Human Rights in Russia
and Chechnya: an Interview with Elena Bonner.
Washington Profile - 16.12.2002
www.washprofile.org
Elena Bonner, former wife of Andrei Sakharov, now chairs the Andrei Sakharov Foundation
and devotes her time to human rights groups in Russia.
Q. Are human rights groups in the United States similar to the groups in the former
Soviet Union?
A. Non-government human rights groups in the US are numerous and very active.
But I have had no contact with them, even though I follow their activities.
Q. Is it easier to be a human rights advocate in Russia or in the US?
A. I think it’s easier for the American human rights activists. The US has
a civil society, even if it’s weak, and there isn’t such poverty among
public-interest organizations as here. They can always find sponsors and donors.
In Russia it’s very difficult.
Q. Russia recently saw the appearance of “The Civic Forum”…
A. From the beginning and to this day I continue to oppose cooperation with the
power structure, cooperation organized by the President’s administration.
I think human rights groups should always, in every respect, oppose the state
rather than follow in its wake. The majority of human rights groups who took part
in the Forum were disappointed. Together with government representatives, roundtables
were organized to approach the most important problems. As it turned out, this
doesn’t
work. There was a roundtable on Chechnya, where members of “Memorial”,
the Helsinki Group, “Mothers of Soldiers” and others met with General
Moltensky. The general then issued an edict that all clean-out operations must
be done through orders, with transparency – and what happened? All the decisions
of “The Civic Forum” were completely ignored! This was an utter hoax
– a demonstration of the supposed cooperation between the state and non-government
organizations to fool
world opinion.
Q. How much attention do world human rights groups give to defending human rights
in Russia?
A. Not enough. And the main thing – this amazes me – is how the West
(traditionally democratic countries of Europe and North America) and Western leaders
get hooked on the lies coming from Russia. These lies come not only from Russia,
as was the case in Soviet times, but also from leaders of democratic countries
– the myth that Russia is fighting international terrorism in Chechnya.
This is an absolute lie! Russians waging a terrible war against the people of
Chechnya under the banner of combating international terrorism. And the war being
conducted by Russia today stimulates terrorism!
Moreover, the West doesn’t want to notice that all the international conventions
protecting the civilian population, protecting refugees, protecting asylum seekers,
are all being violated by Russia and by the Western democracies. Currently refugees
in Ingushetia are being made to return to Chechnya. According to the UN human
rights convention, a person cannot be forced to return if their safety and tolerable
living standards are not guaranteed. Chechens in Chechnya are assured of only
one right – the right to die.
Q. Does that mean the West uses double standards?
A. Absolutely. Take the European Court. Former head of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic
is now on trial, while Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – best friend of the
German president, the American president, the British prime-minister etc. In my
opinion, Putin is responsible for the deaths of more of his countrymen than Milosevic.
The West tried to become involved in Yugoslavia – that’s why there
were international commissions everywhere. But look at what’s going on in
Chechnya – mass burials, people disappearing, executions without trials,
ceaseless “clean-out” operations, banditry, robbery, trading in corpses,
destruction of property. These crimes have been proven by the most respected international
organizations – the Helsinki Group, Amnesty International, the Red Cross.
But none of these charges were explored by any international commissions. When
it comes to Russia, the West is afraid to let out a peep.
In my opinion, in the 1970s-80s the West not only proclaimed, but also followed
the principle of protecting human rights. But today, continuing these demagogic
talks, it has sold off its principles. This will have terrible consequences both
for our general future and for the defense of human rights in these Western democracies.
Q. What do you think about the situation in Iraq?
A. It’s difficult for me to judge. In principle, I don’t like the
idea of a humanitarian intervention. As was shown in Yugoslavia, in a humanitarian
intervention what is desired is perceived as reality. I doubt that good intentions
can be fulfilled through force. And I’m afraid that the same thing will
happen in Iraq, on a humanitarian
dimension. But the problem of the weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons,
bacteriological and chemical weapons! According to the dossier that Iraq sent
to the UN, Western democracies actively helped Iraq develop these weapons. This
creates a new collision.
I cannot give an unqualified “no” to the current UN policies. But
I have a feeling that this is a very difficult operation, and I’m not sure
it’s the correct one. And I don’t know how to make sure Iraq is not
a threat to the world with its weapons arsenal. I don’t think anyone knows.
Q. You called suicide bombers a new type of weapons of mass destruction…
A. I still continue to think so. The West gives money to schools in Palestine,
tries to organize an educational system there. But when we look at these school
programs, which are implemented in Palestine, we see that it’s just a science
of hate. During the intifada, the UN had to condemn the Palestine movement and
not show it any support, because minors in Palestine join the militant movement
en masse. This is a monstrous way of waging war. The children get dragged into
it, and that is a crime against humanity. I will proclaim this until my last breath.
Q. Can any parallels be drawn between the situation in Chechnya and in Palestine?
A. Absolutely not!
Q. Can the Chechen conflict lead to “a Palestinian scenario”?
A. Mr. Putin, with his outhouses, can lead it to who knows what. In actuality,
the question is this: is there a place for Chechens in the world today? Poor old
people, women and children are being kicked out of Ingushetia under fire, toward
“clean-out” operations and the bare sky in the middle of winter. In
Georgia, under Russian pressure, Chechens are caught and given to Russia. Chechens
are not given refugee documents or the right to see asylum in Russian territory.
Do the Chechens have a place on this earth or not? This question must be answered
by the international human rights groups and Western democracies.
Q. How might the conflict in Chechnya end?
A. How should I know! In one of my articles I quoted Suvorov’s letter to
Catherine. Things turned out well – he says, about another war against the
Chechens – but there are no Chechens left. This letter to Catherine, which
is almost 300 years old, seems to be guiding today’s authorities.
Q. When will a civil society appear in Russia?
A. It is already appearing in the form of human rights groups. There is a great
number of these organizations with various interests. These organizations actively
demand peace all over Russia, that is, stopping the war in Chechnya and instituting
alternative military service. “Soldier’s Mothers” actively seek
to prevent hazing and to create decent service conditions for a young person in
the army. These organizations teach defending your rights through non-violent
judicial methods, help
people access the courts, and give free judicial consultations. There are many
new environmental organizations, and organizations that protect consumer rights.
These already exist and operate, and that’s very important.
I can give you an example. In our museum – the Sakharov Museum – we’ve
already had a youth club for three years. It’s called SAMBO, self defense
without force, and it shows how a teenager can protect his rights in our society.
It attracts a large number of high school upperclassmen, gives them assignments,
they write essays, put on exhibits on these themes. This is all very interesting
and important as a way to create a civil society and teaching the new generation
in an un-totalitarian but not quite democratic state.
But in general, Russia is a difficult, inert country. The uplifting spirit that
had existed in 1989-90 reminds me of the February revolution of 1917, when October
came and with it Lenin’s letters: shoot one hundred priests and a hundred
prostitutes to set an example. I forgot the exact figures…
Q. What is the situation with human rights in other former Soviet republics?
A. It’s bad everywhere. And another double standard. The West doesn’t
accept Lukashenko with his speeches. Which is right, I don’t much like him
either. But the West embraces Putin, with his murders.