ANTIWAR.COM
September 24, 2005
America’s Inheritance in the Caucasus
by Christopher Deliso
balkanalysis.com
While intervention is never praiseworthy, the one thing that can be said
about international involvement in the Caucasus is that it has at least been
fairly cosmopolitan, marked by a wide variety of voices and nations, and
less prone to polarizing truisms than in, say, the Balkans, where the
unchallenged ascendancy of the “Milosevic is guilty for everything” line has
basically eliminated the possibility of a more nuanced discourse and
contributed so much to the domination of US/EU single-track ideological
rule.
Indeed, as the Christian Science Monitor recently put it, “the region is a
patchwork quilt of warring ethnic groups and rival religions that makes
Europe’s other tangled knot, the Balkans, look tame by comparison.”
At least with the Caucasus, one encounters more reasoned analyses and a
wider variety of organizations, governments and individuals championing a
much more complex bundle of interests. Cut-and-dried conclusions appear less
frequently, and when war and ethnic cleansing is brought up, there is guilt
enough to go around on all sides. The Western mass media, despite its
unfortunate adulation of Georgia’s “Rose Revolution,” has been fairly
even-handed, though perhaps unintentionally. This is because a large part of
their “objectivity” owes to the region’s great distance, mentally and
geographically, from the average Western reader; whereas the Balkans was
more or less in Europe’s backyard, the Caucasus is on the edge of the
property – or maybe even on the other side.
Turbulence in the North
Meanwhile, on the other side of the other side, in the North Caucasus,
tensions have been rising as a murky web of secessionists, Islamists and
common criminals provoke an already tense situation with renewed violence.
The goal, boasts a Chechen commander, is to provoke a region-wide war that
would see the definitive exodus of Russia from the Caucasus. In an interview
with a Polish newspaper posted on the pro-Chechen site Kavkazcenter Chechen
“President” Abdul Sadulayev stated:
“We cannot doubt our victory. It is enough to look at the situation which is
taking shape in Chechnya for that. The Russians started this war, hoping to
make a ‘local conflict’ out of it. They have been pursuing their ‘wise
policy’ here, and as a result Dagestan has turned into a military front, as
has the whole of the Caucasus. A Caucasus front has been organized including
all the areas (sectors) of Ingushetia, Kabarda-Balkaria,
Karachay-Cherkessia, Adygeya, Stavropol Territory, Krasnodar Territory and
North Ossetia.”
Unrestricted Attacks, Expanding Fronts
While Sadulayev’s familiar if disingenuous logic of blaming everything on
Russia should be taken with a grain of salt, it is true that the violence
has been spreading.
Last week, four explosions hit Ingushetia, targeting a cargo train, court
building, bus stop and military column. While damage was small, the bombings
rattled an already tense republic whose Muslim population has been aiding
the fighters of neighboring Chechnya. And, since the terrorist attack on a
school in Beslan a year ago, tensions have dramatically increased between
the Ingush Muslims and Orthodox Christians of North Ossetia to the west,
where Beslan is located. The two republics fought a brief war shortly after
the break-up of the USSR and it cannot be ruled out that they will not clash
again. According to Russian police, the four bombings were the Muslim
terrorists’ choice of “revenge” against the government, which had “recently
conducted successful operations against several groups of local militants.”
Meanwhile, a police officer in the truly multiethnic (over 30 indigenous
groups) Dagestan was shot, and several Russian troops have been killed in
fighting as well, reports the BBC. Another recent article, reporting an
attack on a Russian oil pipeline in North Ossetia, claims that “Moscow
controls this area in name only. In reality the news has admitted that a lot
of the violence is not even being reported. Police and troops die daily
across the North Caucasus to the Caspian… The area is completely up for
grabs.”
Finally, according to the CSM, Ingush President Murat Zyazikov, who
“narrowly escaped assassination at the hands of a suicide car-bomber and a
sniper,” is being targeted by Islamic militants loyal to Basayev, who last
year briefly captured the capital, Nazran, “killing almost 100 police
officers and government officials” in the process. While Zyazikov put out a
brave face for the newspaper, claiming that things are basically peaceful,
locals aren’t so sure: “‘everyone here is always talking about getting ready
for war with the Ingush, to get even with them,’ says Madina Pedatova, a
teacher at Beslan’s spanking new School No. 8. ‘I’m terrified of it, but I’m
sure it’s coming.'”
Internal Fractures as Well
“Our forecasts say that Tatarstan and Bashkortostan will rise up next,
because Russia’s policy there is aimed at suppressing Muslims, and this
cannot fail to end in an explosion of emotions among the masses,” adds
Sadulayev in the Polish interview. “The role of Islam in the Caucasus is
huge. The Muslim population is in the majority here. Since we Chechens are
surrounded by friendly Muslim people, there are friendly traditions and
kinship links between us.”
However, not all involved see the conflict in such terms. As the situation
deteriorates further, infighting between the sides continues. According to
Interfax on Sept. 17, Chechen leader Akhmad Avdorkhanov, “a one-time aide to
the late Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov and the commander of the
so-called Eastern Front of Ichkeria” was killed by militants loyal to rival
group leader Shamil Basayev.
Chechnya’s First Deputy Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov described the slain
Avdorkhanov as a moderate; he was allegedly “among the most influential
field commanders, was notable for his particular courage, was categorically
against Wahhabis (radical Muslims), and did not recognize Basayev.” Indeed,
Sadulayev praises Basayev as “a disciplined amir and mojahed.”
However, according to the deputy premier, while Basayev viewed Avdorkhanov
as a threat to be dealt with, “the immediate motive behind the murder is the
1.5 million US dollars recently received by the Chechen separatists. ‘The
incident that led to Avdorkhanov’s death was prompted by Basayev’s attempts
to lay his hands on this money… the leaders of illegal armed groups,
primarily Basayev, have no ideals, but only the desire to make money, kill,
and please their foreign patrons, despite numerous victims among the Chechen
people,’ the official noted.”
Neocons in the Midst
Who are these “foreign patrons” of the Chechen cause? Without doubt, wealthy
Islamic fundamentalists from the Arabic world rank high on the list.
However, moral support for the Chechen militants can be found closer to
home. Less motivated by lucre than by a bizarre obsession with reviving the
Cold War, Washington hawks have taken a prominent position on the Chechnya
issue, it seems, solely with the aim of weakening Russia. Unfortunately, a
powerful and influential bloc in Washington – some neoconservative, all
predatorial – would like to shape events in a way that could have disastrous
long-term effects for America, guided by a desire to cling to archaic
antagonisms and to seek vindictive “victories” through extremely
short-sighted tactics.
A prime nesting ground for these hawks has been the American Committee for
Peace in Chechnya (ACPC) Writing a year ago, in the wake of the Beslan
tragedy, John Laughland stated:
“The list of the self-styled ‘distinguished Americans’ who are its members
is a roll call of the most prominent neoconservatives who so
enthusiastically support the ‘war on terror.’
“They include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams
of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who
egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be ‘a cakewalk’; Midge
Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing
Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security
Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time
vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on
Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer
of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and
R James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading
cheerleaders behind George Bush’s plans to re-model the Muslim world along
pro-US lines.”
Unfortunately, the braintrust that brought us the twin “liberations” of Iraq
and Afghanistan seems to have similar plans for Russia. Their plans proceed
along two fronts: one, replace Vladimir Putin with a malleable “pro-Western
reformist” such as the celebrated businessman and former Yukos boss Mikhail
Khodorkovsky; and two, humiliate the country through its dissolution,
starting with its Caucasus possessions.
Richard Perle’s championing of the Khodorkovsky cause is well-known; less
clear is the degree and type of support his bunch provides the Chechens.
Does it end with providing asylum to Chechen terrorists in America and
Britain, or are the neocons trying to “give Russia their Vietnam” (as
cold-warrior extraordinaire and current ACPC Chairman Zbigniew Brzezinski
once put it) for the second time, and again through more direct support?
There’s little definite proof, but the one thing that is sure is that the
most fervent supporters of the “war on terror” exhibit a predictable
schizophrenia in supporting “good” Muslims, as was the case in the Bosnia
and Kosovo interventions: “In Chechnya, the conflict has created a cultural
and demographic crisis rivaling the tragedies witnessed in Bosnia and
Kosovo.” Of course, there’s no mention of the very real terrorist attacks
carried out by foreign-backed Chechen and other Islamic fighters, who would
like to replace Russian rule with “a single Islamist state stretching from
the Caspian to the Black Sea.”
Indeed, in an unpredictable era of shadowy enemies and “non-state actors,”
Brzezinski’s celebrated 1998 quote now seems even more foolish than ever:
“What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of
Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”
Preconceptions, Simplifications and Hard Realities
Yet apparently the Cold War is not yet over. If Brzezinski and his crew have
their way, America’s inheritance in Russia’s final lost provinces of the
Caucasus will be just as auspicious as it has been in Afghanistan.
The Cold Warriors’ presuppositions seem to rest on the following false
assumptions: that Russia is the enemy, and harming it in any way is thus in
America’s interests; that Iran is evil and uncontrollable; that the Caucasus
can be divided into a north and south, meaning that one can be stabilized to
the detriment or enhancement of the other; and, finally, that America has
the resources and capabilities to control everything in the world.
However, the opposite is clear in every case. Russia is not the enemy; it
has no extra-territorial ambitions, and its delapidated military poses no
threat. On the other hand, NATO’s expanding remit, American bases in Central
Asia, and the increasingly anti-Russian attitudes of US and EU client states
in Eastern Europe have pretty much finished off the Russian bear. Much to
the ire of Perle and Co., the only trump cards Putin’s vast nation still
enjoys are nuclear weapons and a huge supply of oil. However, the Russian
leader is not averse to involving foreign oil companies, as his recent
meetings in America indicated. And considering that the US has declared the
possibility of Russian nukes falling into the wrong hands, there seem to be
few reasonable arguments for accelerating the country’s decline. Expediting
dissolution in the North Caucasus only increases the risk of Russian nuclear
materials and other weapons coming into the possession of terrorists.
Indeed, while the neocons might be gloating when they see Russia fall apart,
it is hardly likely that successor “republics” such as Chechnya aspires to
be would be more Jeffersonian than Islamic. No one in Chechnya is going to
thank a Washington thinktank for championing their cause when it comes time
to establishing the mores of social life and the rules of the political that
will govern them. But given the narcissistic delusions of the war/democracy
party, which have reached glorious fulfillment in Iraq, they are no doubt
expecting to be embraced as benevolent role models by the Chechens, the
Ingush and whoever else comes next.
As for Iran, the destabilization of this charter member of the “Axis of
Evil,” whether under democratic or security pretenses via Iraq, would only
harm the fragile balance of power in the Caucasus. This perceptive article
discusses in detail why Iran “has acted as a moderate and balanced player in
the region by placing the geopolitical, economic, and security aspects of
its national interests over ideological or religious motives.” Yet
disinterested in seeing the complete picture of rival religious and ethnic
interests in the Caucasus, an arrogant American leadership has labored under
the pretense that its multi-colored revolutions and its oil pipelines can be
the only guarantors of regional “stability.” They seldom consider the
complex web of religious and ethnic relations that go into forming the
policies of neighboring states which seem “outside” the equation, such as
Iran. They thus fail to consider how the destabilization of such states
would have wider ramifications for areas where they had believed everything
was under control.
In the present context, this area under control would be what conventional
wisdom deceptively calls the “South” Caucasus. Despite their very real
internal antagonisms and frozen conflicts, the countries of Georgia,
Azerbaijan and Armenia are relatively quiet now, more or less pacified by
Western largess and (except for the last) a desire to break out of the
Russian sphere of influence. Contrasting this situation of relative
tranquility to Russia’s ongoing woes on the northern side of the mountains,
the Bush administration quietly gloats over the Pax Caucasia it has brought
with the elevation of Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia, and the recent
completion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.
However, such a north-south distinction cannot realistically be supported.
Throughout history, the Caucasus has been characterized by its singularity,
its wealth of disparate ethnic and religious groups, and by its geography –
simultaneously impassable and yet everywhere vulnerable to intrusion. For
the most part, the region’s formidable mountains make a joke out of all
attempts to impose state controls. Clan and ethnic groups straddle national
and sub-national boundaries, adding to this tendency to make the latter
irrelevent. Terrorist groups “safely” ensconced in Chechnya can and do spill
over into Georgia. Ossetians view their national territory – memorably
described by the Economist as “a smuggling racket with a patch of land
attached” – as unfairly divided between Russia and Georgia, and support the
former in its own interventionist policies against Georgia. Meanwhile,
foreign Islamic groups trained in Chechnya and Dagestan have penetrated
“pro-Western” Azerbaijan, and are starting to agitate for the overthrowing
of the state. And the list goes on.
That said, America’s pride and joy for “regional stability” – the BTC
pipeline – has a better chance of emerging as a gigantic target for various
groups of malcontents. In an appropriately titled article called “The
Pipeline from Hell,” Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo draws a likely conclusion
of this “strategic investment”:
“If American oil companies are due to make mega-profits in the Caspian
region, then the U.S. military will be doing guard duty along every inch of
the BTC pipeline, ensuring ‘stability’ in a land of nomadic herders and
exporting ‘democracy’ to a region formerly ruled by pashas, sultans, and
various and sundry dictators.”
Yet while it is true that this new asset will increase the US military
commitment to the region, it is also probable that the job of providing
“security” for the pipeline will also be taken over by various local lords
and chieftans along the route – some of whom, like the recently reactivated
Kurdish rebels in Turkey, might ask a price for their cooperation that is
exceedingly high. Unfortunately, the “or else” clause is likely to become a
part of the vocabulary of all such local security providers. America and its
Western co-investors are likely to be in for an expensive and all-consuming
headache, rather than a neat global solution to their energy and security
needs.
And this is just considering the largely subjugated “South” Caucasus. How
much more can these headaches be compounded, if you consider a post-Russian
“North” Caucasus, characterized by tiny and volatile statelets run by
dueling local chieftans, most of them under some variant of Islamic law? Are
the democracy proliferators of the ACPC prepared for what they are about to
get in a post-Russia Caucasus? While they hate Russia’s perceived
interventionism in the Caucasus, they fail to consider what the ensuing
power vacuum will look like, deprived of all counterbalancing forces.
A Sobering Conclusion
In the end, there is a comparison to be made here with another
neocon-inspired war. Back in March 2003, when America’s invasion of Iraq
began, syndicated columnist Charley Reese drolly congratulated the American
people on their imminent “adoption” of 22 million Iraqi citizens. We’ve now
seen just how much the Iraqi inheritance has benefited America. The worst
thing about the situation in the Caucasus is that no one, not even the
enthusiastic expansionist leadership, is aware of what they will be
inheriting there.
Yet as Gabriel Kolko predicted in Another Century of War?, America’s
resources are not unlimited. Heavily in debt, with foreign nations funding
43 percent of its wars, and unable to react to simple natural disasters at
home, it is clear that the imperial ambitions of the neocons are simply
neither sustainable nor realistic. The desire to replace Russia as imperial
power in the Caucasus is a case in point.
In short, there are no indications that America has the resources, will or
intelligence to “manage” this convoluted region any better than the Russians
have. In fact, they will likely do much worse – Russia, at least, had the
benefits of geographical proximity, thousands of years of intermingled
cultures, a long-term institutional presence, etc. America has none of
these. Its pretensions to rulership are largely based on the airy platitudes
of armchair strategists in Washington, who have little or no appreciation
for the local realities on the ground, counting on abstract values to see
them through.
In the end, the American supporters of expanding the empire to the Caucasus
should be careful what they wish for. They have yet to show an interest in
reading Russia’s will, though the document is right in front of their eyes.
Find this article at: