An interview of Ilyas Akhmadov, the Foreign Minister of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, to The Chechen Times

[01.01.2004 22:03] The Chechen Times

Question: Mr. Akhmadov, I would like to begin our interview, without observing the chronology, with the recent events, in particular, the topic which is probably the most sensitive to you.

It is no secret that from the very beginning of the latest war many Chechen politicians, as well as thousands of common Chechen citizens, have been forced to seek for asylum in different countries of Europe. Akhmed Zakayev, Vice Premier of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, has recently been granted political asylum in Great Britain. You also have applied to the US authorities with the same request. The Russian side has rushed to announce a "surrender of positions." Everything has been interpreted as a fact of "betrayal of interests" of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which seems comical in the given situation. At the same time we found out that a process - analogous to the process of Akhmed Zakayev - is to be launched against you. Its outcome is known beforehand. Therefore, we have the following questions: How do you consider similar applications for political asylum not only from your side, but by any Chechen politician or a Chechen citizen? And second, what does the Russian side charge you with?

Answer: First, I would like to say that I am very pleased that tens of thousands of Chechens find refuge in Europe and other regions of the world outside Russia. For the future of the Chechen people, this is one of the key differences of today's situation from, for example, the 1944 Stalin deportation. This part of the Chechen people has an opportunity today to rise to their feet in democratic states where everyone has a possibility to protect one's rights through a truly independent court system. In spite of some inevitable difficulties and barriers at the initial stage, thousands of Chechen children receive a decent education in western schools where no one pokes finger into them calling them "bandits" and "terrorists." Dozens Chechens study at prestigious western universities. There are people who have got higher education and have academic degrees. In several years this generation of Chechens will turn into a golden fund of the Chechen people. Neither Shamanovs, nor Troshevs or anyone else of butchers of the Chechen people can stop it.

A forced application for political asylum from the side of some Chechen political and public figures who stay outside Chechnya due to their duties or persuasions in most cases is a temporary and a forced measure which allows them to proceed with their activity. This is an immunity against the exorbitant appetite of the Kremlin which, without looking into the future, tries to shush Chechen political and public figures, forging one falsified case after another and using Interpol structures, being not ashamed to be caught lying again. To all appearance, the Russian leadership has drawn no conclusions after the shamefully failed trials in Denmark and Great Britain. It seems that there isn't a single reasonable person left in the Kremlin.

As for my case in particular, to all those who hope for a "surrender of positions" and a "betrayal of interests" I shall reply with no diplomacy - "you are waiting in vain." The decision to apply for political asylum, after proper consultations with the President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, was made for two reasons. First, my documents for foreign travels were due to expire and I could either stop travelling, thereby causing damage to my activity, or to find a possibility to get new documents. Second, we found out about the decision of the Russian general prosecutor's office to use the system of Interpol in order to demand my detention and possible extradition. Indeed, I had no desire to take part in festive gatherings together with the Russian Themis. Neither I wanted to hide in a banana republic. If the Kremlin wants to be caught lying and forging charges again, I had no reasons to deprive them of such possibility. I am confident that the US judicial authority is enough independent and objective to allow me to refute Moscow's false accusations of "organizing a raid into Dagestan in August 1999," appeals to "the war against infidels," "links with international terrorist organizations," "financial and material-technical support of bandit formations" and other nonsense. Just as well, the Kremlin could have charged me with killing the last Russian Emperor Nicolas II or, let's say, an attempt on Gaius Julius Caesar.

We can only regret that Moscow had no enough common political wisdom to choose the way of a constructive dialog to settle the Russian-Chechen conflict, instead of staging unwanted processes to discredit Chechen leaders, the outcome of which is known beforehand. Moscow shall understand that sooner or later it will have to begin political talks with the Chechen side and to hold talks with real representatives of this side. Putin shall kick out all those who recommended all these court trials to him and turn back to his previous position when he asserted that Russia's problem is not independence of Chechnya, but threats to Russia's security interests. If the Kremlin returns to that position, I have no doubt that we will be able to solve the Russian-Chechen conflict taking into account interests of both sides. After all, this is what our plan of "conditional independence" offers.

Question: Charging you with "Islamic extremism" and links to the international terrorist network, the Russian side has applied well-known stamps. The lack of grounds for such allegations is obvious. But speaking about crimes committed daily by Russia in Chechnya, the situation is opposite: there are enough proofs, even those collected in the conditions of a total blockage of any information from Chechnya, for another "Nuremberg trial." In March 2003 such a possibility was even discussed in PACE. Our question: Is there a hypothetical possibility that Russia's actions will be defined by international community as genocide, or state terrorism?

Answer: To begin with I shall repeat that we have nothing to do with "international terrorism" or extremism. I stress that I do not call it "Islamic extremism." By its definition extremism cannot be Islamic, because Islam has nothing in common with extremism. I consider everything what is usually called "Islamic," "Christian" or "Jewish" extremism as an attempt to "privatize" the Almighty by a separate group of people pursuing subjective interests or a subjective vision.

Unfortunately, the phenomenon of terrorism often becomes an object of subjective interpretation. In fact, terrorism is any illegal use of violence directly or indirectly aimed against civilians or civilian objects. That is what we denounce. Besides, we denounce such actions not just for the sake of somebody or something, but because we believe that from the point of view of human moral and international law the use of violence against civilian population is acceptable under no circumstances.

We cannot agree with those who, in the background of numerous Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity in Chechnya, are inclined to argue that a response use of violence by the Chechen side against Russia's civilian population or civilian objects would have been morally justified because such actions could be considered as an aftermath of Kremlin's crimes and might have pursued a morally justified goal of forcing Russia to peace. We shall clearly understand that criminal methods which are applied against Chechens cannot become less criminal if applied by Chechens against the Russian side. We are going to apply neither methods nor goals of those against whom we have waged the national liberation struggle. After all, we try to build an independent state, not a system of vengeance.

At the same time we categorically reject Russia's attempts to pin a label of terrorism on legitimate actions of the Chechen Resistance to destroy legitimate military targets of Russian occupation troops which have deliberately and systematically committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Chechnya for five years already, subjecting the whole Chechen people to collective extermination and terror, which is de-facto genocide. The latter is openly acknowledged by many non-governmental organizations, and in private conversations - by many western politicians and statesmen. Undoubtedly, Chechens have the right to defense. Besides, legitimate actions of the Chechen Resistance against Russian, in fact, terrorist and bandit formations calling themselves the Russian Army, etc., gain support of the entire world community. After all, we do what international community must have done - i.e. to fight against the gravest crime - genocide. That is the reluctance of international community to honor proper obligations what makes Chechens resort to armed resistance.

Nonetheless, regardless of the unjustified current passiveness of international community with respect to the situation in Chechnya, I have no doubt that the genocide of the Chechen people is likely to be officially recognized. A lot has been done in this direction. In July 2000, having produced all the necessary proofs, we officially charged Russia before the International Court with committing genocide in Chechnya. On behalf of President Maskhadov, the Attorney of Record for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Professor of International Law Francis A. Boyle has dealt with it. Although disputes around the status of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria create some obstacles, we are sure that it will bring positive results. Important initiative are being launched in this respect in different countries. We shall remind of the Resolution of the US Senate submitted by Senator Helms on February 15, 2001 suggesting to mark the 57th anniversary of the 1944 deportation of Chechens in the USA. Also it is noteworthy that the Chechen people was put on the watch list of endangered people by the Committee on Conscience of the US State Holocaust Memorial Museum. Important steps have also been taken from the side of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. There are many other things, to announce which is too early. I shall say that I have no doubts - the guilty of crimes against the Chechen people will be made accountable. I must add that this list was opened even before the current military stage of the Russian-Chechen conflict. The time when Chechens could have been exterminated with impunity has passed. A certain lull in this respect is cause only by political expedience. The matter is that today our priority is not to punish the guilty, but to stop hostilities and settle the Russian-Chechen conflict by political means, taking into account legitimate interests of both sides.

Question: In a recent interview Vice Premier Akhmed Zakayev said a peaceful settlement of the Russian-Chechen conflict was impossible until Vladimir Putin stayed in power. There is no doubt that at the upcoming presidential election in Russia Putin is unlikely to face any semblance of "pre-election struggle." Putin, at the minimum, is going to stay in the Kremlin for another presidential term. Our question: Does that mean the prospects for peace in Chechnya move away again? Do you make pessimistic or optimistic prognoses in this respect?

I do not like making prognoses. I shall only say that in my opinion today Putin has a choice to begin real political talks and solve the Russian-Chechen conflict taking into account legitimate interests of both sides, thereby opening the road to a true transformation of Russia into a modern state, in other words, to become Russia's de Gaulle, or to continue the genocide in Chechnya thereby turning Russia into a rogue-state. I want to believe that Putin would opt for the role of de Gaulle, than the role of Milosevic. I doubt that Putin does not understand that the convenient for Russia euphoria of the so-called anti-terrorist coalition is unlikely to last for a decade. That is why we hope there will be space for common sense in the Kremlin. From our side, we are ready for peace, but this priority has its time limits. If by summer 2004 the Russian leadership does not begin real peace talks, then by the end of the next year we can expect criminal cases against some Russian officials of the top level. The evolution of national law in some western states allows individuals to initiate such processes, and there are enough people who want to get use of such possibility. Russia's leadership have to choose between political talks in Chechnya and court trials abroad. If they do not want to become peacemakers, I hope they would find themselves in the dock during the first trip abroad. Those, who believe that initiating court processes is their exclusive right, are deeply mistaken. I recommend them taking these words as the last warning. First of all, we want peace, but if we have to abandon the prospect of peace talks, our priorities will change drastically. We offered to Russia a perfect formula to settle this conflict. I hope the Russian president is aware of our proposals. If not, I recommend him reading our plan and make sure himself that our proposals correspond not only to the interests of the Chechen people but also the interests of Russia and its citizens.

Question: What, in your opinion, is the key difference of the peace plan proposed by the Foreign Ministry of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as compared to other plans, why is it promising?

Answer: It is impossible to compare the concept of conditional independence with "other plans" because there isn't a single reasonable plan to solve the Russian-Chechen conflict. Of course, there have been proposals, including from the Chechen side, to stop the war, but to stop the war and to solve the conflict are two absolutely different things. The war can be stopped, let's say, by means of the withdrawal of Russian troops, but the conflict can be solved only if legitimate aspirations of the Chechen people to its statehood are met. We didn't invented this world and set up the present post Westphalian system of states. We are not to blame that over more than 100 years Russia has failed to guarantee the rights of Chechens within Russia. We are not blame that there is no rule of law and equality to law in Russia. We are not to blame that international community allowed and still allows Russia to exterminate our people and humiliate our citizens. We are not blame that Russia has failed to become a normal democratic state. We are not to blame that in Russia the life of separate citizens as well as the existence of entire nations depends on the will of the head of state. Nothing can persuade us that Russia is able to guarantee legitimate rights and freedoms of our people. also we cannot rely on consciousness of international community. This consciousness has often let us down and still does. Suffice it to remember how some prime ministers and heads of states, although they are well aware of Russia's crimes in Chechnya, have not considered it beneath their personal dignity to blatantly lie before the entire world about "Chechen groups" in Afghanistan and Iraq. The last time when by the initiative of President Wilson the world relied on consciousness of international community it resulted in fascism and WWII. What did not save the world is unlikely to save Chechnya. By virtue of the aforesaid, we are absolutely certain that in the present system of state only a Chechen state is able to protect legitimate rights and freedoms of the Chechen people as a whole and every Chechen citizen in particular. We have deserved this right with our blood. Thus, any plan which suggests solving this conflict shall guarantee statehood to the victim of this conflict - the Chechen people.

Indeed, we must give due to separate individuals trying to find a compromise formula. But we are confident that with the Russian passport, the Russian ruble and under the Russian Constitution rights and freedoms of Chechens cannot be guaranteed. After all, we want not only the right to life, but also the right to a decent life. Reservations, pardons, autonomous statuses or "authorities" can guarantee neither the former nor the latter no matter under which slogans and banners they are presented. Therefore, although we welcome any peace initiatives, no matter from who they might come, we cannot accept proposals running counter to vital interests of the Chechen people. At the same time we are ready to consider genuine and legitimate interests of Russia. That is what our plan offers, it not only takes into consideration, but also guarantees Russia's security interests as well legitimate interests of international community. Besides, in my opinion, this plan solves one of the most serious problems for Chechens. In particular, suggesting a truly democratic structure of a vital state, i.e. relying on a system, rather than separate leaders it guarantees equal rights and possibilities to Chechen citizens. In other words, this plan guarantees that having escaped from an outside despot, Chechens would not appear under a domestic one.

Question: There are opponents of this plan. Ironically enough, within the Chechen society. I can explain such reaction to this plan by their poor awareness. There are also emotional complaints that there is no propaganda, that the Russian-Chechen conflict must be called a war, rather than a conflict, etc. Nonetheless, below are two major "charges." First: Conditional independence is a step back from the idea of sovereignty and violates the statehood of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. Second: This is a "western" plan and therefore it is alien to Chechen mentality. What would you say to that?

Answer: We shall begin with emotional criticism. Indeed, there is no propaganda in this plan and such criticism shall be taken as a compliment. The absence of propaganda is a plus to advantages of the plan which is aimed at solving the Russian-Chechen conflict to enable Russia and Chechnya to put an end to centuries of hostility and violence, to open the path to good neighborly relations of two truly independent states. As for adequate definitions, I believe that authors of such criticism do not understand the difference between "a war" and "a conflict." War, in the given case, is only a stage in this conflict. The Russian-Chechen conflict began in a relatively passive form in the end of the 17th century and took an active form in the end of the 18th century. From time to time this conflict has taken the forms of genocide, total war, deportation, etc. Its present form, to be precise, is not war - but genocide. But reducing more than 300 years of the conflict to one of its forms would have been a foolish mistake.

To accusations of stepping back from the idea of sovereignty and undermining Chechnya's statehood - the answer is obvious: saying that this plan, which a priori gives top priority to a de-jure recognition of Chechnya and is a step back from the idea of statehood or a violation of the statehood of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, is, of course, nonsense.

As for the "pro-western" nature of the plan, I will give a more detailed answer.

First, assigning primary importance to a democratic order of the Chechen state, this plan is, first of all, pro-Chechen. For Chechens, democracy is not a western innovation, but a natural condition of the Chechen society. Democracy for Chechens is, in fact, returning to a natural order of the Chechen state before Russia's colonial expansion to the Chechen territory. No exaggeration, whereas the west was ruled by arbitrary monarchs, Chechens had equal political rights and elected authority limited in time and powers. The contemporary democratic order of states is based on these principles.

Second, democratic order is a necessary condition for success of the Chechen state. The whole history of Chechens shows that authority which violates political equality is inevitable doomed to fail. Let's remember Imam Shamil. In fact, he lost the war to Russia not so much due to unequal forces as due to disparity of his rule.

Third, we press for a democratic order of the Chechen state not to please the West but because it is necessary to guarantee legitimate rights and freedoms of every Chechen citizens. We urge to rely not on a "good guy," "good government" and pleasant promises, but a worthy system and structure of state order which can guarantee that a leader or a government will act within law. Having escaped Russia's arbitrariness, where the fate of Chechens depends on will or, if you want, soberness of Russian leaders, Chechens have to get an accountable and a fair authority. Otherwise, there would have been no point in escaping from Russian despots, if we wanted to replace them with own dictators, someone resembling Kadyrov. I hope Chechens will see that the suggested way to solve the conflict really corresponds to their interests, and they will do all they can to implement it. I urge all those who accept this plan but doubt the possibility of its implementation to believe in their forces. The future of this plan depends, first of all, on Chechens and they must unite and press for its implementation.

http://www.chechnya.nl/news.php?id=8154&lang=eng