I must confess, I don’t know the background to this disagreement, and I don’t know enough to be able to judge whether Ethan is “undemocraticaly propped us as an authority (albiet a dubious one)” or whether Mike’s work is “anti-Semitic”. Having said that, my gut feeling is that both of your analyses of the other are off the mark. Certainly, neither of you have taken the time to substantiate your accusations.

I appreciate that you may not like each other. But I will not allow SL to be used as a venue for unsubstantiated attacks.

I’m going to close this comments thread temporarily to further comments, but leave each comment up for now. What happens next is up to you.

If I hear nothing further by Tuesday, 7am UK time, I plan to edit each of your comments to remove the above phrases. If you both agree that the comments should remain, unedited, then I’ll leave them up, but leave the comments thread closed. If both of you agree that the comments section should be re-opened to allow for one or both of you to elaborate on the above accusations, then I’m happy to do that also.

Let me know what you want to do.

This comment has also been emailed to Mike & Ethan.

”Nonetheless, he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing persons like myself who are strong advocates of human rights and the rule of law. ”

Funny thing that, human rights. Its all just a point of view really. Consider Prof. Burger’s comments at
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/listening-to-professor-ethan-s-burger/

Very strange, he seems to be suggesting that denying ethnic Russians living in Latvia passports because they dont speak Latvian is acceptable. Doesnt sound very sympathetic to me. That being the case, should New Zealand not give passports to Maoris who dont speak English? Or Ireland not give passports to those who dont speak Irish? Your argument is ridiculous and is in blatant contravention of even the most rudimentary human rights. The Latvians are acting like thugs because it suits them to, and you support this. Being Irish, I think maybe we should send home the 50,000 Latvians we have working there because they dont speak english? I need a bloody translator whenever I buy a packet of fags in the old country these days.

I will be referring your above comments on the LR website to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Maybe you’ll find your own human rights infringed when they ”mysteriously” deny your next visa. Remember, Esq, entry to Russia is a courtesy of the Russian government not a right!)

Your tone at SRB is often in the “less civil” category.

I’m “guilty” of replying in kind.

I don’t feel guilty at all though.

While I enjoy any excuse to visit Siberian Light, I see no need to carry on a discussion in two places at once.

Lyndon:

He posted an exchange that was on line, inclusive of an email list. He proceeded to put his spin at the top.

I think that you should post the specifics you describe. They’re his views. I find La Russophobe to be the more offensive. If JRL can post LR, than the AJRSS should be posted there as well. That’s my opinion of which I stand firm on.

As you note MRJ took that piece down. Maybe he has seen some light for the better.

Contrary to what you said, I don’t “like” discussing the JRL censorship which has been raised by Mark Ames and others. It’s a reality which should be discussed without any fear.

If Ethan Burger or anyone disagrees, than I really do have to question any human rights advocacy on their part.

Interestingly, the correspondence between Averko and Burger has recently been taken down, and the direct link gets an error message.

Happily, the Google cache does not allow statements to be retracted so quickly. The original version of the exchange – with an unmistakably anti-Semitic introduction by the “AJRSS editor,” one Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, Ph.D – is available here.

I will not reproduce the comments from Dr. Johnson’s introduction here, as they are unfit for a family website, in my opinion.

Mike, you may want to be more careful about the people whose websites you promote. Guilt by association may be inferred, and I don’t think you want to be associated with “Father Johnson’s” anti-Semitic rant.

Andy, I trust this meets the standards of the comments policy – if not, feel free to strike it.

As for standards, I request that Siberian light remove his LIE about my commentary having a strong “anti-Semitic flavor”. Meantime, he has freely approved of being utilized by http://russophobe.blogspot.com which I consider to be a bigoted anti-Russian venue. In comparison to yours truly, La Russophobe has expressed remarks more befitting of a libel action suit.

Mr. Burger’s incoherent commentary is shown by his admitted non-knowledge of my analysis. Yet, he feels confident enough to label my analysis in negative terms which are incorrect for reasons having to do with my actual commentary. On the other hand, I’m familiar with his scribes which I consider to be second rate and undeserving of the kind of play it receives in some circles.

My criticisms of Mr. Burger relate to his:

- Likening of Khodorkovsky to Sakharov (Untimely Thoughts)

- Believing that Turkey is freer than Russia (a now closed from viewing Google discussion group)

- Going gung ho on the idea of Chechnya, being independent while saying nothing (at least to my knowledge) of Trans-Dniester’s greater case for independence

Unlike Mr. Burger – I don’t block out other views I’m in disagreement with. Hence, who is the better advocate of a free society?

Which “repressive” governments do I support? On his suggested definition of libel, one should only reference his posted comments which IMHO are rude, ignorant and in at least one instance absurdly false beyond reason.

I find it condescending for Mr. Burger to tell me what to do with my time. I’m an independent foreign policy analyst and media critic, who has been posted/published at a number of high profile venues.

If he really cared about human rights, he’d encourage my activity that bring into light many fact based points which aren’t often raised at Anglo-American mass media outlets. Doing the opposite contradicts the spirit of a truly open society.

Finally, I believe these posted comments to be a positive reflection of my excellent capability of engaging in reasoned civil discussion under terms that many would find taxing.

Most people have told me over the years to ignore Michael Averko’s comments about me and others who do not share his views. I am pleased to say that I have never met him in person nor do I wish to.

I have generally been successful in avoiding reading his written observations (characterized by a strong anti-Semitic flavor), which could be deemed to be defamation under Canadian, English, German and possibly even Russian and U.S., law, to mention that of a few counties.

His writings might also constitute actionable “hate speech.” It might seem to some that he is incapable of engaging in a civilized discussion of issues.

Nonetheless, he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing persons like myself who are strong advocates of human rights and the rule of law. I feel that his latest series of written assaults require some response.

I don’t know much about Mr. Averko personally. I have better uses of my time than to study his professional background or review his writings.

For those who might be interested in my own qualifications to comment on foreign policy and political issues, I will note that I have in excess of 15 years experience engaged the practice of law involving Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarussian trade & investment matters; worked in the arms control area for nearly 5 years, have taught courses at American University’s Washington College of Law and School of International Service, as well as Georgetown University Law Center and the University of Baltimore; done considerable pro bono work for human rights organizations as well as served as an election observer for the OSCE, have published more than 50 professional and academic articles on a range of topics in both journals and newspapers, spoken at numerous academic and professional conferences, hold degrees from Harvard University (A.B., Russia Area Studies, Magna Cum Laude) and Georgetown University Law Center(J.D., Cum Laude); and am a member of the D.C. and Maryland Bars.

Mr. Averko seems to enjoy his gadfly status defending repressive governments’ violations of human rights and clampdowns on the independent media. He spends a significant amount of time expressing his disagreement with anyone who expresses a view contrary to his. I do not know if he is paid for this activity.

I would suggest to him that he make better uses of his time in making the world a better place to leave. There are many NGOs that promote human, labor and environmental rights that could benefit from the assistance of someone who seems to have so much time on his hands.

It is worth mentioning that those who have given him an opportunity to place his personal assaults on others on their websites may be held civilly liable for damages under certain circumstances. Freedom of speech does not encompass defamation and libel. It would seem that he did not carefully read the “Comment Policy” set out on this website. It is unfortunate that this policy seems to be weakly enforced.

Sincerely,

Ethan S. Burger, Esq.

You’re right about Chechnya not being able to govern itself. Its case for independence seems weak though. About a century and a half of Russian rule and land locked. I don’t think that most Chechens support independence. This in part has to with the internal situation in Chechnya which you touched on.