Q. What is Human Rights Watch’s position on the hostage-taking and killing of hundreds of people in Beslan?
A. Human Rights Watch has unequivocally condemned the seizure and killing of hostages in Beslan. No political or other cause can ever justify the taking of hostages, whether in Russia, Iraq or elsewhere. International law, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the U.N. Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, explicitly prohibits the taking of hostages, a serious crime. The targeting of children makes this a particularly heinous act.
|
A. The new proposals would essentially empower the Kremlin to appoint regional governors and would give it even more control over parliament than it already has. Human Rights Watch believes that President Putin is opportunistically exploiting the Beslan massacre to further advance his political agenda of consolidating power.
Since taking office five years ago, Putin has steadily dismantled the system of checks and balances vital to governmental accountability. He has nearly obliterated the independent television and most of the print media, marginalized the political opposition, and jailed or forced into exile businessmen who refused to display loyalty.
The new proposals are the next step in this process, but are unlikely to have much real effect on the fight against terrorism. They coincide with the government’s increasingly aggressive moves against critical nongovernmental organizations and more generally civil society.
Q. What steps should President Putin take to counter the wave of terrorist attacks?
A. First and foremost, there should be an independent investigation into the circumstances under which these terrorist attacks happened. This will allow the government to implement effective steps to prevent future terrorist attacks. The role of corruption among border and security agents in these attacks, which President Putin noted in his speech, needs to be carefully examined, as should the links to the Chechnya conflict and Russia’s policies there.
The results of this investigation should, to the extent national security considerations allow, be public. President Putin has announced the creation of a parliamentary commission of inquiry. However, in today’s Russia members of parliament are so dependent on the president that this commission is unlikely to be able to fully and objectively examine the Kremlin’s role in the run-up to and aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Putin needs to restore, rather than undermine, checks and balances between the executive and the legislature. This in turn would create the conditions for a genuinely independent inquiry.
The government should also reinvigorate its search for individuals known to have been involved in terrorism. The government’s new efforts to apprehend Shamil Basayev, the Chechen field commander who has allegedly claimed responsibility for Beslan,are an example of this. Basayev claimed responsibility for numerous other attacks on civilians— including hostage-takings at a hospital in Budenovsk in 1995 and at a Moscow theater in 2002—but has proven elusive to Russian troops.
Q. How should suspected hostage-takers be treated in detention?
A. One of the Beslan hostage-takers was reportedly apprehended and is now in custody. Russia should investigate and, if appropriate, try all suspected hostage-takers in strict accordance with Russian law and international fair trial standards. They may not be subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment and have had a right to a lawyer from the moment of detention. They must be presumed innocent until a court of law has established guilt.
Q. What steps does Human Rights Watch believe the Russian government needs to take in Chechnya?
A. After more than a decade of war and chaos, most ordinary Chechens have a strong yearning for peace and stability. This desire for peace provides the Russian government with an opportunity for change. However, Moscow needs to radically change its Chechnya policies if it wants to capitalize on these sentiments. It must invest in building trust in its institutions among ordinary Chechens by curbing abuses by its troops and by bringing the perpetrators of past abuses to justice.
Such steps, if sustained and meaningful, would gradually help convince Chechen civilians that the Russian government is now acting in good faith in its Chechnya policy. They would begin to reverse the recent process of radicalization and create positive momentum that could slowly increase trust and, with it, hope for the future. If sustained, a restoration of trust and hope would lay the foundations for a lasting solution to the conflict and Chechnya’s status.
The government should also stop harassing local human rights groups and media and instead treat them as partners in winning the trust of the general population.
Q. Does Human Rights Watch have a position on the political status of Chechnya?
A. No. Taking a position on a political issue like the status of Chechnya would compromise our impartiality and thus also our ability to perform our primary function: monitoring the conduct of all parties to a conflict and pressing them to respect international humanitarian and human rights law.
Q. What violations of human rights and humanitarian law have been most prevalent in the Chechnya conflict?
A. Human Rights Watch has documented violations by both Russian troops and Chechen rebel fighters. Russian troops have been responsible for thousands of enforced disappearances, systematic torture and ill-treatment of detainees, hundreds of extrajudicial executions, widespread looting, as well as sexual violence against both men and women. Certain factions of Chechen rebel fighters have claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on civilians inside Chechnya and in other parts of Russia, including the 2002 hostage-taking at a Moscow theater.
Rebels also bear responsibility for the assassinations of dozens of Chechen civilian leaders who have cooperated with the Russian government, including the pro-Moscow Chechen president Akhmad Kadyrov. In August 2004, a rebel leader threatened to assassinate the next Moscow-installed Chechen president as well.
Q. Is the Kremlin’s operation in Chechnya part of the global campaign against terrorism, as President Putin has repeatedly asserted?
A. There may be contacts between certain Chechen rebel factions and international terrorism. However, the conflict in Chechnya is primarily about the rebel factions’ determination to secede from Russia. A variety of rebel factions in Chechnya fight for different reasons—for independence, to avenge the death of relatives, or simply for money. Most do not associate themselves with al-Qaeda.
While the aims and tactics of the various rebel groups may have political or strategic implications for Russia, they do not alter Russia’s obligation to abide by international humanitarian and human rights law. Reassertion of these universal norms is a critical element in responding to terrorist acts or war crimes.
Q. What should world leaders be saying to President Putin?
A. President Putin has had withering criticism of foreign leaders’ call for negotiations with moderate Chechen leaders. He has compared any negotiations with any Chechen separatists to the 1938 Munich accords. This seems aimed at discrediting any criticism from abroad of post-Belsan developments.
Foreign leaders must have the political courage to engage Putin in a direct and sustained dialogue on battling terrorism, making clear that this requires transparency and accountability. They should clearly tell Putin that the proposed political measures undermine rather than enhance accountability, hold little promise of making Russia safer, and would set back the global campaign against terrorism.
When engaging Russia on Chechnya, world leaders should emphasize the need to build trust among an alienated population by ending abuses and launching a credible accountability process. They should also call on the Russian government to facilitate access to Chechnya for international monitors and independent media.
