Moscow’s military campaign in Chechnya is a source of friction in Russia’s relations with Western European nations The European Union has been critical of the conduct of Russia’s assault. On March 20, for example, EU foreign ministers issued a statement that faulted Russia for not establishing an adequate humanitarian aid infrastructure in Chechnya. Meanwhile, the Council of Europe has suggested that Russia could lose its seat in the 41-member organization due to its failure to halt alleged human rights abuses in the renegade province. In late January, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council, which promotes democracy and human rights, called on Russia to resolve the conflict peacefully by April or risk a review of its participation in the organization.

From March 9-12, a delegation led by Lord Judd of Great Britain visited Chechnya to evaluate Russia’s progress toward meeting the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendations. On March 13, the delegation criticized the Russian military’s "disproportionate" use of force. Lord Judd said: "It is beyond comprehension that, at the beginning of the 21st century, a European city like Grozny could be systematically destroyed by the forces of its own government."

Also on March 13, the Russian plenipotentiary human rights representative, Oleg Mironov, acknowledged that Russia’s membership was in danger. Although Mironov said the Council of Europe should provide assistance, as well as criticism, he admitted Russia had made policy mistakes, such as prohibiting UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson from visiting Chechnya.

Various organs of the Council have complained about Russian actions in Chechnya. In December, Council Secretary-General Walter Schwimmer demanded a written explanation from the Russian government about its implementation of the Council’s human rights norms in Chechnya. The European Convention on Human Rights allows the Secretary-General to request such an explanation, but no Secretary-General had ever used this right with respect to an individual country. Schwimmer explained the situation in Chechnya merited this unprecedented action. "The war in itself constitutes a human rights violation," Schwimmer said, repeating a statement made by the Council’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil-Robles.

Concurrently, European leaders have sought to establish a good working relationship with acting President Vladimir Putin, the overwhelming favorite to win the scheduled March 26 presidential election. Putin’s hard-line approach on Chechnya has been a major factor in establishing him as the presidential front-runner. A significant majority of Russia’s population approves of the Putin Administration’s handling of the war.

With the approach of the March 26 presidential election, the Central Eurasia Project spoke with Ellen Hasenkamp, a correspondent for Agence France-Presse, based in Brussels, Belgium, about Europe’s reaction to Chechnya, the rise of acting President Vladimir Putin and the future of EU-Russian relations. The transcript of the conversation follows:

CEP: What concerns EU leaders most about the Chechnya war?

Hasenkamp: Every European leader is stressing that the EU cannot accept the behavior of the Russian soldiers – that the use of force is excessive and the civil population is suffering disproportionally. … For example, the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer never misses an opportunity to criticize the conduct of the campaign against Grozny and the manner in which the city was indiscriminately bombed. There was no distinction made between combatants and civilians. Fischer and others emphasize that this is unacceptable behavior in the EU’s view.

CEP: Is there a discrepancy between the public comments of EU officials and their political actions?

Hasenkamp: The public stance is to be critical. At the same time, they all know there are few means to influence the conduct of the war. … Leaders like Fischer know that Europe’s overall interests are not to create a break in relations with Russia. Thus, no leader is willing to adopt measures that might risk creating tension in Europe’s relations with Russia. Europeans freely admit that there is little that they can actually do, other than express moral outrage and adopt a few symbolic gestures meant mainly for public consumption. … In the beginning, when the latest round of fighting began, some in Europe made statements that suggested that the EU might be willing to back up words with actions. But over time, the idea of introducing substantive sanctions has lost a large amount of its original appeal.

CEP: Has British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s visit to Russia on March 11 had an impact on how Europe views Putin?

Hasenkamp: There has been no major reaction to Blair’s visit. Outside of Britain, EU capitals have mostly kept quiet. There has not been much of a public reaction. … The visit may be symbolic of how Europe is giving in to reality. Everyone realizes that Putin will be elected president of Russia, and it is more important to establish good relations with Putin than to punish Russia over Chechnya.

CEP: Have the visits of EU and Council of Europe delegations had any impact on policy?

Hasenkamp: These visits are somewhat problematic for the EU’s political leaders. Every time a delegation visits and condemns atrocities it fuels public pressure to take action to stop the violence. Lord Judd has a great deal of prestige, and if he says that he is shocked by what he has witnessed in Chechnya this can influence public opinion, which can, in turn, leave policies open to criticism. … The hope among European politicians is that the war will end soon … and the issue will fade from the forefront. … European politicians know that Chechnya is not another Kosovo. Western armies will not intervene to stop the violence because Russia is clearly different than Yugoslavia. The only thing they can do is to talk to Russian leaders and pressure them to end the war as soon as possible.

CEP: What are the EU’s policy priorities vis a vis Russia?

Hasenkamp: The overriding concern of EU member states is to maintain warm relations with Russia. Everyone in Europe is aware that a large measure of Putin’s popularity within Russia depends on the conduct of the war. They are also aware that the Russian population supports the war effort. …Europeans are very aware of geography. Russia is not that far away. It is perceived as being the large neighbor to the east. It is a frighteningly big country for Europe. So the EU wants to keep its foot in the door with Russia – being careful not to isolate Moscow, and leave the Russians on their own. It is better to have a dialogue with Russia and have constant opportunities to discuss policies. … The EU is perhaps more willing than the United States to accommodate Russia. … The Kosovo War made it clear to European countries that whatever problem arises on the continent; a lasting solution can be accomplished only with Russia’s consent. That (Kosovo) demonstrated to Europeans the need to maintain good relations with Russia. … Other problems are the proliferation of weapons, crime, as well as the outdated atomic energy power stations in the former Soviet Union. Europe has a clear interest in cooperating with Russia on these issues. And cooperation in these spheres is enhanced by good relations. … Europeans remember Chernobyl (the 1986 nuclear power disaster) and they know that if another accident occurs they stand to suffer much more than Americans.

Email this article
Posted March 23, 2000 ©Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, politcal and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.