Georgia v. Russia

ECHR is hearing the case brought by Georgia against the Russian Federation on April 16, 2009 on various grounds under the European Convention on Human Rights. see here.

The case stems from a specific set of events in 2006-2007 but is highly political in nature given the tense relationship between the two countries, manifested more and more in recent military showdowns. Is international law becoming a tool for political vengeance or is it really the only avenue for justice for minority rights? A smaller nation seeking justice against a bigger and stronger nation? But in world politics is there really such a concept of 'smaller' nation when there are multiple sets of interdependent and highly sophisticated alliances? Is the old flawed maxim 'might is right' relevant when 'might' is measured in many different conflicting ways, such as military, strength of liberal institutions, economy, etc. etc. etc. But is 'just is right' maxim as flawed given the defects and imperfections in administration of justice in national courts as well as international ones. When justice is sought on the international stage draped by heavy curtains of politics enmeshed in violent history and omnipresent nationalism, does prevalence of that 'justice' bring upon desirable results? ... Nothing is perfect and yet true justice demands purity and absolute objectivity. When 'victim' is screaming in pain, the rights of the perpetrator sink unnoticed and suffer incredibly along the way... Balance must be struck lest more injustice, fed and waxed by its own weight...

One thing is certain, lessons can be drawn for all from all these cases... Russia has got a lot of work to do in improving its treatment of minorities inside its borders... Nationalism and xenophobia have reached unacceptable levels in recent years... Regardless of the political background and possible justifications for some of the political events, the end result is simply not to be tolerated...

Thinking along those lines, as I am hopeful and extremely excited to visit ECHR in April and be present at the hearing of this interesting case along with a group of students from Moscow State University.

Anna Politkovskaya

On October 7 last year, Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead (1958-2006)... Like Galina Starovoitova (see on this blog), Anna Politkovskaya was one of the bravest women in Russia, who basically was not afraid to tell the truth about Chechnya and how policies affect real people on the ground... She was also not afraid to visit Chechnya's hot spots during the war and report about the current conditions on a daily basis. Much of Chechnya was cloaked with mystery for the Russian population and only rare people like Politkovskaya dared to cut through the robe of mystery... Her concerns for the human rights abuses in Chechnya of course were going to earn her enemies... Interestingly, even an attempt to place a memorial plaque in front of her house this year was an occasion for a scandal (here)... Why? Isn't it important to remember such people and aspire to be like them?

Justice can prevail

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered Russia to pay a total of more than $212,475 in damages for reparations in Chechnya. (here)
Since the inception of jurisdiction of ECHR over Russia, it has been flooded with cases from Chechnya. Individuals and families have come to the Court asking for redress of their grievances that were not heard or heeded in Russia.
I am wondering, whether any court would be able to allow the Iraqi victims bring cases against the US for actions like those in Abu Ghraib.

Igor Talkov

On this day, in 1991 Russia lost another of its most talented and beloved sons, Igor Talkov (1956-1991). A poet, singer and activist for individual liberties, Talkov like Vysotsky came to awaken the slumbering conscience of the Soviet Union, that was already in ruins by the time of his death... He was assassinated in quite a mysterious way similar to many other famous assassinations in history. His life was indeed an example of what an enormous sacrifice it takes to fight for ideals... It is not beautiful phrases that make the difference, it is the degree of self-sacrifice and risk that one may take for higher ideals... Talkov was one of those rare people, that we have the luxury of having among us once in 50-60 years. He sang in anger,

I do not intend to foretell the future,
But I know for sure,
I will be back,
Even in hundreds of centuries,
Not to a country of idiots, but of geniuses,

And fallen in battle,
I will be reborn,
And will sing,
On the first day of a birthday
Of a country returning from war...
(Listen to this song here)

I am wondering, if he came back to today's Russia, would he be happy? I doubt it... Idealist that he was, he did not want half-freedoms or hypocrisy... It was all or nothing for him and he would have fought always, never satisfied or content.

(trans. by Zoya. For more on his songs, visit)

Gorbachev... Yeltsin... Putin

The three Russian leaders were destined to leave a lasting mark on the history of Russia, each his own way. Mikhail Gorbachev was to let the gin out of the bottle and make a courageous U-turn for Russia towards political and economic reform. When he came to power, the Soviet Union was in deep trouble, economically, sociologically and internationally. An incorrigible idealist and an admirer of the West, Gorbachev committed to reform. While his heart was in the right place, the course he took was not rational. You cannot destroy and build a new house overnight. His policies therefore were simply suicidal for his political life and for the country. The 'shock therapy,' the uncontrollable and unattended privatization were going to be a Tsunami for the Soviet way of life. A comparison of his policies with those of the gradualist Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997) in China reveals how systematically wrong was Gorbachev. China was not in a better shape after the insanity of Mao Zedong, when Deng Xiaoping took over. Today China's economic boom is a product of the clever policies of this man. (For more on this read China expert, Richard Baum's "Burying Mao.")


Therefore, Gorbachev spelled the seeds of disaster for Russia, while he must be given serious credit for commitment to bring needed reform to the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Yeltsin was even more incompetent. While he was also an idealist like Gorbachev, he had no clear vision of how to forge the reforms in Russia. During his time, Russia went into a deeper depression, economically, politically and sociologically. He gave free reign to the oligarchs and oil magnets, who plundered the country's natural resources and pocketed the money without paying to the treasury. The so-called "new Russians" acting as businessmen were allowed to commit the worst financial crimes with impunity. The complete absence of social services and unregulated free markets created an abyss, a huge gap between the rich and the poor, unseen of in the former Soviet Union. The poverty in Russia during Yeltsin can be compared only to that of during the Tsars. Organized crime was infiltrating all segments of the government and bribery, worse than it was during the Soviet Union was commonplace. I know this from firsthand experience because I lived in Russia during this period.

While Yeltsin should not be held responsible for all these problems, his incompetent presidency was a scourge for Russia. His health and alcoholism contributed to it. Idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin was not paying the dividends because it was not rational. Bill Clinton also was an idealist, but he was very rational and therefore, successful. Of course, Bill Clinton did not inherit a post-Communist country, to give some break to Yeltsin.


Russia was sinking like a big bag of stones thrown into the river when Putin took over. In contrast with the irresponsible idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, this was a realist and pragmatist. Beginning from his serious demeanor and posture and ending with his policies, finally this was a man that rolled up his sleeves and went to work. His unquestionable popularity in Russia during his entire presidency associate his figure with that of Peter the Great (1672-1725)-- not a bad accomplishment, while of course, Peter the Great was a benevolent despot, similar to Napoleon.

He began with an anti-corruption campaign-- his biggest contribution to the country. Watching Russian TV, I am amazed with the number of prosecutions commenced for bribery on a daily basis. Bribery at all levels of government bureacracy was the biggest plague in the entire history of the Soviet Union. Putin's commitment to fight it is very courageous, because behind this corruption is the Russian mafia. Second, he went immediately after people like Berezovsky and Khadorkovsky. His goal was not to exterminate the big business. He understood Russia's strategic interests in oil. But he forced them to pay the taxes that they had ignored to pay for a decade. The 'stick' was nationalization of industries. Putin did that, to the great dismay of capitalists in the West and was attacked as anti-democratic. Perhaps, people will remember Roosevelt's steps taken to take the country out of the Great Depression. Putin had no choice.

Internationally, just like Peter the Great, Putin sought European integration. While Yeltsin also should be given credit for this, Putin continued these efforts strongly than ever. He played a major role in abolishing the death penalty. Today Russia does not impose the death penalty even for terrorists. Russia surrendered to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which now is flooded by cases from Russia. In the aftermath of the 9-11 Putin offered his genuine help to the US to combat terrorism, unaccepted by the over-confidence of the Bush administration, who chose unilateralism instead. The war in Iraq undermined the relationship between Russia and the US, because Russia's contracts in Iraq dissolved as a result.

The US plans for the Missile Defense Shield and decision to place strategic nuclear rockets in Eastern Europe further challenged Russia as a world power. Putin who set out to take his country out of the psychological depression of the 90s, has taken steps to countermand the US expansion and superiority in the world. His partnership with China through the development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has many realpolitik goals.

Russia prior to Putin reminded of the Germany in post-World War I. It felt humiliated. Nationalism bordering to Nazism was flourishing. People like Vladimyr Zhirinovsky were yelling the wipe out of Jews and of all non-Russians (very similar to Ahmadinejad of Iran). While nationalism is still very prominent in Russia, Putin was able to bring stability to the country by his calm and rational behavior as a politician. Moreover, his intelligence level is much higher than that of any Soviet leader. It should be noted that most Soviet leaders were never to the liking of the people. Putin was the first in many decades to win the hearts and minds of people.

There were many downsides to the institution of stability. It came at the expense of the democracy we portray in the West. Freedom to speak your mind and uncensored criticism are still not accepted well in Russia. The Russian mafia is still strong, while is under control. Chechnya, while stabilized during Putin, still is breaking the record of human rights violations. There is still much work to be done to develop the technology, industries and social services. Also the strong leadership of Putin has created some aura of the cult of personality, very similar to Maoism or Stalinism. But Putin's figure is much akin to Peter the Great in the minds of people, not ever to Stalin-- a good sign.

Putin was able to repair the fallen image of Russia, which is a double edged sword. On one hand, it recreates the balance of powers, absent from the world arena in these couple of decades. We saw how many troubles we have had because of the unipolarism. Islamic fundamentalism was an outspring of that. On the other hand, if Russia asserts itself as a world power like it used to, we will probably be very close to the brink of another Cold War. Competition between superpowers with nuclear weapons is a Hobbesian tragedy...

With all his shortcomings and failures, Putin stopped the sinking of Russia and did many positive things for his country, hence his popularity. The opposite is true of Bush, who in fact caused the sinking of the US... Very sad, given the differences between a post-Communist struggling country inherited by Putin and a strong functioning democracy with an excellent economy inherited by Bush...

Self-Determination, Secession and Nationalism

Article 1 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly on December 16, 1966 states:
All peoples have the right of self-determination...

Subsection 3 adds:
The States Parties to the present Covenant shall promote the realization of the right to self-determination and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the UN.

Article 4 (1) furthermore states:
In times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed...
derogation from Article 1 is allowed.
(click here)

The right to self-determination is recognized in conformity with the Charter of the UN. Let us look at the Charter (here)

Article 2(4):
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity, or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.

Article 1 (2) where the purposes are stated:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

In short, the right to self-determination is recognized with a caveat-- that its enforcement is in conformity with the Charter of the UN. Use of force and aggression against the territorial integiry of a UN member is prohibited. Looking back at history, almost every movement for self-determination and secession was accompanied with use of force fueled by nationalism, religious fervor or ethnic antagonism. Therefore, it is also well-known that throughout its existence the UN also sought to promote the status quo and in fact had a difficulty of recognizing secessionist newly-formed states. The case of Somalia is vivid. The break-up of that country into pieces has not even been updated on the map.
It makes me think, if we encourage the right of self-determination of peoples, which leads to use of force most of the time, aren't we also then encouraging use of force. Chechnya and the Western criticism of the way Russia has been handling it is an example. While it is indubitable that Russia has crossed many boundaries of human rights in that area, Chechen extremists and nationalists were not devoid of fault. They sought secession not by peaceful means but by use of force that invited cyclical reaction from Russia. While the right to self-determination is an important political right, in the real world it has become a source of much devastation. It is enough to examine the case of Yugoslavia.
It is also true, that the basis for the right of self-determination is freedom and independence of a nation. How could India not fight for its independence from the British? How could the US not do the same? Often, the oppression of the minority ethnic group by the majority is the precursor of the secessionist movement. But non-violent resistance stressed by Gandhi is the aspiration. This is the dilemma for the gatekeepers of international security: how to recognize the right to self-determination of peoples and not encourage use of force. Moreover, if we acknowledge the dangerous effects of nationalism for peace in the world, we must also acknowledge that often calls for self-determination veil precisely that-- nationalism.

Marina Tsvetaeva

"Poetry is born out of indignation," said Juvenal (Roman poet, 1-2nd CE). This can be said about the poetry of Marina Tsvetaeva, who used to say, "I don't believe in poetry that flows. If it bursts-- yes!" Marina Tsvetaeva was born in Moscow, Russia, on September 26, 1892, in an intelligent and highly educated family. Marina started writing poems at the age of 6, and not only in Russian, but also in French and German.

Her first collection was published at the age of 18. Very unique in her style and mature in consciousness, she wrote profusely and very passionately. The October Revolution of 1917 could not be accepted well by her, because of her 'intelligentsia' background and the bloody deeds of the Bolsheviks. So in this period she lived exclusively for the world of literature, remaning uninterested in politics and spending her days in miserable poverty. But she challenged all the norms in poetry by her new style. Her poems were like sparks from a rocket or pieces of rock thrown out of a burning volcano. She was an angry poet.

Her husband, Sergei Efron was an officer of the White Guard, which was wiped out and its remnants ejected out of Russia by the Bolsheviks in 1917. She, therefore, could not see him until 1922. Meanwhile, she had a very passionate lesbian affair with the poet Sofia Parnok, which had a huge influence on her writings. Later she could not forgive herself for that but always deeply loved this woman.

She was able to reunite with Efron in 1922 when she was allowed to travel abroad. Her emigrant life in Berlin, Prague and Paris was filled with torture and in complete poverty. She could not accept the intellectual void of the emigrants and the fact of separation from the homeland. Only as an immigrant she became politically aware and started accepting the core values of the Soviet Union. She was in touch with Vladimyr Mayakovsky-- the Revolutionary poet and was greatly inspired by his work. However, her poetry was not published even by the most liberal emigrant publishers (who were anti-Soviet) and Tsvetaeva basically was in complete seclusion and loneliness. At this time she got involved in other extramarrital affairs with men, one of whom was the poet Boris Pasternak. These relationships seemed to give her inspiration and hope in her troubled days.

She wrote in bitterness, "My reader is in Russia where my poems do not even reach." But she also never lost faith in her talent, "Time will come for my poems, like valuable wine." In this state of mind, she witnessed Hitler's rise and invasion into Checkoslovakia. That was the last straw for her poetic soul. In her writings she condemned the Nazis and encouraged the Check people to be strong and fight.

Finally in 1939 she was given Soviet citizenship and was able to return to Russia, only to face Stalinist oppression and Nazi invasion. In those days, anyone from abroad and from 'intelligentsia' was viewed with irrational suspicion by Stalin's thugs. Her husband was shot in 1941. When she asked for a job from the Center of Writers (subsidized by the government), she was refused any help. Living in complete poverty and hunger, she was evacuated to a small town Yelabuga to escape the Nazi invasion. There Marina Tsvetaeva is said to have committed suicide on August 31, 1941. The cause of her death was classified until the Khruschev's thaw of the 60s. To this day it is not clear whether it was a real suicide or a set-up by Stalin's chinovnicks.

Marina's poetry reflected the horrible times she lived in and her inability to accept that reality. She loved her country and accepted the core ideology of the Soviet Union, but could not accept the excesses, the oppression of the regime and absolute absence of individual liberties. Also because of her bisexuality, she constantly felt guilty and self-stigmatized. The society with its norms and materialism poisoned her life. "Breaking on your knees of granite, I am reborn with every wave!"

Her poetry is also about a paradox, a mystery that she took up to resolve in her life and invited readers to resolve with her. She was a poet of symbolism. "What is reading but solving, interpreting, extrapolating the mysterious and remaining outside of the paper the depth of words. Reading is first of all a coauthorship."
Marina will remain one of the brightest stars in the dark and tempestuous horizon of Russian history.
(All translations here are by Zoya)

Galina Starovoitova and Human Rights in Russia

Galina Starovoitova (1946-1998) was one of the bravest women politicians and human rights activists of our times. During the transitional and volatile post-Communist period she was one of the very few to voice concerns about human rights issues in Russian politics. Galina received her B.A. from Leningrad College of Military Engeneering in 1966 and her M.A. in social psychology from Leningrad University 1971. Her Ph.D. in social anthropology from the Institute of Ethnography, USSR Academy of Sciences (1980) explored ethnic groups in the modern Soviet city. She published extensively on anthropological theory and cross-cultural studies.

An early and outspoken critic of human rights abuses against Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, Starovoitova won a seat in the USSR Supreme Soviet from Yerevan, Armenia. In 1990, she was elected from Leningrad to the Russian Supreme Soviet, where she served that body until it was disbanded in 1993.
Starovoitova also served as Russian president Boris Yeltsin's advisor on ethnic issues in 1991 and 1992, though she resigned because of differences over Kremlin policy in the Caucasus.
In 1993-1994, Starovoitova was a Jennings Randolph senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace where she completed Sovereignty After Empire: Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union. In 1994-1995 Galina was the Thomas J. Watson distinguished visiting professor at Brown University.
Elected to the Russian State Duma in 1995, Galina represented the 209th parliamentary district in northern St. Petersburg. In 1997, Galina published National Self-Determination : Approaches and Case Studies, a scholarly book on ethnic relations.
A fearless critic of Russia's policy in Chechnya, she used to say, "If in accordance with international standards we recognize the rights of nations to self-determination, we must recognize it also [within Russia]." Galina was shot to death around her apartment in St. Petersburg, in November of 1998. Her murder case is still unsolved. Perhaps, she was the very reincarnation of Zoya Kosmodemianskaya-- never afraid and always ready to fight.