September 9, 2004
ON MICE THAT ROAR
Give the Chechens a Land of Their Own (Richard Pipes, The New York Times, September 9th, 2004)
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.
Many across the political spectrum are arguing that Chechen independence is inevitable and that to try and thwart it is futile. This argument resonates widely in the West, where instinctive popular sympathy often arises for any ethnic group seeking self-determination by breaking away from a larger state. There is something in us that is quick to associate such movements with the universal quest for freedom and that pulls our hearts like a magnet, even though we may know little to nothing of the history or culture of those we are cheering on. Many also believe that the persistence of these peoples and their willingness to sacrifice are unlimited, and that they enjoy widespread support among those they claim to represent. For folks like Mr. Pipes, they can no more be stopped than Canute could reverse the waves.
This phenomenon, pretty much unique to the West, is not new. It started when Lord Byron single-handedly invented the NGO by inspiring English romantics in Whig salons to yearn and agitate with him for Greek independence from Turkey. Using a deft mixture of classical romance and sublime verse, he painted a popular image of 19th century Greece that was far from accurate. Greece won her independence, but it took another 120 odd years of brigandage, frequent wars, brutal civil wars, an imported autocratic monarchy, fascist dictatorship and a near communist coup that was thwarted only by British troops and the American dime before the Greeks achieved anything like the freedoms their well-meaning but naive British patrons sought for them. Even today, much popular Greek opinion is to the effect that their freedom and democracy are huge favours they did the West for which we are appallingly ungrateful.
The struggles for independence of other countries, notably Poland, Ireland and Israel, benefited greatly from Western public opinion. They succeeded in presenting their national causes as epitomes of civilization’s noblest values. In more recent times, opinion on the left or right (or both) lined up pretty much unquestioningly with Ibos in Nigeria, Tibetans, Palestinians, Eritreans, anyone challenging the Soviet Union and whoever seemed to be the underdog of the moment in the Balkans. The little guy was always right.
It can be a huge and bloody catastrophe to confuse ethnic self-determination with constitutional liberalism. There are many instances where the success of the former destroyed any immediate chance of the latter (Eastern Europe and Africa) or actually led to mass slaughter (Indian Partition). Whatever their appalling history, the Chechen record during their autonomous period from 1996-9 gives little cause for us to be optimistic, while Russia herself appears to be moving in the right direction. If it is true as a practical matter that such movements are always destined to succeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the might of the United States can defeat any existing nation but is powerless to prevent the emergence of new ones, no matter how small, autocratic or destabilizing. Given the number of ethnic groups in this vale of tears and how they are intermingled, that is not a promising recipe for a free and peaceful world.
Either Islamicism, terror and rogue states are the most lethal threats facing us or they are not. If they are, a very welcome development would be to see the U.S., Israel, Russia and India acting in concert to meet the challenge. That isn’t likely to happen if the Russians are hammered daily over Chechnya or we become swept up by visceral sympathy for popular opinion in Kashmir. Some may worry that the failure to support causes like Chechnya would be an abandonment of the principles the war is being fought for and a cynical sacrifice of deserving peoples to the cause of great power politics. That is a perfectly reasonable worry, but it is also worth remembering that there is very little connection between what the Founding Fathers represent and the fevered dreams of murderous nationalists in many remote and savage lands.
400 years of Russian oppression and they didn't become Switzerland in three whole years? Shocking.
Posted by: oj at September 9, 2004 7:13 PMInteresting your mentioning the US, Inda, Israel, and Russia acting in concert.
I have been noodling with just such a concept. What if all four of those countries plus (post-Bush landslide), came up with solutions to Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, etc... ones that might even be generous to Muslims, and offered them as a PACKAGE DEAL to be signed off on in one swoop by most if not all Muslim governments. They would sign.... or face war and ethnic cleansing like they have never seen before. Any Muslim gov that refused to sign would be de facto hostile to the coalition, and treated as such with no ambiguity. A version of NATO would be formed to enforce it.
As Rumsfeld says, "If you can't solve a problem, enlarge it." This would interlock the problems, and give each individual party (like Putin) could compromise for the totality which would help save face. It would treat the Muslim Ummah as just that, and would be written in such a manner that Muslim governments would have huge sticks and carrots to destroy terrorism and jihadism themselves for their own good, if not survival.
Maybe too grandiose, but I like it.
Posted by: Andrew X at September 9, 2004 7:30 PMOrrin:
That is the line African intellectuals (not to mention Arabs) have used ad nauseum to excuse all manner of atrocious failures. We don't excuse Poland or Israel their misdeeds because they were oppressed for centuries. If what they have suffered has so warped them they can't avoid dissolving into fanaticism, clan warfare, corruption and hatred, why back them?
And what is so appallingly unbearable about internal autonomy within a liberal Russia?
Posted by: Peter B at September 9, 2004 7:33 PMChechnya is a small place. If 25% of them were killed in the last war, then there are under a million left.
Taking General Sheridan's advice might be valuable here.
Posted by: Bart at September 9, 2004 10:28 PMFat lot of good western sympathy did the Igbos and Tibetans.
Or the Darfurians. While I doubt most posters here put much stock in Colin Powell's opinions, he did say yesterday that what's going on there is 'genocide' (whatever that means), and while the victims are getting oodles of sympathy, they aren't getting any help.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 9, 2004 10:49 PM"What if all four of those countries plus (post-Bush landslide), came up with solutions to Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, etc... ones that might even be generous to Muslims, and offered them as a PACKAGE DEAL to be signed off on in one swoop by most if not all Muslim governments. They would sign.... or face war and ethnic cleansing like they have never seen before. Any Muslim gov that refused to sign would be de facto hostile to the coalition, and treated as such with no ambiguity. A version of NATO would be formed to enforce it."
I'm no lawyer but that sure as heck sounds like duress to me. Why would anyone be happy with a deal they're essentially forced into making?
"And what is so appallingly unbearable about internal autonomy within a liberal Russia?"
Liberalism and Russia go along as well as valour and France. Peter, you know your history. What guarantee is there that Russia won't backslide into oppressive barbarity like they have for the bulk of their recorded history? Any people that had endured as much crap from the Russians as the Chechens have is more than entitled to but as much distance between themselves and the Russkies as possible.
To me the obvious solution would be to rebuild as much of Chechnya as you can, give it independence and kill as many terrorists as you can.
Or am I missing something?
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at September 10, 2004 5:23 AMrebuild as much of Chechnya as you can, give it independence and kill as many terrorists as you can
Except that after step 2 (independence), it will be the terrorists that do the killing. And not just in Chechnya.
Posted by: Eugene S. at September 10, 2004 5:51 AMM Ali
Duress? Oh, no, we can't have any duress, can we? Everybody should be able to do what they want in international affairs. It's good for the old self-esteem.
Yes, it would be unwise to bet heavily on Russia's future direction. Mystery within an enigma, etc. Stalin could return or maybe not. In Chechyna, they could knuckle under and lose millions to save Mother Russia or they could throw in the towel tomorrow--it seems to depend on who was reading Dostoevsky last night. But if, as Orrin, Huntington, Fukayama etc. argue that the world is moving generally in the direction of liberal constitutionalism, is Russia excepted as a kind of chosen people in reverse? And even though they are usually an adversary in peacetime, they tend to be on our side when the shooting starts.
Everything I hear about the Caucacus, about which I know little, reminds me of the Balkans, about which I know some. Complex mixtures of ethnic groups with awful histories, simmering hatreds, vengeful spirits and irreconcilable, irredentist dreams. If you want peace and decency in the Balkans, you draw firm lines in the sand and tell them there will be big trouble if they cross. But if you go "the sympathy for the oppressed" route, you end up in ridiculous debates about whether the Serbs or Croats are more deserving and you can look forward to successive wars and successive slaughters.
Why, in the context of today, would we side with an unstable, terror-prone Islamic independence movement in Central Asia against a member more or less in good standing (?!)in the community of nations? Because they are small, want it and are really, really sincere? We can guess what they are likely to go through more than we know what Russia's future direction will be. My worry is that if Chechyna succeeds in getting its independence, we'll be back here in a year arguing about the justice of the South Ossetian independence movement or debating whether to bring the Chechen civil war and slaughters of their neighbours to the attention of the Security Council.
Eugene:
Oh no, they can start killing terrorists right away.
Peter:
I don't share your optimism about Russia's future. This is a country that persisted with communism for 70 years when even the Chinese threw in the towel 3 years after Mao died. Everthing I've read about the country indicates a brutal place where authoritarianism is welcomed, imperialism is championed and a very low value is placed on human life. I don't expect them to change much and given their past history I don't expect any Chechen to be comfortable being part of a Russian federation.
That's not to say the West should side with the Chechens against Russia. That's not a wise course of action. Back them up, give them support in hunting down Basayev etc. but at the same time rebuild Chechnya. Neutralise any nationalistic sympathies by letting the country go but ensure any and all terrorists are captured and killed.
As for my point about duress, why bother pretending that an agreement is acceptable to all parties when a gun is being stuck to a head? A sham of an accord would just breed more resentment in the future a la Versailles.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at September 10, 2004 7:43 AMM Ali
Who should rebuild Chechnya?
"Neutralize any nationalist sympathies by letting the country go." You mean like in Eastern Europe after WW1?
1) Anyone with an interest in preventing terror.
2) We're not living in a post-WW1 era.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at September 11, 2004 9:27 AM