Newspapers demand firmer action against Russia over Litvinenko murder

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jan/22/newspapers-demand-firmer-action-against-russia-over-litvinenko

Version 0 of 1.

Alexander Litvinenko’s widow, Marina, has called on Britain to act following the public inquiry which found that Vladimir Putin and his spy chief had “probably approved” her husband’s murder.

She wants further economic sanctions against Russia and for all of its intelligence agents to be thrown out of the UK. It would be unthinkable, she said, for the government to ignore the inquiry’s findings.

She may well have been bolstered by the home secretary’s statement in parliament. Theresa May described the assassination as a “blatant, unacceptable breach of the fundamental tenets of international law.”

But, aside for sympathy, what support does Mrs Litvinenko have from Britain’s national press for political action by Westminster against Moscow?

The Guardian, which led its front page with the story, believes a price must be paid. It thought May’s statement was “welcome - but not enough” because the government “has made plain that diplomatic relations with Russia will not be affected.” It said:

“Insisting there should be no diplomatic fallout amounts to an admission that Britain can be cowed. The claimed constraints - especially the need for cooperation in the Middle East - are not especially convincing.

Russia’s policies in Syria have, by aiding the Assad regime, contributed to strengthening Islamic State rather than defeating it...

The same applies to the Iran nuclear deal, or Ukraine: to say a strong British reaction will derail international diplomacy is to overstate British influence.

On the contrary, putting some pressure on senior Russian officials would enhance British credibility.”

The Guardian argued that the most efficient response should “involve Europeanising the issue” with common sanctions agreed by European governments and the targeting of culpable Russian officials.

“Nothing”, said the paper, “will make Russian officials pay attention like being banned from the European mansions and resorts.” But it conceded that any measures against Putin “would come up against a head of state’s immunity.”

The Times said that the conclusions drawn by Sir Robert Owen’s inquiry, which declared the assassination of Litvinenko to be a case of “state-sponsored nuclear terrorism on the streets of London... cannot be ignored.”

It thought the “predictable formalities” - Russia’s ambassador being summoned for a dressing down, the asset freezes on the two chief suspects, and a file on the case being sent to the director of public prosecutions - “will have little impact on the suspects or the behaviour of the Russian state.”

Instead, said the Times, harsher treatment was necessary to deal with Putin’s “gangster state” which has “graduated from murder to the brazen violation of international law in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” It contended:

“There can be no pretence of business as usual. The government should give serious consideration to the idea of a British Magnitsky Act on the American model, which would enshrine in law sanctions against named individuals...

Diplomats will argue that British-Russian relations are too complex to be subordinated to a single dispute, but the Litvinenko case and the broader relationship are linked.

Mr Putin and his proxies have been emboldened to invade foreign countries in no small part because they have been allowed to act with impunity to settle personal vendettas in foreign capitals. London is one of their favourites... —

Yet there is still no justice for Mrs Litvinenko because Moscow refuses to extradite the suspects in her husband’s murder. There can be no normalisation of relations between Britain and Russia until it does so.”

The Daily Telegraph, which also regarded the killing as “state-sponsored assassination carried out on British soil against a UK citizen” argued that such an “outrageous act” requires a response “proportionate to the offence.”

“Since there is no prospect of trying the two alleged killers, the espionage apparatus of the Russian state must be targeted. Moscow’s spy network in London is as extensive today as it was in the dark days of the Cold War...

For reasons of realpolitik - from Moscow’s power play in the Middle East to Europe’s dependency on Russian gas - the government is reluctant to fracture relations irrevocably. Yet now... David Cameron must act decisively.

Not only should he widen sanctions against named Russians but he should emulate [Edward] Heath’s example by expelling all the diplomats in London suspected of working for the FSB. Anything less will be seen as weak in Moscow.”

The Independent, which splashed on the story (as did its stablemate, i), demanded “a clear, strong and effective response” that “may, in the short term, put Moscow in the diplomatic deep freeze.”

The paper accepted that international relations “carry a heavy dose of pragmatism” but argued that “they lose all meaning if particular states refuse to play by the rules.”

It thought prime minister David Cameron “appeared apprehensive of going too far, citing the need to find some solution to the Syria crisis, in which Russia has assumed a key role.” The Indy said:

“This is hardly an acceptable reason to go easy on punishing a murder: Litvinenko’s death cannot be treated in isolation, but cannot be forgiven, either.

Cameron is right, however, that new economic sanctions would only further distance a diplomatic path to peace... The wider picture is of an already strained bilateral relationship that is now broken, and will take years to rebuild.

We have seen the worst of Russia in this saga. Now we must both hope for the best, and hope that the best is good enough. On yesterday’s evidence, we may be hoping for some time.”

Some newspapers make their views clear in news page headlines. The Daily Mirror’s called Putin “the killer in the Kremlin”; the Sun’s said “‘Paedo’ Putin ordered hit” and the Daily Mail, taking Cameron to task, said: “Craven! PM is accused over ‘Putin’s killing’ of dissident.”

The Mail also carried a piece by the Economist’s Edward Lucas who argued that it was “abundantly clear... that the British Government is not going to respond properly”.

We “should be launching major money-laundering investigations into the tide of dirty Russian cash which swills through our financial system”, he wrote.

“We should be expelling Russian spies from London... And we should be urging our Nato and European Union allies to join us in fighting back against all forms of Russian subversion, mischief-making and influence-peddling.”.

Another Russian expert, Angus Roxburgh - a former consultant to Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov - told in the Mirror of Putin’s fury at Litvinenko’s deathbed claim that the Russian president had ordered his killing.

The murder was not supposed to have been found out, wrote Roxburgh. “As a ruthless KGB professional he [Putin] would have expected operatives to carry out murder faultlessly. Polonium-210 was supposed to be undetectable.” He continued:

“Putin remains a secret agent in mentality. He longed to join the KGB even as a child, when - in his own words - he was a street thug in Leningrad. He learned the dark arts of the KGB during the tense days of the Cold War.

Just days before being appointed president, Putin addressed an annual gathering of secret agents at which he told them (it was his idea of a joke) that an FSB mission to infiltrate the Russian government had been successful.

Ever since Russia has been living with the dire consequences of allowing a career KGB man to run the country.”

So there is plenty of newspaper sympathy for Marina Litvinenko, and editors clearly believe that Something Must Be Done. But will the government take heed of such demands? Realpolitik suggests not.