"GIVE THE CHECHENS A LAND OF THEIR OWN"
OP-ED By Richard Pipes, The New York Times
New York, New York,
Thursday, September 9, 2004
The terrorist attack in Beslan in Russia's North Caucasus was not only
bloody but viciously sadistic: the children taken hostage by pro-Chechen
terrorists were denied food and drink and even forbidden to go to the
bathroom, then massacred when the siege was broken. It is proper for the
civilized world to express outrage and feel solidarity with the Russian
people. But to say this is not necessarily to agree with those - including
President Bush and President Vladimir Putin of Russia - who would equate
the massacre with the 9/11 attacks and Islamic terrorism in general.
In his post-Beslan speech, Mr. Putin all but linked the attack to global
Islam: "We have to admit that we have failed to recognize the complexity
and
dangerous nature of the processes taking place in our own country and the
world in general." Re****ts that some of the terrorists were Arabs
reinforce
that line of thinking. But the fact is, the Chechen cause and that of Al
Qaeda are quite different, and demand very different approaches in
combating them.
Terrorism is a means to an end: it can be employed for limited ends as
well
as for unlimited destructiveness. The terrorists who blew up the train
station in Madrid just before the Spanish election this year had a
specific
goal in mind: to compel the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. The
Chechen case is, in some respects, analogous. A small group of Muslim
people, the Chechens have been battling their Russian conquerors for
centuries.
At the close of World War II, Stalin had the entire Chechen nation exiled
to
Kazakhstan for alleged collaboration with the Nazis. Khrushchev allowed
them
to return to their homeland but they continued to chafe under Russian
rule.
Because Chechnya, unlike the Ukraine or Georgia, had never enjoyed the
status of a nominally independent republic under the Communists, the
Chechens were denied the right to secede from the Russian Federation after
the collapse of the Soviet Union. And so they eventually resorted to
terrorism for the limited objective of independence.
A clever arrangement secured by the Russian security chief, Gen. Alexander
Lebed, in 1996 granted the Chechens de facto sovereignty while officially
they remained Russian citizens. Peace ensued. It was broken by several
terrorist attacks on Russian soil, which the authorities blamed on the
Chechens (although many skeptics attributed them to Russian security
agencies eager to create a pretext to bring Chechnya back into the fold).
A
second Chechen war began in 1999, of which there seems no end in sight.
This history makes clear how the events in Russia differ from 9/11. The
attacks on New York and the Pentagon were unprovoked and had no specific
objective. Rather, they were part of a general assault of Islamic
extremists
bent on destroying non-Islamic civilizations. As such, America's war with
Al
Qaeda is non-negotiable. But the Chechens do not seek to destroy Russia -
thus there is always an op****tunity for compromise.
Unfortunately, Russia's leaders, and to some extent the populace, are
loath
to grant them independence - in part because of a patrimonial mentality
that
inhibits them from surrendering any territory that was ever part of the
Russian homeland, and in part because they fear that granting the Chechens
sovereignty would lead to a greater unraveling of their federation. The
Kremlin also does not want to lose face by capitulating to force.
The Russians ought to learn from the French. France, too, was once
involved
in a bloody colonial war in which thousands fell victim of terrorist
violence. The Algerian war began in 1954 and dragged on without an end in
sight, until Charles de Gaulle courageously solved the conflict by
granting
Algeria independence in 1962. This decision may have been even harder than
the choice confronting President Putin, because Algeria was much larger
and
contributed more to the French economy than Chechnya does to Russia's,
and hundreds of thousands of French citizens lived there.
Until and unless Moscow follows the French example, the terrorist menace
will not be alleviated. It is as impossible to track Chechens scattered
throughout Russia as it is to intimidate the suicidal fanatics among them.
Worse, the continuation of Chechen terrorism threatens to undermine the
authority of Mr. Putin, whose landslide victory in last spring's
presidential election was in good measure due to the voters' belief that
he
could contain the Chechen threat. Russians respect strong authority, and
there are new signs that Mr. Putin's inability to wield it over Chechnya
makes them wonder whether he is fit to rule them. After the school siege,
there was much muttering in the streets that under Stalin such atrocities
would not have occurred.
Unfortunately, he seems determined not to yield an inch. "We showed
weakness, and the weak are trampled upon," he said on Saturday. This
may seem like a truism to Russians, but in this case it is wrong. Russia,
the largest country on earth, can surely afford to let go of a tiny
colonial
dependency, and ought to do so without delay. (END)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Pipes is an emeritus professor of history at Harvard and the
author
of "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution" and, most recently, of
"Vixi: The Memoirs of a Non-Belonger."
|
