To save certain humanity

An exclusive interview with French philosopher and intellectual Andre Glucksmann

- Mr. Glucksmann, a year has passed since our previous interview, the world has changed, many people have witnessed a campaign of profanation of democratic values around the globe. Our readers would be interested in your vision of this problem, in particular, applied to the situation in Chechnya.

- Personally I think that democratic values become less and less respected in the world. I acclaimed the overthrow of the terrible dictator - Saddam Hussein - claiming himself at the same time an advocate of Jihad and an heir to Hitler and Stalin. It is good that he was dethroned. Unfortunately, as for Chechens, the situation aggravates every day.

- Mr. Glucksmann, it seems that answering the question "Who is terrorist, Mr. Putin?" you asked in an article published in one of our previous issues, the democratic world, in all appearance, said: "No, Mr. Putin, you are not a terrorist." How, do you think, the situation can develop?

- From the side of Europe the situation has deteriorated, because France and Germany, which appeared in an opposition to the USA, found new allies of Russia and China. Their union was called a "camp of peace," what is quite hypocritical taking into account the fact that the worst of the wars existing today on the earth is the war waged by the Russian army in Chechnya, which is the war of extermination. Thus, the alliance Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing and Damask turned out catastrophic, because it gave President Putin such a carte blanche that our president (Jacques Chirac - editor's note) expressed satisfaction with the example of democracy Moscow gives to the world. He made it publicly thereby causing irony, at least, from different French publications, including Figaro and Le Monde. This is a sign that not everything is so desperate on the level of public opinion. The crimes of the Russian military are monstrous. The whole public is aware of it.

- Over the last four years the situation hasn't improved at all. And now, on the threshold of the pseudo-election, people are terrified by the total terror reigning in the republic. Do you think there are chances of putting an end to it or the Chechen problem will further be ignored?

- I cannot but agree with you. The situation deteriorates and Europe commits the crime of indifference if not complicity. But from the other side, something can be done because information circles.

- The history shows that people do not learn its lessons. In 1920's, when the Bolshevist terror was also total, Europe kept silence. Over decades Stalin's repressions passed by almost unnoticed. In 1970's prominent dissident Bukovsky wrote about the epoch of Brezhnev's terror that he did not think that Europe would express its position on what was going on in Russia. Thus, Europe seems to demonstrate constancy in this respect.

- I have known Bukovsky since his release from GULAG in 1975. When I met him in 1980's he was totally desperate because he told me what you says today that Europe and the United States absolutely ignore the terror and the struggle of dissidents in the Soviet Union. Four years later, to their great surprise, Bukovsky and Solzhenitsyn managed to persuade a fraction of the American political elite which resulted in Reagan's presidency and finally the collapse of the Soviet empire. Thus, we shall never fall into despair. With that idea I headed for Washington at an improper moment, shortly before the beginning of the military campaign in Iraq, to do some lobbying together with Ilyas Akhmadov. In the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate we met senators and representatives tete-a-tete. At that time they were mostly absorbed by the upcoming war on Iraq. Nonetheless, they showed attention to the misfortunes of Chechnya.

- Our newspaper fully supports the peace proposal presented by Ilyas Akhmadov, but we will come back to this question later, if you please. We want to tell about Europeans who absolutely openly and sincerely speak about their position in support of Chechens. There are few of them. I will enumerate well-known names. Among politicians - Olivier Dupuis, who not only claims about his support, but vigorously criticizes the position of the European Parliament. As for intellectuals, I shall first of all mention Mr. Glucksmann in France and Vanessa Redgrave in Great Britain.

- I believe that the situation isn't so desperate, although it makes people fall into despair. First we must say that intellectuals are well aware and when it will be necessary to make a petition, there are many signatories, we can easily find five hundred people, such as Vaclav Havel, Elie Wiesel, Adam Michnik, Gunter Grass, I.Kadare many others ready to do it. The mayor of Rome Walter Veltroni is likely to put his signature under any appeal calling for talks with supporters of Chechnya's independence. But that does not change anything, and that is the problem. There are many people who are aware, who are indignant at the attitude of the Russian army. But one cannot say that their feelings are efficient. An example: the director of the largest Italian newspaper Corrierre de la Sierra, editor-in-chief Paolo Mieli, as well as his colleagues from other important publications (Avvenire...) and the extreme-left intellectual Adriano Sofri, suggested organizing a mass demonstration in Rome in support of Chechnya. The mayor of Rome gave his consent, the mayor of Paris would also have agreed, however millions of pacifists who manifested "for peace in Iraq" did not appear to manifest for peace in Chechnya. They hissed off Bush but they forgot about Putin who wages the worst war on the Earth. Their position is ideological, post-Marxist, always respectful to the Great Russia from Stalin to Putin. they are not for peace, they are dogmatically against America. The problem is not a lack of information, people know what is going on in Chechnya, and not an absence of intellectual to protest, I am not alone. Kind souls in love with their own tranquility do not want to face the evil, to see the frightening and troubled reality.

- I think the following episode from our editorial practice can make the situation clearer. Unfortunately, the French version of our newspaper seems a little poor because of the quality of the translation, but when we finally sent the first French issue, employees of the post service awaited our courier with the second one, they shook his hand and apologized for their passive position regarding Chechnya and even offered us a discount for mailing the newspaper. Maybe the problem is the lack of sufficient information?

- When I take metro, people also tell me: "You are right when you support Chechnya." Common people feel that something terrible is happening there. I am not an optimist and I want to express my feeling caused by the following facts: 1) everybody knows about the horror of Chechnya, 2) everybody knows that Russia runs counter to the principles of moral, democracy and international law, 3) it is known that such suffering is fraught with great risk.

The scenario of Afghanistan is still present in our heads. We know that there is an enormous risk of the repetition of the Afghan scenario. First, the Russian army, at that time - Red Army, destroys everything. Second, banditry and fanaticism install in ruins. Third, bin Laden arrives, and fourth, the towers in New-York collapse. A direct road from Kabul led to Manhattan. So, the Russian army behaves as it did in Afghanistan. The idea is very simple with the same risk. Putin is a fireman pyromaniac. I think people are afraid of it. When people fear there are two ways out: either to try to put an end to the infernal circle, or to accelerate it.

I believe the western governments choose the choice of a final settlement suggested by Putin in order to avoid terrible acts from the side of exhausted Chechens, for a example, a terrorist act at a Russian nuclear power station, three years ago President Maskhadov gave me a clear explanation and, naturally, beforehand condemned such risk, but at the same time he confirmed it with a recorded message. There are two solutions to avoid such risk: either to start negotiations with President Maskhadov elected under OSCE's control or to kill all Chechens. It seems that western governments adopted the solution suggested by Putin - "a good Chechen - is a dead Chechen." It is terrible to think they did it deliberately. Democratic governments cherish hopes that if they give money to Putin he will be able to buy everyone in Chechnya. I am afraid that when they finally realize they are wrong, finally, they will humbly choose the solution of extermination, without making it public.

That explains the desire to blacken, slander Chechens, to kill them morally before allowing to kill them physically. For example, during the war in Afghanistan all the world media reported about a live guard around bin Laden consisting of Pakistanis, Arabs and... Chechens. For five months all TV channels of the world diffused the idea. After the defeat of Taliban, not a single Chechen combatant was found - neither dead, nor alive, or in prison or in Guantanamo. But the world mass media did not refute the information. They did not reestablish the honor of Chechens. TV audiences associated Chechens with the assassins of New York. In France judges with strong anti-terrorist feelings seem to find a "Chechen trace" every three months. In fact, no Chechens are involved, only boys from the outskirts who dream about going to Chechnya, but never go their, or about Moslems who happened to be in Georgia. At that time I asked myself where did such desire to slander Chechen come from, attributing to them crimes they never commit. I think that is because public opinion is irresponsible, it is aware that a small nation is being abandoned for death, and to clear its consciousness it is absolutely necessary to consider Chechens as criminals. That is why every time I have a chance of speaking publicly about Chechnya, I always thank Chechens for not behaving like bin Laden, for example, not turning into live-bombs against Russian civilians.

- As for Europe's attitude towards the Chechen problem, I would like to cite a Chechen proverb saying: "She-bear always dirties her bear-cub before eating it."

- An absolutely correct comparison!

- One of the most well-known cases of mystification around Chechens was a statement of British Premier Tony Blair who said that there was a battalion of Chechens in the vicinities of Baghdad. The desire to seduce Russia in order to gain it over from the "camp of peace" was obvious. But when asked in the parliament whether or not he was personally responsible for such misinformation, Blair apologized saying he had been poorly informed, but he also added that he still believed that what Chechens did was terrible, they were terrorists. It seems Chechens are an interesting political card and today everyone tries to use it for own objectives.

- The political card, this is Putin. This is he who banks the fire and bargains his support either to "the camp of peace" (Paris-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing-Damask) or to Bush who evidently has to hold in leash this great power. I believe this is a mistake from the side of Americans and they run risks of paying dear for it, because the confidence they show to Putin has already claimed the lives of several Americans in Iraq. (Because Russia armed Saddam Hussein and Russian generals still consulted Baghdad two-three days before the beginning of the military campaign. Bush had to make public the fact that a telephone conversation with Putin enraged him).

- I would like to come back to today's situation. Its development seems quite expected, in my opinion, it develops according to a scenario worked out by Russian secret services. I want to say the following: it is an open secret that the Chechen Resistance is not united, it is torn asunder by antagonisms. If we speak about the popular resistance, there are some groups which profess the methods of struggle absolutely alien to the Chechen mentality. In my opinion, they play into the hand of Russia's propaganda. These people try to literally reproduce the Palestinian variant of waging the war. This is a great problem. It reveals a desire to continue the war which will contribute to genocide.

Although Maskhadov has always denounced terrorist acts, reminding of the fact that the Chechen Resistance does not fight against civilians, that he denounces terrorist acts and officially disassociates himself from their organizers, the entire world still trusts the Russian propaganda and considers the Chechen Resistance as presented. None of the committed terrorist acts has been completely investigated, and in all the cases there is an obvious evidence that Russian secret services were behind.

Then why public opinion in Europe views Chechens as a potential threat to its security and prosperity. If this is not the case, then how one can explain a cool attitude to Chechen refugees who managed to arrive here by a miracle. Let's be frank: the whole Chechen society consists of people with perturbed psyche, who first of all need a psychological rehabilitation. But that does not happen. As a result, radical moods raise in the society and we enter a closed circle. Then where is a way out?

- Before speaking about a way out, I shall say that the things you are talking about confirm what I saw three years ago, when in June 2000 I clandestinely visited Chechnya. I remember how Resistance fighters, especially women, explained to me that the second war was much more difficult because Russian secret services, FSB, GRU skillfully practiced infiltration of their agents and methods of the psychological war. Also I saw Islamist newspapers which called for an alliance of Russians and Chechens against the West and the Jews. These newspapers were financed by some Moscow-based oligarchs.

Let's go back to the definition terrorism. Putin considers "terrorists" all those who oppose the established authority. A terrorist is a man without uniform who fights against people in uniform. This is the definition given by German troops in France in 1940-1944. I consider a terrorist only the one who attacks, suppresses, terrorizes unarmed men, women and children. The terrorist is a person who wages a war against civilians. From this point of view, either he is in uniform, as a Russian soldier terrorizing the Chechen population, or without uniform blowing himself up as a suicide-bomber, there is no difference - unarmed people always become the target. That is why when you speak about the Palestinization of the Chechen war, I agree with you, that is very dangerous. But I am still confident that there is a difference between a kamikaze and a suicide-bomber. Kamikaze always attacks the military, even in case of suicide attacks. For example, Japanese pilots against American ships. One can say they waged a totally unjust war but they attacked military targets, but not civilian ones. When a woman blows herself up in order to kill a general who is responsible for odious war crimes, that is not a Palestinization or an attack against civilians. The same when trucks loaded with explosives ram barracks or torture centers. On the contrary, the hostage-taking crisis on Dubrovka - this is terrorism against civilians, it suits a strategy of "human bombs," this is terrorism.

- I am not inclined to generalize, but today the Chechen society is on the verge of turning into human bombs who blow themselves up among the Russian population which they blame for an indifferent attitude towards the genocide of the Chechen people. Obviously, if the situation does not change there is a great probability that this variant will prevail. Patience and rationality is limited. The situation is too terrible that slogans of supporters of radical methods can finally be heard and interpreted as guide to action. The example of Nord-Ost belongs to this category, although many things have remained unclear and a number of facts allows us to guess that Lubyanka was behind it.

- Yes. Your words confirm what Anna Politkovskaya told me during our recent meeting. The situation is really tragic and can aggravate. That is why if we do not want to let all Chechens be exterminated, we must stop this war and begin talks with non-Islamist supporters of independence, in particular Maskhadov.

- Thus, we return to the question about the Chechen peace plan proposed by the Foreign Ministry of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. In our opinion, such plan is vital today: it is maximum reasonable, politically correct and legally laconic. Although the plan enjoys a serious international support, no real positive shifts in the settlement of the Chechen problem take place. I believe it is high time to remind of the well-known letter which appeared after the Moscow blasts and changed the situation around Chechens who were considered criminals worldwide. The appeal of intellectuals initiated by Mr. Glucksmann which saved the situation at that time. I think that today it is very important to repeat such action and it is necessary to do it on behalf of intellectuals.

- I do what I can. In my opinion, the plan of Ilyas Akhmadov is something absolutely new in terms of diplomacy and world strategy. Classic colonial wars and wars for independence always end in a victory of one of the warring sides. We live in a different epoch. The plan of Ilyas Akhmadov is the first tentative effort of the anti-terrorist peace. What is new - from now on, in order to establish peace it is necessary to struggle against terrorism on both sides, from the side of the Russian army and the side of separatists. That is why the plan envisions both disarmament of Chechens and withdrawal of Russian troops. In ordinary wars for independence rebels can rarely curb terrorism and extreme violence. Let's take Algeria as an example. After gaining independence Algerians had to pay dear for blindly accepting terrorism: consider the violence of Armed Islamist Groups which kill even their neighbors. There is an inverse precedent - the peace in South Africa, where Mandela managed to separate from partisans, gangsters and terrorists. The symbol of that separation was the divorce of Mandela and his wife Winnie who later headed one of the gangs of killers. However, Maskhadov is not Mandela who enjoyed support worldwide. And Putin is not De Klerk who wanted reconciliation. The task of Chechens is much more complex. I believe that the plan of Akhmadov is extremely revealing and therefore absolutely new and is difficult to implement. Its force is that it proposes the only solution which allows to avoid a catastrophe.

- Also I would like to touch the issue of refugees. Today in the places where Chechen refugees densely reside there are many provocative inter-ethnic and openly criminal situations, people are not ready to them and therefore they easily give way to such provocations. A well-known incident in Austria where a mass fight with the participation of Chechens was provoked and resulted in serious injuries and even victims. Russian and Austrian mass media blamed Chechens, although the investigation showed that they simply defended themselves. No one speaks about Chechens in Europe, they are simply deported. When the entire world says that refugees cannot be deported from Ingushetia, they are easily deported from the Netherlands, Germany.

What, in your opinion, shall be done in order to protect Chechens' rights here: in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany?

- Indeed, this is a shame. That is called direct participation in the crime. I do not know the situation in Germany or Austria, but I can tell you that in France we see a different situation. French students established a non-governmental organizations "Studies without Borders" and on September 20 the first eight students from Grozny arrived to Paris. They stay with French families, they enroll in French universities, study French... We can only welcome the efforts of young Frenchmen and we must help them. Others will follow their example. I passed to you and I hope you will publish their appeal and a request for donations. This is a drop in the ocean but it erodes the wall of solitude in which Russia confined tiny Chechnya. As Solzhenitsyn said, a grain of sand can stop the machine destroying nations.

- I simply wanted to define the problem, although, I believe you are well informed. But for us this is a serious, urgent and vital problem. And this is a part of an obvious and barefaced campaign to discredit our people, to strengthen the negative image thrust on Chechens in consciousness of Europeans.

- From the very beginning of the war Russia's government forwarded letters to all western embassies in Moscow asking them to deny visas to Chechens. And it seems that western embassies, which do not have to oblige, yielded to the Russian ministry of interior.

- The situation around Chechens trying to flee abroad continues, it even deteriorates. Unfortunately, any aspect of the Chechen tragedy - is a topic for a separate conversation to continue which on the pages of our newspaper, I hope, you will find some time.

And now, concluding our conversation, I would like to thank you in all sincerity for your position and your extremely popular articles. People read them, await these publications. What would you like to tell our readers?

- Today in the world, on this planet, on their own Chechens conduct the most difficult battle for their life and the rest of humanity left in their life. At the same time they have to struggle against an exterior enemy, the Russian army, and interior differences, which lead, for example, to the Palestinization of their combat, putting it differently, to a reciprocal extermination of civilians. This struggle against an exterior enemy and at the same time an interior enemy is inside every civilized person. But in the soul of Chechens it has reached the maximum incandescence.

I would say that Chechens struggle not just for freedom and Chechnya, but also to save a certain idea of humanity. And I thank them for that.

[29.09.2003 17:25] The Chechen Times