Skip to main content

How Amnesty went wrong in assessing Russian opposition leader arrested by Putin

Quoting a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) report, “Amnesty Move To Strip Navalny Of 'Prisoner Of Conscience' Status Sparks Outcry”, a Moscow-based journalist, Fred Weir, whom I peripherally during my Moscow days (1986-93), has brought into the light problems in which such top human rights organisations like Amnesty International, find themselves in while defending what they called “prisoners of conscience.
In a Facebook post, Weir, who is son-in-law of Prof Tatiana Shaumian, a veteran incisive Indologist, points to how the recently arrested Russian opposition politician Aleksei Navalny “is an extremely problematic hero” and Amnesty dropping him as a "prisoner of conscience" is suggests the human rights group apparent “ignorance.”
He asks, “Why do so many people in the West seem to believe in a simple Russia -- Putin bad, Navalny good -- and then they bail when the picture clouds or starts to get complicated? In fact, Navalny's racism and hate speech are well documented and more than a decade old, so there's absolutely no excuse for the human rights poobahs at Amnesty not knowing about it.”
This what RFE/RL report states:
***
Amnesty International has withdrawn its recent designation of Russian opposition politician Aleksei Navalny's as a "prisoner of conscience" over his alleged advocacy of violence and discrimination and comments that included hate speech, but reiterated its determination to keep fighting for his release.
Denis Krivosheev, deputy director of Amnesty's Europe and Central Asia office, confirmed to RFE/RL in an e-mailed response on February 24 that the "internal decision" was made "in relation to comments [Navalny] made in the past" and that the decision "does not change our resolve to fight for his immediate release, and for an end to his politically motivated persecution by the Russian authorities.
"Some of these comments, which Navalny has not publicly denounced, reach the threshold of advocacy of hatred, and this is at odds with Amnesty's definition of a prisoner of conscience," Krivosheev said, without specifying which comments he was referring to.
Navalny was arrested at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport after he arrived on January 17 from Berlin, where he had been recovering from a poisoning with a Soviet-era nerve agent in August that the 44-year-old lawyer says was ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and carried out by Russian intelligence.
Krivosheev added that Navalny, whom the group named a prisoner of conscience after his arrest in Moscow last month, "has committed no crime" and that in spite of its decision regarding his status as a prisoner of conscience, "Amnesty delivered 200,000 signatures to the Russian authorities demanding Navalny's immediate release."
Navalny's anti-corruption organization has targeted many high-profile Russians, including high-ranking government officials.
In the course of his political career, Navalny has also come under criticism for his association with ethnic Russian nationalists and about statements seen as racist and dangerously inflammatory.
Still, Amnesty came under immediate criticism by political analysts and Navalny allies, who accused the rights group of caving to a pressure campaign by journalists connected to state-controlled media.
"It's shocking and shameful.... Navalny is deemed no longer to be a 'prisoner of conscience' because his views are now deemed 'hate speech'? I forgot that only woke pacifists can experience persecution," said Mark Galeotti, an expert and author on Russia.
The rights group's decision was first reported by U.S. journalist Aaron Mate on February 23 and was confirmed to Mediazona and The Insider by Aleksandr Artemyev, the rights watchdog's media manager for Russia and Eurasia.
Artemyev wrote that Amnesty decided to retract the designation "in light of new information" stemming from "old videos and social-media posts in which Navalny made controversial pronouncements."
The comments attributed to Navalny in the mid-2000s were not specified, but Artemyev said they were made as Navalny's activism and challenge to Putin was gaining momentum and that their reemergence "appears to be another tactic to delegitimize Navalny's work and criticism and to weaken public outcry about his detention."
But, he added, while it could have been part of a coordinated campaign "done not out of goodwill, but maliciously," Amnesty couldn't disregard "the fact that this time the arrow hit the target," Artemyev said.
Ivan Zhdanov, the director of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), said the "procedure for assigning and depriving AI status turned out to be extremely shameful.”
"In 2018, Amnesty International called me a prisoner of conscience. I declare that I am giving up this status now and in the future since it can be deprived under the pressure of Putin's state propaganda," added Aleksandr Golovach, a lawyer with the FBK who Amnesty said at the time was detained on "spurious charges of breaking a repressive law on public gatherings."
Navalny's arrest for failing to report to the Moscow prison service -- a violation of a suspended sentence related to a 2014 conviction for embezzlement that he and critics say was politically motivated -- sparked anti-government protests in hundreds of cities and led to thousands of arrests.
On February 2, Navalny's 3 1/2-year suspended sentence was converted to real jail time. His appeal was rejected on February 20, ensuring that Putin's biggest political rival will spend about 2 1/2 years in prison, considering time already spent in detention.
In a separate case heard the same day, Navalny was fined 850,000 rubles ($11,500) on charges of slandering a World War II veteran who had participated in a Kremlin-organized promotional video.
After Amnesty recognized Navalny as a prisoner of conscience on January 17, saying his arrest was "further evidence that Russian authorities are seeking to silence him," the rights watchdog reportedly began receiving letters of complaint from unknown sources.
Putin on February 24 signed into law bills that beef up fines for the financing of rallies and disobeying police in the wake of what the Kremlin has called "unsanctioned" protests in support of Navalny.
The new laws set fines for individuals found guilty of illegally financing a rally at up to 15,000 rubles ($200), while officials and organizations guilty of such actions will be fined up to 30,000 rubles ($400) and 100,000 rubles ($1,345), respectively.
Putin also signed a law that significantly increases fines for disobeying police and security forces.

Comments

TRENDING

'Threat to farmers’ rights': New seeds Bill sparks fears of rising corporate control

By Bharat Dogra  As debate intensifies over a new seeds bill, groups working on farmers’ seed rights, seed sovereignty and rural self-reliance have raised serious concerns about the proposed legislation. To understand these anxieties, it is important to recognise a global trend: growing control of the seed sector by a handful of multinational companies. This trend risks extending corporate dominance across food and farming systems, jeopardising the livelihoods and rights of small farmers and raising serious ecological and health concerns. The pending bill must be assessed within this broader context.

Stands 'exposed': Cavalier attitude towards rushed construction of Char Dham project

By Bharat Dogra*  The nation heaved a big sigh of relief when the 41 workers trapped in the under-construction Silkyara-Barkot tunnel (Uttarkashi district of Uttarakhand) were finally rescued on November 28 after a 17-day rescue effort. All those involved in the rescue effort deserve a big thanks of the entire country. The government deserves appreciation for providing all-round support.

Uttarakhand tunnel disaster: 'Question mark' on rescue plan, appraisal, construction

By Bhim Singh Rawat*  As many as 40 workers were trapped inside Barkot-Silkyara tunnel in Uttarkashi after a portion of the 4.5 km long, supposedly completed portion of the tunnel, collapsed early morning on Sunday, Nov 12, 2023. The incident has once again raised several questions over negligence in planning, appraisal and construction, absence of emergency rescue plan, violations of labour laws and environmental norms resulting in this avoidable accident.

Pairing not with law but with perpetrators: Pavlovian response to lynchings in India

By Vikash Narain Rai* Lynch-law owes its name to James Lynch, the legendary Warden of Galway, Ireland, who tried, condemned and executed his own son in 1493 for defrauding and killing strangers. But, today, what kind of a person will justify the lynching for any reason whatsoever? Will perhaps resemble the proverbial ‘wrong man to meet at wrong road at night!’

Urgent need to study cause of large number of natural deaths in Gulf countries

By Venkatesh Nayak* According to data tabled in Parliament in April 2018, there are 87.76 lakh (8.77 million) Indians in six Gulf countries, namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While replying to an Unstarred Question (#6091) raised in the Lok Sabha, the Union Minister of State for External Affairs said, during the first half of this financial year alone (between April-September 2018), blue-collared Indian workers in these countries had remitted USD 33.47 Billion back home. Not much is known about the human cost of such earnings which swell up the country’s forex reserves quietly. My recent RTI intervention and research of proceedings in Parliament has revealed that between 2012 and mid-2018 more than 24,570 Indian Workers died in these Gulf countries. This works out to an average of more than 10 deaths per day. For every US$ 1 Billion they remitted to India during the same period there were at least 117 deaths of Indian Workers in Gulf ...

Jayanthi Natarajan "never stood by tribals' rights" in MNC Vedanta's move to mine Niyamigiri Hills in Odisha

By A Representative The Odisha Chapter of the Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD), which played a vital role in the struggle for the enactment of historic Forest Rights Act, 2006 has blamed former Union environment minister Jaynaynthi Natarjan for failing to play any vital role to defend the tribals' rights in the forest areas during her tenure under the former UPA government. Countering her recent statement that she rejected environmental clearance to Vendanta, the top UK-based NMC, despite tremendous pressure from her colleagues in Cabinet and huge criticism from industry, and the claim that her decision was “upheld by the Supreme Court”, the CSD said this is simply not true, and actually she "disrespected" FRA.

Delhi Jal Board under fire as CAG finds 55% groundwater unfit for consumption

By A Representative   A Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India audit report tabled in the Delhi Legislative Assembly on 7 January 2026 has revealed alarming lapses in the quality and safety of drinking water supplied by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), raising serious public health concerns for residents of the capital. 

UP tribal woman human rights defender Sokalo released on bail

By  A  Representative After almost five months in jail, Adivasi human rights defender and forest worker Sokalo Gond has been finally released on bail.Despite being granted bail on October 4, technical and procedural issues kept Sokalo behind bars until November 1. The Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP), which are backing Sokalo, called it a "major victory." Sokalo's release follows the earlier releases of Kismatiya and Sukhdev Gond in September. "All three forest workers and human rights defenders were illegally incarcerated under false charges, in what is the State's way of punishing those who are active in their fight for the proper implementation of the Forest Rights Act (2006)", said a CJP statement.

New RTI draft rules inspired by citizen-unfriendly, overtly bureaucratic approach

By Venkatesh Nayak* The Department of Personnel and Training , Government of India has invited comments on a new set of Draft Rules (available in English only) to implement The Right to Information Act, 2005 . The RTI Rules were last amended in 2012 after a long period of consultation with various stakeholders. The Government’s move to put the draft RTI Rules out for people’s comments and suggestions for change is a welcome continuation of the tradition of public consultation. Positive aspects of the Draft RTI Rules While 60-65% of the Draft RTI Rules repeat the content of the 2012 RTI Rules, some new aspects deserve appreciation as they clarify the manner of implementation of key provisions of the RTI Act. These are: Provisions for dealing with non-compliance of the orders and directives of the Central Information Commission (CIC) by public authorities- this was missing in the 2012 RTI Rules. Non-compliance is increasingly becoming a major problem- two of my non-compliance cases are...