Pointing the Finger at Kadyrov
By Sean at 17 July, 2009, 8:51 am
The world is reacting to the murder of Memorial activist Natalia Estemirova. Already a universal consensus has formed as to who is responsible: Ramzan Kadyrov. Everyone seems to be taking their cue from Oleg Orlov, the chairman of Memorial. “I know, I am sure of it, who is guilty for the murder of Natalia. His name is Ramzan Kadyrov,” Orlov said in a statement on Memorial’s site. Orlov accusation stems from a personal confrontation Estemirova had with Kadyrov when he fired her as head of Grozny’s Public Council. “Yes, I am up to my elbows in blood,” Kadyrov allegedly told Estemirova. “And I am not ashamed of it. I have killed and will kill bad people. We are fighting against the republic’s enemies.” Orlov claims that “these words, and further relations with her, were made with offensive language that I am not prepared to repeat, were threats. Therefore, I have no doubt that people subservient to Razman Kadyrov masterminded Estermirova’s murder, who carried out murder, violence and lawlessness in Russia and beyond Russia as well.”
Whether Kadyrov is behind the murder or not is difficult to say with any certainty. However, Orlov doesn’t appear to be accusing Kadyrov of murdering Estemirova directly. He’s blaming Kadyrov for the situation that made her killing possible. Nevertheless, many emphasize that the one thing working against Kadyrov is that Estemirova is the fourth of his opponents killed since 2006: Anna Politkovskaya, Movladi Baisarov, and Ruslan Yamadaev. Not to mention a slew of other Chechen exiles, former militants, and would be challengers. Too much of a coincidence? No says Lev Ponamaryov who made this emphatic statement to the Financial Times in regard to the Kadyrov question:
“When they kill three people in a row in a short space of time who worked on the same subject, then all questions disappear,” he said. “Politkovskaya, Markelov and now Estemirova, they were all investigating abuses by law enforcement and the killings of peaceful citizens in Chechnya – and all these people have been killed . . . It is absolutely clear.”
Kadyrov has responded to these allegations. His press service released this statement to RIA Novosti:
“I am certain that you should think about my rights before you announce to the world that I am guilty of Estemirova’s death,” the former boxer said.
The Chechnya Segodnya news agency reported that Orlov had replied that he had not accused Kadyrov personally of her death, but had meant that, as president, he was responsible for crime in the republic, which saw two brutal separatist wars in the 1990s and early 2000s.
“These criminals are being sought by the whole Chechen Republic,” Kadyrov went on. “A defenseless, innocent woman has been killed. We will do everything to shed light on this.”
Kadyrov told journalists on Wednesday evening that “a search for the criminals will be carried out not only during an official investigation, but also unofficially, according to Chechen traditions.” He did not give further details.
Kadyrov’s lawyers are now preparing a lawsuit against Memorial in response to Orlov’s accusations.
Even if Kadyrov isn’t the culprit behind of all of these abductions, tortures, and killings, it doesn’t bode well for Chechnya or neighboring Dagestan and Ingushetia. Nor Russia for that matter. President Medvedev may express outrage over Estemirova’s murder and call accusations against Kadyrov “unacceptable,” but the truth of the matter is that its been only three months since he announced the end of operations in Chechnya, yet low level violence in the region continues unabated. What is clear to analysts is that Moscow’s control over the North Caucasus is at a minimum. And the more Moscow pushes, the more tense the situation becomes on the ground. As Valery Dzutsev explains in regard to Ingushetia,
Moscow’s policy in the region has led increasingly to direct rule from Moscow over Ingushetia, which so far has yielded largely negative results. Local presidential elections were abolished; the Russian security services acted without much consultation with the local authorities; important political issues on the ground, like the issue of contentious Prigorodny region, were ignored. These moves have led to a situation in which the local elites have virtually ceased to have any stake in a stable situation in Ingushetia. Appointing the current political regime in Ingushetia already constitutes de facto direct rule from Moscow, but rule from the federal center will further alienate the local elites and decrease their willingness to maintain order and stability in the republic.
None of this exactly explains who was behind Estemirova’s murder. It does give an impression of the context in which it occurred.
And what of the Russian media? What are they saying about Estemirova’s murder? I don’t know if the story was on the front page of Russia’s dailies, but judging from the number of articles on the internet, it is hard to say that “coverage of the murder in Russia was muted,” as the Financial Times suggests. But the debate isn’t so much about Estemirova, but what the murder says about the wider situation in the region.
Nezavisimaya gazeta, for example, posits a number of questions about why nothing has been done to quell an increasingly violent situation in the region.
On the whole human rights activists accuse the [Chechen] government, and the government blame fighters who murdered Estemirova to destabilize the situation in the republic and overthrow Ramzan Kadyrov. In the meantime, a number of diverse questions arise from the situation.
Why didn’t security organs in Chechnya respond sooner to facts Estermirova provided about abduction and the murder of people? Why only after the abduction and brutal murder of Esterimova were the best investigators from Moscow dispatched to Chechnya and Ingushetia in order to begin an investigation of the following vociferous crimes? Did Moscow really believe the assuring claims of the Chechen government that in the republic “is more secure that any other region in the country”? If they did believe this, that means they didn’t have the situation under control because briefs about a variety of emergency incidents in the republic were regular. If they didn’t believe them, then why did they not undertake the appropriate measures?
. . .
Human rights activists are not the only ones speaking about how there is no democracy, an absence of civil society, and elements of authoritarianism in the Russian Caucasus, but also state officials. They say, who will dare risk their life to stand against a system of lawlessness that exists in the North Caucasus? Perhaps it is better for our government to not contest similar statements today, but to concretely prove to opponents that the government has control over the situation in Russia’s south. And if there isn’t control, then this must honestly be recognized. And have society, experts, and maybe even (restrain our pride) have international human rights organizations openly debate on how to fix the situation.
Moskovskii komsomolets‘ Vadim Rechkalov thinks that while Kadyrov appeared ebullient after the death of Sulim Yamadayev, Estemirova’s death might “might mark the end of his career.” However, he is under no illusions: “Kadyrov will remain the president as long as the Kremlin permits it. If he is to be sacked, it is not going to happen because of anything exposed by the human rights community.”
This brings up the question of how long the Kremlin will tolerate Kadyrov. Rechkalov argues that the Chechen hetman might already be losing his clout.
The president of Chechnya is clearly losing his clout. The counter-terrorism operation regime was lifted, but the promised economic freedoms never materialized. Gunmen in the meantime grew noticeably more active. Clashes with the police and attacks from ambush are reported practically every day. Kadyrov proclaimed gunman ringleader Doku Umarov dead a month ago and said that the splinter groups still in the mountains couldn’t number more than 70 gunmen. He was wrong. Umarov is alive and there must be many more gunmen than 70, if the scope of their operations in the Caucasus is any indication. Plus the latest outrage – assassination of a prominent human rights activist the Western community is already pestering Moscow about. Showing the Kremlin (and the world) that Kadyrov is not in control was clearly one of the criminals’ objectives.
Therefore, it might be better to resist the clamor that Kadyrov is directly responsible for Estemirova’s murder. Because clearly, Kadyrov is more a symptom of a much wider disease that plagues the region and Russia in general.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/world/europe/18chechnya.html
Kadyrov is suing for libel. It’s always the dictators who really suffer.
Kevin, didn’t you read? Kadyrov is a father and does have a family. You should be a bit more sensitive . . . and understand how he feels.
Whoops, didn’t finish your article, Sean. My bad.
Kudos for your very informative post, Sean.
If Medvedev is his own man and not part of a tandemocracy in which he plays the good cop to Putin’s bad cop, I feel bad for Medvedev. After all, Medvedev inherited the Chechnya situation from Putin. I don’t know if Russia can do anything about Kadyrov and his thugs without once again spilling a lot of blood, but Kadyrov is there because of Putin.
Thanks Kolya. I think it will be a real test for Medvedev if he chooses to act. To remove Kadyrov would mean that Putin made a big blunder for backing him in the first place. I just wonder if his announcement to end military operations in Chechnya in April will end up being his George Bush moment.
I would trust more “human rights activists” if they didn’t recieve prizes from committees established by Brzezinski and Vanessa Redgrave,(a soul friend of Basaev) so that it would look like wahhabists are at one with BBC.
Hey, as I wrote before, I suspect that Khabar is an impostor. Someone planted by Russophobes to make Russians look bad and petty.
I always thought Moscow’s point of having Kadyrovs was not about exercising direct control but rather the opposite. The Russians gave the fight to the Chechens and I guess the Kremlin cares little about the nature of their allies. The enemies are no better.
It is also questionable whether talk of human rights would help a godforsaken, dog-eat-dog country like Chechnya. The Russians fought two wars that have not improved but rather worsened the security situation in the Caucasus and human rights violations were common during these prolonged conflicts. It is therefore wishful thinking to want the Kadyrovs to behave like saints.
As sad as it is, I don’t understand the outrage and the accusations flying around. Whoever did this does not change the fact that idealism of these do-gooders is futile and has its dangers.
A murder of the imam of the central mosque in Buinaksk, Caucausus, was attempted today, Interfax reports. One of the “rebels” was killed, the other one escaped.
http://www.interfax.ru/society/news.asp?id=90782
Does anyone has a finger to point?
Not Basaev, it was Zakayev. My bad, Kolya.
“I always thought Moscow’s point of having Kadyrovs was not about exercising direct control but rather the opposite. The Russians gave the fight to the Chechens and I guess the Kremlin cares little about the nature of their allies. The enemies are no better.”
Of course. The war was never about Chechen independence. The war was about a Chechnya that was terrorizing its neighbors. What the Kremlin did, effectively, was tell the “Chechen rebels” that, if they removed those threatening elements from the republic, they could be in charge.
That’s why almost all of the former “Chechen rebels” are now Kadyrovtsy living in a de facto independent state. The same people are governing Chechnya now who were governing it in 1997-1999. They have their functional independence. They have everything Maskhadov etc. ever promised.
By the way, that’s why Kadyrov is so popular.
“Kadyrov is there because of Putin.”
Kadyrov is there because he has a 10,000-man private army composed of former rebels.
“To remove Kadyrov would mean that Putin made a big blunder for backing him in the first place.”
To remove Kadyrov would be difficult, considering the 10,000-man private army composed of former rebels.
I mean, really. Who is going to remove Kadyrov? The Chechen police, formed of former rebels, all loyal to him? The Chechen army, formed of former rebels, all loyal to him? That leaves the federal armed forces (i.e., starting a Chechen War III), or I suppose he could be arrested by Russian police in Moscow.
Reflect for a moment on the results this would have in Chechnya. What are those former rebels going to do upon seeing their sovereignity threatened by Moscow?
“The Russians fought two wars that have not improved but rather worsened the security situation in the Caucasus”
I don’t think that’s true. In 1999 a human rights activist wouldn’t have lasted a year in Chechnya. He or she would have lasted about a day. That’s why there weren’t any human rights activists in Chechnya in 1999. The Red Cross pulled out in 1996 when their workers were murdered.
They are not so independant as one can think, Chechnya is the biggest recepient of the federal money after all. Which is not the reason for a Chechen man to stop embushment some of his ilk.
Independent in the sense that they do whatever the hell they want.
“embushment”?
Wait a second here.
“it doesn’t bode well for Chechnya or neighboring Dagestan and Ingushetia. Nor Russia for that matter.”
Um?
ambush.
em-Bush-ment.
The statements: “Kadyrov is there because of Putin,” and “Kadyrov is there because he has a 10,000-man private army composed of former rebels,” do not contradict each other. And yes, Chechnya is a de facto independent entity. And yes, as I wrote above, more than likely Russia would not be able to get rid of Kadyrov without spilling a lot of blood. But if they don’t do anything about it, what we have then is that within its own borders Russia has a murderous thug getting money from Russia while running his own fiefdom. It’s a fucked up situation and Putin shares a lot of the responsibility for it.
“The statements: “Kadyrov is there because of Putin,” and “Kadyrov is there because he has a 10,000-man private army composed of former rebels,” do not contradict each other.”
The implicit connection is that Kadyrov already had the giant (by Republic standards) army before he became president of Chechnya (with the likely approval of most Chechens). It was this fact that made him the only possible choice. Because otherwise there is a good chance he’s going to take his 10,000-man army back into the hills, thus restarting the war.
It seems that you are trying to exonerate Putin of all responsibility for the Chechnya situation. Amusingly enough, while doing so you are pretty much saying that Kadyrov had Putin’s Russia by the balls and Putin relented. According to you, Kadyrov (at least implicitly) said: “either I’m the leader of Chechnya or I will turn against you, take my men to the hills, and start killing Russian soldiers,” and the Putin said, “No, no, you be Chechnya’s boss, just don’t kill our soldiers and we will leave you alone.” Does not make Putin look good. It is as if he had so little faith that his armed forces would be able to deal with a thug with 10,000 men that he threw up his hands and let Kadyrov have his way. I’m sure Putin does not like to remember his bluster and confident claims with respect to Chechnya when he was Prime Minister and earlier in his presidency. So, yes, Putin is largely responsible for the fact that Kadyrov is now in power there.
“It seems that you are trying to exonerate Putin of all responsibility for the Chechnya situation.”
The Chechen situation does not have to do with the individual actions of Putin. It has to do with the logic of power relations and the state of affairs in Chechnya and Russia more broadly.
“Does not make Putin look good.”
So? I don’t care about making Putin look good. I care about reality.
Do you want Kadyrov and his boys to go back in the hills? You want another war? I guess so, because that’s what would happen. But this time you would feel good about yourself.
“It is as if he had so little faith that his armed forces would be able to deal with a thug with 10,000 men that he threw up his hands and let Kadyrov have his way.”
I thought you wanted the war to end and people’s lives to be saved. I thought you wanted some kind of accomodation with the rebels, not to exterminate them all. Guess what, that’s what you have. The rebels are in power, and Chechnya is de facto independent, with far less murder and horror than in Chechnya’s previous periods of de facto independence. Wait, I think I get it. When a bunch of thugs running an indepedent Chechnya are anti-Moscow, you should negotiate with them. After you negotiate with them and they become pro-Moscow, you should fight them to the death, irrespective of what carnage this causes in Chechnya. We do not care about the people being bombed while Moscow is trying to exterminate the kadyrovtsy; we care about 4 or 5 heroic human rights activists.
As John Lydon once said, this is what you want, this is what you get.
““It is as if he had so little faith that his armed forces would be able to deal with a thug with 10,000 men that he threw up his hands and let Kadyrov have his way.”
BTW, this is what is particularly hilarious. Kolya wants the people who fought Russia in Chechnya War I to repeat the process, only this time Russia will win, because God will be on Russia’s side this time, because God hates people who kill human rights activists.
The doubly hilarious part is the idea that Russia was wrong wrong wrong in invading Chechnya in 1999 because of the kidnap industry, which kidnapped several thousand people, and Khattab and Basaev’s invasion of Dagestan, which left 35,000 IDPs and who know how many dead. Plus those apartment building bombings.
Whereas using military force to take out Kadyrov would be perfectly acceptable, because — he might have killed a human rights activist! Oh noes!
This position is so morally repulsive that the mind boggles.
Another good example of Chris’s intellectual dishonesty and distortions.
“Do you want Kadyrov and his boys to go back in the hills? You want another war?”
No, Chris. Nowhere did I say nor implied that. Tipically, in your two comments below mine you created a straw man and then demolished it. What a pathetic waste.
I made it perfectly clear that I’m not sure whether Russia and Medvedev would be able to deal with Kadyrov without shedding blood. Yes, I would like Kadyrov, a thug responsible for many deaths, to be arrested and pay for is crimes. Whether that’s realistic I don’t know. I doubt it. I certainly don’t expect it (but would love to be proven wrong.) Nowhere, though, did I indicate otherwise. I did say that this makes Putin, especially after all his bluster and confidence from way back, look bad. Whether or not you care about it does not change that.
Periscope depth…Suface!
I’m surprised about the two analyst’s statements in the article, i.e. ‘Moscow is in charge’ & ‘Kadyrov is up the creek’.
I’m sure that I read only a couple of weeks ago that Putin had put Kadyrov in charge of Ingushetia’s security, i.e. a clear recognition that even his replacement of the Ingush President (and others) has been a failure.
It appears to me that Kremlin is quite worried as it has realized its effective tools are somewhat limited, hence Kadyrov being handled the mantle (poisoned alice if you will).
Of course while I agree with Chris that Chechnya is ‘de facto’ independent, hanging over this is that Putin has demonstrably shown that he has no qualms over bringing down a considerable sh*tstorm of death to the rebels and anyone nearby after the Daghestani escapade and doesn’t care what the outside world says. Any future conflict chechen rebels would be facing a much(!) better trained and equipped russian army too.
Sometimes I think this is the same real strategic rationale used by the west in Afghanistan et al. It is not, I will win at whatever cost, but I will make you bleed and bleed and bleed ’till you decided you want to talk, preferring to kill lots of civilians by ‘accident’, collateral damage’ to save precious soldiers lives. This of course failed in Vietnam, but not every country is far away and not every enemy are like the vietnamese.
My qualms a really that the Ingush really, really don’t like and don’t want the wideboys of the caucasus muscling in on them (Ikcherian(sp?) Republic ‘n’ all that), not to mention the Daghestanis etc.
What will/can the Kremlin do if Kadyrov cannot contain the situation in Ingushetia???
As for the whacking of Estermirova, I’m not sure ‘masterminded’ is in any comprehension really applicable, certainly not a word I would use in association with Kadyrov or his willing flunkies. Maybe he would be a mastermind if he found a legal way to avoid his parking fines rather than having the meter maid/cop killed and his/her boss fired… /pedantry. Killing Estermirova like that is about as clever as killing someone with radioactive material…though one should never let common sense get in the way of a good story!
“Strange things are afoot at the CircleK”
Dive, dive, dive.
Of course, Chechnya is independant country, they use different currency, they have different army which doen’t participate in Russia’s operations abroad, they have their spirit leaders in Saudi Arabia…
What else?
Kolya,
I can’t help but notice that while you insist that Putin’s accomodation with Kadyrov is an abomination, you would be perfectly comfortable with Bush leaving Saddam in charge of Iraq.
P.S. Please, lay off with the dated “intellectual honesty” schtick, it’s gotten old long time ago.
I think the difference is that Bush didn’t put Saddam in power, while Putin put Kadyrov there.
Exactly right, Sean. In addition, NOT to invade a foreign country by no means implies accomodation with its regime. It’s stupid to equate the trying to economically and diplomatically isolate a government with providing funds and support to a government.
>>>I think the difference is that Bush didn’t put Saddam in power, while Putin put Kadyrov there.
…which turned into human-right catastrophe for Iraqis. Many still love Saddam for that.
A strong case can be made that Saddam in 2003 was even less independent actor than Kadyrov is now.
But let’s dispose with technicalities, Kolya. What we are talking about is Crimes and Punishments. You judge Kadyrov guilty of crimes and demand him to be punished, absolutely. Saddam, not so much. Why the double standard?
Why do you spread tissues of lies, Kolya?
Like this, “…NOT to invade a foreign country by no means implies accomodation with its regime.”
Well, NOT to invade a by no means implies accomodation with its , either.
Or like this, “It’s stupid to equate the trying to economically and diplomatically isolate a government with providing funds and support to a government.”
Both Kadyrov and Saddam terrorized their countries and murdered their opponents. You might try to draw distinctions and say that Russian government was “supporting” Kadyrov while the US government was “opposing” Saddam, but for those Chechens and Iraqis who were starved, terrorized and murdered there was no difference.
Isn’t it good to see a cruel despot to hang off the end of the rope once in a while? According to you, apparently not, when your Party talking points says so.
By the way, to demand perfect justice done in this imperfect world in a few isolated selected cases only, is the greatest “intellectual dishonesty” of them all.
“…NOT to invade a foreign country by no means implies accomodation with its regime.”
Well, NOT to invade a rebellious province by no means implies accomodation with its ruler, either.
Damn.
Candide, you are either being dense or are being, yes, dishonest once again. And, oh, how you love straw men!
As you know there is a huge difference between actively supporting someone by providing him with funds and recognition (what the Kremlin is doing, so far, with Kadyrov) and isolating a regime militarily, diplomatically and economically (which is what the US was doing to Saddam before 2003.) The Kremlin is not treating Kadyrov the way the US treated Saddam in, say, 2000, or the way Bush treated Kim Jong-il.
And by the way, I don’t demand “perfect justice” because I know that it’s an impossibility. If I demanded perfect justice I would, among other things, be clamoring for Cheney to be arrested and tried. I don’t clamor that. That is not to say, however, that we should throw up our hands and not do anything. As the saying goes, politics is the art of the possible.
So long, folks, I have to get going.
Before Chechen’s first war there was a massive fled of non-Chechen population from the region. Russians were killed, raped and ousted from their homes. These deeds are well-documented but no one is punished. And will never be punished.
Human right activists don’t recieve money for such things.