A tough crackdown on oligarchs must carry us as far as our rule of law allows
It is an uncomfortable truth that the West sorely lacks experience of war. That may seem a peculiar statement, after the long and bloody interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those were effectively operations of control and rebuilding. What we are seeing in Ukraine at the moment is quite different: one sovereign nation taking on another, however unequal the fight may be.
As we cheer on the bravery of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the fighting spirit of his people, we are looking urgently but with care at ways in which we can help. NATO has, for the moment, ruled out direct intervention: this is essential, since it proves the falsehood of Vladimir Putin’s claims that the Alliance is a tool of aggression. But Russia has interests around the globe, and we want to strike at them.
The current gung-ho mood for freezing assets and punishing Russian oligarchs is understandable. We recognise the people who have benefited from Putin’s gangster mastery of the Russian economy, and we know that they enjoy the lives they have in the West. Politicians are eager to make headlines and show their steel. But the democracies of Europe, the US and elsewhere must make sure that we protect the one undeniable advantage we have over Russia: our adherence to the rule of law.
Much of what the UK is seeking to do falls under the aegis of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. This was brought in to replace EU-derived competencies after Brexit, and allows the government to freeze the assets of those whom it considers to be in support of dangerous regimes, as well as impose various other restrictions.
But there are calls to go further. The levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, has talked about confiscating, rather than freezing, the assets of those associated with Putin, amid visions of a fire sale of multimillion-pound yachts and stately homes. This would be legal terra nova, as senior lawyers have warned. Others have complained that some oligarchs, like Roman Abramovich, are being given breathing space to dispose of assets before a sanctions regime starts to bite.
What is paramount is that the UK abides by domestic and international law. The Sanctions Act 2018 was amended during its passage through Parliament to ensure that it was compliant with human rights principles. Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done.
The reason that this is important is clear: our quarrel with President Putin (not, as the government is at pains to stress, with the Russian people), is that he has no regard for international law. He has flouted it again and again, from his seizure of Crimea in 2014 through the Salisbury poisonings to the current war against Ukraine.
We differentiate ourselves, therefore, by saying that we uphold and defend international law, that we take action against individuals consistent with domestic law, and that we do not seek to override or shortcut legislation to achieve a short-term policy objective.
This makes for uncomfortable choices. It is unpleasant to see Russian oligarchs like Alisher Usmanov and Igor Shuvalov riding high on their wealth while Ukraine burns. The government is right to take action against such people, to restrict their freedom to do business while they are so intimately tied to the murderous Kremlin autocracy. But the government is worryingly keen to play to the crude gallery of public opinion, in defiance of the tiresome nuance of law.
Today the House of Commons will consider all stages of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill. This legislation, promised in 2016 by David Cameron, will reinforce and extend the government’s powers to sanction individuals, and that it is being fast-tracked is an obvious response to the situation in Ukraine. While I twitch uncomfortably at bills being rushed through Parliament, this is the government seeking to provide a legal basis for what it wants to do.
Emotions are running high in Whitehall and in the media as the crisis in Ukraine unfolds. That is understandable. We want to help. And we want to punish the guilty. But the government must remind itself daily of its obligations and undertakings. We beat Vladimir Putin not by cutting through the laws to get at him, but by making our way through the thicket of legislation calmly, knowing that it stands behind us when the confrontation comes.
As the great seventeenth-century divine Thomas Fuller reminded his audience, “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”