Obshchaya Gazeta

30 December 1999

[translation for personal use only]

Article by Grigoriy Yavlinskiy:

"The Past Seven Days and I: We Defend What Is Essential to People and to the Country"

The change of year, century and even millennium is, in the final analysis, just a numerical change. There are other parameters which are much more serious. For example, the moral compass used by those in power.

Where are we today, viewed from that standpoint?

When the leaders of the blocs that emerged victorious from the election drink a toast to Stalin in the prime minister's office, when the executive branch is becoming the puppeteer pulling the strings of the legislative, when instead of information people are inundated with lies and mudslinging, when campaign tactics turn into war, it is clear that what lies in our country's past could also lie in its future.

I would like to focus in particular on the war in Chechnya, as that issue became a crucial one in the election.

A clear change of objectives has occurred over the past month. Instead of an anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya we now see a large-scale war that is more reminiscent of revenge than a fight against terrorism. Instead of bottling up terrorists and conducting special operations to destroy them, criminal ultimatums are being issued, civilians are suffering, and the refugee situation remains unchanged. All of this is timed to coincide with political events in Moscow, i.e. the elections.

This kind of "operation" can bring nothing but shame. I have spoken with the prime minister about this personally.

There have been various stages in this war. Our position on the actions of the Putin government in Chechnya has changed as events have unfolded. The focus of the first stage of the war was to repulse aggression by bandits who had attacked Dagestan from Chechnya under the banner of religious views. They attempted to change the constitutional system and establish a different order. They had planned an operation to reach the Caspian Sea and establish a Wahhabite state. (At this point it would be appropriate to point out the situation in Kirghizia and Tajikistan as well.) It was absolutely essential to establish a security zone, as announced by the government at that time, in order to protect Stavropol Kray, Ingushetia and Dagestan. At that time our support for the government and for military action was completely justified and unconditional.

The second stage of the war involved Chechnya itself. For three years the whole world watched as the government that had been formed there demonstrated its inability to establish order in the republic. It is the scene of human rights violations, has a flourishing slave trade, witnesses disappearances, and is home to terrible and inhuman crimes. This created an enormous threat to the security of Russian citizens. The federal government had to put a stop to all that.

Troops did in fact begin to advance north of the Terek with minimal losses and to occupy positions along the border perimeter. This was a correct decision, one that ensured security. At that point in time we also took a positive view of this, because it was an operation designed to establish a security zone.

We expected that the next step would be bottle up the terrorists and then conduct special operations, either to capture them for trial or to destroy them. Instead events began developing differently. The military began managing the situation. You will recall their statements at that time: "Just try and stop us..." The operation is now in its fourth month, yet not a single terrorist leader has been captured or destroyed.

Then they granted amnesty to Gantemirov, a former mayor of Groznyy who had been convicted of embezzling public funds, and began arming him. The groundwork for civil war in Chechnya was being laid.

When it became clear that the "anti-terrorist operation" had become a smoke screen, we made our statement. The gist of the statement was that it is essential to continue military and special operations, but that it will be impossible to resolve anything using those methods alone. We need to negotiate with the various forces in Chechnya, including with Maskhadov, in order to get the republic's population on our side. In addition to rooting out terrorism and protecting the security of Russian citizens, at the same time we must also achieve a strategic objective: after the conclusion of the war order can only be maintained in Chechnya if the people who are going to live there can have at least somewhat of a normal attitude toward the Russian authorities. But that is incompatible with continuous, massive bombardment of cities and villages. Our statement was addressed to the prime minister, not to the military. As responsible politicians, we discuss with politicians, not with soldiers and officers who are prepare

d to sacrifice their lives if so ordered. They fight the way they know how to fight. Our country could not exist without them. We have not gotten around to creating a different army yet.

The statement received a vociferous and extremely negative response from the press and from politicians. The reaction from the right wing was unexpected. Although Putin soon announced that he was conducting the negotiations that we had sought and was looking for a way out, and Shoigu announced that he was creating refugee corridors, nevertheless statements from the right wing did us a disservice. They helped incite nationalism and fascism. And that is a very hard blow at Russia.

The immediate effect of these nationalist and populist sentiments was the appearance of the infamous ultimatum to Groznyy. For two days there was not a single political force in this country except for Yabloko that dared to say a word about the idea of destroying an entire city together with all its people here at the end of the 20th century!

And how did the country react? The elections demonstrated that by standing our ground we lost several percentage points of the vote. We greatly regret that. Nevertheless, we feel that we did the right thing.

The choice that people made indicates that they are confused. Even the Moscow political elite does not understand what is really going on. Those who are not active in politics were simply manipulated. In that situation people's choice is understandable and forgivable.

We have never kissed anyone's hand or kowtowed to anyone. We have remained a party that serves no one except the voters. We have defended that which we hold dear.

The elections demonstrated that Yabloko is the only party in the country for which the creation of a civil society is a primary political objective. Other forces do not see any practical benefit in this.

The election campaign was not an end in itself for Yabloko. And perhaps in order to please the voters it would have been more practical to delay certain steps. But the party did what it considered necessary:

- put forward a concept for a new economic policy based on a substantial tax reduction, and submitted it to the State Duma in the form of an alternative budget;

- warned of the dangers inherent in the treaty signed by Russia's president and Aleksandr Lukashenko;

- defended the law (and justice) and became the first political party to win an election-related lawsuit in St. Petersburg; and proposed a plan for the political resolution of the Chechnya conflict.