Volume 4

July - September 2002

CHECHNYA

‘We know what it's like’

  NEVER mind the extrajudicial executions, the torture in prisons and extreme impunity for federal forces. Never mind that Grozny is, in the words of a journalist, "a ghost town". That Moscow is wilfully ignoring its international treaty obligations in its military campaign in Chechnya.

It is all a necessary precursor to the eventual stamping out of terrorism, and who understands that better than India? In view of New Delhi's sympathy and solidarity with Russia's "problem", the Indian delegation voted against the EU-sponsored resolution on Chechnya.

In doing so, it revealed its disregard for the continuing violation of human rights in Chechnya, and threw its political weight behind such worthies as Burundi, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Sudan and Syria, all of whom also opposed the resolution.

Invoking the twin threats of "international terrorism" and "Islamic fundamentalism", Moscow and New Delhi have found an easy justification for excesses in Chechnya and Jammu and Kashmir respectively.

In his message to the President and the Prime Minister of India on the occasion of India's Republic Day in 2002, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the "strategic partnership" between the two countries was especially important in the age of international terrorism.

During Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov's visit to India on 3-4 February 2002, the two countries released a joint statement saying that Al Qaeda and Taliban links with "terrorist organisations active in other parts of the world, including Chechnya, the Central Asian Republics and the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir calls for a campaign against terrorism that involves close cooperation by all members of the international community…"

The "campaign" against terrorism, however, has been perverted in many cases. In Chechnya, international human rights organisations report a continuing policy and practice of torture, abductions and political killings. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in her latest report to the 58th session of the CHR states: "Russian government forces are reported to have committed grave human rights violations, including deliberate and targeted extrajudicial executions of unarmed civilians".

The Kremlin, for its part, has persistently tried to rebuff censure from the international community. Russia described the 25-7 vote on the CHR Resolution on the Situation in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation at the 56th Session - as being in the "best traditions of the Cold War" and that it constituted "meddling in Russia's internal affairs at a time when life in Chechnya is returning to normal".

The resolution, which called on the Russian government to establish a "national, broad-based and independent commission of inquiry to investigate promptly alleged violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law" committed in Chechnya and to extend invitations to Special Procedures of the CHR to undertake missions to the region, was sponsored by the European Union with the backing of the United States.

A second resolution the following year at the 57th session of the CHR noted "with concern" that few cases of serious violations of human rights committed by federal forces against civilians had reached the judicial system.

But the Russian authorities once again failed to comply. As the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the most recent session of the CHR noted, none of the measures taken by Russia in Chechnya meet the standards of an independent investigation and "reports continue to come in of kidnapping by rebels, as well as of human rights by Russian government forces".

India's vote is a reflection of its Russia policy in the context of the 'war against terror'. Impunity and disregard for the due process of law have been characteristic of the 'anti-terror' campaigns carried out by both countries. 

While the multilateral fight against terrorism has obvious legitimate purposes, it must not be used to justify governmental excesses or to undercut international scrutiny that is designed to ensure respect for the most basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The 'international' crusade, now led by the United States, has only served to legitimise the excesses by these and many other countries in their backyards.