Interview of Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and Supremacy of Law of MFA of Russia K. K. Dolgov to Kommersant newspaper

Question: Why have you made a report on the U.S.?

Answer: This report is the first special country report on the U.S. made by the MFA of Russia, but this is the first time when we comment on the situation with human rights in that country. Our last year's report "On the situation with human rights in some world countries" had a section devoted to the U.S.

The main idea is that Americans continue positioning themselves as an absolute authority and indisputable leader in the sphere of democracy and human rights. They behave themselves as mentors when trying to teach other countries how to build democracy and ensure human rights. Sometimes, they are tough and intrusive and violate the basic international and legal principle of the state sovereignty. Very often, their attempts to demonstrate care of human rights in other countries look like the direct interference in their internal affairs. Unfortunately, Russia has earlier faced and still faces such situations. This is particularly one of the reasons why the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) decided to discontinue its activity in the Russian territory. At the same time, according to our report, America itself has a very complicated situation with human rights.

Question: Where did you collect information for such conclusions from?

Answer: Our report is based on the absolutely true and reliable information. We did not scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Question: Can you give an example?

Answer: The information came from the UN Council and US High Commissioner for Refugees, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, American NGO, international associations of journalists. As far the freedom of speech is concerned, in January, the well-known Reporters Without Borders organization significantly downgraded the U.S. rating in its annual global liberty index by 27 points, having given it the 47th place. The reason was attacks on journalists which covered actions of "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Moreover, according to human rights defenders, the rights of journalists are violated in the U.S.: there is no direct censorship but the authorities exert censored pressure on the editorial policy of some periodicals. This is not just our opinion, this is an assessment of Reporters Without Borders. This organization can hardly be suspected in announcement of views of the RF government.

Question: But Russia takes only 142nd place which is much lower than the U.S.

Answer: Yes, Russia's rating is really lower. But let us ask ourselves how long Russia has been following the way of democratic development in comparison with the U.S. These two situations are hard to compare. And the situation with the freedom of the press in not that bad. For example, we have Kommersant newspaper which is a model of free press. You are free to express your opinion which sometimes are critical towards the country leaders. Nobody presents you from doing that, you are one of the most readable and reputable newspaper both in Russia and in the world.

In other words, we have no censorship. It is forbidden by the Constitution. We have no persecutions either. Often some periodicals write such things about the authorities which Americans would never print being afraid of accusations.

Question: Nevertheless, when Russia's freedom of the press is rated too low, we call this rating ‘biased' and when we ourselves criticize the U.S., it becomes 'reliable'.

Answer: We do not say whether it is biased or not. We do not criticize the report itself, although it is disputable. It was not us who set out criteria of the report and we do not say whether it is good or bad.

Question: You say that it is true, using it as a source for your report.

Answer: We acknowledge that Russia has some problems with the freedom of speech. But the Russian authorities evidently take serious actions to cope with the situation. As a whole, the situation with the freedom of speech and mass media in Russia is better than some time ago.

Question: Do you mean the USSR?

Answer: Certainly, it is better than in the Soviet Union and during the transition period (after its breakdown – Kommersant). 20 years is the minimum term from historical point of view. It is less than one generation.

Well, anyhow we are interested in other things in this rating: that Reporters Without Borders downgraded Americans by many points. It means that according to their assessment, the situation with the freedom of the press in the U.S. in not that good. Moreover, the situation is worsening. These are things we are really interested in, because the report in on the U.S., not on Russia. And we say: with such ratings…

Question: So, you think that the U.S. cannot be a model of democracy, do you?

Answer: Yes. Nobody can be a model of democracy. Neither the U.S., nor France, nor Switzerland. Neither country may set up for the role of leader in the sphere of democracy and human rights. Problems exist everywhere, but their scale and character are different. Although, nobody has monopoly for setting of human rights precepts.

Question: Do you think that you managed to objectively cover the situation with human rights in the U.S.?

Answer: The report shows a complete and unbiased picture. It reads about multiple problems, including the system ones, which the American society faces in the sphere of human rights. Growing social inequity, racial, ethical and religious discrimination, strengthening of racist and xenophobic sentiments, practice of unlimited detention of convicts without any charges, bias of justice, jails functioning outside the legal field, use of tortures, interference of the state authorities in the lawsuits and private lives of citizens, restriction of the citizens' electoral rights are the greatest challenges.

The U.S. has serious problems with violation of rights of the Russian citizens. The problems of violence against Russian adopted children is still acute. As a whole, the situation with rights of children in the U.S. raises special concern. At the hearings in the State Duma, Children's Rights Commissioner for the RF President Pavel Astakhov sites such statistical data: about 100,000 wrongdoings against children were committed in Russia, as in the U.S. it exceeds 3 million for the same period.

Question: The U.S. has a very low threshold of wrongdoing. Such deeds as leaving a child at home alone or beating him are considered a crime there.

Answer: It is hard to judge, but child murder is obviously a crime.

Question: I do not think that 3 million children are killed in the U.S. every year.

Answer: Surely not, but the egregious cases of lawlessness when children murderers were released in the U.S. court are well known. Our judicial system is not perfect, and sometimes claims filed against it are just, but we have never acquitted children murderers, but America has, possibly because it is about Russian children. If it was about American child, the situation would be quite different. Open discrimination and double standards are on hand in America.

The penitentiary system of the U.S. also faces serious problems: hundreds, if not thousands of people die in pre-trial detention centres and jails.

Question: People die in Russia too.

Answer: Yes, and that is why we have recently taken measures on improvement of medical care in the penitentiary system, which was in a very poor state. But the human rights defenders went off into hysterics about Magnitskiy, having forgotten that he was accused of a very serious economic crimes, but we do not see similar reaction of defenders towards people dying in the U.S.

Question: Before the MFA issued these reports, Russia had complained that constant criticism of the situation with the human rights hampered fruitful collaboration in other spheres, say, the economic ones. Moscow has avoided talks about so-called the third human rights basket since 1970s. Does not the fact, that the RF points out other countries to those gaps, give to the West the indulgence for strengthening criticism of Russia itself?

Answer: It is impossible to strengthen it further. Criticism of Russia from the U.S. and some EU countries is too strong. It seems that PACE criticizes only one country – Russia. 90 % of criticism is directed against us, although we are not afraid of this. If you have noticed, we exercise considerable restraint on many critical reports.

Question: We say that they are biased.

Answer: We point out that they are biased if it is really so. Say, the reports of the U.S. Department of State on freedom of religions tried to persuade us year after year into such state of affairs in Russia which was absolutely different. This fact was taken into account in the last report and its tone has changed.

Question: They said that the POC had merged with power.

Answer: That was really so (from previous reviews – Kommersant), but other assessments became more neutral. And we are ready for impassive, equal and respectful dialogue. We expect that our report will be taken with a great interest and the American side will come to definite conclusions.

Question: Does this report mean interference in the U.S. affairs and breach of its sovereignty?

Answer: The governments agreed at the international level not to take criticism of each other as interference in someone's internal affairs. Russia itself does not say that such criticism is interference, but certain actions, sprang up from such criticism, can be taken as interference. If we gave money to some American NGO engaged in politics for particular actions, it might be taken as interference in the internal affairs. And when we only assess these organizations in our reports, it cannot be taken as interference.

Question: In other words, the report is not interference and financing of human rights defence organization Golos is.

Answer: We would like to stress that our laws and amendments to them do not forbid foreign financing of political non-profit organizations (NPO).

Question: But they should call themselves ‘foreign agents'.

Answer: Yes, but the other day, representatives of two states which are classified internationally as democratic, told that they had forbidden financing of any political NPO. They agreed that the Russian law is milder than the laws of their countries.

Question: Are they the EU countries?

Answer: No. They are countries outside the EU which are quite democratic and their democracy is not claimed very much.

Question: Is the RF MFA going to make new reports on the situation with human rights worldwide?

Answer: Yes, it is, and the next one will be probably appear very soon. We want them to be read and are ready for discussions, but only at the professional level.

Question: Will geography of reports expand? There were reports on the EU, U.S. Which country will be the next?

Answer: We will see. We do not exclude making of new country and topical reports. We will be flexible enough depending of the situation and information provided, but we will not follow the example of the U.S. Department of State: they describe the whole world except for themselves. In our opinion, it is untrue and vulnerable logic.

Question: Our position is also vulnerable. Why do not we criticise, say, China?

Answer: I as a commissioner should monitor observance of human rights worldwide. And in theory, neither country should be excluded (from such monitoring – Kommersant). The other thing is that the forms of reaction may be different. It is not about the reports. I make many statements and commentaries, write letters to the embassies of other countries. The major part of my activities stays offscreen. Sometimes non-public methods are quite effective for problem-solving, particularly for provision of the Russian citizens' rights.

Question: According to the latest news, the Russian citizens' rights are severely violated in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Are you going to make a report on this situation?

Answer: We do not think it is expedient for now. We are actively collaborating with governments of these countries, we have close relations with them which may be even allied as in case with Tajikistan. We have agreed that if any problems arise, they will be solved quickly and amicably, through two-sided channels without extra publicity. But the most important this is that Tajikistan has never set up for the role of an outpost of democracy.

Question: This country, unlike the U.S., does not try to teach us.

Answer: Yes, Tajikistan has never criticized other countries and has not taught them how to build democracy. Moreover, it often becomes an object of criticism, which is often unjust, from the Western countries. Actually, the U.S. and EU countries consider themselves invulnerable as to democracy and human rights. We are interested to publicly show that it is not so. At the same time, our task is not only to criticize them, it is important to show their problems. These problems are so serious that they should be talked about. Why only Russia, China or Iran, but not serious problems with Neo-Nazism or observance of rights of ethnic minorities in Europe, are criticized?

Question: When commenting on your initiative, Deputy Chairman of Just Russia faction in the State Duma Mikhail Emelyanov said that such reports gave us back to the cold war. А representative of the Communist Party of Russia Sergey Obukhov announced that the RF MFA betrayed itself.

Answer: I do not want to comment on speeches of certain deputies and make any conclusions as to positions of their parties. But at the State Duma's hearings both representatives of Just Russia and the Communist Party took the floor (except for the United Russia and LDPR – Kommersant). I have not heard from them any criticism of the RF MFA's report. On the contrary, they strongly criticized situation with human rights in the U.S.

Question: Probably, with great pleasure.

Answer: With great enthusiasm, I should say. If other representatives of their parties do not agree with them, it is on their conscience.

If to consider the report on the human rights in another country as come back to the cold war, although I disagree with this, it was not Russia which had initiated it. The Western countries have been making reports on Russia since the cold war. We have been making reports only since last year.