FP Shines a Light on Russian Abuses in Dagestan

Between the news of his government's provision of weapons to the murderous Assad regime and his support for legislation that will sharply restrict the Russian people's right to assemble, the past few weeks have delivered a harsh blow to Vladimir Putin's already-dubious human rights record. In an article published late last week, Foreign Policy's Anna Nemtsova shines a light on another one of Russia's continuing human rights abuses, namely, the government's ongoing conflict with Muslim insurgents in Dagestan.

Providing a background to the conflict, Nemtsova writes:

The Dagestan insurgency began with the spillover of militant activity following Russia's harsh crackdown on neighboring Chechnya in the late 1990s. Although the region is traditionally Sufi, militant Salafi imams have been making inroads in the North Caucasus since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In recent years, the region has been the scene of a vicious cycle of violence and repression: police and special forces have arrested thousands of young Salafists throughout the North Caucasus republics, which in turn has driven more young men -- and increasingly women -- to various jihadi groups that aim to establish an Islamic state encompassing the entire North Caucasus. With thousands of active fighters, the insurgency in Dagestan is now reportedly the largest in the Caucasus.

Despite the intensity of the conflict, which claimed the lives of 254 Russian police officers in 2011, Nemtsova notes that the Russian populace, and indeed most of the world, has little awareness of the Dagestan situation, asserting that, "State television rarely broadcast images or even official comments about the increasing human rights abuses by the FSB [Federal Security Service] or police in Dagestan."

Furthermore, as noted by Nemtsova, these human rights abuses are pervasive and widespread. In her article, Nemtstova highlights the Russian police force's use of beatings and electro shock torture, along with the central government's policy of assigning "men known for their criminal background" to leading positions at security agencies. Nemstova's account is corroborated by a range of other sources, such as Amnesty International's 2011 Human Rights Report, which asserted that in recent years, Dagestan has seen "an increase in arbitrary detentions and enforced disappearances," while "lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders faced increased attacks and harassment."

Nemtsova's article certainly paints a bleak picture of the situation in Dagestan. However, even more disheartening is the reality that Putin is unlikely to change his strategy in the region anytime soon. UN calls for a transparent Russian investigation into human rights abuses in Dagestan have more or less fallen on deaf ears, clearly indicating that Putin has little interest in opening himself up to more criticism of his handling of the conflict. More importantly, Putin's prior experience in dealing with Islamic insurgencies gives him little reason to adopt a less forceful strategy in Dagestan. After all, his brutal strategy in Chechnya, which featured indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas and more than 5,000 "enforced disappearances" of enemy fighters, ultimately led to a Russian re-establishment of control in the region, however Pyrrhic the victory may have been. Disturbingly, it appears that Putin is unlikely to be dissuaded from pursuing a similar strategy in Dagestan. Yet, given Putin's recent actions in the human rights arena, his commitment to inflicting even more abuses upon the people of Dagestan is unlikely to surprise many.