Boris Berezovsky

His resolute character makes Russian president Vladimir Putin a valued “ally” in the war against terror. But what about his own behavior? Who has the guts to call Putin a terrorist? 

---

What is terrorism? Certainly, taking 1,000 children and parents hostage at a school in Beslan, ending in the death of hundreds, is terrorism. There is no doubt about this. But when Russian troops under Putin’s command commit genocide in Chechnya, killing and wounding 10,000 children, is that not terrorism also?

Let’s be clear: Terror begets terror. And who is responsible for initiating the terror in Chechnya? Vladimir Putin. Putin is terrorist No. 1.

The only way to stop terror now is for Putin to make the decision to stop the war in Chechnya and seek an agreement with the Chechens through their legitimate leadership.

You have to place the Chechnya issue in context. One of the basic principles of a democratic, liberal country is the decentralization of power. In 1993, this principle was incorporated in the new Russian constitution, which enabled the election of governors who were to have control over their regions and mayors who would have control over their cities. The idea was that power would no longer be vertical, or centralized, but self-organizing.

Breakthrough idea: Expose Putin’s crimes

In light of Vladimir Putin’s crimes in Chechnya, why does he remain a member in good standing at the world leaders’ club? Why do his actions go unpunished? It’s true that Putin is periodically chided for repeatedly assaulting Russia’s fledgling democracy. But his ruthless suppression of legitimate Chechen self-determination efforts has attracted little public criticism from Western leaders. And you probably haven’t read about it much in the press. It’s time we end his free ride and put a spotlight on Putin’s brutal suppression of Chechens’ reasonable desire for more autonomy.

Putin, on the other hand, is trying to restore Russia to the same heavy-handed, centralized system of control that the old Soviet Union used. This is his big mistake. It is an approach that has made the situation in Chechnya much worse. And it’s a relic of the past. Today’s world is about flexibility, pluralism and decentralization.

I am absolutely against independence for Chechnya, as I was when I was chief negotiator back in 1996–97. If we give independence to Chechnya, then the next day we have to give it to Tatarstan, then the day after to Ingushetia and so on. It would mean the collapse of Russia. The basis for agreement is this: a united economic and defense jurisdiction, possibly with a Russian supreme court, but Chechnya would have political and cultural autonomy. Former Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov – who was killed by Russian forces in March 2005 – had already agreed to this in 1996–97.

But there are highly influential elements in the Kremlin who don’t want this deal. They still have the empire mentality. They say, “Russia is powerful. If the Chechens don’t do what we want, we’ll just kick them.” This is the basic instinct.

Time is running out. Every day the situation is getting worse. A new generation far more radical than Maskhadov is arriving, kids who have known nothing but war and grown up with guns in their hands since they were 10 or 15 years old.

At least men like Maskhadov are people with a Russian mentality and culture. We can understand each other. This next generation is very different. They are capable of anything and willing to fight to the end. Putin’s policy has further radicalized this new generation

That is why it is so urgent now to act. The first step would be for Putin to stop the war without any conditions and withdraw the troops. The second step is to begin negotiations.

Boris Berezovsky was deputy chief of the Russian Security Council in charge of the 1996-97 negotiations with the then Chechen separatist president Aslan Maskhadov. He now lives in exile in London. This essay is adapted from comments he made in the Winter 2005 issue of New Perspectives Quarterly.