LONDON: Britain was nursing a giant diplomatic headache on Friday’s night, aware that Boris Berezovsky’s outburst will damage relations at a time when Russia’s cooperation is vital to maintaining pressure on Iran, avoiding a bust-up over the US nuclear shield in eastern Europe, and resolving conflict over energy supplies.
The furore also probably extinguishes any hope that Russia will agree to let suspects be extradited to Britain over the London poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
Indeed, Britain would privately like to be shot of Mr Berezovsky, but knows it is inconceivable that a British court would rule he would get a fair trial in Moscow.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would have to act on behalf of the Russian government to seek his extradition. The CPS is advised by the London Metropolitan police, which is now considering whether he has committed any offences.
The Foreign Office, caught between the law and realpolitik, is aware that it has to deal with Vladimir Putin, and sees little sign his regime is going to fall. As a result, Britain has previously tried to mollify Russian diplomats by warning Mr Berezovsky over his attacks on the Putin government.
The Russian businessman was given asylum by Britain in 2003. The then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, last year publicly warned him to be more careful in his choice of words after he gave an interview in January 2006 which infuriated the Russian authorities.
In a written Commons statement, Mr Straw stressed Mr Berezovsky had not come to Britain at the government’s invitation, and it would “take action against those who use the UK as a base from which to foment violent disorder or terrorism in other countries. Advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable and we condemn these comments unreservedly,” he said.
“Those granted asylum in the United Kingdom have duties to the UK which require, in particular, that they conform to its laws and regulations.” He added that “refugee status can be reviewed at any time where it is considered their presence is not conducive to the public good”.
