News flash

The European Court of Human Rights has decided that the case of Georgia v. Russia is admissible to be heard in that Court. Press release.

This was a very important step forward because the ECHR declares many applications inadmissible. Of course, this was only a threshold to cross and as the press release indicates, in no way pre-judges the merits of the case. But the Court basically disagreed with the Russian Government's arguments that these allegations were unsubstantiated.

I do not have in my hands the documents and materials submitted by the Georgian side, but when I heard the hearing in April (personally), my instincts said to me that the case could be found inadmissible. The Georgian side was not convincing at this hearing and the Russian side made some very compelling arguments.

Politics aside, it is going to be very interesting to see how legally the Court will decide this case on the merits. But before it even gets to the legal issues, there must be strong evidence presented by the Georgian side because their claims are pretty serious. International law and especially human rights law should not be held hostage to politics. That is the hope.

Stay tuned.

My memorable trip to the European Court of Human Rights: Georgia v. Russia

"On March 26, 2007 Georgia brought an application against Russia under Article 33 (Inter-State cases) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerns the alleged harassment of the Georgian immigrant population in Russia following the arrest in Tbilisi on September 27 2006 of four Russian service personnel on suspicion of espionage against Georgia.
11 Georgian nationals were also arrested on the same charges. Georgia maintains that the reaction of the Russian authorities to the incident in September 2006 amounted to an administrative practice of the official authorities giving rise to specific and continuing breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. These breaches are said to derive, in particular, from widespread arrests and detention of Georgians in Russia creating a generalized threat to security of the person and multiple, arbitrary interferences with the right to liberty. The Georgian Government also complains of the conditions in which at least 2,380 Georgians had been detained. They assert that the collective expulsion of Georgians from Russia involved a systematic and arbitrary interference with these persons’ legitimate right to remain in Russia." (cited from the website of ECHR)

It was a quiet, warm and sunny afternoon when our plane from Paris landed in Entzheim Airport of Strasbourg. After the busy and lively airport of Charles de Gaulle in Paris the airport in Strasbourg was unusually quiet. You could hardly see a living soul. For a moment I thought we landed in the wrong town. How could the European Institutions, including the Court of Human Rights be situated in such a quiet and small city?! But I approached the information desk, asked for the map of Strasbourg and took a breath of relief seeing the European Parliament, Council of Europe and the ECHR on the map. The city itself was very old and extremely cute, more German than French. I saw an old German village with a church in the outskirts. It made me wonder about the history of the city. Walking in the streets I remembered Tallin, the capital city of Estonia, where I visited with my parents as a child. I really loved it… People were much more simple and friendly than in Paris and were not as upset with the fact that I did not speak French. In Paris I was quite distraught with some French who were rude to me because I spoke English and sounded like an American. (But this time I was proud to be an American because of Obama.)

On April 16, 2009 the ECHR Chamber held a hearing on admissibility of the case brought by Georgia against Russia. I got interested about this case in my conversations with a good friend and mentor, John Cleary, a distinguished criminal defense attorney from San Diego, who is currently teaching at Moscow State University. I was glad he gave me the idea. So, there I was in front of the ECHR building on April 16. Immediately I met Russian students and experts of international law rounding up the building. It was quite an event for us. There were not that many Georgians though, surprisingly. Then we were invited into the Chamber of ECHR. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to take pictures or video record the hearing until after it was all over. I was astonished to see very young lawyers among the representatives from both countries. In fact, on the Georgian side there were only 4 people seated at the table, 3 very young female attorneys, and one young man, not an attorney. On the Russian side, it was more solid. There was an older female attorney, 2 older male attorneys, and 4 younger attorneys. It seemed, the Russian side took this case more seriously by bringing more experienced attorneys to the table. Indeed, when the hearing began I liked the arguments and presentation of the Russian attorney, Georgy Matyushkin, much more than the Georgian attorney’s, Tina Burjaliani. In comparison with attorney representatives of the parties most of the visiting experts in the Chamber were older and intimidating. They were even talking during the hearing to my great surprise when we were all completely shut down from the whole atmosphere of formality and solemnity.

It was quite an experience. We all sat down, the bell rang and the attendant announced ‘the Court’. We all stood up and there came the judges:
Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President
Rait Maruste (Estonia)
Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic)
Anatoly Kovler (Russia)
Renate Jaeger (Germany)
Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein)
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia)
Mirjana Trajkovska (Macedonia)
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria)
Isabelle Berro-Lefevre (Monaco)
I noticed the equal division of female and male judges and liked it. There was a judge from Russia and a judge from Georgia to ensure greatest degree of impartiality. The selection of judges is guided by the Articles of the Convention. First spoke the Respondent State, Russian attorney Matyushkin. I really liked his presentation. He spoke in Russian. He was very professional, made his arguments point by point and was unemotional. First, he argued that the case is inadmissible at the ECHR. As a background information, the ECHR first has to decide whether a case is even admissible in its court. The international courts generally are complementary to national courts and if there is an adequate remedy for applicants in the state courts where the events occurred, then the court does not hear that case. The principle of complementarity is well-known also at the International Criminal Court. The argument therefore really revolves around whether the party suing exhausted his remedies in the national courts. This is called the ‘exhaustion’ doctrine. The Russian side (as well as the Georgian side later) cited cases, including Denmark et al v. Greece, Ireland v. UK, Cyprus v. Turkey. Mr. Matyushkin very convincingly and strongly presented arguments which showed that the Georgian individuals complaining of mistreatment and unlawful detention never appealed the decision to expel them from Russia. Again as a background information, allegedly in the fall of 2006 Russian authorities detained, harassed and expelled hundreds of Georgian immigrants residing in Russia. Also allegedly these individuals were detained for lengthy periods of time without the right of counsel, without basic needs and then were deported to Georgia without a formal hearing.

The Russian side argued that the case is inadmissible first because these individuals never exhausted remedies available to them.
But then the attorney shifted gears and went straight into the merits of the case and brought illustrations and arguments to show that the case was frivolous in the first place. He focused much on the state of the evidence and how Georgia was going to prove that these violations occurred. It argued that many of the ‘stories’ in the briefs were false and fraudulent and not based on reality. He was able to prop his arguments by real examples. He also made a distinction of illegal aliens and lawful citizens of Russia of Georgian ethnicity. He focused on the fact that deportation of illegal aliens according to the current law in Russia is not indicative of discrimination of that community when many of the same community happily reside in Russia. He brought some numbers as to the rate of immigration from Georgia to Russia during this time. How the numbers have even increased in this period of time. He said, if the Russian authorities were targeting Georgian ethnic minority, the numbers would not go up, but would go down. Basically, Russian attorney specifically wanted to dispel the notion that there was specific discriminatory motive behind this expulsion. Since these people were expelled and there is proof of that, Russian side could not deny it. But the argument that these individuals were bound to be expelled from Russia according to the laws of Russia went against any argument that the Russian side was acting unlawfully. (It occurred to me that maybe the Russian side should think about changing some of its immigration laws in response to this case. Because if their expulsion and deportation proceedings are not in line with the rest of Europe then it is wrought with problems not only from the standpoint of human rights but simply from the standpoint of international relations. In fact, I think Matyushkin noted that their immigration laws are in flux and changing constantly in response to these complaints. Immigration is an issue not only in America but also in Russia and the rest of Europe.)

But overall the Russian attorney’s argument was very convincing, assertive and professional. He had very good knowledge of the law of ECHR, the Convention on Human Rights, and the facts of the case, as well as arguments by the Georgian side. He was able to show much of the weakness of the cases of the Georgian side because he was able to show that many of these stories are not supported by a valid source and are suspicious. He also challenged the Georgian side to come up with real evidence to support their allegations. He ended with commitment of Russia to continue long-term neighborly relations with Georgia. Interestingly he did not personalize any of his arguments and remained very dispassionate and cool-headed.

Then spoke the Georgian attorney, Tina Burjaliani, a young female attorney, First Deputy Minister of Justice. I was quite surprised that such a young attorney would be holding such a serious post. She was quite a big contrast from Matyushkin. She started out on a very passionate note, angrily and very dramatically. In contrast to Matyushkin, this case was very personal to her. It sounded like Russia committed the Jewish Holocaust and we were in Nuremberg. She spoke in English and made some grammatical errors. In her place I would have spoken in my native language to avoid such mistakes. I liked her deference to the Court. She called the judges several times ‘Your Excellences’. While Matyushkin was very detached and never called the judges other than ‘the Court.’

But her argument was pretty weak. She made correct statements of the law but could not bring strong arguments on her side. She said in order for a case to be admissible in the Court, Georgia must show 1) administrative practice by Respondent State in violation of the Convention 2) Accessible and efficient remedies that were exhausted. So, her argument was structured in two branches: 1) she first argued that in this case the ‘Exhaustion doctrine’ was not a bar to admissibility because of the presence of administrative practice ((a) repetition of acts and (b) official tolerance,) 2) if it is found applicable, there was no accessible remedy to the Georgians expelled from Russia. Throughout her speech she cited the Human Rights Watch and a couple of individuals but did not sound like a lawyer. We, lawyers, think about EVIDENCE, PROOF in court of law. We think about what is the source of information behind a statement. For example, if the source of information for the statements by Human Rights Watch was the Georgian government itself, then what credibility could they have. She never bothered to talk about real specific facts, and proof. She said confidently ‘We will bring forth to the court evidence of our allegations later,’ but she was not able to convincingly oppose the arguments of Russia that these stories are exaggerated and false. Most importantly, even though she seemed to know the caselaw on the subject of the ‘Exhaustion’ and Admissibility, she could not bring her arguments to a strong conclusion and convince the Court that indeed this case should be heard here. For a moment I wished to be in her place. On the other hand, I did not see any shortcomings in the arguments of the Russian attorney. In her place I would have structured my arguments much differently. It seems, she was just making a written up speech, without having listened to the arguments of the other side. She was just reading from a script. I hate that about lawyers. That is why in my trials I do not write down scripts. I only write points to follow them and not to forget them. She even called her own argument ‘my speech’. That was quite sad. But of course, given she was so young, she was able to project some degree of confidence and not be intimidated by the numbers on the other side. At least she was able to remember the cases and cite them in her argument. She focused also on the fact that in inter-state applications ‘Exhaustion’ doctrine was not a bar to admissibility when administrative practice is shown/proven, citing the case of Denmark v. Turkey.

Most importantly, she was too dramatic in her tone. You lose your credibility when you are not realistic about your case. I have done that in one of my trials and lost my credibility with jurors. Once in a DUI case I finished my closing argument with global warming and polar bears, very dramatically. Jurors were looking at me as if I was out of my mind: what did a DUI case have anything to do with global warming? I only tried to connect my client’s case to the universe, but it was a stretch. I later laughed at myself along with District Attorneys. Now this attorney was at the ECHR and she basically tried to talk about this case as if this was seriously the Armenian genocide and she was the Armenian attorney against Turkey. Even if these allegations are true, they cannot arise to the level to warrant such a dramatic posture. Perhaps her lack of experience played a role.

Then judges were given opportunity to ask questions. First the Russian judge asked a question to both parties. He asked the Russian side ‘Do you have any numbers as to how many Georgians currently reside in Russia?’ The Russian side came back saying, ‘we do not keep such numbers and we have no way of knowing that,’ solidifying their argument that they had no intention of targeting certain ethnicities for expulsion. That was pretty smart. Notably, the Judge asked the Georgian side for some examples, dates, places in support of their allegations. This was directly in response to the complaint of Mr. Matyushkin that the Georgian side is not responding to their challenges for proof. Mr. Matyushkin made a statement during his presentation that while they constantly take the information, verify their accuracy and discredit it, the Georgian side to this day has not responded with any credible information to support their allegations. The Georgian attorney, to my frustration, did not respond to the question of the Judge.

One thing was really sad. Back when I was a child, no one would have believed that a case like this would end up in an International Tribunal. The long-time relations and neighborhood seemed to have evaporated. The relations between the two countries are getting worse and worse. Russia at least has expressed its commitment at this hearing as well as in other political pronouncements to continue long-term friendship with countries of former Soviet Union. However, Georgia does not seem to be committed to it at all. Not only at this hearing but as a general matter currently Georgia is not making the same commitment not only with respect to Russia, but other former republics. Georgian government has been unfriendly with Armenia, for example, throughout these years of post-Communist development and Armenia is the next-door neighbor. In fact, ethnic minorities that reside in Georgia are treated as second-rate citizens and are constantly discriminated. There is a small Armenian community residing in Georgia that is shrinking because they all feel quite uncertain about their future. If Georgia is so concerned about the treatment of its ethnic minorities in Russia, it should also concern itself about how it is treating other minorities within its own borders. So it is quite ironic that today it found itself at the ECHR. On the other hand, Russia should also be careful. Since it joined the Council of Europe, the ECHR has been flooded with cases against Russia, first with respect to Chechnya not with Georgia.

It will be interesting to see if the Court finds the case admissible and what will happen ultimately.
To me this case is revolving in the background of much political tempest and fire. At the end, it is all about world politics. Human rights-- their creation, interpretation, application and enforcement-- are never insulated from world politics and will never be.

(For Webcast of the hearing see here).

Cycles of history and historian's puzzles

I have posted on my blog about how history gets repeated with amazing regularity here.

March 5, 1946, Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill made his historic speech "Iron Curtain", a precursor of the ensuing Cold War. here

September 18, 2008, Washington DC, German Marshall Fund, Condoleezza Rice has made her speech on US-Russian Relations, a precursor of yet another open 'War' between the two countries. here

Puzzling and disconcerting...

September 3

2004, the Beslan school massacre in Russia came to an end after a terrifying two-day siege, when Chechen militants took more than 1,100 people hostage. Most of the victims were children, many of whom died after long torture... Bodies were found burnt beyond recognition... and many more were missing... It was just one more reminder that the war on terror is everyone's war and terrorism cannot disappear without consolidated efforts. [Of course, how you fight that war is a subject for another day and another post]

1783, the American War of Independence ended after eight years of fighting with the signing of the Treaty of Paris by the U.S., Spain, France, and Great Britain. The British recognized the independence of the U.S.

"Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person." [Mother Theresa]

August 20

1940, in Mexico an assassin fatally wounded Leon Trotsky with an ice pick. He died the next day. The mastermind behind the murder was Stalin.

Trotsky was a crucial figure in the Great October Revolution. He, along with Lenin, had foreseen the gloomy and tragic consequences of emerging Stalinism. When Lenin was told at his deathbed that Stalin's people were going to 'throw out' Trotsky, he exclaimed, "Throwing Trotsky overboard - surely you are hinting at that, it is impossible to interpret it otherwise - is the height of stupidity. If you do not consider me already hopelessly foolish, how can you think of that????" For this and many other reasons Lenin wrote his last 'Letter' to the party, warning of Stalin as the biggest danger...

A staunch socialist and Marxist, Trotsky could not have foreseen at that point in time that the very idea of Communism (an extreme manifestation of socialism) was deeply flawed. The Party was gaining enormous power and eventually ruled over the people-- in the name of the people-- like no other king or monarch. If that was going to cure the ills of monarchies, it was only a temporary pseudo-cure. Perhaps Marx and Engels had failed to take account of the deep-seated attributes of human nature, including the tendency to abuse power... Focused on the 'whole', the 'communa', they overlooked the little person, the 'individual'... What protections were they going to ensure to this little person against the abuses of governmental power?

"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end." [Trotsky]

Solzhenitsyn and history

Everyone by now is familiar with the work of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. But for decades we, children in the Soviet Union, were growing up not having the opportunity to even know about him, or even have a chance to get his printed work. Then in the early 90s his famous 'Archipelago Gulag' was published and shook the conscience of many in our former country. The West in contrast had long been familiar with his work.

Today Vladimyr Putin has made a call to encourage more coverage of Solzhenitsyn's work in schools for children. This is highly complimentary on part of Putin and dispels many attacks by opponents. He reportedly said, "это человек, который вместе с народом пережил великую трагедию и репрессии, своей жизнью и работой А.Солженицын сделал обществу значимую прививку против любых видов тирании". ("this is a man who lived through a great tragedy and repression along with his nation and whose life and work has significantly inoculated the society against all types of oppressions." translated by NM). here

Enough said. If only this acknowledgement came a few decades earlier...

The painting above, Burlaki, is by Ilya Repin, 1873. It does give a very good idea of the reality behind Archipelago Gulag even though it reflects a different historic time period. I can imagine how this painting could have inspired Solzhenitsyn...

On May 29

1990, Boris N. Yeltsin was elected President of Russia. While during his rule Russians got the taste of basic democracy and freedom, the country suffered an absolute disaster in all spheres of life-- economic, social, cultural, political. See my previous post. Rise of extreme nationalism, free rule of organized crime/mafia, economic dilapidation, severe poverty, educational dumping, etc. His was not leadership, but mere presence. Other, very dangerous people were ruling behind the scenes. It was during Yeltsin's rule that my family moved to the US (1996), giving up on any hope of recovery and security... Anarchy ruled for the entire period until Putin took over...

Russians then decided, they would rather have ORDER with less democracy, than ANARCHY with freedoms... That is why, Putin who brought that long-awaited order became so popular and so loved by Russians... While of course many of the problems associated with Yeltsin's rule have become systematic and not conducive to simple solutions, Putin's intelligent and very thoughtful leadership ameliorated the severity of the effects...


Could there be a third alternative for Russia-- both order and democracy (any style)? Maybe in the future! Freedom is a cherished human need and Russians are not devoid of that... It is ingrained in their very culture, based on a country extending over a vast territory... Certain amount of wildness and rebellion characteristic of gypsies is in the deep psyche of Russia... So, perhaps it is a philosophical question, how much of freedom is enough not to turn into anarchy and disorder?

Meeting of influential prime-ministers

Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. It is the butter to the bread of politics. The two sister states, Russia and Ukraine, are scheduling a crucial meeting between the two prime-ministers, Vladimyr Putin and Yulia Timoshenko. This is in the background of very complicated and tense relations between Russia and Ukraine... What is to be expected? Well, analysts are seeking not simple diplomatic overtures, but real political solutions from these levered and highly shrewd politicians. And of course, there must be commitment on both sides to effectuate the policies stated at meetings in a friendly atmosphere...

(On a different note, it is really nice to see a woman politician in a dress and with a fancy hairstyle, having had the courage not to limit herself to the trivial suit worn by both sexes... Unfortunatley, there is this pressure on women politicians and lawyers to look like men and almost lose touch of femininity... Whenever Hillary Clinton displayed her female charm, she was attacked and laughed at...)

For more here.

Hopes high too soon

These last 4 or 5 years a lot of people have been wondering whether the Cold War is renewed... Pausing and thinking about it leads to an even more thought-provoking conclusion that perhaps it never ended. The Bush Administration's ambitions about world superiority and continued presence of the NATO in the region when the Warsaw Pact disintegrated and the Berlin wall came down refreshed the deep-seated insecurity of Russia. Putin's leadership restored the Russian sense of national pride and brought a set of ambitions surrounding prospects of world leadership. Now continued expansion of the NATO and probable joining of Georgia and Ukraine is troubling to Russians. Medvedev in tune with Putin has reiterated his concerns (for a story). What has been going on in Georgia and Ukraine in these last couple of decades stems in large part from Moscow's unwillingness to 'surrender' its radar influence on these former republics, determined to follow the political schedule and agenda of the United States. Naturally, these two republics will be hot spots for a long time because of the division between pro-Russian and pro-American philosophies. Some of the Central Asian republics and the Caucasus will also be included, specifically Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan.

Wasn't this story dominating during the entire Cold War? Each superpower fought for bringing others into its sphere of influence in opposition to the other. This whole mentality is continuing... We took a sigh of big relief when the Cold War was 'announced' to have been over... While the Soviet Union is gone and will exist only on the historic maps, Russia/Moscow as the focal center remains as a player...

Rule of law and Medvedev

The West jumped to criticize Medvedev as the 'installed' and handpicked President, successor of Putin. But so far he is on the right track, in my eyes. In his speech at the 85th anniversary of the creation of the Russian Supreme Court he has urged to develop among other things the independence and accountability of the judiciary. As he has said, 'It is the quality of the work of the judiciary that defines the relationship of the citizens to the state and law.' Since the rule of law is a crucial attribute of any society, corruption in the judiciary is absolutely unacceptable. He spoke about the process of selection of judges, the delay and congestion of the judicial process, overall quality of judiciary. In addition, he stressed on increasing the means for discipline for violation of judicial ethics. Quality, accountability of the judiciary and improved access of the citizenry to the court system were the themes of his speech. For the full speech.

This is a continuation of Putin's big agenda against corruption in the government. His launch against the practices long-settled during the Soviet Union years was perhaps the biggest contribution to his country...

Turkey and EU

Turkey has long worked to join the European Union. It is a candidate country. But most Europeans, as suggested by studies and analysis, are not willing to embrace Turkey into their Union for a host of reasons. First, culture and religion. While Turkey strives to be a secular state, its Constitution is strongly cultural in enshrining extreme nationalism, Ata-Turk. Culture is the strongest link to religion. Given the recent wave of Islamic extremism, Europeans are expressing deep concerns over Turkey's cultural heritage. Second, very importantly, the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide and the historic battle with Greece over Cyprus is really disappointing to many Europeans, especially Austria, Germany and France (here). Jacques Chirac, the former French President, repeatedly mentioned this issue when faced with Turkey's bid for the membership. (here) While UK is the most optimistic, given US-Turkish relations and the NATO membership, most Europeans are simply pessimistic. Given Germany's full acknowledgment of its past atrocities and the Jewish Holocaust, Turkish denial seems so immoral to most conscientious Europeans.

The studies have in fact shown that Europeans are much more willing to embrace Russia into the EU, which is elevating and inspiring for many Russians, who for decades felt deprived of any good-will on part of Western European countries. The Cold War legacy and Western criticism of Putin's policies are still a challenge for this process. But Russians seem very optimistic that they will overcome those. (here)

Another issue must be mentioned. It is not only cultural and ideological concerns that dominate in the minds of Europeans. The influx of immigrants from Islamic countries and the economic recession in Europe make Europeans (like Americans) resist immigrants and any more members joining EU. After all, joining the EU would mean fully taking part of the economic advantages.

Russian elections 2008

Vladimyr Putin, the most influential person in Russia today, on behalf of his party, United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya), has endorsed Dmitriy Medvedev as his successor to Presidency. Putin also reminded people that this is the time not to praise for past achievements, but outline what challenges are still ahead. For that job, he strongly supports Medvedev. (here)

Born on September 14, 1965, in St. Petersburg, Medvedev is a lawyer and a businessman, who has been very close with Putin since he became President. Given the popularity of Putin and his influence on the Russian public, the polls have shown that the vast majority of Russians (over 70%) are ready to vote for Medvedev just because of Putin's endorsement (here).

In his speech after the endorsement by Putin, Medvedev spoke about improving the infrastructure and the world leadership of Russia with the help of Putin. In fact, Putin would be a Prime-Minister, as the head of the Parliament, if Medvedev becomes the President. Basically, Medvedev would probably be the shadow of Putin who will continue influencing Russian politics in all spheres.

Is there a viable opposition to Putin and Medvedev? While there is opposition, since Putin and Medvedev follow the general spirit of policies that the Russian population has been in favor of, there is really no chance for the opponents to garner as much support or popularity.

You may ask, what is the main reason that Russians love Putin and disliked either Gorbachev or Yeltsin? Competence and repairing the fallen image of Russia. After all, Yeltsin was an alcoholic and deeply incompetent, while Gorbachev proved to be just as incompetent in economic policies.

The Case of Armenian Genocide

A good book on the Armenian genocide is “The Case of Misak Torlakian” by Vartkes Yeghiayan and Ara Arabyan (here). Misak Torlakian, an Armenian Ottoman subject, was tried by the British Military Court on August 11, 1921 on charge of murdering the ex-minister of interior of Azerbaijan. Through the court case, through witness accounts, the dark and unbelievable picture of the Armenian genocide is revealed. Another famous case similar to this was the case of Soghomon Tehlirian.

For those interested to learn more about the Armenian genocide, I would recommend using British and German sources, in addition to the Armenian ones. Since Turkey has been vigilantly trying to rewrite history in its attempts to justify denial, it is important whose sources we are using to get to the truth. While history cannot be rewritten in the abstract, in reality the new generations in Turkey and Azerbaijan have been getting a completely distorted ‘rewritten’ history of the Genocide. They are even trying to sell to the world their ‘version.’

As far as the US-Turkey relationship that has been affecting the issue of recognition of the Armenian genocide in a major way, I would really call it a ‘necessity’, not an alliance. While Turkey is a member of the NATO, the US could never really consider Turkey its ‘ally’ the same way as it would consider Great Britain, for example. But since the US interests in the Middle East are serious, Turkey for a while will be a necessity. But time is soon approaching that the US will not have to ‘need’ or ‘depend’ on Turkey.

Of course, the role of Russia is of major importance here. Russian-Turkish relations have a long history of animosity. Due to the Cold War, the military bases of the US were in Turkey to countermand the perceived expansionism of the Soviet Union. To this day, Russia uses the Caucasus as a buffer against Turkey. Thence the location of Armenia is strategically important to Russia. While the US and Russia have their historic tendency to compete for world hegemony, Turkey will be ‘used’ by the US as a buffer against Russia. But again this is not necessarily settled.

World politics is constantly shifting and in flux. Therefore, today’s friends are tomorrow’s foes. I only wish justice prevailed in this process more often than it does.

Hardline on secession in the name of anti-terror...

In China the public has welcomed the death sentences handed down to five Muslim Uighurs from Xinjiang region. The Uighurs are Indo-European people who comprised 90 per cent of Xinjiang when the People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Since then they have been reduced to a 45 per cent minority in a region now dominated by Han Chinese. The control is in the hands of the latter in a region rapidly growing economically. The ethnic links of this group to Turkmenistan and other Central Asian former Soviet republics and the rapid dissolution of the Soviet Union prompted the Uighurs to seek self-determination, not welcomed and quenched at every step by Beijing.

China's official story is that these groups set up terrorist camps as of August 2005 in attempts to achieve their goals. There were also official promulgations linking these groups with Al-Qaida. How true are these official proclamations? Is this intolerance towards minority groups? or is it a hardline stance on secession? As far as the global war on terror, China and Russia through their partnership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, reiterate their commitment in that regard at every meeting. This is because both Russia and China have large Muslim populations, either as neighbors or as minority groups within their respective territories. (for more on this see here, and here)

As to the death sentences, China is perhaps taking advantage of its remoteness to Europe... Russia did not have that luxury and abolished the death penalty against the widespread public support for it...

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?

Moscow State University

The oldest Russian University (here) was founded in 1755 by the first Russian academician, scientist and encyclopedist Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765). In 1940 the University was named after him. Pushkin expressed it well: "Combining extraordinary willpower with extraordinary intellectual power, Lomonosov embraced all areas in knowledge. His passionate thirst for knowledge was the energizing force in his life. Historian, orator, engineer, chemist, minerologist, painter and poet he experienced and perceived it all."

Lomonosov played a decisive role in the development of social and natural sciences in Russia, which was turning into a major European power during Peter the Great (1672-1725). He wrote a report to Queen Elizabeth (the daughter of Peter the Great and Catherine I) (1709-1761) who signed the order for founding the University on January 25, 1755.


At that time the University had three sections: on philosophy, jurisprudence and medicine. Admission was open to all persons from all classes, except for peasants-- unheard of in those days when universities were open only to the sons of nobility. He wrote: "At the University the student is respected for his knowledge, not for his parents." In the middle of the 18th century out of 26 Russian professors, only three were from nobility. This was truly remarkable.

Beginning from 1919 the University became funded altogether by the State. Students would get stipends, housing and even food to study here. But the Stalinist period affected the intellectuals at the University, many of whom left the country, unable to put up with the suspension of intellectual freedom.

Today the Moscow State University is the first and foremost dream of most students. It has all the resources, all the opportunities and all the keys to valuable education and successful career. It was my dream too to study there when I was 6. But when my family moved to the United States after I graduated from High School, UCLA replaced Lomonosov University in my mind. Now the dream is to teach there one day...

Any ice left?

... Ice melting in the Arctic is more and more alarming to the scientists. (here) They are still unsure about how to measure future implications of this process. The changing patterns of winds in the region have also contributed to the melting. Interestingly, Russia who has recently tried to assert its influence in the Arctic has been attacked for expansionism and adventurism. Well, if countries do not try to assert ownership rights over such forsaken regions, there will be no incentive to study and prevent causes of global warming... If this rate of ice melting continues, half the world will end up under the water...

Alexander Blok

Alexander Alexandrovich Blok was born on November 28, 1880, in Petersburg. His grandfather, Beketov, was the rector of the Petersburg University. His father was a lawyer and subsequently a professor of the Warsaw University, mother was a translator and a children’s writer. His first poems and prose appeared in 1887-1888. In 1898 he enrolled in the law school of the Petersburg University but three years later realized that the law was not for him and transferred to the section of philology (Slavic-Russian) of the University. In 1903 he married Lubov Mendeleeva, who was also from a highly intelligent family.

Beginning from 1904 Blok’s poems received great publicity and popularity. In 1906 he graduated from the University with the Highest Honors. He wrote and published ardently. His style was unique in that he represented symbolism and modern mysticism, while at the same time preserving the traditional rhythm handed down by Pushkin to the generations of Russian poets. So, while Blok is not similar to any Russian poet and he definitely was an original genius, he was not a loner and found his place in Russian literature very quickly. Marina Tsvetaeva (see on this blog), on the other hand, was less lucky, because her style was more rebellious and novel and it took her longer to establish herself, posthumously.

In contrast with Tsvetaeva, Blok accepted the October Revolution early and along with Vladimyr Mayakovsky he was to become the ‘Revolutionary poet.’ He wrote his famous poem “Twelve” dedicated to the Revolution and was greatly inspired by the political change that toppled the Tsar and instituted the government for the working people and peasants. However, immediately upon witnessing the ‘big lie’ of Leninism, Blok suffered enormously, realizing that he played a part of this.

On April 9, 1919 he made a speech at the World Literature conference entitled ‘The Collapse of Humanism.’ There he said:

Humanism to us is first of all associated with the powerful movement at the end of the Middle Ages which engulfed first Italy and then all of Europe and slogan of which was the human being—the free individual person. Therefore, the fundamental and central sign of humanism is individualism…. Naturally, when a new moving force appeared on the arena of European history—not the individual but the masses—it caused the crisis of humanism….

We have lost the balance… that was energizing and giving life to humanism… Today we have a choice, a critical choice that we need to make like bread for our very existence… In our catastrophic time every cultural beginning must be thought of in the same way as the first Christians were saving the spiritual treasures in the catacombs. The difference is that we can no longer hide anything under the ground; the path towards saving the spiritual treasures is not hiding them, but showing them to the world and showing them in a way that the world will perceive their sanctity and will enable their protection….

We can no longer deny the fact that a certain new and hostile to the civilized world movement is developing and sweeping the world; that the civilization is no longer a continent but a group of islands that can soon sink in an overwhelming flood, that the most valuable from the viewpoint of humanitarianism the ethical, aesthetic, legal products of civilization… —are either already flooded, or are under a grave threat. If we are truly civilized humanists we will never find peace with this; but if we do not accept it, and if we remain with the values that humanism has proclaimed as sacred, then won’t we be cut off from the rest of the world and culture, which is carrying on its spine this destructive flood?

Blok was afraid of the self-destructive force sweeping over Russia in the face of Communism and anti-humanism in the European continent as the precursor of Nazism. But he was also afraid that whether he and other humanists joined it or not, it was a force that had to be reckoned with. That struggle drove him crazy.

While he was respected and was even elected as the chairman of the Russian Writers’ Union, his mental condition was affected and was increasingly deteriorating. His wife was to get the worst of it. He would often get into an uncontrollable panic attack and deep depression and would break everything at home. Coming out of it, he would not even remember what he did. Maxim Gorky, the writer, his mentor and friend, was writing to others, begging for help for Blok. Before his death, Blok even deleted much of his work. So, what we have now is perhaps only 1/3 of his poems. On August 7, 1921 he died in his cabinet tragically and mysteriously.

Blok will remain as one of the geniuses of Russian literature. He foretold the tragedy of the 20th century. And he was to become a victim of the times he lived in, like Tsvetaeva and many of the Russian intelligentsia in the 20th century. While he embraced the ideals of the Russian Revolution, recognizing the oppression of Tsarism and the need for reform of the living conditions of workers and peasants, he realized that Leninism-Stalinism was not to do what it promised. He was an activist in his heart and thought that a true artist must partake of the reality surrounding him to be able to create. That is why, he could not help but be a part of the Revolution. But since by its nature Communism destroyed the individual and liberties, he could not accept it. He realized that Communism was inevitably going to destroy the intelligentsia. He predicted that even in 1908 when he wrote:

Tempest and culture… Feeling of catastrophe, illness, anxiety, explosion (the humanity is like people in front of a bomb.) History set up the bomb and cracked everything into pieces… The earth is burning. What type of fire will burst out of the earth’s crust—-will it save or destroy us? And will we even have the right to say that this fire, generally destructive, will destroy only us (the intelligentsia).

Destiny itself prepared me
In sacred awe
To bring light with my murky torch
At the doors of Idealism.

And only in the twilight of the eve,
Hastening with my earthly mind,
And possessed with heavenly fear,
I am burning in the fire of the Muse.

***
Oh, I madly want to live,
To immortalize the fleeting,
To humanize the impersonal
To realize what was a dream.
Let the life’s heavy dream suffocate me
Let me die in this dream
Perhaps, a happy youth
Will say in the future about me
“Let us forgive his melancholy
Was it his inner essence?
He was all a child of kindness and light
He was all the triumph of freedom.”

(All translations here are by Zoya)

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...

Keynes and Globalization

Adam Smith (1723-1790), the mastermind behind the so-called Invisible Hand, wrote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

Smith was wise in pointing to the inner needs of a human being and the vitality of creation of incentives. Unfortunately, as we know, the invisible hand did not do what Smith portrayed and greed in human society blocked the spillover effect of which he spoke about. The Great Depression in the beginning of the 20th century was largely a result of the failure of the Invisible Hand.

Therefore, the theories of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)(above) came as a revelation and a saviour. In contrast with Smith, Keynes propagated interventionist policies by government that would control and regulate the free markets. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very much under the influence of Keynes when devised the plan to take the country out of the Depression. Of course, as usually crude capitalism is synonymous with free markets and state intervention is always attacked as socialism... Moreover, nationalization of industries as one of the measures of the state to regulate the capricious markets and big business is assailed as anti-democratic. Putin's economic policies in Russia have been coined precisely that, while he is very much like Roosevelt in economic affairs...

Today it is virtually unassailable that domestic markets must be regulated. But the problem is how in this globalized world we can also learn to regulate international markets, so that international accumulation of wealth can be distributed evenly among nations... Since no nation has the incentive to do that (just like the individual businessman, only seeking his self-gain), this is the task of international organizations. But just like governments purporting to regulate markets and lobbied by big business, international organizations cannot be perfect and are often lobbied by stronger nation-states...