| CSI Home | Announcements | Eurasia | Opinion/Analysis | Bookstore | Site Map | Search |
 |
Civil Society International Ideas and information for civic action worldwide |
|
||||
AIF News Agency, 12:00, January 17, 2001
Source: Federal News Service.
Posted to Johnson's Russia List on January 19, 2001, Issue #5036
Moderator: Good afternoon, dear colleagues. Argumenty i Fakty
welcomes human rights activists: Sergei Adamovich Kovalyov, State Duma deputy,
Alexei Simonov, president of the Glasnost Defense Foundation, Sergei Grigoryants,
chairman of the Glasnost Foundation, Lev Ponomaryov, co-chairman of the Human
Rights movement and president of the Russian Ecological Policy Center Alexei
Yablokov and Duma deputy, yes?
Borshchev: No, not a deputy, no longer a deputy of the State Duma.
Moderator: He is also a prominent human rights campaigner. The topic of the
press conference, as you know, is "Human Rights in Russia: Extraordinary
Human Rights Congress". You are welcome, who will start? Sergei Adamovich,
tell us about the congress and the problems.
Kovalyov: Let us begin with the following. The initiators of the congress
decided to call it an "extraordinary congress". This instantly
triggered a discussion. And its echoes are already reaching me. Why
extraordinary? What extraordinary circumstances lead us to call it
extraordinary? The arguments of those who opposed that word in the name of the
congress are as follows. I will cite what I consider to be the most logical
objections to the word. They say that nothing extraordinary is happening in the
country. What we see is pretty sad, but natural and easily predictable political
development. This development basically is as follows: a former superpower is
clearly becoming relegated to the rank of second-rate third-world countries.
This naturally brings a wave of nationalism, an aggressiveness, nostalgia for
the lost influence, a murky upsurge of the sort of patriotism that looks for
external enemies and the Fifth Column. That is all there is to it.
This is natural. It may be sad, but it is natural. I
think you understand that this argument is futile. I see the point of the
argument that the country is in an emergency situation. I see the point of those
who think that it is a sad, but natural development. But I think that the real
justification for calling the future congress an "extraordinary"
congress, an adequate justification is the gravity and scale of the dangers that
threaten our society and our people and our country, if you like. And the
gravity and scale of the dangers is not open to doubt. And this is reason enough
to call this congress an "extraordinary" one.
Let us think back to the sunset years of Weimar Germany
when Nazism was rising. From the point of view of an unbiased and an objective
historian nothing extraordinary was happening. The natural course of events was
leading to these sad consequences.
I do not maintain that fascism is emerging in our
country but something like a Pinochet regime is being deliberately built here,
by using quiet technical methods.
Of course, we will provide arguments to support this
view when answering your questions and making our remarks. I will just cite what
I think are very telling examples.
For example, a draft law that provides a natural
development of a certain constitutional provision is already pending before the
Duma, has vigorous support on the part of the present docile Duma and will most
probably be enthusiastically adopted. This provision of the Constitution says
that chapters one, two and nine of the Constitution may not be changed, or
amended by any of the houses of the Federal Assembly or by the President or by
anyone. This is natural, because this is a conceptual provision of the
Constitution. If amendments are to be made in them, this is
tantamount to adopting a new Constitution.
And who has the right to change these chapters of the
Constitution? The Constitution says that it is the Constitutional
Assembly, a special body, but it doesn't say how it is convened. It refers to a
future law, the constitutional federal law. And such a draft is being submitted.
As you know, the upper house of parliament consists of
appointees now. It is not elected at a congress. And the last
popularly elected senators are serving out their terms. And now under this new
bill an appointed constitutional body is to be created. Just think about it.
There should be 400 members. Who are they? The whole of the upper house, that
is, appointed people, the President himself who is the guarantor of the
Constitution, but it is nowhere said that he should be the author of the new
Constitution. And these will be 100 people appointed by the President, 100
members of the Duma.
By the way, the Constitution says that neither the
lower, nor the upper house of parliament has the right to amend the
Constitution. So, the houses of parliament have no right to amend the
Constitution, but 100 representatives of the Duma have such a right. That's your
constitutional power for you. And somehow either the Supreme Court or the
Constitutional Court and chairmen of other judiciary bodies miraculously find
themselves within that body of 400 people.
Can you imagine what it means? It means that they will
be prepared to put together a new Constitution, a Constitution that is all too
willing to oblige the powers that be. The readiness of our legislature to obey
any new command from the Kremlin is obvious. I don't want to repeat hackneyed
examples, the story with the anthem speaks for itself. The law on political
parties is being pushed through hastily. That would bring to heal the whole
politically
active society.
A vertical power structure is being built from top to
bottom because our federal system is poor and it is in need of serious changes.
But now a whole chamber of parliament will consist of appointed individuals. And
at the same time many mass media are pursuing an active campaign. That campaign
consists in the following: it is good when lieutenant-colonels, colonels and
generals of the KGB come to power. Because these people are a) honest; b)
responsible and besides they are well-disciplined. And then they are the
colleagues of our President. And anyway, what
President would pick unknown people as his assistants?
A very sound line of reasoning. Let us recall that the
alma mater of the new team in power is the former place of service whose members
are proud of being in that service. When Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was asked
how he felt about his previous service career, he said, I am proud of it. This
is telltale detail.
Imagine a German federal Chancellor who formerly served
in the Gestapo. Can you imagine the storm it would trigger in Germany and the
world? Now just imagine the next step. To imagine the scope of this outcry let
us recall the Austrian Heider. The poor fellow was hunted down like a hare just
for a minimum success at the polls.
Imagine, a journalist comes to that federal chancellor
and says: "Your Excellency, what is your attitude to your former
service?" And he gets the reply: "I am proud of it!" Imagine? By
the way, it is the agency that was used to make short shrift of tens of millions
of our compatriots. I believe I have explained why the Congress is called an
extraordinary one and what should be discussed at it.
Moderator: Thank you, Sergei Adamovich. I have the impression that we do not
really distinguish between intelligence services and political police.
Kovalyov: Excuse me, please, I would like to remind you of yet another
biographical episode. I could tell you at length what intelligence is and what
lieutenant-colonels, in particular, Putin, did in it. I want to remind you of
the following. On returning from the intelligence mission the citizen
lieutenant-colonel served in Leningrad University, as it was then named, as a
KGB overseer for a whole year. Do you know what KGB overseers do in
universities? I do.
Simonov: Foreign intelligence.
Kovalyov: This is my answer to the question of foreign intelligence and secret
police. And what about General Cherchesov? Have you heard this name? He is also
from St. Petersburg. Has he served in foreign intelligence? He investigated the
cases of many of our common friends and acquaintances.
Voice: What about Bush?
Kovalyov: Bush was a politician. A politician sent by the special service so
that the professionals from the special services would not get carried away and
not feel themselves independent of politics. That is the difference. He was not
a lieutenant-colonel.
Moderator: Thank you. Lev Alexandrovich, it is your turn.
Ponomaryov: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to note, first of all, that this
will be the first such congress in Russia of such a scale. The first national
congress of human rights activists. Regardless of what specifically these human
rights activists are doing. I want to stress that it is a congress not only of
human rights activists. It is not by chance that it is called Congress in
Defense of Human Rights. In other words, it will be attended by people who are
not members of human rights organizations, who are members of some other
organizations but on their personal initiative come out in the defense of human
rights.
The initiator of convening the congress is the group
called Joint Action. I have provided you with background material on it. The
group is actually a round table of Russia's human rights organizations. It is
functioning on a permanent basis from 1997. It includes the most prominent human
rights organizations and individual human rights activists. We invited to this
congress 350 organizations from Russia's regions. So far, 300 organizations have
confirmed their participation. I hope they all are going to come. It is very
important that people are so active. We are getting lots
of calls for reservations.
Of course, many Moscow organizations are going to take
part. At least 200 organizations have already got accreditation. The congress
will be held in the conference hall of Hotel Cosmos which can seat a thousand.
This gives you an idea of the size of the congress. Now I would like to add a
few words to what Sergei Adamovich said and dwell on the term
"extraordinary".
We discussed this, how to name the congress.
Incidentally, Yelena Georgiyevna Bonner is the honorable chairperson of the
organizing committee of the congress. Unfortunately, she is unwell and will not
come to the congress. She visited Moscow recently. Incidentally, initially we
planned to hold the congress in October and she timed her trip to Moscow to
coincide with it. But for various reasons we had to put off the date of the
congress.
Now the term "extraordinary". We see how day
after day, little by little, rights are being taken away from us. At least
during the past year. Moreover, this process has intensified. We can no longer
simply watch this process. We must state that this process exists, we must try
to at least slow down this process. That is why we are holding this congress.
Yet another moment. Some say that we are going to
gather and discuss our problems but that this has no relation to our society,
that society supports the government, supports the idea of a firm hand of
leadership, that society is not concerned by what worries us.
But this is wrong. You see, the President and his
actions have the support of about 50 percent of the population. He is opposed by
only some 10-15 percent. What I am saying is that people who are opposed to this
are becoming more active, more people are joining the opposition. You will be
able to see this for yourself when you come to the congress. The number of human
rights organizations and individual human rights activists is growing. In other
words, society has accepted this challenge and is ready to act. Thank you.
Moderator: Thank you. But I would like you to identify the problems and human
rights you are going to discuss at the congress-- Chechnya, freedom of speech,
what exactly?
Simonov: Freedom of speech. I have been instructed to make a report to the
congress on the situation with freedom of speech in the country. The situation
is of an extraordinary nature. I have added evidence of this. You see, I will
not be able to make my report on the second day of the congress because I will
fly to Strassbourg. I have been summoned to attend hearings of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe which will be discussing the problem of
freedom of speech in Russia. It is not only we but also the European community
that has the feeling that there is an emergency situation with freedom of speech
in our country.
We are being increasingly approached by those who
support our opponents in power. It is a paradox -- more than a half of the
population votes for a strong government but goes to us, human rights activists,
to complain about the strong government. Such is the reality. Those of you who
are going to cover the congress should speak with the participants from the
regions who will fill you in on the situation with freedom of speech in the
regions.
Now concretely about freedom of speech. Four days ago,
on Russian Press Day, together with Mikhail Alexandrovich Fedotov we held a
press conference in Mir Novostei. We outlined our views on the problem of
freedom of speech. Incidentally, not a single journalist who reported on the
conference mentioned that it was held in Mir Novostei.
Moderator: We know about such things.
Simonov: Yes, this is customary. Perhaps, this has something to do with
corporate spirit and ethics in respect of colleagues but we had to protest to
some media outlets about distortions concerning figures, facts and views. The
situation is quite catastrophic in this respect. So, the problem of the freedom
of speech is not only that it is being restricted from above. The problem is
that it is becoming less and less popular even among the media outlets. In my
report I will ask journalists to treat problems of the civil society with more
attention. This includes their own solidarity in respect of one another.
Moderator: Thank you, Alexei Kirillovich. Who will make the report on Chechnya
at your congress? It is because of Chechnya that our delegation was deprived of
the right to speak at PACE. By the way, your congress is being held almost
simultaneously with PACE. Must be a coincidence...
Kovalyov: You know, it is not on Chechnya that I will speak at the congress. A
special report on Chechnya at the congress will be made by Oleg Petrovich Orlov
and Andrei Blinushov. Unfortunately, I do not know his patronymic. They have
absolute knowledge of this problem.
But I will still say a few words. I am not going to
make a detailed analysis of the Chechen problem. It is clear that the
Kremlin does understand that the Russian Federation has once again stepped on
the rake in the Caucasus and is in an impasse.
Is there a way out? Confronted with this situation
Stalin would have acted the same way as he did in February 1944. He would have
put everybody on freight trains and taken them to some place in Siberia. He
would order the trains to move slowly and some 30 percent or more of the people
would die on the way. A handful of armed men would remain in the mountains and
caves. But a different kind of struggle would be conducted against them. That
would no longer be a guerrilla war. A guerrilla war is a war supported by the
population. It is now mounting in Chechnya and has been going
on there for a long time.
But now it is not 1944 the bloody and horrific solution
is ruled out. The Kremlin does not know what to do. Only the following can be
done, however. Start talks. With whom? With the adversary and not with the
puppets. Peace talks are held with an adversary. The Kremlin is beginning to
understand this. But it is very shameful to get down to draft another Khasavyurt
agreement because this would mean admitting the impasse.
This is the vicious circle of the situation in
Chechnya. I do not think that the position outlined by me will be supported by
the entire congress. A certain split on this problem is possible...
Ponomaryov: Differences.
Kovalyov: Differences, let us say. But I hope the moral and reasonable position
will take the upper hand. Well, whatever will be will be. Follow the discussion.
Now Alexei Vasilyevich.
Yablokov: For us, ecologists, the congress will provide an opportunity to unite
the ecological movement and the human rights movement. Already several years ago
ecologists have arrived at the conclusion that we will not be able to solve many
ecological problems in the country without resorting to the arsenal of methods
and means and ideology of the human rights movement. We have lost or are
catastrophically losing the right to ecological information. Damage compensation
is a human right. Compensation for damage caused by ecological offenses is an
ecological right, starting with Chernobyl. This concerns millions of our
citizens.
We hope that at the congress the ecological movement
will get the powerful support of the human rights movement and, in turn, that
the human rights movement will get a certain ecological coloring. It is
important for us to form a coalition. It is on behalf of such a coalition that I
am going to make my report to the congress. Nikitin and Yablokov will report on
ecological and related problems. This will be really important.
Moderator: I believe it was on December 22 that the State Duma adopted a law by
which our country will become a dumping yard for nuclear waste from all over the
world. What do you think about this?
Yablokov: This is a wonderful example of how our ecological rights are being
violated. We collected some three million
signatures in support of a referendum although only two million signatures are
required. The first question to be asked in that referendum would be: Do you
agree to accepting foreign radioactive wastes and materials into the country for
storing, burying and processing? Three million Russian citizens said they wanted
such a referendum. In some areas, for instance, Orenburg region, ten percent of
people of voting age took part in collecting the signatures. What happened after
that? The Central Electoral Commission challenged enough signatures to bring
down the final number to 1.9 million. As a result, we were not allowed to carry
out the referendum.
This was done cynically. We were told, according to the
law there must be an indication of the name of the street where a person lives.
We responded that in some settlements there are no streets. Our argument was
rejected. They also find lots of other faults. On December 21 the State Duma
adopted in the first reading three laws under pressure from the Ministry for
Atomic Energy and with the most active participation of the government. The
second
and third readings will follow on the 22nd.
This is a real violation of our rights. Moreover, the
rights of future generations. Plutonium's period of semi-decay is 24,000 years.
If we are going to accept radioactive wastes and materials containing plutonium
we will create a problem for Russia for tens of thousands of years. Just for the
sake of getting 10-20 billion dollars. If we are going to get this money it is
going to go into the pockets of a limited number of people. The cynical problem
of money. I repeat that this legislation violates our rights.
Moderator: As a deputy, did you vote against these laws?
Kovalyov: Of course. But, you know, one of your colleagues whom I do not respect
very much joked recently that if the
President had insisted that the Duma adopt the popular song about the vodka-drinking sparrow as our national anthem, it would have
enthusiastically voted for this.
Now I would like to say just a few words about ecology.
Let us recall the political prisoners, to be more correct, the people who were put on political trial lately. Who are they?
Mirzoyan, Nikitin, Pasko. Ecologists all of them. This is not by chance. The main military secrets of our military are the terrible things that
they are doing with the environment.
Moderator: I believe that the military are not
ecologists in the first place and they have sworn not to divulge state secrets.
Kovalyov: Of course. You know, everything would be
logical were it not for an entry in our Constitution. It directly says that circumstances threatening the life and health of the population in
connection with the state of the environment may not comprise a state secret.
Simonov: Don't recruit Mirzoyan into the army. He is
not a military man.
Q: Kommersant. Is it moral to make money on the
publication of such facts?
Kovalyov: Make money?
Q: Yes, like Pasko.
Kovalyov: I think you should put this question to that journalist. But is it ethical to make money by being a journalist?
Aren't you paid?
Q: Yes.
Kovalyov: And Pasko was also paid.
Q: Yes, but I am not an officer.
Kovalyov: And Pasko is a journalist.
Q: But he is first of all an officer.
Kovalyov: What do you mean, first of all? He got his
money as a journalist. And in the army he was also paid for this.
Q: (Off mike).
Kovalyov: And why not? If your material is published in
the New York Review of Books, will you refuse to collect your fee? I wouldn't.
Simonov: Perhaps, you simply weren't as lucky.
Moderator: Let's put a stop to this, colleagues. The
next speaker is Sergei Ivanovich Grigoryants, head of the Glasnost
Foundation.
Grigoryants: It is right that the congress should be
attended not only by human rights activists. At the congress we should raise problems of social rights, religious rights, ecology, freedom of
speech, and so on.
But I would like to speak, first of all about what is happening with non-government organizations in general, with what
we call the civil society. Nobody has reported, for instance, that in recent years the number of non-government organizations in
Moscow has dropped to only 12 percent of the initial number. Lots of them were destroyed on being denied re-registration. Recently,
for instance, the Salvation Army was denied re-registration on the grounds that it is an army and a foreign army cannot be registered
in Russia. It is exactly this that Mr. Zhbankov wrote in his official reply.
But beyond this caricature we clearly see a very cruel struggle against civil society in Russia, actually a struggle
against all of us. And we clearly see what type of organizations are being destroyed: all independent trade unions, ecological
organizations, first of all, those dealing with nuclear safety, ethnic organizations and, of course, human rights organizations.
It is fantastic that all justice departments in our
huge country for some reason invented one and the same remarkable
formula, that public organizations have no right to deal with the protection of human rights. And a remarkable uniform answer was
given to explain this. It turns out that defense of human rights is a prerogative of the state in accordance with the Constitution and
public organizations in accordance with our legislation have no right to interfere in the activities of
state bodies. But it is not very clear who in our remarkable state is going to defend us.
We have mountains of statistics recording the things
happening in various regions. In some regions, for instance, Tambov region, only 5 percent of organizations remain. In Krasnodar Territory it
is a bit better -- 20 percent. Moscow city does not inflict harm but very definitely instructs what should be done. Krasheninnikov
claims that all these organizations exist only on paper. But this is an obvious lie. For instance, Alexei Simonov's Glasnost Defense
Foundation could not register as a public organization and it is one of the oldest organizations. It was denied registration all
over the country and it had some of the most powerful organizations.
Grigoryants: And I would like to speak about fabricated
cases. Many of you know about the case of Sutyagin. These cases are remarkable because they are reminiscent of the trials of 1930s. On
the one hand, these are political trials. But they are political not because, say, Sutyagin or Moiseyev did anything anti-government
or held views that differ from the government's views, but because the government in fabricating these cases through the FSB is
pursuing definite political goals. And we have approached and will approach Amnesty International to recognize these people are
prisoners of conscience. These cases are aimed at intimidating groups of the population, a whole stratum of the population in
Russia, the people who are trying to defend Sutyagin and his colleagues. They will be told: "Why are you defending him? Don't
you understand that each of you can be in his place?"
And indeed, each of the workers of the US and Canada
Institute and many others can at any time be charged on grounds that some of the materials they had used are secret. That is, have been declared
secret. And any employee of the Foreign Ministry may find himself in a similar situation. If you haven't done so, you would do well
to inquire into how the employees of the Foreign Ministry feel when they come to work, they are afraid to talk with their colleagues.
A confidential hot line has been set up and you can ring up the personnel department and tell them what your colleague in
the room next door is doing if, for some reason, you got interested.
In fact a struggle is underway against non-governmental
organizations, a struggle with whole strata of the population.
Pasko and Nikitin were mentioned here, and I would like to say that it is not just a matter of environmental problems, but Russian
officers feel different after such trials. And all this is enough grounds to call this congress an extraordinary one.
Moderator: Thank you. Several issues have been
mentioned which will be on the congress agenda. I think a single issue would warrant convening an extraordinary congress. A lieutenant-colonel
died in hospital yesterday, a very worthy man, apparently. How does one explain to your comrade -- I mean in the democratic community,
because I mean, the main terrorist is the state because any terrorism is to destabilize society. And in this country, whether
you take Primorye or Tobolsk or the Jewish Autonomy or Tambov, I think the detention camp in Chernokozovo is much more comfortable
because there is a greater chance to survive there than in a hospital in Tambov.
Grigoryants: I am afraid you are mistaken about
Chernokozovo. Even if it is possible to survive there, it is only since advisers
from PACE and the Council of Europe visited it. But we read almost every day about the euphoria of our present leaders. Success has
gone to their heads because they have seized power and not because of what is being done in the country.
Ponomaryov: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say a
couple of words on this topic. It is one of the central topics in the congress. I hope you have received its program. There is a report
presented by me and Tatyana Kotler, a human rights activist from the Kaluga region. It has to do with social and economic rights in
Russia and our thesis is, perhaps, the thesis of the whole congress is that human rights are indivisible, that is, if civil rights are
violated, social rights inevitably are violated. We already see this. And I must say that human rights activists initiated the
struggle against sequential power cuts. We lodged a protest with the Prosecutor General's Office. After that our initiative was
supported.
Kovalyov: And of course, we wrote to Chubais.
Ponomaryov: Yes, we wrote to Chubais.
Moderator: -- (inaudible) -- I wonder what his reply
was?
Ponomaryov: Let me finish. I haven't met him for a long
time, luckily. That was a long time ago and it would be interesting for me to look at him. We initiated the criminal case and I have a
letter from the Prosecutor General's Office on the initiative of sequential power cuts. Secondly, Mironov backed our initiative.
And I know that just yesterday we learned from
television that the Prosecutor General's Office has started a criminal investigation opened into sequential power cuts. In that sense we
are already acting and this issue will be discussed at the
congress.
Kovalyov: And now about the man you described as
"our comrade", Chubais.
Moderator: Your comrade in the democratic camp.
Kovalyov: Don't you consider yourself to be in the
democraticcamp?
Moderator: I am above the fray, as it were.
Kovalyov: I hope you belong to the democratic camp.
What does it mean, to be above the fray? The democratic camp does not imply any frays. The democratic camp is all about democratic procedures.
Moderator: I am just interested, Chubais is --
Kovalyov: No, I personally am sharply opposed to much
of what Anatoly Borisovich Chubais says and does. Suffice it to mention Chechnya, for example. But still I know for a fact that he is one
of the most talented managers. His attitude to Chechnya is inhumane. And I think his attitude to the problems of energy supply
is rational and in some ways is based on established market practices, but it is also inhumane.
I am not going to defend sequential power cuts, I was
involved in the correspondence that Lev Alexandrovich mentioned. So, I don't want to contradict myself. I just want to tell you that your
thoughts about the Tambov hospital and Chernokozovo are, to put it mildly, not very correct. I haven't been to the Tambov hospital.
Moderator: Neither have I.
Kovalyov: But I managed, during the last war, to be in
some filtration centers. I assure you, such a comparison is blasphemous.
Moderator: Is there a chance to survive?
Kovalyov: Yes, there is. People sometimes survive
torture.
Moderator: And Lieutenant-Colonel Rezovskikh didn't
have a chance at the Tambov hospital.
Kovalyov: But this is beside the point. People died in
their hundreds in Chernokozovo and not as a result of power cuts, but as a result of beatings. Electricity was also used, but only for
torture. Beginning from last February, for almost a year, there were no beatings in Chernokozovo. But there are many places in
Chechnya. For example, a person gets lost upon reaching a checkpoint. Eye-witnesses confirm that he was detained at a
checkpoint. Relatives lodge inquiries, and the person is nowhere to be found. Just disappeared. And sometimes such a person's body is
found in a mass grave with broken arms, cut-off ears and sometimes scalped. How do you like that?
Moderator: I find it just as horrible as the Khasavyurt
truce when hostages with cut-off ears --
Kovalyov: It is not just as horrible, it is horrible in
a different way. Shall I explain why?
Moderator: Yes.
Kovalyov: For the reason that the former is done by
bandits and the latter is encouraged by the state. That's the reason.
Simonov: In accordance with the oath they have taken,
make a note of it.
Q: Kommersant. I have seen the program of the congress
and haven't found a single point discussing the mistakes of the human rights movement over the past years. I think even the discussion
that has arisen here shows that your position is not universally shared.
Don't you think that mistakes have been made or perhaps
there were no mistakes?
Ponomaryov: Like any organism, the human rights
movement makes mistakes. And of course all this will come in for discussion. We have different views on different issues. Come to the congress and
you will still not get a clear-cut answer. You come there, take part in the discussions and you will see how fiercely we criticize
each other and how we work out a common position. To devote a special item on the agenda to correcting errors makes no sense.
Kovalyov: Have you ever seen the program of any
congress that would have a special section devoted to the given party's mistakes?
Q: Rossiiskiye Regiony. Will you invite Yeltsin and
Pavlovsky to the congress?
Ponomaryov: I will explain our position. The
organizing committee worked out its stand on the participation of government officials at the congress. We decided to invite the public
relations centers of most government structures with which we interact as human rights activists. We also decided that we are
conducting a congress of human rights communities, that is of people who deal with human rights, in order to work out our stand
on a whole number of issues.
This is the first congress. In the future, of course,
we provide for a dialog with the authorities. But to start such a
dialog we must first work out our position.
Q: Who are the foreign guests and have you invited
Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn?
Ponomaryov: Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn has been
invited to the congress as a participant. Many foreign guests were invited but not many have confirmed their participation. But a certain
number will be present.
Q: Who are among the prominent guests?
Ponomaryov: Romaszewski from Poland will attend.
Vanessa Redgrave has confirmed her participation. She was in Chechnya recently. There will be representatives of the Council of Europe.
Grigoryants: There will be representatives of Amnesty International, there will be representatives of the biggest
inter-governmental organizations and so on. Of course, we were first of all interested in non-governmental organizations.
Q: Has Solzhenitsyn confirmed his participation?
Ponomaryov: No.
Kovalyov: It was clear from the start that Solzhenitsyn
will
not come to the congress.
Q: What government bodies are sending their observers
to the congress?
Ponomaryov: We have invited the heads of public
relations departments. We sent them telegrams. Some have sent us
confirmations already.
Grigoryants: A representative of the Foreign Ministry
asked to be invited. I mean Romishvili from the humanitarian relations department. We also sent invitations to some other organizations
which deal with the problems we are going to discuss.
Ponomaryov: We invited the human rights commissioners
in Russia's regions. There are seven of them. We expect Mironov and Kartashkin to address the congress.
Q: (Off mike)... government bodies?
Ponomaryov: I can definitely tell you that they are
showing interest.
Smirnov: Including unofficial interest.
Kovalyov: And also a negative interest, by the way.
Moderator: (Off mike)... I still will put a direct
question to you, so to say, in the workers' and peasants' manner. Has your congress been coordinated with PACE? Are the human rights activists
gathering at this time so that Russia would be denied the right to vote in PACE for ever?
Simonov: Can I answer this?
Kovalyov: Yes, of course.
Simonov: Of course, it has been cleared with PACE. At
first we wanted to hold the PACE session in October, but could not raise the money. Then we wanted to hold the PACE session in December and
again found ourselves short of money. Finally, we found money for January and it seems that we'll manage to hold the PACE session.
True, a very interesting problem has arisen. The experts who have been invited to the PACE session are denied accommodation at our
official mission in PACE. The people in our official mission in PACE asked: "Are you experts?" "Yes." "Who invited you?
Did we invite you? Let those who invited you look for hotels or other accommodation for you." This happened only yesterday. So, we have
a complete union.
Q: Could I ask you, are there any Russian experts in
our office?
Simonov: Yes, yes, yes.
Kovalyov: Forgive me, please, talking about
coincidences. Not with the PACE session, the congress, but other events. Have you
heard about another kidnapping in Chechnya of a remarkable person from Medicins sans frontieres? You have?
Moderator: Yes, of course.
Kovalyov: This is an exact coincidence. I can tell you
in advance what Mr. Rogozin will say at the PACE session. He will say: "You see, a prominent human rights campaigner has disappeared". Do
you think it is a commercial kidnapping, as our generals assume? I am convinced, it is a political kidnapping. I hold sacred the
principle of innocent until proved guilty. Please, don't report anywhere that Kovalyov has said it has been organized by the
Russian special services. I don't know. I can neither confirm nor deny it. But I can ... No, let me finish.
Moderator: Yes, please.
Kovalyov: But I can tell you exactly that the
kidnapping was organized by those who oppose a peaceful outcome. Perhaps, it was
organized by Khattab or perhaps by the FSB, I don't know. There are opponents of a peaceful resolution of the conflict on both sides.
So, I can tell you that Maskhadov did not organize this kidnapping.
Q: Is he in Chechnya?
Kovalyov: Maskhadov? Yes.
Q: -- (inaudible) -- such a large-scale project?
Ponomaryov: I will name the main sponsors. They are international foundations, some international foundations and the
Yabloko movement. Specifically I can name the American representative of the Soros foundation, the Ford foundation.
Q: Our delegation to PACE has been down-sized. Will you
be a member? What are you going to do there and will you be given the floor? So far, Judd has not spoke at the State Duma.
Kovalyov: I will take part in a meeting with Lord Judd
today. Unfortunately, the opinion of Lord Judd is not known today. I will know it at 5 p.m. from the Podrobnosti program. I think the
objective assessment is that little is changing in Chechnya.
Now, will I be in Strasbourg? Yes, I will. Is the Duma
sending me? No, it isn't, but I am a member of the delegation and I have the right to attend the session as a stand-in for Naumov.
Previously I was a representative, now a different person is and I am his deputy. Deputies have the right to take part in the session,
in the work of political groups and commissions and address the session, provided they get on the list of recognized speakers. I
hope to be able to make it.
What will I say? I always say the same thing. The same things
that I am telling you.
Moderator: But your recommendations regarding --
Kovalyov: As for PACE sanctions against Russia, there
are two kinds of sanctions. I think the most widely discussed sanction in our country is the most negligible one -- stripping the Russian
delegation of its vote. This sanction will be probably lifted, it will not be renewed.
And at the time it was imposed and afterwards I have
opposed that sanction although I became notorious as its advocate. But it happens frequently. This is the way our press is made, it sometimes
doesn't bother to get its information from the most reliable sources.
Moderator: Can you explain the present --
Kovalyov: Yes, I will explain it. I think that
stripping the Russian delegation of its vote is fair, but excessive and not
useful politically, therefore, I spoke in Strasbourg and called on the assembly not to impose the sanction. You can check it with
Strasbourg.
At the same time I find the sanctions against the
Russian Federation fair and insufficient and I am still of this opinion.
Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is backtracking. It raised the issue of expelling Russia twice
before the ministerial committee. But it stopped short of doing it the third time and confined itself to expressions of regret over
the fact that blood is being spilled, that civilians are dying, that terrorists are not fought and that the Prosecutor General's
Office is not investigating crimes committed by servicemen.
All that is true. Besides, it is accompanied by polite
words to the effect that some positive changes are observable. All this is right but totally ineffective. All this is empty talk.
Unfortunately the West which I constantly criticize, contrary to universal belief, lives according to double standards and law is
often replaced with cynical politicking. It's the same here. I will say what I always say, that the military adventure in Chechnya has
been crowned with victory for the adventurers. The task was to make Lieutenant-Colonel Putin President. It has been brought off with a
flourish. That is all.
There are no more military tasks. And Russia's military
efforts cannot, by definition, resolve the very complex and bloody Chechen situation. These are not the methods that could resolve
things. But getting a lieutenant-colonel elected as president, that it has accomplished. Now one has to get out of this situation and
nobody knows how.
Moderator: Thank you very much. Dear guests, surely you
have some questions left. I think such a formula is possible: you can dislike the state, but love your Motherland. I think there is less
of the latter.
Ponomaryov: Well, I don't know, I think the terminology
is wrong. It is a patently incorrect formula.
Kovalyov: Excuse me, the state is not an object of love
or hate. The state is a service apparatus. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it forgets it is just an auxiliary
apparatus and claims --
Simonov: You can love the secretary and not love the
secretariat.
Moderator: It depends.
Last updated: April 2001
A print version of much of the information contained in this NIS Third Sector Organizations section can be found in the The Post-Soviet Handbook (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1999).
| CSI Home | Announcements | Eurasia | Opinion/Analysis | Bookstore | Site Map | Search |
| |
Civil Society International Ideas and information for civic action worldwide |
|
||||