Dan, I am sorry to say I agree with you almost 100%.
I do think, however, that our Chechnya policy was indeed unique (if not "uniquely bad"), especially when compared to our Kosovo policy (if we can be said to have a "policy" in either case).
Our excuse for saying/doing nothing in the Chechnya case was that it was Russia's "internal affair," and thus none of our business. To be consistent, we should consider Kosovo the "internal affair" of Serbia/Yugoslavia. After all, Kosovo had the same juridical status within Serbia ("autonomous" republic) as Chechnya had within Russia. And in both cases, we continue to support the principle of "territorial integrity" against the principle of self-determination.
Furthermore, right after Clinton's absurd remark comparing the Russian-Chechen conflict to the American Civil War, the IMF granted Russia a monster loan. The Chechens, in their innocence, assumed that the Russians used the money from the IMF (controlled, as they see it, by the US) to step up the prosecution of the war. Thus, in the view of many Chechens, the Americans actually supported, and financed the Russian effort to exterminate them. I can't tell you how many times I was asked -- "Why do you hate us? What did we ever do to you?" (Bad public relations, to say the least.)
Not that the Europeans were much better. At first, they refused to admit Russia into the Council of Europe until the Russians cleaned up their Chechnya act. (Members oblige themselves not to violate human rights at home.) Then they went ahead and admitted Russia, anyway.
I, too, am glad I live in this country. But I can't help seeing that American policy abroad has too often come across as both opportunistic and moralizing -- a unique combination.
jbe |
