bilal
09-19-2006, 05:06 PM
source : http://www.apem-wspa.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=111
The Chechen conflict has become critical as Russia took over the Presidency of the Council of Europe, “Europe's premier intergovernmental human rights organization”, as Radio Free Europe(1) calls it.
The conflict itself goes back many centuries to the first attempts of the tsarist empire to find a way to the warm seas and the Ottoman Empire. Why the war began again after the collapse of the Soviet Union is something very easy to understand, as easy as the need of the Russian authorities to keep this area under control. But what seems beyond anybody's understanding is the Western attitude towards the Chechen wars and the reasons behind their apparent blindness to the events in this part of Europe.
First of all, from the Russian authorities' perspective, the conflict is legitimate from two points of view: preventing a « Caucasian Yugoslavia » and the fight against the international terrorist threat. With regards to the first argument, Putin itself declares: « Chechnya will not stop with its own independence. It will be used as a starting ground for a further attack on Russia ... The purpose will be to grab more territory... When I started to compare the scale of the possible tragedy with what we have there now, I had no doubt that we should act as we are acting, maybe even more firmly »(2). This argument makes the Chechen situation a strictly Russian domestic problem. While the first argument was used in both Chechen conflicts, another one was added after the 9/11 attacks. Russia managed to convince the international community that the conflict faced was one of fight against international Islamic terrorism and that therefore « humanitarian law was irrelevant »(3).
Another aspect has great importance in terms of solving the conflict: the possibility that the Western states intervene to restore the peace. But these states would have to make a choice between respecting the state sovereignty or a peoples’ right to self-determination. Generally statesmen are reluctant when recognizing the legitimacy of an ethnic groups’ demands of independence, because this might open a Pandora’s Box filled with other, more violent separatist claims (4).
However, although intervention would have been condemned due to the principle of non-intervention in a state’s internal affairs and civil wars - this being the case of Chechnya- in virtue of article 2, paragraph 7 in the UN Charter, the same paragraph has provided in other situations (Somalia, Rwanda) the basis of an intervention through an « extensive interpretation »(5) of the terms « menace to peace ». Resuming, the Western states and the international organizations practically had to choose which interpretation to use.
The state most interested on the Chechen situation has been from the beginning the United States - some say that because it allowed an intervention in the internal affairs of Russia(6) and therefore keep it under surveillance, while others think it is because it was another way to weaken Russia’s energetic policies (Russia’s oil from the Caspian sea used to cross the Chechen territory). With the inclusion of the Chechen conflict on the international terrorist agenda, the relations between the two states improved and the « benladenisation » of the Chechen combatants was recognized openly.
France on the other hand had a more active debate due to the implication of its intellectuals and the kidnapping of one of its citizens, this attitude leading even to the proposal of not accepting Russia in the Council of Europe. However, due to these events the relation with Russia got so cold, that the French criticism eventually stopped. Germany declared from the beginning that this was an « internal affair » that concerned only Russia, but hoped for a « political solution ». Great Britain had a different relation with the Chechen conflict as it had several of its citizens captured in Chechnya, some of them being killed. But the pressure of important lobby groups for the Chechen cause made the British reactions very prudent and limited their criticism. However some countries had a more active attitude, Sweden was one of the few to declare clearly that « the way Russia is resolving the conflict cannot be considered as an internal affair ».
Other important actors that should have been more involved in this conflict’s resolution are the international organizations. The UN for example had a very marginal role, as it didn’t even put the matter on the agenda. The fact that Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council explains the situation, but doesn’t take the blame from the UNHCR that put no pressure on Russia in order to continue its humanitarian relief.
The European Union, although it established some conditions to Russia in order to ratify the Agreement on Partnership, didn’t made them sanctions, keeping the entire thing at a declaration level. The Council of Europe, in spite of the on going conflict, allowed Russia to joint its ranks although at first the membership was conditioned by the cease of the conflict. The most active organism became the OSCE, through its Assistance group in Chechnya. It was the main instrument the international community used in this conflict, but it lacked financial and human resources in order to provide the humanitarian relief needed in the area(7).
Closely related to the Western reactions are the reasons behind these attitudes. First of all there was a lack of information and interest in the problem. The undeniable complexity of the Chechen conflict history made it difficult for Westerners to understand it, so they accepted without questioning the Russian presentation of the problem. Secondly there is the “Russia First-policy“, giving this state the international place of the Soviet Union. And finally, both president Yeltsin and Putin were seen as the guarantors of the democratization in Russia and for this they were not annoyed too much as the entire process of liberalization in Russia seemed to depend on their good will.
But these reasons all have an opposing argument. Firstly, although Russia is the heir of the Soviet Union and has a certain great power-status, it is however a country struggling to develop itself. The West didn’t exploit at all the opportunity to put pressure through economical and political threats, to which Russia would have undoubtedly react. Secondly, caught still in cold war logic, the Western states simply accepted the situation without too much debating. Some researchers think that in time the direct consequences in Chechnya of this attitude will be the complete rejection of the Western values by the Chechen population(8) and the growing success of the Islamic movements(9).
Another consequence can already be felt in the field of international law and norms: the inconsistent attitude of the Council of Europe, the renouncement to apply its standards when it came to Russia, will affect the image of this institution and of human rights in general. The discredit of human rights norms in front of the international community is obvious; if the institutions that are meant to protect and apply them closed their eyes in front of such gross attacks to the values they are defending, how can we be sure that this will not happen again in the near future?
Still, in spite of the fact the Western institutions didn’t kept their engagements in front of the human rights perpetrations in Chechnya, the solution wasn’t to step on more international norms - as direct intervention is allowed only in very specific cases. Ib Faubry’s opinion with regards to the first Chechen war applies still perfectly: « We do not blame the West for not preventing the war - nor for bringing it to an earlier end. We simply blame the West for not trying to do so. »(10). One of the most powerful instruments of human rights internalization in a country that doesn’t respect these norms is the process of « shaming ». The West was so mild in its critics that the Russian government was never bothered in its actions.
Careful not to enhance the anti-Western attitudes in Russia, a country famous for its so-called syndrome of the « fortress under siege », the West has kept quiet for a long time. However, there are some signs that this situation might change. On the 25th of January this year an extensive report on the situation in Chechnya was presented in front of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (11). However, Russia seems to be always one step ahead, not only by becoming the chair of the Council of Europe, but also by enhancing surveillance measures through the new law against terrorism(12) and a new law on NGOs, limiting the external support to domestic nongovernmental organizations (13). It has been argued that his law is actually a new way to oppress those that support the Chechen victims and that is meant to reduce the freedom of the citizens. Whether this is true or not, the international institutions holding responsibility in this case should adopt a new attitude, a more decided one, in order to end the war in Chechnya after many decades of war and violence.
The Chechen conflict has become critical as Russia took over the Presidency of the Council of Europe, “Europe's premier intergovernmental human rights organization”, as Radio Free Europe(1) calls it.
The conflict itself goes back many centuries to the first attempts of the tsarist empire to find a way to the warm seas and the Ottoman Empire. Why the war began again after the collapse of the Soviet Union is something very easy to understand, as easy as the need of the Russian authorities to keep this area under control. But what seems beyond anybody's understanding is the Western attitude towards the Chechen wars and the reasons behind their apparent blindness to the events in this part of Europe.
First of all, from the Russian authorities' perspective, the conflict is legitimate from two points of view: preventing a « Caucasian Yugoslavia » and the fight against the international terrorist threat. With regards to the first argument, Putin itself declares: « Chechnya will not stop with its own independence. It will be used as a starting ground for a further attack on Russia ... The purpose will be to grab more territory... When I started to compare the scale of the possible tragedy with what we have there now, I had no doubt that we should act as we are acting, maybe even more firmly »(2). This argument makes the Chechen situation a strictly Russian domestic problem. While the first argument was used in both Chechen conflicts, another one was added after the 9/11 attacks. Russia managed to convince the international community that the conflict faced was one of fight against international Islamic terrorism and that therefore « humanitarian law was irrelevant »(3).
Another aspect has great importance in terms of solving the conflict: the possibility that the Western states intervene to restore the peace. But these states would have to make a choice between respecting the state sovereignty or a peoples’ right to self-determination. Generally statesmen are reluctant when recognizing the legitimacy of an ethnic groups’ demands of independence, because this might open a Pandora’s Box filled with other, more violent separatist claims (4).
However, although intervention would have been condemned due to the principle of non-intervention in a state’s internal affairs and civil wars - this being the case of Chechnya- in virtue of article 2, paragraph 7 in the UN Charter, the same paragraph has provided in other situations (Somalia, Rwanda) the basis of an intervention through an « extensive interpretation »(5) of the terms « menace to peace ». Resuming, the Western states and the international organizations practically had to choose which interpretation to use.
The state most interested on the Chechen situation has been from the beginning the United States - some say that because it allowed an intervention in the internal affairs of Russia(6) and therefore keep it under surveillance, while others think it is because it was another way to weaken Russia’s energetic policies (Russia’s oil from the Caspian sea used to cross the Chechen territory). With the inclusion of the Chechen conflict on the international terrorist agenda, the relations between the two states improved and the « benladenisation » of the Chechen combatants was recognized openly.
France on the other hand had a more active debate due to the implication of its intellectuals and the kidnapping of one of its citizens, this attitude leading even to the proposal of not accepting Russia in the Council of Europe. However, due to these events the relation with Russia got so cold, that the French criticism eventually stopped. Germany declared from the beginning that this was an « internal affair » that concerned only Russia, but hoped for a « political solution ». Great Britain had a different relation with the Chechen conflict as it had several of its citizens captured in Chechnya, some of them being killed. But the pressure of important lobby groups for the Chechen cause made the British reactions very prudent and limited their criticism. However some countries had a more active attitude, Sweden was one of the few to declare clearly that « the way Russia is resolving the conflict cannot be considered as an internal affair ».
Other important actors that should have been more involved in this conflict’s resolution are the international organizations. The UN for example had a very marginal role, as it didn’t even put the matter on the agenda. The fact that Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council explains the situation, but doesn’t take the blame from the UNHCR that put no pressure on Russia in order to continue its humanitarian relief.
The European Union, although it established some conditions to Russia in order to ratify the Agreement on Partnership, didn’t made them sanctions, keeping the entire thing at a declaration level. The Council of Europe, in spite of the on going conflict, allowed Russia to joint its ranks although at first the membership was conditioned by the cease of the conflict. The most active organism became the OSCE, through its Assistance group in Chechnya. It was the main instrument the international community used in this conflict, but it lacked financial and human resources in order to provide the humanitarian relief needed in the area(7).
Closely related to the Western reactions are the reasons behind these attitudes. First of all there was a lack of information and interest in the problem. The undeniable complexity of the Chechen conflict history made it difficult for Westerners to understand it, so they accepted without questioning the Russian presentation of the problem. Secondly there is the “Russia First-policy“, giving this state the international place of the Soviet Union. And finally, both president Yeltsin and Putin were seen as the guarantors of the democratization in Russia and for this they were not annoyed too much as the entire process of liberalization in Russia seemed to depend on their good will.
But these reasons all have an opposing argument. Firstly, although Russia is the heir of the Soviet Union and has a certain great power-status, it is however a country struggling to develop itself. The West didn’t exploit at all the opportunity to put pressure through economical and political threats, to which Russia would have undoubtedly react. Secondly, caught still in cold war logic, the Western states simply accepted the situation without too much debating. Some researchers think that in time the direct consequences in Chechnya of this attitude will be the complete rejection of the Western values by the Chechen population(8) and the growing success of the Islamic movements(9).
Another consequence can already be felt in the field of international law and norms: the inconsistent attitude of the Council of Europe, the renouncement to apply its standards when it came to Russia, will affect the image of this institution and of human rights in general. The discredit of human rights norms in front of the international community is obvious; if the institutions that are meant to protect and apply them closed their eyes in front of such gross attacks to the values they are defending, how can we be sure that this will not happen again in the near future?
Still, in spite of the fact the Western institutions didn’t kept their engagements in front of the human rights perpetrations in Chechnya, the solution wasn’t to step on more international norms - as direct intervention is allowed only in very specific cases. Ib Faubry’s opinion with regards to the first Chechen war applies still perfectly: « We do not blame the West for not preventing the war - nor for bringing it to an earlier end. We simply blame the West for not trying to do so. »(10). One of the most powerful instruments of human rights internalization in a country that doesn’t respect these norms is the process of « shaming ». The West was so mild in its critics that the Russian government was never bothered in its actions.
Careful not to enhance the anti-Western attitudes in Russia, a country famous for its so-called syndrome of the « fortress under siege », the West has kept quiet for a long time. However, there are some signs that this situation might change. On the 25th of January this year an extensive report on the situation in Chechnya was presented in front of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (11). However, Russia seems to be always one step ahead, not only by becoming the chair of the Council of Europe, but also by enhancing surveillance measures through the new law against terrorism(12) and a new law on NGOs, limiting the external support to domestic nongovernmental organizations (13). It has been argued that his law is actually a new way to oppress those that support the Chechen victims and that is meant to reduce the freedom of the citizens. Whether this is true or not, the international institutions holding responsibility in this case should adopt a new attitude, a more decided one, in order to end the war in Chechnya after many decades of war and violence.