The
terrorist attack in
Beslan in Russia's North
Caucasus was not only
bloody but viciously
sadistic: the children
taken hostage by
pro-Chechen terrorists
were denied food and
drink and even forbidden
to go to the bathroom,
then massacred when the
siege was broken. It is
proper for the civilized
world to express outrage
and feel solidarity with
the Russian people. But
to say this is not
necessarily to agree
with those - including
President Bush and
President Vladimir Putin
of Russia - who would
equate the massacre with
the 9/11 attacks and
Islamic terrorism in
general.
In his
post-Beslan speech, Mr.
Putin all but linked the
attack to global Islam:
"We have to admit
that we have failed to
recognize the complexity
and dangerous nature of
the processes taking
place in our own country
and the world in
general." Reports
that some of the
terrorists were Arabs
reinforce that line of
thinking. But the fact
is, the Chechen cause
and that of Al Qaeda are
quite different, and
demand very different
approaches in combating
them.
Terrorism
is a means to an end: it
can be employed for
limited ends as well as
for unlimited
destructiveness. The
terrorists who blew up
the train station in
Madrid just before the
Spanish election this
year had a specific goal
in mind: to compel the
withdrawal of Spanish
troops from Iraq. The
Chechen case is, in some
respects, analogous. A
small group of Muslim
people, the Chechens
have been battling their
Russian conquerors for
centuries.
At the
close of World War II,
Stalin had the entire
Chechen nation exiled to
Kazakhstan for alleged
collaboration with the
Nazis. Khrushchev
allowed them to return
to their homeland but
they continued to chafe
under Russian rule.
Because Chechnya, unlike
the Ukraine or Georgia,
had never enjoyed the
status of a nominally
independent republic
under the Communists,
the Chechens were denied
the right to secede from
the Russian Federation
after the collapse of
the Soviet Union. And so
they eventually resorted
to terrorism for the
limited objective of
independence.
A
clever arrangement
secured by the Russian
security chief, Gen.
Alexander Lebed, in 1996
granted the Chechens de
facto sovereignty while
officially they remained
Russian citizens. Peace
ensued. It was broken by
several terrorist
attacks on Russian soil,
which the authorities
blamed on the Chechens
(although many skeptics
attributed them to
Russian security
agencies eager to create
a pretext to bring
Chechnya back into the
fold). A second Chechen
war began in 1999, of
which there seems no end
in sight.
This
history makes clear how
the events in Russia
differ from 9/11. The
attacks on New York and
the Pentagon were
unprovoked and had no
specific objective.
Rather, they were part
of a general assault of
Islamic extremists bent
on destroying
non-Islamic
civilizations. As such,
America's war with Al
Qaeda is non-negotiable.
But the Chechens do not
seek to destroy Russia -
thus there is always an
opportunity for
compromise.
Unfortunately,
Russia's leaders, and to
some extent the
populace, are loath to
grant them independence
- in part because of a
patrimonial mentality
that inhibits them from
surrendering any
territory that was ever
part of the Russian
homeland, and in part
because they fear that
granting the Chechens
sovereignty would lead
to a greater unraveling
of their federation. The
Kremlin also does not
want to lose face by
capitulating to force.
The
Russians ought to learn
from the French. France,
too, was once involved
in a bloody colonial war
in which thousands fell
victim of terrorist
violence. The Algerian
war began in 1954 and
dragged on without an
end in sight, until
Charles de Gaulle
courageously solved the
conflict by granting
Algeria independence in
1962. This decision may
have been even harder
than the choice
confronting President
Putin, because Algeria
was much larger and
contributed more to the
French economy than
Chechnya does to
Russia's, and hundreds
of thousands of French
citizens lived there.
Until
and unless Moscow
follows the French
example, the terrorist
menace will not be
alleviated. It is as
impossible to track
Chechens scattered
throughout Russia as it
is to intimidate the
suicidal fanatics among
them. Worse, the
continuation of Chechen
terrorism threatens to
undermine the authority
of Mr. Putin, whose
landslide victory in
last spring's
presidential election
was in good measure due
to the voters' belief
that he could contain
the Chechen threat.
Russians respect strong
authority, and there are
new signs that Mr.
Putin's inability to
wield it over Chechnya
makes them wonder
whether he is fit to
rule them. After the
school siege, there was
much muttering in the
streets that under
Stalin such atrocities
would not have occurred.
Unfortunately,
he seems determined not
to yield an inch.
"We showed
weakness, and the weak
are trampled upon,"
he said on Saturday.
This may seem like a
truism to Russians, but
in this case it is
wrong. Russia, the
largest country on
earth, can surely afford
to let go of a tiny
colonial dependency, and
ought to do so without
delay.
Richard
Pipes is an emeritus
professor of history at
Harvard and the author
of "A Concise
History of the Russian
Revolution" and,
most recently, of "Vixi:
The Memoirs of a Non-Belonger."