Is Journalism Worth Dying For__ Final Dispatches - Anna Politkovskaya [134]
What conclusions have you come to as to why the group which seized the Beslan school was formed?
For that you would need to study the composition of the group. The identity of eight of the terrorists has not even been established; on the others we possess only such general information as their names, their nationality, the fact that some had previous convictions, and that some were taking drugs. But how did those who were on drugs manage to resist so desperately for several hours? There is one extraordinary episode: Khuchbarov shot three of the terrorists, two women and a man, for refusing to obey his orders. When the children started drinking urine and were suffering terribly, these people started shouting at Khuchbarov that he couldn’t do this and must release the children. In other words, they took part in the hostage-taking but in the course of it repudiated their previous aims, and for that they were killed. Who were those three? Should not their bodies have been returned to their relatives? Are they resistance fighters or victims? There is a concept in law of voluntarily refusing to go through with a crime. That does not completely exonerate you, but it is taken into account when the sentence is being decided. Unfortunately, the Commission did not look into the terrorists’ personalities. I may propose that we should.
Beslan is part and parcel of the Chechen slaughter, one episode in an ongoing drama. If the Commission is supposed to be establishing the causes of the school seizure, then quite plainly they are not to be found in Ossetia. I am alarmed that nobody is intending – and here I fundamentally disagree with Torshin’s report – to investigate the causes. In the report being prepared there is no consideration of why the resistance fighters appeared in the first place. Why do they enjoy support in their society? What role in all this is played by the massive violation of human rights in Chechnya?
Did the Commission at least study the history of the attack on Ingushetia on June 21–22, 2004, immediately prior to Beslan?
No. What are my disagreements with the Commission? The first point is that Putin, by refusing to provide Maskhadov with safe passage, made it certain that the assault would take place. Secondly, Patrushev and Putin’s advisers [Anisimov and Pronichev, Deputy Directors of the Russian FSB] had major involvement but are bearing no responsibility at all. Thirdly, the violation of human rights in the Caucasus is a major cause of the Beslan tragedy, engendering more and more new resistance fighters. Fourthly, we failed to investigate the causes. The seizure of Ingushetia and other terrorist acts were not examined by the Commission at all, as if they were completely unrelated to Beslan.
There is a serious problem. Given all the confusion that arose, and after the assassination of Maskhadov, there is speculation about an appalling alternative explanation. You hear this whenever Duma Deputies are talking among themselves. Perhaps, in order to stop Maskhadov getting to Beslan, somebody organised the explosion inside the school which triggered the assault and all the rest of it. According to the report of the Kesayev Commission, Advisers Anisimov and Pronichev had their own separate office in the operational headquarters. What was going on in there? What decisions were being taken? Who is going to believe now that the explosions were accidental, especially when they didn’t occur on the ground floor, where there is not even a crater, but somewhere above the ceiling?
The President himself sowed the seeds for this explanation of events. It is an explanation which people are trying not to discuss and are pretending does not exist, but which would totally discredit the state. That is why I want answers from Putin.