The Russian Embassy Farce: Jalisco Nunca Pierde … (Updated)

… y Cuando Pierde, Arrebata.

Jalisco nunca pierde y cuando pierde, arrebata. (source)

That’s a popular saying in Mexico. Literally it means Jalisco (one of the states of the Mexican federation) never loses, but if it ever were to lose, it would cheat. The “Jalisco” stands for “Mexicans” or “we”. Perhaps a less literal translation works best: we always win, by hook or by crook, if needed.

I suppose that saying’s appeal owes much to its unapologetic chauvinism. Personally, however, I doubt many Mexicans really use it as their guide when dealing with others, especially foreigners. Think about it. Would you be anxious to deal with Mexicans if you thought they take that saying seriously? Well, Mexicans are likely aware of that.

It’s ironic, isn’t it? Mexicans could be too scrupulous to apply their own saying.

Others are certainly a lot less squeamish. Don’t believe me? Read on.

----------

In 2008 the federal Government had no problem granting the Russian Federation a lease to a plot of land in Canberra, for their new embassy. Local authorities gave their building approval to the project in 2011.

The building was to be completed in three years, but twelve years on, it is not yet ready.

Why not? I don’t know. I suppose many things (ranging from weather and COVID, passing through red tape, to lack of money and ineptitude) could be involved. One thing, though, suggests itself: the Russkies didn’t really consider the new building a priority.

Any way, last year the federal Government decided that what was okay in 2008 no longer was okay. So, they unilaterally terminated the lease agreement.

Why? If you follow the news this may remind you of the Woollahra City Council renaming the street where the Russian Consulate General is as Ukraine Street. (The councillors also took further steps to hurt Russia: they cancelled the Consul’s free-parking permit – take that, Putin!)

What the federal Government alleged was this: after years on end, they suddenly realised that “on-going unfinished works detract from the overall aesthetic, importance and dignity of the area”. The rights the Russians had acquired be damned.

The Russkies fought back: they took the case to the Federal Court. And, lo and behold, the latter declared that the lease termination notice was “invalid and of no effect”.

I’ll spell it out: the federal Government lost. Worse still, they lost badly:

• the Court restrained the federal Government from re-entering and taking possession of the land, or interfering with the Russians’ quiet enjoyment of it;
• the Russians won by playing entirely within the rules of the game in a democracy.

It clearly was a humiliating defeat for the Albanese Government. But in the cosmic liberal democracy versus autocracy narrative the Western governments love it had a much deeper and critical upside: it would have served as a shining example of the much boasted virtues of liberal democracies. The Albanese Government overreached badly, but the system had its own checks and balances and the rule of law protects the rights of all – even the unpopular – from abuse of the powerful.

So, after losing that battle what did the Albanese Government do? Go ahead, guess.

Simple. Given that the Russians had the law on their side, Albanese changed the law. You know what “move the goalposts” mean, don’t you? Block 26, Section 44, Yarralumla, where the Russians wanted their new embassy, is excluded from all Australian legislation. In particular, that bill cancels all legal rights administrative decisions had created and conferred on the Russians. With a snap of one’s fingers one can take away any legal rights in the Australian liberal democracy, if one is an Aussie pollie.

People — particularly talking heads — often have difficulty with that kind of things, so I’ll put this in two different ways:

1. the federal Government interfered with the Russians’ quiet enjoyment of that block of land;
2. they channelled Jalisco! Ellos arrebataron, as Mexicans would have said. They cheated.
   

But, wait! There’s more. The whole process of tabling, reading, debating, and voting Home Affairs Bill 2023 was completed the morning of June 15th. The voting itself – press gallery reporters say – took 6 minutes! You see, this was a bipartisan thing (to be fair, I’m not sure the crossbench actually opposed the bill, or even abstained, not that that would have made any difference).

----------

What did the two parties involved say?

Albanese justified this saying that his Government “received very clear security advice as to the risk presented by a new Russian presence so close to Parliament House”. You wouldn’t expect him to say he didn’t want to be the loser in a fight against the Russkies, would you?

The Russians said – although you wouldn’t learn of it from ABC, who apparently cannot find their phone numbers – that their old embassy was vulnerable to Aussie spooks.

It may be very clear to the parts, but things look obscure to me, which is common in “national security”: zero details. We are forced to take their word for it – because you know that pollies never lie.

I’m no expert on these matters, but the lengthy building process suggests both Australian and Russian claims are bullshit: the Russkies didn’t seem to be in a hurry to complete the new building, neither to protect themselves against Aussie spooks, nor to spy on the Australian Parliament. Frankly, I think both sides are full of shit.

----------

Regardless, I personally doubt either country has much to gain from their relations.

Let me put this differently: it’s vital for the US and Russia – the two top nuclear powers – to maintain communication, come hell or high water. But Australia is not a nuclear power (yet).

Maybe a downgrade of Russian-Australian relations – even a total break – would be advisable. Should the need for their governments to contact each other ever arise, they could use the US as intermediary. This, in fact, given Australian self-imposed subordination to American interests, would probably be most appropriate.

----------

Speaking of which, I must remark that the American Embassy is not much more removed and they boast that their techno-espionage capabilities are second to none. Aren’t they considered a threat? Angela Merkel, former chancellor of another American ally, could have something relevant to say about this.

----------

What really bothers me in this farce is, one, the thoughtless way with which the bipartisan dictatorship produces absurdly authoritarian legislation like deranged magicians pulling deformed rabbits out of a hat. I’ve already written about the monstrosity the Perrottet/Minns two-headed Cerberus imposed on NSW. Well, just in May the South Australian Malinauskas repeated the dose in his state.

Two, as they do that, the hypocritical motherfuckers go around waxing lyrical about democracy.

And, three, the brainless talking heads on our small screens are apparently blind to this.


Update (27/06/23).

On Monday morning the High Court denied the Russian Federation’s application for an injunction against the federal Government.

The injunction was part of a larger, substantive case against the unconstitutionality of the new law the federal Government rammed through Parliament earlier in the month. The dismissal of this request does not preclude the substantive case from being further considered. I suspect it’s likely, however, the Russians will drop the case, given comments by Justice Jayne Jagot.

Upon the announcement of the Court’s decision, the “Russian squatter/GRU operative” (not caretaker, or security guard, all terms that to me look appropriate, but squatter/spy as Aussie Russophobes like) who had been staying on the plot of land quickly left – I believe even before PM Albanese urged him to leave – without any trouble. Much to the disappointment, I suppose, of Birmingham and many journos, there was no need for the AFP, worldwide famous for their peaceful ways, to “intervene”.

I think we may still regret the precedent this absurd law creates.