The Estonian visa scandal (also called the „Markovgate“) has been a series of events in 2009, connected to the Estonian-imposed Schengen entry ban on two Russian politicians.
They are Mr. Sergey Markov (51), a member of the Russian parliament, the State Duma (United Russia party), and Mr. Vasily Yakemenko (38), the former leader of Russian pro-Putin youth movement „Nashi“ („Our People“), who currently serves as the chairman of Russian State Committee of Youth.
As there is very little English information available online on this interesting little political affair, I will try to give a short overview.
The scandal began with a publication in Estonian largest daily newspaper Postimees (disclosure: I’m employed by Postimees as a journalist) on September 23rd, 2009.
An article by journalist Tuuli Koch revealed that the Schengen entry ban on Mr. Markov was lifted in the spring by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Rein Lang. He was also sitting in as the Minister of Internal Affairs at that time.
Lifting of the ban on Mr. Markov was quite sensational news in Estonia. The ban was first imposed on him due to his public statement that Mr. Markov’s aide has been involved in organizing cyber attacks against Estonian targets in spring 2007. Mr. Markov made the surprising statement during a panel discussion at Moscow-Washington video conference on cyber wars, in March, 2009.
On many Estonian views, Mr. Markov implicated also himself by his statement as involved in the cyber attacks.
According to the Estonian law, the entry bans are the sole responsibility and the decision of the Minister of Internal Affairs. Mr. Lang had the post temporarily, because a then-recent coalition crisis forced the resignation of all cabinet members of the Estonian Social Democratic Party, a junior coalition partner.
A self-described attacker
The cyber attacks on Estonia in May 2007 are well-known event in the specialist circles worldwide. The attacks began after the row with Russia about the relocation of the Bronze Soldier WWII monument in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. DdoS-type attacks were organized against Estonian state institutions’ websites, for example the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also against newspapers’ online versions. The attacks were sophisticated and continued for several days, which lead to the version of state-sponsored attacks.
The possible pressure by the Russian MID (pictured) on Tallinn and Brussels about the Schengen blacklist decisions was discussed by Estonian public, in connection with the “Markovgate”. Photo Argo Ideon
After the surprising statement by Mr. Markov, the Estonian authorities analyzed possible courses of action. During the weekly government press briefing on March 12, the Minister of Justice Mr. Lang told journalists that „if such confession-makers do exist, we are checking this data a bit, but we can issue a European warrant for arrest. In this case, we are not dealing with any commoners in Russia, and they may be interested in travelling to Cyprus as a tourist sometimes, they can be arrested there. “
On March 17, 2009, the Estonian Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Jüri Pihl, the Chairman of the Social Democratic Party, imposed a Schengen-wide entry ban on Mr. Markov. This decision was not made public.
In May, Mr. Markov, also a member of the Russian delegation to PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe), travelled to Strasbourg, France for the PACE session, via Frankfurt airport. He got into some trouble at the German border checkpoint, when it was discovered that his name’s on the entry ban list.
Mr. Markov describes the event in the Postimees’ interview: „The border guards told me that I’ve been blacklisted. I showed them the document, identifying me as a member of the PACE. They invited a superior, who let out some expletives about Estonia. “
The German border guards let Mr. Markov then to travel onwards to Strasbourg despite the Estonian-imposed Schengen ban, probably because of his PACE member status.
According to the Estonian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Urmas Paet (the ruling Reform Party), he learned only then that Mr. Markov had been put on the Schengen ban list by his cabinet colleague, Mr. Pihl.
Mr. Paet discussed the situation with the ministry staff, and conclusion was made that the Schengen ban on Mr. Markov should be lifted. Afterwards Paet has pointed out two main reasons – one, that the European Union has been observing a custom, that foreign countries’ dignitaries, government ministers, high officials and MPs should not be put on the Schengen entry blacklist by an unilateral decision by a member country – such decisions are usually debated and made by the foreign ministers council of the EU.
And the second reason: as a deviation from the said custom, Mr. Markov’s entry ban has not been, and probably will not be enforced by other Schengen countries and this fact can devalue also other decisions made by Estonia.
The secret letter
On May 29, the MFA sent a secret letter to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, asking for the lift of the bans of Mr. Markov, and also of Mr. Yakemenko.
Vasily Yakemenko had been put on the Schengen entry ban list by Estonian minister Pihl in June 2007, because of his role as an organizer of the siege of Estonian embassy in Moscow in the aftermath of the Bronze Soldier row, and also for organizing a physical attack against the then Estonian ambassador to Russia, Mrs. Marina Kaljurand at her press conference on May 02, 2007.
At that time, Mr. Yakemenko was the leader of the fanatically pro-Putin „Nashi“ youth movement that has been compared with brownshirts and Hitlerjugend in the Western media. („Hundreds of Nashi goons besieged the Estonian embassy in Moscow, unmolested by the police as they threw rocks, blocked traffic, and tore down the Estonian flag“, wrote Cathy Young in The Boston Globe).
Later Mr. Yakemenko was given the post of the head of Russian state Youth Committee. Thus, he obtained the status of a Russian high government official, and his Schengen entry ban also became an issue.
The EU Commissioner becomes interested
The issue was touched during the meeting of minister Paet with his Russian counterpart, Mr. Sergey Lavrov.
In February, 2009, in the margins of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting, the EU Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner had a conversation with Mr. Paet on the entry bans issue. Urmas Paet told Postimees that during this conversation, the Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner asked him, if the Schengen ban on Yakemenko does exist and what were Estonia’s reasons to blacklist Yakemenko.
Receiving the secret letter of MFA about the Schengen bans of two Russians, the Ministry of Internal Affairs set to work quickly. The letter was sent on Friday, already on Monday, the Minister Mr. Lang made decision to lift the Schengen ban on Mr. Markov, but let the ban on Mr. Yakemenko to remain in force. Mr. Yakemenko’s Schengen entry ban is in force also today, and both men are separately banned from entering Estonia.
Explaining his decision in Postimees after the events in spring leaked to press in September, Mr. Lang said that there is not any proof that Mr. Sergey Markov was really involved in the 2007 cyber attacks on Estonia.
Markov’s „confession“ is not enough and may constitute just a political statement, or even bragging.
On the other hand, Mr. Yakemenko’s actions in 2007 were very serious attack on Estonian and EU interests and in Lang’s view; the Schengen ban on Yakemenko could not be lifted.
As the news on Mr. Lang’s decision to lift the ban on Markov became public just three weeks before the Estonian local elections on October 18, Mr. Lang dismissed the criticism as typical election propaganda.
The public criticism soon focused on foreign minister Paet. During an interview to Estonian public broadcaster while in New York for the UN session, Paet explained his and the Foreign Ministry’s support for lifting both bans by the position taken by Estonian EU partner states and „a very high EU official“.
Paet’s explanation was quickly interpreted as pointing to the pressure by the Brussels, or by influential EU countries like Italy, who has much better relations with Russia. The next day was spent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs publishing statements, that Paet has been misinterpreted in the media and there has been no undue influence or pressure on the Paet’s position on the bans, by any foreign power. Also the European Commission made comments, denying any pressure on Estonia on the Schengen blacklist decisions.
The European Commission has denied any pressure on Estonia in the case. The Commission said that the decision of placing or removing a person from the Schengen list of entry bans lies entirely within the competence of the member states. Photo by Argo Ideon.
Votes in the parliament
The handling of the entry bans by ministers Paet and Lang was widely discussed in the media, and on highest political level. Both ministers denied any wrongdoing in handling the cases. Nevertheless, the opposition Social Democratic Party initiated a vote of no confidence against Mr. Lang, who, in their opinion, had rushed the decision to lift Sergey Markov’s entry ban, while temporarily holding the position of the Minister of Internal Affairs. The opposition emphasised, that the Schengen entry ban is an efficient measure, influencing people who can threaten Estonia’s security, and there was no need to rush the decision to lift the ban on Mr. Markov.
Firing a minister via the vote of no confidence needs at least 51 votes in Estonian 101-member parliament. Mr. Lang held his post with just 37 votes for removing him from the office.
Also, the opposition Centre Party initiated the vote of no confidence against foreign minister Paet. The main accusation against Paet was that he, as foreign minister, has tried to mislead the public about the events – citing his TV interview and later denials by the ministry and by the European Commission. “Minister Paet was forced to acknowledge the truth only by the pressure of the undeniable facts,” wrote the opposition in their letter of no confidence. “Misleading the public and lying by the foreign minister is absolutely unpermittable”.
Paet got just 35 votes against him, and also remained in office.
In connection to the affair, an investigation into the leak of state secrets was initiated by the Estonian Security Police.
Recent Comments