Chechnya: Why Putin is implacable
By Paul Reynolds, BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
BBC News, UK
Sept 6 2004
President Putin has drawn a line in the mountains of the North Caucasus
beyond which Russia will not withdraw.
Putin under pressure but not compromising
His insistence that there can be no surrender to demands for
independence for Chechnya is based on a number of factors which
include:
a fear of further chaos on Russia’s borders in the region
a feeling that Russia must not make any further territorial concessions
anywhere
a belief that the Chechens were offered and threw away the chance of
responsible independence before. Mr Putin has also added into this
complex mix the spectre of international (by which he means Islamic)
terrorism and an accusation that unnamed foreign countries want to
break bits off Russia.
It must also not be forgotten that he has staked his own reputation
on his policy and that therefore he is reluctant to change it.
Russian policy can be grouped under the following headings:
Geo-political
The argument is that if Chechnya, a troublesome republic on Russia’s
southern border, broke away it could provoke demands for independence
elsewhere in the region.
Chechnya has to its east the Russian republic of Dagestan which
is multi-ethnic and where there has been unrest between some of
its peoples.
To its west is Ingushetia, to which Chechnya was once joined and
which is largely Islamic. The Ingush in turn have fought with the
North Ossetians who are Orthodox Christians and whose children were
the victims in Beslan.
And all this is close to the energy-rich Caspian Sea and on Russia’s
southern flank.
Terrorism
The Russian fear is that terrorists have taken over the Chechen
opposition and that if Chechnya becomes independent, they will
take over Chechnya as well. They might then begin to spread their
influence outwards.
Mr Putin has alluded to Russian claims that Islamic terrorism is
linked to the attack on the school and other incidents.
He implies that Islamic terrorism not Chechen nationalism is the
real enemy.
Economic
An oil pipeline from Azerbaijan used to run through Chechnya, but it
was by-passed after earlier fighting and now goes through Dagestan.
There is oil and gas to be developed in the Caspian Sea and Russia
wants a stable area through which to pass supplies.
Territorial integrity
Mr Putin spoke nostalgically in his address to Russia after the
Beslan tragedy about the days when the borders of the Soviet Union
were protected.
He and others regret the loss of so much territory in the break-up
of the Soviet Union and want to stop any further territorial loss.
Necessity
The Russian president argues that after 1997, when then President
Yeltsin gave Chechnya autonomy, with independence to be discussed
later, the Chechens responded by failing to develop a stable republic.
In August 1999, radicals led by the man believed to be behind the
school siege, Shamil Basayev, invaded neighbouring Dagestan.
Putin does have a geo-political case. It is open to question though
whether his chosen means have the slightest likelihood of dealing
with the problem
Professor Margot Light, LSE Chechens were blamed for blowing up Russian
civilian targets, including apartment buildings in Moscow. Mr Putin
led the move to re-invade Chechnya.
Elections were held there recently so he claims that he has done all
he can and that his present policy is therefore one of necessity.
Western Russia watchers, like Western governments, have some sympathy
for the Russian dilemma but many doubt if Mr Putin’s approach is the
right one.
Professor Margot Light of the London School of Economics said:
“Putin does have a geo-political case. It is open to question though
whether his chosen means have the slightest likelihood of dealing
with the problem.
“He has to start talking to the people he says he will not talk
to, like Aslan Mashkadov who was the Chechen president until the
99 invasion.
“Mr Putin’s reputation is on the line. It is extremely useful to argue
that this is international terrorism and that outside countries are
involved. Frankly this is rubbish. Any involvement by al-Qaeda to
train or fund the Chechens post-dates the conflict.”
Professor Light, however, also suggested that Russian fears of chaos
on its border in that region could be exaggerated.
“Russia could afford the loss of Chechnya. Talk of other republics
leaving the federation is far from the truth,” she said.
Nicholas Redman, Russia analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit in
London commented: “Oil is an issue but it is not the main issue. If
there was oil Russia would still be determined to hang on.
“The North Caucasus was a hard-won region and Russia sees itself as a
civilising influence there. The loss of other republics in the area,
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, makes it even more important that
it should lose no more.
‘Where do you stop?’
“There is a just a fear that if you unravel, where do you stop.
“The problem is that Putin’s tactics have to be questioned. Russian
policy has encouraged divisions among the Chechens and there is nobody
who can glue the factions together.”
Western governments have not so publicly questioned Mr Putin’s
policies. Even a hint of criticism by the Dutch government (currently
holding the European Union presidency) provoked outrage in Moscow.
The West has generally left Moscow to its own devices in Chechnya
with occasional and ineffective mutterings about human rights.
This is despite a private view among some Western diplomats that
Russia, having lost so much of the old Soviet Union, would not be
affected by the loss of Chechnya.
The reality is that many western governments have their own war against
terrorism to fight and do not want to jeopardise Russian cooperation
by making adverse comments about Chechnya.
It all adds up to a Putin policy of, for the moment, no change.