Re: [Marxism] Chechnya: what Proyect wrote back 1999...

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:                   Louis Proyect

 Liberating dynamic? If so, there must be elements in the Chechen
> resistance
> that I have not been made aware of. My impression--and I might
be wrong--is
> that they are virtually indistinguishable politically from the Taliban.
>
> The Gazette (Montreal), October 26, 1999, FINAL
>
> Who's calling the shots?: Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in
> Afghanistan and Pakistan



<<<<That's what I wrote in 1999 and I stand by most of it>>>>

 I'll chopped the points in your message, including your personal
attack against me, that were irrelevant to the discussion.  Sticking
to the issues at hand:

You already claimed before that there is no justified concern for
Russia over Chechynia. You have also argued that the U.S. is in no
way involved in the Chechin 'conflict'  -- at least, the proof is non-
existent for you-- and essentially that the Chechin threats as per
U.S. geopolitical aims for the region is a figment of the Russian
imaginination. Apparently, either out of ignorance, or expedience,
you now decide to ignore the relevance of Musharraf's longstanding
cozy relationship with the U.S. (including the U.S. intelligence
community), highlighted by the author of Gazette article, in
situating the financial and ideological support received by the
Chechin "resistance" from the Pakistan secret service (it's probably
more accurate to characterize this so-called  "resistance" as
another in a long list of  PSS's creactions although I'll refrain from
nitpicking) even while, I' m sure, being quite aware of these
connections  (at least, if you had read the article you posted back
in 1999 you would be aware). That much (i.e., the connection part)
comes out in the article as does the reactionary character of this
so-called Chechin resistance.

Now what of the fact that the Chechin's "guerrila" leader (whatever
his name is) followed a similar career path along the lines of the
other murky characters that participated in KLA operations in the
Balkans (not just specific to Kosovo or Bosnia, but Macedonia, and
parts of Northern Greece) and some of the Arab "freedom" fighter
types that had previously operated in Afghanistan, the former
Yugoslav republics and now today in the Caucasus? Does it not
ring alarm bells for you in terms of the situation in Chechynia?

Also which part of what you wrote in 1999 do you NOT stick by
today? Is it the part about "liberating dynamic"?

If so, what prompted this change of heart?

And if you no longer hold this position, I imagine it means that you
now view the Chechin "resistance" as a liberating force. You've said
this much in previous posts.

In which case, did the composition of the Chechin "resistance"
change that drastically within the past 5 years that would now
warrant considering them a liberating force? Or I am reading too
much into your comments regarding "liberating force"?!

<<<<<The Chechen
> guerrillas *are like* the Taliban in many respects. Or like the
fighters
> who have control of Fallujah. Or Hamas, etc. But that does not
mean I
> support the Russian army's occupation of Chechnya. Or the US
occupation
> of Iraq. Or the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. For that
matter,
> the Israeli occupation of Palestine in its totality. If the criterion is
> socialist or even politically leftist leadership, none of these
> struggles could be supported.>>>>>
>

Since that be the case, since there are, in your view, near identical
parralels between the Chechins and the situation in Palestine and
Iraq and so on, why not add to the fold Kosovo, Bosnia,
Macedonia?

Even if, as you already claimed, Yugoslavia was socialist republic
before its break up whereas Russia is at the moment capitalist
through and through, it doesn't discount the fact, going by your
definition of "opressed minorities", that the Kosovar Albanians had
a legitimate claim for independence from Serbia and therefore that
Milosevic, in that relationship, was the big bad Stalinist crusader.

In other words, for you, simply declaring a country "socialist"
decides everything and therefore sweeps all crimes allegedly
perpetrated in the name of socialism under the rug.  In which case,
since the so-called Tibetan liberation movement is run by relgious
zealots (unlike, the non-religious character of the Iraqi, and
Palestinian, resistance?!) and that everything China does in
defence of Tibet is therefore obviously in defence of the greater
good of Socalism/Maoism we should not as true socialists defend
the liberation movement in Tibet?!

Obviously, with Tibet, your Taliban, Palestine and Iraqi resistance
principle goes out the window.


DOQ

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism