The chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, Konstantin Kosachev, is a guest of the Tribune show.
- Konstantin Iosifovich, a remarkable meeting of the upper and lower houses of parliament on terrorism took place the other day. You headed the Foreign Affairs Committee in the State Duma and now you are the head of the Federation Council. How often do such meetings take place? Have you ever had similar cases?
- We organize such meetings once a year at least in order to accept the President to the Federal Assembly. It is a constitutional norm.
The President's right is to convene two chambers in a joint session. The Constitution doesn't provide for other formats.
The meeting was conducted in an unusual mode. I really cannot remember this format. The meeting had an extraordinary character and it was determined by the emergency situation, that has emerged in the world, where a terrorist international has appeared. Powers that can be compared with other states have appeared for the first time. Moreover, these terrorist entities have managed to establish communication with each other. The latest examples are Mali and France. Unfortunately, there are many such examples: Lebanon, Turkey and Kenya, to say nothing of the countries where international terrorism is established and terrorist attacks have become almost an everyday reality. These are Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. But they are links of the one chain. The center of the chain with one logic was established in order to coordinate its actions. Unfortunately, it is elusive. It exists largely in the virtual space, on social networks, but it is definitely subordinated to any united will. A wicked will. And it is a new phenomenon in human history. It has never happened before.
We compare this threat proceeding from international terrorism and the threat of Nazism. I believe that it is an absolutely correct and appropriate comparison from the viewpoint of the scale of what is happening, as well as from the viewpoint of the necessity for a collective response to this threat. How did the anti-Hitler coalition appear during World War II? The anti-terrorist coalition should be formed in the same way. But then this phenomenon was formed in one country, which had a common ideology, party and leader. The situation is different now.
I wouldn't provide terrorism with the functions and powers of a bearer of any ideology, except for the ideology of misanthropy. There are a lot of network leaders and many management centers, but the logic is the same. This situation is an emergency. It threatens the whole world. We are also links here in the chain with the rest of the world, where terrorists search for the weakest link. We should not give them such an opportunity.
- Were any decisions made at this meeting, which can be used in practice?
- Some groundwork was done beforehand if we speak about domestic particulars during preparations for this joint meeting. I and my colleagues in the Federation Council of the State Duma were give a draft decision of our joint meeting when we entered the hall. Frankly speaking, I was involved in these preparations together with colleagues from other relevant committees in both chambers, but the discussion advanced. It was one of the two main purposes of the meeting. The first is the Federal Assembly of the representative function according to the Constitution, when we had to make a manifestation of the popular will which now exists in society.
I say this without pathos. It was definitely formed around tPresident of the Russian Federation, around his actions as the guarantor of the Constitution. Let me remind you that the 20th article of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, and the President ensures the implementation of of this article by his powers, by organizing relevant anti-terrorist measures, as commander-in-chief he supervises the Russian military operation in Syria.
Firstly, we are convinced that the President's position is supported by the overwhelming majority of Russians. Secondly, we have to show the President (who is in a very difficult situation now, as he takes the whole burden of responsibility for decision-making) that society is united and supports him. It is not torn apart by differences. All small differences on other topics are set aside and we will continue to support his actions in order to ensure the safety and rights of Russian citizens.
The second part of the meeting took place in a larger format than just the two chambers (and we invited leaders of legislative assemblies of subjects of the federation, leaders of the main religious groups and denominations, representatives of public organizations, the Public Chamber and the Chamber of Youth) in order to implement a brainstorming attack in such a wide public political perspective on the challenges faced by the country's leadership and citizens of the Russian Federation, trying to find and develop new ideas and proposals in the brainstorming mode.
I really wanted everyone to understand our plan in the right way. Today we began the next stage. We shared our views, expressed a lot of new initiatives and we are expecting that all these ideas will be used by professionals during serious analysis, because counter-terrorism does not stand dilettantism.
Each of us has a right to have our own position. Each of us can speak on the topic of how to deal with this evil, but, ultimately, those who work directly against terrorists risk their lives, and their lives should be protected. It is the highest professional work to protect those who protect us. I hope that the analysis of our proposals will be carried out in the most operative way soon and it will be return to the legislators as designed, professionally prepared legislative proposals, formulated by the executive authorities, the government, as well as the relevant government agencies.
- Are you expecting a tightening of legislation in terms of fighting terrorism? I know about initiatives to deprive terrorists of citizenship and temporarily abandon the moratorium on the death penalty if a criminal case is initiated according to the article 'terrorism'.
- Terror and anti-terrorism measures are a competition between armour and shells. Legislators of any country of the world, including the Russian Federation, are trying to create all the necessary conditions for the activities of the anti-terrorist structures at each stage through the improvement of legislation. But terrorism is seeking new loopholes, becoming more resourceful and finding new parameters of its work. If we remember the tragedy in the US in September 2001, it became possible in New York because no one took away nail scissors and nail files from passengers at that time. Terrorists used them and threatened the crew, capturing an aircraft. Fluids were not taken away a few years ago at the time of boarding because there were no liquid explosives at that period of time. They appeared when other things were forbidden to take onto a plane. Unfortunately, we cannot say that our legislation is perfect and everything is done perfectly.
Already today, brainstorming sessions were started there following our discussion [among the terrorists]. They started to think how they will bypass those new solutions and measures, which we are negotiating now, so the process of improving legislation and tightening of the relevant measures is inevitable, and I'm not afraid of the word, perhaps it is infinite. In any case, it will be finished when we finally eradicate the terrorist threat.
There were various proposals. There were reasonable proposals, in my opinion, which must be implemented one way or another, but there were more emotional, more radical ones, particularly about the possible deprivation of the citizenship of individuals participating in terrorist organizations' activities. But the Russian Constitution has an exhaustive answer to this question – a Russian citizen cannot be deprived of his or her citizenship. It was a reaction of our society to the abuse of the former Soviet authorities, who often deprived people of Soviet citizenship on political grounds and expelled them from the country. Maybe the deprivation of citizenship would be an effective measure, but I would still guard our Constitution. The Constitution is a document that cannot be changed under any circumstances. Even the most disturbing. After all, there are many other options that are no less effective, but allow you not to touch the Constitution and to act within the limits set by the Constitution. I would approach the deprivation of citizenship theme very cautiously, because today we can make one exception, tomorrow something that would require a further amendment to the Constitution will appear in the mode of the competition between armor and shells. So sooner or later we will lose the Constitution or radically weaken it. And the Constitution is the foundation of our lives.
I would mention the same thing about the idea of restoring the death penalty for terrorists. I have studied this topic for many years, because it was one of the central terms of Russia's membership of the Council of Europe and I have worked in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for 8 years. As the head of the Russian delegation I have taken part in all possible discussions on this subject, so my point of view was formed. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter. It is a question of morality, not some kind of party discipline. I cannot deny a person that demands the death penalty for terrorists and who has experienced the tragedy of losing a child or parents in a terrorist attack. It would be immoral to say: "You are wrong, because somewhere, something is written in a different way." Everyone has the right to any point of view on the death penalty on the basis of their life experience, their understanding of justice, their understanding of morality. And my point of view has exactly the same right to exist. God spared me, none of my family have died in terrorist attacks, but I take the death of any person who died in an attack as the death of a loved one, as the death of a compatriot, I sincerely grieve for them. Nevertheless, I believe that the death penalty is not an effective tool against the terrorist threat.
Firstly, if we're talking about the death penalty as an act of retribution for crimes already committed, a more terrible punishment exists. When I worked in the State Duma, I had to visit death row, to see people who were sentenced to death in our country, when these sentences used to be imposed. There are such people in our country. The death penalty for them is postponed, they are sentenced to life. The vast majority told me: "It is better to be shot down than to continue to sit here, knowing that, in the first place, we can be shot at any time, and secondly, that we will never leave these walls and see the sun." It is very hard retribution.
Secondly, the death penalty as a preventive method, as a way to stop people from crossing the last line, is unlikely to stop terrorists who don't care about other people's or theie own lives.
The prospect of being subjected to the death penalty will not be a serious barrier. Many of them have a blind faith that it is an attainment, on the contrary. They think that by committing suicide and killing "infidels" they find themselves in completely different conditions.
It won't work. So I think that the main tool that actually solves the problem of the prevention of terrorism and terrorist attacks is not the rigidity of the punishment, and its irreversibility. The terrorists must know that they will be found, that they will be caught, they will be sentenced, that they will rot in prison, that they will not see any of their relatives, or anyone else, that their life will have such an end. The irreversibility of the punishment will be a much more effective tool, rather than the declared restoration of the death penalty. But that is my personal point of view.
- The president promised that the work of Russia's air forces in Syria will be strengthened. Do you think it is possible for the Russian forces to participate in a ground operation?
- First, I have not seen a single expert who would say that we can solve the problems of this operation only from the air. It is obvious that no problems of this operation can be solved without ground forces, without direct action against the terrorists, without physical contact. Secondly, I think that there is a sufficiently large number of states that deem it possible for themselves to participate in a ground operation. It's not just the United States or France, above all, these are the border states, which the terrorists "drop into" all the time, where they are physically preventing and creating not just a threat to the security of people, but violate the economic development and create a certain reputation for the region as a whole. Let's call a spade a spade. Now Egypt is among the victims. The Egyptian authorities deny the version of a terrorist act in the case of Kogalymavia, saving their reputation. But they are severely affected by the fact that international terrorism, which deters tourists, is based in close proximity to Egypt, and this is a major source of revenue for Egypt. Egypt could participate in this ground operation, because it is in its own national interests to stop this threat as quickly as possible and return Egypt to the list of states that are not associated with instability, riots and terrorist threats. There are more than enough such states in the region, and I would only welcome it if they start to develop a coalition of those involved in ground operations.
I do not see such a need for Russia. Our air attacks are very powerful, we are able to support a ground operation even more efficiently if required. In my opinion, this is more than enough, because if we appear on the ground, it will be much more difficult for us to leave than for many other countries, which will only need to withdraw their troops across the border. For Russia, this is a completely different scale, very different consequences. I support the President of the Russian Federation, who has never put the question this way. I would hope that this position will continue in the future. We do not want a repeat of the scenes of the Soviet period, when our army was tied down in ground operations in well-known places of the world.
