Are We Sending Russia the Wrong Message?

OR: Hypocrisy, Hpocrisy, Thy Name is Bush

Published on September 15, 2004 By CrispE In Politics

Vladmir Putin, Czar of Russia announce today sweeping measures designed to centralize his authority politically and is stating that "terrorism" is now the number 1 problem in Russia. He said "Over the 15 years of its new life, civil society in Russia hasn't really awakened," Izvestia said. "And the president has decided that in conditions demanding fast, effective, and often urgent decisions, it's better not to have such a society -- because the authorities are uncertain of the results of waking it."

One of the reasons Russia is adding $5.4 Billion to defense next year is that it feels like it is going alone in it's struggle against terrorism, mostly by Chechen rebels and their allies. The Bush Administration denies meeting with the rebels, but A few weeks ago the United States granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement. as reported by CNN.

Why would the Bush Administration claim it has no contacts with Chechen rebels and then grant asylum to one? Simple, we want to keep Russia weak while at the same time promoting the concept that terrorism is our enemy. How do we do this? By saying we "love" freedom for all peoples (except, of course, those who oppose us, regardless of political system) and then turning around and aiding terrorism when it suits our purposes.

This is a very dangerous course to pursue for the Bush administration. We are not dealing with a country moving towards democracy in Russia but rather in the opposite direction. Putin is under pressure from within the Kremlin (remember that group?) to take dramatic steps to ensure that terrorism stops in Russia. There is some sentiment, reported in the international press that journalists in the region suspect American money and advisors are covertly supporting the rebels much as we did with the Taliban, who used to be our boys in Afghanistan.

The bigger issue is whether this is hypocrisy. Can we truly say we are interested in ending terrorism when we have such policies as do with Russia and Chechnya? Can we pick and choose like a menu at a Chinese restaurant those terrorists we will support because it furthers our aims?

What does the Bush administration really stand for?

Does ANYONE know?

Comments (Page 2)

CrispE

on Sep 16, 2004

Soltair:

Yes, lumping all Chechens together is wrong and was not my intention. But for God's sake, this was the finance minister of the biggest rebel group in the country we gave asylum to. Putin is smart enough to know whom we are talking to and when. This isn't some alley meeting in Paris near the Eiffel Tower, this is CIA operatives in fatigues in Chechen forests.

The point is, can we afford this duplicity with rebel groups who will use any means, including the terrorism "we say we abhor" even if the rebel groups aren't telling us they might commit atrocities when they take our advice and MONEY before they do them?

Another point: By doing the stuff we have been doing, have we indeed handed the right wing in Russia the means to grab the power away from the democracy in the name of "security"?

Madine

on Sep 16, 2004

Isn't meeting with Chechen leaders analogous to meeting with Palestinian leaders?

Terrorism originating from volatile region X does not delegitimize peaceful efforts to gain sovereignty for volatile region X.

Deference

on Sep 16, 2004

Terrorism originating from volatile region X does not delegitimize peaceful efforts to gain sovereignty for volatile region X.

..but it can show a lack of consistancy from a poorly thought out foreign policy. Some of us only asked Bush and his Vulcan cabinet (who have more years of foreign policy experience than any other in the history of U.S. administrations) to grow a brain and be sensible.

Solitair

on Sep 17, 2004

The biggest rebel group in the country is the group belonging to Aslan Maskhadov, the former prime minister. He has condemned the attacks in Beslan. He was democratically elected by a majority and as such there is nothing wrong with the US talking to him or giving his ex finance minister asylum. Talking to him is like talking to any opposition party.

The big problem is the next biggest rebel group led by Shamil Basayev. These are a radical islamic terrorist organistation who have claimed responsibility for many terrorist events, including Beslan. I would be very worried if the US even considered supporting these terrorists. Talking to him would be like talking to Osama Bin Laden.

Paul.

CrispE

on Sep 17, 2004

Soltair:

I think you have consider the context of what we are trying to do in Chechnya first. CIA operatives are there to do what work? Support the "freedom fighters"? All opposition parties in Chechnya qualify in that regard as Russia has handpicked the country's government. So, let's start with this understanding: The opposition parties all know each other and are in contact. The CIA's work cannot be reasonably thought to involve "only peaceful oppostion" since the groups ALL have some terrorist elements.

Now, you may say, but wait, why do you involve Maskhadov in the equation for terrorists? If they weren't, wouldn't they have been obligated to tell the Russians about the terrorist acts that "their fellow freedom fighters" were going to do? Yes, if they disagreed with terrorism as a tool of politics. No if they didn't.

You are giving the CIA much more credit than it deserves. This is like Ollie North and Iran-Contra. The CIA believed it was helping freedom fighters. But the acts of the freedom fighters then as now turns violent as they have less and less to lose by commiting atrocities.

If Putin were not KGB trained, he might not believe we were helping. But he is KGB and this has to amaze him that America could be both so bold and yet so obvious.

CrispE

on Sep 17, 2004

Madine:

Yes, it is analagous and it is fairly well know in Palestine that CIA is involved. But these are the differences. 1) Palestinians are "financed" by the Saudis and other Middle Eastern states (I have heard they also get aid from China but never have been able to confirm). The U.S. works with the Israeli side also.

2) The Chechen rebels are desperate for help and desperate to be noticed. Palestinian terrorism is not desperate but rather calculated. They know how to make the Israelis despair. Chechens are much more interested in bang for the buck to attract attention.

Madine

on Sep 17, 2004

What does the CIA have to do with giving asylum to a former finance minister? How is it relevent whether the terrorists want despair or attention?

What about this angle: Putin wants to use Chechen terrorism as an excuse to crush the peaceful Chechen separatist movement. Are you suggesting that we should give at least tacit support to this?

CrispE

on Sep 17, 2004

Madine:

What does the CIA have to do with asylum for the finance minister? Who do you think arranged it?

Despair is much different in political circles than attention. The Russian people were relatively unaware of the rebels. The Russian press isn't exactly the New York Times and CBS. Most Russians are having a hard time with their own problems. So making them aware of the situation is important in the minds of the Chechens.

Putin should either be supported in crushing the separatist movement (would we tolerate such idiocy ourselves?) or we should re-examine a foreign policy that says "if you're against us then you're terrorists, against the Russians, then you're freedom fighters." Those people who died on the Russian planes that the Chechens blew up are no less dead than the ones flown into the WTC. And just as innocent. And just as terrorized.

You can't have it both ways. Negotiation with terrorists is something we won't do, why would we EVER support the idea that others should?

stevendedalus

on Sep 18, 2004

I really do think (and from talking to some Russian immigrants) that the idea of democracy is so foreign to them that many will be saying about Putin "about time he took control".

As I'm sure many Iraqis say bring back Saddam!

CrispE

on Sep 18, 2004

stevendedalus:

It's interesting you should say that. Russia has this history of harsh but semi-benevolent government. Did you ever see the "What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?" Python scene from Life of Brian? That is really how the Russians felt much of history.

Saddam's role in Iraq was a bit more like Hitler. Hitler tried to make Germany great by expansion and international attempts to bully the rest of what the Nazi's thought was a weak world. That kind of plays to people like the Germans after World War I and an Iraq that had been kicked around for the past 100 prior to Saddam.

So, like the Nazis the Bathists lived by intimidation and tried international expansion. Both are sure to eventually make you lots of enemies.

Solitair

on Sep 18, 2004

CrispE,
just because there is a reasonable chance the different groups are aware of each other is not a good enough excuse to lump them all togather as terrorists. One group condemned the terrorism which the other group comitted. The fact that they MIGHT know each other is moot (no evidence to suggest they do work together, in fact all the evidence point to them working in seperate parts of the country). For how many decades has the US talked to Sinn Fein even though they personally know IRA terorists? Why is this acceptable, but talking to the Chechen president is not? Either you recogise democratically elected people or you don't. Can't pick and choose.

Let me clear in pointing out that Aslan Maskhadov's group are not peaceful. They are actively engaged in a war. Difference between them and Shamil Basayev's group is that they don't target civilians in other countries.

There is something wrong with sending CIA operatices to Chechnya to train people though. Any interaction here should to purely diplomatic and Russia should be made clear as to what position the US takes here.

Paul.

CrispE

on Sep 19, 2004

Soltair:

I don't remember commenting on Sinn Fein. If I had I would have condemned U.S. involvement in that too. The problem with U.S. foreign policy in general is that it is full of this "our freedom fighters," "your terrorists" concept. This is what is going on in Chechnya.

Did you note that the Chechen rebels announced the costs of the operations? Why do you suppose they did that?

One possible reason is that it is an "in your face" insult to Putin. That is, they're saying "we're here, we're well funded, we got more things we can do." Another is "hey Putin, where do you think we got the money?"

Any takers on where you can get large sums of money on the sly and under the radar?

Solitair

on Sep 20, 2004

CrispE,
I totally agree that any funding of miltary action against another soveign nation is wrong. I don't agree that poilitical support for those said freedom fighters is wrong though.

To clarify my view
- the US should NOT be giving any monetary, military or CIA support to ANY of the Chechnen rebel groups
- the US SHOULD be providing diplomatic support for the rights of the Chechnens to self government (support for elected president Aslan Maskhadov's group)
- the US should NOT support terrorist groups (Shamil Basayev's group) no matter what their goals

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!