CHECHNYA LINKS LIBRARY

The Russian-Chechen conflict in the context of international politics

Musa Tumsoyev, special to Prague Watchdog

"A political solution is the only way to a lasting peace.... Both sides must respect human rights, and those who don't must be brought to trial without delay." Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen, representing the European Union at a recent EU-Russia summit, made this statement in reference to the Russian-Chechen conflict at a joint press conference on November 11 in Brussels in which Russian President Vladimir Putin took part as well.

President Putin’s speech which followed shortly after, “expounding” the threat that Chechnya has posed for the whole civilized world, astounded not only the leaders of the European Union, but the entire international community. Nobody has ever elucidated so eloquently and persuasively who the “Islamic radicals” were and explained their plans and intentions. Global destruction of Americans and their allies, the subjugation (not killing since some workforce will be needed) of all Christians, atheists, and even a substantial part of Muslims (these could be killed after all), the creation of a world caliphate – all of this would be awaiting us had it not been for Russia.

Of course, such perspectives must have raised concerns in Western countries. But how could they have been unaware of the existence of the “radicals” in Chechnya capable of preparing and executing such barbaric plans? Under these circumstances, the US steps undertaken in the war on international terror seem like “child’s play”, with Europe unable to appreciate Russia’s role as the saviour of the civilized world due to its political short-sightedness. Similar rhetoric was unacceptable even at serious academic conferences, let alone intergovernmental meetings. One fundamental question remains unanswered, though: what is the link between the Russian-Chechen conflict and “Putin-esque” interpretation of the contrivances of “Islamic fundamentalists”?

The EU-Russia meeting demonstrated that both sides not only have different understanding (as opposed to different approaches) of the essence of political solutions to regulate conflicts, but also dissimilar political culture. As widely known, the meeting was transferred to Brussels from Copenhagen due to the Russian President’s refusal to go there in protest against the World Chechen Congress that took place in the Danish capital during October 28-29, 2002. Responding to Mr. Putin’s political démarche (which, in view of Russia’s political and legal culture, he can afford), Mr. Rasmussen rejected hindering the Congress, making it clear that his country is governed by “the rule of law”.

The summit was preceded by a number of events that forced Western countries to re-open debates about Chechnya, such as the initiation of military action, aggravation of the Russian-Chechen relations, numerous helicopter downings, and endless repressions of civilians. The key fact that once again markedly accentuated the problems of war and peace in the Caucasus was the Moscow tragedy of October 23-26. And the manner in which the related rescue operation was carried out was good evidence of Russian leadership’s attitude.

The war has spawned terrorism (not the other way around) which should be denounced regardless of its forms and the advancement of its executors. The Russian-Chechen conflict brought about events (resembling those in Budyonnovsk, Kizlyar and Moscow) having an individual/group character that can qualify as “Chechen terrorism” (indicating ethnicity), but also events that can be labeled as Russian state terrorism (i.e. characteristic for a country), whereby the whole Chechen nation is held hostage, no matter where its people live.

Casualties are inevitable in an armed conflict of this scale. The military, technical, human, and financial potential of the parties involved apparently differs. We may assume that the stronger party is able to minimize losses among civilians and react to the actions of the opponent with maximum preciseness. However, it turns out to be the other way around. Casualties among civilians caused by military operations are increasingly common, which drives more people to the ranks of the Chechen resistance fighters.

The world’s position concerning victims is quite noteworthy. One might observe rather interesting approaches; some time ago, for instance, a period of virtually one year was marked by two events whose death toll among Russian servicemen was roughly the same: the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk and the shooting down of a military transport helicopter near the Khankala military base. In both cases, Russian army and political officials behaved as usual – lying about the cause of the destruction of the sub, trying to free the military of the responsibility, treating different victims in a different way.

The response of the West to the above events was symptomatic. In spite of the attempts of Russian generals and admirals to blame another country’s armed forces in the explosion on Kursk, leading states offered their condolences in connection with the incident. In the case of the Russian helicopter shot down by Chechen rebels, however, the international community expressed no condolences nor regrets. Just as no such feelings have been displayed with respect to deaths of Chechen fighters.

Could this mean that the world is willing to come to terms with military casualties in today’s wars but it fully rebukes the deaths of civilians and is able to protect their rights? The attitude to the Chechen civilian population is unfortunately even more cynical than to soldiers. For the civilians, there is no way out of the intentional confinement, for Russia sees them as an integral part of the enemy and the Chechen resistance movement perceives them as a source of potential members.

Each side of the conflict should realize that the fight for the freedom of their nation cannot be based on the nation’s destruction; that in condemning terrorism, one mustn’t profess violence against civilians; that ignoring the standpoints of international organizations, one is not entitled to request support from them for military actions. As much as in its efforts to help solve the Russian-Chechen conflict, the international community, placing responsibility for the current state-of-affairs on the fighting parties, should do more than just acknowledge the fact of human rights abuse and provide relief aid.

Large-scale operations focused on persecuting the Chechens in the whole territory of Russia and the unwillingness of other countries to harbour them as refugees proves that there exists discrimination based on ethnical aspects. The impossibility to guarantee safety to the civilians both by the battling sides and the international community leads to the conclusion that the affirmations about human rights protection without any real initiatives to save people are nothing but declarations and a cynical form of mockery of the nation. It is unfeasible to protect the interests of civilians unless the war itself is stopped and the conflicting parties are forced to conclude a peace.

The Russian-Chechen conflict has shifted to an open form of guerilla war. Recent events have shown the efforts of Russian, Chechen and even international organizations to establish peace in Chechnya. Concurrently with their surge of activity, top Russian military and political leadership firmly spoke about continuing its military campaign.

Meanwhile, the leaders of world powers and international organizations rejected violence and stressed the necessity of fighting international terrorism. Russia also quite clearly manifested that on a global scale, it acts as an ally in the war on international terror and as such is supported by the world. On a regional level, though, it represents a source of violence itself. Hence, Russia is urged to hold political talks with the Chechens to end the ongoing turmoil regardless of any global problems.

Civil organizations set up events like academic conference and workshop “Chechen deadlock – where to look for the road to peace?” (October 18-19, 2002), organized by the Union of the Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia, the World Chechen Congress (28-29 October 2002), the international conference “For the Termination of War and Establishment of Peace in the Chechen Republic” (November 9-10, 2002), organized by the Russian National Committee, the parties Union of Right Forces and Liberal Russia and a number of other civil organizations. These conferences and meetings offered grounds for discussing viable suggestions for peaceful settlement of the Caucasus problem.

No support was provided by Russian authorities, though. Moreover, the attempt to ban one of the conferences triggered off an international scandal. The “ardent” approach of Russia’s power elite to the world makes it enhance its military and regressive measures not only in relation to the Chechen resistance movement and inhabitants but also in relation to Russia’s civilian institutes that call for the termination of the war.

Conclusions for Russia

The latest four-year Russian-Chechen conflict allows us to arrive at the following conclusions:

a) the repeated attempt of Russia’s military and political elite to solve the ethno-political conflict by force justified by the fight with international terrorism was doomed to failure;

b) the war enables the resolution of strictly political goals of certain Russian power groups but fails to address Chechnya’s political status;

c) in reaching its aims, Russian authorities are ready to sacrifice not only the lives of Chechen people but also the lives of their own citizens, not to mention the direct battle casualties;

d) the war does not facilitate (more precisely, it impedes) the establishment of democratic institutes of power and the formation of a civil community in Russia;

e) the conflict has devastating effects on the Chechen community because an entire generation has been growing up under war circumstances. The radicalization of opinions is perceptible not only among Chechens, but also among the insurgents. The process of fostering puppet groups that agree to anything to secure their personal interests is closely associated with the formation of factions that do not believe in peaceful settlement of the war and support only the use of power;

f) the war provokes and Russian authorities stimulate the escalation of nationalist and chauvinist tendencies. The Chechen community is gradually being alienated from other communities. In the current Russia, this alienation has become an everyday fact.

When Chechnya entered the stage of international politics, Russia should have strived to solve the conflict as quickly as possible. Instead, Russia is actually a victim of its own policies in the Caucasus. NATO has been de facto enlarged by not only former socialist states but also ex-Soviet countries. Even Georgia, included in the Commonwealth of Independent States, where the role of Russia is crucial and is incomparable with even that of the USA in NATO, has applied for the membership. The reasons for this lie in the Chechen war. NATO and Russia form their mutual relations based on real threats to international safety – this is encouraged mainly by Russia. Allegations about NATO being transformed and the major enemy now being global terrorism are meant to ease strained West-East relationships, with the West going more eastwards.

Urgently coupling the events in Moscow of October 13-16 , 2002 with those of September 11, 2002 in New York and Washington, Russia again indulges in “euphoria” allowing it to freely proceed with its military and punitive actions on the territory of Chechnya. The “international terror” theme is probably the only issue upon which Russia and the USA are united. Acknowledging that it is linked, to a lesser extent, to Russia’s operations in the Caucasus, the USA plays its hand a little, looking for support for its policies concerning the renegade countries.

The “idyll” of Russian-US relationships is likely to end once international terrorism is defeated. Regardless of Russia’s wishes, the West will see to it that Chechnya is not perceived as the center of international terrorism in the near future. Last but not least, the current Russian policy in the Caucasus apparently postpones political regulation of the Russian-Chechen conflict until spring next year.

Presidents Bush’s statement before the NATO summit in Prague to the effect that his opinion about the need to settle the Chechen conflict politically has not changed even after the latest Moscow tragedy only confirms the above. The West is playing with Russia, taking Chechnya as an instrument for the solution of its own geopolitical tasks, which heavily irritates the Chechen society. It should alarm the Russians too. Russia should understand that the time spent on these “games” will not suffice to close the issue of Chechnya once and for all.

What to do next?

The war in Chechnya has brought political “dividends” and opened the road to the Russian presidency but cannot guarantee Russia a place in the civilized world. Russia considered its inclusion among the powerful score (NATO plus Russia) as its success. But the “twenty-member club” was an illusion, for the precise denotation would be nineteen plus one, or, since the NATO summit, twenty six plus one. With the enlargement of NATO in sight, Russia will be again assigned the role of a “plus”, but never that of a full member and partner.

Russia, brushing aside its imperial “complexes”, should not base its “great” politics on “little” Chechnya, momentary western allies, prices of oil on the world market and the exchange rate of the ruble against the American dollar, but on the creation of a civilized and democratic state. It can no longer afford the Chechnya “factor” in the building of relationships with the West. The longer the war in the Caucasus goes on, the greater the Russian-Chechen conflict and the faster the enlargement of the borders of NATO to the east and beyond.

The possibilities of peaceful (political) settlement of the conflict have not yet been exhausted. Apart from the Russian National Committee “For the Termination of war and Establishment of Peace in the Chechen Republic” (E. Bronner, S. Kovalyov, O. Orlov, L. Ponomaryov, A. Tkachenko and others) that explained the principles of the peace process in Chechnya at a recent international conference, also other civil organizations and political figures have come up with their plans and suggestions, e.g. the parties “Union of Right Forces” (B. Nemtsov), “Jabloko” (G. Yavlinski), or “Liberal Russia” (S. Yushenkov”). Also I. Rybkin, an active participant in the preparation of the Agreement between Russia and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria of May 12, 1997, has drafted his own initiative.

A peace plan has also been proposed by R. Khasbulatov, who is equally critical of both the official Russian authorities and the Chechen ones. He does not acknowledge puppet regimes and ranks among those Russian politicians who are most interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It is notable that professor Khasbulatov’s plan was recommended by the World Chechen Congress for use in the peace talks between the two parties. International experts do not lag behind. The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya represented by well-known US politicians, such as Zbigniev Brzezinski, Max Campleman, Alexander Haig and other specialists proposes its own programs for consideration.

While no remarks could be put forward against the proposals for peaceful regulation of the war, there are deficiencies in the political will and lack of responsibility for this complex issue. This deficiency is inherent not only in the parties themselves but also throughout the international community. Considering the problems of Russia and Chechnya, international organizations and leaders of world powers should assume responsibility for facilitating peace talks between the legal representatives of the parties in a conflict, as well as for the establishment and development of Chechen society in the post-war period.

International organizations (UN, Council of Europe, OSCE, European Union and others) should guarantee the observation of the achieved agreements, act as investors in the process of renewing the destroyed economy and participate in the creation of state authorities.

(P/T)