USMAN FERZAULI: THERE ARE NO RUSSIAN COLONISERS IN CHECHNYA ANY MORE, BUT THE FACT OF THE OCCUPATION REMAINS...
June, 16th 2008
    

The interview was conducted by Mayerbek Taramov for the SNA CHECHENPRESS, 2/06/08.

- Majerbek Taramov: Usman, you took part in the conference on Chechnya in London.  What is your impression of the meeting?

U. Ferzauli: An objective impression. Indeed, it would have been naive to expect some political breakthrough resulting from the conference. Yet there was a tremendous interest in the political events in Russia, especially, in the dynamics of the development or, rather, decline in democratic values (if one could speak of democratic values) in the country, in its domestic and foreign policies, on the issue of human rights, negative consequences of the power vertical, the violent suppression of political dissent, the Law on Extremism as an unlimited opportunity for the official institutions to influence the media etc…

These questions were discussed quite objectively. We, Chechens, tend to discuss Russia through the prism of our own problems. But the world is enormous and there are other problems as well as other countries whose relations with Russia are far from good, to put it mildly. This is why there were representatives of many countries taking part in the conference, including politicians, diplomats, academics, NGOs and the media. Naturally, the United Kingdom was represented by the largest number of people. This is quite normal, however, if you remember that the country, or rather, its citizens became a nuclear attack target for Russia. We are still to witness further political implications of that attack.

There is no doubt, however, that events in Russia are linked with events in Chechnya. By planning the violent escalation in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeriya, having isolated it from the rest of the world, the Russian President and his team were designing the current model of the whole of Russia. The entire world almost literally ‘swallowed’ [bought into] Putin’s rhetoric about the ‘Islamist threat in Chechnya’. As a result the international community reacted quite passively to the events in Chechnya, at best mentioning human rights’ violations. But if you can isolate an individual people why not be able to isolate the whole of Russia from the ‘excessively inquisitive’? This could also happen.

The old Soviet ‘spy scare’ record is being played once again. Branches of the British Council have been closed down, many humanitarian organisations that did not want to  be associated with the local authorities  have been declared undesirable, foreign companies which have invested a huge amount of money in the Russian economy have been literally robbed, or at best, driven out of business, there is a redistribution of property, YUKOS has been quite blatantly and primitively plundered.
The most important thing, however, is the fact that the Russian regime does not allow any criticism of itself. Remember the many internationally renowned journalists who have been murdered, others who have been refused to enter the Russian territory. Why is this happening? There is a new billionaire class in Russia which emerged under V.V.Putin.  In effect, a couple of dozen people own the whole of Russia. If under the late B.N.Yeltsin the position of the rich had been quite shaky, under the rule of the new President a sensible compromise was achieved: conformity and non-interference. Meekness, in other words.  With the expectations of the meekness of the rich met, the latter have become even richer while the poor have become poorer. You need to visit Moscow to see wealth, and if you go to the village of Mashkino in the Kursk region you would come face to face with hopeless poverty.  

So, the Russian Federation of today is like Chechnya, isolated from the outside world, with suppressed dissent, freedom of speech, criticism of the regime, freedom of the press. Why? Well, because they don’t really want more witnesses of the mind boggling riches and the contrast with the poor, in the same way as they do not want any witnesses of the horrendous crimes in Chechnya. Did you notice Putin’s reaction when asked the question about Khodorskovsky’s fate, the events in Dubrovka and Beslan? A person who believes he is right does not behave the way he did.

- Did the conference adopt a resolution? Could you name the most important items of that resolution, according to you?

U. Ferzauli: I would not call it a resolution, I would call it a summary statement of the conference.  The topics were so diverse that the conclusions by the conference participants were far from rosy.

The most common theme of the conference was Russia’s retreat from the democratic path, corruption, the blatant disregard for its international obligations, interference into the internal affairs of sovereign states etc. As for Chechnya the verdict was quite clear: it is an attempt to shirk responsibility  by ‘chechenising’ the military conflict. As you know the conference was accompanied by the screening of a documentary film and a photo exhibition on the horrors of the Russian order in Chechnya. So this is why it is quite obvious that in the summary statement of the conference’s conclusions it was unequivocally stressed that the events in Chechnya are a crime against humanity and that for objective reasons the problem of Russian-Chechen relations can not have a military solution.

- What was the opinion of the conference’s participants of Medvedev’s presidency?

U. Ferzauli: I think it is too early to speak about Medvedev’s presidency.  No doubt the two presidents, past and present, are very different.  Different life stories, different previous jobs.

President Medvedev appeals to the Western world more because in contrast to Putin he is a professional lawyer, he is more relaxed in expressing his personal opinion, he has promised to attach priority to the freedom of individual  etc. In other words, the West hears only the soothing melodies it wants to hear. We, Chechens, however, do not have any illusions, although there are clear signs that the new president would try to rid himself in an acceptable manner of the ‘burdensome heritage’.

- Akhmed Zakaev’s statement about the decolonisation of Chechnya provoked a heated debate.  Could you explain to our opponents what the ChRI Prime Minister meant to say, in fact?

U. Ferzauli:  The Head of the ChRI Government Akhmed Zakaev simply called a spade a spade.

There is a classical interpretation of the word ‘colony’ when a stronger state conquers a weaker state. In its initial stage it represents occupation. Later, in order to retain the conquered territory it is settled with colonists, settlers, i.e. with representatives of the titular nation, so that they constitute at least 30% of the total population in order to exercise civilian control and to rule the colony. When the process is over, the army leaves while the settlers stay.

You could not find even three thousand Russians in Chechnya at present, because there has been a massive exodus of the Russian speaking population to the vast territory of Russia, the CIS and abroad.

I mean by this the Russians who have survived the indiscriminate shelling by heavy artillery and bombing by the Russian army as well as other ‘delights’ of the Russian presence in Chechnya.

Anyway, there are no colonists in Chechnya, but there is an ongoing occupation of Chechnya, which is what Akhmed Zakaev meant.

It is quite another matter, when discussing A.Zakaaev’s statement some people try to give it a negative connotation. I think there is a personal side to such attempts.
I would like to dwell on this topic to explain my attitude to this matter.

I do not have problems with Mr. Zakaev because first and foremost I am independent from him, both physically and economically and in any other way. I do not envy his success, his intellect, or doubt his adequacy for the job. For objective reasons and by force of circumstances Akhmed Zakaev has become head of the ChRI Government and I do not doubt the logic or the propriety of these events.  

If anyone has any problems with Zakaev it is a matter for them and them only, which a subjective notion.

- The Emirate ideologues are in fact hostile to the majority of the population still living in Chechnya. Could you give us your thoughts on who with and how the ‘emiratchiks’ plan to build the ‘shiny future’ for the Emirate in the event of their victory?

U. Ferzauli: I should tell you that the ‘emiratchiks’ could not care less about Chechnya. After Umarov’s appointment to the post of the Acting President of the ChRI his closest aides told me the following: ‘We are not planning to take any military actions on the Chechen territory but would limit ourselves to raids into other republics of the North Caucasus’. You do not need to be a Socrates to understand the meaning of this tirade. The head of our state as represented by his aides announces that he does not any longer consider it his priority to fight for the independence of his motherland!

Later events simply proved and in fact revealed the real essence of the aforementioned ‘strategy’ of Dokka Umarov. Many questions are bound to arise in such a scenario: who are we, what are we doing, where are we going, what are we counting on, what are our priorities? We have not heard one sensible answer, nothing  but pure religious rhetoric.  This is why the Parliament’s removal of Umarov from the post of acting President in connection with him ‘transferring to another job’ was quite fair and legitimate.

At the same time the behaviour of some Chechen MPs who do not want to be open about certain things but who are quite forthcoming when it comes to making nasty remarks about Zakaev is rather weird. Dear MPs, you were sacked by Umarov, your Parliament was abolished, the independent Ichkeriya was included as an autonomy into the North Caucasus Emirate. If you are happy with these facts, state it openly, if you are not, be brave enough to disagree publicly!

- Some Chechen politicians and journalists, including myself, could not get to the conference in London because of the red tape created by the staff of the British Embassies. Yet the Chechens had all their invitations in place, their travel and accommodation costs were being met by the conference organisers. How could you explain this?

U. Ferzauli: I don’t read any politics into this. There is a visa application procedure, that is all.

In this connection I would like to adduce one regrettable example: in 1999 when the Russian army invaded the Chechen territory once again I received instructions to establish contacts with the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly. At the time the European borders were still closed and a trip outside Denmark meant getting a visa. I got my French visa very fast, within one hour. But, on my arrival in Strasbourg, I spent seven hours in front of the PACE’s office waiting to be issued a permit despite the fact that we had agreed in advance that I would meet the PACE’s permanent representatives. What was I to do? To take umbrage at the whole world and leave? What would this have changed? Nothing, nothing at all. If you are involved in politics, you have to have endurance and be ready for such inconveniences. There was nothing personal in their treatment of me, because it was a real tragedy for the PACE, too, when it found itself in the same ‘bed’ with Russia.

This is why I must admit that the Chechen side was represented quite well at the London conference. This was an instance when the quantity of the delegates did not really matter.

Granting an entry visa is governed by certain rules when the applicant needs to present proof of his or her abode in a particular country: a permanent residency permit, proof of permanent employment, regular income etc. Unfortunately, not all the Chechens can meet the requirements of a somewhat ‘biased’ application form, hence the refusals.
In as far as the political component is concerned it does not make sense to blame the British, because the Russian side is saying: what Ichkeriya, the Chechens as represented by Umarov, have themselves abolished Ichkeriya together with its Parliament and its Government.

So it turns out that the problem is not the British – we are the problem. We have been clearly told that the world does not want to deal with virtual entities, associated with terrorism at that. I do not claim that this whole rhetoric about international terrorism has a classic legal foundation. But the reality is such that the structure or the idea of the new world order is based on the fight against international terrorism, with the dominant principle of ‘those who are not with us, are against us’.

And what do we do about it? Instead of consolidating our forces, the Chechens have sunk into the mire of mutual grievances, public accusations, slander etc. Frankly speaking it is disgusting to watch, it is abominable, it is tiresome, to say the least: sometimes I feel like telling all these squabbling people to get lost.

- As many Chechen politicians had envisaged Chechnya became a triggering device for the national liberation movement all over the North Caucasus with Russia itself unwittingly contributing to it. What prospects do these processes have, in your opinion?

U. Ferzauli:  It was not Chechnya that served as a detonator for the national liberation movement in the whole of the North Caucasus, it was Russia’s policy towards the regions. Chechnya simply became yet another proof of Russia’s inability to hold a normal human dialogue with small nations.

If we study the social environment in the North Caucasus Republics in depth we find disappointing facts. Unemployment has reached 80% in some republics of the North Caucasus. It is difficult to find work in the absence of production. The Soviet means of production are outmoded while the new ones have not been built. Staking everything on the clan system of government exacerbates the situation even further. The clan approach is the most dangerous form of government because even personal interests of an official are equated with the interests of the state. The disaffected are branded opposition, or ‘radicals’, the task made simpler by the fact that the majority of the North Caucasus population are Muslims. Moscow reacts to events in its idiosyncratic but traditional fashion, suppressing dissent with tanks and secret jails. This results in clashes which grow into an armed resistance.

Another noteworthy fact is that Russia is literally becoming a neighbour of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Georgia’e entry into NATO is a matter of time.  This very fact worries the Russians not for itself, but because NATO is moving closer to the most defiant region of Russia – the North Caucasus. This is why ‘the mop up operations’ in the North Caucasus Republics under their authoritarian regimes and in the situation of growing paramilitary organisations would , in the opinion of the Russians, bring a relative peace and control over the region. But the Russians, as a rule, might opine, while God decides. I don’t want to say that we are deliriously happy about our neighbours but we have no choice, and as Bender-Zadunajsky used to say, ‘when faced with two hares we choose … the fatter one’.

http://www.chechenpress.co.uk/content/2008/06/16/main01.shtml