BBC Monitoring
Chechen rebel envoy urges dialogue to settle conflict with Russia
Source: The Chechen Times, in Russian 15 Oct 04

The rebel-backed Chechen president's envoy, Umar Khanbiyev, has
expressed his support for the idea put forward by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe for a round table to discuss the
conflict in Chechnya. In an interview with a rebel web site, he said
that he supports the idea in general, but it would have to be fully
represented by both sides. He also favours an international tribunal to
try those responsible for war crimes. He could find no link between the
events in Ingushetia and Groznyy and the tragedy in Beslan and said that
rebel commander Shamil Basayev only played a supporting role in the
operation which was most probably organized by the Russian FSB. He
deplored the "catastrophic" humanitarian and ecological situation in
Chechnya and said this was a matter for the attention of the whole world
and not just the warring sides. The following is the text of his
interview with the editor of the information centre of the
Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, Oksana Chelysheva, entitled "Europe
is encouraging the predator and forgetting about its prey", posted on
The Chechen Times web site on 15 October; subheadings have been inserted
editorially:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PACE adopts resolutions on Chechnya

On 7 October 2004, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
adopted three resolutions on Chechnya, the tone of which could only be
described as unquestionably harsh. The debates on Chechnya were just as
intense. Three of the main speakers - [Andreas] Gross, [Rudolf] Bindig
and Ivinskiy - described the situation in the Chechen Republic as
catastrophic. The only difference between them was the degree of
importance they attached to it. Bindig came under fierce attack from
members of the Russian delegation who accused him of using unreliable
information, saying things like "Rudolf, you are wrong". Bindig could
not fail to have been amazed at the absurdity of the accusations against
him, because he obtained this information from the Russian deputy
prosecutor-general in the Southern Federal District, Mr [Sergey]
Fridinskiy: "The figures given to me in Moscow are different to those we
have heard here. And the figures presented by [Russia's human rights
ombudsman] Mr [Vladimir] Lukin are different from both of them." By all
accounts, it would seem that the official structures in Russia ought,
first and foremost, to get their accounts in order. Bindig's resolution
was adopted.

In his report on the political situation in the Chechen Republic, Gross
said that "the absence of law and order in Chechnya is preventing the
development of human and democratic society." In his speech during the
debate, Gross came to the conclusion that there was no alternative to a
dialogue and talks: "The minimum amount of respect for the other side is
needed. It is easy to respect a friend, but one's enemy must also be
respected. We are glad that we have reached a consensus with both the
Russian delegation and responsible Chechen officials who do not wish to
go down the path of terror." But whether this consensus was reached or
Andreas Gross was trying to console himself with illusions is an open
question. Yes, the Parliamentary Assembly agreed with the idea of a
round table on Chechnya for an exchange of opinions by politicians and
parties of the Chechen Republic and the federal authorities of the
Russian Federation. But, at the same time an amendment was adopted,
proposed by the Russian delegation, according to which "those who do not
recognize the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation or declare
terrorism as a method of achieving their goals" will not be permitted to
the dialogue.

Lord Judd

Look carefully at the priority of these conditions. What constitutes the
greater danger for Russia's leaders - the struggle for national
independence or terror? Ivinskiy's report touched upon the humanitarian
aspects of the catastrophe in Chechnya and the situation of the
displaced persons. His conclusion was clear: "The people are exhausted.
They have grown weary both of the actions of the federal power and the
actions of the separatists. A special problem is accountability and
monitoring the expenditure of funds coming in to Chechnya."

But [Moscow-backed Chechen President] Mr [Alu] Alkhanov relies so much
on foreign investment that he can only talk about developing the
republic's economic infrastructure, as though even one branch of the
shadow economy was currently functioning there. Billions of dollars are
needed to rebuild the Chechen Republic. The Parliamentary Assembly
failed to get an answer to the question as to how Mr Alkhanov intends to
spend foreign investment if the fighting goes on, something he tries not
to talk about. It is possible that the degree of sense of importance of
the speakers depends on their personal qualities, and also their
official position. Since his resignation [former PACE envoy on Chechnya]
Lord Judd has suddenly found his full voice: "We parliamentarians must
take responsibility. People have been suffering there for so long, and
we are still not even capable of calling a conference on humanitarian
problems. How tolerant can we be? We are the guardians of human rights,
and therefore it is we who must take part in settling this conflict,
otherwise we discredit ourselves before the whole of mankind." That is
probably precisely why Lord Judd so enthusiastically applauded the
proposal of the Czech representative to suspend the right of vote to the
Russian delegation.

The reason was that "Russia is incapable of coming to a peaceful
solution and therefore certain rights must be taken away from the
Russian delegation". Watching the MPs during the debate is a very
curious exercise. The conflict has reached its climax, and so the
sharpness of the emotions was undoubtedly justified.

Chechen rebel envoy meets Ingush president

Apart from the sessions hall of the PACE there is another debating
chamber in the palace of the Council of Europe, and that is the
cafeteria which is situated on the same floor. This is where the paths
of people on different sides of the barricades sometimes cross, and this
is where there was a long conversation between Umar Khanbiyev, the
general representative of the president of the Chechen Republic of
Ichkeria Aslan Maskhadov, and President of Ingushetia Murat Zyazikov. We
began our conversation with Umar Khanbiyev with this very meeting which
was a surprise to many people, but which seemed to us more productive
than the aloofness of Alu Alkhanov, who completely distanced himself
from any informal conversation.

Umar Khanbiyev, the general representative of the president of the
Chechen Republic of Ichkeria Aslan Maskhadov, replies to questions from
the editor of the information centre of the Russian-Chechen Friendship
Society, Oksana Chelysheva.

[Chelysheva] Yesterday, the cafeteria of the Palace of the Council of
Europe hummed like a beehive: the MPs were delighted at this long
friendly conversation between [Chechen rebel President Aslan]
Maskhadov's delegation and the President of the Republic of Ingushetia
Murat Zyazikov. What did you talk about?

Support for round table

[Khanbiyev] Yes, this really was unexpected, but despite our differences
there was a feeling of respect towards each other. If someone comes up
to you and shakes your hand, whoever he might be and whatever his views,
you cannot ignore him. Zyazikov came up to our table yesterday and
greeted us. Of course, we did the same. He joined us and started to talk
about the current situation here in the Council of Europe with regard to
Chechnya, and also about his own views. He started by saying that he
would like as many people as possible to take part in the round table
which Gross proposed. We said straightaway that such an approach does
not suit us, that it was just talk, and that the only way forward was
talks between our president Aslan Maskhadov and the Russian side, i.e.
with [President Vladimir] Putin.

We need a solution to the political differences which arose not
yesterday, not a year ago, and not ten years ago. This problem has been
around for 400 years. Until we settle these differences, there can be no
talk about peace, a firm peace. However much they have tried to pacify
us, and however much they have tried to get rid of us, still this
question remains. Furthermore, we told Zyazikov that we did not approve
of some of his actions. We have very warm feelings towards the Ingush
people, but we cannot, for example, reconcile with the fact that their
president has something to do with the violence towards our refugees. At
the end of the day he tried to prove that, on the contrary, he was
protecting the citizens of the Chechen Republic and that he would never
permit any conflict between the Chechens and the Ingush, and that we
remained a single people. We chatted for a long time and he agreed with
our position in many ways. It was quite a spontaneous conversation. The
important thing is that although our positions have been different up to
now, he agreed with our basic arguments. It is possible to talk to
people and I believe it is also possible to point out to politicians
that you should not conduct a misconceived policy in relation to your
people.

The people never forget. Personalities move on, but the people remain.
The people will remember for a long time what Zyazikov has done and what
we have done and what other politicians have done. For example, today
the people recall [former Ingush President Raul*] Aushev with gratitude,
because what he did was based on the common positions between our
peoples. He took into account our friendship and our homogeneity. We
even told Zyazikov that we would like him to enjoy the same prestige as
Aushev. That's what we told him.

[Chelysheva] And what did he say to that?

[Khanbiyev] To be honest, I found him to be a person of understanding,
not someone who is offended by the truth. I think he accepted this as
the right thing to do and he would be grateful to us for saying what we
think.

Incidents in Ingushetia, Groznyy and Beslan

[Chelysheva] Could the attack on Ingushetia on 21 June, the attack on
Groznyy and the terrorist act in Beslan be links in the same chain, the
idea being to enflame inter-ethnic conflicts in the North Caucasus?

[Khanbiyev] I know all about the two combat operations in Ingushetia and
Groznyy. Our president has also given his appraisal of these events. We
have nothing to hide: the president has a specific attitude to this
operation, and I see no grounds for suspecting that the purpose of this
operation was an interethnic conflict. If they were aimed at inciting
interethnic discord, then I think it would be logical to come out on
behalf of the Chechens, but there were Ingush there, led by Ingush
commanders. They all said that they would exact revenge for those people
who have disappeared without trace in Ingushetia. They called this
operation "Retribution". As far as I know, the object of this operation
was to punish those who were directly involved in the abductions, and
those who attacked knew what their objectives were beforehand. The
operation was planned; it was not spontaneous.

During the operation in Groznyy three districts were captured. This was
a show of force. It was a combat operation in a town chockfull of
checkpoints every hundred metres. The main strike was inflicted on an
area near Khankala where the main military base was. It was a
demonstration of the armed forces of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
These two operations cannot be linked together with what happened in
Beslan. Here both the president and we still have important questions.
Let us ask ourselves this: who benefited from this and to what degree?
Our side has not resolved any problems. On the contrary, this
[operation] was directed against the Chechens, against Maskhadov's side
and we can see the results now. Our president proposed a way out of this
situation: "If the terrorists' demands concern Chechnya and this means
talks, I am prepared today without any preconditions to come and do
everything in order to rescue the children." He did not just say this,
this was his decision. But, unfortunately, no provision was made for his
participation. That is precisely why a kind of spontaneous storm began.
But listen to the military analysts who decided that everything started
with the blowing up of the outer wall. Perhaps this was an unprepared,
indiscriminate attack.

That's what it looked like. Perhaps there was a lack of coordination on
the part of those who carried out the orders and those who gave them.
That's possible. But the fact that all the actions were agreed with the
Russian government - of that there is no doubt at all. If you take into
consideration that among the dead bodies of those who captured the
school were some who have been in prison for long periods and have been
convicted, one has to ask why were they not in prison but in Beslan? And
who brought them there? We have no specific answers to these questions.
And even the fact that [Chechen rebel commander Shamil] Basayev took
responsibility for it does not provide an exact answer. Even if one
allows for Shamil's participation in this terrorist act, he only had a
supporting role, as it were. It is perfectly possible that the idea was
put to him, as the Russian side usually does, via the FSB and those
Chechens who work for the FSB. The future chain of events is already in
the hands of the FSB.

Basayev's involvement in Beslan

[Chelysheva] Then how do you assess Basayev's possible participation and
even more his declaration that he takes responsibility for Beslan?

[Khanbiyev] What I'm saying is that he could have been indirectly
involved in this. We accept this possibility. We have discussed this
question but we still do not know the exact answer to it. But we do
accept that someone from among his "trusted" people suggested to Basayev
the idea which, in its turn, came from other players. Here is where the
game of two sides began. When we come to this conclusion it becomes
quite dreadful. Unfortunately, today we cannot be any more precise about
this or have any more details, so we simply cannot find any other
explanation.

[Chelysheva] Starting from 1999, hardly anything Basayev has done has
brought any benefit to the Chechen people.

[Khanbiyev] That's right. Terrorist acts against innocent people cannot
bring any benefit. We realize that perfectly well. And our president is
always speaking out against this. He talked to Basayev about this. He
says that his disagreements with Basayev are that Basayev believes he
has a moral right to do what the Russians are doing to the Chechens, and
it comes back like a boomerang. And Maskhadov says that we are the side
which should be turning towards the world community. We cannot permit
such actions and then they won't do them to us. We must not violate the
Geneva conventions although we, being an unrecognised state, have not
signed them.(**) But that is what Maskhadov is striving towards.
Therefore in relation to the fighters he has always maintained that they
should not behave as the invaders are behaving. In a recent statement he
made after Basayev had claimed responsibility, Maskhadov found a
solution to this problem. One cannot accuse the Chechens for having
Basayev among them, because such "Basayevs" can also be found on the
Russian side. There are any number of them. For example, [Russian
commander of western group of forces Gen] Shamanov is no different from
him. Maskhadov says: "Let's do this. Let's set up an international
tribunal, and I promise you that all those, including Basayev, who are
guilty of crimes against humanity will be brought to trial." But the
Russian side must do the same. Basayev could not have emerged by
himself. If we want to close the question of terrorism, then we must
combat it in the way Maskhadov proposes. We must set up an international
tribunal. So long as people who organize terrorist acts and generals,
too, have no sense of responsibility and feel that they can defend
criminal regimes, it will be difficult to end the wave of violence. The
threat of an international trial could restrain someone from cruelty in
conditions of war, and especially terrorism.

Round Table idea fine, but.

[Chelysheva] What do you think of the possibility of holding a round
table on Chechnya, and under whose auspices should it be held?

[Khnabiyev] We have been discussing Gross's report. It is a very bad
report. There are some cynical things in it. For example, he talks about
the need for taking into consideration the damage to the imperial pride
of the Russian side which has lost the Baltic regions and certain other
regions. It virtually means that he is encouraging the predator, but
forgetting about the prey. In other words, you can throw the predator to
his prey.

Let him tear Chechnya to pieces. But we diplomatically take on board his
sick ambitions. You see he is sad because the Baltic has gone, and now
Chechnya wants to leave, too. So, the idea of a round table on Chechnya.
If Gross had said that two groups would be set up; from the Chechen side
on the instructions of President Maskhadov, and from the Russian side on
instructions of the Russian president, which would include all the
representatives of the president, the government and parliament and the
non-governmental organizations - that may seem a lot of people, but if
they seek a dialogue between them, ways of a way out of this situation.
- then this method would be very constructive. But what Gross is
proposing has nothing to do with the resistance. People will sit down
and talk about something for the umpteenth time and nothing will change
as a result. We have proposed our own version. The two presidents issue
instructions, appoint people from one side or the other, and here, under
the auspices of PACE or another international human rights institution,
we will look for a way out of this deadlocked situation.

Investigation of war crimes

[Chelysheva] Are you proposing this same scenario for the investigation
of war crimes committed by both sides?

[Khanbiyev] Yes. It must be the same. There must be decrees of the
Russian president and the Chechen president. The two commissions set up
will work out a common decision but under the control of international
structures. That means the scenarios in both instances should be the
same, because at the moment we are unable to speak one to one. We have
already realized that we cannot come to an agreement. Even if we sign
some kind of document today this will not mean anything. Therefore if it
turns out non-beneficial tomorrow, it can be cancelled, just like they
cancelled the elections in Russia. This inconstancy, this
unpredictability of the Russian side rules out any chance of one-to-one
talks. Without the participation of international structures there can
be no constructive dialogue between us. We have been saying this in
Strasbourg all the time: "What you are doing is pointless. You will
again drag the war out for years. But then you will realize you have
made a mistake. Why shed more blood? People will die because of you.

Let's talk specifically about talks. Let the Russian president and the
CRI president appoint their people, specific competent groups, for the
talks process. We need to include public organizations which would like
to take part in this process. This process must go ahead under the
auspices of PACE, and then the dialogue will be a constructive one. What
is the point of [head of Council of Europe's Commission for Human Rights
Jose Alvaro] Hill-Robles (***) bringing a group of deputies to take part
in a round table? They will again come secretly and hide themselves
away. We have no access to them. We will get nothing from such underhand
approaches. And Hill-Robles is going to Russia today, like a real thief.
He went to Moscow, sat down with Putin at [Russian president's
residence] Novoogarevo, they worked out some kind of intrigue together,
and today in Strasbourg he wants to present it as a solution to the
Chechen question. This is stupid. But it seems to us that he is doing
this deliberately.

Humanitarian and ecological disasters in Chechnya

[Chelysheva] How do you, as a doctor, assess the scale of the
humanitarian disaster in Chechnya?

[Khanbiyev] This is a catastrophe. Today the most acute problem is an
epidemic of tuberculosis. This is a social disease. Its reasons are
malnutrition, over-exhaustion, fatigue and fear. According to monitoring
carried out among the refugees, among them are infants with an inherent
form of tuberculosis. This is a very rare phenomenon, which is
characteristic of those societies where the epidemic has taken hold. The
main thing is today there is no possibility of isolating those who have
caught the open form of tuberculosis. Before the war there were about
10,000 such people. These people are now spreading the tuberculosis.
They are now overcrowded - refugees, shattered houses, congested
families, and this increases the spread of tuberculosis.

Little is being said today about the ecological situation. But
Chechnya's ecological system has been completely ravaged. The conditions
of Chechnya have become completely unsuitable for life: bombing raids,
the burning of oil and the use of unknown chemical substances which were
dropped on Chechnya. All this has an effect on the birth rate. The
number of deformities in babies is increasing. As far as I am aware, 90
per cent of pregnant women have extra-genital diseases. There are many
cases of chronic anaemia among the women. Anaemia is caused by
malnutrition and an adverse ecological climate. The foetus is virtually
doomed to deformity and to disease because there is insufficient
nutrition from the mother. These defective children are a serious
problem. There is another problem - the loss of the capability of women
with a first child to give birth. The reason is the removal of the
uterus after the first delivery of an aborted child. There are a lot of
such instances. This proves that a process fatally dangerous for the
genetic cycle is going on. I am not even speaking about the number of
children maimed during the war years. There are a great many malignant
blood diseases. Our doctors have passed this on to me.

The main reason for such diseases in the majority of cases is radiation,
the bombing raids, and the destroyed medical apparatus in Groznyy. There
were also radioactive substances there. Apart from that there is the
Goryachevodskiy burial ground which was torn up after the bombing. The
radiation background in Chechnya is very dangerous for sustaining life.
Nervous breakdowns are a serious problem. These are called by the daily
stresses of ethnic cleansing, bombing raids and fear. Ninety-nine per
cent of the population is in need of psycho-therapeutic rehabilitation.
But there are no specialists in Chechnya who can give the psychiatric
help required. Back in 2000 and 2001, when tribunals of international
institutions were accessible to me as health minister, I spoke
everywhere about the disastrous level of this problem, including at the
World Health Organization, and also with all humanitarian organizations.
There are no anti-depressants in the republic, the amount being
delivered is miserly and the quality of these medicines also leaves a
lot to be desired. There are a lot of quack medicines around, and during
the treatment of such diseases the dosage, the time it is taken and the
examination of the doctor are all very important. If these are absent,
then the taking of such medicines can be very dangerous. A person might
get accustomed to it. Often such medicines are smuggled in, and then
they cause more harm than good. These questions will hardly be resolved
while there is still a war going on.

The Chechen humanitarian situation is not a Russian-Chechen problem, it
is an international problem. Today the whole world must pay attention to
this. I am constantly urging the European Parliament to take action, but
not once has anyone who is responsible for humanitarian issues in the
European parliament of in PACE come to Chechnya. What is needed is
determination. If you cannot see these problems with your own eyes you
will not be able to solve them. Even after the war we will have to put
this question to the international community in order to return the
republic to a normal situation. A great deal of work and expense is
needed for this. This is a very big problem, and the solution to it
today is not within the power of Russia or Chechnya. Returning to our
native regions, it was curious to watch the news bulletins of the
federal television channels. Yes, the autumn session of PACE was also a
topic of the day. But the information was completely prepared.

According to Vesti's version, [Kremlin-backed Chechen President] Alu
Alkhanov's speech at the debates on Chechnya was devoted to "the
positive trends in the development of the situation in the Chechen
Republic", which against the background of the silent Rudolf Bindig
should have created among the audience the illusion of PACE's approval
of such declarations. But little was shown of that and already in
another environment Alu Alkhanov addressed the audience of the Rossiya
channel with words of gratitude to the European parliamentarians who,
allegedly, supported his efforts aimed at "normalizing the situation in
the Chechen Republic". Clearly, Alkhanov does not want to remember that
the European MPs agreed to listen to him, but Lord Russell Johnston [of
the British Liberal Democratic Party] said, turning to Alkhanov, that
the liberal group which he represents considers Maskhadov to be the
lawfully elected president of Chechnya, "which cannot be said about our
guest today".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Ruslan.
** This is incorrect or the translation is unclear. Chechnya actually
signed the Geneva Conventions and sent the documents to Switzerland. But
the UN didn't accept them, as far as I understand.
*** Gil-Robles. N.S.