|
|
 |
 |
|
 | | Gore and Pandemonium
in Grozny.Fighting Terrorism Proves A Time Bomb With Fallout!!! |
|
|
| By Philip O'Cealligh |
|
GROZNY, Chechnya, Russian Federation, - A bomb at a packed stadium has killed Chechnya's Moscow-backed president Akhmad Kadyrov and at least 35 other people on May 10, 2004, dealing a huge blow to President Vladimir Putin's efforts to stamp out rebellion in the war-torn republic. A top Russian military commander, Col.-Gen. Valery Baranov, was also at the stadium and there are conflicting reports on whether he had died or was seriously wounded as this issue goes to press. MosNew reported on the day of the stadium blast that he was in hospital in grave condition, and that one of his legs has been amputated. Chechen interior minister, Alu Alkhanov and the military commandant of Chechnya, Grigory Fomenko, were also injured.
Earlier in the week Alexander Yakovenko, official spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Russia hopes Georgia will continue efforts to crack down on terrorist activity near the shared border, told media representatives. Is there a connection? The target was well planned to coincide with the Soviet victory over German and the Nazi party. Direction connection or not, there is a message here in terms of how to deal with terrorism and what works and what does not.
Proclamations are not unusual since Russian soldier are dying almost daily in hit and run attacks throughout the breakaway Republic of Chechnya. On many occasions Putin had declared the police operation near end with peace restored. Nevertheless, bloodletting continues with no end in sight. He told World War Two veterans after the attack: "There can be no doubt that retribution is unavoidable for those whom we are fighting today. It will be unavoidable for terrorists." The bloodletting will continue on both sides and terrorism is becoming more of an issue in the states of the Caucasus - Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan and world events may be bringing it more to the forefront in terms of legitimacy. It is a concept and process that is much discussed, both in the media and among experts.
NATO leaders have agreed to a new military concept for defense against terrorism as part of a package to strengthen the Alliances' capabilities in this area. However, the effectiveness of terrorism is what makes it so highly invulnerable to confronting and even to come up with a definition of what it is exactly begs many questions. Whereas both the US and the Russian Federation have proved that they can bring superior force to prevail on the battlefield, neither have demonstrated that they can effectively fight the root causes. Moreover, there is a debate as to what is a freedom fighter vs. terrorist. Many, especially those in Europe and the Arab World consider Palestinians as freedom fighters in fighting for their rights and responding to unequal foreign policy in the region.
There are different standards in different parts of the world for defining what is a freedom fighter vs. terrorist and the defining differences growing smaller in light of blatant human rights and international law violations in terms of the Iraqi prisoner ordeal. And for too long, especially in the period of the Saddam-less Iraq, the green light was given to Russian by the United States and coalition partners to Russian to crack down on Chechen separatist with no hold barred methods. In fighting terrorism, basic norms of decency and due process are sacrificed in the battle cry of fighting international terrorism. The result sets dangerous precedents that in fact will fuel more terrorism in a vicious cycle.
So then how to fight terrorism? To establish taskforces, share intelligence, conduct special operations, or to reduce and remove the contribution factors that fuel terrorism in the first place. The perception of unequal opportunity and a lack of an even-handed foreign policy have placed Americans and their UK collaborators at special risk over Iraq. It would be to simple to blame those given the order, i.e., 'calling the shots' and search and destroy. Often the victims of summary executions and targeted surgical operations become the recruiting posters for a new generation of terrorists. In fact, it may be argued that the war on terror is more an operation of increasing the level of terrorism in the world and destabilizing otherwise stable regimes. This is a hard argument for many to swallow since it goes opposite to the military solution and does not address the symptoms but instead looks deeper at the roots of the problem. It is as if the Americans who are talking cannot see or wish to hear. The catchall phrase, "either you are my friend or foe," falls short in dealing with issues that are shaping the world in which we live.
Moreover, the fallout from the recent assassination of Kadyrov will have larger ramifications in the region and puts Russia in the corner in terms of how effective is it battle with separatists. Emil Pain, a Moscow journalist writes, "it's a huge defeat for Putin's government. For many months we've been made to believe, that the war is being put down, guerillas desert in droves, Maskhadov has been surrounded, and his end is near." The same scenario has been wishful thinking in Iraq and the end result may be the same. It is doubtful if either the Russian Federation or the United States will have an abrupt change in policy towards terrorism and conflict resolution. To use the umbrella of the war of terrorism to cover a plethora of sins and blunders is much too convenient. Both the United States and Russia are always trying to prove, even together at times, that they are always right, without being able to admit to their mistakes and miscalculations. This bomb blast, as with recent events in Iraq for George Bush, is a major personal setback for Vladimir Putin. All bets for resolving the Chechen conflict was riding on the ability of a single person. Many people are wondering as the the blast that claimed Kadyrov took place during anniversary celebrations for the Russian victory over Nazi Germany in World War II as to what will be the fallout from this blast.
Stephen Milvey Russian Affairs Analyst of the BBC wrote on the bomb attack "There have been many attempts to kill Akhmad Kadyrov. Few people who know Chechnya would have predicted that he would survive so long. Bombers have come close in the past - this time they got a direct hit. The attack was probably carried out by Chechen rebels, who view him as a traitor … Mr Kadyrov was not much loved by ordinary Chechens and will probably not be greatly missed."
The blast comes a few weeks after Putin, in his annual state of the nation address, proclaimed the "military phase of the conflict may be considered closed" in Chechnya. This has the same ring as when Bush proclaimed the end of major military operations in Iraq just over a year ago in an address that is burned into the minds of the American public. There are many who talk but cannot see, which leads to an inevitable divide between knowing how to fight terrorism and win the peace. Recent events show a comic and also tragic show, that a hard line is not always the best way to combat terrorism, which in turn forces people to carry on. Can we understand such tragic events, not judging, but to watch nations in their search for a direction to stampede under the banner of fighting a war on international terrorism? Such attacks give rise to many questions as to the response, and if not appropriate, there will be more in the future. It is so easy for a conflict zone to slip back into the pit of anarchy and widespread killing over a single event.
|
| |
|
|
