Inadvertent Conspiracies

Chechnya and the War on Terrorism

By N. A. Hayes

Terror. It is real. It is also a convenient excuse for manifesting hegemony. The U.S. declared war on it after September 11. Our military has been in action in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Yemen. However, the war is not just a “U.S. against them” scenario. The war on terror promises to create a new global paradigm. The hollow victory of capitalism versus communism seemed to leave the world with an identity crisis. Now this old paradigm can be replaced by the wordier struggle of industrial secular states versus low-tech religious fundamentalists.

The United States is not the only nation to engage in this struggle. The Russian Federation has also accepted it as their national cause. An even stronger role was carved for them after the Moscow Theater hostage situation last October. The Moscow Times reported Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov’s declaration that “a war has been virtually declared on us. It has neither fronts nor borders nor a visible enemy. But this is war.” The rhetoric is so familiar that it is hard to believe Minister Ivanov does not have President Bush’s speech-writing staff.

The war on terror could be something else, a continuation of industrialized nations fighting for influence over the developing world. The Guardian reported that with an unofficial troop count of 80,000, there are currently more Russian military personnel per square foot in Chechnya than in Afghanistan during the 1980s Soviet Invasion. The tenacity of the Russian Federation is not as simple as keeping Chechnya in the nation. Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent defense analyst for The Moscow Times, said Russian President Putin has announced plans to turn Chechnya into “another province with no autonomy.” The Kremlin claims there is no one to negotiate with and the conflict will continue until all “terrorists and bandits have been eliminated.” The world community recognizes the Russian claim to Chechnya, and will probably allow them to continue their operations unhindered. But this is not a simple internal matter. According to Human Rights Watch: “Russia’s actions in Chechnya have claimed far more civilian lives than the atrocities that NATO intervened to stop in Kosovo.”

Minister Ivanov added, “Russia is not discovering America.” The Russian Federation is just taking the American example. The best way to fight an invisible enemy is through “legitimate” strikes on foreign countries. This approach is not surprising. Unlike Sept. 11, the terrorists at the Moscow Theater were not international. The terrorists were from Chechnya, a renegade Russian province. However, there seem to be reasons for claiming international links.

Minister Ivanov told The Moscow Times the most apparent target for an international strike is Georgia, the former Soviet state, which is suspected of harboring Chechen separatists. This civil conflict may have leaked from the Russian borders, but carrying out a strike on Georgia seems counter-productive to the broader war on terrorism.

This is especially true since on Nov. 15, 2001, the U.S. State Department issued a press release stating that the day before, Georgia, along with Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, signed an agreement with American Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, to become part of the coalition against terror.

Much like the war in Chechnya, the Russian Federation’s incursions into Georgia pre-date the war on terror. The BBC reported on November 19, 1999 that Georgia protested at the U.N. that not only had Russian helicopters invaded their air space but had also attacked Georgian border guards.

Moscow apologized for these actions, but I wonder about their sincerity. Over a year later, on December 21, 2000, the BBC reported that the Russian Federation and Georgia were unable to work out an agreement on the lease of two military bases. The Georgian government rejected a lease of 15 years as being too lengthy. The next summer, the Russian Federation was going to have to leave two separate bases. Georgia, which during Soviet times had been under the complete control of Moscow, was pulling away. A military strike on a country which has fewer arms seems to be an easy way to bring that country under foreign influence — or was there another lesson to be learned from a millennium of empire building?

By no means is the Kremlin alone in the manipulation of the war on terror. The White House is still in the process of justifying an American invasion of Iraq. It has fallen off the radar, but there is still a desire for an Iraqi regime change — a regime friendlier to the U.S.