The Chechen Times

Answer: At first because the reports I read, the photos I saw, and the accounts I heard from Chechen victims or from observers all pointed to the fact that the suffering of the Chechens was unique in the degree of violence, cruelty and sadism, not only on the «ground», in the exercise of "authority", in other words in the repression, but also in the distant, inaccessible offices of the Kremlin or the Loubianka where politicians and civil servants plan the «operations» in Chechnya. There is a deliberate policy of unprecedented annihilation, degradation, and destruction.

There is also another reason — extremely important and closely related to what I have just said — that is my deep sadness and concern in the face of the evolution of Russia, my astonishment and anger at the indifference and inertia of the European leaders who watch, or even encourage, the great «devaluation» of the political system of our Russian neighbour.

Question: Does Europe’s indifference really surprise you?

Answer: The extent of it surprises me, yes. Of course we are used to Europe’s tendency to stick its head in the sand, to refuse to face up to problems. To the point that it sometimes even ends up no longer seeing them. But since the fall of the Wall this tendency has unfortunately assumed alarming proportions. The enlargement to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is being pushed through backwards, without the slightest enthusiasm. The Balkans and their many victims — 200,000 Bosnians, 10,000 Croatians and 10,000 Kosovars — weigh heavily on Europe’s conscience, yet it gives the impression of having no conscience at all.

Question: So what does Europe want?

Answer: The problem is that it doesn’t know, and doesn’t seem to want to know. It huddles up to address old problems of adaptation to the changing world that it should have resolved ten years ago, it barricades itself in, it trembles, it makes itself afraid. And the result is that there is still no free circulation in the Union for the people of the Balkans, not to mention clear prospects of membership for those countries. Even though they live on the other side of the Adriatic, just 60 kilometres from the Italian coastline. Even though the total population is less than 20 million, while the enlarged Union has 450 million citizens. Even though Europe already knows, with absolute certainty, that it will be woefully short of labour in the years to come. This gives us an idea of what Europe might think of the Caucasus! Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, they are a long way away, on the moon. And Chechnya, with its continuing genocide, is even further away, on Mars, perhaps.

Question: Do you mean that there is nothing new in Europe’s approach to Chechnya?

Answer: Something, unfortunately, has changed. Its shameful irresponsibility has grown radically. During the dark years of Croatia and Bosnia there were always contradictions. The major TV networks covered what was happening, politicians and intellectuals spoke out, some of them went there, there were debates in parliaments and in the newspapers. For Chechnya, there are practically no pictures, there is very little news in the papers (apart from one or two notable exceptions), there are very few debates in parliaments, and very few European eyes in Grozny. This is not a matter of chance. It is the result of a deliberate policy in Moscow that Europe has ratified without batting an eyelid. «No eyes, no ears, no genocide."

Question: What are the basic reasons that have led Europe to abandon all criticism of Russia?

Answer: An oil and gas Eldorado and a potential market of 145 million consumers that it is now possible to exploit in all security, thanks to Mr Putin’s farsightedness, have settled all differences. Who cares if the FSB is keeping up the good old traditions of the KGB? Who cares if it has managed to occupy positions of responsibility in many key sectors, to the point that it now has the power to control the electoral procedures, to arrest a man as important as Mr. Khodorkovski and to imprison him in open violation of the international Conventions Russia has signed? Who cares if there has been a clear regression since 1999 in terms of the respect of the fundamental rights in most areas of life? Europe has returned to the old policy of "Realpolitik" in the belief that by praising the strong man it can tame him better. And it has agreed to pay the price: by closing its eyes to the genocide in Chechnya, to the regression of democracy and the Rule of Law in Russia, and to the systematic manipulation of news by the FSB, relayed unquestioningly by much of the Western press: «Chechens fighting in Afghanistan, Chechens fighting in Iraq…". Despite the fact that no Chechens, either dead or alive, have ever been found in these countries.

Question: The questions that you put regularly to the European Commission and to the Council are generally rather «lacking in diplomacy», you call things by their name: «genocide», «war crimes», «crimes against humanity», «racism». Sometimes it seems that your questions are «suspended», detached from reality.

Answer: I think we should be careful not to exaggerate the importance of parliamentary questions. They are above all a way of recording serious events. The authorities of the Union can no longer say they didn’t know, that they weren’t aware of the problem.

Question: What will happen now? How will your colleagues in the European Parliament react?

Answer: The European Parliament can do very little in terms of foreign policy. This almost complete powerlessness is a fair reflection of Europe today, with its 16 foreign policies: 15 national policies and one so-called «common» policy! Soon to be 26! It can denounce, it can interpellate governments and the European Commission, but it can do little more. This is the reason why I am convinced that it is also necessary to bring pressure to bear on the parliaments and the governments of the Member Countries of the European Union.

Question: Do you mean that what we need is a great political and diplomatic initiative aimed at the governments and parliaments of the 25 Member States?

Answer: Exactly! The governments and parliaments of the 25 Member States must be encouraged to back the Peace Plan for the establishment of an interim UN Administration in Chechnya. But this is a question — and a decision — that concerns first of all President Maskhadov and his government.

Question: What do you think of the reaction of the Chechen people to the so-called Akhmadov Peace Plan?

Answer: The reactions are ambivalent. The vast majority of the Chechens I have met realize that the implementation of a Peace Plan of this nature would mean a return to normality, an end to the fighting, in a word, to peace. They also realize that this scenario would provide reliable guarantees against possible internal turmoil such as that which struck Chechnya between 1996 and 1999. And also against further temptations in Moscow to use Chechnya once again to resolve questions of power. But on the other hand they are not signing it, they are not defending it, they are not promoting it. They are afraid of the FSB, they say. This is certainly true. But I also believe that many of them must still leave behind a romantic vision of the struggle for independence or of brave Chechen warriors who are fighting alone to defeat the Russian empire and to liberate Chechnya.

Question: Why are they unable to leave this vision behind?

Answer: Some of them no doubt because they feel bad about not being on the front line, among the fighters. Others because this is how they sublimate their frustrations. And others because they have chosen the romantic adventure of a man like Chamil Bassaiev where the fate of Chechnya is not what matters. Where what is involved is at best a demented dream of endless fighting, and at worst a dirty game of power, money, and collusion with the enemy that relies on the continuation of the war. A reality that relies on tragic myths like the manipulation by a single man of the services inherited from the Soviet KGB. A reality in which religion — Islam — is used merely to make it easier to obtain financial aid and to give substance to the fundamentalist threat on which Mr Putin’s whole policy of restoration is based.

Question: In many of his articles, the renowned French intellectual Andre Glucksmann expresses his sincere admiration for the Chechens because in spite of the monstrous genocide of which they are the victims the majority of them reject terrorist tactics against the civilian population of Russia. But this can no longer be taken for granted. There is a heated debate in the Chechen media about whether such actions are justified or not. Some Chechen journalists and human rights campaigners say that the Resistance now has «carte blanche» to carry out such actions. The position of this newspaper is in line with that of the legitimate government of Chechnya. We denounce all forms of terrorism and we believe that this type of action cannot be justified. To what extent is this type of action detrimental to the cause of peace for Chechnya?

Answer: I believe, like the overwhelming majority of the world population, that civilian populations must not be the targets of military actions. But this conviction is easy for me to hold. I am here, in Western Europe, safe from the war. More than the moral aspect of the question, what we must consider now is the political significance of these terrorist acts. What purpose do they serve? To legitimise — a little more with each attack — Mr Putin’s anti-terrorist crusade? To make President Bush move further away from the Chechen cause? To strengthen the conviction (or illusion) of the European governments that it is not a case of genocide but of a war against terrorism? To reinforce the feeling that the Chechens are not ready to govern themselves? To damage the image of President Maskhadov, accused both of being an accomplice of the terrorists and of not being able to control the resistance and prevent these attacks? To tarnish the image of the Chechen people and thus to contribute to the attempt to play down the importance of the genocide in progress and reinforce the isolation of the Chechen people?

Question: In other words, you are saying that terrorism plays into the hands of Russian interests?

Answer: Exactly. Because even in the most optimistic military hypothesis — that the «carte blanche» will help the resistance to defeat the Russian forces and expel them from Chechnya — it would be a victory without a political future, because it would lead only to the even greater isolation of Chechnya, a situation like that of 1996 in which no country would be willing to recognise it. It would, in fact, be a further defeat for Chechnya and a victory for Russia.

Question: Can you tell us who is defending Chechnya? Whether these forces are united or divided?

Answer: There are too many divisions, far too many. Above all, however, there is an underestimation of the value of politics. There are military aspects, of course: the concrete resistance on the ground, the balance of power between supporters of Mr Maskhadov and supporters of Mr Bassaiev. Issues which are not easy to understand from a distance of 2,000 kilometres. On the other hand, there is a political space in Europe, in the United States, and even in Russia, which the Chechen government should exploit to the full. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should be worth at least as much as a battalion!

Question: What, to your mind, is the «Chechen cause»?

Answer: It may come as a surprise, but I am a convinced, almost ideological federalist. I do not believe that my country — which happens to be Belgium (with a population of 10 million) — can be even a little bit more independent today. And I believe that the same applies to large, important countries such as Germany or Great Britain. I believe in interdependence between peoples, regions, countries,… I am in favour of the United States of Europe. So you will not be surprised if I say that for me the independence of Chechnya does not ultimately mean very much. In fact I see the objective of the independence of Chechnya as an important stage: a divorce that has become necessary both for Russia and for Chechnya. But without a new marriage the future of Chechnya risks being very gloomy. A marriage with who? With the European Union, a Union of small, medium-sized and large countries that will soon include Turkey, and close on its heels — hopefully — Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Question: You are a supporter of the Plan for «conditional independence». What is it that you like about this concept?

Answer: More than of the concept of "conditional independence", I am a fervent supporter of the interim UN Administration. In other words of a force that can guarantee the integration of Chechnya in the international community. An objective that the Chechen authorities did not manage to achieve between 1996 and 1999. This UN authority will also be able to ensure that the use of force will be the preserve of the legitimate authorities alone. First the United Nations, and subsequently the government and the parliament freely elected by the Chechen people. Another objective that the Chechen authorities were not able to achieve between 1996 and 1999, to the point that they gradually lost control of power to groups that were unwilling to give up the use of force to pursue their interests.

Question: To what extent do you find this plan attractive?

Answer: Very much. First of all because it doesn’t rush things. A transition period of 10 or even 15 years, this might seem a lot at first sight; but in actual fact the duration is no longer of great importance because the outlook, the objective and the timetable are clear. A transition period that will allow a sorely-tested people to return to normal life, to be able to eat normally, to sleep normally, to go out for a walk normally, to look for work and to have medical treatment in normal conditions. A period that will allow them to deal with the vast number of physical and psychological consequences of 10 years of war. A period, finally, which will allow them to rebuild all the human and material infrastructure of society: the Civil Service, the education system, the health system, the judicial system,… This relatively long period of temporary administration is also important because it allows the Russian people and the Russian authorities gradually to discover a Chechnya that has become a peaceful neighbour with which they can speak, do business, trade, …

Question: On 18 January you began a hunger strike «for Chechnya». Why?

Answer: First of all to be close to the Chechen people during the weeks leading up to the sad commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the deportation of the Chechen population in 1944. To remind the authorities of the European Union and of the Member States that a new genocide is taking place in Chechnya and that the principles and values on which it is founded oblige it to react. More concretely, I am appealing to the Union and the Member States to remove the bureaucratic obstacles which are currently preventing us from treating Chechen children in our hospitals and from welcoming Chechen students into our universities. I am also appealing to the Union and the Member States to draw up a «white list» of members of the government of President Maskhadov allowing them to reside and circulate freely throughout the territory of the Union in order to accomplish their mission. Finally, I am inviting people everywhere, in Chechnya and the rest of the world, to organise campaigns in support of the Peace Plan for an interim UN Administration in Chechnya (*), and to organise demonstrations on 23 February, in as many capitals as possible, to commemorate the genocide of the Chechen people in the past and in the present.

(*) You can support the Peace Plan for an interim United Nations Administration in Chechnya by signing the international appeal on the TRP site: www.radicalparty.org

Olivier Dupuis Member of the European Parliament email: odupuis@europarl.eu.int http://www.radicalparty.org/ tel. +32 2 284 7198 fax +32 2 284 9198