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

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

(Here is an article that is the exact political position of the left wing
front men for the imperial bourgeoisie. The difference between the left wing
champions of democracy and self determination and the author below is that the
former are unwilling to condemn the political terrorism that is Beslan. I do not
agree with the author below . . . but he articulates the anti-Soviet and
anti-Russian chauvinism of much of the American Left and so-called American
Marxists).

Melvin P.



OP-ED By Richard Pipes, The New York Times

New York, New York, Thursday, September 9, 2004


The terrorist attack in Beslan in Russia's North Caucasus was not only bloody
but viciously sadistic: the children taken hostage by pro-Chechen terrorists
were denied food and drink and even forbidden to go to the bathroom, then
massacred when the siege was broken. It is proper for the civilized world to
express outrage and feel solidarity with the Russian people. But to say this is not
necessarily to agree with those - including President Bush and President
Vladimir Putin of Russia - who would equate the massacre with the 9/11 attacks
and Islamic terrorism in general.


In his post-Beslan speech, Mr. Putin all but linked the attack to global
Islam: "We have to admit that we have failed to recognize the complexity and
dangerous nature of the processes taking place in our own country and the world in
general." Reports that some of the terrorists were Arabs reinforce that line
of thinking. But the fact is, the Chechen cause and that of Al Qaeda are quite
different, and demand very different approaches in combating them.


Terrorism is a means to an end: it can be employed for limited ends as well
as for unlimited destructiveness. The terrorists who blew up the train station
in Madrid just before the Spanish election this year had a specific goal in
mind: to compel the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. The Chechen case is,
in some respects, analogous. A small group of Muslim people, the Chechens
have been battling their Russian conquerors for centuries.


At the close of World War II, Stalin had the entire Chechen nation exiled to
Kazakhstan for alleged collaboration with the Nazis. Khrushchev allowed them
to return to their homeland but they continued to chafe under Russian rule.


Because Chechnya, unlike the Ukraine or Georgia, had never enjoyed the status
of a nominally independent republic under the Communists, the Chechens were
denied the right to secede from the Russian Federation after the collapse of
the Soviet Union. And so they eventually resorted to terrorism for the limited
objective of independence.


A clever arrangement secured by the Russian security chief, Gen. Alexander
Lebed, in 1996 granted the Chechens de facto sovereignty while officially they
remained Russian citizens. Peace ensued. It was broken by several terrorist
attacks on Russian soil, which the authorities blamed on the Chechens (although
many skeptics attributed them to Russian security agencies eager to create a
pretext to bring Chechnya back into the fold). A second Chechen war began in
1999, of which there seems no end in sight.


This history makes clear how the events in Russia differ from
9/11. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon were unprovoked and had no
specific objective. Rather, they were part of a general assault of Islamic
extremists bent on destroying non- Islamic civilizations. As such, America's war
with Al Qaeda is non-negotiable. But the Chechens do not seek to destroy Russia -
thus there is always an opportunity for compromise.


Unfortunately, Russia's leaders, and to some extent the populace, are loath
to grant them independence - in part because of a patrimonial mentality that
inhibits them from surrendering any territory that was ever part of the Russian
homeland, and in part because they fear that granting the Chechens sovereignty
would lead to a greater unraveling of their federation. The Kremlin also
does not want to lose face by capitulating to force.


The Russians ought to learn from the French. France, too, was once involved
in a bloody colonial war in which thousands fell victim of terrorist violence.
The Algerian war began in 1954 and dragged on without an end in sight, until
Charles de Gaulle courageously solved the conflict by granting Algeria
independence in 1962. This decision may have been even harder than the choice
confronting President Putin, because Algeria was much larger and contributed more to
the French economy than Chechnya does to Russia's, and hundreds of thousands
of French citizens lived there.


Until and unless Moscow follows the French example, the terrorist menace will
not be alleviated. It is as impossible to track Chechens scattered throughout
Russia as it is to intimidate the suicidal fanatics among them. Worse, the
continuation of Chechen terrorism threatens to undermine the authority of Mr.
Putin, whose landslide victory in last spring's

presidential election was in good measure due to the voters' belief that
could contain the Chechen threat. Russians respect strong authority, and there are
new signs that Mr. Putin's inability to wield it over Chechnya makes them
wonder whether he is fit to rule them. After the school siege, there was much
muttering in the streets that under Stalin such atrocities would not have
occurred.


Unfortunately, he seems determined not to yield an inch. "We showed weakness,
and the weak are trampled upon," he said on Saturday. This may seem like a
truism to Russians, but in this case it is wrong. Russia, the largest country on
earth, can surely afford to let go of a tiny colonial dependency, and ought
to do so without delay. (END)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Pipes is an emeritus professor of history at Harvard and the author
of "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution" and, most recently, of "Vixi:
The Memoirs of a Non-Belonger."