Johnson's Russia List #7362 10 October 2003 davidjohnson@erols.com A CDI Project www.cdi.org

Novaya Gazeta October 9, 2003

The West views Chechnya through Soviet eyes

The Chechnya crisis urgently needs unbiased international monitoring By Anna Politkovskaya

[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] [With the second war in Chechnya, Soviet approaches to truth have been revived. Now there are two versions of the truth about Chechnya: the official version, which says everything is improving there, and the truth based on real life, which speaks of continued suffering and human rights abuses.]

How the West chooses to believe the official truth about Chechnya

With the second war in Chechnya, Soviet approaches to truth have been revived. Now there are two versions of the truth about Chechnya circulating around the world.

The official version, the "flourishing" truth, may be termed "Putin's truth". It says that everything is improving in Chechnya, and the federal government has set a so-called "political process" in motion.

The second version is the truth based on real life, which may be termed the "grass-roots truth": the voices of people who have suffered in the war, the constant abductions, the extrajudicial executions, the bloody landmine explosions, an entire people turned into outcasts and cornered.

Which version of the truth does the West prefer?

That question cannot be answered on the fly. The West is clearly splitting in two under pressure from these two versions of the truth. Let's look at a few recent incidents.

Frankfurt intrigues

The information at the heart of the problem: a couple of months ago, I received an email inviting me to speak at a public debate on Chechnya, at 2 p.m. on October 11, during the Frankfurt Book Fair.

A month went by. Then I got another email, explaining that the debate organizers were having some problems. This was connected with the possibility that President Putin might visit the Book Fair - and the Russian officials involved in the preparations apparently said something to the effect that such a debate on Chechnya seemed to be undesirable.

On September 20, I received a final rejection. In other words, the wish to know only "Putin's truth" won out.

The Norwegian path

Norway is a country with a tradition of upholding human rights. The Norwegians like to help those who are persecuted. In Norway I found myself surrounded by many people who were very upset about the Frankfurt Book Fair rejection. They viewed this as a goad to their own conscience, and as a shameful thing for the West - which turns a blind eye to Chechnya, thus permitting the Russian government to do whatever it pleases there. They saw it as an example of the political double standards that are becoming more widespread around the world: yes, we're all for human rights, but then again...

At that moment, a conference was underway in Norway about the situation in Chechnya, with an emphasis on the "grass-roots truth". The Russian Embassy in Norway lost patience and issued a warning that in its view, some participants in this event were accomplices of international terrorists. The Embassy noted that the truth about Chechnya was not to be found there.

The Norwegians didn't give in. Observing political correctness, the conference organizers heard out the Embassy's views; but they ran their conference as they saw fit - it was incisive, accurate, and truthful. They didn't cancel a single one of the planned speeches. Norwegian state officials attended the conference, asking informed questions and expressing sympathy. My thanks to them, for wanting to know more than "Putin's truth".

Then a few Norwegian organizations, along with the International Union of Journalists, put their outrage over the Frankfurt incident in writing. Protests flooded in - and the Book Fair organizing committee issued a harsh rebuke.

No, not a rebuke to themselves for being led around on a leash by Russian ideologues. A rebuke to those who dared to criticize that - in other words, to everyone who is against "Putin's truth".

Conclusions

Of course, the issue here is not this trivial matter of whether I went to Frankfurt or not.

It's a matter of principle. Frankfurt is just the tip of the iceberg. After all, what really happened? Now it's unknown whether that debate on Chechnya will take place in Frankfurt. Nobody knows for certain. There isn't much about Chechnya at the Frankfurt Book Fair.

Has Chechnya been erased, or almost erased, from the Frankfurt Book Fair of 2003, at which Russia is the featured nation?

That is the real question here. And there is an answer to it: all this is not a coincidence.

The West is becoming more and more Soviet-like, under our wise leadership. That is precisely the reason why the "grass-roots truth" is relegated to the background. We are witnessing the triumph of the official truth - because it is convenient for the West. Yes, they are eager to talk about Chechnya behind the scenes. Yes, widespread human rights abuses are continuing there - yes, it's terrible! - and senior Western officials flock to our newspaper for information, shaking our hands gratefully, talking about courage and nodding their heads...

But when it comes to taking action - determining a clear stance and openly expressing it - we start seeing those painfully familiar Soviet-style themes. Well, Russia is very big and scary, it has nuclear weapons; so it's better to like Putin than to say anything against him. What's more, there's a new world order - that notorious "crusade against international terrorism"; Bush likes Putin, and Putin likes Bush; and in the intervals there are scenes of undying friendship with Blair, Chirac, Schroeder... So you see, it all makes sense in terms of global politics...

So everything is as it used to be. Once again, the "grass-roots truth" is only of interest to the West from underground. The official version of the truth is emblazoned on the West's shield.

Yet the Soviet Union is gone. And the communism of years gone by is not like the problems we have today. The tangled realities of the war in Chechnya - the growing Talibanization of the conflict (imposing the Kadyrov regime and civil war) combined with its Palestinization (a wave of individual Chechen terrorism) - will sooner or later confront the West with the need to make an honest choice. Better sooner than too late, of course. Better to sort it out now.

But how can that be done? The two versions of the truth about the war are opposed to each other and impossible to reconcile; they appear to have nothing in common with each other. Whom should the West believe?

The prescription is as old as the world itself. If you don't believe anyone else, at least believe yourself. In order to understand what is happening in Chechnya, independent observers are required. And the more questions there are, the more urgent is the need for unbiased international monitoring. It needs to answer the main question: where does the truth lie? And where do we go from here? Is it possible to continue supporting Putin on Chechnya?

The West must choose to anchor at one shore or the other. It must choose some kind of truth about the war in Chechnya. Not only the truth itself calls for this, and not only the victims who beg for help that never arrives. This is required by the interests of mutual survival.

Translated by Gregory Malyuti