Is Journalism Worth Dying For?: Final Dispatches (2 page)

I loathe the current ideology which divides people into those who are “on side,” “not on side,” or even “on the wrong side.” If a journalist is on side he or she will receive awards and honors, and perhaps be invited to become a Deputy in the Duma. Invited, mind, not elected. We don’t have parliamentary elections any more in the traditional sense of the word, with campaigning, publication of manifestos, debates. In Russia the Kremlin summons those who are irreproachably on side, who salute at the right times, and they are enlisted in the United Russia party, with all that entails.

Today a journalist who is not on side is an outcast. I have never sought my present pariah status and it makes me feel like a beached dolphin. I am no political infighter.

I will not go into the other joys of the path I have chosen: the poisoning, the arrests, the menacing by mail and over the Internet, the telephoned death threats. The main thing is to get on with my job, to describe the life I see, to receive visitors every day in our newspaper’s offices who have nowhere else to bring their troubles, because the Kremlin finds their stories off-message. The only place they can be aired is in our newspaper,
Novaya gazeta
.

What am I guilty of? I have merely reported what I witnessed, nothing but the truth.

Published in a special issue of
Soyuz zhurnalistov
, October 26, 2006

1. Should Lives Be Sacrificed to Journalism?

A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE “TERRITORY OF GLASNOST” PROJECT

Circulated to journalists, editors, and columnists of
Novaya gazeta
.

1. Surname and first name, or pen-name:
   Politkovskaya, Anna.
   
2. Topic of specialisation:
   Anything of interest to our readers.
   
3. Your professional credo, or motto:
   What matters is the information, not what you think about it.
   
4. What is your first priority as a journalist?
   To provide as much information as possible.
   
5. What do you think about the times you live in, the people, the country?
   The people are remarkable; the country is Soviet; the times are another Time of Troubles.
   
6. What do you find most difficult to write about (and which story most illustrates that)?
   Our times.
   
7. What do you most enjoy writing about (and story)?
   People.
   
8. Why and for whom are you doing your work?
   For people, and for the sake of people.
   
9. How do you rate the work of those in power today who take decisions at the highest level and shape Russia’s reputation both inside Russia and abroad (the President, government, judiciary, parliamentary deputies, and business elite)?
   Management of the state is extremely inefficient.
   
10. How do you rate the willingness of people to regard themselves as representatives of civil society and to engage in open dialogue
    with the state authorities?
    Not highly. There is too much fear in society and too little idealism.
    
11. How do you rate the level of democracy and independence of the press? What do you think is happening in Russia to freedom of speech, and where do you personally obtain reliable information (not as a professional, but as a user)?
    Freedom of speech is on its last legs. I only trust information 100 per cent if I have obtained it myself.
    
12. What recent events do you consider to have been a landmark for yourself, the country, and society (positive or negative)?
    For the country, the occupation of Ingushetia; for society, the same; for myself, the same.
    
13. What do you see as the main problems facing Russian society?
    The fact that most people think it will never happen to them.
    
14. What qualities most impress you, and which most disappoint you, in public figures and ordinary people? (Give examples if possible.)
    I admire openness and sincerity. I am nauseated by lying and people who think they are cunning.
    
15. Which politicians, economists, people in the arts and culture, and also private citizens could you nominate for Person of the Year, Hero of Our Times, or as iconic personalities in present-day Russia?
    There are no heroes in sight. If we had one he would stop the war.
    
16. How do you rate the quality of life in Russia? What factors should be taken into account?
    Very low. The number of poor people is enormous and that is a disgrace.
    
17. What can and should people (society), politicians, officials (the state), and journalists do to improve the quality of life in Russia?
    Journalists should write; politicians should make a fuss and not wallow in luxury; and officials should not steal from poor people.
    

FSB OFFICERS CARRY OUT ANOTHER OF THEIR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AGAINST
NOVAYA GAZETA

The Editorial Team of
Novaya gazeta

February 28, 2002

As special operations go, this was a pretty dismal effort. For technical competence we award the Chekists three points, but for artistic merit, alas, zero.
^*

A statement issued by FSB representative Ilya Shabalkin claims that
Novaya gazeta
and its special correspondent Anna Politkovskaya are trying to exploit her assignments in Chechnya to “resolve their financial problems and disagreements with certain foundations.” Shabalkin has declared that Politkovskaya’s assignments are characterised by undesirable sensationalism and are hindering the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya. He also baldly asserts that these sensations are part of an attempt to persuade the Soros Foundation to write off a grant of $14,000 which
Novaya gazeta
received for work in political hotspots.

Shabalkin claims that our newspaper has failed to provide the Foundation’s Open Society Institute with an interim report, and that the Foundation has informed us in writing that it proposes to cease its financial support. Chekist Shabalkin additionally makes a particular point of claiming that Anna Politkovskaya lacked accreditation to work as a journalist in Chechnya.

All the pointers to a monstrous conspiracy are there: the link to American money, spreading disaffection among Russian troops on the orders of transatlantic fat cats, and absence of official permission to be operating in Chechnya at all.

The discovery of this plot against the Russian Federation was announced on all the main TV channels, distributed over the Interfax newswire, and gleefully published on the websites of the Effective Politics Foundation. It’s a chore, but we have to respond.
Novaya gazeta
, like hundreds of other organizations, was awarded a grant, of $55,000, by
the Soros Foundation for the purposes of establishing a database of individuals who have disappeared without trace in Chechnya; to facilitate the release of prisoners and hostages; and to provide support to an orphanage and old people’s home. It is worth remarking that, although the grant was awarded last year, we have been doing all this work since 1994.

Our colleague Vyacheslav Izmailov succeeded in freeing more than 170 kidnap victims. Through the efforts of
Novaya gazeta
, and particularly those of our columnist Anna Politkovskaya, dozens of old people survived two winters in an old people’s home in Grozny. With the aid of the Interior Ministry we moved the old people, who had completely lost hope, back to their relatives. The Soros Foundation appreciated these efforts and offered financial support, which we were glad to accept.

Of the $55,000 awarded, we have so far received only a first payment of less than $14,000. The reason is quite simply that for three months we had to hide Anna Politkovskaya outside the borders of Russia. When it was confirmed that an assassination attempt was being prepared against her, the law “On Protection by the State” was invoked until the suspect was arrested. She was granted a special status which we are not at liberty to write about.

For these reasons our report was submitted in February this year. The Soros Foundation has no complaint against
Novaya gazeta
, and in the coming 12 months we will be receiving the remaining $41,000, and will continue our work.

In the allegations of hype surrounding Politkovskaya’s assignments, Chekist Shabalkin has excelled himself. It was not we, or Politkovskaya, but the Press Office of the Joint Military Command which on February 9–10 issued a statement claiming that Politkovskaya had left the Commandant’s Office in Shatoy without informing the military. Politkovskaya had good reason to leave. The facts communicated to her by the Military Prosecutors were too serious not to.

We repeat that we issued no statements, generated no hype. That was entirely the work of the FSB using the Army as its mouthpiece. So who set the ball rolling?

The answer as to why the FSB got so exercised is to be found in
Novaya gazeta
, Nos. 11 and 12. Using evidence from the criminal case and interviews with Military Prosecutors, Politkovskaya proved with facts and documents to hand that the shooting of six civilians, including a pregnant woman, and the subsequent burning of their bodies had been perpetrated by special operations troops of Military Intelligence. It is a unique case. Thanks to the courage of the Prosecutors and the public naming of the suspects, 10 military personnel have been arrested.

The FSB makes no attempt to refute these facts in its statement: it simply ignores them. The FSB is not concerned that this crime inflames and aggravates the war. The FSB is merely concerned that Politkovskaya did not have the requisite accreditation.

Actually, she did, and we print it here. Come on, Chekists! You will need to do better than this when preparing your disinformation.

In order to implement their highly intelligent campaign, the Chekists used some of our journalist colleagues as stooges. First the ultra-respectable
Vedomosti
carried an item to the effect that we had failed to provide a report to the Soros Foundation and that payment of our grant might be stopped. Why a serious business newspaper should suddenly start counting what by their standards is the small change in somebody else’s pocket was baffling – until Shabalkin issued his announcement.

Statements were also distributed through Interfax, by then with our comments. At no point, alas, did our colleagues have qualms about printing private correspondence between
Novaya gazeta
and the Soros Foundation. You would think we were squandering taxpayers’ money or the state budget.

How the correspondence was leaked is, however, a separate issue. One copy is in the possession of the Soros Foundation, and the original was received by
Novaya gazeta
’s editor through the post.

Neither the Foundation nor the editor of
Novaya gazeta
, needless to say, passed this to the press; so somebody has been intercepting our post, opening our correspondence, trying to monitor the newspaper’s activity, and perhaps, also, the activity of the Foundation. It is gratifying to report that they found nothing more substantial than a delayed report.

As in our case, only the FSB’s failures enable us to see what they are getting up to on taxpayers’ money. As usual, they are trying to
suggest a link between articles which tell the truth about the Chechen War and Western intelligence services, Western money, and so on.

The FSB likes to show how well informed it is about other people’s affairs, especially when they are none of its business and not within its remit. So it is far easier for them publicly to point out problems in Russia which don’t exist, than to find terrorists like Khattab or Basayev. Or perhaps it is Politkovskaya and our delayed reports which are preventing them from being able to do that. Perhaps this is how they justify their professional incompetence. The replies to these and other questions will no doubt be obtained in court. Our lawyers are preparing to sue.

Don’t be in too much of a hurry, Mr Shabalkin, to spoil your jacket by making a hole in it for that medal you hope to receive.

WHAT NEXT?

March 4, 2002

First the Editor of
Novaya gazeta
requested that I, Special Correspondent Politkovskaya, should write an irate open letter to Mr Shabalkin. I thought about it and declined. Just too boring. Then the Editor said we needed to write an irate open letter to Shabalkin’s boss, Mr Patrushev, who runs the FSB. I thought seriously about this but again declined. Someone who can’t catch Basayev and Khattab with a team of many thousands is not of the slightest interest to me. He can’t even make me irate.

Then write to Putin! But instead I wrote a letter to Major Nevmerzhitsky, Commander of Reconnaissance of the Shatoy District Military Commandant’s Office.

Major Nevmerzhitsky was a witness of the Shatoy tragedy – the murder and burning of the bodies of six civilians by soldiers of the Central Intelligence Directorate (GRU), which occurred on January 11, 2002 and was officially described by Khankala as an operation to capture the injured resistance leader, Khattab. It was this atrocity I was investigating during my February assignment in Chechnya. This so irritated the FSB that they embarked on the campaign of disinformation described above. Why did I address my letter to him? Because I felt like it.

Dear Vitaliy,

See what they have been getting up to while we were trudging the tracks of Shatoy! They are saying we did it for money. Army Headquarters in Khankala claimed as much, and it doesn’t really matter whose vocal cords they used. You were running around in the mountains; gazing down on the murder scene in horror from a cliff, trying not to fall off; discussing for days who had killed whom and burned their bodies; having to face 28 orphans. That kind of work, according to Officer Shabalkin, has a dollar value.

Of course we have nothing to prove to each other, and could now just keep quiet. But you actually saw what happened at Dai and Nokhchi-Keloy, and on the road to Barzoy where the bodies of two soldiers and an officer whom the Shabalkins of this world have no interest in have been lying in the river for over two months. You know that this is not about dollars.