Actually, George, the OSCE Istanbul summit's final declaration -- which the Russians signed, incidentally -- specifically states that internal conflicts can NO LONGER be considered strictly internal, insofar as they can threaten the stability & safety of neighboring states. But the Russians continue, of course, to reject even verbal ctiticism of their policy as "interference in their internal affairs."
Why, then, did they sign the declaration? And don't count on there being no sanctions. I don't think that public opinion is going to allow the politicians to weasel out entirely this time round, as they did in 1994-1996.
As for what the Russians could have done, or could do in the future, I have plenty of ideas/suggestions, which I don't really have time to go into at the moment. Just a few facts and observations to ponder:
1) The kind of banditry (kidnapping, etc.) the Russians complain of began developing in Chechnya ONLY AFTER THE 1994-1996 WAR. Don't you think it possible that, given the almost total destruction of Chechnya's industrial base during the war, and given the almost total unemployment that resulted therefrom, that the Russians could a) have anticipated the spread of crime, b) have supplied some of the reconstruction aid they promised?
2) It is not just conspiracy theorists that have noted connections between the "bandits" and "certain influential circles" (hate that term!) in the Moscow elite.
3) The Russians HAD to respond to the rebellion in Dagestan, of course. But bear in mind that just as many Dagestani radicals (mostly exiles who had taken refuge in Chechnya) were involved in it as Chechen radicals. Calling it simply a "Chechen invasion" is an oversimplification; and the wisdom of extending the military action into a full-scale war against Chechnya is questionable, for a variety of reasons.
4) Furthermore, the Russians had PLENTY of advance notice that the "invasion" was coming. After all, the "jihad" had been publicly declared in MARCH! Scenarios for the coming "invasion" had been PUBLISHED IN MOSCOW NEWSPAPERS! Even if you don't believe that the Russian security services were in on this deal, or that Basayev was really a Russian agent (which plenty of people maintain), you have to admit there is something VERY FISHY here!
5) Terrorism and Banditry. Scores of countries have had similar problems with both terrorism and with banditry, but have not resorted to conventional-style (i.e., let's bomb the civilians) war in order to deal with them. For example, how many bombs did the IRA set off in ENGLAND (forget Northern Ireland) over the years? And did the Brits EVER respond the way the Russians have?
Or kidnapping (which the Russians also advance as a reason for launching the war): according to a recent book on the subject of kidnapping, the countries where it flourishes the most are, in order: Colombia, Brazil, Pakistan, Philippines, Mexico, Guatemala, the United States (!), Venezuela, India, and Ecuador. Russia (including Chechnya) doesn't even make it into the Top Ten (although it's getting there). The author (Ann Hagedorn Auerbach) maintains that the conditions for the growth of this "phenomenon" are almost invariably the same (the US would have to be an exception, of course). Thus, any Russian government genuinely interested in preventing it could have predicted that it would develop in Chechnya, and have taken steps to help President Maskhadov to stop it. (Certainly none of the other members of the Top Ten have tried the Russian method of "stopping' it. Italy, by the way, used to be the Kidnapping Capital of the world back in the '50's; note it is no longer on the list.)
6) Putin can talk till he's blue in the face about his "anti-terrorist operation," but it is obvious from the statements of the generals and other politicians that as far as they are concerned, the real issue, again, is "separatism" and the need to preserve Russia's "territorial integrity." In other words, the 1994-1996 war is being fought all over again, and for the same old reason. And although I repeat that I am not a conspiracy theorist, it is not easy to refute those who argue that the Russian "security services" encouraged, even financed, the "bandits," and even cleared the way for them to attack Dagestan, so that Moscow would have a legitimate excuse to replay the first war...
And etc., and etc., and etc.
|
