“From Russia with Love” (or, “Aleks debunks 007”)

So contrary to James Bond movies and other popular portrayals of Russia these days, people don’t drive tanks around downtown St Petersburg, they don’t drink vodka 24-7, and they don’t talk to each other in English with a weird accent.

 

In fact, St Petersburg’s Pulkovo International Airport, with its socialist realist (“socialist baroque”) façade, and the occasional Soviet insignia in various metro stations are the only remaining clues of Russia’s communist past.

 

An unbiased spectator will immediately observe, probably to his surprise, that modern St Petersburg is booming. It suffices to ascend the escalator from the metro to Nevsky Prospekt, the city’s main street, and to circumspect, observing thousands (maybe millions) of people swarming up and down the sidewalks and in and out of stores at any time of day or night. Since, around the time of the summer solstice, the sun sets in St Petersburg at about 1 AM only to rise again about 3 AM, it takes a bit of adjusting to get used to the fact that one is part of these swarming masses in the middle of daylight at midnight.

 

St Petersburg’s economic boom is not limited to Nevsky. In any corner of the city, new buildings are popping up like mushrooms out of the wet Russian soil. (Of course, this is yet to impact the terrible housing situation, with 1-bedroom apartments in the outskirts of the city costing more than our house in suburban Denver, Colorado.) New American-style stores are closely following in the steps of the residential development. “Okey”—the Russian analogue to Wal-Mart—sells everything from apples to underwear to computer parts and in between at affordable (at least for an American on USP money) prices. And yes, everything is “Made in China”.

 

On top of that, it is also comforting to see that the Russian government is taking matters seriously. The Russian National Project “Education”, run by Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy-Prime Minister and President Putin’s second right-hand man, has been pumping millions into Russia’s crumbled education infrastructure. The Graduate School of Management at St Petersburg State, where I worked, received $5 million (US) from the government in what one associate described as “a catastrophe of national proportions” because the school had a hard time dealing with all the funding. While I was there, they acquired new, state-of-the-art computers; imported books from the United States; and hired lecturers from Europe.

 

During my stay, three events of national importance took place, shedding more light on Russia’s dynamic image. The first, described by The Wall Street Journal as President Putin’s attempt to place a “fifth column” of “KGB operatives” in the United States, was the reconciliation of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate, two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church divided by the 1917 Revolution and subsequent civil war. It took place in Moscow’s newly constructed Christ the Saviour Cathedral amid thousands of Orthodox faithful from around the world. The fact this event was not only broadcast live on Vesti 24, the Russian analogue to CNN, but also occupied all the news headlines of that week, and that even those distant from the Orthodox Church could be observed discussing its significance, shows its importance for modern Russia. It was not just the end of a tragic chapter in Church history; it was the reconciliation of the Russian nation, divided into “reds” and “whites” by the turmoil of the civil war. It also marked a new chapter in Russian Church-State relations, with President Putin speaking at the ceremony of the importance of the Church to Russian society.

 

The second event was the passing of former President Boris Yeltsin. It could be seen that in burying Yeltsin, Russians were burying the remnants of their past. The former president, hugely unpopular at home but immensely loved abroad, is bound to leave a mixed legacy. Ironically, the current president is immensely loved at home, but hugely unpopular abroad.

 

The third event was the international Economic Forum held in St Petersburg. It brought together not only important statesmen but also businessmen, Russian and foreign, investing in Russia. The figures of total foreign investment in Russia announced at that forum reveal that, despite the looming Cold War between Russia and the United States and the Litvinenko scandal with Britain, most American and British businessmen see Russia as an excellent opportunity.

 

This is not of course to say that modern Russian does not have its problems. The roads are in terrible condition and smoking is out of control. It takes four and a half hours to traverse Russia’s main national highway from St Petersburg to the ancient town of Novgorod, a distance of 90 miles. And while our studies revealed that 48% of Russian adults smoke, I am convinced that figure is closer to 90%. Running hot water in many apartments is still a luxury and attempting to drive around the city is a form of suicide for all the potholes, bad drivers, congestion, tramway lines, and antagonistic traffic police.

 

Yet despite its many problems, modern Russia poses a serious challenge to Western democracy. President Putin stated that Russia intended to pursue its own path of reform, not to blindly import ideas from overseas. So far, he is making substantial progress; time will tell if the positive changes in St Petersburg will spread to remote villages, where the situation is far more dire. And time, too, will tell if Russia and America are once again headed for a showdown, as de Tocqueville predicted centuries ago.

 Aleksandr Andreev

Dispatches from a bar in The Hague, The Netherlands, international city of peace, justice, and other warm-fuzzies we love

I can’t say my summer job lends itself as easy to parody as Nicola’s (an excellent post). I have spent the past month and a half now (on USP money, thanks, Tori) doing sundry research and consulting on justice sector development and international criminal liability (the sexy stuff). The gruntwork of international justice, the database I’ve been creating on justice sector development projects in post-conflict countries, I’ll leave aside, though if anyone’s keen on that, email me. I’ve been working on a consulting project for a senior ICC trial lawyer who at one point headed up the Darfur investigations, mostly conducting research on criminal liability for corporations. Apparently this is A Big Issue in research on and jurisprudence of contemporary international criminal liability. And it actually has Real World Repercussions…exciting, I know. This post starts off discussing recent developments in the war crimes trial of Charles Taylor (currently in The Hague) and how they relate to the research I’ve been doing on corporate criminal liability for my job. In a crisis of soap-opera proportions, replete with bruised egos, righteous indignation, and several wll-timed smack-downs, Taylor will finally be tried for war crimes occurring in Sierra Leone during under his leadership of a Liberian rebel group and its collusion with the Sierra Leonean Revolutionary United Front. He initially failed to appear for his own trial, fired his defense, decided he would defend himself, and ended up saying that, no, in fact, he’d rather have the best defense team that money can buy. (Which, apparently, will include the former ICC trial lawyer for whom I was doing research. To put it flippantly, it’s a small world. Bizarre).  Also bizarre is the finding that Charles Taylor is indigent, meaning that he is not financially able to pay for his own defense. Say what now? What about all of the gains he made through the money skimmed from contracts with the Oriental Timber Company and diamond dealing? The overseas bank accounts? This is where the corporate criminal liability issue comes into play. To what extent can a corporation (such as, Shell Oil, Chiquita, Anvil Mining) be held liable for involvement in war crimes? Who is “at fault”? Is it the directors? The workers? This thing called the “corporation”? Which national legal systems get first dibs on trials? What happens in the event of a conviction? What about the premise of individual guilt? Is criminal and/or civil prosecution a viable tool in the push to end a culture of corporate impunity? Chiquita (motto: “Perfect for Life”), for example, has claimed in a civil suit that it only had the best interests of its fruit pickers in mind when it hired “security forces” who also happen to be paramilitaries who have murdered and otherwise intimidated Colombians in the area of Chiquita operations.  These are not ‘obvious cases’ like the Zyklon B Case, in which Bruno Tesch, was convicted of war crimes in providing the Nazi regime with the gas used to kill (Tesch claimed he didn’t know it was going to be used to gas inmates…but rather he cited the innocuous and “well-known use” of Zyklon B as a pesticide against lice! That defense was shut down, however, due to evidence that he had ordered tests of the gas on Russian POWs. Geez, officer, I had no idea…). That’s what makes the concept so tricky—in a world in which multinational corporations necessarily bridge many different national justice systems and operate through bureaucracies of middle men, at what point is it logical and appropriate to assign blame to a corporate entity for breaches of international humanitarian law? Corporate criminal liability as a theoretical concept is a moving target, and since the Nuremberg Trials, it has played out in contradictory and fragmented ways. I had been asked to research its parameters for a pilot training and consulting program being developed by several international lawyers. And after writing a thesis length report that tries to define the concept and whether or not it can be used to persuade businesses to comply with international humanitarian law, I feel like I’m aiming darts at stampeding buffalo.  

–Claire L.