an extremely problematic hero” and Amnesty dropping him as a "prisoner of conscience" is suggests the human rights group apparent “ignorance.”
He asks, “Why do so many people in the West seem to believe in a simple Russia -- Putin bad, Navalny good -- and then they bail when the picture clouds or starts to get complicated? In fact, Navalny's racism and hate speech are well documented and more than a decade old, so there's absolutely no excuse for the human rights poobahs at Amnesty not knowing about it.”
This what RFE/RL report states:
***
Amnesty International has withdrawn its recent designation of Russian opposition politician Aleksei Navalny's as a "prisoner of conscience" over his alleged advocacy of violence and discrimination and comments that included hate speech, but reiterated its determination to keep fighting for his release.
Denis Krivosheev, deputy director of Amnesty's Europe and Central Asia office, confirmed to RFE/RL in an e-mailed response on February 24 that the "internal decision" was made "in relation to comments [Navalny] made in the past" and that the decision "does not change our resolve to fight for his immediate release, and for an end to his politically motivated persecution by the Russian authorities.
"Some of these comments, which Navalny has not publicly denounced, reach the threshold of advocacy of hatred, and this is at odds with Amnesty's definition of a prisoner of conscience," Krivosheev said, without specifying which comments he was referring to.
Navalny was arrested at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport after he arrived on January 17 from Berlin, where he had been recovering from a poisoning with a Soviet-era nerve agent in August that the 44-year-old lawyer says was ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and carried out by Russian intelligence.
Krivosheev added that Navalny, whom the group named a prisoner of conscience after his arrest in Moscow last month, "has committed no crime" and that in spite of its decision regarding his status as a prisoner of conscience, "Amnesty delivered 200,000 signatures to the Russian authorities demanding Navalny's immediate release."
Navalny's anti-corruption organization has targeted many high-profile Russians, including high-ranking government officials.
In the course of his political career, Navalny has also come under criticism for his association with ethnic Russian nationalists and about statements seen as racist and dangerously inflammatory.
Still, Amnesty came under immediate criticism by political analysts and Navalny allies, who accused the rights group of caving to a pressure campaign by journalists connected to state-controlled media.
"It's shocking and shameful.... Navalny is deemed no longer to be a 'prisoner of conscience' because his views are now deemed 'hate speech'? I forgot that only woke pacifists can experience persecution," said Mark Galeotti, an expert and author on Russia.
The rights group's decision was first reported by U.S. journalist Aaron Mate on February 23 and was confirmed to Mediazona and The Insider by Aleksandr Artemyev, the rights watchdog's media manager for Russia and Eurasia.
Artemyev wrote that Amnesty decided to retract the designation "in light of new information" stemming from "old videos and social-media posts in which Navalny made controversial pronouncements."
The comments attributed to Navalny in the mid-2000s were not specified, but Artemyev said they were made as Navalny's activism and challenge to Putin was gaining momentum and that their reemergence "appears to be another tactic to delegitimize Navalny's work and criticism and to weaken public outcry about his detention."
But, he added, while it could have been part of a coordinated campaign "done not out of goodwill, but maliciously," Amnesty couldn't disregard "the fact that this time the arrow hit the target," Artemyev said.
Ivan Zhdanov, the director of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), said the "procedure for assigning and depriving AI status turned out to be extremely shameful.”
"In 2018, Amnesty International called me a prisoner of conscience. I declare that I am giving up this status now and in the future since it can be deprived under the pressure of Putin's state propaganda," added Aleksandr Golovach, a lawyer with the FBK who Amnesty said at the time was detained on "spurious charges of breaking a repressive law on public gatherings."
Navalny's arrest for failing to report to the Moscow prison service -- a violation of a suspended sentence related to a 2014 conviction for embezzlement that he and critics say was politically motivated -- sparked anti-government protests in hundreds of cities and led to thousands of arrests.
On February 2, Navalny's 3 1/2-year suspended sentence was converted to real jail time. His appeal was rejected on February 20, ensuring that Putin's biggest political rival will spend about 2 1/2 years in prison, considering time already spent in detention.
In a separate case heard the same day, Navalny was fined 850,000 rubles ($11,500) on charges of slandering a World War II veteran who had participated in a Kremlin-organized promotional video.
After Amnesty recognized Navalny as a prisoner of conscience on January 17, saying his arrest was "further evidence that Russian authorities are seeking to silence him," the rights watchdog reportedly began receiving letters of complaint from unknown sources.
Putin on February 24 signed into law bills that beef up fines for the financing of rallies and disobeying police in the wake of what the Kremlin has called "unsanctioned" protests in support of Navalny.
The new laws set fines for individuals found guilty of illegally financing a rally at up to 15,000 rubles ($200), while officials and organizations guilty of such actions will be fined up to 30,000 rubles ($400) and 100,000 rubles ($1,345), respectively.
Putin also signed a law that significantly increases fines for disobeying police and security forces.

Comments

TRENDING

Why this marriage of son of non-IAS babu, earlier in Gujarat, became an event in Kerala

AK Vijay Kumar Many say, marriages are made in heaven. However, as a confirmed non-believer, I don’t seem to think that way. But if one were to believe that marriages are indeed made in heaven, would the guests who are invited in some of the high-profile weddings also decide the destiny of the newly weds? I don’t know. Yet, the fact is, the competition to invite guests at such weddings is something I noticed after I came to Ahmedabad in 1993 to join as assistant editor of the Times of India.

Caste is the bones, race the skin. Caste is fixed and rigid, race is fluid and superficial

In her book , “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Isabel Wilkerson, making an interesting observation, argues the United States’ racial hierarchy should be thought of as a caste system, similar to that in India.  Reproduced below are excerpts from the transcript of her video interview with Juan Gonz├ílez and Amy Goodman published in “Democracy Now”: ***

IIM-Indore students anonymously compain: Authorities ignore their Covid concern

An email alert received by me from a 2020 batch alum of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM)-Indore has forwarded a mail received by this person regarding "concerns of the current students towards the top business institute's Indore branch's authorities' alleged "disregard" towards the management of the Covid-19-related situation on-campus.