There is always a reason for bargaining

I can’t agree with Yulia Latynina’s statement in

“Elephants know how to remember” that democratic states do not exchange murdered exiles.

Unfortunately, democratic countries have not found an adequate response to the liquidations carried out by foreign intelligence services on their territory, and states that resort to such methods almost always remain unpunished. But the worst thing is that these illegitimate political assassinations almost always become the subject of bargaining between countries.

Here are just two of the most high-profile cases.

France - Germany, late 50s - early 60s

In 1956-1961. A wave of murders and bombings swept across Germany. Merchants who supplied small arms to the Algerian rebels were blown up (during the Algerian War, West Germany was the main supplier of weapons to the FLN - Front de Libération Nationale). The murders began to be attributed to the mysterious Red Hand organization, a group of French settlers in North Africa dissatisfied with the course of the war in Algeria. Subsequently, it turned out that fully regular units of the French intelligence service SDECE were operating under her name.

The purpose of the liquidations: to force the German government to reconsider its liberal legislation regarding arms transactions, to knock Germany out of the market for the supply of small arms to the Algerian rebels.

Subject of the auction: economic relations between France and Germany.

Germany's response: German experts today admitted that the activities of the Red Hand were at least one of the reasons that forced the German authorities to tighten rules on the arms trade. In addition, France has become the main economic partner for Germany.

By the way, it was not only the French who killed in West Germany - KGB agents Nikolai Khokhlov and Wolfgang Wildprett defected to Germany in 1954 and 1955, respectively, publicly admitting that they had been sent with the task of killing two dissidents from the People's Labor Union. Around this story, in contrast to the French story, a huge scandal was raised with accusations against the USSR. But, as German historians admit, the security officers were treated more harshly only because of the Cold War. Therefore, comparing the murder of Litvinenko with the Markov case is hardly correct - after all, we don’t have a Cold War yet.

Spain - France, 80s

After Franco's death, the Social Democrats came to power in Spain, but ETA did not agree to a truce, and in response , the Spanish government used the tactics of “death squads” (the so-called GAL units), which killed Basque activists in France . During a series of murders in 1983-1987. 27 people were killed by GAL fighters. Many of the killers were arrested by the French police.

The purpose of the liquidations: in addition to the banal destruction of Basque activists, to force the French to recognize ETA as a terrorist organization, since the French then considered the Basques to be rebels against the fascist Franco regime and granted them the status of political refugees (isn’t it a familiar picture?).

Subject of bargaining: Spain's entry into the WTO, which was blocked by the French, claiming that Spain had never become a democratic country, and a huge contract for the supply of French weapons (primarily tanks) to the Spanish army.

The French answer: after a series of public murders in resort towns like Biarritz, sympathy for the Basques was replaced by fears that tourists would stop coming to the south of France and this would undermine the region's economy. As a result, France recognized ETA as a terrorist organization and began to cooperate with the Spaniards. And, of course, the French received their contract to rearm the Spanish army. The scandal surrounding the actions of GAL began only thanks to the Spanish press, and several years after the end of the special operations.

Of course, these two examples do not exhaust the practice of using state terrorism. IRGC units outside Iran also acted with impunity, killing former officials of the Shah’s regime throughout Europe. The Israeli state also avoided sanctions for killing Palestinians on the territory of third countries.

In addition, even if we forget about the Litvinenko case, the Russian state has already entered the list of countries that use liquidations abroad as a method of their policy. The fact of the destruction of Yandarbiev in Qatar in 2004 was proven (in court), legislation was adopted in 2006 allowing the destruction of people on the territory of third countries, and it seems that there is a practice of sending liquidators to neighbors after the poisoning of Litvinenko.

In 2006-2007 In Azerbaijan, cases of murders and abductions of members of the Chechen diaspora have become more frequent (in total, human rights activists counted 12 such cases). Among them is Ruslan Aliyev, who disappeared in Baku in November 2006, after which his body was found in the forest near Samashki. Another case that requires investigation is the shooting by unknown persons in a car with Russian license plates of the main Wahhabi of Abkhazia, Khamzat (Rocky) Gitsba (who took part in the seizure of the Avrasiya ferry, was associated with Basayev) on the threshold of a mosque in August 2007.

In all these cases, one circumstance is striking: governments refuse to give a principled rebuff to the forceful actions of foreign intelligence services on their territory.

I can remember only one example when in such a situation the state followed the principle: Italy made a fuss when CIA officers secretly captured and deported in 2003 Imam Abu Omar, to whom Rome granted political asylum in 1997. The Milan prosecutor's office not only issued arrest warrants for the CRA officers, but also summoned the head of its own military intelligence, SISMI, for questioning on suspicion of collusion with the Americans.

Let's say that the British authorities really believe that the Russian state is behind the murder of Litvinenko. What did the British do to hold the Russian authorities accountable?

The British reaction to the murder of Litvinenko, excluding newspaper articles and unofficial statements by nameless representatives of the intelligence services, cannot be called harsh pressure on the Kremlin. Everything is done so as not to affect the interests of specific people. First of all, the British have no answer to the question of who ordered the murder of Litvinenko. There is no official version of the motive for the crime: Litvinenko was imprisoned in London for many years, why was he poisoned now?

Let’s say that the prosecutor’s office cannot name the customer because they still do not have solid evidence, but if the British are sure that the murder was committed on the orders of the Russian authorities, it is unclear why they are not putting serious pressure on Russia. All sanctions were limited to the dissolution of the joint commission on combating terrorism (which was already doing almost nothing), plus four diplomats were expelled from London. But not because the Kremlin ordered the murder of Litvinenko - under no circumstances! And because the Russian state did not extradite its citizen, which is impossible under the Constitution. Not to mention the fact that London has been and remains the main center for transferring funds from Russia, and no one has encroached on the position of Russian business in the City.

And now, more than a year after the Crown Prosecution Service's announcement, on the day of the meeting between Brown and Medvedev, Mark Urban's story appears on BBC Newsnight. It contains no new information about the investigation. It does not even claim that UK law enforcement has established the Kremlin's involvement in the murder of Litvinenko (such a statement would require an answer to the question of further measures). Instead, a black-faced MI5 official states: “We believe the Russian intelligence services are behind the murder.” The price of such a statement is approximately equal to the speeches of the same obscure personalities on ORT-RTR that the CIA or MI6 are behind the murder of Litvinenko.

I am sure that in the end investigative journalists (British and Russian) will find out who organized the murder of Litvinenko, and by name, as their Spanish colleagues did in relation to GAL. But it is the journalists who will do this. Because I have no hope for the state (both Russian and British).

PS The text was written before it became known that Gordon Brown's office
disavowed a statement by unnamed MI5 officials on Newsnight,
stating that "the police and prosecutors have identified one person, and this is the person and
must stand trial on charges of murder."