Russia’s Chechen War
Impact At Home And Abroad

By M.R. Josse

ONLY a few days remain before Russia’s presidential election on March 26 in which Acting President Vladimir Putin is, by all accounts, considered to be the leading contender with a pre-poll popularity rating in the range of 60 per cent.

HARDLINER: What is also notable is that Putin’s popularity in Russia is directly linked to the efficiency of his ruthless crackdown for now over five months against Muslim rebels in the southern republic of Chechnya.

Indeed, Putin’s uncompromising approach to Chechen rebels has apparently boosted his standing with a Russian public that was badly shaken after a wave of deadly apartment block bombings in Moscow in September last year in which nearly 300 people were killed in attacks attributed to Chechnya-based Islamic guerrillas.

Though Putin has largely achieved his objective of brutally crushing the Chechen rebels before the election — though at the cost of pretty heavy casualties — some rebel activity, including deadly ambushes, is still alive as of this writing.

While the Chechen capital Grozny is now virtually a heap of rubble — thanks to what observers say has been the most intensive aerial bombardment since the end of the Second World War — a hornets’ nest of protest and concern has been stirred in the West over allegations of “war crimes” by Putin’s troops.

In fact, Lord Judd, head of a recent Council of Europe delegation touring the war-ravaged region with a view to investigate reports of human rights abuses, expressed utter shock at the scale of devastation witnessed in Grozny.

In his own words: “It seems to me terrible that at the beginning of the 21st century, on the continent of Europe itself, you can see large-scale destruction and consequent suffering...It seems to be that ordinary innocent people are the ones who have paid the highest price.”

All that notwithstanding, it is significant — surely — that British Prime Minister Tony Blair considered it propitious to pay a visit to Russia and to be seen doing business with Putin just two weeks before the Russian election.

Incidentally, it may be noted that official British criticism of Russia’s nasty war in Chechnya has been significantly more muted that corresponding approbation of the same in Germany and France.

In Germany, public opinion was inflamed by recent TV footage showing “atrocities” committed by Russian troops in Chechnya.

DOING BUSINESS: Coming back to the Blair visit — the first by a Western leader, since Putin’s meteoric ascent to the Russian presidency — it is revealing that he sought to balance European concerns over the conduct of Russia’s Chechen war with the need to continue to engage Russia which, almost certainly, will be ruled by Putin, at least for the next few years.

Thus, Blair declared in St. Petersburg: “I explained the concerns that Great Britain and other parts of the international community have — concerns that any response should be proportionate and that allegations of human rights abuses (in Chechnya) should be properly investigated.”

Notably, Blair went on to add this caveat: “We also understand Chechnya isn’t Kosovo and some of the things that have been done by the Chechen rebels have been appalling acts of terrorism.”

Also worthy of note is Blair’s display of bonhomie, somewhat reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher’s famous statement about Mikhail Gorbachev about being able to “do business” with him.

That is apparent from these remarks: “I’d like to say how much I enjoyed the dialogue, which was a very good omen for the future” — observations which clearly suggest that, as far as Blair is concerned, Putin’s victory in the presidential election is a foregone conclusion.

Putin for his part, appears to have softened his earlier uncompromisingly hardline stance on Chechnya, by suggesting that Russia was willing to let the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) play a role in the region.

His government, though, has flatly rejected accusations that its troops have committed war crimes in Chechnya and has barred international observers from setting up base in the republic. Putin, meanwhile, has not surprisingly stuck to his guns on not holding peace talks with Chechen rebels.

Putin seems to understand that although the West, including the US, have been critical of human rights abuses in the Chechen war, they do not wish to see Putin face the kind of setbacks that might upset his clear chance of winning the presidential sweepstakes, come March 26.

That apart, there are also at least two other key factors that limit the West’s willingness — or capacity — to blow their top over what is generally regarded as indiscriminate use of force by the Russian military in Chechnya.

One, of the course, concerns the fact that the West has, time and again, spoken out — and even invoked sanctions — against what it regards as acts of international terrorism.

With the Russian argument that the Chechen rebels have engaged in unmitigated terrorism — as, for example, demonstrated in the Moscow apartment block bombings last Autumn — it is clearly awkward for the West to tell Putin that their prescription against international terrorism is meant only for themselves, not for Russians.

DILEMMA: Indeed, Russia’s case is somewhat bolstered, in this respect by allegations that in Chechnya Islamic militants from abroad have been fighting along side the Chechen rebels.

Finally, there is the fact that since Russia is still a major power with a formidable nuclear arsenal, cooperation should pay off not only in geopolitical or strategic terms but also through developing more extensive economic and other ties.

That sets limits on how far to push Putin — or Russia.

Tribute To A Scholar

By Mukti Rijal

LAW and Society Trust, a civil society organisation in Sri Lanka brings out law and Society Trust Review on a fortnight basis. The review provides a very good collection of articles, contribution from academicians, constitutional experts, and human rights leaders covering critical issues of human rights and constitutional governance. The review also brings together some select reports and papers that highlights discussions on the subjects of contemporary interests and relevance especially in the field of democratic freedoms, governance, constitutionalism and human rights and devolution.

Visionary
This year’s January issue of the review is dedicated to Dr. Neelam Tiruchelvam whom the fortnightly calls as a visionary of our times. Dr. Neelam Tiruchelvam was assassinated last year by the Tamil extremists. The killing of a renowned scholar and human rights leader was a most gruesome event and ended a life dedicated to the fight for justice, freedom, and human rights through peaceful, non-violent and democratic means. By killing a person devoted to justice and democratic aspirations of the people, the Tamil rebels did disservice to their cause, too.

Dr. Neelam Tiruchelvam was known in Nepal and be resonated with the voices of Nepalese people for human rights and democratisation of the polity. He attended several forums organised is Nepal and gave his rich inputs in the process of strengthening constitutional governance. He was a keen watcher of democratic developments in this country and followed very intimately the events unfolded following the restoration of multiparty democracy in this country.

The January issue of the Law and Society Trust Review has compiled together some of the articles of late Neelam and reproduced them for the benefit of the leaders. The articles give a rich and analytical view of late scholar on the several issues ranging from constitutionalism, minority rights and judiciary, ombudsmen. The crisis of constitutionalism in South Asia reproduced in the review was a lecture delivered by the late human rights leader in 1992. The issues raised is the article are as relevant today as they were at that time.

He writes “The discourse of constitutionalism and international human rights jurisprudence have yet to imaginatively respond to challenges which place in jeopardy not merely the nation state but the very foundation of a constitutional order. These concerns compel reappraisal of the very nature of the native state and the concept of national sovereignty. The entrenchment of the unitary state in constitutional texts often leads to the absurd contradiction of imposing a monoethnic polity. The very definition of the state must increasingly reflect the ethnic diversity of the polity, and acknowledge that state is as aggregation of ethnically and linguistically distinct regions and sometimes several distinct nationalities.” Dr. Neelam concluded his presentation saying “South Asia faces the dazzling and yet daunting prospect of expanding the frontiers of constitutionalism to reconcile the challenges of a reawakened civil society and the disintegrative process of ethnic and religious fratricide with the imperatives of modern nation states.” This analysis of late scholar is pertinent and correctly summarize the growing tendencies calling for the need to expand the contours of constitutionalism.

In his article titled “The Ethnic and Cultural Dimension of Human Rights Policy” reproduced in the commemoration issue Dr. Neelam Tiruchelvam wrote “Community and member states should adopt a policy on diversity which is analogous to that adopted by some private philanthropic foundations. The objective of such a policy should be to promote pluralism and equal opportunity and to end discrimination based on ethnicity
or gender. Such a policy includes encouragement of projects designed to strengthen plural societies and increase opportunities to minorities and historically disadvantaged groups.”

The January issue of the review points a presentation of Dr. Neelam Tiruchelvam delivered in 1997 on the theme of equal opportunity and the role of civil society. He made a very pertinent observation “We have endeavoured to draw on concepts and principles based on international instruments. We have attempted to draw on the constitutional jurisprudence of a number of countries in the Commonwealth.”

He added further “Therefore, in the conceptual and in the normative sense, a great of deal energy has gone into the elaboration of these concepts and ideas.”

Appraising the role of civil society he pointed out “The weakness here a again the failure of civil society. Civil society needs to mobilise itself to organise institutional counterparts to the official languages commission to enable that the complaints which are not adequately directed towards these institution are in fact effectively directed towards these institutions. Despite the fact that we have a chapter on fundamental rights, which prohibits gender discrimination, there is not a single case of gender discrimination which has been argued before the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka”. There observation on the role of civil society holds relevance in the context of all the states in South Asia including Nepal.

The issue also publishes a presentation of Dr Neelam Tiruchelvam on the political transition in South Africa in which he dealt at length the process of national reconciliation and constitutional reform. In his presentation he concluded “The process of ethnic and national reconciliation in South Africa are relevant to countries which face similar problems. The constitutional reforms provide us with important models, concepts and ideas for power sharing. They include not only the federal and quasi federal arrangements at the provincial level but also the prospect of proportional representation in the composition of national cabinet.”

Outstanding
Dr Tiruchelvam was outstanding academicians in Sri Lanka who did pioneering work in defense at human rights and democratic freedoms, clarified and enriched ideas and constitutional governance and social and political pluralism. In the editor’s note of the review tribute to late academician is paid with these words as “Dr Tiruchelvam had the extraordinary ability to apply a multidisciplinary approach is the study of the law and was able to write extensively on subjects ranging from constitutional law in international law and human rights to commercial law”.

The Maddening Monday

By Binita Joshi

“IT’S YET another maddening Monday

Wish it was a Sunday”!

Wish everyday was a Sunday. No more tensions, no more worries and everyday a bliss, a relaxation.

Like the Bangles song, my mind keeps on boiling every Monday as this is, I believe, one-day in the week on that creeps madness in the moods of mankind. The Monday blues are really bothersome — a pain in the neck as there should be nothing more maddening than Monday.

While Friday is the reminder of “Good Day - Friday” with the following weekends (the hard earned “chuttis”), Monday is the beginning of the weekdays with five consecutive working days to follow. What a contrast?

Every Monday morning begins with the very cliche. “Get up in the morning, dress to get ready; I’ve got to work; it’s late already.”  In fact for every Monday, I have to gear myself up from Sunday afternoon, for the engines to get warm and heated. Even then the engine seizes to start at one kick and without a choke.

Unlike Friday, the wrap-up day, everything seems cool and real cool, the unfolding of Sunday brings weight, heavy weight in my mind, with the memory of Monday, the next day. I can’t even watch the Star Movie Premiere as it ends about three hours late than the usual bedtime. The very thought of waking up early next day carries away all the thrust of having fun and entertainment because the next day is Monday and one has to start together with the rising sun or much ahead of that, no more cuddling and nestling in the warm bed.

Monday morning sickness creeps from the early dawn of Monday. As weekly rituals begin, one gets to work but despite looking fresh looks all tired... should have been rejuvenated with two days rest and relaxation. But Monday turns out to be the most tepid and tiring day in the whole weeks as the relaxed muscles tend to take more time to become flexible.

Monday brings lots of woes. Be it students, parents, office goers or even the government officers in Kathmandu who have started enjoying as added facility — another feather-facility on their cap — two days weekends start worrying on Monday.

How relaxing would it be if a week had only three days, beginning with Friday and ending on Sunday? A day of hard work and two days of relaxation making every Friday good/better/best day and no more maddening Mondays. Every day a bliss and no more reminders on the fact that there are more working days on the list.

Monday being the first day of the week has its own disadvantages. But it is heavenly rejoicing to have a public holiday on Monday, which makes the week look shorter. Once Monday is gone by its easy for Friday to surface.

Mondays and Fridays are quite similar. One is the beginning of the weekday while the other is the end. There is always more fun and enthusiasm in every beginning but Monday, the beginning of the week working day is an exception. The beginning brings fun in the sense that the aftermath anticipation gives a sort of anxiousness and it is so when the outcome is unknown but in this case, the following days are by-heart so no more anticipation as one knows what’s in store after Monday. Yes, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and Fridays — a long long week. Yet another Maddening Mondays, wish no day was a Monday.