October 27, 1999
RUSSIA'S 'ESCALATION IN CHECHNYA': WHAT CAN THE WEST DO?
The escalation of Russian attacks in Chechnya as federal troops advance toward Grozny led commentators outside of Russia to ask anew what can be done to "stop this bloodbath." Opinionmakers from nearly all regions continued to register sharp disapproval of Russia's action, referring to it variously as "genocide temporarily camouflaged as an 'anti-terror action'" and a "campaign of attrition and human rights violations." Several stressed that Moscow has again embarked on an "unwinnable war" and warned, as did a Belgian writer, that Russians are "wrong if they believe that, this time, they will be able to force Chechens to their knees quickly." Editorialists also were unsparing in their criticism of the West. Citing recent statements by EU and U.S. officials, most judged the West's "lukewarm condemnation" of Russia's military campaign to be "too little, too late." Contrasting the West's reaction to "the massacres in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor" to the "very softly" stated reprimands directed at Moscow following the Grozny marketplace attacks, some revived the idea that a Western "double standard" is at play. The "U.S. warning" that the Kremlin "should not conquer Grozny with force," according to an Italian paper, "reflects the caution of an administration that feels an urgent need to put the strategic dialogue with Moscow on the right track." Citing Washington's interest in obtaining Russia's okay to revise the ABM Treaty, a Belgian pundit added, "One does not blame people from whom one asks a favor." Russian papers remained largely supportive of their government's offensive, and reserved their editorial ire for what they saw as unwarranted Western scrutiny of an internal matter. "Russia is no Yugoslavia. The Yankees must know that," warned a nationalist/opposition daily. Additional highlights follow:
VIEWS FROM RUSSIA: Holding that "Russians have not done anything in Chechnya that the Americans, British or French did not do in Iraq or the Balkans," reformist Izvestiya echoed a typical view in asserting, "We don't have to make excuses to the West" for "fighting against terrorism." Among those supporting "use of force," however, opinions differed on whether or not to engage the Chechens in talks. While one advised that "we should use political means as well" as force to avoid a "long war," another held that until "Maskhadov turns in terrorists...talks make no sense." A far lesser number criticized the military operation, with one contending that the "explosions in Grozny suggest that the feds and the militants are using the same methods."
'NO EXCUSES FOR SILENCE': Commentators saw the stepped-up Russian offensive as evidence that Moscow believes it can afford to disregard appeals for an end to the fighting from the EU and the United States. Concluding that "in fact, there isn't much [the West] can do," a French commentator noted soberly, "This economic and moral dwarf wears the nuclear and strategic boots of a giant. We cannot afford to push it around. And it is well aware of it." Nevertheless, an increasingly vocal contingent of analysts from France, Germany and Italy joined others in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Canada in urging the West to "make its condemnation of Russia's actions...clear." "Beyond mere verbal indictment," argued a Pakistani pundit, "the West must consider intervening and taking punitive action, like a suspension of aid or embargoes." Conceding that "nobody wants to start a fight with a nuclear giant," a Berlin pundit held, however, that "clear words and the threat to impose sanctions and reject future calls for...credits are the minimum that one could expect" from Western capitals.
EDITOR: Katherine L. Starr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 56 reports from 23 countries, October 20-27. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
RUSSIA: "Nobody Dares Blacken Army"
Viktor Pritula stated on page one of neo-communist Slovo (10/27-28): "Today nobody dares to urge a halt to the fighting, and even less to speak ill about the army, as in 1995-1996. But some people, primarily pro-Western politicians, would like to do that. The West is 'concerned' over the Russian army's action. In fact, it can't think of a better opportunity to try to put Russia in its 'proper place.' For the Americans, Chechnya is a chance to try to secure Russia's agreement on ABM."
"One Million For Basayev's Head"
With a one-million-dollar reward set for the capture of number-one terrorist Shamil Basayev, reformist business-oriented Kommersant Daily said (10/27): "The reward may indeed cost less than a special operation to find and destroy the terrorist, which, apart from material expenses, may involve the loss of lives among the federal troops. But even if the government and unnamed businessmen are ready to pay, this will hardly help seize Basayev."
"Chechens Refuse To Talk"
Maksim Yusin noted on page one of reformist Izvestiya (10/26): "Chechnya's top governing body, a national defense committee, has made a statement, virtually refusing to hold talks with Moscow. The Chechens have put forward obviously unacceptable demands. Many of those demands are downright absurd. Grozny's demarche makes things easier for Moscow in its dialogue with the West. It is completely unlike an innocent victim of an 'unprovoked aggression' to be so daring and provocative. How do you talk to someone who does not want to talk to you? You can force the Chechens into talks, of course, but what will the West say to that? The West is against the use of force, whether in a noble cause or not."
"Public Supports Army"
Vyacheslav Nikonov stressed in reformist Izvestiya (10/26): "It is good to see Russia determined at last, after three years of fully conniving in building a Chechen gangland before the whole wide world. One cannot help but admire our brave soldiers, from private to general, and their resolve to finish what they were not allowed to finish in the previous campaign. Now they have better opportunities to do that, with the Russian public, the main political forces, and the media strongly behind the use of force.... But the use of force alone spells a long war or unacceptable casualties. So we should use political means as well."
"Every Chechen Doesn't Like Terrorists"
Vera Alyokhina and Aleksandr Alf pointed out in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (10/26): "Not all Chechens like the leaders of international terrorists who kill indiscriminately. The feds can find support among those who want to run Chechnya on their own, including as part of Russia."
"Lack of Government"
Svetlana Babayeva said on page one of reformist Izvestiya (10/26): "A lack of strong government in Russia worries foreign leaders who have always been loyal to Yeltsin, as well as the Russian electorate....
"The current authorities have long since been unable to think rationally and to plan at least a step ahead. Whoever the premier is, the host of problems, including the economy and corruption, will be handled, but not before the presidential elections. In the meantime, the focus is on keeping the incumbents safe."
"Feds, Chechens Use Same Methods"
Andrei Viktorov remarked on page one of reformist Segodnya (10/23): "Last Thursday's explosions in Grozny suggest that the feds and the militants are using the same methods. If that is so, we are in a war without rules."
"We Have to Accept Losses"
Valery Yakov contended in reformist Noviye Izvestiya (10/23): "Numerous casualties among the peaceful population--including those from 'unidentified flying objects,' of which there were many also during the previous campaign--are unavoidable this time too, as are heavy losses among the attacking troops. This is something we have to face up to, sad as it may sound. The truth will out, no matter how the authorities try to hold back on the losses. We failed to prevent them, so we should learn to live with them."
"We Don't Have To Make Excuses To The West"
Maksim Yusin stated on page one of reformist Izvestiya (10/23): "As we talk to the EU leaders, we should first of all use the right tone. We are ready to lay down our cards and share our plans with them as our partners and allies, hoping to secure their sympathy and possibly cooperation. After all, we are on the same side of the barricade, fighting against terrorism, Islamic bigotry, obscurantism and the slave trade. But Putin must under no circumstances make excuses. There is nothing for which we should make excuses to the West. The Russians have not done anything in Chechnya the Americans, British or French did not do in Iraq or the Balkans."
"Milosevic's Terrorists Did Not Blast NY Apartment Buildings"
Yevgeny Umerenkov argued in reformist youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (10/23): "Lots of things happened during NATO's 11-week air war in Yugoslavia. To win in the Balkans, it had to drop almost a quarter of a million tons of bombs. More than 600,000 refugees streamed out of Kosovo, fleeing NATO's bombs, not the Yugoslav army. Now they choose to forget that, focusing on Chechnya--What are the Russians doing there? Aren't they bombing too often? Won't it cause a humanitarian catastrophe? Hey you there in Moscow, you have to be more careful. Yugoslavia is a foreign land to NATO. It is not even in NATO's zone of responsibility. By contrast, Chechnya is part of Russia."
"Premier's Modest Success"
Viktor Sokolov, commenting on the EU-Russia summit in Helsinki, said in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (10/23): "Javier Solana and his colleagues only chided Russia, hinting at a need for 'proportionate action' in Chechnya. But the joint statement, signed in Helsinki, came as a success, albeit modest, for the Russian premier who tried to keep the West from seeing things in the North Caucasus in a way that would be disadvantageous to Russia.... The U.S. stand on Chechnya, as voiced by a White House spokesman the other day, sounds hypocritical. On the one hand, the United States recognizes Russia's (territorial) integrity and right to counter terrorist actions. On the other, Washington is worried over the escalation of fighting which results in victims among the civilian population. From a country which bombed Yugoslavia quite recently, it sounds really strange."
"An Equal Among Equals"
Reformist weekly VEK (10/22) had this comment by Grigory Chernenko on the G-8 anti-crime ministerial in Moscow: "The important thing is that Russia acted as an equal among equals at the summit. Severely battered by economic and political crises, corruption, crime, and home-grown and international terrorism, Russia is pushing on down the road of democracy, its government undaunted by the challenges.... Putin is probably the first premier in many years to clearly and unambiguously pledge himself to fight terrorism, which is finding understanding and, more often than not, sympathy within and without."
"What Will Europe Say?"
Yuri Chubchenko said on page one of reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (10/22): "The current EU summit is to determine relations between Moscow and the West. The United States has already made its choice, wishing to isolate Russia; Europe has yet to make up its mind.... An agreement [to end the fighting] in Chechnya would seriously improve Putin's popularity rating in the West. But he really does not need that. In fact, he should avoid it, knowing that Yeltsin is jealous of others' winning acclaim abroad. Scoring political points at home is safer. The current campaign in Chechnya is likely to make Putin more popular [in Russia]. So Europeans trying to scare him with isolation or a lack of investments would be beating a dead horse. There is no need at all to break off with Europe. A promise to carefully study its proposals would be enough."
"Why An Immediate Attack On Grozny?"
Aleksandr Koretsky queried on page one of reformist Segodnya (10/21): "Who needs an immediate attack on Grozny? A handful of generals and politicians eager for 'unpredictable' moves--from replacing the premier to cancelling the elections. A headlong assault would be a defeat for the whole campaign, with unpredictable political consequences. Even if Grozny falls, the feds' casualties will be appalling and the public, unprepared, will be demoralized. A victorious march will instantly turn into the 1994-1996 kind of war, unwinnable. Then, faced with the danger of social unrest, the Kremlin strategists hope, the Federation Council will accept a state of emergency. For the family, it is the only chance to survive."
"Divide And Rule"
Nationalist/opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (10/21) front-paged a piece by Guriya Murklinskaya in Makhachkala, Dagestan: "Roused by NATO, the ugly ogre of separatism, terror and disintegration is at work in Europe. There is nothing new in that. The divide-and-rule principle is as old as the world. The war in the Balkans has helped the United States suppress Europe economically and politically. Any country attempting to disobey will be punished, as was Yugoslavia.... The breakaway model is universal and can be applied to any state. All it takes to make it work is a strong sponsor like NATO or the United States.... Up against Russia, the Chechen regime has played Judas recently, with Maskhadov asking NATO for help. But Russia is no Yugoslavia. The Yankees must know that."
"Deprive Chechnya Of Its 'Independence' Now; Talks Later"
Ivan Yastrebov said in reformist, youth-oriented Moskovskii Komsomolets (10/21): "We surely need to talk but not now, just when we have a chance to deprive Chechnya of its 'independence.' We will talk once Maskhadov turns in terrorists. Before he does, talks make no sense."
"U.S. Stand On Chechnya Tolerable"
Yevgeny Antonov commented in reformist Vremya-MN (10/21): "The Kremlin's efforts in the last few days to secure understanding, if not support, from the Americans on Russia's Chechnya policy seem to pay off. Considering the approaching elections, Washington's position on the delicate Chechnya issue is quite tolerable."
"Victory May Be Worse Than Defeat"
Dmitry Furman wrote in reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (10/21): "To conquer Chechnya is not only hard but unnecessary. It is the kind of victory that is worse than defeat. It is like winning a time bomb in battle and bringing it home proudly as a trophy. From a strictly rational perspective, the Russians and the Chechens are after the same thing. The Russians want to get rid of Chechnya as a destabilizing and criminal factor. Similarly, the Chechens, including the majority of the pro-Russian opposition, want to get rid of Russia, which, in their minds, is associated with the past century's war of attrition and this century's deportation and two Yeltsin wars. With a common fate and experience of coexistence like that, the two peoples would do well to separate--for them, living together is not only difficult but excruciating. It is just unthinkable."
"Moscow's First Success"
Maksim Filimonov remarked on page one of reformist Vremya-MN (10/21): "The just-ended G-8 conference was Russia's first real success in trying to separate 'money laundering' from 'the Russian authorities.' The BoNY scandal has made many in the West blame Moscow for not being active enough in fighting the outflow of capital and even for letting Western aid be stolen. That attitude has changed somewhat by now. Attorney General Janet Reno, visiting in Moscow, did not say a word of reproach with regard to Russia's being inactive.... Now Russia needs to do its utmost not to fail expectations, if it does not want its small diplomatic victory wasted."
"Good News For Clinton Administration; Spotlight Turns To Chechnya"
Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (10/20) front-paged this commentary by Konstantin Levin: "Janet Reno could celebrate a victory. After meeting with her...Vladimir Putin promised to have a law on money-laundering adopted soon. 'There is a good chance,' Putin said contentedly. There certainly is. For the Clinton administration. Janet Reno can now tell her opponents that the Russians are so scared by an avalanche of exposes in the U.S. media and Congress' inquiry into the BoNY case that they are willing to cooperate with Washington to check their corrupt officials and mafiosi. As for the exposes in the Western media, we have been told that they will stop shortly to give way to reports with gruesome details about military action in Chechnya. Janet Reno yesterday approved of Putin's anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya, but she is not the one in Washington with the final say on Moscow."
"Corruption Is Costly"
Reformist Vremya-MN (10/20) published this commentary by Leonid Grigoryev: "The link that the current spate of incriminating materials has to America's campaign 2000 has probably been exaggerated too much. Still it is hard to understand the Republicans as they moralize on Russian corruption. It was back in George Bush's days that Russia made its decisions to transform the economy, and international financial institutions approved them.... Corruption and the flight of capital need to be scaled down as an economic necessity, not just as an element of Russia's image. It is good that our government agencies are going to join global anti-crime effort. The time for tolerance is over. Now is the time to standardize the norms of behavior for politicians and businesspeople.
"Let us put wild capitalism behind us. It is in this country's interest to change the situation radically so that the image of a Russian will not be associated with total corruption."
BRITAIN: "Grozny Under Siege"
The centrist Independent remarked (10/26): "The problem for Mr. Putin is that his political career now depends on a successful war, but he is unlikely to achieve this unless he occupies the whole of Chechnya. It is doubtful if Russia has the military forces for such a prolonged struggle.... Many Chechens are disillusioned by three years of de facto independence, but any sympathy for Moscow is likely to be diminished by the bombing of towns and villages. Mr. Putin has so far closed the door to negotiations."
FRANCE: "Escalation In Chechnya"
Laurence Simon aired this commentary on government-funded France Inter radio (10/27): "The Russians cannot withdraw from Chechnya. In fact they do not want to.... The only ones who can at least convince the Russians to be a little more careful with their air strikes are the Western nations, which have been alarmed by the bombing of the Grozny marketplace. The same ones which hold the strings to the IMF purse strings--even if the United States is using double talk when it criticizes the Russians while supporting its Gulf allies who finance the fundamentalists."
"Dealing With Russia"
Pierre-Marie Christin told listeners on privately funded RTL radio (10/25): "Chechnya is indeed a legitimate challenge for Russia, which has the right to seek stability and security for the region. But not the way it is doing it. It is doing exactly what was held against Indonesia in East Timor and against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.... In case of either a Russian victory or defeat, one wonders what the impact will be on Russian society. What is at stake in Russia is the future of democracy. And the West doesn't know what to do. In fact, there isn't much we can do. This economic and moral dwarf wears the nuclear and strategic boots of a giant. We cannot afford to push it around. And it is well aware of it."
"A Paradoxical Meeting On Crime"
Veronique Soule judged in left-of-center Liberation (10/20): "Moscow expects to have an opportunity to defend its 'antiterrorist operation' in Chechnya during the ministerial G-8 on crime.... It is clear that the West and Russia have very different preoccupations. The West is mainly concerned with the spread of Russian financial crime in world markets....and Russia's endemic corruption within its system.... Putin, who is considered to be one of Yeltsin's men, will hardly give anti-corruption investigations priority, for fear they may come too close to the presidential clan."
GERMANY: Russia Does Not Need To Fear The West"
Left-of-center Berliner Zeitung ran this editorial by Dieter Schroeder (10/25): "Putin knows all too well that he can tell the most outrageous lies about the atrocities of the Russian army in Chechnya without fearing any consequences. He needs to fear nothing more than some statements of reprimand and unfriendly letters. He will ignore them. He would be hurt if money would stop flowing, but he does not fear this. The West is not only helpless--it is afraid. Russia resembles a gigantic land mine which could blow up with a single wrong movement and shock the world. And Putin knows this.... The West has only a moral argument left. Russia wants to be equal within the group of the G-8. Maybe it would impress Putin if the West refuses Russia this status and as a first consequence freezes international loans. It may even help him to understand that he cannot pacify the Caucasus by military means alone."
"Two Different Standards"
In right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (10/25), Jacques Schuster judged: "Even among countries there are two different kinds of morals: one for dwarves and one for mad men and big mouths.... When Milosevic started to attack Bosnians and Kosovo-Albanians...the West protested, passed sanctions, and eventually sent troops.... Now Russian Premier Putin and his alcoholic president act like Milosevic. And the West? It acts as if it is still hoarse after the loud protest against Belgrade. Even worse, the West acts like it has to do with a heavyweight and not a flyweight.... Sure, nobody wants to start an argument with a nuclear giant.... But Moscow depends on the West and is not capable of fighting an offensive war. Clear words and the threat to impose sanctions and reject future calls for international credits are the minimum that one could expect from Berlin, Paris and London."
ITALY: "Putin Becomes A Star To The Detriment Of The Chechen People"
Provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio held (10/27): "The war in Chechnya is...disturbing the West. Europeans and Americans do not like to be embarrassed by public opinion, which is beginning to wonder why NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia and is not willing to do the same in the Caucasus."
"Inside The Humanitarism Trap"
Lucio Caracciolo judged in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (10/26): "The Grozny market is not worth the Sarajevo market. On August 28, 1995, tens of civilians were slaughtered in the market of the Bosnian capital...and forty-eight hours later NATO bombarded Mladic's troops.... Last October 21, some Russian rockets massacred people inside the Chechen capital's suk, but nobody even assumed there would be a military reprisal against Russia. Double standards? Yes, thank you.... Verbally, the West seems to have embraced a humanitarian ideology bordering on the dream of omnipotence. An absolute, abstract universal rhetoric, which does not know geopolitical priorities nor national interests.... This hypocrital, universal feeling may well become a boomerang against the West. (In fact) it produces a very concrete strategic problem: While war transforms itself into a crusade, it lacks a project scheme.... It would be better to lower the tone of humanitarian rhetoric and, in a lay manner, re-establish the principle of 'options:' here we can and must intervene militarily, there we cannot."
"The 'Geopolitics' Of Humanitarian Intervention"
Fabio Luppino observed in pro-DS (leading government party) L'Unita (10/25): "The people who are suffering in Chechnya have not had even the consolation of a self-serving communique from the UN. Russian diplomats are taking initiative towards the European governments in order to avoid the possibility of annoying interferences: see the generic tone used by Putin with Prodi at the Helsinki summit.... Russia has no difficulty in exploiting what is left of the Cold War, i.e., in conducting wars in its own reserved 'dominions' according to the maps of traditional strategy: an unwritten rule respected also by the White House, which did not go beyond a generic deploring of the situation. And the same holds for NATO...which has no interest in interfering with the deterioration of the Russian empire.... In sum, so much for human rights."
"The Russian Offensive Will Continue, No Matter What Europe Thinks"
Piero Sinatti's analysis in leading, business Il Sole-24 Ore held (10/23): "EU President Prodi asks Russian Prime Minister Putin for a 'political solution' to the Chechen crisis. Putin pledged to achieve one. Yet, so far, he has refused to negotiate with the only possible interlocutor, President Maskhadov. And has pointed out that, before finding a political solution, he will have to 'destroy' the terrorists, i.e., he will have to continue the war, no matter what the shy EU partners believe."
"Washington Raises Its Voice"
Washington correspondent Andrea di Robilant filed in centrist, influential La Stampa (10/23): "The White House warns the Kremlin that it should not conquer Grozny with force and insists that the Chechen crisis should never be resolved 'with a military solution.' But the U.S. warning reflects the caution of an administration that feels an urgent need to put the strategic dialogue with Moscow back on the right track." Di Robilant opined that U.S. caution stems from the need "not to compromise the delicate diplomatic negotiations about the future U.S.-Russia strategic relations. Right now U.S. and Russian diplomats are at work to find a way out from the impasse on the anti-missile defense."
"Moscow On The Attack; Massacre In Grozny"
Under this banner headline, Alberto Stabile noted in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (10/22): "The bombing, which will be difficult for the Russian authorities to explain as an anti-terrorism operation, occurred while federal troops were gaining ground heading to Grozny.... It is now obvious that Moscow does not want to establish any kind of dialogue with Maskhadov, the legitimately elected president.... By targeting that market they are following a strategy of terror."
AUSTRIA: "Racism, Imperialism, Genocide"
Karl-Peter Schwarz front-paged this comment in prestigious, conservative Die Presse (10/23): "What makes the leadership in the Kremlin, the Russian president, and his KGB head of government let the war in the Caucasus escalate and spread to the center of the Chechen capital Grozny? What makes the army leadership give orders to bomb civilians, who are on the marketplace or in the mosque? As measures to combat terrorists, these attacks are not only pointless, but actually counterproductive.... Grozny has become the lightning rod for the frustration, despair, humiliation and blind fury of the Russians. Thanks to the war in Chechnya, Putin has reached a popularity his predecessors had not even dared to dream of.... Just as the Russian nomenclature failed to make the creation of wealth possible for its citizens by consistent market economy reforms, it failed to form a new alliance with the non-Russian peoples on the basis of equal rights.... The war against the Chechens is genocide temporarily camouflaged as an 'anti-terror action' and is hardly inferior to the massacres in Bosnia, in Kosovo, or in East Timor. However, to accuse Moscow of genocide is regarded as indelicate. And the Chechens do not have a lobby."
BELGIUM: "Russians Have Learned Kosovo Lesson"
Paul De Bruyn observed in conservative Catholic Gazet van Antwerpen (10/26): "The Russians closely watched how NATO operated in Kosovo. Instead of deploying infantry and tanks rapidly, they wait until the right time came. The air force is to beat the enemy to pulp. In the meantime, troops are positioned and the supply routes of the enemy are cut off. Moscow believes in these tactics, but experts are not so certain. The 'terrorists' are well trained and armed, and they fight fanatically.... Add to that that they now have a weapon which they did not have before: money.... There is every indication that they are also supported by Islamic organizations abroad. With all those reserves, the rebels are capable of waging a long war. They have still another factor on their side: time. They can dig in first and spread afterwards to start a guerrilla war behind the Russian lines. The Russians do not have that time. They must achieve a victory before winter comes. If not, a new nightmare will be in the offing. At this moment, the war is popular with the Russians. They support Putin in his punitive expedition. However, they are wrong if they believe that, this time, they will be able to force the Chechens to their knees quickly. The second Chechen war is far from over."
"The West? A Deafening Silence"
Pierre Lefevre opined in independent Le Soir (10/23): "Western countries are unanimous in acknowledging that the means deployed by Moscow in the Caucasus are totally out of proportion with the stated objectives of the fight against terrorism. But they have only said so very softly. There is no comparison between their reaction to this murderous Russian offensive and the clear indignation which they expressed following Serbian atrocities in Kosovo or Indonesian violence in East Timor. There are many reasons for this.... It is about a domestic problem in a big partner country, which, besides, is also a nuclear power and dangerously fragile. The West won't do anything to weaken it even further. On the contrary, the West is trying to restore as soon as possible precious NATO-Russian relations which were spoiled by the Kosovo crisis. That this strong-arm policy in Chechnya is popular in Russia and makes Putin rise in the polls is another reason for the West to keep a low profile. The West wants to avoid hurting today someone whom it will need to win over Primakov or Luzhkov tomorrow. The West, and the Americans in particular, also do not want to discourage Russia's current resolve in the fight against terrorism.... The United States, Europe and Russia have the same interest in preventing the creation of radical Muslim republics in the Caucasus, not far from the Caspian Sea's oilfields and from this strategic crossroads between Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East.... The West lets the Russians do the work, only asking them to do it neatly. The United States, more than Europe, can exert some leverage, but it would be very delicate. Indeed, Russia can evoke its military intervention against the Serbs or blame them for not ratifying the CTBT. Besides, the Americans would like to obtain Russia's agreement to a revision of the ABM Treaty.... One does not blame people from whom one asks a favor."
BULGARIA: "The Northern Caucusus Is Shaking Up Russia"
Center-right Standard held (10/22): "Russia has no money to invest in the region and it has no applicable vision for its development. The Yeltsin clan is too busy securing its own survival and has left the Northern Caucuses on autopilot. And the region is unable to pull itself together on its own.... Thus, the economic factors are working for the Islamic fundamentalism and are eating away the secular fortress of the region from the inside."
CROATIA: "The Kosovo Grozny"
In semi-independent, Split-based Slobodna Dalmacija (10/26), Danko Plevnik drew parallels between Kosovo and Chechnya, writing: "What is currently happening in Chechnya is almost the same that occurred in Kosovo: Russia is defending its sovereignty, but NATO does not want to interfere in its internal affairs.... International relations do not offer a hand of solidarity to the Chechen people, but concede the interests of the Russian army, which demonstrated too much recklessness during its operations in Dagestan and Chechnya. Its goal is to impose a Pax Russiana over the entire Caucausus.... By fostering her influence in the Caucasus, Russia seeks to compensate for the weakening of her influence in the Balkans.... Concerning Chechnya, the only success for the 'Euro-Atlantic community' can be a potential deployment of 'international forces' to control the implementation of a future peace agreement."
DENMARK: "West Must Make Condemnation Of Russia's Actions Clear"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende concluded (10/27): "Russian advances towards Grozny demonstrate what Moscow has repeatedly denied--that Russia is prepared to use all the means at its disposal to suppress the people of Chechnya. The West--and this must include the countries of the EU--ought to throw caution to the wind and make its condemnation of Russia's actions absolutely clear."
"EU Must Maintain Pressure"
Center-left Politiken editorialized (10/25): "The EU must maintain and strengthen its pressure [on Russia over Chechnya] for the sake of the Union. The way the EU handles the Chechen question will not be all-encompassing for its foreign policy profile, [but] it could clearly affect the EU's position on the international stage."
FINLAND: "Helsinki Summit Gives No Clarity To Russian Plans"
Independent Helsingin Sanomat's editorial said (10/24): "The Helsinki summit gave no good answer on what the real Russian goals are in the Chechnya war. Quite the opposite, in fact. Events during the meeting force one to ask if the right hand in Russia knows what the left hand is doing.... In its relations with Russia, the EU is in a difficult position. The EU has no material interests in Chechnya while Russia is an important partner in many respects. Increased disunity and stronger Islamic fundamentalism, not to mention terrorism in the Caucasus, serve nobody's interests. But Russia's actions make it impossible to support or even to understand it. Putin stated that...Russia would only agree to negotiate with those 'who do not have blood on their hands.' This position would be understandable if Russia's operations in Chechnya were directed against separate terrorist or criminal groups, but in reality the Chechen population is indiscriminately affected. The operation looks more and more like a war of conquest. The EU has no reason to support a policy like that."
"The EU Is Closing Its Eyes"
Independent afternoon Iltalehti ran this editorial (10/25): "Lipponen said the EU is 'deeply' worried about the (Chechnya) situation. Prodi, meanwhile, stated that the EU is 'very, very' concerned. However, the EU did not, at least in public, even hint at any kind of pressure against Russia. Putin is probably interpreting this as rhetorical proxy to do whatever he wants. Putin shared the EU's wish for a political settlement, but interpreted that as flexibly as Stalin interpreted the concept of democracy. Russia will agree to negotiate with the puppet government of Chechnya. Coming out of that can only be the peace of a cemetery."
"Highlighting The EU's Limitations"
Regional, independent Aamulehti's editorial read (10/23): "The EU-Russian summit did not shed much light on Russia's real goals in Chechnya. But it did highlight the limitations of EU action. The Union is 'deeply' worried, and calls for a political settlement...but it is not ready to exert direct pressure on Russia. Putin could simply nod in agreement with the principle and rule out a political settlement because there is no suitable negotiating partner. He knows well that at this point, the EU cannot go further than to express its concern. The EU is as cautious as the United States, for whom fighting terrorism is an acceptable goal and one that it shares with Russia."
THE NETHERLANDS: "What To Do"
Influential, independent NRC Handelsblad commented (10/23): "Now that the war is getting out of hand, the world has started to express concern. The EU has called on the Russian government to start a dialogue with all legitimate leaders in the Caucasus.... Any UNSC attempt to put the Chechnya issue on the agenda would be vetoed by Russia.... The only forums left are the Council of Europe and the OSCE.... The fact that Moscow wants to restore order in the Caucasus is fine, but the fact that human rights are being violated during this process should be reason for the international forums to take action.... However, one cannot expect too much because of the EU's lack of both a sense of reality and a coherent Russia policy."
SLOVENIA: "Russia's Tragedy"
Left-of-center Delo held (10/26): "If...there was a trace of logic (its main goal was to suppress separatism) in the first war in Chechnya, none can be found in the present war. How do the Russian generals intend to settle accounts with the 'terrorists?' By killing all male inhabitants? Who will participate in a referendum about Chechnya's future if at least three quarters of a million people have fled.... Just those who will be settled there by the new pro-Russian government? Because of the extremely unwise domestic policy and revengeful generals--who find it very hard to forget the defeat three years ago--Moscow has again found itself in a trap with only one exit: withdrawal of troops from Chechnya and negotiation with Maskhadov.... The Caucasus cannot be subjugated with force. The fact that it has learnt nothing from its past failures is Russia's tragedy."
SPAIN: "Massacre In Grozny"
Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia commented (10/23): "The massacre perpetrated in Grozny has made it inevitable that world public opinion will once again focus on Chechnya, a region into which Russia has now sent its armed forces twice since 1994. Moscow has many advantages in this conflict not enjoyed by NATO in its air war over Yugoslavia. It is not hampered by reports of its actions and the collateral damages they cause by a critical Russian press. But to this lack of internal media oversight must be added the absence of criticism by the West, which has decided to avert its glance from the Chechen conflict."
SWITZERLAND: "General Indifference"
Laszlo Molnar, foreign editor of center-left Le Matin, held (10/20): "Despite a few strong words from Westerners...Russian troops are occupying Chechnya in the midst of general indifference. Nobody dares getting mixed up in the domestic affairs of the second nuclear power, even if they believe that Chechnya has just as much right to self-determination as the other republics in the former Soviet Union. The fact is that the rest of the world does not wish to destabilize Russian more than it already is.... Moscow...needs this military action for nationalistic reasons. The empire cannot be cut up any more--not to satisfy the feelings of the Russians, but because the leadership does not want to reign over a diminished country. The issue at stake is to show everybody, autonomous regions and foreign countries, that the former Red Army is still capable of fighting."
TURKEY: "Is Chechnya's Problem Religious Fundamentalism?"
Hasan Unal wrote in religious/intellectual Zaman (10/25): "It seems that after its first defeat, Russia deliberately began a campaign against Chechnya, and then presented the problem as religious fundamentalism.... However, this campaign is not proving successful any more. Westerners, including the United States, are not believing this, and are now saying that Russia's operations do not seem like they are against Islamist terrorists.... There are increasing signs that Russia will not be able to solve the Chechnya issue any time soon."
MIDDLE EAST
KUWAIT: "Lukewarm Condemnation"
Independent Al-Anba (10/25) had this comment by Mishari Al-Huraibi: "Europe called on Moscow to settle its conflict with Chechnya peacefully. The European leaders criticized Russia's military campaign. But, the condemnation was lukewarm, implying that the use of force was a message to all the countries of the Caucasus to remain within the Russian federation. Perhaps the major countries, which talk about democracy, freedom and human rights will make a move to stop this bloodbath."
EAST ASIA
INDONESIA: "Russia Indifferent, World Leaders Concerned About Chechnya"
Leading, independent Kompas declared (10/25): "Calls by world leaders for Russia to cease military operations in Chechnya were ineffective. The United States and other major countries seem unable to control Russia. It is really not easy to give orders to this Red Bear country.... Yet, this type of uncooperative stance will create difficulties for Russia, particularly with economic cooperation. In terms of economy and trade, Russia can be isolated from global economy."
SOUTH ASIA
BANGLADESH: "Russia's Second Chechen War"
The conservative New Nation commented (10/20): "Observers suggest that at least three reasons might have impelled authorities in Moscow to go for this campaign of attrition and human rights violations: first, the elections...second, the severe strain on the economy...and, third, an attempt to refurbish the ego that got a severe drubbing in the first Chechen war.... The leadership also felt that the West would not oppose the campaign if it was shown to drive out the so-called 'Islamic militants.'"
PAKISTAN: "Chechnya's Crisis"
An editorial in the center-right Nation held (10/25): "More that 2,500 civilians have been killed and upward of 5,000 injured since the Russian armed forces launched air and artillery attacks against Chechnya on September 5. Russia's strategic plan appears to be to take the Chechen capital and install a puppet regime there, purportedly to flush out Islamic militants from Chechnya.... While the international community has condemned the Russian action in Chechnya...the Western response has been too little, too late. Beyond mere verbal indictment, the West must consider intervening and taking punitive action, like suspension of aid or embargoes, to dissuade the Russians from triggering an indiscriminate massacre of Chechen civilians. The West needs to follow an egalitarian and consistent policy while playing the role of an arbiter of world conflicts."
"Fatal Miscalculation"
An editorial in the centrist, national News averred (10/21): "As Russia slides deeper into the Chechnya quagmire, what has pushed Moscow to take this predictably disastrous course is becoming a matter of public debate even within Russia. Allegations of Chechnya's abetting terrorism were...denied by Maskhadov.... Moscow has yet to come up with concrete proof of the Chechen government's involvement in either the terrorist bombings or the Dagestan insurgency.... The cost of the war, however, may soon exceed the calculations of the Kremlin. The United States, although standing by Russia on the issue of terrorism, feels uneasy with such large-scale mobilization of Russian troops.... As refugees continue to pour into neighboring territories, this unwinnable war will only make the Caucasus region more volatile and the Russian federation more friable."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
ARGENTINA: "War And Its Political Windfall"
Telma Luzzani, leading Clarin's international columnist, commented (10/22): "The triggers were the incursions of Chechen guerrillas in Dagestan last August and the bombings of the main Russian cities....
"But the decision to resume the war in Chechnya was a balm for the Kremlin.... Having a president who is absent because of his chronic health problems, Prime Minister Putin unleashed the war--by adding the 'danger of terrorism' to Chechen pro-independence rebelliousness--and managed to redesign the political scene. Although legislative elections are two months away in Russia...the war already yielded profits. First, the scandals of money laundering and corruption which involved the Kremlin and the presidential family are no longer in the foreground. Secondly, an unknown political and social cohesion was obtained. Perhaps because of the humiliating defeat in the previous conflict, the majority of the Russian people supported war this time and Putin's popularity increased.... Even political parties which were before against the conflict--like the Yabloko--agreed with the Kremlin."
BOLIVIA: "Stalin's Shadow"
La Paz's Catholic Church-owned, left-leaning Presencia (10/23) carried this commentary by Jose Gramunt: "The 70 years of proletarian internationalism...were not enough to defeat nationalisms. Moscow continues believing that nationalisms are combatted in only one way, Stalin's way. The sick president Yeltsin in charge is revising the old methods of the shrewd and bloody Georgian. The first lesson to be learned is that blood, language, religion and culture are stronger than any ideology."
CANADA: "No Excuses For Silence On Chechnya"
Marcus Gee wrote in the leading Globe and Mail (10/27): "The Russian onslaught in Chechnya is every bit as brutal as the Serbian offensive in Kosovo.... Why doesn't the world take action? The usual excuse comes in two words: nuclear weapons. Russia has them, Serbia did not. Even NATO is not going to confront Russia over its behavior in Chechnya if it might lead to nuclear war. But we don't have to trade missiles with Moscow to make a point about Chechnya. Russia depends on Western aid and Western goodwill to stave off bankruptcy. That gives the West lots of leverage. A second excuse is national sovereignty. Although Chechnya has been acting like an independent country since it bested Moscow in their last confrontation three years ago, it is still technically part of Russia.... Nobody is suggesting sending NATO bombers to pummel Moscow. That would be an absurd and disastrous overreaction, just as the NATO assault on Serbia was an absurd and disastrous overreaction to the low-level conflict in Kosovo. What would be nice is a concerted and focused diplomatic campaign to curb Russia's ferocious assault on Chechen civilians. Until recently, Western countries have been reluctant even to wag a finger at Russia for fear that it would destabilize the shaky giant and derail its transition from communist dictatorship to capitalist democracy. Western tongues have been a bit sharper in this, the second Chechen War.... Understandably, Moscow does not take the Western complaints seriously. And it never will unless Western countries make it clear that Moscow's atrocious behavior in Chechnya will bring serious consequences, up to and including a cutback on desperately needed aid from the IMF."
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Department of State
Office of Research
Telephone: (202) 619-6511
10/28/99
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
