Conflict in the Chechen Republic - A report of the debate at PACE´s autumn 2002 session (updated)A provisional version of the verbatim of the debate on the Chechen Republic at PACE on 24 September 2002.
Conflict
in the Chechen Republic
THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the
information report on the conflict in the Chechen Republic presented by Lord
Judd on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 9599, parts I and
II.
The list of speakers closed yesterday at 6.30 p.m. Twenty-one names are on the
list.
I remind you that we agreed earlier that in order to finish by 1.15 p.m., we
shall interrupt the list of speakers at 1.10 p.m. to allow time for replies to
the debate.
I call Lord Judd. You have eight minutes.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom). – First, I shall say something about the
nature of the debate. I have been asked to prepare an update on the progress
of recommendations and policy agreed by the Assembly with a view, as I
understand it, to a major take-stock debate in January. My warmest thanks and
appreciation go to Mats Einarsson, Lili Nabholz-Haidegger, Lara Ragnarsdóttir
and Leonid Slutsky. Without their committed and unflagging hard work, it would
have been impossible to prepare a report of this kind. My real thanks also go
to Duma colleagues, to Dmitry Rogozin, and to all those in the Russian
Federation and the Chechen Republic who did so much to make our visits
possible.
I hope that the notes on the visits to Moscow and Grozny speak for themselves.
There are obviously constraints when it comes to visits in such circumstances.
Nevertheless, I believe that we covered a great deal of ground. Grozny was not
the ghost town that I visited in April 2000, immediately after the
bombardment. There were people, traffic and even a few buses on the streets.
There were some booths and markets among the ruins. Schools are open, even if
in a rather limited way. The courage and resilience of the people is striking.
Outside Grozny, in the countryside, fields are being cultivated. We were told
of an agricultural surplus.
That said, there are still great security issues. Rebel fighters are still
active. There are still military and civilian casualties, and there is still
sinister targeting of Chechens who work for the administration. There is a
proliferation of arms. There is still harassment at numerous check points,
with too much humiliation of those subjected to checking. There is still the
problem of the conduct of security personnel in general. There is also a
failure consistently to apply the rules laid down by the prosecutor-general
himself. In addition, there are still considerable human rights issues. The
most disturbing is undoubtedly the disappearances. Just one non-governmental
organisation, the Committee of Mothers and Women of the Chechen Republic, told
us of 700 disappearances on its books alone. There are still allegations about
maltreatment and torture. I therefore remain deeply concerned about the few
convincing investigations that have taken place and about the altogether too
lengthy and limited outcomes to them.
I regret also that the recent reports of the Council of Europe’s committee
dealing with the prevention of torture have still not been published by the
Government of the Russian Federation. There is also the issue of the location
of Council of Europe experts and their effectiveness. I detail these matters
in my report.
There are also challenging humanitarian issues. For example, there is the
devastated economy and widespread unemployment. There is the past destruction
of homes. I could hardly detect one undamaged or undestroyed building in
Grozny. There is still the plight of the returned displaced people. Especially
in terms of health, diet, water, sanitation and security, and above all help
with rebuilding their homes.
On all these issues and others, I have taken the liberty of underlining in
paragraphs 9, 14 and 28 the action which I believe is urgently essential.
Everything I saw and heard strengthened my conviction that the overriding
imperative is to work with our Russian colleagues in promoting a just and
sustainable settlement. Everything else is simply sticking a finger in the
dyke. However, there are developments on which I hope we can build. Both the
administration and the Consultative Council, established under the aegis of
the joint working group, are working on proposals for a new constitution. Both
have said that they would welcome Council of Europe inputs to this process.
Incidentally, I cannot understand why the funds that we requested to support
the Consultative Council have not been mobilised by the Committee of
Ministers.
The intention is for a referendum followed by elections. If there is one key
issue on which we must concentrate, I believe that it is on ensuring that any
political settlement is this time durable. I suggest that that means that it
must have the broadest possible support among all of the people of the Chechen
Republic. It must involve the maximum possible number of fighters and those
close to fighters who can be won back to the political process. That will
require courage and imagination. It must avoid, by real or perceived
exclusion, unnecessarily pushing any who could be won to a political process
into the arms of extremists who have no interest in such a political solution.
The process must take place in the context of a free flow of information and a
well-informed, open debate.
It would be a tragedy if a supposed political solution, by being too hasty or
too narrowly based, sowed the seeds of its own ineffectiveness and
disintegration. As Mats Einarsson put it so well in Moscow, in any future
elections the losers must feel able to accept the result as fair.
In all that, the Council of Europe has a significant part to play: the
Secretary General, the Committee of Ministers, the President of our Assembly,
the Assembly itself and our Secretariat with all the skill and professionalism
at its disposal. All of us should put our combined Strasbourg strength and
experience to work alongside our Russian colleagues in ensuring a genuine,
lasting success.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Chaklein on behalf of
the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr CHAKLEIN (Russian Federation) said that Chechnya was often discussed
but there were few tangible results. The key to progress was to deal with the
funding of terrorism and moral support for terrorists but this was not
happening. The Council of Europe had helped to bring about some changes but
the Russian Government was aware of all the well-known problems.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Chaklein. I call Mr Surján, on
behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr SURJÁN (Hungary). – We can be good politicians only if we are
convinced that Sisyphus had a pleasant job. Having analysed the enormous work
of our rapporteurs, I am convinced that Lord Judd is a very good politician.
He has tried to find room for manoeuvre in a difficult situation, and that has
increased the reputation of our organisation.
Last August, the Novaja Bremja in Russia published a debate in which it
was mentioned that international organisations, such as the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe, could take part in any solution. However,
listening to the discussion I am dissatisfied about the situation. I am
satisfied with the Joint Working Group, but the EPP is critical of the
situation in Chechnya.
There is little discussion about the real heart of the matter, which is that
the Russians and the Chechens want the same, but that is that they both want
Chechnya. For the Russians, the independence of Chechnya is not a topic for
discussion, but that is what the Chechens want. How can we find a spirit of
reconciliation in such circumstances? Do we really think that the cleansing
operation can promote a spirit of reconciliation in the area? After so many
cleansing operations, Chechnya must be the cleanest country in the world, but
it is definitely not.
Radicalism is increasing among the young generation not only in Chechnya, but
in Russia. In the last few years, 1.5 million conscripts from Russia have
served in Chechnya, and have had personal experience of violence. We have been
informed that they are trying to perpetrate such violence outside Chechnya
also. Violence is not a solution. The mission of the Joint Working Group is to
promote a spirit of reconciliation.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Surján. I call Ms Severinsen,
on behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group.
Ms SEVERINSEN (Denmark). – First, I should like to thank Lord Judd
and his courageous group for their information paper on their visit and for
the memorandum of the Joint Working Group. The Liberal, Democratic and
Reformers’ Group agrees with the rapporteurs that a sustainable political
solution is needed. Therefore, we hope that next time we will be given a
report and a draft resolution and recommendation so that the Assembly can
express its view on how a political solution can be achieved.
We want to stress that the right order should be political negotiation,
including with the Mashadov side, abstention from violence by both sides,
followed by census, a referendum, elections and a new constitution drafted by
those who, at that time, will be the legitimate representatives of the
Chechens. We want to know who is currently involved in drafting a new
constitution, and what gives them their legitimacy. Are we sure that they are
legitimate? The Council of Europe should not be involved in a process that is
seen by the Chechens as hostile.
How can a referendum be carried out in the present situation? No one can move
freely, and some of the population are refugees or are living and hiding in
the mountains. Who would dare to help a relative living in the mountains to
take part in an election campaign and run the risk of being cleansed? Who
would dare to argue in such a campaign? How could a fair election campaign
take place under the present circumstances?
We are aware that the current constitution has shortcomings, but we should
take care to ensure that the process does not give rise to bitterness and new
violence. It is important that refugees should have the right to take part in
the process and vote in safety, that the possibility of returning voluntarily
is available to them, and that freedom of movement is secured.
The Council of Europe’s values are at stake. I am sure that in the long run
Russians will realise that to continue a war does not pay, and that the only
way forward is to negotiate a peaceful solution with the participation of all
those who have a legitimate right to represent the people. We must remember
that the Russians took upon themselves a commitment to seek a peaceful
solution in Chechnya. We in the Council of Europe have an obligation to report
on that and to keep Chechnya on our agenda. I thank Lord Judd for doing
that.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Ms Ragnarsdóttir on behalf
of the European Democratic Group.
Ms RAGNARSDÓTTIR (Iceland). – Only one year ago, we sat in the
Hemicycle almost paralysed by the events that shook the world on 11 September.
That day marked a significant turn in world affairs – it is a day that will
be remembered for more than one reason. My comments are not unfounded: there
are ebbs and flows in the topics of international relations, and in the case
of the troubled Chechen Republic, the ebb in the wake of other perils and
challenges has resulted in a disturbing silence. Now, the situation in the
Pankisi gorge appears to have overtaken the Chechen problem in terms of
international attention, but it is naďve to disregard the relationship
between those two issues. I would have expected the situation in Georgia to be
debated jointly with the conflict in Chechnya.
Chechnya itself has by and large vanished from the current affairs agenda. We
should be cautious: we have too often seen frozen conflicts thaw rapidly to
danger point in the absence of international society’s attention, and
Chechnya cannot be allowed to reach that point again. Ongoing efforts by the
Council of Europe are crucial.
Earlier this month, I visited Moscow and the Chechen Republic as a member of
the Joint Working Group. It was my fourth visit to Chechnya, and I concur with
the rapporteur, Lord Judd, that the situation appears to have improved, albeit
only to a certain extent. I still have serious concerns, especially the
humanitarian situation, and I should like to comment on some of those
concerns.
It was extremely troubling to hear that some of my friends since Znamenskoye
still feel that they are being pressurised to return to Chechnya. It was
equally troubling to hear that the makeshift accommodation consists of
temporary dwellings rather than homes, and that people think that living in
them is even worse than living in tents as refugees. There are problems with
the food supply, heating, sanitation and employment, and there is limited
manoeuvrability because of security risks. The responsible authorities must
take great care in those respects, because the foundations of a secure and
viable society lie in meeting precisely those basic needs.
Chechens face a huge challenge. A substantial number of young men have lost or
will lose their lives or have disappeared, and that puts a profound strain on
society. Some contend that the genetic foundations of the nation have been
depleted.
Our role in the Chechen Republic is vital. Our mediation has been important
and we have to continue to work towards our goal.
THE PRESIDENT called Mr Sultygov, the Special Representative of the President
of the Russian Federation, and said that his presence showed the willingness
of the Russian President to engage in seeking a solution to the problems of
Chechnya.
Mr SULTYGOV (Special Representative of the President of the Russian
Federation) said that it was the first time he had spoken in this, the
palace of the new Europe. He was the Representative of the President of the
Russian Federation and the policies of the Russian Federation toward Chechnya
were symbolic because they represented Russia’s policy throughout foreign
affairs.
The working group was highly respected in the Russian Federation. The report
showed the vulnerability of the situation and the difficulties in establishing
the rule of law and democracy. A range of organisations was seeking solutions
in conjunction with public authorities and civil society, such as the council
on human rights and the consultative council. The issue of funding for the
consultative council was still to be resolved.
The continuing terrorist campaign in Chechnya sought to undermine the process
of reconciliation. This process had reached a critical point and the populace
had had enough of war and continued threats.
He suggested that the Council of Europe focus upon a social programme to work
on these issues and develop a political solution. The consultative council was
critical in this regard as it brought together various interests and tried to
ensure that the state could function properly.
There was a continuing focus on the problems of displaced persons. The working
group was trying to get people to move from refugee camps to resettlement
areas in the republic, and there had been significant investment in these. He
had had no complaints about forcible repatriation to Chechnya. Nobody
had complained that they had been forced from tent camps back to Chechnya but
there was a lack of humanitarian aid. Migrants must not be led into the black
economy. They were aware of crimes committed in Chechnya. Since September 1999
there had been 150 cases registered, ninety-five of which had been dealt with
and seventy cases referred to the military courts. Chechnya was in a
transitional period. There were violations of Order 80 and civil authorities
were not as involved as they should be. NGOs were working with the authorities
to implement the order and a document on this would soon be published. For the
first time, Chechnya would have a referendum which would allow feuds regarding
independence to be settled. It would have the right to elect its own officials
although it still needed to return to normal conditions. It needed to conform
to Council of Europe standards. The constitution of Chechnya was subject to
the Russian Federation. With the help of the Council of Europe Chechnya would
work with people in trying to turn its back on violence.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you Mr Sultygov. The next speaker is Ms
Zwerver.
Ms ZWERVER (Netherlands). – I refer to some newspaper clippings:
“Russian Government is telling the world that life is returning to normal in
Chechnya. But it has not brought anyone to justice for terrible crimes of
sexual violence by troops in Chechnya”.
Those are the words of Elisabeth Andersen of Human Rights Watch. Another
clipping says that Russian forces continue to detain hundreds of people
without charges in the ongoing operations against Chechen rebel forces and
that most are subsequently released but dozens remain unaccounted for – they
have disappeared and have not been seen by their families again.
The humanitarian situation in Chechnya is still very bad. Whether the returns
to Grozny are forced is a big question. Lord Judd writes in his report that
the people to whom he spoke on his one-day visit to Grozny felt no pressure to
return, but went there of their own free will. Human rights organisations
working in the region tell a different story. Whom should we believe? I do not
know, but what is sure is that the humanitarian situation of the returnees and
the conditions in which they have to live are very bad.
Lord Judd also writes in the information paper that international
organisations should return to Chechnya, but there is no analysis whatever as
to why they are not in Chechnya. They are not there for security reasons. The
missing man from Médicins sans Frontičres is still missing, and we
should not forget that. Kidnappings and murders make it very dangerous to work
in Chechnya. I stress that it is a Russian responsibility to deliver aid. I
see no mention of that in the report. The international community is there not
to replace the Russian authorities, but to support them.
Last but not least, there is a lack of financial resources. United Nations
High Commission for Refugees received only half the amount of funding that it
asked for in the region. The political situation is not good either. Mr
Kalamanov’s successor, Mr Sultygov, whom we just heard, took a rather
restrictive approach in respect of the freedom to travel of Council of Europe
representatives in Chechnya. The Kalamanov staff, trained by Council of Europe
experts, will probably be replaced by untrained personnel. Is that an
improvement? No.
I ask the rapporteur exactly what progress is being made. We are today
discussing again the conflict in Chechnya and we will tell each other again
how awful the situation is. We are repeating ourselves again and again. It
cannot go on like this. How long does the Assembly intend to continue in this
way and how many repeated statements does it need? We are like a Greek chorus
agonising in the wings. I think that it is high time again to start the
discussion about sanctions and the credentials of the Russian delegation. A
human rights organisation such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe cannot go on like this.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Markowski.
Mr MARKOWSKI (Poland). – For the fourth year in succession, we are
witnesses of what is going on in Chechnya. We see that the violations of human
rights are continuing and that the number of victims since 1994 is
200 000 – 20% of the nation’s population. International organisations
such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Memorial and others are
well informed of those facts. For four years, they have collected concrete
facts and proof, and names and addresses of victims.
Every day the list of civilian victims is increasing, and most of them are
children, women and old people. The situation is critical. It is impossible to
speak about quality of life in Chechnya. The strong efforts of the joint
working group give small results and the process of political regulation is
very long. I call on Russia urgently to stop the military action in Chechnya;
General Maskhadov is ready to do so. It must begin the process of dialogue,
with the mediation of international observers.
If no action is taken, we must ask questions about Russia’s failure to
observe the rules and principles of the Council of Europe.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you for respecting the time limit. The
next speaker is Mr Slutsky.
Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that he believed colleagues now
understood that Russia intended to bring a normal life back to the Chechen
Republic. Displaced people had returned to Grozny of their own free will from
tent camps and railway wagons.
He considered that no country in the history of the Council of Europe had been
able to regularise a human disaster as quickly as Russia had on this occasion.
Some 500 schools were now open together with the universities, and transport
facilities were also operating.
All political factions were represented on the Chechen consultative council
established as a result of the Joint Working Group.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – For nearly forty years I have
respected, admired and learned much from Frank Judd, who took up the challenge
that the Assembly threw down when it refused to take the soft option of
refusing to ratify Russia’s credentials and of trying to teach Russia a
lesson by giving it a bloody nose and saying, “Go home, we do not want you
and you do not fit in.” That challenge was always going to be a difficult
one, but he and his colleagues have stuck with it.
It was sad that Ms Zwerver should be so critical, yet not show respect for the
committee or the Assembly by staying to hear the answers to the questions that
she posed. It is easy for us to be critical of what our colleagues have tried
to do.
July’s report used dramatic language such as “quickly and alarmingly”
and “serious doubts”, yet little progress has been made since. In opening
the debate, Frank Judd pointed out that we will have a full-scale debate in
January, when we hope to have more time and to be able to reach an informed
judgment about what has been achieved.
When one reads in the report how many Russian soldiers are on the ground one
wonders why the Russians cannot prosecute their case against the terrorists.
They expect Georgia to be able to do so, despite its having fewer resources,
and they physically abuse Georgia with their armed might simply because it
cannot deliver what the Russians cannot deliver on their own territory. That
is hypocritical and we must carefully examine what the Russians are saying.
I also find it strange that our Russian colleagues and their Prosecutor
General should suggest that there should be international co-operation in the
prosecution of criminals who fled the country after committing offences when
they have considerable problems prosecuting offenders within the Russian armed
forces. There is a contradiction in many of the comments that we have heard.
The Assembly has given Russia the benefit of the doubt and Frank Judd and his
colleagues have made space for manoeuvre where two years ago there was no
space. Time is running out and the Assembly is owed a full explanation from
our Russian colleagues about what they intend to do to put human rights back
on a level footing. The consequences of inaction are apparent from the six
issues that Frank Judd lists in paragraph 28 of Document 9559. I have read
nothing to suggest that the will or the resources will be found to rebuild the
country. Until a country is rebuilt in such a way that it gives people hope so
that they have more than despair to look forward to, there will always be
conflict and there will always be harm. The Assembly must move on and I hope
that we will do so in January.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The last speaker is Ms Tevdoradze.
Ms TEVDORADZE (Georgia) referred to the difficult social position in
Georgia and the fact that it had received 8 000 Chechen refugees.
Although these were Russian people, that country was not doing anything for
their safety and security. They had become a bone of contention between Russia
and Georgia. She also referred to a petition prepared by the refugees
concerning their human rights. The people were being humiliated and treated as
criminals. They were grateful to Georgia for hosting them, but if Georgia
could not protect them, either the international community would have to
protect Georgia, or they must be moved to a third country.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I must now unfortunately interrupt the list
of speakers. I remind you that members who are on the list and present in the
Chamber but who have not been called may submit their speeches in typescript
to the Table Office in Room 1083 within twenty-four hours of the end of the
debate for publication in the official report.
I call Lord Judd to reply. You have four minutes.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom). – I wish to thank sincerely all those who
participated in the debate. I am sorry that there was no more time, because I
would have liked to hear others. Members’ views are very important to me in
my work as rapporteur.
I was asked some very specific questions by Ms Zwerver and I am glad to see
that she has been able to return to the Chamber so that I may reply. Ms
Zwerver, I am never quite sure whether you have been able to read the report
that I have written. What I actually said was that some of the returned
displaced people with whom I spoke said that they had felt pressurised into
returning and that the process of their return had been degrading. However,
others – apparently honestly – said that they had returned of their own
free will. I then made the observation that all those with whom I spoke said
that, notwithstanding what had happened in the past, they preferred to be back
in their old city, but the terrible humanitarian situation that confronts them
and the security situation must be addressed.
On the point about non-governmental organisations, most of my professional
life outside formal politics has been spent working for humanitarian agencies.
I have had the privilege of being the director of Britain’s largest
voluntary humanitarian agency. I would not make rash challenges to such
organisations. Of course, security matters, but it is important to develop a
psychology in which we look for opportunities to return, when security allows,
rather than sinking into a mood in which we say, “Grozny and Chechnya are
impossible places to work.” We are in a battle for humanity and we must tip
the balance towards the former.
All I can say to you, Ms Zwerver, is that it is a shame that we do not have
your rigour and vigour firmly behind us in the political drive. You ask what
we are going to do, but I keep saying that, if we really care, the issue is
not one of first aid or ad hoc arrangements or fingers in dykes. The
issue is achieving the strategic political solution that will guarantee the
future.
As for my Russian friends, I am sure that I speak for the whole Assembly when
I say that we are here to work with you. We are determined that that work will
enable you to achieve a lasting settlement, and not a pyrrhic victory. We want
something that belongs to the people of Chechnya and is acceptable to the
broadest possible cross section of those people. We must not wait until
January. We must do everything possible from today to try to carry the process
forwards. We will take stock seriously in January, but I hope that by then we
will have a convincing story to tell about progress towards the political
solution that alone will secure the future of the men, women and children of
that tortured country.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I give the floor to the
Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee, Mr Jakič. He has two
minutes.
Mr JAKIČ (Slovenia). – The Political Affairs Committee is
closely following the situation in Chechnya. That has been made easy, because
we have a person who is dedicated with all his heart to the issue. I am proud
that Lord Judd is keeping his eye on the situation in Chechnya and is trying
his best to change the authorities’ approach so that they respect all the
obligations that they need to accept to become members of the Council of
Europe. It is difficult to follow Lord Judd, and I completely agree with what
he has said and with his report. However, it is probably time to ask Lord Judd
to present a new document with concrete proposals for future actions by our
Assembly. I look forward to doing that in my committee as soon as possible and
I also look forward to the plenary session in January.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. The information document has been
noted. The debate is closed.
Source: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
ADDENDUM II
The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by
members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time
from delivering them.
Mr KELEMEN (Hungary).– Among the terrible news, I remember one
particular case, which can illustrate that the Chechen conflict is a deep
humanitarian catastrophe. Two years ago, a Russian soldier killed an
eighteen year old Chechen girl. In this peculiar case, a trial took
place: during the judicial proceedings, fans brought flowers to the
murderer, and the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda reported that the
overwhelming majority of the population did not think that the criminal should
be tried. That event gives us a clear insight into why the conflict
seems to be endless.
Admittedly, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly is the only
international body to have taken concrete measures against the inhuman events
in Chechnya. The terrorist attack against the USA pushed the suffering
in Chechnya to the background. Russia is an ally of the West in the
fight against international terrorism. But the wounds caused by the war
are turning gangrenous, and the consequences of this process are now becoming
menacing, since the war is threatening to spread and involve a territory in an
adjacent country: I refer to the possibility of an air strike over the
Pankisi gorge in Georgia. I have already said in this Parliamentary
Assembly that it is foreseeable that that zone of conflict may extend to a
larger area of the former Soviet Empire – and now, we are facing the
prospect of an international conflict between two member states.
I firmly believe that indiscriminate military action, described several times
by international experts, cannot promote peacemaking. On the contrary,
it can lead to greater resistance among the afflicted population, since it
also acts as a collective punishment against innocent civilians.
Consequently, I would reiterate that it is better to seek a political
solution, instead of reacting with brute force. On the other hand, what
can we expect from a promised election of Chechen representatives who will be
carefully selected in an atmosphere of fear?
Taking into consideration the facts, that no progress is visible concerning
the situation, that the free movement of our Secretary General’s personal
representatives cannot be guaranteed and that the right to life is repeatedly
denied in an uncontrolled way, an infringement which, in most cases, goes
unpunished, I believe we must consider whether we are doing anything other
than building a smokescreen that serves only to hide a humanitarian failure.
Mr LANDSBERGIS (Lithuania).– During the recent period of Russian war
in Chechnya, a new form of execution was widely introduced. Waging its
‘mob operations’, the Russian military usually takes a number of men –
civilian villagers – from their families and homes to the fields, shoots
them down and then explodes the corpses with grenades. This method was
testified to by several independent sources. After such ‘mob
operations’ are finished, the relatives search around, find, collect and
recognise, if possible, the parts of damaged bodies, and then bury them in
white linen with respect, mourning and prayers.
Chechen peasantry in the countryside, mourning and praying, are of a much
higher culture than those bestialised Russian soldiers, including colonels
such as Budanov, the rapist and strangler of the arrested and naked Chechen
girl. He remains unpunished but he was sympathised with for being at
that time ‘too emotional’.
The French writer Anne Nivat said in an interview to the Russian ‘Moscow
News’: “I was in Mesker-Yurt two days ago after the village was
re-opened after 22 days of ‘mob operation’. Who did it? The
people in masks, who refused to allow even Kadyrov to enter there. Those
in masks did not give a damn that he represents the Kremlin. They said
that they obeyed only one person – Putin. I cannot describe what I saw
there, in the village. People were horrified that this was the worst
horror. I spoke with a woman who lost her three sons – eleven,
thirteen and fifteen years of age. Soldiers took them. She found
them in the holes of the fields of the Mesker-Yurt. The population is
terrified and people are afraid to speak. Those in masks promised to
come back in ten days. So Madame Nivat, not Mr Chaklein.
There are some differences from the nice impressions gained by Lord Judd, from
the same Chechnya at the same time. In his document, approved by the
Political Affairs Committee, the word ‘peace’ is deleted absolutely, and
there is no word in the whole paper to say that the war has to be
stopped. All evil in Chechnya and around is rooted in that war.
Oleg Mironov, the ombudsman on human rights in all Russia, said about events
of 1994, after visiting Chechnya recently: “The highest authority of
the state committed the crime by intervening with troops”.
Ivan Rybkin, the former head of the State Duma and later the Secretary of
Security Council under President Yeltsin, said recently to the last free
media: “Stalin was a great humanist in comparison with what we are
doing today…it is terrible to pronoumce, but the entire nation is being
exterminated”.
Both of them, Mr Mironov and Mr Rybkin, are still free people. But when
Lord Judd uses the Ćsopian language, for instance “courageously wide
political dialogue” or his personal disagreement with a “fait accompli”
approach in Chechnya, then I feel like I am in the Soviet Union again.
If we want to stop the war, we have to say it.
Buy using the Ćsopian and Orwellian language, the Joint Working Group of this
Assembly deserves to be seen as representative of Russian – a counterpart of
the European Parliament’s delegation for relations with Russia.
Exactly that was stated by the European Parliament in its resolution on the
situation in Chechnya, and I guess that it was quite right in using such an
evaluation.
Médecins Sans Frontičres
is also right when stating that “no international power is prepared to stop
the Kremlin and protect Chechens’ lives”. Yes, no power, no
influential organisation, including the Council of Euruope, is prepared to
protect common Chechens’ lives from the hatred of the Kremlin. One
more paper of today does prove it.
To say “No, Dimitriy, the truth is a greater friend of mine than you”,
appears for some to be much too difficult. Sorry.
Source: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (A,T) |
