Andre Glucksmann is one of those in Europe who enjoy so much gratitude, respect and appreciation of the majority of the Chechen people. When many seemingly accepted the so called «antiterrorist» label of Russia’s military operation in Chechnya, he told the whole world that this term was being used by the Russians to conceal yet another genocide of the Chechen people. He was over 60 years old, when he managed to get inside Chechnya, and saw first hand what was really going on. He returned to Europe to tell the whole world what he saw in Chechnya and to wage a campaign to stop the brutal war and genocide that the Russian army is still inflicting on the Chechen people.
Correspondent: Mr. Glucksmann, your trip to Chechnya has been widely talked about. We also remember an open letter of French intellectuals published in Le Monde in which they expressed disagreement with Russia’s policy towards Chechnya. Has that campaign developed any further? Has any reaction followed?
Andre Glucksmann: First, I think, it is necessary to distinguish between the two periods, the period before and after September 11. Of course, before the tragic events of 9/11 there was a mobilization not so much of politicians but of actors, artists, intellectuals and common citizens. People were frightened and anxious about actions of the Russian army in Chechnya. And they openly talked about it. But after September 11, [President] Putin managed to portray the Chechens to the world as terrorists «working» for Osama bin Laden. For more than five months the international media constantly reported that bin Laden’s closest entourage consisted of Arabs, Pakistanis and Chechens (which in fact, concerning the Chechens, was pure misinformation!). These three nationalities have always been mentioned at one and the same level when talking about terrorism. I did my best to find out whether there were any Chechens in Afghanistan. As a result of a long research all the journalists, employees of humanitarian organizations and human rights groups (including Russian human rights activists) working in Afghanistan told me the same thing: there were no Chechens in Afghanistan. There were no Chechens among the dead, the prisoners or the wounded. There was no information about Chechens in bin Laden’s entourage. Nonetheless, the anti-Chechen propaganda worked, and Chechens were murdered again. First they were killed physically, then morally «as accomplices» of the most gruesome terrorist act in the history of mankind.
Correspondent: Russia has been creating the image of «a Chechen-terrorist» for a long time. Right after the end of the first war the Chechen society split in two. Simply speaking, those who believed in the spiritual values of the West and those who no longer found any consolation in the illusions of Europe willing to support the Chechen independence cause. Thus, an ideology was quickly formed, which made it possible to call the latter side «militant Islamists," although religion was not the primary motive of this group but rather the total disagreement with Russia’s policy in Chechnya and a direct response to the timid position of the western countries regarding the genocide of the Chechen people. By the way, [Boris] Berezovsky contributed a great deal to the formation of this image by generously supporting such moods in the society. To my mind after 9/11 western politicians didn’t fully buy the notion of «Chechens-terrorists» but rather went along with that theory enabling them to avoid quarreling with the nuclear power. In this respect, I’d like to ask you: those who signed your first appeal, did they believe these stories about «Chechens in bin Laden’s ranks» and have they abandoned their initial position?
Andre Glucksmann: First, your explanation of the situation seems interesting to me. And partially it corresponds to what I saw in Chechnya with my own eyes. In fact, after the end of the first war there were forces in Chechnya determined to turn the Chechen society towards religious extremism. That was also Berezovsky’s policy, in order to lay the ground work for a second war. Financing this religious extremism was intended to force Chechen politicians to make a mistake. It was necessary to demonstrate to the West that all Chechens are terrorists and murderers. Unfortunately, sometimes horrible things happened in Chechnya. For example, the notorious murder of the Red Cross doctors. Nevertheless, many did not believe that the Chechens became bin Laden’s adherents. However, many democrats in Europe gave up on the Chechen cause and left the Chechens alone to face the Russian army’s atrocities. But still I want to add the following: we cannot say that all Europeans swallowed Putin’s arguments. There is an example of Afghanistan. Soviet troops waged a bloody war there and basically ruined the country. After the withdrawal of Soviet troops, banditism flourished in the ruins of the cities and villages, and then Taliban appeared. At that time the West also showed no interest in what was going on in Afghanistan. Later on, bin Laden’s phenomenon occurred, the ground for which was prepared by the Soviet troops, Pakistanis and Europe’s indifference. We must be realists and understand that Russia’s aggression, and extermination of the Chechen people can create conditions for appearance of terrorism. Today people realize that the WTC towers were not untouchable. In Russia there are many targets to which possible Chechen terrorism could have access.
Correspondent: I would like to provide some information in regards the murder of the Red Cross doctors. The matter of fact is that a year after the tragic event, the Chechen prosecutor’s office identified a number of persons involved in the murder. To complete the investigation the support of the Russian law enforcement bodies was necessary. In particular, Adam Deniyev, who lived in Moscow at that time, was one of the alleged organizers of the murders. The Chechen prosecutor’s office passed all necessary documents to their Russian counterparts asking them to detain Deniyev, but the Russians didn’t comply. Moreover, when the second war started Deniyev held a high position in the pro-Russian administration. Of course, I do not claim that everything was all right in Chechnya, but I have no doubts that the situation that existed at that time was a direct consequence of the policy you have mentioned, rather than by the virtue of Chechens’ «special mentality» widely publicized in the Russian mass media …. .
I would like to go back to the beginning of our conversation. A prompt answer from Russia followed the above mentioned letter by French intellectuals published in Le Monde. Prominent Russian culture and art figures (including well respected names) made a statement saying that President Putin knew what he was doing and that the whole nation supported the «antiterrorist» operation in Chechnya. It was suggested that there were forces in Europe, which were not interested in letting Russia to become a strong state. A certain plot against Russia was alleged. Hence, you as the one who initiated this campaign could be called the life and soul of that «plot».
Andre Glucksmann: Have they called me like that?
Correspondent: Of course not, but later you were denied a visa to enter Russia, and the Russian newspapers wrote insulting articles about you. One Russian newspaper wrote the following: «In the 60’s Mr. Glucksmann spoke against the war in Vietnam. Recently he has said that he reversed his previous position. We should just wait for several years, and he will change his opinion on Chechnya too." And in this respect I would like to know what happened to your position?
Andre Glucksmann: This is a very interesting question. When I was younger I criticized America’s strategy in Vietnam in the 60’s. At that time all western commentators wrote that the US was much stronger than Vietnam, and was more likely to win the war. Today they say that Putin is much stronger than his adversaries in Chechnya and is sure to gain a victory in Chechnya. So, at that time I said that American armor was not necessarily going to win in the war against the Vietnamese. Since then I have not changed my opinion. On the contrary, the opinion of the American leadership has changed including that of McNamara, the author of the great theory of escalation. Later he admitted he was wrong. Nonetheless, we should note that having won the war, the Vietnamese failed to win the peace. Unfortunately, they took up methods of Stalin and the KGB, the methods that are well known to Mr. Putin. Then I spoke in support of the victims of totalitarianism, and in support of the dissidents. And if the Chechens follow Putin’s way, after they win the war, and begin building the Stalin-type dictatorship or dictatorship of bin Laden, I will be against the Chechen government for the sake of the Chechen people. I have never changed my position on the Vietnamese war, and I have always been on the side of the Vietnamese people, when innocent people died under American bombs and after the war when they were put in camps.
Correspondent: You have just clearly expressed one of the goals of our newspaper. Of course, first of all we want to find a way to stop this horrible war. But we also want Chechnya to become a democratic state after the war.
Andre Glucksmann: You are right…
Correspondent: Your generation is usually referred to as the generation of Solzhenitsyn. «Archipelago GULAG» changed the world outlook of many not only in the USSR, but also in the West and I would like to ask you about Soviet dissidents. With minor exceptions (Bukovsky, Bonner, Kovalev, etc.) the former Soviet dissidents support Putin. Today they support the policies they used to protest against in Soviet times. These are people of world reputation, financially independent, and many of them have dual citizenship. I am saying this to emphasize that they have nothing to fear. And therefore it is difficult for me to understand why Solzhenitsyn, who spent years in the GULAG, suddenly accepts the methods the Russian troops use in Chechnya and also demands the introduction of the death penalty against which he ardently protested in the past; and that relates not only to Solzhenitsyn, but to many prominent dissidents. Perhaps, you know some of them. Aside from that, maybe for you — as a philosopher — it would be easier to explain this phenomenon…
Andre Glucksmann: The shortest answer would be, nobody is perfect. But seriously speaking, I must admit that I ask this question regarding myself. If previously you were able to give correct estimations of some events, that does not necessarily mean that you will always be able to do so. Sometimes something extraordinary happens and it is difficult for you to be able to clearly assess the situation. As for the dissidents whom I know in France, the overwhelming majority of them supported the Chechen cause. For example, a friend of mine, a prominent dissident the late Alexander Ginzburg, was the one who organized our joint trip to Moscow in 1999. At a press conference we openly asked «sensitive» questions to General Manilov, and later when I asked for a minute of silence, in commemoration of Chechens murdered by Russian troops, I made that General stand up. That trip became possible only because of Alexander Ginzburg. We met many people, for example in the Sakharov Center and in Memorial, who still uphold the ideals they were prosecuted for in Soviet times.
As for Solzhenitsyn, I am concerned about his situation. It was difficult to read the compliments he paid to Putin. But it seems that their contacts were perfunctory. I hope Solzhenitsyn «will come to his senses." But I do not understand what is happening to him. Because in his «Archipelago GULAG» he wrote such wonderful words about Chechens! I personally know some Chechens who become passionate patriots after they read Solzhenitsyn’s words. But previously, Solzhenitsyn also expressed nationalist tendencies. Obviously that tendency has prevailed. We shall also mention that Putin who, unlike Yeltsin, managed to be «pleasant» and treated him with respect which official Russia hasn’t shown to Solzhenitsyn for almost 10 years. This is Putin’s merit that he could feign, and be a chameleon. He could please Bush, he is able to tell on American television that he wears a crucifix and is a diligent Christian, he is able to demonstrate to the German public his knowledge of the German language, without mentioning how and for what purposes he studied it. He could speak with grief about Sakharov and visit Andropov’s grave, who, in fact, is to blame for the persecution of Sakharov. I think that Solzhenitsyn fell as a victim to the crafty actor.
Correspondent: President Putin has an extremely high popularity rating in Russia, while Milosevic faces the International Tribunal. Putin’s much more bloodier crimes go unchallenged. Do you think there is any possibility that this person will pay for his crimes? Or will the «nuclear umbrella» protect him?
Andre Glucksmann: Frankly speaking, I think Putin could appear in court. And it seems that Putin himself thinks about it. I remember his reaction to the news that Milosevic was arrested and he was to stand trial. That was during a joint press conference of Putin and Chirac, I watched it live. A journalist asked both presidents about Milosevic’s arrest. Naturally, Chirac said he was positive about it. And then it was Putin’s turn to answer. For the first time I saw him lose self-control in front of cameras. He was irritated. Before that, next to Chirac, he was a kind and polite eastern president and suddenly he exploded and loudly said: «No, no, no!» As if Khruschev were there with his shoe! It became obvious that at that moment Putin saw himself in Milosevic’s place. That news made him lose self-control. Of course, a tribunal for Putin is much more complex. He is well protected with his bombs. But this is a problem for all the democrats in the world. If once and for all it is decided that possessing A-warheads is sufficient to make it possible to exterminate the whole nation with impunity, then this is a clear signal for all dictators in the world to obtain such weapons. And then it appears that Milosevic faces trial not because he exterminated people, but because he had no weapons of mass destruction. It is very dangerous to leave a murderer immune because of his nuclear weapons. If we are realists, it is hard to fight against Putin, but it is easy against Milosevic. Then we should rely on Putin’s weakness at home. We know that today Putin enjoys a very high popularity rating. But it is also obvious that so far he hasn’t been able to resolve the real problems Russia suffers from. For example, remember the situation about the Kursk submarine. We saw his ratings drop because he wasn’t able to make any perspicuous decision and he did not know what to do. Today Russia faces numerous highly explosive problems. Here we could cite public life security, reigning mafias of all sorts, low standard of living constantly falling for the last 10 years, and soon we would compare it to the low level of living after World War II. Oligarchs managed to lay their hands on all of Russia’s resources, and it costs almost as dear to the Russian people as Hitler’s aggression. Russia’s current position is very dramatic and dangerous and the abilities of Putin to oppose it are more than doubtful. And today’s high popularity rating of Putin does not necessarily guarantee it will remain high in the future.
Correspondent: I would like to ask you about the situation of Chechens in Europe. Even though in some countries they are relatively taken care of, although their status is not clear, but in other countries such as in Germany there are cases of forced deportation of Chechens to Russia. There is no news about some of the deported people. In this sense, Chechen refugees have absolutely no protection. There are no guarantees that they would not be deported from the other countries too, although, obviously they run the risk of persecution, if deported, both in Chechnya and in Russia. International human rights organizations have issued detailed reports on this issue. But it seems that the courts don’t consider such reports at all. What, in your opinion, could change the situation?
Andre Glucksmann: First, I would like to stress that the deportation of Chechens to Russia is a scandal. Obviously, this is a demand of Russia, which is proved by another requirement of Russia, not to issue European visas to Chechens. Several times I stood up to support Chechens who were denied visas. This is very difficult. It seems to me that in this issue Germany is one of the countries which are more liable to Russia’s blackmail. We should not forget that Germany receives one third of its gas and necessary oil from Russia. At a meeting Putin reminded Schroeder of this fact and offered him a friendship of «equal partners." And later Schroeder stated that after 9/11 he had a different approach to the problem of Chechnya. Thus, he approved Putin’s actions in Chechnya. But we shall not forget that the public opinion in Germany isn’t unanimous on this issue and there are many groups protesting against the war in Chechnya. And even German Foreign Minister Fischer is more sympathetic to Chechens than Schroeder. Therefore, there is a possibility to block the deportations and the pressure from Russia on western countries. But that will be very difficult because Russia is actively waging a psychological war.
And now I would like to add something on my own. I think I shall thank the Chechens on behalf of all Europeans; Chechen soldiers, and common people and Chechens who live in Russia. They experience the severest pressure, because their pain is unbearable, because they remain humans. This is very precise. They don’t give in to the temptation of blowing themselves up in buses and waging a war against civilians. They do not do what kamikazes do in Israel. If they do not target defenseless civilians, this is not because they have no such possibility; we all know today that it isn’t difficult from the technical point of view. They are brave enough to sacrifice their own lives and they have been demonstrating it for 300 years already. But they do target troops. Such self-deterrent still saves the situation. Despite of their great pain, Chechens still stay restrained. It would have been more reasonable from the side of Russians, from the side of Europe, and even from the side of Putin to stop the bloody massacre as soon as possible, before the «Afghan» scenario could lead to power murderers and terrorists, who do not care against whom to fight.
Correspondent: Thank you very much for the interview
Andre Glucksmann: Oh, I am grateful to you. Today, after the September 11 the entire world realized that a small plane is enough to launch the scenario of Apocalypse. But regardless of all the injustice you keep your spirits.
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Un peuple enterré vivant.
par André Glucksmann
Il est des morts qui pèsent le poids d'une plume. Des peuples qui ne comptent pas. Ils n'ont qu'un droit, celui de disparaître. Ils sont absents de nos soucis et de nos écrans, avant même que les tanks, les bombes, les rafles et les mines antipersonnel les réduisent à néant.
Les Tchétchènes vivent la solitude absolue, livrés au bon plaisir d'une armée russe massacreuse, et nul - ni l'ONU, ni l'opinion publique mondiale, ni les démocraties si fières de leurs principes - ne crie à l'assassin !
Aucun des conflits qui focalisent l'attention et les bons sentiments universels - Irak et Palestine - n'est aussi cruel. La nation tchétchène, c'est à peine 1 million d'individus, dont 100 000 à 200 000 sont morts depuis que Poutine a rasé, pour célébrer l'an 2000, leur capitale, Grozny, et transformé un minuscule pays en enfer permanent. Les rares voyageurs qui s'y risquent à la barbe des autorités témoignent du pire du pire, qui déshonore l'an de grâce 2003.
Le 5 octobre a lieu sur cette terre dévastée une pseudo-"élection présidentielle" organisée par Moscou. Nul ne lui accorde de légitimité. Pas même le Kremlin. Foin de décorum démocratique ! Son candidat, Kadyrov, actuel chef de l'administration pro-russe, bénéficie d'une maigre popularité (13 %). Achetés ou menacés de mort, tous les concurrents capables de lui faire de l'ombre se désistèrent ou furent interdits de scrutin. La population, poussée vers les urnes la kalachnikov dans les reins, sait que ce ne sont pas les bulletins de vote qui décident, mais l'homme en armes qui les décompte et les invente (200 000 "âmes mortes" sont listées). La mascarade ne trompe personne, ni les Tchétchènes, ni les Russes, ni les Européens.
Toute bâclée qu'elle paraisse, une telle mise en scène pue sa finesse poutinienne. En organisant des élections ostensiblement truquées, Moscou expédie un triple message :
- Aux Tchétchènes, l'armée d'occupation - 100 000 hommes ! - et ses milices collabos signifient que la guerre sera menée jusqu'au bout. Pas question de négocier avec les indépendantistes non islamistes et le président Maskhadov, régulièrement élu sous contrôle de l'OSCE. Etant donné les états de service de Kadyrov, dont la cruauté effraie parfois les "services" russes, le vote du 5 octobre contraint l'électeur tchétchène à signer sa propre condamnation à la servitude et à la mort.
- A la population russe (selon de récents sondages, majoritairement favorables à des négociations avec Maskhadov), le Kremlin adresse un implicite ultimatum : si vous n'obéissez pas aux ordres, vous serez traités en rebelles. Nicolas I er, Staline, Poutine : implacable continuité. La guerre coloniale dans le Caucase tourne inexorablement à l'extermination de la population locale, passée au fil de l'épée, déportée en totalité, villes rasées, pogroms, "filtration", sang et ruines...
Pourquoi tant de cruauté ? Les grands poètes russes ont révélé le pot aux roses : il s'agit d'une entreprise pédagogique. Le Tchétchène incarne l'esprit insoumis. C'est lui ou moi, suggère le Tsar quand on lui porte la tête du chef rebelle (Tolstoï : Hadji Mourat). La Tchétchénie exsangue sert d'épouvantail pour la Russie entière, invitée à se soumettre à la "verticale du pouvoir".L'autocrate russe naît et renaît dans la très exemplaire mise à sac d'un petit peuple "allogène".
- Au monde civilisé, la diplomatie russe dédie un insolent bras d'honneur : oui ! L'élection du 5 octobre bafoue les règles démocratiques, mais vous fermerez les yeux ! Paris et Berlin obtempèrent, trop avides d'intégrer dans leur invraisemblable "camp de la paix" une Russie qui mène la plus sale des guerres du XXI e siècle naissant. Assoiffée de pétrole et de gaz russes, l'Union européenne ravale ses principes et se couche. Washington, moitié par stratégie (équilibre nucléaire), moitié par cynisme à courte vue, "pardonne" le soutien en armes et en conseils que Moscou accorda à Saddam Hussein jusqu'au dernier jour. Poutine a les mains libres et ridiculise la démocratie en projetant à la face du monde ses urnes sanglantes.
Les gouvernements démocratiques, tout comme les millions de manifestants "contre la guerre" qui descendent dans la rue contre Bush, jamais contre Poutine, sont coupables de non-assistance à population en voie d'extermination. Indifférents, mais pas ignorants, car ils savent. Des téméraires et des courageuses risquent leur peau pour les informer : notamment la russe Anna Politkovskaia qui, 55 fois, fit le voyage interdit de Grozny. D'autres encore, photographes, reporters, cinéastes, ont brisé le black-out. Nous connaissons les bourreaux, nous contemplons les victimes : quatre années de massacres, de sauvagerie, de terreur et d'horreur ne passent pas inaperçues. Au bout du compte et des décomptes, nous nous en foutons.
La démission planétaire devant les boucheries caucasiennes, pire qu'un crime, est une faute. Le scénario afghan nous pend au nez. Souvenez-vous : pendant dix ans, l'armée russe - rouge - a cassé l'Afghanistan ; dans les ruines s'installèrent les gangsters, puis les talibans, et Ben Laden vint. Conclusion de l'engrenage : la chute des Twin Towers.
De Massoud assassiné à Maskhadov abandonné, la tragédie se répète : les rescapés du "nettoyage" russe vont-ils longtemps encore se retenir sur la pente d'un terrorisme suicidaire ? Pour quand un engin fou sur une centrale nucléaire ? Poutine est un pompier pyromane, son acharnement nous installe tous, Russes et Européens, au bord de l'abîme.
Pressentant la menace suprême - aucune installation russe n'est davantage que Manhatan immunisée contre une attaque suicide -, chacun opterait-il pour la "solution" poutinienne ? Le silence des pacifistes et des chancelleries vaut blanc-seing. Nous justifions par avance une si pesante complicité. On nous a claironné, cinq mois durant, que Ben Laden était protégé par une garde de fer composée de "Pakistanais, d'Arabes et de... Tchétchènes". La rumeur, venue de Moscou, fut prise pour argent comptant. Après la défaite des talibans, pas un Tchétchène en Afghanistan, ni mort, ni vif, ni dans les prisons, ni à Guantanamo ! J'attends toujours le démenti des médias mondiaux, si péremptoires dans leurs accusations ! Les fausses nouvelles endorment. Un assassinat moral en mondiovision précède et prépare l'élimination physique.
Ni sous-informée ni inconsciente des risques, l'opinion planétaire épouse tacitement les pulsions génocidaires qui parcourent la soldatesque russe. La téléconscience mondiale lève et lave nos dernières réticences : puisque chaque Tchétchène est un Ben Laden en herbe, un bon Tchétchène est un Tchétchène mort. Nous vivons une grande première au Caucase, l'instauration du meurtre avec universelle préméditation.
André Glucksmann est philosophe et essayiste
Il est des morts qui pèsent le poids d'une plume. Des peuples qui ne comptent pas. Ils n'ont qu'un droit, celui de disparaître. Ils sont absents de nos soucis et de nos écrans, avant même que les tanks, les bombes, les rafles et les mines antipersonnel les réduisent à néant.
Les Tchétchènes vivent la solitude absolue, livrés au bon plaisir d'une armée russe massacreuse, et nul - ni l'ONU, ni l'opinion publique mondiale, ni les démocraties si fières de leurs principes - ne crie à l'assassin !
Aucun des conflits qui focalisent l'attention et les bons sentiments universels - Irak et Palestine - n'est aussi cruel. La nation tchétchène, c'est à peine 1 million d'individus, dont 100 000 à 200 000 sont morts depuis que Poutine a rasé, pour célébrer l'an 2000, leur capitale, Grozny, et transformé un minuscule pays en enfer permanent. Les rares voyageurs qui s'y risquent à la barbe des autorités témoignent du pire du pire, qui déshonore l'an de grâce 2003.
Le 5 octobre a lieu sur cette terre dévastée une pseudo-"élection présidentielle" organisée par Moscou. Nul ne lui accorde de légitimité. Pas même le Kremlin. Foin de décorum démocratique ! Son candidat, Kadyrov, actuel chef de l'administration pro-russe, bénéficie d'une maigre popularité (13 %). Achetés ou menacés de mort, tous les concurrents capables de lui faire de l'ombre se désistèrent ou furent interdits de scrutin. La population, poussée vers les urnes la kalachnikov dans les reins, sait que ce ne sont pas les bulletins de vote qui décident, mais l'homme en armes qui les décompte et les invente (200 000 "âmes mortes" sont listées). La mascarade ne trompe personne, ni les Tchétchènes, ni les Russes, ni les Européens.
Toute bâclée qu'elle paraisse, une telle mise en scène pue sa finesse poutinienne. En organisant des élections ostensiblement truquées, Moscou expédie un triple message :
- Aux Tchétchènes, l'armée d'occupation - 100 000 hommes ! - et ses milices collabos signifient que la guerre sera menée jusqu'au bout. Pas question de négocier avec les indépendantistes non islamistes et le président Maskhadov, régulièrement élu sous contrôle de l'OSCE. Etant donné les états de service de Kadyrov, dont la cruauté effraie parfois les "services" russes, le vote du 5 octobre contraint l'électeur tchétchène à signer sa propre condamnation à la servitude et à la mort.
- A la population russe (selon de récents sondages, majoritairement favorables à des négociations avec Maskhadov), le Kremlin adresse un implicite ultimatum : si vous n'obéissez pas aux ordres, vous serez traités en rebelles. Nicolas I er, Staline, Poutine : implacable continuité. La guerre coloniale dans le Caucase tourne inexorablement à l'extermination de la population locale, passée au fil de l'épée, déportée en totalité, villes rasées, pogroms, "filtration", sang et ruines...
Pourquoi tant de cruauté ? Les grands poètes russes ont révélé le pot aux roses : il s'agit d'une entreprise pédagogique. Le Tchétchène incarne l'esprit insoumis. C'est lui ou moi, suggère le Tsar quand on lui porte la tête du chef rebelle (Tolstoï : Hadji Mourat). La Tchétchénie exsangue sert d'épouvantail pour la Russie entière, invitée à se soumettre à la "verticale du pouvoir".L'autocrate russe naît et renaît dans la très exemplaire mise à sac d'un petit peuple "allogène".
- Au monde civilisé, la diplomatie russe dédie un insolent bras d'honneur : oui ! L'élection du 5 octobre bafoue les règles démocratiques, mais vous fermerez les yeux ! Paris et Berlin obtempèrent, trop avides d'intégrer dans leur invraisemblable "camp de la paix" une Russie qui mène la plus sale des guerres du XXI e siècle naissant. Assoiffée de pétrole et de gaz russes, l'Union européenne ravale ses principes et se couche. Washington, moitié par stratégie (équilibre nucléaire), moitié par cynisme à courte vue, "pardonne" le soutien en armes et en conseils que Moscou accorda à Saddam Hussein jusqu'au dernier jour. Poutine a les mains libres et ridiculise la démocratie en projetant à la face du monde ses urnes sanglantes.
Les gouvernements démocratiques, tout comme les millions de manifestants "contre la guerre" qui descendent dans la rue contre Bush, jamais contre Poutine, sont coupables de non-assistance à population en voie d'extermination. Indifférents, mais pas ignorants, car ils savent. Des téméraires et des courageuses risquent leur peau pour les informer : notamment la russe Anna Politkovskaia qui, 55 fois, fit le voyage interdit de Grozny. D'autres encore, photographes, reporters, cinéastes, ont brisé le black-out. Nous connaissons les bourreaux, nous contemplons les victimes : quatre années de massacres, de sauvagerie, de terreur et d'horreur ne passent pas inaperçues. Au bout du compte et des décomptes, nous nous en foutons.
La démission planétaire devant les boucheries caucasiennes, pire qu'un crime, est une faute. Le scénario afghan nous pend au nez. Souvenez-vous : pendant dix ans, l'armée russe - rouge - a cassé l'Afghanistan ; dans les ruines s'installèrent les gangsters, puis les talibans, et Ben Laden vint. Conclusion de l'engrenage : la chute des Twin Towers.
De Massoud assassiné à Maskhadov abandonné, la tragédie se répète : les rescapés du "nettoyage" russe vont-ils longtemps encore se retenir sur la pente d'un terrorisme suicidaire ? Pour quand un engin fou sur une centrale nucléaire ? Poutine est un pompier pyromane, son acharnement nous installe tous, Russes et Européens, au bord de l'abîme.
Pressentant la menace suprême - aucune installation russe n'est davantage que Manhatan immunisée contre une attaque suicide -, chacun opterait-il pour la "solution" poutinienne ? Le silence des pacifistes et des chancelleries vaut blanc-seing. Nous justifions par avance une si pesante complicité. On nous a claironné, cinq mois durant, que Ben Laden était protégé par une garde de fer composée de "Pakistanais, d'Arabes et de... Tchétchènes". La rumeur, venue de Moscou, fut prise pour argent comptant. Après la défaite des talibans, pas un Tchétchène en Afghanistan, ni mort, ni vif, ni dans les prisons, ni à Guantanamo ! J'attends toujours le démenti des médias mondiaux, si péremptoires dans leurs accusations ! Les fausses nouvelles endorment. Un assassinat moral en mondiovision précède et prépare l'élimination physique.
Ni sous-informée ni inconsciente des risques, l'opinion planétaire épouse tacitement les pulsions génocidaires qui parcourent la soldatesque russe. La téléconscience mondiale lève et lave nos dernières réticences : puisque chaque Tchétchène est un Ben Laden en herbe, un bon Tchétchène est un Tchétchène mort. Nous vivons une grande première au Caucase, l'instauration du meurtre avec universelle préméditation.
André Glucksmann est philosophe et essayiste
Il mio grido di libertà per la Cecenia.
Il mio grido di libertà per la Cecenia. Putin deve negoziare
14/05/2004 / Corriere della Sera
di ANDRÉ GLUCKSMANN
Qui peut le plus peut le moins (chi è capace del più è capace del meno).
Il 9 maggio 2004, «giorno della Vittoria» e «giorno dell’esercito», le truppe russe sfilano e cantano la loro gloria allorché la tribuna ufficiale, considerata inviolabile, salta in aria. In questo luogo, il più protetto di Grozny, i resistenti ceceni hanno deciso di giustiziare, fra altri ufficiali, il numero uno dell’amministrazione filorussa e il comandante in capo dell’esercito d’occupazione, famosi per la loro ferocia. Sarebbe stato più facile per i resistenti praticare un terrorismo cieco e indiscriminato; è più semplice far scoppiare, a caso, auto imbottite di esplosivo come a Bagdad, lasciarsi esplodere nei bar o sugli autobus come le bombe umane del gruppo Hamas, o, alla maniera di Bin Laden, mirare a stazioni e treni pieni di viaggiatori, ad abitazioni o complessi petroliferi e centrali nucleari, ben più vulnerabili che in Occidente. Non lo fanno. E nessuno si chiede il perché? Non è che non ci pensino.
Alcuni di loro cedono talvolta alla tentazione, come provano i 700 civili presi in ostaggio in un teatro di Mosca con un’operazione spettacolare e inquietante: il viaggio Grozny-Mosca in un convoglio armato senza farsi scoprire per migliaia di chilometri e, alla fine, 131 ostaggi uccisi dalla polizia federale e last but not least, nessun terrorista sopravvissuto per testimoniare. Non è l'audacia che manca loro: 400 anni di resistenza contro l'occupazione russa non possono che forgiare gli uomini e una pesante tradizione cantata persino dai poeti russi. Oh Puskin! Oh Lermontov! Oh Tolstoi! Non è la disperazione che manca loro: dieci anni di un'ultima guerra a porte chiuse, dimenticata dal mondo, cancellata dalle coscienze. La capitale, città e villaggi rasi al suolo, oltre un quinto degli abitanti morti, e quanti feriti, torturati, disabili, quante vedove, quanti orfani e quanti ancora ce ne saranno? Cataste umane dilaniate dalle granate, borghi circondati dai carri armati, retate, popolazione presa in ostaggio dagli uomini in uniforme, commercio di cadaveri… Non è la rabbia che manca loro; da perdere non hanno che le catene.
La giornalista moscovita Anna Politkovskaia, che ha fatto più di cinquanta volte il viaggio a Grozny, paragona la Cecenia a un immenso campo di concentramento o al ghetto di Varsavia. All'inizio del XXI Secolo la crudeltà all'ennesima potenza è esposta in questa parte desolata del Caucaso, sulle rive della nostra Europa. Tuttavia, gli errori dei resistenti sono, ad oggi, eccezionali; il terrorismo contro i civili, russi compresi, è debitamente condannato dalle autorità indipendentiste, in primo luogo dal presidente Maskhadov (l'unico eletto sotto controllo dell'Ocse nel 1997). Forte di una storia pluricentenaria di lotta instancabile contro l'impero zarista, comunista ed eltsin-putiniano, la resistenza cecena se la prende con le forze armate e riesce ancora a padroneggiare i suoi estremisti, capaci di lasciarsi andare ai massacri globali dell'islamismo radicale.
Io chiamo terrorismo l'attacco deliberato alle popolazioni disarmate. In Cecenia, questo orrore è prerogativa dell'esercito e della polizia russa, assecondati dalle milizie e dalle mafie collaborazioniste reclutate da Mosca. Chiamo antiterrorista la resistenza armata che si oppone a quegli apparati repressivi facendo attenzione a risparmiare i civili. L'attentato del 9 maggio 2004 è un atto di resistenza antiterrorista per eccellenza. Si prendono di mira e si uccidono il carnefice e i suoi fedeli.
Invece di festeggiare Putin e di dargli ancora una volta via libera condannando questo atto di guerra strettamente mirato, i governi democratici, fiancheggiati dalle loro opinioni pubbliche indifferenti, dovrebbero trattenere per il braccio quel pompiere piromane. La sua crociata razzista minaccia d'annientare un popolo, certo quantitativamente piccolo, ma immensamente coraggioso: un popolo che non ha mai ceduto né davanti agli zar, né al gulag, dove Stalin lo spedì al completo. Nel momento in cui una giusta indignazione si eleva contro le efferatezze americane nelle prigioni irachene, l'abbandono totale degli sventurati ceceni consegnati a una soldatesca capace di tutto è un cattivo presagio sull'avvenire del mondo.
Cosa vuole l'Occidente? Vuole rischiare il peggio? Vuole che lo scenario afgano si ripeta? Che le devastazioni fisiche, sociali e morali commesse dallo stato maggiore russo lascino il campo libero ai gangster e ai fanatici? Vuole rivivere la sequenza infernale talebani, Al Qaeda, Manhattan? Non serve volgere lo sguardo altrove. E' estremamente urgente esercitare pressioni diplomatiche, finanziarie e morali atte a incitare Putin alla prudenza, quindi al cessate il fuoco. Se le considerazioni strettamente umanitarie gli sono estranee, richiamiamolo ai suoi interessi secolari e di sicurezza. Le «rappresaglie» che annuncia non avranno alcun effetto su chi già soffre il martirio. Il 9 maggio 2004 è la prova che Putin non controlla niente. Deve negoziare con la resistenza.
André Glucksmann
14/05/2004 / Corriere della Sera
di ANDRÉ GLUCKSMANN
Qui peut le plus peut le moins (chi è capace del più è capace del meno).
Il 9 maggio 2004, «giorno della Vittoria» e «giorno dell’esercito», le truppe russe sfilano e cantano la loro gloria allorché la tribuna ufficiale, considerata inviolabile, salta in aria. In questo luogo, il più protetto di Grozny, i resistenti ceceni hanno deciso di giustiziare, fra altri ufficiali, il numero uno dell’amministrazione filorussa e il comandante in capo dell’esercito d’occupazione, famosi per la loro ferocia. Sarebbe stato più facile per i resistenti praticare un terrorismo cieco e indiscriminato; è più semplice far scoppiare, a caso, auto imbottite di esplosivo come a Bagdad, lasciarsi esplodere nei bar o sugli autobus come le bombe umane del gruppo Hamas, o, alla maniera di Bin Laden, mirare a stazioni e treni pieni di viaggiatori, ad abitazioni o complessi petroliferi e centrali nucleari, ben più vulnerabili che in Occidente. Non lo fanno. E nessuno si chiede il perché? Non è che non ci pensino.
Alcuni di loro cedono talvolta alla tentazione, come provano i 700 civili presi in ostaggio in un teatro di Mosca con un’operazione spettacolare e inquietante: il viaggio Grozny-Mosca in un convoglio armato senza farsi scoprire per migliaia di chilometri e, alla fine, 131 ostaggi uccisi dalla polizia federale e last but not least, nessun terrorista sopravvissuto per testimoniare. Non è l'audacia che manca loro: 400 anni di resistenza contro l'occupazione russa non possono che forgiare gli uomini e una pesante tradizione cantata persino dai poeti russi. Oh Puskin! Oh Lermontov! Oh Tolstoi! Non è la disperazione che manca loro: dieci anni di un'ultima guerra a porte chiuse, dimenticata dal mondo, cancellata dalle coscienze. La capitale, città e villaggi rasi al suolo, oltre un quinto degli abitanti morti, e quanti feriti, torturati, disabili, quante vedove, quanti orfani e quanti ancora ce ne saranno? Cataste umane dilaniate dalle granate, borghi circondati dai carri armati, retate, popolazione presa in ostaggio dagli uomini in uniforme, commercio di cadaveri… Non è la rabbia che manca loro; da perdere non hanno che le catene.
La giornalista moscovita Anna Politkovskaia, che ha fatto più di cinquanta volte il viaggio a Grozny, paragona la Cecenia a un immenso campo di concentramento o al ghetto di Varsavia. All'inizio del XXI Secolo la crudeltà all'ennesima potenza è esposta in questa parte desolata del Caucaso, sulle rive della nostra Europa. Tuttavia, gli errori dei resistenti sono, ad oggi, eccezionali; il terrorismo contro i civili, russi compresi, è debitamente condannato dalle autorità indipendentiste, in primo luogo dal presidente Maskhadov (l'unico eletto sotto controllo dell'Ocse nel 1997). Forte di una storia pluricentenaria di lotta instancabile contro l'impero zarista, comunista ed eltsin-putiniano, la resistenza cecena se la prende con le forze armate e riesce ancora a padroneggiare i suoi estremisti, capaci di lasciarsi andare ai massacri globali dell'islamismo radicale.
Io chiamo terrorismo l'attacco deliberato alle popolazioni disarmate. In Cecenia, questo orrore è prerogativa dell'esercito e della polizia russa, assecondati dalle milizie e dalle mafie collaborazioniste reclutate da Mosca. Chiamo antiterrorista la resistenza armata che si oppone a quegli apparati repressivi facendo attenzione a risparmiare i civili. L'attentato del 9 maggio 2004 è un atto di resistenza antiterrorista per eccellenza. Si prendono di mira e si uccidono il carnefice e i suoi fedeli.
Invece di festeggiare Putin e di dargli ancora una volta via libera condannando questo atto di guerra strettamente mirato, i governi democratici, fiancheggiati dalle loro opinioni pubbliche indifferenti, dovrebbero trattenere per il braccio quel pompiere piromane. La sua crociata razzista minaccia d'annientare un popolo, certo quantitativamente piccolo, ma immensamente coraggioso: un popolo che non ha mai ceduto né davanti agli zar, né al gulag, dove Stalin lo spedì al completo. Nel momento in cui una giusta indignazione si eleva contro le efferatezze americane nelle prigioni irachene, l'abbandono totale degli sventurati ceceni consegnati a una soldatesca capace di tutto è un cattivo presagio sull'avvenire del mondo.
Cosa vuole l'Occidente? Vuole rischiare il peggio? Vuole che lo scenario afgano si ripeta? Che le devastazioni fisiche, sociali e morali commesse dallo stato maggiore russo lascino il campo libero ai gangster e ai fanatici? Vuole rivivere la sequenza infernale talebani, Al Qaeda, Manhattan? Non serve volgere lo sguardo altrove. E' estremamente urgente esercitare pressioni diplomatiche, finanziarie e morali atte a incitare Putin alla prudenza, quindi al cessate il fuoco. Se le considerazioni strettamente umanitarie gli sono estranee, richiamiamolo ai suoi interessi secolari e di sicurezza. Le «rappresaglie» che annuncia non avranno alcun effetto su chi già soffre il martirio. Il 9 maggio 2004 è la prova che Putin non controlla niente. Deve negoziare con la resistenza.
André Glucksmann
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit.
L'indipendenza nazionale è una missione politica Gli intellos non lo capiscono
Dal nulla del terrorismo nasce il niente (ex nihilo nihil fit). Scrive André Glucksmann di aver "previsto da tempo che la guerra di Putin avrebbe portato i separatisti a diventare terroristi". Per la verità la seconda occupazione di Grozny, quella del 1999, avvenne dopo che terroristi ceceni avevano fatto saltare in aria un certo numero di edifici civili a Mosca e a San Pietroburgo. Allora a Grozny c'era, tollerato dai russi, il governo autonomo ceceno del leader moderato Aslan Mashkadov. Ma gli estremisti islamici che controllavano le bande armate scelsero il terrorismo, prima e non dopo la "guerra di Putin". In ogni caso, il punto politico del problema è se istanze nazionali represse giustifichino il terrorismo come variante delle "guerre di liberazione". E' la tesi sostenuta da Hamas e dagli Hezbollah contro Israele, ma anche quella più volte ribadita da Barbara Spinelli (che su Israele la pensa in tutt'altro modo) proprio in relazione alla Cecenia. Il nazionalismo, nato in Europa in epoca romantica, puntava alla dissoluzione degli imperi multinazionali in base al principio di nazionalità. Anche nell'Ottocento, anche in Italia agivano società segrete che puntavano a far scoppiare moti popolari innescati da azioni armate. A Ciro Menotti e a Carlo Pisacane si dedicano vie, piazze e monumenti, ma l'indipendenza fu opera della diplomazia avventurosa di Camillo di Cavour che trovò modo di coprire e assorbire anche il movimento garibaldino. La dissoluzione degli imperi multinazionali turco e austroungarico, completata con la Prima guerra mondiale, avrebbe dovuto, secondo Woodrow Wilson, aprire la fase della piena applicazione del principio di nazionalità. Innescò invece un altro e più tremendo conflitto planetario. Nella seconda metà del secolo scorso si smantellarono, per lo più pacificamente, gli imperi occidentali francese e britannico. Nelle situazioni in cui invece la decolonizzazione assunse caratteri cruenti, finì per essere inserita nella grande partita della Guerra fredda, con interventi diretti e militari delle potenze leader in Asia, dalla Corea all'Indocina, indiretti e prevalentemente propagandistici in Africa, dall'Algeria al Congo e, successivamente, in Angola, Mozambico e Corno d'Africa. Anche il crollo dell'impero sovietico portò al recupero dell'indipendenza in forma pacifica in Europa, per le repubbliche Baltiche, l'Ucraina, la Bielorussia, la Georgia, i vari "stan" caucasici a maggioranza musulmana e per i paesi satellite, mentre in altre parti del Caucaso e in altre zone dell'Asia centrale, a cominciare dall'Afghanistan, l'intreccio delle lotte per l'indipendenza con tensioni etniche e l'emergere del fondamentalismo islamico (oltre ai problemi degli oleodotti) portarono a una serie di scontri, di cui quello ceceno è il caso più sanguinoso ma non certo l'unico. Ciò dimostra che, con tutte le sue difficoltà, la Russia ha sostanzialmente accettato l'esigenza di riconoscere l'indipendenza alle popolazioni assoggettate dagli zar e dal bolscevismo, come a loro tempo avevano fatto Francia e Gran Bretagna e, successivamente, il Portogallo. In questo colossale processo di decolonizzazione il terrorismo non ha giocato un ruolo preminente. Il caso più noto, quello algerino, è stato, nella lotta contro la Francia, assai meno sanguinoso di quanto non lo sia oggi, nonostante l'indipendenza sia pienamente affermata.
L'equazione di moda
Guardando al panorama generale del processo di emancipazione dei popoli soggetti al dominio di altre potenze, si vede come l'equazione oggi di moda, secondo cui l'aspirazione alla libertà porta alla disperazione e al terrorismo che ne risulta in qualche modo razionalizzato se non giustificato è infondata. E' anzi probabile il contrario: quando il terrorismo si impone alla testa dei movimenti di liberazione li conduce alla disfatta. La scelta della tattica del terrore induce le potenze dominanti ad adottare forme di repressione particolarmente crudeli, che non sono affatto giustificabili, e questo è il caso dei ceceni come dei curdi e, almeno per il periodo franchista, dei baschi. E non porta ad alcuna soluzione, perché la comunità internazionale deve evitare che gruppi terroristici si impadroniscano di Stati sovrani. Il terrorismo viene venduto come unica arma per la rivolta dei popoli oppressi dai suoi propagandisti, ma non lo è affatto, né in Palestina né in Cecenia né altrove. E' impressionante che intellettuali occidentali, sostenitori dei principi democratici come Glucksmann o Spinelli, forse per un antisovietismo traslato, cadano in questa trappola nel caso della Cecenia. Ex nihilo nihil. L'indipendenza nazionale è la creazione di rapporti di forza favorevoli su base politicomilitare o diventa mito nazionalista, etnico, religioso, infine terrorismo.
Dal nulla del terrorismo nasce il niente (ex nihilo nihil fit). Scrive André Glucksmann di aver "previsto da tempo che la guerra di Putin avrebbe portato i separatisti a diventare terroristi". Per la verità la seconda occupazione di Grozny, quella del 1999, avvenne dopo che terroristi ceceni avevano fatto saltare in aria un certo numero di edifici civili a Mosca e a San Pietroburgo. Allora a Grozny c'era, tollerato dai russi, il governo autonomo ceceno del leader moderato Aslan Mashkadov. Ma gli estremisti islamici che controllavano le bande armate scelsero il terrorismo, prima e non dopo la "guerra di Putin". In ogni caso, il punto politico del problema è se istanze nazionali represse giustifichino il terrorismo come variante delle "guerre di liberazione". E' la tesi sostenuta da Hamas e dagli Hezbollah contro Israele, ma anche quella più volte ribadita da Barbara Spinelli (che su Israele la pensa in tutt'altro modo) proprio in relazione alla Cecenia. Il nazionalismo, nato in Europa in epoca romantica, puntava alla dissoluzione degli imperi multinazionali in base al principio di nazionalità. Anche nell'Ottocento, anche in Italia agivano società segrete che puntavano a far scoppiare moti popolari innescati da azioni armate. A Ciro Menotti e a Carlo Pisacane si dedicano vie, piazze e monumenti, ma l'indipendenza fu opera della diplomazia avventurosa di Camillo di Cavour che trovò modo di coprire e assorbire anche il movimento garibaldino. La dissoluzione degli imperi multinazionali turco e austroungarico, completata con la Prima guerra mondiale, avrebbe dovuto, secondo Woodrow Wilson, aprire la fase della piena applicazione del principio di nazionalità. Innescò invece un altro e più tremendo conflitto planetario. Nella seconda metà del secolo scorso si smantellarono, per lo più pacificamente, gli imperi occidentali francese e britannico. Nelle situazioni in cui invece la decolonizzazione assunse caratteri cruenti, finì per essere inserita nella grande partita della Guerra fredda, con interventi diretti e militari delle potenze leader in Asia, dalla Corea all'Indocina, indiretti e prevalentemente propagandistici in Africa, dall'Algeria al Congo e, successivamente, in Angola, Mozambico e Corno d'Africa. Anche il crollo dell'impero sovietico portò al recupero dell'indipendenza in forma pacifica in Europa, per le repubbliche Baltiche, l'Ucraina, la Bielorussia, la Georgia, i vari "stan" caucasici a maggioranza musulmana e per i paesi satellite, mentre in altre parti del Caucaso e in altre zone dell'Asia centrale, a cominciare dall'Afghanistan, l'intreccio delle lotte per l'indipendenza con tensioni etniche e l'emergere del fondamentalismo islamico (oltre ai problemi degli oleodotti) portarono a una serie di scontri, di cui quello ceceno è il caso più sanguinoso ma non certo l'unico. Ciò dimostra che, con tutte le sue difficoltà, la Russia ha sostanzialmente accettato l'esigenza di riconoscere l'indipendenza alle popolazioni assoggettate dagli zar e dal bolscevismo, come a loro tempo avevano fatto Francia e Gran Bretagna e, successivamente, il Portogallo. In questo colossale processo di decolonizzazione il terrorismo non ha giocato un ruolo preminente. Il caso più noto, quello algerino, è stato, nella lotta contro la Francia, assai meno sanguinoso di quanto non lo sia oggi, nonostante l'indipendenza sia pienamente affermata.
L'equazione di moda
Guardando al panorama generale del processo di emancipazione dei popoli soggetti al dominio di altre potenze, si vede come l'equazione oggi di moda, secondo cui l'aspirazione alla libertà porta alla disperazione e al terrorismo che ne risulta in qualche modo razionalizzato se non giustificato è infondata. E' anzi probabile il contrario: quando il terrorismo si impone alla testa dei movimenti di liberazione li conduce alla disfatta. La scelta della tattica del terrore induce le potenze dominanti ad adottare forme di repressione particolarmente crudeli, che non sono affatto giustificabili, e questo è il caso dei ceceni come dei curdi e, almeno per il periodo franchista, dei baschi. E non porta ad alcuna soluzione, perché la comunità internazionale deve evitare che gruppi terroristici si impadroniscano di Stati sovrani. Il terrorismo viene venduto come unica arma per la rivolta dei popoli oppressi dai suoi propagandisti, ma non lo è affatto, né in Palestina né in Cecenia né altrove. E' impressionante che intellettuali occidentali, sostenitori dei principi democratici come Glucksmann o Spinelli, forse per un antisovietismo traslato, cadano in questa trappola nel caso della Cecenia. Ex nihilo nihil. L'indipendenza nazionale è la creazione di rapporti di forza favorevoli su base politicomilitare o diventa mito nazionalista, etnico, religioso, infine terrorismo.
Russian roulette
Andre Glucksmann/Die Welt
My dreams? For the brave people, naive people, cunning people, who consider themselves even more cunning than the reality, in a word, all Westerners altogether to abandon their Russian dream. To open their eyes and to stop imagining Russia they want to see on the basis of their utopias and calculations. To finally see what we have in reality and what, in particular, raises serious questions and sometimes — deep concerns. Liberals and opponents of globalization, atlantistes and Americanophobes, most political activists, commentators and professional politicians — all of them seem to be mesmerized by Putin. George W. Bush looked deeply into his eyes and drowned in them. Berlusconi clears him of accusations of unleashing the massacre, tortures, destruction of Chechen towns — all that are mere «rumors», he asserts. Chirac admits the KGB man to "the peace camp" — makes him a participant of the axis Paris-Berlin-Moscow, — unrolls red carpets before the murderer and tells stories that Moscow gallops towards «the first line of democracies."
Personal charm of the first man in Moscow plays the most insignificant role. Over three centuries western elites have been intoxicated and calmed by Russia’s miracle. Being a captive of its own inventions, the miracle progresses from one fiasco to another. Peter the Great had hardly congratulated Leibniz and invited him to his palaces when the French Academy began weaving a garland of a «Tsar-innovator» for him. Paris salons did not lag behind, in particular, Voltaire, who, regardless of the past, began glorifying the tsar who had killed his father and tortured to death his favorite heir. Only Diderot found time and strength to visit «Northern Semiramis» and concluded that the empire of Catherine the Great had rotten because of stick and serfdom before becoming mature. During the following century citizens and bourgeois fell into reveries. Paris invested into miraculous «Russian securities," as a result of which pockets became empty even quicker. In the 20th century the whole world crooned a sinister song, first of all engaged intellectuals, activists of all levels. Damned of the land and deceived by the sky they sacrificed their human senses, their courage, their morality, and first of all many millions of human lives for the sake of "the sun rising in the East," whereas the most prudent, reasonable and possessed people fell into one and the same trap. Being not ashamed, the admirable «Uncle Jo» swallowed half of the Stalinist Europe in Yalta.
Hardly the wall fell and the Soviet empire collapsed, the western madness reappeared again. Taking everything on trust, the Kremlin’s heirs were indulged, as well the «Family» and mafia clans pillaging Russia’s economy and turning to their profit the embryonic democracy which was too fragile to resist. Having closed the eyes, the strong of our world showered the alternating Kremlin teams with compliments and loans. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund spoke out against corrupted states, but that was only an appearance. In reality a double standard was applied. Countries having no strategic importance, such as Kenya, were deprived of any financial assistance due to corruption, then Russia, where corruption reached the top levels, received money constantly. When the International Monetary Fund was made to face the reality — billions of dollars it granted to Russia appeared on bank accounts in Cyprus or Switzerland several days later — it pretended the dollars were of different origin. Some people ironically noted that the IMF could have facilitated their life making direct transfers to Cyprus or Switzerland. (Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz writes about it in his book «La grande Desillusion»).
We shall not think that Putin, a new strong man, has cleaned Yeltsin’s Augean stables. During four years of his rule, having less and less limits of his power, he has just managed to redistribute privileges between great scoundrels. Gusinsky, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky — the heads of oligarchs fall, but the distribution continues. New hunters appear at this eternal feast of clans, in this motley and therefore dangerous capitalist-Stalinist quagmire, and they are joined by corrupted state bodies and police. Doped by high oil prices, new Russian misters live on lavish profits from oil business whereas most people are doomed to an eternal post-Communist poverty and has only the right to drop eyes and to praise masters. And the dreaming West has already exalted the new Saudi Arabia — this one is more reliable than the old one, it can have control over energy resources from the Caucasus to Siberia and to maintain security and stability.
New Eurasian Eldorado arouses the boldest dreams. For many years already Prodi and his Brussels Commission have been trying to persuade businessmen to invest into Siberian deposits and construction of pipelines. So far private companies have been reluctant and tried to clarify all possible risks, make everything clear. Official Europe has stuck to its line. Human rights, freedom of speech, arbitrary decrees, unpredictable struggles for power in corridors of the Kremlin are of little significance. Everything for transformations of European outskirts! Towards partnership in the field of power engineering, nuclear sphere, strategic partnership! The Duma has already made the decision — the German nuclear industry saluted, and «the greens» approved. Disturbing nuclear wastes are no longer a reason for demonstrations attracting public attention, no one storms nuclear waste trains, there are no hysteric scenes on the German-French border, disgusting nuclear wastes are stocked behind the Urals, heavily guarded, we can hope, by the efficient police state. Safety obliges! Our health demands it, Russian children can freeze!
No sentiments. Promising neocolonialism gives zest to these dreams: underdeveloped backyards are going to supply natural resources which they have in abundance, to consume European goods and join the European zone. Germany is going to take its Drang Nach Osten, but in the sphere of economics. France is going to imagine a completion of Napoleon’s military campaign, and the Western Europe is likely to peacefully annex countries of the third world in its East. There would be enough obedience for reasons of commercial competition. Slick Chirac accompanies Putin to his plane, Berlusconi opens the doors of his villas to Putin, Bush receives him at his ranch, Blair — with the Queen, Schroeder — on vacations. Volodya takes a good note of that and believes everything is permitted. The dreaming West has crowned him a tsar.
Why shall we show concern? Under the stick of a modern enlightened despot Russians are again promised quick transformations. A law-abiding state and personal freedoms will appear later, as usual, some time later. On the left, inalterable progressivism. On the right, liberal economy. All assert that the development is unique and sooner or later any society is going to appear among leading democratic countries. Such optimism resembles the 19th century, «the belle epoch," the happy time when people believed that development of railroad networks and exchange from the one side, and progress in solidarity and education from the other side, would automatically lead all to peace and prosperity. As a result: two world wars, two totalitarian states, several fascist countries, genocide, Oswiecem, Kolyma…
Neither experience nor facts seem to trouble Europe falling asleep. It is going to Cythere of the Urals again.
Will we finally wake up, or no? Troops robbing civilians in Chechnya, raping and killing, turn into normal citizens not at once. A population duped by 70 years of communism and disappointed by subsequent shortcomings get stuck in a paralyzing despair. An elite which grew up in the conditions of totalitarianism with no guides risks the danger of nihilism pierced with limits and taboos. There are two ways out from the Soviet system: the way of Havel and the way of Milosevic. A difficult way, with numerous obstacles, i.e. — gradual democratization. And another, a short, militarist way causing concerns, if not the way of terrorism and restoration of authoritarianism. If secret services, army and representatives of nomenclature share the Kremlin among them, then any Milosevic can take everything under control.
Every time the West puts a reckless stake on the Russian miracle, it stumbles and appears in a black hole. Even if we only imagine it in a delirium, a dream of reason gives birth to monsters. Giving a carte-blanche to Kremlin’s rulers Europe is approaching an abyss to the creation of which it contributes. Not everything is lost, but our political leaders take a wrong direction.
Let’s oppose another dream to it. I dream about a different Russia. Not about Russia from the Peter the Great to Putin with numerous tsars and communist leaders. The ruling cast deprives the West of the only power instrument and gives up a law-abiding state, as well as humanistic rules of the game, which help taking the authority under control somehow. A "dictatorship of law," which is not controlled by public opinion and free mass media, generates a society dominated by corruption, private and public mafias, spirit of "spetsnaz," depressions and voluntary servitude of the majority, which Solzhenitsyn called «the psychology of submission» and Anna Politkovskaya — «Russia’s dishonor."
I dream about Russia which attaches civilization and civility to its modernization, human rights, European and then universal. I dream about Russia which is always possible, which was almost established by the beginning of the 20th century. Literature, music, dances, theater, painting, mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, enlightenment of St. Petersburg, Odessa and Moscow illuminated the whole continent. If not for the WWI and the catastrophic Bolshevist revolution, in the 20th century Europe might have declared itself culturally Russian to become even more glorious. That Russia of enlightenment, arts and human rights, the heritage of Pushkin, Lermontov, Chekhov, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky… can still be seen under the scab of the renovated autocracy. Here, in the West, we shall cultivate and protect this unachieved hope. Dream against dream. We are at the crossroads.
RED CARPETS, SILENCES AND CRIMES
(appeal written by André Glucksmann and Josep Ramoneda)
Europe is about to receive Vladimir Putin in Paris.
Meanwhile, the dirty, cruel war in Chechnya continues. Every day young Russian soldiers die, and twenty times as many Chechens, many of them women and children. Winter is fast approaching, heightening the feelings of desperation and neglect experienced by a people who refuse to succumb but are nevertheless condemned to wander through their razed capital and devastated villages, picking their way along roads and across stretches of land that have been mined, deprived of essentials and exposed to bombing, indiscriminate round-ups, torture and mass killings. Half of them have escaped to the camps in Ingushetia, where no provisions have been made for winter.
Vladimir Putin will take pleasure in telling his interlocutors that the Russian army is doing what is necessary and that Europe should support his crusade against "international terrorism".
We are afraid that, apart from a few murmured reproaches - which will immediately be forgotten - our representatives will remain silent, thus condoning his destructive bent. We are afraid their shortsightedness will result in an entire people being martyred and the big oil deal that Mr. Prodi is now negotiating being clinched. "Oil-for-blood" - will this be Europe's last word?
Russia is part of Europe. We owe her friendship, which implies honesty, and therefore real aid that does not wind up in private bank accounts.
Mr. Milosevic learnt, to his cost, the essential rules that govern coexistence in continental Europe: no colonial wars; no massacres of civilians; no ethnic cleansing. It is time to tell Mr. Putin that this applies to everyone, great or small.
We must talk to the President of Russia - who was also was elected on the strength of a war and with the help of fraud. We must be very clear, without merely hinting at things, without being ambiguous. We must put our cards on the table, and keep our eyes open. And, if possible, be a little more generous with his victims: morality and realism demand it.
We call on Jacques Chirac, President of the European Union, and on the Heads of State of the Community, to unequivocally and publicly remind Mr. Putin that he is obliged to respect the international agreements and resolutions that Russia has signed.
This means:
Humanitarian aid and international observers must be permitted to enter Chechnya without delay.
A cease-fire must be called immediately.
Negotiations must start with Chechnya's President-elect Aslan Maskhadov.
The survival of the Chechen people depends on it. Crimes against humanity are indefeasible. Silence kills.
Europe is about to receive Vladimir Putin in Paris.
Meanwhile, the dirty, cruel war in Chechnya continues. Every day young Russian soldiers die, and twenty times as many Chechens, many of them women and children. Winter is fast approaching, heightening the feelings of desperation and neglect experienced by a people who refuse to succumb but are nevertheless condemned to wander through their razed capital and devastated villages, picking their way along roads and across stretches of land that have been mined, deprived of essentials and exposed to bombing, indiscriminate round-ups, torture and mass killings. Half of them have escaped to the camps in Ingushetia, where no provisions have been made for winter.
Vladimir Putin will take pleasure in telling his interlocutors that the Russian army is doing what is necessary and that Europe should support his crusade against "international terrorism".
We are afraid that, apart from a few murmured reproaches - which will immediately be forgotten - our representatives will remain silent, thus condoning his destructive bent. We are afraid their shortsightedness will result in an entire people being martyred and the big oil deal that Mr. Prodi is now negotiating being clinched. "Oil-for-blood" - will this be Europe's last word?
Russia is part of Europe. We owe her friendship, which implies honesty, and therefore real aid that does not wind up in private bank accounts.
Mr. Milosevic learnt, to his cost, the essential rules that govern coexistence in continental Europe: no colonial wars; no massacres of civilians; no ethnic cleansing. It is time to tell Mr. Putin that this applies to everyone, great or small.
We must talk to the President of Russia - who was also was elected on the strength of a war and with the help of fraud. We must be very clear, without merely hinting at things, without being ambiguous. We must put our cards on the table, and keep our eyes open. And, if possible, be a little more generous with his victims: morality and realism demand it.
We call on Jacques Chirac, President of the European Union, and on the Heads of State of the Community, to unequivocally and publicly remind Mr. Putin that he is obliged to respect the international agreements and resolutions that Russia has signed.
This means:
Humanitarian aid and international observers must be permitted to enter Chechnya without delay.
A cease-fire must be called immediately.
Negotiations must start with Chechnya's President-elect Aslan Maskhadov.
The survival of the Chechen people depends on it. Crimes against humanity are indefeasible. Silence kills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)