From Anna JikharevaMail to authorTwitter profile of the author
If the broken relationship between Russia and the EU still needed a symbol, it was provided by the press conference of the respective foreign ministers last week. Josep Borrell said in Moscow that he was “deeply concerned” about the imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny and the brutal crackdown on the protests. And Sergei Lavrov lamented the Western “double standards” – the Kremlin had absolutely nothing to do with the poisoning of Navalny. While the two quarreled on the open stage, Russia banished three embassy staff from EU countries, to which the affected countries also responded with expulsions. A diplomatic disaster for the EU. And yet Courant has long been normal.
Since the Russian regime sent Navalny to prison for years, the well-known debate about how to deal with the Kremlin has been back in full swing. The EU Parliament called on the member states to apply sanctions. At the end of the month, the foreign ministers discuss their approach, then possible penalties in the European Council are on the agenda. In Berlin, calls for a stop on the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline are getting louder and louder. It is hardly to be expected that there will be a common answer, the economic and geopolitical interests in the capitals are too different.
While Europe watches helplessly as special forces beat up protesters, the opposition in exile is increasing the pressure. “Stop talking, start taking action,” the former world chess champion Garry Kasparov appealed to the British government in London. At the same place, the managing director of Nawalny’s anti-corruption foundation brought up a list of people who, in his opinion, should be sanctioned. It is clear that Nawalny’s liberal fellow campaigners are also concerned with influence and their own benefices. Wherever Russia’s future is at stake, capital interests are always negotiated.
But how to deal with a state that persecutes its opponents with all severity and does not give a damn about any international agreement? And what role will Switzerland play in this, whose judiciary has fallen into disrepute due to its conspicuously close ties with Putin’s regime and whose banks have Russian oligarchs slumbering billions?
Nowhere is Switzerland’s dubious role shown better than in the case of Sergei Magnitsky. The Russian tax advisor had uncovered a fraud involving corrupt officials and later died in custody under questionable circumstances. Some of the misappropriated money ended up in UBS and Credit Suisse accounts. After years of investigation, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office recently announced that it would terminate the proceedings and release the blocked funds.
In a letter to the US Secretary of State available to WOZ, a senator is shocked by “the willingness of the Swiss criminal prosecution to encourage Russian corruption”. The USA and other countries have reacted to the case earlier and imposed entry bans or account bans on Russian officials under the Magnitsky Act. SP National Councilor Fabian Molina also wants such a Magnitsky Act, which would punish serious human rights violations, for Switzerland. The responsible national council commission has just accepted his initiative. Due to its neutrality, Switzerland can only join sanctions from other actors today, but not impose its own. In the future, however, the decision on targeted punitive measures could lie with the Federal Council.
Personal sanctions are only effective if they hit high-ranking decision-makers and thus Putin’s immediate environment. Just as important, however, is a rethink: a focus on strengthening those who fight courageously and desperately against the regime. Through clear statements and personal exchange, the prospect of political asylum not just for celebrities and a simpler visa regime. The Russian opposition consists not only of Alexei Navalny.
–
