Mark Seidenfeld is still in prison in Kazakhstan, after an April trial delay that pushes back legal presentations until probably June. In the meantime, according to the Save Mark Seidenfeld blog, both Russian and Kazakhstani press are publishing articles that make Mr. Seidenfeld look guilty, or that he is a spy. If you get a chance, check that link above for a media summary. It doesn't look good for Mr. Seidenfeld.
Also over at the Save Mark Seidenfeld site, Derek Bloom is translating English documents into Russian as fast as he can in order to fight these mistaken impressions and cheryni piar. Cheryni piar is a phenomenon discussed in Alena Ledeneva's book, How Russia Really Works (see Worth Reading page). In the book, Ledeneva describes the way that p.r. agencies and ostensibly impartial journalism can be bought in order to smear others. While I have no information on any alleged cheryni piar (black p.r.) pay-offs on Mr. Seidenfeld's situation, it seems that the fact-checking in Russian and Kazakhstan's press might leave something to be desired. And there is no corresponding advocacy, even of a positive neutrality, that the U.S. has been able to give in return.
Just as with my post on the PwC audit showing the evidence that clears Mark Seidenfeld of charges in Kazakhstan, I have primary documents that show a mostly gesture-laden efforts by U.S. Consular staff of the Embassy of the U.S. to Kazakhstan toward Mr. Seidenfeld's plight. These include:
A letter to Ambassador John Ordway from Senator Harry Reid & Representative Shelley Berkley
A letter to Congresswoman Berkley from Ambassador Ordway
A letter from Mark Seidenfeld to Ambassador Ordway, February 5:
and another on April 15th:
A transcript of a press conference by Ambassador Ordway, available online
The Caveats: Diplomatic limits and boundaries
There are definite limits on what U.S. Embassies can do for its nationals traveling abroad, and with good reason. First of all, no U.S. Embassy in any state in the world is allowed to give asylum or influence judiciaries in favor of U.S. citizens charged with a crime in a foreign state: such an act undermines the principle of sovereignty. More practically, undermining foreign judiciaries could lead to a precedent where foreign embassies intervene in trials of their citizens upon our own sovereign soil. That is why travel.state.gov issues many warnings to potential U.S. travellers.
At the same time, one hefty reason for having a Consular Staff is to protect Americans abroad in trouble. This prominent goal features in many State Department messages. Looking at actual documents pertaining to Mark Seidenfeld's case, however, shows a what assistance a consulate gives.
An embassy activity timeline
On December 7, 2005, Mr. Seidenfeld was arrested in Blagovechensk, Russia. Though he fought extradition, this effort failed to bear results. Mr. Seidenfeld arrived in Kazakhstan on November 12, 2006.
On November 27, 2006, Ambassador Ordway was asked about Mr. Seidenfeld during a press conference. His answer was cautiously neutral:
We're certainly very aware of the case, and we will be following it very closely through our consular section. Our role is to ensure that he is afforded all the rights that he is entitled to by law, but I don't have any basis at this point to make any comments on the nature of the case that has been made against him.
Twenty-five days after Mr. Seidenfeld ended up in Kazakhstan, on December 8, 2006, U.S. consular officials visited Mr. Seidenfeld for the first time to check upon his situation in detention. According to Ambassador Ordway, Mr. Seidenfeld assured the Embassy's Consular Officer that he was receiving food, water, access to his lawyer, and some personal visits.
On February 5, 2007, Mr. Seidenfeld sent a letter to Ambassador Ordway via e-mail, detailing the reasons that he felt his civil and legal rights were violated.
Eighty days after the last visit, on February 27, 2007, consular officers again visited Mr. Seidenfeld, at which time the same treatment was ascertained.
On March 23, 2007, Senators Harry Reid and Representative Shelley Berkley sent a letter to Ambassador Ordway, detailing their misgivings with regard to Mr. Seidenfeld's case:
We are particularly alarmed by information we continue to receive that strongly indicates Mr. Seidenfeld's accuser is able to manipulate investigations and legal proceedings in an effort to build a false case against Mr. Seidenfeld and to prevent proper consideration of evidence. . . .
On April 15, Mr. Seidenfeld sent Ambassador Ordway an e-mail, detailing the procedural problems of the trial. One main concern was the judge's insistence upon deposing a witness who has been dead for two years. Another was to be sure Mr. Seidenfeld had not been held in a drug treatment facility in Kazakhstan, although Mr. Seidenfeld had proof of residency and gainful employment in Russia over the previous two years. The letter ends thusly:
Mr. Ambassador I believe that together with my previous letters to you there is now incontrovertible evidence that my case is being dealt with in a non objective manner with all three law enforcement branches (police, prosecutor, judge) working in collusion to deny me the justice guaranteed under the Kazakhstani constitution, criminal and civil law.
I beg you to take this seriously and insist that the Kazakhs play by the rules which they themselves have written.
On April 20, 2007, Mr. Ordway wrote back to Senator Reid and Representative Berkley. In a cover letter, Mr. Ordway's secretary noted the lag time in response, saying that though the letter was dated March 23rd, Ambassador did not receive it until April 16th. In this letter, Ambassador Ordway detailed the two visits of consular staff to Mr. Seidenfeld, the facilitation of his request for clergy visits, and that an embassy staff official would be present for “as much of the trial as possible”. The letter ends thusly:
The mission of this and every embassy worldwide is to ensure the safety and welfare of each American citizen. To this end, I feel confident that we have done everything possible for Mr. Seidenfeld, and I assure you that we will continue to do all that we can within the scope of our authority until this case has been resolved."
Faint statements
Essentially, Mr. Ordway's letter promises nothing and details very little. It leaves the trial completely in the hands of Kazakhstan's judiciary, which is indeed, diplomatically and legally proper. And I have no way of knowing what other diplomatic means have been used to support Mr. Seidenfeld–only the consular attention noted in the documents above. You can't blame an embassy for not doing things it is forbidden to do, and yet some attention appears to be missing.
The first point of consular monitoring and visits make is to assure fair treatment for U.S. citizens in foreign jails. This has not appeared to be a problem. The second point would be to introduce to all concerned a sense that Mr. Seidenfeld's case is important to the Embassy. I am not sure that two visits in five months is sufficient to convey that feeling. Furthermore, a completely impartial statement such as Mr. Ordway's press statement above was appropriate. But a complete absence of statements afterward may leave Mr. Seidenfeld more or less hanging by a thread in the Russian and Kazakhstani press.
Not for a minute do I suggest that the State Department break their rules. Yet this case remains a barometer for future U.S. investment in Kazakhstan, its perception as a good business climate, and a perception by the investment community that Kazakhstan practices strict rule-of-law. Surely those topics would be worth some public comment from the US Embassy to Kazakhstan.
Further reading:
Check the Mark Seidenfeld advocacy blog for a more complete backgrounder and further resources on this case (also linked above).
[In the event of the] Arrest of an American on the US Embassy to Kazakhstan Web site
Las Vegas Sun article with extradition dates and more on Representative Berkley's efforts
