37th & The World: Political Prisoners and Advocacy for Their Release (Part 1)

Democratic erosion is a recent issue on the rise across the globe. As some democracies face increasing authoritarian leaders, authoritarian leaders themselves continue to tighten their grip.

In this two-part interview, GJIA discusses political imprisonment, a comment tool of authoritarian leaders, with Katie LaRoque, Deputy Director for Policy and Advocacy at Freedom House. GJIA covers the brutal experience of political imprisonment, why and how it is used, and how Katie, Freedom House, and NGOs across the world are fighting for its release.

This is a two-part discussion which includes topics about incarceration, the treatment of prisoners, and the separation of families, which may be difficult for some listeners. 

Transcript

 Hello, you're listening to 37th in the World, the official podcast of the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, the flagship academic publication of Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service.  On 37th in the World, we dive into crucial global trends and speak directly with experts working on issues ranging from security, the economy, technology to society, and more.

Today's episode, we dive into the current state of political prisoners and efforts being made to advocate for their release. With Freedom House Deputy Director for Policy and Advocacy, Katie Laro.  Today's episode is the First and a two-part series with Katie. So stay tuned next week for part two of this discussion.

This episode of 37 in the World includes topics around incarceration, treatment of prisoners, and separation of families, and maybe difficult for some listeners.  Welcome. My name is Lisa Danzi, podcast director of 37th in the World. Today we are speaking with Katie LaRocque. She is the Deputy Director for Policy and Advocacy at Freedom House, where she focuses on the Europe and Eurasia region, as well as global thematic advocacy priorities for the organization related to combating transnational repression.

seeking the release of political prisoners, and tactics to support human rights defenders. She's worked in the democracy and human rights sector for more than a decade in roles ranging from program management and business development to advocacy. And my favorite part of Katie's bio is that she is a graduate of my graduate program at Georgetown University, Democracy and Governance in the Department of Governance.

And today I am speaking with Katie about her work advocating for the release of political prisoners across Europe and Eurasia. Katie works within both the well known and lesser known stories around political prisoners across the region, and many of us are familiar with the wrongful detainment of journalists across the region as well.

At the time of our conversation, we have just passed the 15 month anniversary of the arrest of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who was, had full press credentials and was detained in Russia on claims of espionage. But the experience of political prisoners is a different, a little bit different.

Many of our listeners are familiar with Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and his death earlier this year in Russian penitentiary.  Katie, welcome to the show. Thank you for being here. Maybe you can start us off a little bit helping our listeners understand who political prisoners are, what are the kinds of activities or activists that are being targeted, and who is targeting them and why. 

Thanks, Lisa. It's really nice to be here. I am a big fan of Georgetown, grateful to our program. They produce good alum like yourself. So I appreciate your interest in political prisoner issues. Um, it is something that Freedom House is highly focused on. And I think for those of us in the foreign policy space, I do think it deserves more attention.

So our State Department, uh, estimates that there are around 1 million political prisoners worldwide, which is a staggering number. There is some debate, though, over how we all define political prisoners, and so you'll see some nuance. Depending on the sources that you're citing as you look into this issue.

So, Freedom House has a flagship project on political prisoners. It's called Free Them All, the Fred Hyatt program to free political prisoners. That project, that initiative, defines political prisoners, uh, in a way that it's essentially, it's individuals who have engaged in human rights defense or pro democracy activism.

Um, and whose liberty has been restricted in an attempt to halt or hinder their work. So in this category of folks, we're talking about human rights defenders, independent journalists, bloggers, other media workers, as well as political activists advocating for political change. So what you'll read into that is that we are looking at Freedom House, uh, looks into it more as those with more of a career behind their activism in support of democracy and human rights.

That said, many of our partners, and we fully respect them doing this, uh, define political prisoners more broadly to include in Belarus, for example, which is a country I work on quite a bit. In 2020, there was a mass. It's a democratic, peaceful uprising in response to the fraudulent elections. And many of those who participated in the protests or liked things on social media in support of what was happening on the streets are now being arrested.

And so that technically doesn't fall within our definition, but we totally recognize that Their detention, which is for many is still ongoing, is politically motivated, and so we're sympathetic and in solidarity with the work for their release. This also, Because of our definition, we don't necessarily view those that are arrested because are based solely on their religion or ethnicity or gender.

If that's the sole reason, we don't count them as a political prisoner. But all that to be said, because there are so many folks, um, that are being arrested, it is, um, really hard to quantify the sheer number of individuals. And that is sort of a a gap in our collective sector and community, that there is no one database of all political prisoners or all political prisoners of conscience, as Amnesty International would call them.

So we have sort of definitional issues and a bit of tracking issues because there are so many. But that being said, this is certainly a pandemic of political imprisonment and certainly warrants more attention. Who is doing this? Often autocracies are the ones detaining these human rights defenders and pro democracy activists.

But also, as our research has shown, those democracies that are backsliding can also start to engage in political imprisonment.  

For instance, you mentioned the way that political imprisonment is used as a little bit of a tool or tactic by authoritarians. And in the way that this has actually been carried out, I know you recently had a policy memo that came out with Freedom House where you mentioned a little bit about incommunicado detention as well as the difference between maybe short term and long term disappearances.

Can you kind of describe what incommunicado detention is and the difference Or maybe the different, um, justifications or tactics for short term versus long term detention.  

Yeah, of course. Um, so incommunicado detention, I think deserves more attention from policymakers because it is a unique and particularly cruel tactic of political imprisonment.

So last week, Freedom House released a policy brief, as you noted, on incommunicado detention. And we define it where, so if you are a political prisoner,  We're seeing in a country like Belarus, a growing trend of holding political prisoners incommunicado for indefinite periods of time. What this means in practice is that prisoners are effectively cut off completely from the outside world.

So they have absolutely no contact with their lawyers or their families, which is, of course, their due right. And it's quite punitive and deliberate, and it's a form of isolation that's intended to increase their psychological and emotional stress. So that it's, you know, they are meant to think that the world has forgotten them.

And as we often say, a freedom house, it's commonly said by many of our partners.  A political prisoners. Worst fear is to be forgotten. They need the spotlight of the international community in part to help stay safe as best they can while they're in prison. Um, and so, unfortunately, in Belarus, we're seeing this tactic increase.

They are now holding, um, eight, uh, political prisoners incommunicado, some for more than a year. And so we view this as a particularly acute issue. Um, we do think that at Freedom House, there are some things that governments can and should do to create more urgency around demanding to know, quite frankly, if they are alive.

But, so this incommunicado detention, um, can be quite long, um, and sort of more than a year, or it can be for a couple of weeks at a time.  We talk about in our policy brief, what you mentioned is short term disappearances, and this is more of an issue that we're noticing from partners in Russia. The regime will basically transfer political prisoners for any number of reasons.

Russia Um, they effectively take an individual and let's say they move them from pretrial detention to their, um, permanent facility. That can take weeks by train. And if you are a political prisoner, you are already subjected to worse conditions. When you are in this transfer period, you are effectively cut off from the outside world in the same way that an incommunicado prisoner is.

And so lawyers have no idea. Where, um, their client is and often it's not disclosed to them what their final facility might be. And you, you might remember you mentioned Alexei Navalny.  So, of course, Alexei Navalny was brutally murdered, um, uh, while in prison in February 2024. But in December of last year, in 2023,  Um, he too was transferred, right?

And there was a period of time where no one knew where he was. And so this is a particularly acute issue because, like in comunicado detention, whether you are disappeared for a short or long term basis, You are exceptionally vulnerable, um, as a political prisoner, um, the outside world cannot help you. We cannot get to you.

We don't know if you're alive, um, if you're being physically abused, you know, denied food or medical attention. And so it's important to note that the, as I've said, the treatment of political prisoners is already much worse than for normal folks. But during this particular time of being disappeared, it is even more acute.

As we talk about those who are maybe lesser known or not in the news so much, can you kind of share beyond the tactics that are used to maintain political imprisonment, but the tactics that are used to justify? Like I mentioned, we follow the stories of Brittany Griner and Evan Gershkovich, and those have been very well known, but what about our human rights defenders and other activists or journalists who are being arrested? 

Yeah, both are great questions. So I do want to draw a distinction between, um, Evan Gershkovich, Brittany Greiner, Paul Whelan. Um,  these are folks who are wrongfully detained, or in the case of Brittany Greiner, was wrongfully detained in Russia, but the distinction being that they are, um, U. S. nationals.  So often when we're speaking of political prisoners, they do not have any citizenship or nationality with another country.

They are Belarusian or Russian, and they are detained because of their activism and their belief in a democratic Russia, for example, um, or for supporting human rights or some sort of, um, you know, marginalized community that they think needs to be better treated. And that's  The distinction being that for political prisoners, they are imprisoned to be silenced and to discourage others from taking up the mantle of whatever cause they're pushing for.

With the case of U. S. hostages like Brittany Greiner, like Evan Gershkovich, I think we're seeing a slightly different tactic where the regimes are also quite cynically trying to create incentives to trade these individuals for bribes. Uh, detained Russian assets around the world, right? Those that have been detained on charges of espionage.

The, the regime, certainly the Russian regime, loves to try to detain, um, U. S. nationals now to use them as bartering chips to get their friends back. There's this really perverse, um, incentive that they have to try to, um, arrest as many American nationals as they can or, or other nationalities, right? To kind of facilitate.

Or create, um, urgency around trading for those political prisoners is different. And as I said, but it.  These communities sort of overlap because some political prisoners, uh, like Vladimir Karamarza, who is an individual, um, he's a Russian human rights activist, probably one of the most poetic and poignant, um, voices for a pro democracy Russia.

He has been detained, um, and, and we would argue wrongfully, um, so we would view him very much as a political prisoner, but he also has a U. S. nationality. He is a U. S. national. So sometimes What you see in these individual cases is that there is an overlap, and, and this really comes to bear when we think about tactics for their release.

There's more tools for the U. S. government, for example, to seek the release of U. S. nationals than it, than there are for governments, for the U. S. government, for example, to, to seek Um, seek the release of what I would consider, you know, in quotes, ordinary,  you know, Russians that have been caught up in this whole process of, of political repression.

So, and, and you mentioned some of the justifications for detaining our partners, right? These pro democracy, pro human rights individuals, um, they are incredibly brave and they are working in some of the most repressive contexts around the world or in countries that are backsliding democratically. You know, things are getting worse and they're trying very hard to help curb, curb the, the trend of, of increasing repression.

That said, we  unfortunately are seeing, um, you know, governments sort of learn from each other in, um, how they like to go after, um, what they view as their critics, right? And so they're trying to silence their critics. We think that their work is important. But these regimes are now passing laws around like anti terrorism or foreign agent laws.

And these are two really common, I think, ways that they're able to detain, um, political or these activists, and then they become political prisoners. So they're able to say that, you know, um, so and so is undermining our national security. They're promoting terror, like terrorist issues, or they're acting at the behest of another government.

They're a foreign agent. Create this sort of unjust, um, pretext for, um, arresting these individuals. And then, of course, When they're thrown into the legal process, no one should ever have to go sit through a trial in Russia, um, that is absolutely not a fair legal process, they, and in countries where the country is backsliding, of course, that often tends to Really manifest, at least initially, when you think about the independence of the judiciary.

So often you start to see the, um, an increase in political pressure on the judges and the lawyers, the prosecutors behind the case to actually convict an individual. And so you start to see that manipulation, that creeping hand of autocracy into the process.  And you see more and more folks getting caught up into this. 

It's, uh, I think the metaphor of the creeping hand as we see democracy eroding  is such an accurate one and such a vivid one. As you mentioned, there are different motivations for arresting and detaining individuals. To your point, a little bit of a geopolitical strategy and kind of a post Cold War world when it comes to U.

S. or other foreign nationals. And then really to silence critics, as you mentioned.  The parallel to the overall global erosion of democracy and democratic backsliding is very, is very stark. And it's, I think it's sadly a, a very bleak picture that of course is being painted here, especially as many of our listeners are studying democratic backsliding across the world. 

Given such a bleak picture and given your work, what are the efforts that are being done Currently in moving forward to release or advocate for the release of these political prisoners who are wrongfully detained. It's a 

great question. Um, and there's a lot that we could say about it. So, seeking the release of political prisoners, as I said at the beginning, is, is a priority of Freedom House, and increasingly it's becoming a priority of many of, um, what we consider to be democratic governments, like the U.

S., like many of our friends in the E. U. and in Asia and other countries. I do want to say, though, um, there is no one size fits all approach. You know, you cannot wave a magic wand and get someone released. And I think students at Georgetown and those listening to this podcast, you know, should bear in mind.

It gets very complicated because a lot depends on the U. S. for example, the U. S. relationship with whatever perpetrator country we're talking about. You know, keep in mind. Someone who is a political prisoner in Saudi Arabia, you know, there's a different dynamic there than someone who is a political prisoner in Cambodia versus Russia.

A lot depends on existing security and economic agreements between countries. Um, are they a partner of ours? Are they an adversary? Right? So a lot You know, certainly again, going back to Eurasia, where I work,  you know, for Russia, we, as is fairly evident, we have a adversarial relationship with the Russian Federation at the moment.

And so it's much easier for the U. S. to call out publicly and shame the Kremlin for detaining these individuals, you know, or similarly in Belarus, right? But then at the same time, Um, you know, if we're not allowed to have an embassy in Minsk anymore because the government won't approve our credentials, the physical leverage that we have of having staff on the ground in Minsk to visit prison facilities is diminished, right?

And so there are pros and cons to being more outspoken, but then your toolbox is limited or certainly reshaped, right? There's a lot that goes into the leverage that we have. Or may not have in each of these cases. The other thing, too, that becomes quite tricky is that we need to very much adhere to a do no harm principle when you're talking about these individuals, because all of the cases that I have mentioned are cases where we have very much.

Family consent and lawyers consent to talk about them.  There are some cases of political prisoners where international democracy and human rights organizations like Freedom House have to be much more circumspect. You know, we might raise them privately, but there is a concern about having a public stance on an individual, particularly in the context of going back to, you know, when we're thinking about why some folks have been detained, right?

If they're being detained because of a perception of, you know, whether completely BS or not of being a foreign agent, while all of a sudden a U. S. organization is yelling about someone's detention, well, You can see how that might muddy or sort of further politicize what's happening to them. So everything that we do has to be really carefully calibrated in, in full, um, coordination with family and lawyers.

Um, and so we really adhere to that, but you mentioned what's being done. So there's a lot that can be done publicly and privately. And one of the things that. Certainly our political prisoners initiative that I mentioned our flagship project as well as what I've been doing from my Eurasia regional perspective is trying to urge democratic governments to take a more proactive stance on political prisoners because unfortunately, a lot of them are our partners in this space of advancing human rights and democracy and democracy.

Thank you. You know, not many people are spared by this. And so we need a more cohesive, more strategic plan in place to try to help, um, those that get swept up in these charges and, and, and imprisoned. And so publicly, we often talk about how governments and certainly partners in civil society, like a Freedom House, like an amnesty and like regional groups, um, you know, we need to be much better at keeping.

The individual's names in the public spotlight as much as we can, right? We need to amplify their voices and their stories also. We need to just make their names, like in the way that Eben Gershkovich and the Wall Street Journal team, they've done just a tremendous job of keeping his name top of mind. As you mentioned though, there's a lot of folks that you've never heard of, right?

But I would say, you know, in Belarus, Oles Polatsky, he, um, is a Nobel laureate and he's imprisoned. You know, there's so many just incredible human beings that are swept up in this just awful, uh, growing political repression. And so we need to tell their stories more. I also, as I mentioned, it's really important for democratic governments to engage their embassy personnel on these issues.

And so they're an important resource for visiting detention facilities. Um, conducting well being visits, inspecting the conditions of these facilities, and attending trials. You know, we, we tip our hat to, uh, governments that  have adopted or implemented what we call adopt a political prisoner programs.

You know, for example, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the U. S. Congress. That's what's called the Defending Freedoms Project. And that is a, a wonderful project, frankly, where legislators can choose to support the case of individual political prisoners. And then they're encouraged to advocate for their release publicly and privately.

And so just having a champion for you, uh, means a lot. And so groups like Freedom House, we're constantly nominating political prisoners up to the Hill. Just to try to find congressional champions to, you know, write op eds, give floor speeches, you know, write to prisoners and their families, um, so that they don't feel alone.

And then, you know, privately, we're always encouraging, particularly where maybe the U. S. relationship with the perpetrator government is a bit more complicated, where maybe we are partners in some areas, but we're quite critical of their human rights record. You know, we, we are always encouraging the State Department, for example, to raise cases, ideally publicly, but if not publicly, then you better raise them privately when you're sitting down with these other government officials.

We really, really encourage them to also make direct inquiries about prisoners well being. Particularly, as we mentioned, with those held incommunicado, we would love to see greater pressure on regimes doing this, and I should mention, you know, going back to incommunicado detention, I was speaking mostly about Belarus, but this is a global phenomenon from, you know, Eritrea to Venezuela.

You know, we need to really increase pressure on these regimes to show proof of life. 

Join us for part two, where Katie and I discuss the role she and Freedom House play in advocating for the release of political prisoners and how our listeners can engage in such efforts.