[A-List] James Petras on Beslan - fire away

["Stan Goff" <sherrynstan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Terrorism in North Ossetia: Self-Determination and Imperial Politics

James Petras - September 8, 2004

            The monstrous deliberate slaughter of over 330 parents and
children in the Beslan school gymnasium by Chechen terrorists is not as the
BBC claims a Âtragedy  but a vicious criminal act.

            To understand the nature of the conflict between the Russian
state and the Chechen terrorists  it is important to focus on the
socio-political forces and issues in dispute.  For the bulk of the US and
European media the issue is the Âself-determination of the Chechens.  But
who and what does the Âself refer to ?  With the disintegration of the
former Soviet Union, both in Russia and in the Baltic, Balkan and Caucasian
states criminal gangs allied with corrupt members of the former Soviet
apparatus seized and pillaged public resources controlling the economies and
state apparatus.  Gangsters became billionaires and billionaires contracted
assassins to eliminate rivals, competitors and any regulatory authorities
who questioned their practices.  According to Paul Klebnikov  the recently
assassinated editor of the Russian edition of Forbes Magazine  one of the
most brutal of the vicious gangs operating in Moscow was the Chechen
mafia.  Allied with Russian billionaires and through them with the Russian
security system they accumulated large fortunes which they laundered via
Western banks and through their extensive networks with their operatives in
Chechnya.  Any Chechen who protested or questioned the Chechen mafia was
quickly eliminated.  For the Chechen mafia operating in Russia, Chechnya was
the Âhome base  the sanctuary to which they could always find a safe
haven.  The Chechen mafia was instrumental in financing arming and providing
military cadres and leaders to the Chechen Âindependence movementÂ.  What
was at stake was the creation of a mafia fiefdom controlled by gangsters,
warlords and Islamic fundamentalists.

            Writing of the First Chechen War (1994-96), Paul Klebnikov
wrote:

            ÂThe Chechen War was a gangster turf war writ large.  Chechen
organized crime groups in Moscow and other Russian cities maintained
subsidiaries in their ancestral homeland.  Chechnya was a key transit point
in the Russian narcotics trade and the Moscow-based gangsters sent a large
part of their profits back to the homeland. The same Russian officials and
security officers who patronized Chechen organized crime groups in Moscow
also patronized the Chechen government by allowing (it) to appropriate
millions on tons of Russian oil at little or no cost (Godfather of the
Kremlin, Harcourt 2000,  page 40).

            Klebnikov went on to point out that the Chechen warlords and
gangsters received their arms from corrupt Russian army commanders and
security forces (page 41).  To the question of who are the political forces
of self-determination in the case of Chechnya, the answer is the gangsters,
warlords, and extremist terrorists, like Shamil Basayen, Salman Raduyev and
fundamentalists like Movladi Udugov.  Between 1995-97 the notorious Russian
oligarch, Boris Berezovsky, maintained a close relationship with these
Chechen warlords (Klebnikov, page 261). Today they both share a common and
absolute hostility to President Putin and his attempt to control crime and
pillage.

            Chechen warlords sought to gain a semblance of Âlegitimacy for
their fiefdom by provoking a conflict with Russia and securing US and
European support.  From the end of the 1980Âs, but particularly after 1991,
the CIA gave the highest priority to fomenting the break up of the Soviet
Union by financing and arming local separatist movements.  The first wave of
break-ups took place in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Georgia.  Washington and
London were not at all concerned about whether the new leaders were Islamic
fundamentalists, ex-Stalinist autocrats, or Mafia gangsters  the important
issue was to destroy the USSR, and undermine Russian influence throughout
the Caucasus and South Asia.  Following the Âindependence of these former
Soviet republics, the US especially moved in to create client regimes,
signing oil contracts and building military bases.  ÂSelf-Determination was
a transitional slogan toward rapid incorporation into the new US hegemonic
zone.  Russia under US client ruler Yelsin acceded to all these US
acquisitions Âadvised by gangsters, mafia billionaires and the most corrupt
Âoligarchs in recent history.

            The US empire, having succeeded in the first wave of client
acquisition, moved further to foment a second wave to include other Russian
autonomous territories, even closer to strategic centers of the Russian
state.  Chechnya was a choice target for historic reasons.  During the
US-sponsored Islamic uprising and invasion against the secular reform-minded
Afghan republic in 1989, Washington teamed up with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
and other Muslim states (including Iran) to recruit, finance and arm tens of
thousands of Muslim Fundamentalists from all over the Middle East, North
Africa, Southern Caucasus and Southern Asia.  Numerous Âvolunteers from
Chechnya fought in Afghanistan against the Afghan government and its
supporters.  The US achieved a pyrrhic victory in Afghanistan: it severely
weakened the decaying Soviet state, but created tens of thousands of
well-armed and trained fundamentalist network.  While one sector of the
Islamic forces went into opposition to the US in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere
another group lent itself to US imperial strategy in the dismemberment of
Yugoslavia and Russia.

            Thousands of Afghans fighters from the Fundamentalist armies
went to Bosnia, where they were armed and financed by the US to fight
against the Yugoslavs and in favor of a separatist state under US tutelage.

            Many writers on the left ignored the presence of these
Âvolunteers who were in the frontlines in ethnic purges of Serb enclaves
and who detonated a terrorist bombing in a major market in Sarajevo to focus
Western opinion on Serb ÂgenocideÂ.  Following the successful dismemberment
of the major regions of Yugoslavia and the division of the new Âmini-statesÂ
into US and European clients, the US moved toward adding a new regions to
the empire. Washington and Europe backed the separatist Kosovo Liberation
Army, first with financing, training and arms and later by declaring war
against the remnant of Yugoslavia.  Chechens participated with the so-called
Kosovo Liberation Army, a widely recognized terrorist group that was
classified as Åcriminal by Interpol prior to becoming a Washington client.
The KLA was financed from several Âinternal sourcesÂ. In part it derived
funds from its control over the drug routes from South Asia and the Middle
East and in the large-scale trade in sex slaves.  Later it raked in dollars
and euros from the brothels in Åliberated Kosovo. Above all it stole land,
businesses and personal property from the expelled Serb population and stole
billions of dollars from Western aid.  Under Nato protection, the KLA
ethnically cleansed over 200,000 residents who were not ethnic Albanians and
became a de-facto client state living off of Western handouts and with all
of its factories and mines shut.  The US contracted Halliburton to build
huge military bases in Southern Europe, Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan all
of which were US battlegrounds where Washington had sponsored separatist
movements under the guise of Åself-determinationÂ. These are all now being
converted into client states.

            Chechen separatists developed close working relations and
terrorist skills working with the US and Western Europe in all of these
conflicts and became the beneficiaries of US diplomatic, political and
military support (via Saudi Arabia).  Like the Kosovars, the Chechen leaders
came out of a mafia-financed network, which uses nationalist rhetoric to
cloak gangster rule.

            Throughout the 1990Âs to the present, the West has backed the
Chechen terrorists even as they draw heavily on support from Moscow
gangsters and Islamic fundamentalists. Their leaders embrace a Ârule or
ruin policy, refusing any status except to separate from Russia and become
a US client.  For the US, a victory for the Chechen terrorists would become
a springboard for further dismemberment of Russia throughout the Caucasus.

            The Chechens combine the violent tactics they learned in
controlling gangland activity in Russia with the terrorist practices of the
Afghan war which targeted female rural school teachers and medical workers
for beheading, throat slitting and the skinning of ÅCommunist captives
alive. Their current practice of placing of bombs in theaters, airplanes,
apartment complexes and the horrible killing and maiming of hundreds of
school children and their parents and teachers has a bloody, US-sanctioned
precedent.  The Chechens combine the worse of the Mafia and Islamic
fundamentalists  cold-blooded murder of innocent victims to establish
theocratic warlord rulership.
Western Policy
            In response to the Chechen terrorist assaults, all the Western
mass media continued to refer to them as ÂnationalistsÂ, ÂmilitantsÂ,
Ârebels and as legitimate representatives of the Chechen people, even after
they had massacred the school children.  In the immediate aftermath, all the
print and electronic media, from the BBC to the Guardian, to Le Monde, New
York Times etc. criticized the Russians for failing to negotiate with the
terrorists  even as the terrorists were murdering children and even after
they had set off explosives maiming innocent kids.  Nothing captures the
profound media commitment to empire and backing for the dismemberment of
Russia than its support of the terrorists in the midst of mass murder.  The
most primitive and craven support for terrorist demands in the midst of
national grief and international outrage finally provoked the Russian state
to react with indignation  and for some of the media to temporarily
downplay its support of the terrorists and the breakup of Russia.

            The Russian media was no exception. Most of the privately owned
media and commentators yearn for the return of the Yeltsin period of
servility and enrichment and seek to discredit and destroy the Putin regime.
Many of the billionaire oligarchs have close working relations with the
Chechen leaders, especially Boris Berezovsky. The oligarchs and their
pundits in the Russian media echo the Western political and media line of
blaming the Russian security forces rather than the Chechen terrorists.
Eyewitness survivors provide vivid accounts of bombing and killings prior to
the Russian rescue operations  thus putting the lie to the Western cover-up
for the terrorist action.

In England the British government provides asylum to a major Chechen
terrorist leader sought by Russian authorities.  In the United States, one
of ChechnyaÂs separatist leaders, Ilyas Akhadov, was given asylum last
August, largely through the efforts of ÂAmerican Committee for Peace in
Chechnya chaired by CarterÂs National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
and ReaganÂs Secretary of State Alexander Haig  principle backers of the
Fundamentalist invasion and destruction of the secular Republic of
Afghanistan in the 1980Âs. BrzezinskiÂs life-long obsession has been the
total dismemberment of Russia  and its reduction to a feudal enclave
controlled by the West via local oligarchs, warlords and gangsters  like
those he backs in Chechnya.  Brzezinski and his neo-conservative colleagues
in the National Endowment for Democracy  the civilian face of the CIA Â
awarded this terrorist Åspokesman a research grant, including a monthly
allowance, medial insurance and travel expenses.

Anglo-US governments and their Âpolitical fronts provide sanctuary to the
Chechen terrorist leaders as part of their strategy to sustain a war of
attrition against Russia and especially Putin using the Chechen people as
guinea pigs.  The outcome of Chechen independence would most likely resemble
Kosovo  a client state, with a big US military base, run by gangsters and
warlords, trafficking in drugs, sex-slaves and military contraband  and
deeply involved in fomenting separatist terror along RussiaÂs southern
border  namely the Republic of Dagestan (which is multi-ethnic and close to
the oil and gas rich Caspian Sea).  The enemy of Russia is not an autonomous
Chechen Republic but a terrorist gangster-run state, controlled by US and
British security forces, aimed at further dismembering Russia and destroying
PutinÂs efforts to reform the Russian state.

            One of the possible unanticipated consequences however is that
the terrorist slaughter and maiming of hundreds of children and parents in
BeslanÂs public school, may give Putin the chance to get rid of all the
security officials left over from the Yeltsin regime.  It may force Putin to
create a new efficient security regime capable of breaking up the gangs and
gangsters (Chechen and otherwise) who have financed the terrorists.  More
important he will have to realize that Anglo-US imperialism is not a partner
against terror but an accomplice of terrorists in their mission to fragment
Russia and destroy its public authority.
Conclusion
            To understand WashingtonÂs application of the principle of
Âself-determination of nations requires a critical class perspective of the
concept.  Washington applies it in cases like Kosovo and Chechnya where it
controls the client forces, despite their political illegitimacy their use
of terrorist methods.  For the Anglo-American empire builders
Âself-determination is used as a slogan to dismember adversarial states,
and convert the new mini-entity into an enclave or military base and
political client.

            The fundamental question that needs to be raised prior to the
issue of self-determination is what is the nature of the political and
social forces supporting self-determination  are they part of a national
project or are they mere puppets of an imperial power struggle.  Chechnya
illustrates the latter, while Iraq and Palestine represent cases of
independent national struggles against colonial occupation.  The rather
mindless support of many on the left of the Kosovo and Chechen gangsters
under the principle of Âself-determination without any prior analysis of
the context and politics reveals their mediocrity and worse their servile
submission to imperial propaganda.

 The question of the day is Anglo-American global imperial expansion Â
directly through colonial wars and indirectly through surrogate ÂseparatistÂ
terrorists.  The mass murder in Chechnya should at a minimum, provoke some
critical re-thinking of the issue of what is involved in the Chechen War,
who are its backers and who stands to benefit.

            In the United States the principle backers of the Chechen
Âseparatists are the same neo-conservative Zionists, who promoted the
invasion of Iraq and are unconditional backers of Israel and ethnic
cleansing of Palestinians: Perle, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Feith and Adelman among
others.  The pro-Chechen Åleft travels with strange comrades!

            The dual standards which the US and Europe apply when evaluating
terrorism is most blatantly evident in the case of ChechnyaÂs terrorist
leaders.  Ilyas Akmadov was awarded asylum in the US despite the fact that
Russian security investigators claim they have evidence of AkhmadovÂs ties
to Chechen terrorist leaders, Aslan Maskhadov and the notorious Shamil
Basayev. Britain has granted asylum to Akmed Zakayev  a spokesman for
Maskhadov and a ÂCultural Minister of his Åopposition governmentÂ, as the
terrorist network is referred to by their sponsors. Maskhadov has sent Umar
Khabuyev to France, Apti Bisultanov to Germany , among other Åministers at
largeÂ. The Western regimes demonstrate that when it comes to pro-Western
Chechen terrorist there is no crime  even the mass murder of over 150
children  which is sufficiently brutal to warrant extradition.

Western regimes dual policy toward terrorism is informed by the question of
whom the terror is directed against.  It is a myth to speak, as Washington
does, of worldwide struggle against terror.  Washington and Europe in the
past and in the present support terrorist groups in Kosovo, Afghanistan and
Chechnya  as they supported them  in the 1980Âs in Nicaragua, Mozambique
and Angola.  For Washington, the issue of terror is subordinated to a more
basic question: Does it weaken the enemies or opponents of empire?  Does it
lead to future military bases?  Can the terrorist groups be recycled as
client regimes?  For the past 13 years the US and Europe has been
instrumental in fomenting separatist movements in the former Soviet Union,
Russia and Yugoslavia, which practice terror and violence to secure their
aims.  It is only recently that President Putin has come to realize that
there is no end to imperial expansion  short of Red Square.  His
co-operation with Washington in fighting terror directed against the US (Al
Queda) has not resulted in reciprocal support for Russian efforts to defeat
terror in the Caucasus.  The big question is whether Putin is willing or
able to have a complete reappraisal of Russian foreign policy especially a
reappraisal of US-Russian relations, which is central to the KremlinÂs
struggle against terror.

            Finally one may ask why do so many apparent Âprogressives and
Âleftist intellectuals parrot the US imperialist line of
Âself-determination for Chechnya?  Is it ignorance of the social forces in
Chechnya?  Do they simply decontextualize terrorist acts and impose abstract
principles out of slovenly intellectual habits?  Or are they simply bending
to pressure by their right-wing colleagues to Âconsistently support
Åself-determination everywhereÂ? Whatever the case these pro-imperialist
toadies are incurable:  Even in the midst of Chechen mass murder of harmless
children in Beslan, they blameÅthe Russians for not surrendering to
terrorists demands. Did any of these progressives and principled leftists
condemn Bush after 9/11 for not negotiating and rewarding Osama Bin Laden?
Of course not!  They supported BushÂs Âwar on terrorism even when it
involved invading and occupying a foreign country.  Why then the reticence
in supporting PutinÂs effort to stamp out terrorism within the boundaries of
Russia?  Can it be that the progressives have more in common with their
imperial rulers than they care to admit, especially when it comes to
questions of war and peace, terrorism and self-determination?