PDA

View Full Version : Controversy...for a change!



quincy
18-09-2004, 17:33
The Chechens' American friends

The Washington neocons' commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own

John Laughland
Wednesday September 8, 2004

The Guardian

An enormous head of steam has built up behind the view that President Putin is somehow the main culprit in the grisly events in North Ossetia. Soundbites and headlines such as "Grief turns to anger", "Harsh words for government", and "Criticism mounting against Putin" have abounded, while TV and radio correspondents in Beslan have been pressed on air to say that the people there blame Moscow as much as the terrorists. There have been numerous editorials encouraging us to understand - to quote the Sunday Times - the "underlying causes" of Chechen terrorism (usually Russian authoritarianism), while the widespread use of the word "rebels" to describe people who shoot children shows a surprising indulgence in the face of extreme brutality.
On closer inspection, it turns out that this so-called "mounting criticism" is in fact being driven by a specific group in the Russian political spectrum - and by its American supporters. The leading Russian critics of Putin's handling of the Beslan crisis are the pro-US politicians Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Ryzhkov - men associated with the extreme neoliberal market reforms which so devastated the Russian economy under the west's beloved Boris Yeltsin - and the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow Centre. Funded by its New York head office, this influential thinktank - which operates in tandem with the military-political Rand Corporation, for instance in producing policy papers on Russia's role in helping the US restructure the "Greater Middle East" - has been quoted repeatedly in recent days blaming Putin for the Chechen atrocities. The centre has also been assiduous over recent months in arguing against Moscow's claims that there is a link between the Chechens and al-Qaida.

These people peddle essentially the same line as that expressed by Chechen leaders themselves, such as Ahmed Zakaev, the London exile who wrote in these pages yesterday. Other prominent figures who use the Chechen rebellion as a stick with which to beat Putin include Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch who, like Zakaev, was granted political asylum in this country, although the Russian authorities want him on numerous charges. Moscow has often accused Berezovsky of funding Chechen rebels in the past.

By the same token, the BBC and other media sources are putting it about that Russian TV played down the Beslan crisis, while only western channels reported live, the implication being that Putin's Russia remains a highly controlled police state. But this view of the Russian media is precisely the opposite of the impression I gained while watching both CNN and Russian TV over the past week: the Russian channels had far better information and images from Beslan than their western competitors. This harshness towards Putin is perhaps explained by the fact that, in the US, the leading group which pleads the Chechen cause is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). The list of the self-styled "distinguished Americans" who are its members is a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusastically support the "war on terror".

They include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be "a cakewalk"; Midge Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and R James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading cheerleaders behind George Bush's plans to re-model the Muslim world along pro-US lines.

The ACPC heavily promotes the idea that the Chechen rebellion shows the undemocratic nature of Putin's Russia, and cultivates support for the Chechen cause by emphasising the seriousness of human rights violations in the tiny Caucasian republic. It compares the Chechen crisis to those other fashionable "Muslim" causes, Bosnia and Kosovo - implying that only international intervention in the Caucasus can stabilise the situation there. In August, the ACPC welcomed the award of political asylum in the US, and a US-government funded grant, to Ilyas Akhmadov, foreign minister in the opposition Chechen government, and a man Moscow describes as a terrorist. Coming from both political parties, the ACPC members represent the backbone of the US foreign policy establishment, and their views are indeed those of the US administration.

Although the White House issued a condemnation of the Beslan hostage-takers, its official view remains that the Chechen conflict must be solved politically. According to ACPC member Charles Fairbanks of Johns Hopkins University, US pressure will now increase on Moscow to achieve a political, rather than military, solution - in other words to negotiate with terrorists, a policy the US resolutely rejects elsewhere.

Allegations are even being made in Russia that the west itself is somehow behind the Chechen rebellion, and that the purpose of such support is to weaken Russia, and to drive her out of the Caucasus. The fact that the Chechens are believed to use as a base the Pankisi gorge in neighbouring Georgia - a country which aspires to join Nato, has an extremely pro-American government, and where the US already has a significant military presence - only encourages such speculation. Putin himself even seemed to lend credence to the idea in his interview with foreign journalists on Monday.

Proof of any such western involvement would be difficult to obtain, but is it any wonder Russians are asking themselves such questions when the same people in Washington who demand the deployment of overwhelming military force against the US's so-called terrorist enemies also insist that Russia capitulate to hers?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010448-103677,00.html

uninformed
18-09-2004, 22:35
Yawn!

koba65
19-09-2004, 01:06
No offense, but that article lost it's credibility when it tried to imply that Carnegie and Rand are in bed together. Looks like a bit of muckraking to me. There are plenty of articles available on the web by so-called neo-cons supporting Russia and supporting it's fight against the Chechens - because they see the Chechen "struggle" as being funded by the same people funding Al-Qaeda and others.

quincy
21-09-2004, 00:23
Koba what you say I do not doubt - Bush himself took a stand against the bestial killings, come to think of it there were probably very few who didn't. Bush probably had an eye on the Russian public who many are keen to turn against Putin, as well as his own constituency - condemning terrorism is a vote winner, never mind that in this case anti-Russian terrorism appears to have the sympathy, if not the support of key Defense, Foreign and Intelligence players over the last 25 years. The ACPC web site also lists Zbig Brzenzinski as one of its members, who was a National Security Adviser under Carter and championed the use of Islamic fundamentalism against the SU

koba65
21-09-2004, 02:20
Originally posted by quincy
Koba what you say I do not doubt - Bush himself took a stand against the bestial killings, come to think of it there were probably very few who didn't. Bush probably had an eye on the Russian public who many are keen to turn against Putin, as well as his own constituency - condemning terrorism is a vote winner, never mind that in this case anti-Russian terrorism appears to have the sympathy, if not the support of key Defense, Foreign and Intelligence players over the last 25 years. The ACPC web site also lists Zbig Brzenzinski as one of its members, who was a National Security Adviser under Carter and championed the use of Islamic fundamentalism against the SU

Brzenski is an idiot! There are plenty so-called conservatives in the US backing Russia in the fight against terrorism - they see it as a global war and the Chechens are being Al-Qaeda backed (Thomas Sowell just wrote an article stating such). Unfortunately, there are those on the left and right (Perle) who still think the Cold War is going on (and plenty in the Russia who also believe this). It's a shame. I think some major progress could be made in the battle if the old paradigms of the past could be broken.

quincy
21-09-2004, 22:32
Putin gave an interview where he said that although Russia had given full support for the anti-al Qaida campaign, US and some Europeans were providing support and inspiration to anti-Russian terror groups because they were resentful (as in Cold War years) of a nuclear-armed Russia that would not submit to Washington or Brussels. Russians complained that most of his comments were omitted by the Washington Post and some other papers.

We have seen the media in overdrive mode in an unprecedented campaign to deny Russians sympathy and make excuses for the executioners. How much of what you say is still true after all the spin? On Saturday the New York Times carried a long piece where it described the murderous Basayev as a "celebrated fighter". This gangster was trained in CIA-run terror camps in Afghanistan. Everything he said was presented as fact. The NYT has obviously no qualms whatever about insulting the victims of those barbaric atrocities. Provided it achieves its "aims"!

trebor
21-09-2004, 23:13
Jesus,
why do people keep banging on about this stuff?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

quincy
21-09-2004, 23:29
Originally posted by trebor
Jesus,
why do people keep banging on about this stuff?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You sound one HAPPY soul!!!