12:45 Good morning and welcome to RAPSI’s live broadcast of the drama brewing in St. Petersburg between nine of the city’s most avid anti-gay activists and American pop diva Madonna. With you this morning are Ingrid Burke and Vladimir Yaduta.

…

12:59 There’s space in the courtroom for 6 people. Maybe 7 if we get really cozy. This is going to be interesting, maybe less of a battle than an all-out-war. Some extra benches and chairs were brought into the courtroom which is the size of a walk-in closet.

…

13:22 Actually, there’s no Madonna in the courtroom, but neither the claimants, nor those on the defendant’s side have any objections. It’s still unknown whether Madonna was served with the claim form.

…

13:53 Meanwhile, the aggrieved party is lamenting that Madonna’s violations threaten to unhinge Russian social order. From his words, a public, thoroughly planned performance affected the childbearing rates as Russia’s youth after Madonna’s words will be more interested in filth than family building. The country’s going to loose its defense capacity as a result.

…

14:54 One of the guys on the defense side of the table is laughing and shaking his head.

14:58 Darya Dedova, who represents the plaintiffs, takes the floor. She says the aggrieved party is upset by the refusal to launch a criminal case over the Madonna’s show law infringements. It’s incredible to equal the traditional sexual relations to lesbian relations and sodomy, Dedova says. She stresses that children in the West become a neuter gender.

15:06 Dedova is deeply concerned that the defendants feel absolutely calm about their impunity. She is confident the defendants should bear all the responsibility for the rights for social order abuse.

…

15:34 Another aggrieved party representative complains about the poor conditions in Europe, especially in those countries where same-sex marriage is legalized. He blames ‘such as Madonna’ for that.

15:39 The judge asks the aggrieved parties if they are concerned with the Oliver Stone film about Alexander Makedonsky because of some scenes deemed defying.

15:43 One of the aggrieved party representatives says that Madonna was more provocative. He seems to be totally confused and says it’s time to change the Constitution. He feels uncomfortable about the fact that international agreemnets prevail over national law.

15:48 The judge asks Dedova if she ever attended the gay pride parades. She got confused and then replied that she is not against the homosexuality as itself.

15:53 Irina Gizatulina, another aggrieved party representative, is now testifying. She says that it’s very important for the government to protect society from gay propaganda. Her underaged brother accidentally watched Madonna’s show in some social networks.

15:58 Vitaly Orlovsky, another aggrieved party representative, says that the defendants’ actions affect the traditional families and lead to divorces. The judge has been getting increasingly sassy with the aggrieved parties. He is curious why the claim is lodged against Madonna alone.

16:05 The judge is asking for a statistical analysis of the number of divorces caused by homosexuality vs. those caused by alcoholism. Orlovsky replies that medical evidence shows there’re at about 0.01% gays among men.

…

16:41 Wikipedia entry on LGBT community and its symbols is among the evidence. The claimants’ representative notes that quite a lot of people attended the show with rainbow flags showing their support to LGBT community.

16:48 The defendant’s side wonders if Wikipedia might be considered a reliable source of information. One of the defense attorneys questions the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a source. , based on its open source nature.

…

17:07 The aggrieved parties are now showing a news article on the show and a photo depicting a topless white cartoon man making out with a topless black cartoon man. Daria Dedova is upset that putting man-on-man cartoon action next to that of woman-on-man makes gay seem normal.

17:13 The judge is puzzled. Why doesn’t it bother you when men hug while celebrating Navy Day, the judge asks.

…

17:35 Another dispute breaks out between the parties. Dedova turns out to be an activist of the public organization standing for the city of Volgograd to be renamed to Stalingrad. Defense side counsel advises Dedova to go even further and to change the photos of Stalin with the photos of Hitler.

Read the full transcript on RAPSI’s website here.

According to Valery Borshchev, a representative of the Moscow Public Observation Committee (ONK), “the UN committee is interested in this information. Questions regarding Razvozzhayev are going to be given to the official Russian delegation as soon as November 12.”

Borshchev noted in particular that the committee had been informed of physical and psychological torture confirmed by the ONK after visiting Razvozzhayev in Moscow’s Lefortovo pre-trial detention center.

The activist, who is accused by the Russian government of organizing mass riots, says he made a false confession after being tortured for two days and told his children would be killed if he failed to comply.

In what quickly became an international scandal, Razvozzhayev was kidnapped in Ukraine last month after seeking political asylum and sent back to Moscow in a private plane. The identity of the kidnappers is unclear. On October 22, Moscow’s Basmanny Court sentenced him to two months in Lefortovo. His lawyers were not allowed to attend his court session.

The kidnapping came following a heavily criticized film aired on state-controlled television channel NTV called “Anatomy of a Protest 2.” The film accuses Razvozzhayev and two other prominent opposition activists of colluding with a Georgian parliamentarian to change Russia’s state leadership.

While nearly half of the active American electorate voted for a Mormon for president earlier this week, the Church of Latter Day Saints has not enjoyed such a warm reception in Russia as of late. Activists from the ruling party’s youth group held a protest on November 1 accusing Mormons of pursuing “anti-Russian interests” and told them to fly back “home” to Washington. In this column for Gazeta.ru, religious historian Boris Falikov talks about how this sudden burst of ire has far more to do with the Russian Orthodox Church’s own political problems than any actual threat.

Surrounded by Mormons
By Boris Falikov
November 6, 2012
Gazeta.ru

Not long ago, Vladimir Putin dropped a few words about the need to perfect control over totalitarian sects. This happened at a meeting with representatives from the Samarskaya region. One of those present complained to the president that these sects have broken loose entirely and that something needed to be done about them. Putin agreed that it was a problem and promised to deal with it on the federal level – stipulating, incidentally, that it was a subtle matter, since it dealt with freedom of religion.

The Public Chamber took up the president’s remarks. A list had to be drawn up immediately of the ringleaders of these sects and turned over to the security services. At the same time, dubious religious organizations needed to be checked for signs of totalitarianism.

And Young Guard, which brings together all of United Russia’s young supporters, decided not to waste any time and went straight to work. And now in Moscow and other Russian cities we already have pickets against Mormons, telling them to go back to their historical homeland in the US. Especially since they’re not only a totalitarian sect, but also CIA agents. What is it that’s behind this surge in the war on the “sectarian threat?”

This war didn’t start yesterday. After the demise of the atheistic regime in Russia, missionaries and evangelicals of every imaginable persuasion poured in from all over the world. The Russian Orthodox Church, which has always insisted on its special position in the country, did not like this. Neither did this boundless pluralism suit the state, which wanted to bring order to the religious sphere in one fell swoop. As a result, Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism were officially declared to be traditional religions, and the rest were asked to stand aside.

That might’ve been all, but the Russian Orthodox Church thought that was too little. To try and win over people’s souls by strictly religious means is a long, laborious process. It’s much easier just to declare your competitors to be enemies of society and call on the government for help. So now we have this concept of “totalitarian sects.” This has turned out to be quite a boon. For believers, a sect is a mob of heretics; for secularists, it’s a group of intolerable fanatics. It’s true that the word also has a scientific meaning used by religious sociologists. But this meaning is entirely destroyed with the added epithet of “totalitarian.” As a result, it has become a label that can be thrown at competitors to accuse them of antisocial behavior.

This label is used widely by the anti-sect battle squads formed in the depths of the Russian Orthodox Church. It’s easy to slap onto practically any religion or confession, since it was never scientifically specific.

As far as I can recall, the only things have been declared totalitarian sects are new religious movements and Protestant denominations that had success with their missionary efforts and formed competition for the Russian Orthodox Church.

Of all non-titular faiths, Catholics have managed to avoid this fate. But who knows – it if wasn’t for the warm relationship between the Russian patriarch and the Vatican, maybe the Pope would also turn out to be the leader of a totalitarian sect.

This state of affairs suits the security agencies quite well. They don’t need to break their skulls over who’s a threat to society and who’s not. They’ll always have the list of “usual suspects” drawn up by the Orthodox anti-sect fighters. Among all those distinguished is also the well-staffed expert council on the Judicial Ministry. But what good does all this do for society?

We all know well that religion is not always a blessing. Sometimes it’s a risky entity, and not only because religious radicalism is on the rise all over the world, Russia no exception. What are totalitarian sects most commonly accused of? That their charismatic leaders subjugate their disciples and twist them into knots. That is to say, they don’t so much help them find God as draw them into a blind faith in the leaders themselves. But there’s no reason to believe that misuse of spiritual authority and turning it into cruel authoritarianism is a problem that only comes from new religions. It’s a common misfortune that not even the most respectable religions can guarantee against.

But when eloquent preachers pontificate about the coming end of the world and frighten the public, then it’s not remotely important which religion is spreading the panic. The damage is the same.

Or take child-rearing. Sectarians, as a rule, are accused of crippling children, robbing them of joys of youth. But if we remember the orphanages of several certain Orthodox monasteries, such as Bogolyubsky, then it becomes clear that these foster children don’t exactly have it any better. The children of devout believers run into identical problems, and they have nothing to do with what exactly their parents believe in. Neither are there confessional boundaries when it comes to the abuse of property. Those victims can be from any religion. What needs to be determined is whether they gave their property to a religious organization voluntarily or were forced into it by dishonest tricksters.

Law enforcement agencies should address these problems by relying on our civil and criminal codes. Making lists of leaders of nontraditional religious organizations and checking them for secret signs of totalitarianism isn’t going to help. More likely, it’s going to be a hindrance, since it replaces a concrete war against violations of the law with a war on ideologies. Aside from the fact that they’d be undercutting the principle of citizen equality before the law, regardless of religious conviction. However, this is the path that the authorities prefer to take. Sure, there isn’t much benefit to society from any of this, but there is to the government, and it’s not insignificant.

The fact of the matter is that a timely witch hunt is a tried and true method of drawing public attention away from urgent political and economic problems that the Kremlin doesn’t have the strength to fix. A few words tossed around by the president at a meeting in Novo-Ogaryovo elicited an immediate response from the Public Chamber. And the loyal Young Guards are already striking against a totalitarian sect whose roots extend across the ocean. The fact that a Mormon has a decent chance of becoming president of the United States underlines the significance of the threat. The enemy is great and terrible – it’s obvious why nothing in this country works out.

Translation by theotherrussia.org.

Of all the forms of corruption that take place in Russia every day, one that tends to stay off the media radar is financial corruption. Much of the time, the banal financial machinations involved are not deemed to be as exciting as judges being bribed or ballot stuffing during elections. But financial corruption is a core feature of Russia’s current regime, and often spreads beyond the geographical boundaries that separate other types of corruption from the rest of the world. Writing for Ekho Moskvy, playwright and opposition activist Natalia Pelevine details one such instance.

Abramovich and the English Royal Treasurer
By Natalia Pelevine
October 1, 2012
Ekho Moskvy

Alisher Usmanov is leaving the business world. He made this announcement to the Reuters news agency two days ago. What’s interesting is that this announcement comes at a moment when the British Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is considering possibly investigating Usmanov within the so-called “Shuvalov Case.” The case revolves around Igor Shuvalov, Russia’s first deputy prime minister, who received a sum of USD 120 million, supposedly from a loan with a 40% annual interest rate.

I’ve often been forced to listen to people saying not to count on charges being filed against corrupt Russians, because they won’t be: the West depends on their money, and also on their oil and gas.

I disagree. First of all, Russia and its oligarchs also depend on the sale of its oil and gas, just as the other side depends on acquiring it. Secondly, in Great Britain, and that’s what we’re talking about, there is a separation of business and government, and business can’t buy or buy off the government or tailor the laws.

There is no immunity for Russian oligarchs in Great Britain, where they’re so fond of settling down. The SFO has already looked at the documents connected with Mr. Usmanov, and it looks like measures are possibly forthcoming in the foreseeable future against one of the richest people in Russia, Vladimir Lisin: his fortune is estimated at 15 billion USD, not far past that of the richest person in Russia – Alisher Usmanov. It was recently revealed that the ship that Western diplomats believe delivered weapons to the Assad regime belongs precisely to Mr. Lisin. And Lisin owns a large amount of property in Great Britain. As they say – surprise, surprise.

But while money from oligarchs can’t influence decisions in the British parliament or on Downing Street, there are influential private individuals in Great Britain who don’t want to turn down money from Russian businessmen.

It was revealed last October that royal secretary Sir Michael Peat was joining the board of directors of Evraz PLC (Roman Abramovich’s metallurgy and mining company). The company’s website says that Sir Michael is an independent member of the board of directors and a member of the audit committee, and also the company’s certified accountant. He receives 250 thousand GBP per year for his services.

Sir Michael worked for the English throne for 18 years. He was first private secretary for the Prince of Wales from 2005 to 2011. A variety of sources say that Sir Michael quit his post in the prince’s residence in order to “make more money in the City.” Now he’s continuing to work as an unpaid advisor for the prince, leading a variety of his financial projects.

At the beginning of 2012, Sir Michael strengthened his relationship with the Russian oligarch when he named Evgeny Shvidler as a member of the board of directors of his consulting company, MC Peat & Co., LLP. Shvidler is a close friend and partner of Abramovich, and owns a 3.5% share of Evraz. He is an American citizen, and owns property in London’s prestigious Belgravia region, a private plane, and other accessories, and in 2006 Abramovich gave his friend a yacht with the beautiful name “Le Grand Bleau,” with an EC-135 Eurocopter and aquarium, to boot. On January 4, 2012, the day after Shvidler was given his post on the MC Peat and Co., LLP, board of directors, the company received a loan of 2,730,000 GBP from a certain Horizon Investments AVV, registered in Aruba (see the loan agreement here).

According to records from the Aruban Department of Civil Aviation, Horizon Investments AVV was the owner of the EC-135 model of the Eurocopter helicopter, which came with Abramovich’s Le Grand Bleau yacht that he later gifted to Shvidler (see the sales agreement and information about the aircraft). According to the Aruban Chamber of Commerce, three of Horizon Investment AVV’s directors are also directors of another Aruban company, Crocus Corporation AVV. Documents from the British High Court say: “two of Mr. Abramovich’s airplanes belong to Crocus Corporation AVV, a company that is registered in Aruba, the directors of which are Maria Elia and Panagiotis Nikou of the company Meritservus.”

The Cypriot company Meritservus controls a variety of Cypriot holdings, through which, according to information from 2008, Abramovich controlled a 92% share in Sibneft.

When financial analyst Michael Weiss investigated this issue, the directors of the aforementioned company, including Mr. Demetris Ioannides, declined to comment on their connection with Abramovich.

And that’s understandable, because this is what the British High Court documents mean: “There is a network of companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and Cyprus that control businesses, at times very large ones, owned by Mr. Abramovich. These Cypriot companies officially belong to Mr. Demetris Ioannides or other Meritservus employees.”

Mr. Demetris Ioannides is also among the directors of the Cypriot company Lanebrook Ltd., which passes as a “major shareholder” of Evraz. Abramovich and Shvidler control their holdings in Evraz through Lanebrook Ltd.

To sum it up, this what we know. On October 14, 2011, Sir Michael was named as an independent member of the Evraz board of directors and member of its audit committee. On January 3, 2012, Abramovich’s friend and partner Evgeny Shvidler became a partner in Sir Michael’s company, MC Peat and Co, and a day later this company received a loan for 2,730,000 GBP from a company that controls Abramovich’s private property. During Michael Weiss’s inquiry about these transactions, Charlie Peat – Sir Michael’s son and CEO of the company – responded that the company has no relationship with Abramovich and recommended that he go talk to Shvidler himself.

Evraz’s report for 2011 indicates that a certain transaction was underway: “The Board of Directors looked into the possibility of a business agreement with the son of Sir Michael Peat that does not have an effect on the independence of Sir Michael.” If that’s so, then why make the transaction through offshore accounts and make it secretive? And wouldn’t Britain want to be concerned about transactions by the financial advisor of the Prince of Wales and oligarchs from Putin’s closer circle, which are also being made through offshore accounts?

It’s easy to lose your reputation, but harder to earn one.

Ojuland, a member of the Liberal Democrats, is in charge of presenting a report to the European Parliament in September on an EP resolution that threatens visa and asset freezes against the Russian officials involved in Magnitsky’s death if they remain unprosecuted by the Russian judicial system. Kasparov and other oppositionists at the meeting emphasized the importance of this resolution at a time when the Putin regime has accelerated the persecution of activists in Russia.

Having just been arrested, tried, and acquitted of spurious administrative charges of holding an unsanctioned rally, as well as having been falsely accused (but not even charged) with biting a police officer, Kasparov was a prime example of the kind of persecution discussed during the meeting. At the same time, Kasparov’s acquittal was almost unprecedented among cases against Russian oppositionists, and he stressed that international lawmakers needed to provide leverage to help ensure that lawbreakers, such as those responsible for Magnitsky’s death, actually pay a price.

Aside from Kasparov’s case and the high-profile case of the punk group Pussy Riot, other recent repressive moves by the Putin regime include the conviction of Other Russia activist Taisiya Osipova, who was sentenced to eight years in prison, and a search by Russia’s Investigative Committee of blogger Aleksei Navalny’s parents’ business. Additionally, a Moscow court has upheld the legality of a raid on Navalny’s own apartment back in May, despite the fact that the warrant had a different address on it than the one police actually searched and confiscated computers and other materials from. Disturbingly, all three of these events occurred on Monday. A court upheld searches of oppositionists Ilya Yashin’s and Boris Nemtsov’s apartments earlier. All these cases clearly show that Kasparov’s acquittal was an isolated event.

Another oppositionist present at the meeting with Ojuland was A Just Russia deputy Dmitry Gudkov. He discussed the possibility that Gennady Gudkov – his father and another deputy from the same party – could be kicked out of the State Duma for allegedly illegally profiting from a business. He denies any wrongdoing and insists that the charges are politically motivated because of his support for the wave of mass anti-governmental rallies over this past winter.

Ojuland agreed. “We believe that this is a political process, and not something criminal. How can European Parliamentarians help their colleague in this situation? This Thursday, for example, at the interregional meeting of European Parliament deputies with State Duma and Federation Council deputies in St. Petersburg, we can put this issue on the agenda and hear about what exactly happened and what kind of legal basis there is for the case against Gudkov,” she said.

Despite the fact that this is a domestic Russian issue, Ojuland noted, it’s possible for the European Union, and the European Parliament in particular, to collegially try to help Gudkov.

Tell your government to support “Magnitsky” legislation

Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer who was killed in a Moscow pre-trial detention facility after uncovering a $230 million fraud scheme involving members of the Russian government, police, tax service, and mafia. None of the people who played a role in his death have been prosecuted. In response, politicians in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and many other European countries have introduced legislation that would ban the Russians involved from entering their countries and, in some cases, freeze their assets. Such measures would send a concrete message to Russia that its failure to prosecute these individuals is not acceptable by international standards. Contact your government representative and tell them that failing to support this legislation would be to ignore Russia’s flagrant abuse of human rights, civil rights, and the rule of law.

In the United States: http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
In Canada: http://www.canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html
In the United Kingdom: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/government-and-opposition1/her-majestys-government/

Donate to the Foundation for Democracy in Russia

The Foundation for Democracy in Russia (FDR) is Garry Kasparov’s non-profit organization supporting civil rights and democratic freedom in Russia. One of the most important initiatives that the foundation funds is a legal defense fund for political prisoners. You can donate to FDR by clicking here.

Human rights activist Oksana Chelysheva told the news portal that Chirikova was met with support from representatives of the Green Party, Democrats for Europe, social democrats, and liberals. In particular, Greek Deputy Kriton Arsenis stressed that the Khimki Forest needs to be given more protection.

Conservative Estonian Deputy Tunne Kelam said that the participation of the French company Vinci, which has been contracted to build the highway, in the corrupt actions of Russian governmental and business structures represents a direct threat to Europe.

The deputies proposed an extensive series of measures at the conclusion of the hearing. Notably, the French Parliament is going to hold an official hearing on the highway project, and deputies are going to prepare an inquiry to the European Commission about Vinci’s role.

In addition, the company’s management will be called to a session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which Russia is a member, in September. The situation will be carefully studied by the committees on legislation, relations with the European Parliament, civil freedoms, jurisprudence, and internal parliamentary affairs.

Finally, deputies plan to issue a joint statement in regards to Vinci’s actions.

The decision to build a highway from Moscow to St. Petersburg through the Khimki Forest was made in 2006 under the leadership of then-Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov. Grassroots environmental activists strongly opposed the project from the beginning, both due to damage to the forest and because of alleged corruption in the business deal for the project.

Sanction Putin’s Criminals

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate will hold a hearing to discuss the accession of Russia to the World Trade Organization and the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment that impedes American trade relations with Russia. The Obama administration has portrayed it as little more than overdue Cold War housekeeping while touting the imagined economic benefits for American farmers that could result from freer trade with Russia.

But the reality on the ground in today’s authoritarian Russia is far more complex. We support the repeal, both as leaders of the pro-democracy opposition in Russia and as Russian citizens who want our nation to join the modern global economy. It is essential, however, to see the bigger picture of which Jackson-Vanik is a part.

The “election” of Vladimir Putin to the presidency is over, but the fight for democracy in Russia is just beginning. At both major opposition meetings following the fraudulent March 4 election, we publicly resolved that Mr. Putin is not the legitimate leader of Russia. The protests will not cease and we will continue to organize and prepare for a near future without Mr. Putin in the presidency. Getting rid of him and his cronies is a job for Russians, and we do not ask for foreign intervention. We do, however, ask that the U.S. and other leading nations of the Free World cease to provide democratic credentials to Mr. Putin. This is why symbols matter, and why Jackson-Vanik still matters.

The new U.S. ambassador to Russia is Mike McFaul, who has a long and accomplished career as a champion for democratic rights. But he’s now become the principal architect of the Obama administration’s attempt to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations after the Bush presidency, and he has recently been pushing the case for repealing Jackson-Vanik. Earlier this week he told an audience at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., that there is “no relationship” between the repeal of Jackson-Vanik and the promotion of Russian democracy. “If you don’t believe me,” he said, “ask [Alexei] Navalny,” the Russian blogger who has become one of the charismatic new leaders of Russia’s democracy movement.

So we asked Mr. Navalny, who, along with several other members of the opposition leadership, signed a letter cited by Mr. McFaul calling for the removal of Russia from Jackson-Vanik. “Of course no one in Russia is foolish enough to defend Jackson-Vanik,” he told us. “But we also understand that it should be replaced with something else. And we said as much in our letter when we recommended the passing of the Magnitsky Act, as has been done in Europe.”

Mr. Navalny is referring to the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, which was introduced in the U.S. Senate last May with wide bipartisan support. Named for the Russian attorney who died in police custody in 2009 while investigating official corruption, the Magnitsky Act would bring visa and asset sanctions against Russian government functionaries culpable of criminal and human rights abuses.

“Such legislation is not anti-Russian,” Mr. Navalny explained. “In fact I believe it is pro-Russian. It helps defend us from the criminals who kill our citizens, steal our money, and hide it abroad.”

It will not be easy to match the legacy of Jackson-Vanik. On March 15, 1973, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson introduced the amendment on the Senate floor. It focused on a specific human-rights issue—the right of Soviet Jews to leave the U.S.S.R. The amendment’s greatest opponent was then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who worried it would upset his vision of détente with the Soviets and instead advocated “quiet diplomacy.” In contrast, the Russian dissident and Nobel Laureate Andrei Sakharov praised the amendment as a “policy of principle” that would further détente, not hinder it. The well over one million émigrés who escaped the repressive Soviet state would surely side with Sakharov.

Jackson-Vanik is a relic and its time has passed. But allowing it to disappear with nothing in its place, and right on the heels of the fantastically corrupt “election” of March 4, turns it into little more than a gift to Mr. Putin. Our economy, like our people, will never truly flourish until Mr. Putin and his mafia structure are expunged.

Moreover, if economic engagement is the best way to promote an open society, why does the Obama administration not forge a free-trade pact with Iran instead of levying sanctions? Russia will be joining the World Trade Organization regardless of what the U.S. does. But WTO membership will not undo Mr. Putin’s monopolization of political and economic power. If Mr. Putin and his oligarchs believed for an instant that the WTO might weaken their grip, they simply would stay out.

The Obama administration is not only attempting to overturn a law, but also its spirit. As Mr. Kissinger did 39 years ago, Amb. McFaul is trying to make the case that human rights should not get in the way of realpolitik and the business of doing business. He reminds us that the State Department already has its own secret list of banned Russian officials, and so nothing more need be done. But the entire object of such laws is to publicly shame and punish the rank and file of Mr. Putin’s mob so they know the big boss can no longer protect them.

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act is an example of such legislation. Replacing Jackson-Vanik with it would promote better relations between the people of the U.S. and Russia while refusing to provide aid and comfort to a tyrant and his regime at this critical moment in history. This, too, would be a policy of principle.

Messrs. Kasparov and Nemtsov are co-chairs of the Russian Solidarity movement.

A version of this article appeared Mar. 15, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Right Way to Sanction Russia.

The statement is reproduced below in full:

The European Parliament has condemned shortcomings and irregularities in the preparation and conduct of Russia’s 4 March presidential elections. In a resolution passed on Thursday, it called on Vladimir Putin to tone down his rhetoric against the protestors and begin a “sincere dialogue” with them.

MEPs point to the continuing concern “about developments in Russia with regard to human rights and commonly agreed democratic principles, electoral rules and procedures”.

Irregularities in the electoral process

Parliament regrets that the choice of voters was limited in the recent elections and demands comprehensive analyses of “all irregularities with a view to strengthening democratic rules for future elections”.

It points out that international election observers from the OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, found that the presidential elections were “deeply skewed in favour of one candidate through shortcomings in the registration process, unequal media coverage and the use of State resources in favour of one candidate”.

Call for reform

MEPs ask President Medvedev to turn words into deeds and guarantee that the necessary reforms to the political system are made. They also “expect that the new Russian President Vladimir Putin will be ready to take them forward, including the much needed simplification of rules governing the registration of political parties”.

The resolution urges all sides to take the opportunity, before the new president is inaugurated, to decide on a comprehensive reform package. It expects president-elect Putin as well as political parties represented in the State Duma to start a dialogue with the protestors and opposition on the country’s future.

Finally, Parliament encourages Russian democratic opposition groups to unite more closely around political reforms, thus affording Russian citizens a credible alternative.

An original resolution issued by the European Parliament in response to Russia’s March 4 presidential election was labeled as “too soft” by United Civil Front leader Garry Kasparov and opposition politician Mikhail Kasyanov, as well as several MEPs from the European People’s Party and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. The original made note of electoral violations but did not support any sort of sanctions against Moscow. With Thursday’s statement, an eventual amended version of the resolution is expected to be harsher.

While condolences have poured into the Czech Republic from dozens of world leaders, neither Russian President Dmitri Medvedev nor Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have extended any such sympathies.

On Sunday, US President Barak Obama praised Havel’s role in helping create a united Europe. French President Nikolai Sarkozy said that “Europe has lost one of its wise men,” and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Havel’s “dedication to freedom and democracy is as unforgotten as his great humanity.”

December 19 was designated a national day of mourning in the Czech Republic.

President Havel passed away on December 18 following a long battle with respiratory illness. Known for leading Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution and helping democratize the former Soviet republic, he has criticized the Russian government as “a specific combination of old stereo types and a new business-mafia environment.”

Commenting on the recent protests that have swept Russia following fraudulent elections on December 4, Havel opined in Novaya Gazeta that “There can be no talk of democracy as long as the leaders of the state insult the dignity of citizens, control the judiciary, the mass media and manipulate election results.”

Meanwhile, President Medvedev did extend his sympathies on Monday to the North Korean people on the death of leader Kim Jong Il.

“Dmitry Medvedev sent his condolences to Kim Jong Un following the death of Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Kim Jong Il,” read a press release on the Kremlin’s website.