Translated material
National Security Morar
What threatens the journalist to the Russian state
National Security Morarius. The New Times journalist Natalya Morar was finally officially announced why she was not allowed into Russia: she threatens the defense capability, state security of Russia and the health of the population of the Russian Federation
On January 17, Natalia Morari was invited to the Russian consulate in Chisinau. There, Russian consul Gennady Biryukov gave her a document printed on the letterhead of the embassy (see photocopy on page 24). The document read in black and white: “You are not allowed to enter Russia on the basis of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law of August 15, 1996 No. 114 “On the procedure for leaving the Russian Federation and entering the Russian Federation.”
Paragraph 1 of Article 27 of this law states that a foreign citizen is prohibited from entering Russia, as "this is necessary in order to ensure the defense capability or security of the state, or public order, or protect the health of the population." The document was signed by Consul Gennady Biryukov. Who made the decision is a mystery, how the journalist Morari threatened and threatens the "defense of the country" and so on. is also a secret. The consul himself told Natalia Morari: despite the fact that he had worked for many years in various consulates, this was the first time he had encountered such a case. According to Russian officials, the right not to explain why a person is not allowed to enter the country is “a sovereign right of the state that does not require explanation.” Appeals to the fact that 30 years ago our country signed the famous Helsinki Act, which prohibits such actions against a journalist (see link in the margin), are not taken into account by domestic officials. Moreover, the established world practice shows that states allow themselves to expel journalists - there are countless such cases - only if there is evidence that they committed an offense, and in such cases explanations are necessarily given.
Get through to the FSB
As The New Times reported in issues 1-2 of January 14, without waiting for a response to the request sent immediately after Morari's expulsion, the editors turned to the FSB with a request for information (this is how such an appeal is officially called). In accordance with the media law, the FSB was obliged to respond to this request within three days. As a result, the head of the FSB Public Relations Center, Sergei Ignatchenko, responded to both requests on January 17. Sending a reply to the editor, the head of the FSB CSO, however, ignored the fact that The New Times was interested in the reasons why the journalist Morari was not allowed into Russia. “Due to the fact that restrictions on the right to enter the territory of the Russian Federation concerned the Moldovan citizen Morar N.G., such explanations and information can be given directly to her, which was done at the checkpoint across the state border,” Ignatchenko writes. The only explanation given to Morar by the border guards, however, was the report that the order to close the border in front of her came from the central office of the FSB in Lubyanka. All! But Ignatchenko, apparently, is not in the know. It is also noteworthy that a few days ago, the FSB reported that the Morari case was being handled by department "K" of the Economic Security Service (SEB) of the FSB. The SEB of the FSB is led by General of the Army Alexander Bortnikov, one of the main defendants in the high-profile investigation by Natalia Morar about the withdrawal of money by high-ranking officials through the Russian bank DISCOUNT and the Austrian Raiffeisen Zentralbank O .. sterreich.
Discount expulsion
It is precisely with the economic investigations of Morari, apparently, that her actual deportation from Russia is connected. In any case, this version, according to The New Times own investigation, seems to be the main one today. Sources in the presidential administration (AP) claim that Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the presidential administration, learned about the expulsion of the journalist Morari after the fact: “He was not aware of it.” The role of VTsIOM director Valery Fedorov in this unattractive story remains vague: some informants claim that it was he who “ordered” Natalia Morari, and even name the amount - $50,000 (a year ago, the “service” for privatizing the state border cost $30,000). Other interlocutors at Lubyanka are convinced that "his influence is not enough to resolve this issue directly with the FSB." According to some reports, the decision to expel Morar was also facilitated by an anonymous analytical report, which claimed that the journalist was conducting purposeful work against the head of the FSB Economic Security Service, General Bortnikov. “Fyodorov could well have been involved in the manufacture of this slander and stimulation of its promotion through the authorities at the middle level,” the sources say. Finally, a number of well-informed interlocutors told The New Times as a fact that the order not to let Morar into Russia was given by the deputy head of the Presidential Administration and the leader of the "siloviki" Igor Sechin, who was also mentioned in the investigation about "DISCOUNT". With a candle, as they say, did not stand; those who could be nearby say that the order sounded in monosyllables: "This Morari - on x ... d." So Morari ended up in Chisinau.
Laughter through tears
The editors of The New Times, of course, did not expect that the journalist Morari in the inflamed imagination of the state security guards would appear in the form of almost a weapon of mass destruction. Obviously, investigative journalism about corruption in the highest echelons of power is now equated with a threat to the country's security. As Garry Kasparov joked, "it used to be national security secret drawings and locations of factories, but now that everything has been sold, the accounts of those who sold are a symbol of the country's defense." According to Pavel Danilin, an employee of the Effective Policy Foundation, a structure close to the Kremlin, the FSB acted wisely: if the Chekists had referred to paragraph 7 of the same article 27 of the law on entry and exit (“With regard to a foreign citizen or stateless person, a decision has been made on the undesirability stay (residence) in the Russian Federation”), one would have to at least explain who made this decision: “In paragraph 7 there is the word “decision”, but in paragraph 1 it is not. The word “decision” is the key one,” the FEP employee explained to the readers of his blog. Simple and clear: someone faceless and nameless, hiding behind the word "state", decided that it was necessary to protect fellow citizens from a journalist and her investigations, otherwise... be irreparably damaged.
Context
Journalists should not become heroes of newspaper and magazine materials: their task is to inform, not talk about the difficulties of their own existence. It is bad when this or that media outlet has to investigate the history of illegal actions against its own reporter. However, the Russian state, its "shield and sword" - the FSB did not leave The New Times any other choice.
The story of the de facto expulsion of a journalist fits into the general context of the events taking place in modern Russia. These are new accusations against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, for which they could face up to 22 years in prison. This is the scandal around another person involved in the "YUKOS case" Vasily Aleksanyan, who appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg with a request - with a cry! - about help. Aleksanyan is seriously ill and needs treatment at a specialized hospital. In fact, Aleksanyan was sentenced to death without trial. Against this background, the scandal around the British Council seems to be just an annoying trifle (read more about this on page 40). Considering that all this is happening in the midst of the presidential campaign, it is difficult not to fall into conspiracy theories, not to look for answers in conspiracy theories. If all this is happening right now, does it mean that someone really needs it? Someone really wants to smear ... with black paint the image of the declared president, Medvedev, to let him know that no matter how liberal he may seem to himself and his supporters, in the eyes of world public opinion, he will look like a strangler of freedom of speech, using the organs of state violence for the purposes of personal revenge, as a person who is indifferent to the pain and suffering of a dying person. That's how the mafia works. This is the law of omerta: all must be tied with the same blood. There are no clean ones. The vicious circle, if it is not broken in time, threatens to turn into political and personal risks, which one does not want to talk about out loud. Or is the circle already closed?