Those who oppose the sanctions keep on repeating their mantra: don’t isolate Russia. In reality, however, it is a case of Moscow acting against international collaboration and running toward isolationism.
That’s the path set, for instance, by withdrawing from the the International Criminal Court, the ICC. A move with little practical effect but great political significance. Because in fact Russia, despite being among the signatory countries of the Rome Statute , has never ratified its founding act. Like the US and Israel, it has never become an active part of the ICC, just That means that today’s decision doesn’t change anything.
The message sent to the international community, however, is clear and unambiguous, and goes straight like a train in the direction already taken by the Kremlin: we are ready to cooperate with the rest of the world, but only if you do as we say. Otherwise, we will do it alone.
The decision to withdraw from the ICC has been taken – as is easily predictable – by Putin himself. Like all matters concerning Russian politics, the timing is crucial to understanding the meaning. The decree signed by the Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, comes just the day after the attorney general of the Court, Fatou Bensouda, spoke of “occupation of Crimea” and “international conflict between Ukraine and Russia” in Donbass. According to Lavrov this is enough to demonstrate the partiality of the court.
A selective isolationism
It is clear that Russia has no interest in international justice. It already proved this more than a year ago, when the Russian representative to the UN Vitlay Churkin raised his hand and with only one “no” against 11 votes in favour (and three abstentions) stopped the international tribunal on the Malaysia flight MH17.
According to Sergei Nikitin, Director of Amnesty International Russia, “This announcement appears as nothing but contempt for the aims of the ICC — putting an end to impunity for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity — and is an affront to all victims of these appalling crimes”. Let’s think not only about Ukraine, but also about Georgia and Syria. Or Chechnya.
Nevertheless, it’s not only about international justice. The withdrawal from the ICC is yet another signal of a policy of withdrawal from all forms of international cooperation in terms of peace and protection of rights and freedoms. It is a selective isolationism that has nothing to do with sanctions and certainly will not end with their removal, despite what the international anti-sanctions front might say about strengthening relations and dialogue with Putin.
Agreements at risk
Putin is slowly demolishing everything constructive that Russia achieved in the field of peace and international cooperation during the tumultuous but profitable 1990s.
Just two months before withdrawing from the ICC, Moscow had announced the suspension of the agreements with the United States for the reduction of their surplus weapons-grade plutonium. This is a deal in force since 2000, and essential to limit nuclear weapons proliferation. In the meanwhile, just a couple of weeks ago, Russia announced a new nuclear supermissile able to pierce the American defenses and turn a state as large as Texas to ashes.
But there is no need to involve atomic weapons to find signals of a coming international isolation. The law on “foreign agents”, the banning of NGOs financed from abroad or the war against Greenpeace activists and the seals on the doors at the Moscow branch of Amnesty International are good clues. Joining these dots makes a picture that is becoming clearer every day. And that leaves an unanswered a question: how far will Putin push? What aboutthe START agreements on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, or Russia’s participation in the Arctic Council, which regulates the access to the riches of the North Pole?
Dialogue with Putin is critical. But a dialogue needs both parties to want it.
@daniloeliatweet
