Debate on Chechnya at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Chechnya-related part of the "Report of debates of the Fourth Part of the 2001 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe"
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A PROVISIONAL VERSION OF THE REPORT OF THE DEBATE OF 27 SEPTEMBER 2001 AT 3 P.M. WHICH MAY STILL BE CORRECTED BY THE SPEAKERS
Presentation by Lord Judd and Mr Rogozin, co-chairmen of the joint working group on Chechnya (Doc. 9227)
Speakers:
Mr Serguei Kovalev (Russian Federation)
Mr Einarsson (Sweden)
Mr Bindig (Germany)
Mr Surján (Hungary)
Mr Atkinson (United Kingdom)
Mr Schwimmer (Secretary General of the Council of Europe)
Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)
Mr Kalkan (Turkey)
Mr Korkeaoja (Finland)
Mr Iwiński (Poland)
Ms Ragnarsdóttir (Iceland)
Mr Zhirinovsky (Russian Federation)
Mr Neguta (Moldova)
THE PRESIDENT. –The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the progress report of the Joint Working Group on Chechnya, presented by Lord Judd and Mr Rogozin, Document 9227.
The list of speakers closed at midday today and fifteen names are on the list. I remind you that speeches in all of today’s debates are limited to four minutes. I should also inform you that Mr Schwimmer, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe has asked to speak in the debate. I shall call him to speak after those members of the Assembly who are speaking on behalf of their group.
Lord Judd and Mr Rogozin have eight minutes, to be shared between them.
Lord Judd (United Kingdom). – I hope that all members of the Assembly have read the report for themselves. Sometimes I am asked why members of the Parliamentary Assembly from outside Russia are giving so much time to the work of the Joint Working Group. I know that I speak for us all when I say that it is because we are, every one of us, deeply concerned by the human rights abuses, the killings on all sides, the bereavements and the missing and displaced people. We are concerned by the anguish, the maltreatment, the torture, the bombardments – which still continue – the destroyed homes and the harassment, including that only two weeks ago of Red Cross workers. We are concerned by the economic havoc and unemployment. All those factors, and more, are direct challenges to everything for which the Council of Europe stands.
We do this work because we want to see peace for the people of Chechnya and for the people of the Russian Federation. We want to see hope restored to the lives of ordinary people. Faced with all that, you will remember that the Parliamentary Assembly called again and again for our member governments to take firm action in pressing for a change in Russian policies. You will also remember the Council of Europe’s initiatives to tackle human rights abuses. Our governments refuse to act effectively.
Rather than opting for self-indulgent rhetoric alone, to demonstrate our self-righteousness, the Assembly therefore decided to engage with our Duma colleagues in trying to build up, within Russia, accountability and pressure for change. The Joint Working Group was to be an instrument for that. That was a brave decision by the Assembly because such engagement is always more complex and demanding than playing the role of the Pharisees or the editorial writers.
You will see from the report that progress has hardly been dramatic. Frankly, in too many areas it is hard to detect any progress at all. The humanitarian situation remains dire and very precarious. For the homeless and those in camps, the prospect of winter is grim. The shortage of medicine and the spread of diseases such as tuberculosis is disturbing. The lack of security that discourages people from returning home is still depressing. Despite what we believe to be the genuinely determined efforts of Minister Yelagin, the economic and employment situation shows, as yet, only marginal, if any, improvement.
There are changes, however. Conversations with the Prosecutor General are totally different to those of eighteen months ago when we were confronted with total denial. Now there are serious discussions about what needs to be done. Some cases – although still too few – have been initiated. Some have even been concluded and at least a few sentences imposed. It is not much but it is a beginning, and something on which we must build with firm and constructive pressure. Discussions with the head of the federal security service are intelligent and analytic. If reason begins to be a reality, there is real hope that with unsentimental determination more progress may be made. More generally, in various circles, not least the Duma, we detect more people, although not nearly enough, who clearly share our purposes and objectives. They are people whose position and influence we must strengthen, and not inadvertently undermine.
Friends, there is a great deal to do and much hard work ahead before we can be sure of a self-generating irreversible dynamic for the changes that we all want. Now is not the time to falter in the direction that we have chosen. It is not the time to retreat into a world of purist rhetoric.
Most important, we must assist the Russians and the Chechens, on whom any progress depends, in the search for a political solution. The talks last weekend in Strasbourg were a beginning. A cross-section of Chechens attended, although we were bitterly disappointed that Mr Maskhadov felt unable to let his representatives participate. Key issues are being identified and we are committed to meet again in December to consider more focused and practical proposals. It is agreed by us all that the door must be left open to Mr Maskhadov’s representatives, whom we fervently hope will join us. They, like everybody else who participates, are invited to submit their practical proposals. Any working paper from them will be as welcome as that submitted by the Duma or anybody else.
Before we meet in Strasbourg the Joint Working Group is determined next month to revisit Chechnya to meet as many people as possible who are on the front line. If a political dynamic is to be established, a parallel advance on humanitarian and human rights matters will be imperative.
In the last two days we have heard of President Putin’s initiative and Mr Maskhadov’s response. Yesterday the Joint Working Group took note of that and wished it well. But I am concerned at the implications of reports of continued bombardments since the offer was accepted.
Of one thing I am absolutely certain. The terrible events of 11 September and the action that has necessarily followed them must not be allowed to make things worse in Chechnya. Any intensification of disproportionate or indiscriminate action will give the extremists and those behind them the victory that they seek. It will play directly into their hands.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Lord Judd. I call Mr Rogozin.
Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said he supported Lord Judd’s comments. The aim of the Council of Europe was not to undermine state governments but to help the state Duma. Unfortunately Chechnya had been put onto the back-burner during this part-session because of the recent events in the United States. It sometimes seemed that the Council of Europe cared more about terrorism when it happened in the West than in the East. However, at least the scourge of terrorism was beginning to be recognised adequately on an international basis.
The Russian delegation saw Chechnya as their own problem and thought that it should be dealt with by them. Some people did not like the image of the Joint Working Group, but results were more important than images and the Joint Working Group was doing worthwhile work. All sections of Chechnya had to be engaged in the process. At the moment society there was fragmented and the Council of Europe must work with others to help bring it together.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Rogozin. I call Mr Kovalev to speak for the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group.
Mr Serguei KOVALEV (Russian Federation) said that politicians in Moscow had used the situation in Chechnya for their own internal purposes and President Putin had used it in his election campaign. Heinous crimes had been committed but nothing had been done. In spring a list of those crimes had been sent to the Council of Europe but since then most cases had been dropped surreptitiously.
It was to be hoped that the current military oppression would not descend into complete genocide. Executions, violence and looting all went uninvestigated and the responsible organisations had not looked into this adequately. He had just received news of bombing in Chechnya and was told that there had been many casualties.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kovalev. I call Mr Einarsson, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr EINARSSON (Sweden). – As the Assembly has already been informed, last Friday and Saturday the Joint Working Group on Chechnya, of which I have the privilege to be a member, organised a consultation on the possibility of a political solution for the Chechen conflict. It was an interesting and fruitful meeting at which an open, frank and civilised exchange of views took place. A broad spectrum of opinions was represented at the meeting, but there was a general understanding that peace must be restored and that a political solution is the only option.
It has been said, and I believe it is true, that today there are, de facto, no genuine, legitimate representatives of the Chechen people. No one can claim to express the will of the people of Chechnya, yet a political solution must be based on the will of the Chechen people. Its achievement therefore depends on participation by the widest possible range of political and public forces representing all layers of Chechen society committed to the solution of all problems by peaceful means.
Last week, some of those invited to the consultation, namely, the representatives of Mr Maskhadov, were not allowed by him to participate in the meeting, even though they were present here in the Palace. All efforts to persuade them to reconsider their decision to abstain were unsuccessful. Despite that attitude, it was and still is our conviction that no doors should be closed; in fact, no doors have been closed.
On Tuesday evening, we received the good news that Mr Maskhadov had responded positively and constructively to President Putin’s initiative. I hope that means that it has now become impossible for any political force claiming legitimacy to alienate itself from a political solution of the conflict in Chechnya.
Although I am convinced that the work of the Joint Working Group is absolutely necessary, especially after the most recent developments, I am also fully aware that the most important work must be done – and, to an extent, is already being done – on the ground, in Chechnya, by Chechens and Russians. There, and not in a working group or in the Assembly, we find the people who can reduce the level of violence, stop human rights abuses, stop terrorist actions, and bring criminals on all sides to justice. There – in Chechnya, not in Strasbourg – we find the only people who can restore peace, democracy and the rule of law, and build a society where there is no place for those who profit politically and/or economically from war and terror.
As I have said, that cannot be done by any working group, not even a working group led by Lord Judd and Mr Rogozin. Our co-chairmen are doing an excellent job and we should all be grateful for their commitment, but they are not working miracles – at least, not so far.
What the Joint Working Group can do, and is already doing, is provide time and space for people to meet, discuss, listen and think. The issue on our agenda is not how the Chechen conflict can be solved, but rather how we can contribute to a political process in which a solution might be found.
We should be realistic. This is an extremely complex conflict, with many deep historical roots and with international ramifications. If we try to understand the Chechen conflict as simply a conflict between two parties – or, for that matter, as only a terrorist mop-up operation – we shall never understand anything, and we shall fail to contribute to a peaceful solution.
The Joint Working Group on Chechnya may be small, but it is an important contribution to the long process of restoring peace, democracy and the rule of law in that part of Europe. Do not expect any miracles from it, but give it your support and confidence.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Bindig to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the Assembly had made demands in regard to three issues, restoration of law and order, prevention of the violation of human rights, and the bringing of people to justice. Despite the efforts of the working group, no substantial changes had been achieved.
The problems facing the committee had been made more difficult because there had been no independent reporting from Chechnya and all reports went through Russian channels.
The most recent statement from President Putin allowed for some movement in the rigid attitude of the Russian government. However, in respect of human rights violations, those responsible had continued to go unpunished. With the help of the Council of Europe, the fate of some people in Chechnya had been clarified but in serious cases of mass killing, no charges had been brought.
The problem in Chechnya should not come within the general fight against terrorism. There was violence on both sides. On the issue of human rights in Chechnya, the Council of Europe should continue to press for change.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Surján to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr SURJÁN (Hungary). – The EPP Group is not satisfied with the situation. We can see that the Joint Working Group did a lot. As a member of it, some months ago – especially during our meeting in Prague – I was very happy with developments. I had a vision of the future: I believed that a step-by-step political solution could be reached. I was proud to be a member of the Joint Working Group, and a member of the Assembly, if we could really promote a political solution in such a strange situation, when the parties are very far from each other.
My enthusiasm has now lessened a little. Our friend Lord Judd is an excellent speaker who can put us in very good spirits, but I am afraid that the content of our progress report is rather small. Lord Judd himself told us that there were few results – for he is realistic as well as being a good speaker. I fear that on the next occasion we shall have a non-progress report on the activities of the Joint Working Group on Chechnya, and if that happens we should ask why. I really do not want to blame our Russian colleagues, for I know that power in Russia is not in the hands of the Duma, so that is not the right target.
It is hard to say whether the events of 11 September will have any impact on the Chechen case. We now have the Putin declaration and the Maskhadov declaration; those who analyse it may see signs of progress, or they may reach another conclusion. At this very moment, we do not know what will happen, but one thing is clear: no one has the right to blame the Chechen nation by saying that it is terrorist.
There are terrorists of Chechen origin and terrorist actions were undertaken in this terrible war, from both sides, I suppose. On the disproportionate use of power, we have just heard from our Russian colleague and if I understood his speech correctly, he told us about bombing in recent days. There is a continuous message that military action is taking place even now. It is not easy to go to that area, as it is more or less closed, and it is difficult to get proper information.
The Council of Europe should re-evaluate what needs to be done and how it should be done. The EPP Group has no concrete offer or advice about what to do, but in January we should reconsider the situation. If we are unable to find a better tool to give a proper signal, we should ask questions about credentials. I would not be happy if we did that, however. We should find a proper way to combine the action of the Joint Working Group and the original objectives. In my mind, that is deeply connected with the monitoring procedure.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Atkinson who will speak on behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Mr ATKINSON (United Kingdom). – Mr President, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election to the Polish Parliament last weekend?
We in the EDG applaud the work of the Joint Working Group on Chechnya and, in particular, the tireless energy of its two co-chairmen, Frank Judd and Dmitry Rogozin. They represent what the Council of Europe does best.
The rest of the world had already switched off its interest in Chechnya long before the events of 11 September in the United States, but this Assembly remains determined to pursue justice in Chechnya, as it has ever since we passed Order 516 in January 1996 to set up the Bureau’s Ad hoc Committee. The Joint Working Group is the direct successor to that initiative. Our monitoring of Russia’s commitments cannot end until an acceptable political solution for Chechnya has been agreed. Modern Russia will be judged by how it has responded to Chechnya.
The terrorist assault on the United States changes everything. It may encourage greater determination to resolve outstanding conflicts such as those in Chechnya, the Middle East and Kashmir and the Kurdish question by peaceful means or it may encourage the armed forces of the countries concerned to seek to resolve the problem by force while the world looks elsewhere. As Lord Judd said, Russia must not go down that road again.
Yesterday, my group met the three Russian public prosecutors for Chechnya. We were impressed by their commitment to pursue justice and their determination to bring those responsible for atrocious crimes to account, as we in this Assembly insist. That is painstaking, time consuming work that has been undertaken amid great danger and risk to those concerned. So, to those in this Assembly who complain that the Joint Working Group is not achieving results, I say give it time.
To those rebel forces in Chechnya that continue to raid, destroy and kill Russian conscripts, I say cease your terrorism and start contributing to a peaceful solution. Accept that such a solution must satisfy international law and that the Helsinki Final Act forbids an independent republic of Ichkeria.
To President Maskhadov, I make this appeal: let your representatives participate fully in the work of the new consultative body to prepare a constitution and elections for Chechnya so that a political solution is possible. The people of Chechnya yearn for a return to stability. They want to get on with life, reconstruct, work and prosper. A Tatarstan solution should be even more acceptable today than when President Yeltsin and President Maskhadov signed their agreement in 1996.
We are all encouraged by yesterday’s news that President Putin has offered talks to Maskhadov to which he responded positively. We appeal to them both to seize the opportunity and make it work.
Let us recognise that what the Joint Working Group on Chechnya is doing, the OSCE could not do. It represents an international dimension, which the Russian Government had always resisted. It represents a parliamentary dimension, which can produce solutions to problems that governments fail to resolve. Let it be allowed to continue its work. Give it time. It is what the Council of Europe was established to do – to work for peace by dialogue, not by war.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Schwimmer to speak.
Mr SCHWIMMER (Secretary General of the Council of Europe). – Thank you, Mr President. I begin by thanking Lord Judd and Dmitry Rogozin, the Co-Chairmen of the Joint Working Group, and all its members. Through their difficult work and strenuous efforts, they contribute substantially to the implementation of our common values.
Three months ago, on 28 June, I presented to the Assembly my assessment of the work of the office of Mr Kalamanov, special representative of the President of the Russian Federation for ensuring human rights and civil rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic. I said that the continuation of our presence in Znamenskoye after the expiration of the current agreement on 4 October 2001 required substantial and demonstrable progress in the investigations carried out by the prosecutor’s office.
Since then, I have received information from Mr Kalamanov, our experts, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, the Russian authorities, the Joint Working Group and, of course, the Duma. This week, I met the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, the Chief Military Prosecutor and the Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic. There has clearly been some progress.
I note the increase in the number of cases investigated by the prosecutor’s office that have been handed over to the courts as well as the increase in the number of court decisions in those cases. Moreover, several cases previously closed by the prosecutor’s office have been reopened. Order No. 46 of 25 July 2001 by the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, which ensures the presence of prosecutors during so-called mop-up operations, is to be welcomed.
Furthermore, the joint working group of the Prosecutor’s office and Mr Kalamanov’s office, with the participation of our experts, provides an opportunity to obtain further progress.
However, I also continue to receive information from a variety of sources that many problems concerning the protection of human rights in the Chechen Republic still persist. People continue to disappear without trace following operations by the security forces. Moreover, investigations into serious cases, which attracted wide public attention, are not making progress despite the evidence available. Despite the strong claims by the Russian prosecutors to the contrary, there are reports that Order No. 46 is not always observed. Finally, court decisions in civil cases against public authorities are not respected.
Progress has been demonstrated, but it is not yet substantial. However, at the same time, the possibilities for Council of Europe experts to assist the office of Mr Kalamanov in improving the human rights situation in the Chechen Republic clearly have not yet been exhausted. For example, they should pick up the information given by Mr Kovaliev and raise questions in the Joint Working Group of Kalamanov’s office and the prosecutor’s office.
Having carefully weighed the arguments – and I can assure you that this was not an easy decision – I decided to propose to Mr Ivanov that we should prolong our agreement until the end of the year. In doing so, I indicated that before that date we should evaluate the situation again with a view to a possible further extension of the validity of the agreement until 4 April 2002. But that will demand the contrary to a non-progress report – something of which Mr Surján was afraid. I made my proposal this week and I await Mr Ivanov’s reply. I shall, of course, keep the Assembly fully informed.
Finally, I want to say a word about the Council of Europe’s policy on Chechnya in the current international situation. We do not have to change our position. As I said from the very beginning of the Chechen crisis, the Russian Federation not only has the right, but the duty, to protect its citizens against terrorism. However, it should do so by means proportionate to the aims of observing the rule of law and respecting human rights. As I stated to the Assembly earlier this week, our values are the only remedy against barbarism. Only if we continue to respect them throughout, including while fighting terrorism, will we prevail.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Secretary General. I call Mr Slutsky.
Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that the working group had achieved a great deal. The state Duma had made progress as a result. The Russian Federation had been reproached for not reacting to the humanitarian situation one year ago. As a result they had set up a 1 000 tent camp and closed down all camps with inadequate housing. They had been reproached for not engaging in dialogue with Mr Maskhadov but they were in dialogue with many other Chechen representatives. They were forming the threads of a political future. He hoped that one day there would be a parliament in Chechnya to deal with the remaining problems.
A settlement would not be possible without the laying down of arms by hostile groups. Mr Putin, President of the Russian Federation, had made efforts in this direction which it was hoped would be supported by Mr Maskhadov. Mr Putin had not used the Chechen war as part of his election campaign, as some people had accused him of doing. The source of conflict in Chechnya was not the Chechen people, it was international terrorism. He felt the Parliamentary Assembly was adopting a sensible approach to a settlement. Everybody should support the Joint Working Group. It was a unique political mechanism through which to seek a settlement. The national parliament should work with the Council of Europe, so that peace would return to the northern Caucasus.
Two minutes before he spoke he had been on the phone to Mr Kalamanov who had denied that there had been bombings in the two northern Chechen provinces as mentioned earlier. Mr Ivanov had also denied these reports.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Slutsky. I call Mrs Fyfe.
Mrs FYFE (United Kingdom). – This will be my last contribution to debate in this Chamber as I have retired from the United Kingdom Parliament. I wish all of you well in your future endeavours.
There is no point in criticising the Joint Working Group for slowness of achievement. On the contrary, what has been achieved so far is in large part due to their endeavours. I always say to people that they should not criticise unless they have practical alternative proposals, and I see none on the table.
It is a pity that the visit this week of three very senior men from the prosecutor’s office was not more widely known, because it was an opportunity to open dialogue that has largely been missed. They may go home thinking that the Council of Europe is not all that bothered about Chechnya. However, while they were here they gave us some useful information. Forty leaders of what is translated as bandit groups are now either under arrest or facing trial in court. Those bandits are not Chechnya’s answer to Robin Hood – they do not rob the rich to give to the poor. Seven members of the prosecution service have been killed and fifteen wounded. The Deputy Chief Prosecutor in Grozny was killed. Those criminals are shooting people in broad daylight. The staff of other ministries have suffered likewise. However, in spite of that, the prosecutor’s view is that lawlessness is decreasing.
We have criticised the manner in which Russia has been dealing with lawlessness and terrorism in Chechnya, but we have not always been sufficiently ready to understand how difficult is the task or the scale of the terrorism it has been facing. Mr Rogozin reminded us this week that thousands of Russian citizens have lost their lives as a result of terrorist bombings. If we did not wake up when Muscovites were killed in large numbers, the world has certainly woken up since 11 September. It is good to note the comments by Mr Schroder this week and also by Mr Putin. I emphatically do not want a greater understanding of Russia’s predicament to mean greater toleration of any human rights abuses.
Many in the world may turn a blind eye, but the Council of Europe, of all bodies, can never do that. There should be greater international co-operation to root out terrorism and improve our understanding. However, we should understand that while we seek a political solution, powerful forces in Chechnya will oppose that to their dying day because they gain from unrest and fear. Such people must be defeated.
Lord Judd drew our attention to the fact that Mr Maskhadov had barred his representatives from participating in an effort to get Chechens together to commit themselves to a peaceful solution and renounce violence. A few days ago, Mr Maskhadov issued a statement accusing the Council of Europe of being insufficiently critical of Russia and declaring the termination of all contact with the Council. However, in the same week he stated his willingness to negotiate with Mr Putin – all very confusing. The position changes from day to day.
Since 11 September, the world has realised that everyone who opposes terrorism and those whose lives would be vastly improved by its defeat must be drawn together. Law-abiding citizens in Chechnya need to believe that normal life can be restored, and it is a basic duty of the state to deliver that. I also stress that the state draws its legitimacy from public support. We must stick to our objective of a political solution, but let us not kid ourselves about the difficulty of the task.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mrs Fyfe. I now call Mr Kalkan.
Mr KALKAN (Turkey). – First, I should like to commend the report and thank the Chairmen of the Joint Working Group on Chechnya. The Caucasus continues to be a turbulent area. It bears special significance because the situation there carries the seeds of the further destabilisation of the whole region.
Even though large-scale fighting has ceased in Chechnya, the situation remains far from stable, since mine wars, ambushes, bombings and shootings continue. There are also reports that the activities of the Russian security forces are on the increase. Any search for a peaceful solution should be started by Russia honouring the commitments that it undertook in the OSCE Istanbul final declaration.
Given the terrifying position of Chechen refugees in the region, Russia must grant international aid organisations free and unlimited access to Chechnya. It is the Russian Administration’s duty to help the people whom it forced to flee their homes. Opening an OSCE office in the region is a positive start. I hope that the Russian authorities will facilitate the work of the office, which seems to have happened with the Council of Europe experts in Chechnya.
Winter is approaching. That will further exacerbate the already critical humanitarian predicament of the refugees and internally displaced persons, whose number increases by the day. Russia must fully honour its international commitments and launch independent investigations into human rights abuses.
It is not acceptable that a member state of the Council of Europe still applies the practice of collective punishment. Russia must do away with such an attitude. If there are guilty Chechens, judicial authorities should persecute them, but practices such as mass arrests of whole village populations are unjustified.
I should like to consider another important problem: the situation of Chechen refugees in Georgia. The Russian authorities have collected all their identity documents and are apparently denying them the right to return home. Some members of the international community criticised Georgia for not extending adequate assistance to the Chechen refugees in the country. How can we expect the Georgian authorities to deal effectively with the problem without any help from the international community as they continue to suffer from other refugee crises?
In conclusion, Russia is in a very difficult position in Chechnya and we must help the Russian authorities to find an honourable exit from the dead end there. The Council of Europe should do its utmost to contribute to the restoration of democracy and the supremacy of the rule of law. It cannot remain indifferent to the tragic dimensions of the human suffering in Chechnya, and the Russians should accept the friendly hand that is extended to it.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kalkan. I call Mr Korkeaoja.
Mr KORKEAOJA (Finland). – This week’s debates in our Assembly have proved the massive effect of the terrorist attack on 11 September on the global political situation. That horrible event has stopped people and politicians all over the world in their tracks and forced them to reconsider matters from a new point of view.
However, the concrete measures that different states and international organisations will take remain unclear. The big question is whether the measures will be positive or negative in respect of, for example, the values and principles of our organisation. Both options remain open.
The steps taken in US-Russian relations on mutual efforts in the fight against terrorism are a positive development. Perhaps we are facing the final turn of events that will put an end to the cold war. If that happens, it will be the most positive consequence of the great human tragedy in New York.
An extremely negative consequence could be large-scale and disproportionate military action against civilians in areas where terrorists or their supporters are expected to remain.
Russia has justifiably pointed out that the explosions in apartment houses in Moscow were acts of terrorism in the same way as the events on 11 September in New York. However, it would be completely wrong to conclude from that that Russia’s military actions in Chechnya are acceptable.
Large-scale military action against civilians cannot be accepted in Chechnya, but neither can we accept the United States engaging in similar actions in Afghanistan. It is clear that terrorism has a foothold in Chechnya and Afghanistan. It would be best if Russia and the United States could unite their efforts in the fight against terrorism and international crime. I hope that that option will be taken.
At our meeting, we have the important task of underlining that the action, requirements and obligations that the Council of Europe have demanded in respect of a solution to the Chechnya crisis remain valid and in force. The only possible solution is a political solution, and that cannot be achieved without co-operation between all the relevant parties, and open negotiations.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you Mr Korkeaoja. I call Mr Iwiński.
Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – On behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography, I shall speak about the present humanitarian situation of displaced persons in Chechnya.
Ingushetia hosts between 120 000 and 179 000 displaced persons from Chechnya. The first figure is provided by the UNHCR and the second by the Ingush authorities. The displaced persons remain heavily dependent on the food aid provided by the international community and the federal authorities. About 70% stay with host families and 30% stay in camps and public buildings. Many settlements do not meet the minimum humanitarian standards. Sanitary conditions are often disastrous and the threat of epidemics is ever-present. Heating is insufficient, particularly in view of the forthcoming winter, and the accommodation is heavily overcrowded.
Health care is far from sufficient. Health structures are saturated and there are shortages of essential medicines. Displaced persons are asked to pay for specialised care and the majority of those in need cannot afford it. Existing educational facilities allow for the enrolment of fewer than half of the displaced children aged between seven and twelve. Many children are unable to attend school because they lack proper clothing. The tension among the local population has been growing for some time and the number of evictions of displaced families is increasing.
There are approximately 225 000 internally displaced persons in Chechnya. Precise figures are difficult to obtain. These people receive very limited assistance from the federal government. Very few international agencies are operating in the republic. That is one of the biggest problems. Undoubtedly, some progress has been made, as Mr Slutsky said. The federal authorities have provided information about their rehabilitation efforts. More schools and hospitals are operating and the infrastructure – roads, and electricity and gas supply – is being rebuilt, but all the efforts are hampered by the security conditions.
I turn now to the main concerns about the humanitarian situation. They include security, human rights violations and premature returns. The federal authorities are regularly pushing displaced persons to return to Chechnya, using methods including denial of registration, disruption of food aid and financial incentives. The international agencies still consider the security conditions and rehabilitation efforts in Chechnya to be inadequate for large-scale returns.
Another concern is humanitarian access to certain areas in Chechnya, where lack of security causes a major threat to the international aid agencies. We are also concerned about the provision of appropriate shelter for winter and the delivery of food to Chechnya, which is hampered by bureaucratic obstacles such as customs clearance, tax exemptions and the use of radio communications.
Despite some progress, there are still many obstacles to those providing humanitarian aid in the northern Caucasus. It is evident that the aid currently being provided is nowhere near sufficient to ensure stability in the region. For that reason, our entire organisation, not just my committee, should spare no effort to improve the humanitarian situation in and around Chechnya.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Iwiński. I call Ms Ragnarsdóttir.
Ms RAGNASDÓTTIR (Iceland). – Lately the situation in Chechnya has been very fluid and, as a member of the Joint Working Group, I envisaged that any progress would be painstakingly slow. The main thrust of our efforts has been to find a lasting political solution to the conflict, which in no way means that guaranteeing the respect of human rights and resolving the grim humanitarian situation have been secondary issues. On the contrary, those are such pressing matters that they cannot be put on hold.
This week we had the extraordinary debate on democracies facing terrorism. We are experiencing unprecedented events and only unprecedented actions will bring about lasting solutions. Time and again it has been stressed that terrorism is not subject to boundaries; it is global and affects the international community as a whole. To a certain extent the situation in Chechnya has to be addressed in the context of international terrorism, which knows no man-made boundaries.
We have learned that Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, has made an offer in an effort to resolve what is, and has been for too long, a totally unacceptable situation in Chechnya. We have learned that the initiative has already borne fruit. Mr Maskhadov considers that President Putin’s offer constitutes a chance to begin negotiations to end hostilities and reach a peaceful and lasting solution to a predicament that has been very costly in terms of human sacrifice. In this way, the radical elements associated with deplorable international terrorism will be isolated. However, it is not clear what will be the outcome.
We must appreciate that response and try to have faith in a general will to solve the outstanding issues. But we must also remain vigilant, alert and patient, and continue the good and meaningful work that the Joint Working Group on Chechnya has done under the co-chairmanship of Lord Judd and Mr Rogozin. That point cannot be stressed strongly enough. We have invaluable premises to build upon and it is absolutely necessary that we facilitate the process so as to capitalise on the opportunity sooner rather than later.
I want to express my appreciation for the different representatives from Chechnya who have shared their views with the Joint Working Group at recent meetings. Many of those individuals took risks to make their position public. In doing so they provided the working group with invaluable insights that facilitate a viable and lasting settlement in Chechnya. Those contributions are especially important in light of recent developments.
I regret that Mr Surján, who has now left the Hemicycle, did not find the time to attend the meetings, where those present learnt things that differ from his perception of the situation.
I emphasise that I greatly respect those who put their case openly and honestly. I hope that those who abstained from participation will take an active part in any future dialogue, which is the only way to deal with the complex, horrendous situation that we have faced for all too long. I reiterate that we cannot involve those whose integrity could be in question.
The sooner we reach the envisaged political solution to the conflict, the sooner we can solve the plight of the Chechen population who have been suffering unbearably for a lifetime. Today we have an opportunity that all those involved must seize.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Ms Ragnarsdóttir. I call Mr Zhirinovsky.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that the Council of Europe was inconsistent and illogical. He asked what other member countries would have done if terrorists had tried to set up an independent state in their own country. Turkey had occupied northern Cyprus and bombed the Kurds. The Assembly had not condemned this action.
The Assembly should be thanking Russia and not condemning it. He asked why the Assembly did not urge the US President to find a political solution with Osama bin Laden. Russia was asked to find such a political solution but the Assembly would not condemn the United States if it killed thousands of people in Afghanistan. In the past, the Assembly had welcomed the bombing of Tripoli and supported similar action by the United States.
For many years, Russia had been fighting terrorism but resolutions were not passed by the Council of Europe. The Russian army had been in Afghanistan for ten years, when it was requested to leave by the West. Removing those troops had not been much help.
He said that Mr Kovalev had been telling lies and that those lies would lead to the fighting in Chechnya continuing for a hundred years. The Russian Federation was not prepared to tolerate the killing of its soldiers for much longer. The West had not removed its soldiers from the Balkans and he wondered why member states believed that removing Russian troops from Chechnya would solve the problem when Chechnya was full of mercenaries. The West should thank Moscow for having saved it from terrorism for ten years.
THE PRESIDENT. – The next speaker is Mr Neguta.
Mr NEGUTA (Moldova) said that since this was the last speech of the day, he would be brief. He was very impressed with the work of the Joint Working Group, and Mr Rogozin and Lord Judd were worthy of respect as Co-Chairmen. They could take some credit for the recent achievements towards an attempt at dialogue in Chechnya. It was wrong to look at the Chechen problem purely through criticism of the central government. It was true that the government had much to answer for but it was not responsible for all the problems in Chechnya. Nothing about the events of 11 September had changed attitudes to Chechnya. The terrorists would have to be caught, but a very different attitude had been adopted when buildings in Moscow were being blown up by terrorists. At the recent committee meeting he had been asked, if Chechnya was a glass of water, whether it would be regarded as half full or half empty. He was of the view that the glass was fuller than it had previously been. It was essential that the work of the Joint Working Group be supported and treated with the confidence it deserved.
THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Neguta.
That concludes the list of speakers. I call Lord Judd and Mr Rogozin to reply. They have six minutes.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom). – I sincerely thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I am sure that the members of the Joint Working Group will take extremely seriously what has been said. I also express my appreciation to the Secretary General for his participation, and for all the work that he is doing on the issue. I am glad that he has continued to extend the mandate of the experts for the time being; I think his measured approach is right. But I think we should also take this opportunity to express our appreciation and thanks to those experts for the work they are doing in a very dangerous situation.
There are others whom I would like to thank, but I would use all my time if I thanked everyone I should thank. I must, however, thank the Secretary General of our Assembly. The fact that Bruno Haller has devoted so much time and attention to what we are doing has given our work a powerful impetus. I have seen many chairmen of consultations in my time, but I think that his chairmanship of the consultation last weekend was outstanding.
On a personal note, let me say how good it was to receive a positive farewell message from my colleague Mrs Fyfe, whom we shall miss very badly. I know how deeply she instinctively feels about the issues that are central to the life of the Council of Europe.
Mr Surján certainly left us in no doubt that there were still real anxieties in the Assembly. I share the disappointment expressed by one member of the working party that he was able to be with us for only two hours over the two days of our deliberations last weekend. I think that those of us who were able to be there for the whole time reached a rather different conclusion. I cannot quite remember which part of the discussion he was present for, although he made a very helpful intervention about what happened in Hungary, but it is a pity that he was not there all the time: if he had been, he might have come away with an impression much more like the impression formed by the rest of us. I know what pressures are like, however.
That is not to dismiss the seriousness of the anxieties that that person expresses. As I have said myself, there has not been dramatic progress; in too many areas, there has been no progress at all. The issue is whether we are establishing a basis for progress, and whether we can bring effective pressure, through the Joint Working Group, and whether we can work with those in Russia who feel as we do – and those people are there – to turn the pressure into a dynamic that will bring about change.
Let me end by reflecting on my life. I think that we have to make a strategic decision in an organisation such as this: are we part of a peace process or not? If we are part of a peace process and of peace building, we have set a course in very difficult waters. It will demand tremendous patience, and terrific commitment. That is why I appreciate the support that Dmitry Rogozin and I receive from so many members of the Joint Working Group, who give hours of their time to helping the work to proceed, and attend important meetings assiduously. It will take that kind of commitment.
When I look at the Middle East, when I look at Ireland, when I look at so many situations, I think that things have gone wrong when people have tried to run before they can walk. When that happens people trip up, and there is disappointment and disillusionment because the solutions offered are not really the solutions of the parties to the conflict. They have not really “taken” with the people concerned. We must work on that, but it will need a lot of patience.
Of course there is a danger that talk will become an end in itself, and that it will all run into the sand. It is a question of how the balance is struck. We should all be aware – and our friends in Russia should certainly be aware – that there is not yet a feeling of reassurance in the Assembly. I do not take that away from the debate. There is a great deal of anxiety. That anxiety will obviously be expressed, and there will be a very searching debate here in January, as is right.
I know what keeps me going in this work. As I was saying to some Chechen friends earlier today, I do not have a political career to build; I am at the other end of my political career. I have been a defence Minister, a development Minister and a Minister in the Foreign Office. I have seen these things from that angle. I am really glad to be giving some of my time, at the end of my political life, to an institution that is about the value system of the world: which is about human rights, but which is also about the conviction that through dialogue, through reason and rational discussion, by engagement – not by condemnation and walking away, but by intellectual engagement and genuine discussion – we can bring about change in this world. We would then not need to resort to violence to win our case, or to negative measures such as dismissing people, walking away from them, sending them – as we say in Britain – to Coventry.
I am talking about positive engagement. That is what I believe the Council of Europe is about. That is why I am glad to be involved in this work, and as long as I am able to be of any use in it I shall want to go on giving it whatever time I can. But I cannot do much as Chair, and nor can Dmitry alone. It is all the people whom I have mentioned and many more who are making our work possible, and I want to end by saying thank you to them all.
Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said he knew there was little time left, and that as usual, the Duma was being sidelined by the Council of Europe. He confirmed that there was no fighting in the two regions that Mr Korkeaoja had suggested. As usual Mr Korkeaoja was lying. Mr Surján had been condescending. The joint working group was working with all members present. If Mr Surján’s EPP did not attend, then it was the EPP that looked stupid. Some members of the joint working group had not wanted to meet with the members of the Prosecutor’s Office in Chechnya. It was important that people did not just spread rumours. If they did not believe in the handover, they should go to Room 506 where there was a tape of the handover. If they did not believe him, they should look at this tape.
THE PRESIDENT. – The debate is closed.
Source: Council of Europe http://stars.coe.fr/verbatim/200104/E/0109271500E.htm
|
|
