The analytical program "However," with Mikhail Leontyev 20 November 2012
The Magnitsky law adopted by the US Congress as a burden to repeal the idiotic Jackson-Vanik amendment naturally caused a response from the Russian side. On the one hand, foreign policy rudeness is accepted to respond symmetrically. However, by and large it is not clear because of what is the whip.
The notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment, which introduced trade restrictions in response to the restriction of Jewish emigration from the USSR, has existed since 74, in recent decades as a wild anachronism, but the Americans were in no hurry to cancel it. The situation changed after Russia's accession to the WTO, when American companies decided that a discriminatory amendment would prevent them from taking advantage of the emerging Russian market.
Well, then, when it came to serious money, the Americans showed the traditional agility. But in order to reach an agreement with the Congress, the Administration had to agree to a link with the “human rights” allegedly “Magnitsky law”.
Recall, the law provides for a ban on entry into the United States for unnamed Russian officials involved in the death of the lawyer Magnitsky in the SIZO, as well as in other cases of death or persecution of human rights defenders or those whom the Americans consider as such. And the possibility of freezing their accounts in American banks.
And, in fact, everything. What a universal grief! Our officials - this is, first of all, the security forces, will lose the opportunity to travel to the United States. And they - oh, God! - freeze accounts in American banks. Can I have a question? It’s so scary that our officials, who have redeemed the rights of people who are selectively kind to the US Congress, will not go to the States, but, for example, to Italy ?! And is it really necessary for them to have accounts in American banks?
From the movie "Heart of a Dog":
- Do not throw cigarette butts, do not spit, handle the urinal carefully. With Zina, stop all conversations! She complains that you are waiting for her in the dark! Who told the patient "The dog knows him"? What are you, really? In the pub, or what?
- Something you hurt me painfully, dad ....
Not in the tavern. Really. Americans, of course, are rude. And rude intentionally and publicly. Once again, extending US law outside its jurisdiction. This is probably worthy of a full-time diplomatic reaction. But certainly nothing new has happened here. And in fact, we would like to thank them for a very constructive and disciplining initiative. The only pity is that not all officials can fit in the "Magnitsky list".
In response to the adoption of the Magnitsky law, the Russian Foreign Ministry advised US congressmen to look at an ugly picture of respecting human rights in the United States, pointing to torture in CIA special prisons, abduction of foreign citizens by special services and the indefinite and unjust detention of Guantanamo prisoners.
Once again: the traditions of diplomacy require symmetrical answers. However, in fact, we should not be interested in the human rights situation in the United States. Unless it's our fellow citizens or people who are especially nice to us. This is an exclusively sovereign interest of the Americans themselves. The same thing, by the way, with election observation. Each sovereign people themselves determine what rights they have, how whom and how to choose and whether to choose at all.
From the movie "Heart of a Dog":
“It is very possible that Isadora Duncan does just that — he dines in the bedroom and cuts rabbits in the bathroom.” But I am not Isadora Duncan. I will have lunch in the dining room, and operate in the operating room. Pass it on to the general meeting.
Our political system and the rights of our people are our political concern and no one else. And for the "Magnitsky law" - thanks. Of course, we will try to use it to protect our sovereignty.
Information