I have been waiting for someone to write the truth about what is happening in the supposedly angry exchanges between Russia and Britain. You don't see anyone reacting too excitedly, do you?
In fact, the only people who should be really upset are the four Russian diplomats and their families that were kicked out of England because the Kremlin would not order the extradition of Andre Luguvoi--who is wanted for possible trial in England--and the four English diplomats and their families in Moscow who were uprooted by the Russians in retaliation.
It is a real pain to have to move out of your house suddenly, yank the children out of school, fire the maid and go back to your home country when you are only part way through your overseas posting. I feel at least a little bit sorry for them all, but nobody else.
The British surely know that the Russians have a constitutional provision that will not allow them to extradite Luguvoi, even if they wanted to. And they don't much want to, it appears, if for no other reason than that the English will not extradite Berezovsky, the controversial oligarch wanted for a list of alleged crimes in Russia. The fact that the Brazilian government has indicted Berezovsky for a money laundering scheme in their country suggests that the Russians have not exactly invented the seriousness of the charges against Berezovsky.
Nonetheless, both sides know very well that "PNGing" diplomats (making them "persona non grata")is not going to make the slightest difference to anyone except, as I say, the inconvenienced members of the Russian and British foreign ministries.
Maybe the Russians and British should sit down quietly and see how they might go about trading evidence that could be used domestically to try these individuals: Luguvoi in Russia and Berezovsky in England.
Nations (nearly 200) continue to be allowed much discretion in the global order.
They can choose whether to extradite individuals from their territory to face charges brought by the numerous judicial systems around the world. Wikipedia tells us: "No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States (US) lacks extradition treaties with over fifty nations, including the People's Republic of China, Namibia, and North Korea."
But probably more dangerous, nations also have discretion whether to comply with international rules covering their behaviour. For example, the United Nations agreed in 2006 that states are responsible for protecting their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (R2P); and if states didn't protect them, then the Security Council could act. However views in the Security Council differ on the subject of intervention: for instance, China said in discussions that the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and governance of states cannot be infringed; the US said the international community has a duty to intervene where states are unable or unwilling to protect their civilians. Russia's view?
Actually the Russian State is not obliged to head the British request. This is what - at the end of the day - the British have to acknowledge. It is not only the Russian Constitution that prohibits the extradition of a fellow citizen (by the way the German Grundgesetz prohibts it as well).
Theret is also the Council of Europe Convention of 1957 which backs the Russian decision. No country which is party to this convention is obliged to extradite a citizen upon the request of another country which is party to the convention.
The only thing the country which refuses extradition has to do is to bring the indicted person to court in his/her own country. If this actually happens, the country which had previously requested extradition is asked to hand over evidence for the court hearings.
So legally speaking the Russian Government is behaving correctly.
Defintely the British government knew about it; still they kept the extradition a public issue. And they publicly traded accusations against the Russian judicial system (which is correct in principle, but why make it a public case?). So they definitely have a different (hidden) agenda than to get Lugovoj to court in the UK. In whose interest is it to push Russia and the EU on a collision course?
Dear gerhard_mangott,
What you say is so true, but the West is special.
If you look at Western culture today, be it corporations or government, accountability has been removed from the social spheres and even law itself. Lobbyists pay for special treatment, OJ gets off because of his money, Enron took billions of people's retirement money, and Bush can claim tons of wmd in Iraq and later can innocently look stupid and nobody is accountable for any of it.
Rules and laws are bent all the time in America and the UK, and for this, they expect Russia to break it's own laws, even international laws, so long as Western politicians benefit, right?.
If some American got on an airplane and went to Russia, killed another American (pro Kremlin, by the way) in Moscow and quickly escaped back to America, would America extradite that US citizen to Russia? No... However, when it's the other way around, the West cries like little babies... helpless that Russia won't break the law for the others... you know? for democracy, I'm sure... like Iraq...
Anyway...
So the reason the US and so many other Western nations just don't get it, just don't understand is because accountability is no more in the West. Sure you will find accountability in the elderly sitting in Western nursing homes, those Western generations from yesteryear were far better than the slimy, two faced, liars and fake phony frauds of today. I believe Western population, particularly the young teenagers have more credibility and accountability than the baby boomers running America into debt, building missile defense systems, and managing the Iraq war in such a way that would make Kenny Boy Lay proud.
The disconnect and the absurdity is very simply that Western leaders don't even know what it is to be accountable. This word isn't in their language, and to that, it's way they expect Russia to break the law, because THEY DO. You see, breaking the law when you meant well, is justified by western measure... It's not so black and white in the West...
Mr. Mangott
You're absolutely right. There has to be an ulterior motive in this on the part of Brits. However, the only thing they're gonna succeed in is screwing themselves.
Already a haven for scum and terrorists across the globe, they sustained bloody attacks which are going to continue. Secondly, by being the 51st state of US they are not gaining anything for themselves, save for more expenditures, lives lost and aversion by their own constituency.
Lastly, Europe is already divided on how to deal with Russia. If it's the collision with EU that they're trying to achieve -- good luck. Germany and Italy are already growing sick of little inconsequential states like Baltics pissing in the soup and spoiling it for everyone involved. They fondle their pride and ego by attacking Russia, and achieve nothing more. And they're always quick to remind everyone how the union members have got to stick together and back each other up. Like chihuahua dogs barking at the tiger, then running away, yelping for back-up.
Whilst these "states" are having jolly good fun flipping sh*t at Russia, Germany and Italy have got a multi-billion dollar trade to worry about, which grows every year. And Brits themselves have got a bourgeoning business relations with Russia, but their hatred for it -- which is so deep-rooted that it mixed up with their bone-marrow -- supercedes even the financial considerations.
It'll be interesting to see how things progress. I'll bet next the Brits will pop Berezovski in some "traditional KGB" style, and launch an all-out political war to demonize Russia and try to isolate it.
Couple of Topol M's will sink those foggy islands and their rotten inhabitants.
the United Nations agreed in 2006 that states are responsible for protecting their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (R2P); and if states didn't protect them, then the Security Council could act. However views in the Security Council differ on the subject of intervention: Russia's view?
Russia differs from the United Nations. Myanmar was an example - implications for R2P.
Russia vetoed the resolution that the UN put forward. "While we do not deny that Myanmar has been facing certain problems. . . we believe that the situation in that country does not pose any threat to international or regional peace. That view is shared by a large number of States, including, most importantly, those neighboring Myanmar."
What really gets me is the difference between the newspapers and the people of Britain.
According to the papers there is an impending conflict and irreprably damaged relationship between the two countries.
I've yet to speak to one person who thinks that we are heading for a confrontation with Russia, or who thinks it would be a good thing.
Basically Litvinenko hung out with some pretty creepy guys. His death was a tragedy, but the efforts of the media to portray him as a hero of human rights and truth is risible.