The United States (US) has repeatedly expressed its willingness to compromise already fragile relations with Russia over one man—Alexei Navalny. It warned Russian President Vladimir Putin of “consequences” if Navalny died in prison after the opposition leader began a hunger strike in March. Washington also imposed sanctions on senior officials from Russia’s internal and military intelligence agencies for their alleged involvement in Navalny’s poisoning. President Joe Biden even claimed that he had confronted Putin, in Geneva last month, over Russia’s treatment of Navalny.
Senior US officials have said that the country’s position on Navalny is based on the Biden administration’s commitment to human rights. This was also the reason cited by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who labelled Russia’s mistreatment of Navalny as “concerning,” and stressed that ties with Russia should be “consistent with US interests.”
Per reports, Alexei Navalny was poisoned with Soviet-era nerve agent Novichok last year by agents of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). Navalny is known to be a fierce critic of Putin’s influence in the Kremlin and has been exposing corruption in Russian politics. After spending almost five months recovering in Germany, Navalny returned to Russia in January, where he was immediately detained by authorities and was later sentenced to two years in prison. Rights groups accused prison authorities of torturing Navalny and being responsible for his rapidly deteriorating health.
However, it has to be noted here that while the US rushed to condemn Russia’s actions and express solidarity with Navalny, it has failed to address concerns over past statements made by Navalny that have contradicted the Biden presidency’s positions on human rights and indeed Russia.
For instance, in a 2007 video released on Navalny’s YouTube channel, which he uses as a major platform to promote his political activism, he equates Muslim immigrants to Russia as “cockroaches” who need to be exterminated. Russia receives a lot of immigrants from Central Asia, particularly Tajikistan. Calling himself a staunch nationalist, Navalny openly called for the deportation of non-white immigrants from Russia and the Caucasus in another video in 2011. Navalny also displayed his ultra-nationalist colours in 2008, when he fervently supported Russia’s invasion of Georgia and used a racial slur to describe Georgians, and at the same time called for expelling Georgians living in Russia.
In fact, former Navalny aide Engelina Tarayeva accuses the opposition leader of regularly using racially charged phrases and judging people based on their ethnicity. Tarayeva even refers to Navalny as Russia’s “most dangerous man.” Navalny has participated in the Russia March, an annual gathering of Russian nationalists, including several Neo-Nazi groups, and supported the ‘Stop Feeding the Caucasus” campaign aimed at ending government subsidies to Chechnya and other North Caucasus republics. While many argue that his statements were made in the past when he was an inexperienced leader, Navalny has remained ambiguous about the comments he has made. While he has apologised for his “regrettable” comments on Georgians, it is not clear whether his other troubling views have changed.
Navalny’s refusal to denounce some of his views was why Amnesty International removed his “prisoner of conscience” status in February, which was given to him by the group only a month earlier. The human rights organisation said his past comments “reach the threshold of advocacy of hatred.” While Amnesty committed to “continue to fight for his freedom,” it said that the decision was in line with Amnesty’s policies. In May, however, following widespread criticism of its decision, the group restored the status to Navalny. The group noted that its decision to remove Navalny as a “prisoner of conscience” was used by the Kremlin as a pretext to further violate his rights.
The Biden administration, which has prioritised “to put human rights at the centre of US foreign policy,” has surprisingly remained quiet about Navalny’s controversial comments. It has also not asked Navalny for a clarification of his current position about his past statements. The US under President Biden has previously condemned racist statements made by leaders, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov. While Navalny’s case is vastly different from Erdoğan and Kadyrov, the US’ silence over Navalny’s statements contradicts its so-called commitment to human rights.
Moreover, Navalny’s position on Ukraine does not reflect US policy on the issue. While he has opposed Putin’s military adventure in Crimea purely on economic grounds, Navalny believes that Crimea is part of Russia. He even claimed in 2014 that if in power he would not return the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine, claiming that “Crimea is now part of Russia” and urged Ukrainians “not to deceive themselves.” This is in stark contrast to Washington’s view of the Crimean issue, which regards the Russian invasion of Crimea as “a brazen affront to the modern international order”. The US has repeatedly affirmed that “Crimea is Ukraine” and has called on “Russia to immediately end its occupation of Crimea, release all Ukrainian political prisoners it unjustly holds, and return full control of the peninsula to Ukraine.”
Navalny’s organisation/movement has also been labelled as “extremist” by the Russian government. In fact, Putin compared the widespread protests in support of Navalny to the 2020 Capitol riots in an NBC interview in June. While this comparison is exaggerated and was meant to discredit Navalny, it is still reflective of Moscow’s view on the issue. Washington’s refusal to even consider such views and the Western media’s ignorance of Russia’s concerns is very telling of what the US and the West want—discrediting Putin’s Russia no matter what.
The US’ stance on Navalny, and its pressuring of the Russian government, as well as the imposition of sanctions, could be seen as a retaliation to alleged Russian interference in the American election process. It is also reflective of how seriously the US views Putin’s regime as a major threat. The US has blamed Russia for a series of deadly cyber-attacks, pursuing aggressive policies in the Arctic, the Black Sea, and Syria, and for trying to undermine US-led institutions like NATO.
It has to be mentioned here that Navalny’s anti-Putin movement has done a lot to expose corruption within the Russian government and Moscow’s intolerance of political dissent and critics of Putin. However, US support to Navalny is not based on its commitment to human rights. It is based on its opposition to Vladimir Putin and his threat to the US-led world order.
The US’ reaction to the Russian government’s violation of Navalny’s rights and its restriction of his movement is centred around strategic, realist, and pragmatic concerns, and it should not feign otherwise. The US is usually swift to express moral outrage over human rights violations committed by regimes or leaders it opposes; however, it has failed the test when it comes to taking itself and its allies to task on the same human rights yardstick. The case of Israel, Afghanistan, Haiti, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden proves that the US has no right to claim moral superiority. It is well-known that international politics is dominated by states pursuing their interests, the Biden administration’s sugar-coating of this fact only serves to expose US hypocrisy further.
US Support For Navalny Is Not Based on Human Rights Concerns. It Is Meant To Oppose Putin
US policy on Russia is based on strategic, realist, and pragmatic concerns, it should not feign otherwise.
July 14, 2021
Poster depicting Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny behind bars with a dove freeing him, by street artist Harry Greb, in Rome. SOURCE: FABIO FRUSTACI/EPA