13 December 1999
Behind the Chechen crisis
by Tracey Brown
On Monday 13 December, the Russian army moved into Grozny in Chechnya,
following its demands that all inhabitants leave the city or 'face the
consequences'. Many of the villages outside Grozny have been completely
flattened as part of Russia's 'scorched earth' tactics, and the destruction
of Grozny now seems inevitable.
The war over Chechnya started in 1994. The respite of the past few years
followed a cynically negotiated 'ceasefire' in April 1996, during which
artillery bombardment of the Chechens continued. This tentative settlement
was an attempt by the Yeltsin administration to distance itself from the
disastrous and drawn-out campaign in the run-up to the presidential election
in June 1996. It followed 16 months of humiliating attempts to suppress
Chechen forces, during which an estimated 30,000 people died, over 3000 of
them conscripted Russian soldiers. The campaign exposed the Russian military
as bankrupt, poorly equipped and poorly directed - with stories of Russian
soldiers handing over artillery equipment to the Chechens in exchange for
vodka.
The number of Russians killed in the conflict up to 1996 reinforced a
broader public cynicism about the war. As Russians became increasingly
hostile to their government's failing forces, so demoralisation in the
military intensified and produced a stalemate. When Communist presidential
candidate Gennady Zyuganov argued for the resurrection of the Soviet Union,
Yeltsin was given an opportunity to rise above the suppression of the
Chechen revolt and don the mantle of peacemaker. And with Northern Ireland
and Israel never out of the news, 'peacemaking' carried the added attraction
of allowing the ridiculous Yeltsin to stand alongside other world leaders
who presided over peace processes.
The current campaign has been resurrected in different circumstances. Russia
was recently humiliated over its attempts to stop the bombardment of
Belgrade by NATO forces. Yeltsin's efforts to save face by sending Russian
troops into Kosovo to oversee the humanitarian invasion descended into farce
as it became obvious that the Russian military was badly equipped and easily
sidelined. But Yeltsin was able to galvanise a degree of popular support for
renewed military action in Chechnya, following the bomb explosions earlier
this year in Moscow which he attributed to Chechen terrorists.
Yeltsin's hardline response to the Moscow bombs drew on the moral authority
of those who wage war against terrorist forces. World leaders frequently
claim moral credibility on the international stage with their agenda of
'wiping out terrorism'. Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy has always
extended to supporting Russia in combating the terrorist tactics of the
Chechen forces. Yeltsin is trying to overcome stagnation, disaffection and
ridicule at home in exactly the same way that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair
do: asserting his authority by standing up to 'evil forces'.
But while Yeltsin's actions have won the support of the Russian media, there
has been condemnation from the 'international community'. Western leaders
and international bodies like the IMF have pointed to the humanitarian
disaster caused by the bombardment and have closed ranks against Yeltsin. At
the risk of destabilising international relations, they have come out
against the destruction of Grozny and are now embroiled in a diplomatic
standoff. Yeltsin thought he was taking the moral highground and confounding
international ridicule by showing off Russia's ability to stamp out its own
'forces of evil' in Chechnya. What he did not bank on was that the moral
agenda of 'humanitarian intervention' which is now well-established as the
modus operandi of international politics means that nobody can be left to
sort out their own affairs. At the very mention of a humanitarian crisis,
Western leaders drop everything to get involved because nothing gives them
mileage like an international moral crusade. Prestige now rests on 'doing
something' about others' conflicts and crises.
The consequences of getting involved in such conflicts can be lethal. The
result is that local conflicts like Chechnya can quickly spin out of
control. The international condemnation of Russia has nothing to do with
what is happening on the ground in Chechnya - the West has shown little
concern about Russia's actions in the past. Rather, it is an attempt by
Western leaders and institutions to assert their own authority in the
international arena, even if that means standing up to 'one of their own'.
As world leaders jostle for their space on the moral highground of the
international stage, the stakes are being upped all the time. In the space
of just one week, the moral crusaders have taken us from a bloody local
conflict in Chechnya to the possible destabilisation of international
relations.
Join a discussion on this commentary