BY
MICHAEL WEISS
When
most people think of British-Russian relations, they imagine Bond films, iron
curtains, Cambridge double agents, irradiated dissidents, and billionaire
oligarchs who dress like Evelyn Waugh but behave like Tony Soprano and then sue
each other in London courts. But there's another element underwriting this
not-so-special relationship.
British elites, elected or otherwise, have grown
highly susceptible to the unscrutinized rubles that continue to pour into the
boom-or-boom London real estate market and a luxury-service industry catering
to wealthy Russians who are as bodyguarded as they are jet-set. This phenomenon
has not only imported some of the worst practices of a mafia state across the
English Channel, but it has had a deleterious impact on Britain's domestic
politics. And some of the most powerful and well-connected figures of British
public life, from the Rothschilds to former prime ministers, have been taken in by it.
Most surprising, though, is how the heirs to Margaret Thatcher's fierce
opposition to the Soviets have often been the ones most easily seduced by the
Kremlin's entreaties.
On Aug. 21, a new lobby group called Conservative Friends of Russia (CFoR) was launched at the London home of Alexander
Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador to Britain. The launch was attended by some
250 guests, including parliamentarians, Conservative Party members,
businessmen, lobbyists, NGO representatives, and even princes. Yakovenko and
Member of Parliament John Whittingdale, who chairs the Culture Select Committee
in Parliament and is an "honorary vice president" of CFoR, both
delivered keynote addresses. The lavish do in the backyard of the Kremlin envoy
featured, as the Guardian reported, a "barbecue, drinks and a raffle, with
prizes of vodka, champagne and a biography of Vladimir Putin," and it came
just days after the Pussy Riot verdict. It was an open invitation to controversy. If CFoR
wanted to portray itself as merely a promoter of "dialogue" between
Britain and Russia, it was an odd beginning for a group born looking and
sounding a lot like "Tories for Putin."
CFoR was founded by Richard Royal, a public affairs manager at Ladbrokes, a popular chain of betting parlors in Britain. He
also owns his own company, Lionheart Public Affairs, which has no website but shares a registered address with the new pro-Russia lobby group. Responding to the
storm of criticism his new project has provoked, Royal took to the Guardian's website
to defend the initiative against what he called "armchair critics on
Twitter," in language you'd expect from a PR professional. "Whether
we like it or not," Royal wrote, "Russia is an influential and
essential part of the international community and its importance will only grow
over time. We need to stop making decisions based on misconceptions that are
decades old, and deal with reality."
Royal's notion of "reality" will strike some
observers as rather loosely defined. He claims that "democracy [in Russia]
is only just approaching its 21st birthday" when it has actually been in a
state of arrested development for 12 years. The rest of his op-ed is a vague
endorsement of better Anglo-Russian cooperation on energy, science, and
technology and of a relaxation of Britain's visa requirements for Russian
businesses -- all of which are, of course, fully in line with the desires of
the Russian Foreign Ministry. The recent clampdown on civil society, the forced registration of NGOs as "foreign agents," Putin's backing and arming of Syria's Assad
regime, and the arrests of other members of the Russian protest movement, from
Garry Kasparov to Alexey Navalny, earn not a single mention by Royal or CFoR on
their website, despite their avowed interest in fostering cozier relations
between peoples, not governments. Royal has boasted on Facebook of the
"great deal of support for our fantastic organisation" received at
another Russian Embassy event featuring Yakovenko and Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly
Antonov. With friends like these, CFoR isn't likely to stray very far from the
Kremlin line. To date, CFoR's loudest campaign has been waged against Britain's
Foreign Office, which cites technical prohibitions on allowing Russia to award
the Medal of Ushakov to surviving British participants in the Arctic convoys to the Soviet Union during World War II. (Much as the
lobby rails against a Cold War mindset, it seems quite comfortable intervening
vociferously on an issue that seems better tailored to a Soviet-era
"friendship" society.)
Consider, too, the "news" section of the group's site. One item that
conspicuously stood out was "The miserable meowing of Pussy Riot," which accused the feminist punk group of
"scandalous and pedophilic acts" and claimed the court that sentenced
three of its members to two years in jail "has treated the hooligans
gently enough." That article came courtesy of Pravda.ru, the combination propaganda mill/supermarket tabloid
run by Vadim Gorshenin, an underling of Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
After several MPs and newspapers called attention to CFoR's pro-Kremlin media
portfolio, the anti-Pussy Riot screed was removed from the site.
More alarming was the interview Royal gave to Ilya Goryachev, the former head of
Russky Obraz ("Russian Image"), a neo-Nazi outfit that has called for the restriction of civil rights for
"aboriginal non-Slavic" citizens outside areas where they heavily
predominate and for a ban on interracial marriage. Russky Obraz became
notorious when two of its members, Nikita Tikhonov and his girlfriend, Yevgenia
Khasis, were convicted last year for the murders of human rights attorney
Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova, a reporter for muckraking newspaper Novaya Gazeta, who
rushed to Markelov's rescue. He was shot in the head in central Moscow in 2009
directly after leaving a news conference at which he'd promised to fight the
early release of Russian Col. Yuri Budanov, who was imprisoned in 2000 for
strangling an 18-year-old Chechen woman to death. That Goryachev had taken an
interest in a new right-wing pro-Russia lobby group abroad should have unnerved
rather than flattered any good public relations professional. Goryachev got
what he came for in that interview, with Royal confining his boilerplate responses to
how Russia unfairly judged "on the basis of misconceptions and outdated
beliefs" and how it's no other country's business to "lecture"
Moscow on Caucasian separatism or counterterrorism.
It also won't help CFoR's benign self-portrait that
among its honorary
vice presidents is Andrew Rosindell, a Tory parliamentarian who in June expressed his "huge admiration" for Augusto Pinochet and suggested that he
would "happily" join a Facebook fan club for the dead Chilean junta
leader who killed, tortured, or disappeared tens of thousands. What does puzzle
some is the presence of former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, who is
generally thought of as gimlet-eyed about Putinism, as anhonorary
president of CFoR.* (Rifkind didn't attend the CFoR launch; he was in Edinburgh.)
When contacted by email, Royal told me that CFoR
receives no money from the Russian government, nor has any past or present
Russian official contracted Lionheart Public Affairs for campaign work. Rather,
the entire initiative is funded "from membership and events," and
everyone works on a volunteer basis. I asked about the website'snews feed, which, since the launch event at Yakovenko's house,
continued to feature only state-owned or state-subsidized outlets such as Voice
of Russia, RIA Novosti, and Russia Beyond the Headlines. These selections,
Royal replied, were "entirely coincidental.… [W]e have used a wide range
of providers, and simply want something with Russian-related news which very
few international agencies provide." CFoR doesn't endorse any articles
that appear on the website, Royal noted, while adding that he had just included
the independently owned Moscow Times to
the news feed.
Following our email exchange, Royal and CFoR took part
in a 10-day trip to Russia paid for by Rossotrudnichestvo, a new state "cultural
agency" that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sees as "play[ing] an important role" in the
furthering of Russian foreign policy. Royal used this government-funded
excursion to see what he calls the "real Russia": He did a spot on Russia Today -- the Kremlin-controlled television
channel that veers between feverish anti-American conspiracy and
nothing-to-see-here coverage of Russia's domestic turmoil -- in which he
explained that he and his retinue (members of which he elsewhere refused to identify) met with politicians and
"opposition" figures. I asked which ones.
"We met with lots of representatives from United
Russia, A Just Cause, LDPR, Communist Party," Royal replied, naming officially
tolerated opposition parties in the Duma, "and chairs of foreign affairs
committees, energy advisers and so on." So no one from the protest
movement, which held a 50,000-strong rally in Moscow while Royal was in the
country, or from the besieged civil society sector, such as the election
monitor Golos or the human rights watchdog Memorial? Nope. Two of the organizations Royal mentioned
meeting with are part of the Kremlin's new "public diplomacy"
outreach, including the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund and the Russian
International Affairs Council (here's Lavrov expanding fondly on them). A third was the Agency of Strategic
Initiatives, a government-run business development group on whose advisory
board Putin sits. All was not Potemkin theater, however: "Several of us
also attended a 'Free Pussy Riot' concert," wrote Royal.
Pretend naiveté about an increasingly authoritarian
regime competes with CFoR's general posture, which Nabokov might have called
yuppie "poshlust." The group's monthly calendar of events
displays a passion for kitschy networking opportunities. Young Tories seeking
lucrative consultancy gigs with Gazprom won't want to miss "Pancakes until
6pm" at Mari Vanna (a pricey restaurant in Knightsbridge) or the standing
Saturday-night "Russki London Party" at the Harrington Club ("DJ
A-Lex will treat you to selection of best club hits and many Russian popular
remixes.… Best place to celebrate your Birthday Party 'Russian style'!")
This is quite a distance for the Conservative Party to
have traveled from Thatcher's Iron Lady stolidity. With a few notable
back-bench exceptions, the younger generation of Conservatives has tended
toward softness on the new master of the Kremlin, a disposition that predates
the party's return to government in the last election. When Prime Minister
David Cameron was still just an opposition leader, he yanked his party out of the dominant center-right voting bloc
in the Strasbourg-based Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)
in favor of joining with Putin's United Russia along with a few far-right
European political parties to vote on recommendations and investigations into
human rights, the state of democracy, and the rule of law in member countries.
The Conservatives even campaigned to have Mikhail Margelov, a former KGB officer,
appointed president of PACE. Despite a promise to cancel this affiliation
following the 2008 Russo-Georgian war, during which Cameron traveled to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, and sounded as
hawkish and anti-Kremlin as he ever has, Conservatives continue to caucus with
United Russia, probably for the unremarkable reason that both parties are
ideologically opposed to pan-European institutions or treaties in the first
place.
The grim Tory-United Russia alliance is also doing
real harm to the very liberals and pro-Western actors within Russia with whom
Britain ought to be showing solidarity. This month, PACE introduced a
resolution recognizing a years-long survey, newly published by an appointed
monitoring committee, into the state of Russia's democracy, rule of law, and
human rights. Everything from the Pussy Riot trial to the continued
imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky to the state's murder of whistle-blowing
attorney Sergei Magnitsky was examined by the committee. The committee's report
was adopted with over two-thirds of delegates voting in favor. But every
Tory in PACE voted against an amendment, which recommended further
year-on-year monitoring of Russia for the issues raised in the initial report,
such as the curtailment of civil liberties, the harassment of NGO workers and
journalists, a lack of judicial independence, and the continued impunity for
state officials culpable for the deaths of pretrial detainees such as Magnitsky
and Vera Trifonova, a 53-year-old real estate agent who died after
being denied a badly needed medical furlough. The recommendation measure failed
to obtain the requisite two-thirds of the vote (it needed 136 "in
favor" votes to pass; it received 121), thanks to "against"
votes by eight Tory MPs and their co-thinkers from Russia, Serbia, Azerbaijan,
and Ukraine. Given that, in Russia, elections are still rigged, bribes by
officials are now listed by the Finance Ministry as non-tax-deductible, slander
and libel have been recriminalized, the U.S. Agency for International Development has
been expelled, and Internet censorship is being introduced under the pretext of combating
child pornography, the need for a follow-up investigation by the monitoring
committee is indisputable. Conservatives thus find themselves on the side of
authoritarianism and cynicism.
Like U.S. President Barack Obama, Cameron came to the
national leadership with a plan for revivifying bilateral relations after a
nadir in the mid-2000s. In Britain's case that was 2006, the year of both the "spy rock" incident -- in which British officials were
caught red-handed using a hollowed-out rock in a Moscow park as a
communications drop site -- and the nuclear assassination of Alexander
Litvinenko. (An inquest ordered by his widow, Marina, into his death is under way, and Kenneth Macdonald, who was director of public
prosecutions in 2006, has expressed the "gravest suspicions" that the poisoning
involved state actors -- yet another bit of Anglo-Russian news CFoR finds
unworthy of discussion.)
Cameron's much-touted state visit to Moscow in
September 2011 -- a visit that coincided with the NATO intervention in Libya,
which Putin opposed -- was, by even low diplomatic standards, a busted flush. Even Putin's attendance at the Olympics in July came
and went with no major policy announcement; he and Cameron talked about Syria and then attended a judo match. Cameron evidently
raised the Pussy Riot case but found his guest was "not particularly
responsive," as the Guardian reported with fine English understatement.
So what's CFoR's long game? The lobby is clearly
acting as a helpmeet of Putin's strictly business interests in Britain, and its
contrived air of neutrality seems perfectly placed for convincing a new
generation of Tories that Russia is little more than Upper Volga with hedge
funds. Royal, for instance, does not seem to know that his choice of a
promotional vehicle was an infamous neo-Nazi; nor do any of the Facebook
followers of CFoR's group page seem much bothered by the Goryachev interview.
And why should they? Assassinated dissidents, rampant state corruption, and the
steady erosion of hard-won political freedoms simply aren't priorities in
London right now. "Russia is a massive economy with a huge amount of
natural resources and the potential to invest further afield," Royal told Goryachev. That was before Russia's state-owned oil
giant,Rosneft, became the world's largest publicly traded energy
company -- by buying out BP's stake in TNK-BP.
With its first-rate tax avoidance system, strict libel
laws, good living, and easy access to Moscow (the flight's just four hours
long), London was always poised to serve as both a clearinghouse for
Kremlin-connected billionaires and a propaganda mill for the attendant
influencers who underwrite them. This is why oligarchs and state officials
alight in Blighty to go on shopping sprees at Harrods, educate their offspring
at elite schools, hobnob with aristocrats, and buy football clubs, medieval
castles, and lavish country piles. So long as "Moscow-on-Thames"
continues to prosper, lobby groups like Conservative Friends of Russia will do
as brisk a trade as the blinis at Mari Vanna.
No comments:
Post a Comment