Has the human rights situation in Russia improved during Putin’s term of office?

breakingnews

Go to main page Community Forums Top News Has the human rights situation in Russia improved during Putin’s term of office?

Has the human rights situation in Russia improved during Putin’s term of office?

Sevodnya_Net 7 February, 2008, 22:59	I'm not, it has to be said, 100% sure how great the situation was before Putin arrived on the scene, so strictly speaking I cannot say, hand on heart, that I think things have got worse. What is incontestable is that the President's record since being in office is diabolical to put it mildly. Whether you count the prosecution of the dirty war in Chechnya (not that the first war before Putin arrived on the scene was much "cleaner"), for example, or issues such as domestic violence - which its great to see RT focusing on so vividly today, bullying in the military etc etc. It seems to me that despite the veneer of wealth and respectablility Russia remains a nasty and brutish society under the surface. And before I am accused of being "anti-Russian" for saying that, don't forget we are largely talking about Russian victims here. And that includes the Chechen war where quite apart from the suffering inflicted on the ethnic Chechens a generation of Russian soldiers and their families have had their lives blighted by this unnecessary conflict. And this blight has had a knock-on effect in Russian society as a whole. It's for this reason that whatever happens after March 2 and whoever the PM may turn out to be, I will be heaving a sigh of relief. And I look forward to repeating the experience after the US election wih Mr Bush!) permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Robert U.S. 8 February, 2008, 04:28	Human rights and freedoms one must concider what is really means. Freedom equals money. The more money you have the more freedom you have.Of course having more money than your used to could also be dangers to yourself. In the U.S. you have the freedom to go any where you want if you can afford it. You have the freedom to live anywhere you want if you could afford it. So you can measure human rights and freedoms according to the average income level.So if Russian income level rose then yes human right improved. Like they say in the U.S. Money talks and bull walks or Show me the money. They say money don't make you or break you but, those people that say that usually say that have a lot of money. permalink quote 0 Robert U.S.
SrpskiCrnogorac 8 February, 2008, 09:32	According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, privacy is one of the fundamental human rights and in this case, Russia is in best neighbourhood ranking together with the USA and UK. It´s strange, that everybody is asking for human rights and democracy in traditional totalitarian states like Russia and China, but nobody is asking why the human rights are permanently being abolished in traditional democracies. It´s sad but true, democracy and human rights are more and more becoming a farce, and I am wondering why traditional totalitarian states should improve in this question, while the rest of the world is going backwards. Here you can see the ranking with regard to privacy: http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597 permalink quote 0 SrpskiCrnogorac
sam 8 February, 2008, 10:50	Have to agree with Sevodnya_Net on the Chechen War being dirty but which war is "clean"? The question is- was it necessary.I think it was to bring order to that land.What atrocities were done on both sides is not a measure of the human rights situation in Russia, as in most wars that goes out of the window.Its like saying the human rights in the USA is poor because of what their troops did in Iraq which would not also be far. Domestic violence again is not a measure of human rights record.The fact that women in the USSR and now continued in Russia had always had same status as men is a tool of measure, but can not therefore be a measure of the human rights record under Putin. Control of bulling in the armed forces,well the present government I understand is taking steps in controlling that.Bulling in the Army is an international problem and not just Russian.In the UK, 4 suicides as result of bulling were investigated in one barracks alone.The US marines had a brutal induction ceremony until it was uncovered.Dont know if it still continues underground. So How are you going to measure the human rights record under Putin? Now if Putin started building Gulags in siberia,or deporting the whole Tartar nation to Siberia like Stalin did, then we would have something to talk about. so far I can only see the plus sign in the human rights record and then not a scientific one. permalink quote 0 sam
Marzipan6 8 February, 2008, 11:16	May I preface my post by saying, for the umpteenth time, that I’m not anti-Russian, never have been and never expect to be. I enjoy many aspects of Russian culture and have had Russian friends and acquaintances whom I regard only positively, and with respect. So if anyone chooses to dismiss my posts by the cheap shot of claiming I’m anti-Russian, they’re simply wrong. The fact is that Russia has some deeply-entrenched serious problems. Everyone knows it. These problems led to vast suffering for Russians and their neighbours in the past, are preventing Russia from recovering and from moving ahead positively, and continue to cast a dark cloud over Russia’s future and to some extent over the future of its neighbours. I write about these not to gloat over Russia’s misfortune, but to try to encourage, in whatever miniscule way I can, Russia’s recovery from those difficulties. After all, who wants more suffering for anyone? So regarding the human rights situation in Russia: as Sevodnya_Net pointed out, one can debate whether this is better or worse now than under Yeltsin. But there is no argument about the fact that anti-Semitism in Russia is a historical problem that is continuing apace, that even Putin agrees that xenophobic violence is a major problem in Russian society, that Russia stands condemned by international authorities for its human rights abuses in Chechnya, and that violent “hazing” within the Russian military continues to be a running sore -- to mention just some examples. Why is this so? Well, if you have a nation that, for centuries, was under the oppressive absolute rule of tsars, some of whom were insane, some of whom were incompetent and all of whom were autocratic; If that nation then transfers to rule by a band of political dreamers who murdered one another until the best murderer of all stayed alive, and he turned around to terrorize and oppress and murder the people by the absolute millions; If after seven decades of oppression and police control that regime eventually collapsed under its own decayed weight, and many of its leading lights transitioned seamlessly into leading positions in the new regime; If not a single operative who committed crimes against humanity under the old regime was even investigated, let alone brought to justice by the new regime, but instead, continued to live unhindered off the gains of their crimes; If the very ruling cadre of the new regime came from the security service of the old, which had underpinned the old order's control over the people; If you have such a country -- then where, oh where, are its people going to get a concept of human rights from? Or the confidence that theirs are going to be protected? Or the understanding of the importance of them protecting the human rights of anyone else? Where??? There is a solution. It is not an easy one and certainly not a simple one. But easier by far than the historical and ongoing trauma that Russia inflicts upon itself. If RT publishes this post, perhaps I’ll then suggest what I think some of the elements of that solution ought to be. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
SrpskiCrnogorac 8 February, 2008, 12:36	"May I preface my post by saying, for the umpteenth time, that I’m not anti-Russian." But still you see the reasons for Russia´s "xenophobia" exlusively on the russian side. As if Russia never suffered tens of millions of deads because of being attacked by western countries or for centuries being occupied by muslims. "There is a solution." Yes, many people should first overcome their Russophobia. permalink quote 0 SrpskiCrnogorac
Human 8 February, 2008, 13:31	Can someone please explain what 'Human Rights' exactly mean?? According to Wiki - "Human rights refers to "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled" Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to work, and the right to education." Can somebody please also point out, in which of these RIGHTS, there was a reduction of the said HUMAN RIGHTS during Putin's tenure? And, can somebody please identify, whether the right to live a DIGNIFIED PEACEFUL LIFE, WITH HOPE/AMBITION and AN OPPORTUNITY to be WEALTHY/HEALTHY/INTERNALLY HAPPY, more important than the right to SHOUT SLOGANS, BREAK SHOP GLASSES, or KILL/MAIM PEOPLE in the name of DEMOCRACY! If in doubt ask the people of Kenya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Georgia, Thailand etc - (During the last 3/4 years). Maybe people forget that there are two types of Democracy - DESTRUCTIVE DEMOCRACY and CONSTRUCTIVE DEMOCRACY - AND can someone please define as to what kind is 'BUSH Type' DEMOCRACY?? The answers regarding PUTIN and HR is self-evident. permalink quote 0 Human
Marzipan6 8 February, 2008, 14:37	SrpskiCrnogorac, if you have a neighbouring country vastly bigger than yourself (and all of Russia’s neighbours have such a country), if throughout history all the way to 1991 your giant neighbour was mostly either attacking you or occupying you, if to this day that neighbour hasn’t expressed any regrets for its crimes against you and continues a truculent, angry policy in regard to you and endlessly tries to interfere in your own internal affairs, then wouldn’t you say you had reason to feel apprehensive about such a country? Most of Russia’s neighbours do, for exactly those reasons. Phobia is an unreasonable fear; their fear is not unreasonable. Russia has done nothing to allay it, and the wounds of its still quite recent assault against them are still unhealed. This is not to say that Russia has not also suffered grievous attacks from the West through history. More or less everyone in Europe has. But the legacy between even Germany and the rest of Europe, for instance, is healed. Russia's legacy remains raw. As I said, there is a solution. As I want to prepare the post in which I outline aspect of it carefully, I’ll submit it some time over the next day or so, when I’ve had opportunity to give it appropriate time. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
SrpskiCrnogorac 8 February, 2008, 16:00	Marzipan6: "SrpskiCrnogorac, if you have a neighbouring country vastly bigger than yourself (and all of Russia’s neighbours have such a country), if throughout history all the way to 1991 your giant neighbour was mostly either attacking you or occupying you." Isn´t the history of Poland, Sweden the Baltic States, Russia and the muslims in the Caucasus, a history of mutual hostility, attacks and conquering? Why do you see Russia´s neighbours exclusively as victims? Aren´t the Baltic States and Poland today members of an alliance which is hostile towards Russia? The same alliance, which is now looking for members at Russia´s southern border. "Russia has done nothing to allay it, and the wounds of its still quite recent assault against them are still unhealed." I have the impression, that you mainly refer to the soviet time. Maybe you should ask Georgia for an excuse for the occupation. But since I expect Russia to stand on a higher moral ground than most of its neighbours, and since it is the legal successor of the Soviet Union, I would also appreciate an excuse for the occupation, although I am not sure whether it hasn´t been expressed already. But with regard to the soviet time, no nationality of the former Yugoslavia would ever accuse the other one for crimes committed by the communists. There were communists among all nationalities. It was a war of ideologies and not of ethnics. permalink quote 0 SrpskiCrnogorac
sam 8 February, 2008, 18:23	SrpskiCrnogorac wrote- no nationality of the former Yugoslavia would ever accuse the other one for crimes committed by the communists. There were communists among all nationalities. It was a war of ideologies and not of ethnics First time it occured to me how true your statement is.you never hear the Yugoslavs pointing fingers on each other.Guess they are more mature then some former soviet states.As if there were noone from baltic states,ukraine or georgia in the government of the soviet union. However I do think those states know what they are doing but playing up to their new friends in the west. But again all this talk has nothing to do with the topic as Putin was never the General secretary of the USSR.It is Russia we are talking about here.For one The Russian federation has not abused the human rights of any foreigner( unless you do not know difference between Russia and the USSR). So how has the human rights situation changed in Russia under Putin. Would like to hear more from Sevodnya_Net as he asked for this topic to be raise,and RT happily did. permalink quote 0 sam
Norman 8 February, 2008, 20:22	Three points: (1) Human and civil rights come with responsibilities, like paying taxes, working and obeying the law. In times of crisis, reasonable restictions are often needed. (2) There are financial and cultural aspects to human/ civil rights. (3) Most democratic societies are representative democracies, as true democracy would not work in a large nation. And most democracies depend on respect for authority. Russia fits all three areas mentioned. permalink quote 0 Norman
Marzipan6 9 February, 2008, 01:09	Building Russia’s future begins with visualising the kind of Russia that one wants. The kind of Russia that I want – and perhaps most Russians want, too – is a land whose people feel proud to be Russians, who feel at peace with their past, comfortable with their present and enthusiastic about their future. It is a Russia whose legacy of shared suffering does not cause internal bitterness, recriminations or guilt, but serves as a glue to bring people together in mutual support, understanding and respect. It is a land that is at genuine peace with its neighbours, enjoying friendly and profitable relations, based on mutual respect and on a celebration of cultural and ethnic differences. It is a land that draws from the wisdom of its neighbours, offers them the wisdom of its own experience, and is working with them to turn the tragedies of the past into strong pillars of friendship that will make a vastly better future life for all. This is a long way from where we are right now. So how to get from here to there? It all must begin with an acknowledgement of realities, or it doesn’t begin at all. Russia’s current policy, if it can even be called a policy rather than just an ad-hoc sort of default behaviour, is to try to imagine away the past, and tip-toe around it, just picking the best out of it here and there, and ignoring the rest. But the past is too enormous and too painful for Russians and their neighbours alike to be handled in this way. That kind of approach heals nothing internally, and only infuriates Russia’s neighbours by adding gross insult to profound injury, claiming, as it nonsensically does, that Russia liberated its neighbours. It didn’t liberate them; it just changed their oppressors. Russians readily acknowledge that they’ve all been victims, but that’s only part of the story. They must acknowledge that many, many, many of them were also the victimisers of their own people and of their neighbours, in the service of utopian ideals that were perverted by an evil regime of evil men into the major horror story of the Twentieth Century. Because state-endorsed Soviet criminality so thoroughly permeated every aspect of society in terms of victimisers and victims alike, a witch-hunt to now weed out the guilty would probably tear society to pieces, and that would not help anyone. But doing nothing simply allows the wounds to fester, and makes genuine healing impossible. There is an example of an effective middle course pursued by a nation whose society, like Russia’s, was also riven by state-sponsored criminality in the service of some supposed “higher ideals”. As with Russia, change of regime came to that society not through defeat in war but through the regime reaching its use-by date and collapsing under its own weight. I refer to South Africa. And after its collapse, like in Russia many of the technocrats and functionaries under the old regime had to remain in place under the new regime, because there simply was no one else available to keep society working. To the degree that recovery is possible after a toxic history like South Africa’s or Russia’s (I believe only partial recovery is possible and that some scars will last for generations), South Africa found its healing in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Anyone who is interested can easily find plenty of material about this on the net, so I won’t belabour the details here. Other than to say the TRC provided a venue for victims and victimisers to be required to meet together in a controlled, judicial-like setting, explain their experience of the past so that they can get it off their chest and know they have been heard, and seek or provide forgiveness as appropriate – and then move on to create a new country together. People can say that the method wasn’t perfect, and they’re right. They can say that it did not magically solve all of South Africa’s problems, and they’re right. But if we say that it made a much better future available to South Africa than would otherwise have been possible, we’re also right. For the TRC to happen, two men of extraordinary wisdom and morality needed to be on the scene – Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu. They were – are – giants of their time. I believe there are people of their calibre in Russia, too, who could provide a similar kind of leadership. But the present government structure is primed to lock out anyone who offers a vision of Russia that is different to that of the KGB-based and nurtured current ruling elite. The government simply shuts out any voice that does not echo its own narrow-minded and ineffectual mantras. And as a result, Russia does not progress. Perhaps the one element of Russian society that was least compromised by the Soviet experience was the academic fraternity. It still seems to be the most honest voice in Russia. I believe the media needs to ally itself strongly with that segment of society and promote a message that both educates Russians to the reality of their past, and to the possibilities of a future in which Russia is truly at peace with itself and with its neighbours. Paint a picture of what such a Russia looks like, and people will like it and want it. And then point out the practicalities of how to get there. The media and academics together need to insist that Russia needs annual national days to celebrate not some of the most bloody and violent episodes of its bloody and violent history, but instead, to celebrate the heroics of the many Russians who passed through the ghastly gulag camps with their humanity and courage and humour intact. These are the true heroes of Russia, not mad tsars, paranoid war-lords, blood-thirsty commissars, mendacious secret policemen and compromised petty functionaries. Russia needs to establish an annual national Reconciliation Day, where, through functions and ceremonies throughout the land, reconciliation is sought with Russia’s many internal and external victims, and bonds of genuine respect and friendship can be forged. Russia needs to go to neighbours like the Baltics, apologise for crimes that Russians committed against them, celebrate the long history and the positive aspects of shared people and culture which those lands have with Russia, offer its help to the Baltics as they struggle to deal with the legacy of the past, and ask the Baltics for help with Russia’s own transformation seeing as the Baltics have been quite successful with theirs. Somewhere along the line it would also be appropriate to thank the Baltics for the kind of life they have managed to give the Russian people in their midst – a life that is more secure and certainly more prosperous than Russians enjoy in Russia, and that contrasts rather starkly with how Russians once treated Baltic peoples. Once Moscow stops its serial anti-Baltic rhetoric, it may be surprised to find how open those countries will be to genuine co-operation with it. With a combination of these kind of measures, and with a government that encourages genuine transition to a renewed Russia rather than is committed, as at present, to lock out voices other than its own, I believe that the sort of future that I described at the beginning can slowly start to be realized. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think that all of Russia’s Soviet-era wounds can ever be completely healed – they’re just too deep for that. The same goes for the wounds that Soviet Russia struck against its neighbours. Five hundred years from now, the Soviet memory will still flavour how the world thinks of Russia. But how Russia progresses between now and then can add much that is also positive and praiseworthy to that picture. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
Marzipan6 9 February, 2008, 02:08	SrpskiCrnogorac writes, “Isn’t the history of Poland, Sweden the Baltic States, Russia and the muslims in the Caucasus, a history of mutual hostility, attacks and conquering? Why do you see Russia’s neighbours exclusively as victims?” Of course, this is absolutely right – much of history is pretty much a horror story for everyone. But those who may be familiar with what I write know that my concern is not about the past, but about the present and the future. Most historical conflicts are so far in the past that no living memory of it survives, only historical artefacts. In the case of more recent conflicts, in some cases those involved have genuinely reconciled because of the aggressors’ subsequent changed behaviour. But this is not the case in regard to Russia. Russia has not sought, and therefore not achieved, reconciliation with many of its Soviet-era victims. Instead, Russia continues to justify its Soviet-era outrages in ways that are not only untruthful but deeply offensive to its one-time victims. It continues a hostile diplomatic and economic policy in regard to various of them, and continues to interfere in their internal affairs as they try to mend the wounds of their Soviet past. The present and future of these countries continues to be negatively affected by Russia, and hence the problems. SrpskiCrnogorac further writes, “Aren’t the Baltic States and Poland today members of an alliance which is hostile towards Russia? The same alliance, which is now looking for members at Russia’s southern border.” This is not how members of the alliance see it, and certainly not its new members. They seek protection from an unregenerate and dangerous Russia, not aggression against it. Nor is NATO “looking for members”, whether at Russia’s southern border or anywhere else. Rather, those countries are knocking on NATO’s doors, seeking admission. For the reason that I already outlined. If Russia genuinely changed its behaviour towards its neighbours, the whole dynamic of them seeking safety and security would be profoundly changed, and they would not have the same motivation to want to be in NATO. The flavour of Russia’s bilateral relations with its neighbours is the direct result of Russia’s own policies in regard to them. SrpskiCrnogorac also suggests that Russia’s neighbours should seek an apology from Georgia for their Soviet occupation. But why doesn’t he seek an apology from Austria for the Balkans’ Nazi occupation?? As for Russian apologies that may already have been expressed, Putin mentioned some regret for Russian deeds of 1956 in Budapest, but that’s about it. Far from apologising to the Baltics, he along with the rest of Russian officialdom, claims that such an occupation did not even happen. While the Soviet era can indeed be described as a “war of ideologies,” that war came to be expressed through the absolute devastation and destruction of peoples and nations. And the agents of that destruction were primarily Russians. It is this that Moscow needs to apologise for, not its ideologies. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
sam 9 February, 2008, 08:14	Here we go again,another interesting discussion hijacked by volume.Some people have way too much time on their hands permalink quote 0 sam
Marzipan6 9 February, 2008, 12:49	There’s no way in the world that one can say anything meaningful about about a solution to Russia’s problems in a three-liner post, Sam. Having visited the US many times, I know that it is the American style to try to dumb everything down to three-liners. Perhaps people’s attention span, or many people’s literacy levels, don’t extend to dealing with anything much more than that. If you find it’s too much for you, Sam, don’t read it. Read a picture book instead. But equally, don’t assume that everyone else also prefers a similar dumbed-down view of things. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
Al 9 February, 2008, 15:43	"May I preface my post by saying, for the umpteenth time, that I’m not anti-Russian, never have been and never expect to be. I enjoy many aspects of Russian culture and have had Russian friends and acquaintances whom I regard only positively, and with respect." Dear Marzipan No doubt you are pro-"Russian" if they are from Western style liberal "New Russian" circles but you're clearly not pro average Russian. That argument is quite reminiscent of whites who after being cornered about their racist / bigoted attitudes typically respond with the cliched old favourite retort that "some of my best friends are black". As has already been pointed out it's unthinkable that from amongst a group of neighbouring countries and cultures with a history of conflicts and disputes there is only ever one black sheep according to your outlook - Russia. PS, are you Estonian / Australian by any chance? :-P Human - Excellent points about "human rights" and "democracy". permalink quote 0 Al
SrpskiCrnogorac 9 February, 2008, 15:58	"And the agents of that destruction were primarily Russians." You should simply admit that you are Russophobe, not for me, because it is for everyone obvious from your posts, but for yourself, in order to work on overcoming it. What you said above, is the same line of argumentation like that of "Neo"-Nazis who are counting the number of Jews among the communist intelligentsia or among the russian oligarchs and blaming all jews for it. With regard to Nato expansion (against former promises to Gorbachev not to do so) as not being directed against Russia, and that the new members are seeking protection against Russia.what can one say? You are living in a differet reality. But good luck in your peaceful alliance in Middle East and Kosovo. permalink quote 0 SrpskiCrnogorac
Sevodnya_Net 9 February, 2008, 23:06	"Would like to hear more from Sevodnya_Net as he asked for this topic to be raise,and RT happily did. " Never fear, Sevodnya's here :-) First, I'd just like to say I endorse just about all of Marzipan6's long but interesting post about a possible future for Russia. "The Russian federation has not abused the human rights of any foreigner" says Sam, echoing a similar comment by a different poster in a different topic. Again, I ask the question as I did there: do human rights abuses INSIDE the Russian Federation not count? Broadly, one can divide human rights issues anywhere into cases of neglect and active, violent abuse of same. An obvious case of the former is the issue of domestic violence I mentioned earlier: that is a human rights issue in as much as it is surely the right of a woman not to have the living daylights beaten out of her by her partner. Of course this is in issue which, while particularly bad in Russia, is not confined to that country and certainly not something one can blame on the President, but one can look at the statistics and come to the conclusion that under his rule the situation has not improved, for whatever reason. Active abuse is most obviously manifest in the case of the Chechen Republic. Yesterday I sat and listened to the President's speech to the State Council (otherwise known as a party political broadcast by the Kremlin nicely timed 3 weeks before the election :-) ) Mr Putin began that address, interestingly, with a fairly long reference to the Chechen War, the general tenor of his remarks being that thanks to decisive action lawlessness, dissent, plotting and general un-Russian nastiness had been crushed and the integrity of the Russian state preserved. Most intriguingly of all the President made reference to Al Qaida in Chechnya, a lie which echoed the similar deception employed by George W. Bush to justify the Iraq War. When Russia re-invaded Chechnya (or more accurately began bombing it indiscriminately) in 1999 it spelled the beginning of the end not of sinister Al Qaida cells but of the self-styled Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, under the democratically elected President Aslan Maskhadov. The 3 years of Ichkeria - since the de facto independence of the country in 1996 - was marred by serious lawlessness and banditry, but considering the problems the Chechen President had to deal with, namely a small country already divided on clan lines now brutalised and traumatised by 2 years of war, with large numbers of frustrated, unemployed, armed ex-fighters, an outside world almost completely indifferent to its plight and I'm afraid to say its supposedly "ex-enemy" to the north actively destabilising the country, it's a miracle it lasted as long as it did. For the sake of brevity now I'll gloss over the deep suspicion held by many regarding the events in Russia that led to the second war, but when the inevitable happened and Putin's forces prevailed, a totally bogus "political process" was imposed on the country. A "referendum" was held on a new constitution and Presidential "elections" were held in 2003. I may say that for all the cynicism about the current Russian Federal presidential election it stands as a shining example of democracy compared to the farce that was the 2003 Chechen election. Most of the candidates opposed to the Kremlin's choice Akhmad Kadyrov were bought off and a serious of inconsequential stooge candidates put in their place. Campaigning was effectively restricted only to the Kadyrov camp and voting rights were extended (as they had been for the referendum) to the Russian troops stationed in the country (upwards of 30,000 I believe). When Kadyrov was assassinated a year later (uniquely so far for Chechen presidents by his own people, in contrast to three others murdered by the Russians) his son Ramzan eventually took over. The latest Kadyrov has by all accounts carried on where he left off during his father's regime, using his militiamen to detain, torture and kill anyone suspected of being an insurgent, thus in turn carrying on the tradition set by the Russian Army during the second occupation. The basic tactic employed was to round people up in camps, from which many never returned. Many of those to have "disappeared" include refugees who had fled to Ingushetia, forced to return by Ingushetia's own Russian stooge President to an uncertain future in their native country. The prosecution of the war by the Russians has included many well-documented incidents which count as war crimes that would make many a bloodthirsty dictator blush - bombing of villages and refugee convoys, rape and murder of the civilian population. Chechen society as a result of all this has undergone a tragic change: a once proud and hospitable people have become demoralised, fearful and resentful, suspicious of neighbours, impoverished and above all desperate for an end to the brutality. Many no doubt genuinely welcome the "stability" passed on through Putin to his deadly puppet Kadyrov but those who feel no such emotions are not heard. "How on earth can Russia get away with this?" I hear you cry if you're still reading - one reason is the shameful silence of the West in this matter. While the world's attention focuses on the imminent independence of Kosovo not a peep comes from the lips of anyone about the plight of a country which has never wanted to be a part of Russia or the Soviet Union, and which at the time of the first invasion in 1994 had effectively seceded from the Russian Federation and had its own government and democratically elected president. Today it is true that the Chechen resistance - what remains - is making increasingly Islamist noises, probably largely because the worldwide Islamist resistance generally offers the greatest chance of financial support. It is a myth that Al Qaida has ever had so much as a semi-foothold there. (In fact I think I'm right in saying that no Chechen has ever been plausibly found to have been involved in either Al Qaida or the Taliban and none have been detained in the US concentration camp at Guantanamo.) By tradition Chechnya's Muslims have used their religion to express their national identity which it seems the Russian administration is determined to delete from the record books. Speaking of record books, not then, a very happy one human rights-wise for President P. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Peter 10 February, 2008, 03:00	Marzipan6, stop spamming the server with your long-winded rants. permalink quote 0 Peter
ROBERT (U.S.) 10 February, 2008, 04:09	Go ahead Marzipan6 get it off your chest You see human rights are blending into other nieghboring countries.The whole world is reading your posted comments. This might be your 15 minutes of fame.Every one in there life deserves there 15 minutes of fame. permalink quote 0 ROBERT (U.S.)

next 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 … 24 25

POST COMMENT

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields