What the Magnitsky Act Means

David J. Kramer, Lilia Shevtsova Op-Ed December 18, 2012 American Interest

Summary

If implemented properly, the Magnitsky Act could mean the restoration of a normative dimension to Western policy on Russia.

Related Topics

Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions

Sergei Magnitsky was a 37-year-old lawyer who was beaten, deprived of vital medical attention, and left to die in a Russian prison nearly a year after uncovering a massive fraud allegedly committed by Russian officials to the tune of $230 million. The very people whom Magnitsky implicated in the fraud arrested him in 2008; a year after his murder, several of these officials were promoted and awarded, adding insult to the fatal injury inflicted on Magnitsky.

Shevtsova chairs the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, dividing her time between Carnegie’s offices in Washington, DC, and Moscow. She has been with Carnegie since 1995.

Lilia Shevtsova

Senior Associate
Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program
Moscow Center

More from this author...

Magnitsky’s client, Hermitage Capital head Bill Browder, launched a full-court press to seek justice for his lawyer in the West in the absence of any possibility for justice inside Russia. Browder recounted Magnitsky’s riveting story to members of the U.S. Congress and anyone else who would listen. Fortunately, two Congressmen, Senator Ben Cardin (D–MD) and Representative Jim McGovern (D–MA), did listen, and they followed up by leading the campaign to adopt the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which was approved by the House in a 365–43 vote November 16, and by the Senate with an equally bipartisan landslide (92-4) on December 6. The Act will deny visas to and freeze the assets of those in the Russian ruling elite implicated in Magnitsky’s murder and other human rights violations and corruption. Various polls in Russia show support for the legislation by a ratio of more than two-to-one among those familiar with it. In targeting sanctions against corrupt and abusive Russian officials as opposed to the whole country, the Act resonates with the many Russians who are fed up with these kinds of problems in their country. The next critical step is to get European countries to adopt similar measures, which would have an even greater impact on those Russians who like to travel and do business in Europe.

There will likely be international ramifications to the approval of the Magnitsky Act —especially if it gets applied to other abusive officials elsewhere around the world; Senator Cardin strongly supports such an extension of the law’s reach. The Act is also bound to influence the Russian-American relationship—if not today, then in the future. If not implemented aggressively, the legislation risks ending up as yet another piece in the “Let’s Pretend” game that the West has long been playing with Russia and other authoritarian states. (Indeed some hope for this outcome.) This would expose the deep crisis affecting the Western world and signal a victory for the forces of authoritarian corruption seeking to demoralize Western society. The U.S. Congress must see to it that the Obama Administration implements the legislation in a serious manner.

To understand the significance of the Act, we have to see the “Magnitsky factor” in a broader historical and political context. During the Helsinki process of the early-to-mid-1970s, the West created a new foreign policy model of linkage between interests and values. While the West pursued this linkage inconsistently and often only rhetorically, it was recognized as the key principle of Western foreign policy doctrine. This recognition was reflected in the almost universal acceptance of the Helsinki Principles, according to which human rights are not merely the internal matter of a country. This principle is a key part of the OSCE and the European Council’s legal framework. It was translated into the philosophy of democracy promotion with the Western states and civic organizations that supported the building of democratic institutions (elections, parties, rule of law) in transition societies.

Regrettably, the Obama Administration announced early on in its reset policy with Russia that it was abandoning the notion of linkage between interests and values. This mistake essentially gave Putin a green light to engage in human rights abuses, secure in the knowledge that such actions would not affect the broader relationship. In passing the Magnitsky Act, Congress has fixed that mistake. Long before the Helsinki Accords, and consistent with them, the U.S. Congress approved the Jackson-Vanik amendment in 1974 to deprive countries of most favored nation trade status if they limited their citizens’ right to emigrate. The Magnitsky Act takes the premise behind Jackson-Vanik and updates it to apply it to today’s Russia. ...

Read the full text of this article in American Interest.

Comments (1)

Sort by: Date Posted | Recommended

Email Updates

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article. Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Screen Name Email Address* (Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)
Subscribe

walterasgbenjamin December 26, 2012 12:01 PM
I respect a lot Lilia's work - articles, essays, bookss - that I am reading since years. She is inspiring, she is critical. But one point I disagree with her is that: the great majority of Russians from 1991 to tdoay have accepted and approved the change of a Russia oriented toward democracy to a Russia oriented and de facto to be a dictatorrship. Many others countries the last 40 years have chosen the reverse : from dictatorship to democracy : South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, Poalnd, Hungary, Tunisa, Lybia, Maroc, Egypt,etc etc. Nocountry has chosen to go freely from democracy - only Russia did it in Europe. Then Lilia uses to criticize the West for not showing example, not pushing Russian government to stay on the democratic path ... I accept these critics - it is better to do much more than much mess; it is better to have in mind munich 1938 than the opposite and make the same mistakes; But at the end of the day it is to the Russian people to fight for their own democracy. The Russian people are "imperialist slaves" - they havealways loved dictatorship which gives them a feeling of security, of superiority. These Russians - you could think what I will say is excessive but it is not , it is the simple consequence of who they are, who they have been and what are their acts - these Russians are our enemies. They represent a clear andpresent danger to our civilization, to our security and peace in Europe. we zare not afraid of them but we need to destroy this political system that they support. and the best way to do that is to change the territory where they live like it was the case for the germans who have lost the Prussian territory. And how to achieve this goal: step by step as George Kennan teachs us by forcing them to go to the Chinese arms , by isolating them from all european countries - including Georgia and Ukraine, by pushing Turkey and other Islamic states to get back their influence on the islamist countries of Central Asia and of the present Russia - as the Tartar Republic. Ultimate goal is to give to these Russian slaves a real new master as Stalin was for them or better Katherine II - the new master of Russians msut be a Chinese leader . In this way they will go back to their roots where they were slaves under the rules of the Mongol-Tatar. I understand Lilia when she dreams that Russia could become democratic and part of EU with Ukraine - then to have an enormous influence inside EU . A dream.

Tweet

Recommend

Reply to this post

Post your comments (2500 character limit. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.) Screen Name
(Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)
Characters Used

Close Panel