Make Russia Pay

The West has already frozen some $300 billion in Russian assets. Here�s the
case for seizing them.

For months, the West has fretted over the prospect of paying for Ukraine�s
reconstruction. Russia�s war has inflicted an estimated $400 billion in
rebuilding costs, a tally that rises every day. Western leaders, already
alarmed by inflation and the threat of recession, have understandably
blanched over the bill.
But many of them are disregarding a solution that would cover most of
Ukraine�s costs and help deter future aggression not only from Russia but
from dictatorships around the world. A year ago, Western governments froze
some $300 billion in state assets from Russia�s central bank. Now they
could seize the funds and give them to Ukraine.
The biggest question is whether this would be legal. As critics have noted,
a seizure of this magnitude has never been attempted. Moreover, little
precedent exists for the United States to confiscate the assets of a nation
with whom (despite the Kremlin�s claims to the contrary) it isn�t at war.
From the June 2023 issue: The counteroffensive
But Russia has unleashed a kind of rank imperialism the world has rarely
seen since the Cold War, committing war crimes and�as manifold evidence
suggests�genocide, all against a harmless neighbor. Because of its
unjustifiable aggression and atrocities, Moscow has forfeited any moral
right to funds stashed abroad.
The reasons to seize them are legion. Confiscating the Russian funds�which
are spread across various Western economies�would serve a crucial role in
ending the fighting, beating back Russian imperialism, and ensuring a
viable economic future for Ukraine. And it would send a clear threat to
regimes that might otherwise be willing to breach international law and
destabilize continents for their own gain, as Moscow has.
Seizing these assets would also help fix an overlooked issue facing
Ukraine: investor hesitancy. Investors remain wary of bankrolling projects
that could be targeted by Russian drones and artillery. But the frozen
funds could cover nearly 75 percent of Ukraine�s costs and significantly
reduce the burden on potential financiers, making the country a more
appealing investment destination.
In the U.S., much of the legal debate has focused on the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that defines the
president�s abilities to regulate international commerce during national
emergencies. Although the IEEPA has historically been used to authorize
more conventional sanctions�including in Iran, the Central African
Republic, and China�some scholars, most notably Laurence H. Tribe and
Jeremy Lewin, have argued that it could also be used to seize the tens of
billions of dollars in Russian assets currently in U.S. reserves.
Recommended Reading
That proposal has generated legal pushback, although advocates are
undeterred. The nonprofit Renew Democracy Initiative told me that it has
commissioned a study of the �legal foundations for seizing frozen Russian
assets and transferring them to Ukraine,� which will be led by Tribe. (The
initiative is chaired by Garry Kasparov, who also chairs the Human Rights
Foundation, where I direct a program on combating kleptocracy.)
Even if U.S. law offered clear justification, though, it couldn�t be used
to touch any of Russia�s assets frozen in Europe, which are far more
valuable than those in the U.S. Fortunately, international law appears to
offer such justification.
As Philip Zelikow and Simon Johnson wrote in Foreign Affairs last year,
Russia�s obvious culpability for the war entitles Ukraine to claim
compensation from Russia. Because �the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a
wrongful, unprovoked war of aggression that violates the United Nations
Charter,� Zelikow and Johnson argue, any state (not just Ukraine) can
�invoke Russia�s responsibility to compensate Ukraine, and they can take
countermeasures against Moscow�including transferring its frozen foreign
assets to ensure Ukraine gets paid.�
Despite many policy makers� impression that Russian assets are untouchable,
Anton Moiseienko, an international-law expert at the Australian National
University, recently showed that they aren�t immune from seizure. �To
extend protection from any governmental interferences to central bank
assets would equate to affording them inviolability,� Moiseienko wrote,
which is reserved only for property belonging to foreign diplomatic
missions. The protection afforded central-bank assets �is not as absolute
as is often thought.�
That is, in the eyes of international law, Russian assets aren�t inviolate.
In fact, the only real remaining obstacles to seizing them are debates
surrounding domestic laws and domestic politics. As Moiseienko wrote,
�Political and economic circumspection, rather than legal constraints, are
the last defense against [the assets�] confiscation.�
This is particularly true in the U.S., where plenty of hesitancy remains
even after more than a year of war. As The New York Times reported in
March, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen believes that seizing Russian assets
could reduce faith in the American economy and the U.S. dollar. Other
critics think it would threaten U.S. assets and investments in other
countries.
Eliot A. Cohen: It�s not enough for Ukraine to win. Russia has to lose.
These points all have a certain merit. And so, too, do concerns about such
a move prompting the Kremlin to escalate. In all likelihood, though,
Putin�s regime has already written off these funds, not least because
they�ll almost certainly never be returned while he�s in power. Moreover,
seizing them is hardly as escalatory as, say, the West sending Ukraine F-
16s or long-range precision rockets.
But at a broader level, these criticisms misunderstand the significance of
the war and what it may lead to.
Vladimir Putin�s invasion of Ukraine is an assault on the geopolitical
order. A nuclear power launched a militarized annexation, entirely
unprovoked, against a neighbor that had long ago given up its arsenal. In
the months following the invasion, the Kremlin has been accused of torture,
beheadings, and manifold crimes against humanity. And it has been
responsible for more bloodshed than any conflict in Europe has exacted
since World War II. It is led by a dictator wanted for arrest by the
International Criminal Court, and who is driven solely by a deranged,
messianic imperialism. And it is setting a precedent for other autocrats,
who are eager to see whether Putin�s revanchism will work�and eager to
emulate any success he finds, especially if his crimes go unpunished.
If this war doesn�t justify seizing a nation�s assets, I�m not sure what
would. Repairing the damage it has caused is well worth the risks that have
occupied Washington.
Some Western leaders still hold out hope for a negotiated peace and argue
that we should keep Russia�s assets frozen to be used later as a bargaining
chip. But Putin cannot be negotiated with. And given the alternative�that
these funds remain frozen in perpetuity as Russian munitions continue
demolishing Ukrainian cities�the argument against seizing these assets gets
weaker by the day.
The unprecedented nature of Putin�s crimes, the allowances of international
law, and Ukraine�s growing need all point in one, clear direction. Russia�s
frozen assets are not spoils of war; they are rightfully Ukraine�s. It�s
time for the Biden administration and the rest of the West to put them to
use.

https://www.nwahomepage.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2023/04/MCCLINTON-LEMONT-IN23-002909.jpg?w=512&h=288&crop=1
Lemont McClinton, 41. Photo courtesy Benton County Jail

BENTON COUNTY, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — A Fayetteville man was arrested on April 10 after a child abuse hotline received a report that a minor girl had been raped.

Lemont McClinton, 41, was booked into the Benton County jail and is being held on a $500,000 bond. He has a court appearance scheduled for May 15.

According to court documents, the Bentonville Police Department received the child abuse hotline report involving McClinton on April 3. The victim came to the Children’s Advocacy Center and said that she had been raped.

Bentonville man out on bail for rape, sexual assault arrested for rape of another minor
The child told investigators that the suspect covered her mouth and nose and pulled her head back, causing her to get dizzy. She also said that it happened more than once because “her mom was gone a lot, and her siblings went to friends’ houses.”

She detailed multiple places where the rapes occurred and said that they happened when she was 12, 13 and 14 years old. She added that McClinton told her “she could not say anything.”

The Benton County circuit court issued an order on April 11 forbidding McClinton from contacting the victim. It also banned him from any unsupervised contact with minors.

According to a probable cause affidavit, McClinton is facing a class Y felony rape charge. A public defender has been appointed as his counsel.

https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/fayetteville-man-arrested-for-alleged-rape-of-minor-girl/