Chechen cause key to world stability
Lord Judd
24Žubat2003

My most recent visit to the Chechen Republic was in January. It was in the aftermath of the terrorist action at the Moscow theatre in October and against the civilian administrative headquarters in Grozny in December. 
Violence of that kind has no place in meeting the needs and aspirations of the Chechen people. It should be condemned without qualification: but that applies to all violence. State violence, abductions, disappearances, unlawful killings, beatings, torture and harassment by members of the Russian security forces, whether officially condoned or not, are every bit as unacceptable as other forms of violence. They strike at the moral credibility of government. 
Hence the frustration at the Council of Europe with the continuing absence of convincing evidence that allegations of crimes by the security forces are being rigorously pursued. Hence also the frustration that the Russians have failed to make public the reports by the Council's own Committee on Torture.
The human situation in the Chechen Republic is still grim. While schools are open, parts of severely war-damaged hospitals are in operation, and some agricultural activity can be seen, the economy remains shattered. Displaced people who have returned to Grozny are desperately worried about their personal security and about help with reconstructing their devastated homes. The atmosphere is tense and security personnel are everywhere. I travelled in and out of the Republic surrounded by troops in a small armoured convoy.
There is obviously no military solution. A political process is indispensable. It is only with a political solution that human rights can be guaranteed and the humanitarian wellbeing of the people can be assured. However, there are no short cuts to this. There has been a prolonged, devastating, cruel and bloody civil war. Before any new constitution has any hope of being effective there will have to be a great deal of dialogue and attempted reconciliation. This cannot be limited to the more acceptable power brokers and co-opted intellectuals. It has to involve the widest possible cross-section of the Chechen community.
The Russian authorities, however, are determined to drive ahead with a referendum on a new draft constitution on March 23. This is, in my view, so premature, ill conceived (or in effect cynical) and potentially counter productive that I have felt compelled to make plain that, should it take place as planned, I shall be unable to continue in my role as rapporteur. 
Some argue that the constitution can be later amended. But by whom? It seems that the right to do this is limited to those elected under its provisions as currently proposed! It is also worth noting that the draft speaks of "affirming our historical unity with Russia and its multinational people". That wording begs many key questions at the heart of the bitter conflict.
Why is the proposed referendum so deeply disturbing? First, a constitution has to be the outcome of a process. It has to be forged. There has to be a sufficient consensus. While there are, without doubt, fighters in the Republic who are close to al-Qaeda and who have no interest in what any reasonable person would regard as a political settlement, there are others who - whether rightly or wrongly - are fighting for what they perceive is the honour and identity of their people faced with insensitive oppression. If a settlement is to be viable, there must be a genuine attempt to win at least some of these people back into a political process. No serious attempt has been made to do this. The acute danger is that they will therefore be further alienated and driven into the arms of the extremists. But, quite apart from the fighters, little attempt has been made to draw into the process any significant players at all who are not already at least marginally in the game.
Second, there must be a credible franchise. Has the census on which it is to be based been genuinely comprehensive? Who precisely will be able to vote? What is the position of Chechens living outside the Republic? Which service personnel will be able to vote? There is little indication that these questions and others have been transparently addressed. I was told of areas where those undertaking the census had not visited. It was explained to me by the authorities that only those soldiers who were "permanently stationed" in the Republic would be allowed to vote, but it proved impossible to elicit a clear definition of "permanently stationed". 
Some officials said that displaced people would be able to vote in their camps - with what integrity of ballot yet to be seen - but others said they will be taken back to the Republic in buses to vote. As for Chechens in Moscow or beyond, the answers were conspicuous by their absence. All the cards are in the hands of the Russian government.
Third, the context in which a referendum is held is all important. There should be debate and evaluation. Pluralist and independent media, freedom of association and freedom of political parties are needed. There must be adequate public information. Yet this context is just not there. In camps for displaced people in Ingushetia it was impossible to find anybody who had seen a copy of the proposed draft constitution let alone who had been invited to a meeting to discuss it. 
Fourth, there must be sufficient non-menacing security for people to feel freely able to participate. My visit was limited to Grozny. God knows what life is now like further afield. But even in Grozny the right conditions do not exist. Indeed I have been asked whether I would feel able, on security grounds alone, to recommend sending observers to the referendum. My reply was that it is far too dangerous. Where observers are most needed it will be most dangerous. If it is too dangerous for observers, how realistic or safe is it for the people themselves to participate in the referendum?
At the right time a referendum will be essential. But without an acceptable context it is likely that the constitution will begin to unravel before the votes are counted. Russia seeks to become a full democracy. It will be tragic if the authorities resort to the referendum techniques employed by too many dictators in the 20th century.
Time is short. It is therefore essential that all who care for the people of the Chechen Republic and of Russia send an unambiguous message to the Russian government: be careful. By a rushed, ill prepared referendum, without the necessary political and security environment, you are in danger of making a terrible mistake. Far from promoting the peace you seek, you may well make it impossible to achieve.
The challenge of the Chechen Republic is central to the stand against global terrorism. President Putin is right when he claims that, in the Republic, Russia is at the world's front line. If, in the midst of the gruesome realities of that conflict a meaningful political process can be generated which leads to a lasting and viable solution, it will send a powerful message to the wider world about how, whatever the bitterness, reasonable politics can produce the basis on which to build for the future. 
By contrast, if there is a failure to promote a meaningful political process, the message to too many in the wider world will play right into the hands of the extremists. It will strengthen their claim to be the only true friends of the excluded and deprived. It will undermine still further the hundreds of thousands of moderate, wise Islamic people who seek to build bridges rather than to hurtle into a new dark age of irreconcilable confrontation.
Of course we want to see Russia as a major responsible partner in the global community. But if partnership with Russia is to work it has to be based on candour. The partnership will have precarious foundations if, in a desire not to jeopardise other policy objectives - be they Iraq or the global coalition against terrorism - we play down concern about aspects of Russian policy which are wrong. In the case of the Chechen Republic it is inexplicable folly to hold back on criticism when, by their policies and methods of implementing them, the Russians are perversely recruiting for the global terrorists. 
To their credit, our Prime Minister and government do have leverage with the Russians. Ultimately, however, the test of leverage is how it is used. Now is the time, urgently, to use it for the Chechen and Russian people and for the cause of world stability.

Lord Judd is a Labour peer. He is a member of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and, since November 1999, rapporteur to the Assembly on the conflict in the Chechen Republic