WHY DOES NOT PEACE IN CHECHNYA SUIT USA?
Valentin Kunin
29.12.1999 18:00 RIA Novosti All attempts by the US Administration to persuade the Russian leadership into backing out from the military operation in Chechnya have proved futile. Hoping for a changed Kremlin position on Chechen settlement after Duma elections, Washington dispatched Under-Secretary of State Strobe Talbott to sound out the post-poll situation only to see that the moods were the same. The elections displayed powerful support by Russian voters for pro-government policies in the North Caucasus. This adds to the prospect of bringing the Chechnya problem to its logical end, that is to eliminate all terrorist enclaves in the republic and to create facilities for rehabilitation. The White House is nevertheless tireless in chanting its hackneyed statements of being "extremely concerned over the federal troops' activities in Chechnya", dubbing them as inadmissible, urging an end to the armed hostilities and dialogue with the Chechen "political leaders". Moscow does not comply. As a result Washington has threatened the Kremlin with more pressure and subsequent economic sanctions. The latter, incidentally, is on the way. On direct instructions from the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, the Export and Import bank has denied a commercial loan to the Tyumen Oil Company under doubtful excuses that this refusal answers US interests and promotes US policies toward Russia. This pressure however has no prospect of being fruitful. No state will keep the benevolent eye on a criminal enclave on its territory, with its leaders making no secret of their separatist intentions - withdrawal from Russia and proclamation of independence. So, why is Russia being now bombarded with the demands to stop fighting for its territorial integrity and national security? In addition, the Western position does look paradoxical. While admitting that Chechnya has been occupied by terrorists being linked with Usama bin Laden, Washington is urging an end to any fighting against them. Should one figure out that the American Administration is completely ignorant of the axiom that professional killers, kidnappers, arms traffickers and drug dealers cannot be negotiated with? Would the US federal authorities or West European governments ever put up with such a situation on their territories? Russia's stand in Chechnya's crisis has a far-reaching implication: either this country will accept America-imposed rules of the game and agree to the role of a second-rate state one can speak with from the position of strength and interfere in its internal affairs, or Russia will make it clear that it remains a great power despite all current economic hardships. Moscow stands for the latter. As to the United States, it is guided not only by the ambition of being the only great power on the world scene. The continued tensions and instability in the North Caucasus fully corresponds to its plans in Transcaucasia and the Caspian Sea referred to by the United States several years ago as a zone of its vital interests. Washington does not even conceal its ultimate purpose of ousting Russian influence from the region and establishing its full control over Caspian oil and gas transportation routes. Commenting on the Istanbul-signed agreement between Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on the transit of Caspian oil via the East-Western corridor, US Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson called it a great victory of US foreign policies. This "great victory" has become possible largely due to Chechen terrorists who have sapped oil transportation across Russia's territory, from Baku to Novorossiisk. Russia does not want any other surprises of this kind in its southern frontiers. This calls above all for the uprooting of breeding grounds of international terrorism in Chechnya and stabilising the situation in the North Caucasus.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
