Jason Dzubow on Political Asylum


Jason Dzubow

Edward Snowden and the Realpolitik of Asylum

As of this writing, it appears that Edward Snowden, the NSA
“whistleblower,” is holed up in the Moscow airport looking for a country
to take him in. He already has offers of asylum from Bolivia, Venezuela, and (mi país) Nicaragua. I’ve previously written that
Mr. Snowden likely does not qualify for asylum under international law,
so why would these countries offer him refuge? The answer is what I
would call the “realpolitik” of asylum law.

Realpolitik has been defined as “politics or diplomacy based primarily on power… rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises.”  

Remember when living in an airport used to be cute?

Remember when living in an airport used to be cute?

As applied to asylum law, realpolitik means that the receiving
country is not concerned about whether the applicant meets the
international law definition of refugee. Rather, the receiving country
has some ulterior motive for granting asylum; it hopes to benefit itself
or harm a rival by granting refuge.

In Mr. Snowden’s case, it’s not hard to imagine why certain
countries–Russia, China, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua–have been
willing to facilitate his journey. Russia and China, for example, have
poor human rights records, authoritarian governments, and restrictions
on press freedom (Freedom House rates both countries “not free”). China in particular is known for censoring the internet and cyber piracy. Venezuela has a less than stellar record when it comes to press freedom and free speech, and it apparently spies on its own citizens.
Maybe by assisting Mr. Snowden, these countries hope to improve their
own image while bringing the U.S. down a notch or two. Bolivia and
Nicaragua perhaps see helping Mr. Snowden as “pay back” for years on the
receiving end of American foreign policy (I’m thinking of the Contras in Nicaragua and–more recently–the diversion of the Bolivian president’s plane in an effort to capture Mr. Snowden).

In addition, all these countries might want to show the world that
they are not afraid to stand up to the U.S. They might gain prestige (at
least in their own minds) if they are seen confronting the big kid on
the block.

Another reason that the different countries might offer asylum to Mr.
Snowden is that they want to encourage people who damage the U.S.
government’s foreign policy. Particularly when foreign relations are
viewed as a zero sum game, it makes sense to diminish your rival in
order to help yourself. I can see how this rationale might apply to
China and the Latin American countries, but I am not sure it works with
Russia. Both the U.S. and Russia have been harmed by extremist Islamic
terrorists, and you’d think that there would be a mutual interest in
fighting this threat (the two countries worked together after the Boston
Marathon bombing, for example). It would seem to me that Russia’s
protection of Mr. Snowden (and the implied endorsement of his actions)
would be counter to that country’s interest in cooperating with us to
stop terrorism.

Finally, I suppose it’s possible that the countries aiding Mr.
Snowden are helping because they truly believe he did the right thing
and they want to support him. Call me cynical, but this I doubt. The
idea that Russia or China believe in the principle of government
transparency is laughable. Even the Latin American countries, with their
Left leaning governments that might support government transparency,
seem more interested in antagonizing the U.S. and asserting their
independence than in standing up for the principles that Mr. Snowden

As a lawyer interested in humanitarian international law, I fear that
when the asylum law is misused for realpolitik purposes, the system is
weakened and made less legitimate. Asylum cases always implicate
international relations; Mr. Snowden’s case more than most. But the hope
is that such considerations can be minimized in order to provide
protection to people fleeing persecution, regardless of the political
consequences of granting (or denying) asylum.

Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com.

About The Author

Jason Dzubow's practice focuses on immigration law, asylum, and appellate litigation. Mr. Dzubow is admitted to practice law in the federal and state courts of Washington, DC and Maryland, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Eleventh, and DC Circuits, all Immigration Courts in the United States, and the Board of Immigration Appeals. He is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the Capital Area Immigrant Rights (CAIR) Coalition. In June 2009, CAIR Coalition honored Mr. Dzubow for his Outstanding Commitment to Defending the Rights and Dignity of Detained Immigrants.In December 2011, Washingtonian magazine recognized Dr. Dzubow as one of the best immigration lawyers in the Washington, DC area; in March 2011, he was listed as one of the top 25 legal minds in the country in the area of immigration law. Mr. Dzubow is also an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University in Virginia.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.