A UK judge has concluded that Vladimir Putin is most likely implicated in the 2006 fatal poisoning of former KGB officer, and outspoken critic of the Kremlin, Alexander Litvinenko. This is not news to anyone who’s been following the fate of Putin’s critics. The man has undoubtedly orchestrated the death of many individuals who pose him even the slightest bit of political danger, and will undoubtedly continue to do so, primarily because there are no consequences to his crimes. Political leaders in his own country will not depose him, and heads of state in other countries will do little more than gently scold him for his excesses, while continue to engage him as a legitimate, respectable political figure in the world scene.
So, what now? Put simply, nothing. Putin could not care less what one judge, or even a hundred judges, in the United Kingdom say. And western leaders are more concerned about keeping the variables in the global political scene as predictable as possible than risk removing even a single demagogue, as long as they have a manageable working relationship with him.
The fact remains that Vladimir Putin, sitting President of the Russian Federation, is a murderer. An authoritarian thug, with a cold disregard for rule of international law regarding even the most basic of human rights. And the individuals we look to, which we have sanctioned to hold positions as our representatives to enforce the international laws we abide by, will not move a muscle to bring an obvious criminal to face the justice he deserves. Because it would not be a politically “savvy” move. Because it would introduce undue strain and unknown variables into the global scene. Because it would create a power vacuum in a fragile state. (My, my…how impolite of all these pesky activists to bother human rights groups and organizations about taking action against individuals violating human rights, I mean, it’s not like it’s their job or anything, right? No, no, no. Human rights organizations, international courts and law, all those exist to preserve the balance of power, not safeguard against its abuses.)
This story brings me to a some things that have been on my mind for some time. Such as: Is there any reason for the United Nations to exist? What about Interpol? What about International Court Tribunals? Believe me, I am not being facetious when I ask these questions. Is there any justifiable reason for these entities to exist when their focus is myopic to the point of being astigmatic? What good is a human rights organizational willing to sellout, and outright subjugate the very notion of the principles of human rights and justice it was established to protect? If these are just buildings in which thugs and murderers–and their accommodators–verbally masturbate about their self-importance to mask their powerless irrelevance in the face of opposing any actual threats to world peace and human rights, can we then drop the facade already, and call a useless spade a spade?