Articles About Internews

Old habits, new hypocrisy
May 24th 2007 | MOSCOW
From The Economist print edition
A case study
of Moscow's method of dealing with the opposition
THE Soviet Union dealt with its opponents in a harsh, decisive
and clear way. Dissidents were prosecuted and imprisoned. Famous
artists who spoke against the system were stripped of their citizenship
and deported. Public protests were not allowed.
Today few Russians
go to prison for their political or religious convictions; and
Russia claims to be a democracy. But the thuggish ways in which the
Kremlin deals with challengers is an insult to human intelligence and
makes a mockery of the legal system, says Yuri Schmidt, a top lawyer. “The Soviet regime was
more severe and cruel, but in some ways it was less hypocritical and
false,” he declares.
Consider the response to protests at the
Russia-European Union summit in Samara on May 18th. The Kremlin
satisfied Germany's request to allow a rally by Other Russia, a motley
coalition of its leading opponents, including Garry Kasparov and Eduard
Limonov. But it then engaged in tricks redolent of the mischievous characters
in Bulgakov's “The Master and Margarita”, not a respectable
government. Activists were detained because they resembled criminals
or were said to be carrying disguised drugs or grenades.
Before the
summit, Denis Bilunov, Mr Kasparov's assistant, arrived in Samara
by train. Police met him, opened his bags and, finding 95,000 roubles
($3,700), declared the notes counterfeit. After hours watching policemen
copying out all the details, Mr Bilunov emerged with neither money nor
time to prepare for Mr Kasparov's arrival. It did not matter, for when
Mr Kasparov and Mr Limonov arrived at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport
to fly to Samara, they were told their tickets were dodgy and barred
from boarding. The police took their passports, returning them only
when the last flight had left. Meanwhile members of Nashi, a pro-Putin
youth movement, dressed up as psychiatrists and distributed leaflets
ridiculing Mr Kasparov's and Mr Limonov's “diagnosis”.
“The Kremlin
was not in Sheremetyevo,” said Mr Putin's spokesman. “I
don't think the issue of the non-arrival of a Russian citizen, even
a famous one...will be on the summit agenda.” He was wrong. Angela
Merkel, the German chancellor, said publicly that “if demonstrators
throw stones, if they smash windows, then of course they should be curbed.
But if someone has done nothing, if they just want to go to a demonstration,
then it's different.” Inevitably, on state television Russians
heard only the first sentence.
This is the sort of manipulation that
Manana Aslamazyan, president of Educated Media Foundation (EMF),
a nongovernmental organisation that trains regional television journalists,
fights. Recently EMF offices have been raided, computer servers and
files seized, and Ms Aslamazyan and a colleague threatened with criminal
charges. Her supposed “crime” was not to declare 9,500 ($12,300)
brought into the country in January. (Only $10,000 can be brought in
without a customs declaration.)
In the eyes of the Kremlin, any NGO
receiving foreign cash is an agent of foreign intelligence. One
EMF-trained television channel in Siberia has written an angry open
letter to Mr Putin, signed by more than 2,000 journalists. But the Kremlin
is unlikely to be impressed.
|