| Author |
Message |
    
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 1:05 am: |     |
Montagnard, FWIW, a correction to something I said above: "the Ingush and Chechens are one ethnic group spread out into different states (of which Daghestan is another)."
A linguistics paper I ran across online describes Daghestan as being multiethnic, with many of its peoples speaking a relative of Chechen. Thus Daghestanis and Chechens are probably of "one ethnicity" in a historical rather than a modern sense (although their historical connnections are clearly not lost on north Caucasus separatists).
The author also notes that Ingush and Chechens are "distinct" ethnic groups that are "so closely related and so similar that it is convenient to describe them together," which is a more precise accounting than I gave.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 3:24 am: | |
A different view from the Guardian:
Yesterday, in the wake of the Beslan school horror, the historian Corelli Barnett more or less blamed the crisis on the war against terror itself. His thesis was that, since September 11th, the actions of the West (and particularly the Americans) had made things far, far worse.
The problem with this is the simple one that the war with terror was declared by terror itself. Declared in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, declared in New York on 11 September. It wasn't until 11 September, however, that we began to appreciate the scale of what was already happening. The idea that, had we negotiated with the Taliban, left Saddam in place and put more pressure on Sharon to settle, kids would now be safe in North Ossetia, is just wishful thinking.
In Saturday's Guardian Isabel Hilton gave a more interesting explanation. This is an era, she pointed out, of asymmetric warfare in which - regrettably - outgunned insurgents eventually come after kids, journalists and Nepalese cooks. What else (she implied) are they going to do? But wasn't Gandhi's situation asymmetric? Did he take over schools and kill the kids? Did Mandela? Is it really the case that what we have here are outgunned liberation movements?
...
I am not saying that the only answer is in security. In the case of Chechnya I take the argument of those who point out that, until five years ago and Moscow's reoccupation of the province, there was no significant terrorism there. It seems to me that an absolutely necessary part of the battle for a safer world consists of cutting away as much as you can of the potential support for terrorists.
The logic of this is not, however, to concede to terrorists. Much of what they want we can never give them, and much of what they want lies in the act of terrorism itself. And it as false a trope to say that there are usually political solutions to terrorism as to say that there are always military ones. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
Unfortunately, with the war between Russia and Chechen rebels about to ratchet-up, and fissible plutonium relatively easy to purchase/steal in the old USSR, Chechen rebels are odds on favorites to develop/purchase and use a suitcase size nuclear weapon.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/ |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
JCrohn,
Thanks, I knew that already. How long does it take to write all that backtracking to cover up the obvious: you've no idea what the facts really are? But it's the core of your thinking, not the baroque gyrations in its defense, that needs discrediting. You're mindlessly spewing for more violence that will surely blowback in more terrorism and deaths of more innocents.
David Aaronovitch, whom you failed to identify as the author of the Guardian piece you quoted, supported the war in Iraq, as you know. His advice doesn't tend to work out.
Wharfrat,
Yes. I think the outlines of the threat are coming into focus more plainly for everybody because of this massacre. People, perhaps rich societies in particular, have the delusion think they can go on indulging their taste for revenge against terrorists because they can't be outgunned. They can.
Sir Max Hastings in today's Guardian is worth a read:
"There are three obvious reasons for the 21st century terrorist escalation. First, it is much easier to attack undefended civilians than military installations or rulers. Second, the Muslims responsible for most contemporary terrorism are untroubled by even such modest scruples as the IRA possessed. Finally, extraordinary outrages gain extraordinary attention. No conceivable action by the Chechens could have gained them as much attention as the massacre of children.
"The massacre places immense pressure on the Russian government to identify targets for retaliation. Here is the purpose of the terrorist, defined by Lawrence Durrell in Bitter Lemons, a classic account of the 1950s Eoka insurgency in Cyprus: "His primary objective is not battle. It is to bring down upon the community in general a reprisal for his wrongs, in the hope that fury and resentment roused by punishment meted out to the innocent will gradually swell the ranks of those from whom he will draw further recruits."
"I have always thought this passage above should be framed above the desks of every politician and soldier charged with countering terrorism. If we assume that it is undesirable to accommodate the aims of our enemies, then the need seems paramount to focus vengeance solely upon the guilty. . .
"The difficulty for all governments in addressing terrorism is that this is best done by undramatic, even invisible means: intelligence, politics, diplomacy, special forces operations (though the world is today hideously aware of the incompetence of Moscow's men). George Bush persistently abuses the word "war" to describe the task facing his own nation since 9/11, which also perpetuates a delusion that it can be addressed by firepower."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1297874,00.html |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
"Thanks, I knew that already."
I sincerely doubt it.
"David Aaronovitch, whom you failed to identify as the author of the Guardian piece you quoted, supported the war in Iraq, as you know."
Actually, until running across his editorial I'd never heard of David Aaronovitch and therefore have no idea what he supports. (Surprising though it may seem, we Jews are not actually telepathic.)
"But it's the core of your thinking, not the baroque gyrations in its defense, that needs discrediting. You're mindlessly spewing for more violence that will surely blowback in more terrorism and deaths of more innocents."
Hey, if a notion worthy of a preening idiot develops to the effect that I am mindless and need discrediting, I consider that a good sign. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1606
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
"Unfortunately, with the war between Russia and Chechen rebels about to ratchet-up, and fissible plutonium relatively easy to purchase/steal in the old USSR, Chechen rebels are odds on favorites to develop/purchase and use a suitcase size nuclear weapon."
Indeed, the first thing the Russians supposedly did was beef up security around nuclear facilities.
Your link didn't work for me, but I would assume the Frontline piece points out that poverty and corruption make it very likely that nuclear facilities in the former USSR cannot, realistically, be secured by Moscow on its own.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US offers (pleads) to provide more security in lieu of bribeable Russian forces. |
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 1:09 pm: | |
Periodically, policy wonks recommend the US buy ALL fissible material from Russia and the former Soviet Republics.
Likely, the best opportunity for this has already passed; the late 80's/early 90's, when the former USSR was teetering on the brink of catastrophe, and the US, in cooperation with the European community, could have secured this stockpile in exchange for material support.
My archived copy of the 9/11/01 NYT has a lead article on the Eurasian nuclear blackmarket that follows the old overland spice routes, through the predominantly Muslim Soviet Republics into the tribal regions of Pakistan.
Then, as now, the US can plead, but because of recent events, our coin carries very little currency.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
"Periodically, policy wonks recommend the US buy ALL fissible material from Russia and the former Soviet Republics."
My understanding is that we have secured only about half of it.
"Then, as now, the US can plead, but because of recent events, our coin carries very little currency."
I'm not sure that's the case anymore. This latest event has produced two interesting developments: a candid admission of failure and weakness by Vlad Putin and a pointed remark that I can only assume is directed at the EU. This last seems to be implicating the EU in supporting Chechen terrorism, and was probably prompted by the fact that the Europeans, with inimitable timing, managed to pipe up right as the Beslan disaster was concluding, to demand the Russians explain their ineptitude in bringing the thing to a less bloody close.
From Putin's speech in Beslan:
"Today we are living in conditions which have emerged following the break-up of a vast great state, a state which unfortunately turned out to be unable to survive in the context of a rapidly changing world. But despite all the difficulties, we have managed to preserve the core of the colossus which was the Soviet Union.
And we called the new country the Russian Federation. We all expected changes, changes for the better. But we have turned out to be absolutely unprepared for much that has changed in our lives…
On the whole, we have to admit that we have failed to recognise the complexity and dangerous nature of the processes taking place in our own country and the world in general. In any case, we have failed to respond to them appropriately.
We showed weakness, and the weak are trampled upon. Some want to cut off a juicy morsel from us while others are helping them.
They are helping because they believe that, as one of the world’s major nuclear powers, Russia is still posing a threat to them, and therefore this threat must be removed.
And terrorism is, of course, only a tool for achieving these goals. But as I have already said many times, we have faced crises, mutinies and acts of terror more than once."
(The rest is here, for anyone lurking who reads Russian:
http://www.vesti.ru/news.html?id=61022)
So what I'm getting at (especially if, as some are claiming, there is a Saudi connection to Beslan, or a Pakistani or Turkish one for that matter) is that Putin may now turn to the US to pressure its government allies in the mideast, and the US may be able to use this moment to good advantage wrt the nuclear issue--a quid pro quo that benefits everyone.
(Whether the Bush admin is at all up to such an opportunity is a more depressing thing to contemplate.)
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1610
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
There remains no proof yet of an al Qaeda connection, btw. The Islambouli Brigades, which I think no one is taking seriously at this point, even troubled to issue a statement that it had nothing to do with Beslan.
Following is part of a thoughtful post by someone named "self" at Crooked Timber's "Al Qaeda in Beslan?" thread (http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002440.html):
1:Chechen responsibility
Although the tactics are similar to the Chechen rebel seizure of the Moscow theatre in 2002, there appear to be questions of whether the incident in Beslam is a Chechen or Ingush operation. The attackers requested talks with both the N. Ossetia and Ingushetia presidents. Also, the fact that it took place in Ossetia is interesting. Ossetians are Christian, speak Indo-European dialect and are the only caucasian ethnic group to request the tsar to absorb their territory. While both Ingush and Chechens were exiled to Kazakhstan by Stalin, the territory of Ossetia incorporated most of the previously Ingush territory of Prigorodnyi Raion. In 1992, Ingush were forcibly displaced not only from PR but from N. Ossetia itself as a result of a conflict.
Hostage-takers did make demands for Russian withdrawal from Chechnya and release of 30 or so suspects from a previous raid led by a Chechen commander, Basaev. However, Ingush participation in that raid is a part of the puzzle. So, we don’t know this was a Chechen action yet.http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FI03Ag01.html
"2:Islamist or nationalist motive
Putin’s visit to Turkey underlines common interests to control Turkish support for Chechen activities (could this be the “Arab” connection ?) and Kurdish support from Russia. It is known that there is a Pan-Islamic, Pan-Turkic intelligence effort taking place in Russia. Whether Ingush or Chechen is the call in (1) colors the determination of whether this was an Islamic or nationalist move. If there is evidence of Al-Qaeda involvement, I haven’t seen it yet (only statements to that effect)."
Nevertheless, Muslims in the mideast are kind of freaking out. A number of major Islamic voices are decrying this event as beyond the pale (no pun intended).
From an AP report:
Middle East security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was too early to know the nationalities of the Arabs among the dead militants.
However, a prominent Arab journalist wrote that Muslims must acknowledge the painful fact that Muslims are the main perpetrators of terrorism.
"Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture," Abdulrahman Rashed, general manager of Arabiya television, wrote in his daily column published in the pan-Arab Asharq Awsat newspaper.
It ran under the headline, "The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!" Rashed ran through a list of recent attacks by extremist groups — in Russia, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen — many of which are influenced by the ideology of Osama Ben Laden, the Saudi-born leader of Al Qaeda terror network.
"Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims," he wrote.
Muslims will be unable to cleanse their image unless "we admit the scandalous facts," rather than offer condemnations or justifications.
"The picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us."
Perhaps the upside of this horror, if there can be one, will be a decisive Muslim volte face from tacit justifications of jihad as a means to political ends.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
What I didn't know is Aaronovitch is Jewish. What you post is truly despicable.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
"What I didn't know is Aaronovitch is Jewish."
Um... right.
Well, I suppose David Aaronovitch could, after all, be an Anglican convert or a messianic Southern Baptist. But generally speaking, a man whose name is Russified Hebrew for "David, son of Aaron" is likely to be a Jew. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | |
Or not. Besides, so what?
I don't think this exchange is doing anything to elevate discourse around here. I've said all I'm going to say.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 8:57 pm: | |
That's fortunate. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1614
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 10:38 pm: | |
Egypt has reportedly executed or jailed ("liquidated", "detained") all the members of the Islambouli Brigades, according to the Egyptian ASN news agency. They were ostensibly planning attacks there and internationally, but had nothing to do with the plane bombings or subway bombing in Russia. It's not even likely they had anything to do with the assassination attempt in Pakistan, as none of them had bomb-making experience and were armed only with submachine guns. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:31 am: | |
To reiterate what I asserted yesterday: we're probably not looking at any significant involvement by al Qaeda in Beslan.
This a.m.'s WPost:
Many of the guerrillas who seized the Beslan school in the Russian republic of North Ossetia took part in raids in Ingushetia in June that killed 90 people, investigators said Monday. "They're the same people that attacked Ingushetia," said Musa Apiyev, deputy interior minister in Ingushetia. "They're traveling, they're moving from place to place, exploiting the weak spots in our positions, and they're running from spot to spot committing their dark crimes."
Ingushetia and North Ossetia, located south and west of Chechnya, are dominated by different ethnic groups and fought a brief territorial war in 1992. Relations have remained tense since. In the days after the hostage crisis at the school, many Ossetians have blamed the Ingush and warned of retribution.
"It appears to be a deliberate provocation to reignite the conflict between Ingushetia and North Ossetia, to extend the range of the chaos," said Fiona Hill, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
...
The four leaders inside the school represented the spectrum of the region's ethnic groups: a Chechen, a Russian, an Ingush and an Ossetian, according to tentative identifications by Russian officials. What remained unclear was the extent of the involvement of Arab fighters, if any. Russian officials initially said 10 of the hostage takers were Arabs, but surviving hostages said in interviews that they saw no Arabs and not one was identified as a leader to outside negotiators.
Russian investigators are checking out reports from an unidentified Western intelligence service suggesting that some of the attackers came from Jordan and Syria, according to a source briefed on the government's investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. An Islamic group tied to al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri, has claimed responsibility for the attack.
But some analysts remained skeptical, arguing that the Russians were exaggerating the Arab connection so Putin could claim to be fighting international terrorists rather than domestic nationalists.
"It could be there were advisers from the Middle East, but initiating the plan, executing it, belonged to locals," said Alexei Malashenko, a regional specialist at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research organization.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1256-2004Sep6.html |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1616
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
The lack of important involvement by al Qaeda, if it indeed turns out there was none, is some sort of good news for the US.
Not that we cannot be hit again (and frankly, I'm expecting an attempt before or after the November elections), but this particular kind of attack appears to remain the province of localized ethnic conflict, not the province of international terrorism. That's important because, in the absence of an al Qaeda attack on a school in the US there is no way officials in this country can (or can even be persuaded to try to) provide adequate security around schools and daycare centers.
Banks, yes. Children, no. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
It appears the remarks in Putin's speech where he refers to "others" who are helping terrorists because of fears that Russia is still a nuclear threat were NOT a response to EU meddling but a claim against the Bush administration for assisting Chechen terrorists.
CNN today:
In the wide-ranging meeting which lasted almost four hours, Putin said he likes President Bush, calling him a friendly, decent, predictable person.
But Putin said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been "we'll get back to you" or "we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want."
Putin blamed what he called a "Cold War mentality" on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the U.S. talking to al Qaeda.
These are not "freedom fighters," Putin said. "Would you talk with Osama Bin Laden?" he asked.
Putin said the Chechen separatists are trying to ignite ethnic tensions in the former Soviet Union and it could have severe repercussions.
"Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States saying he was doing it because of policies in the Middle East," Putin said. "Do you call him a freedom fighter?"
Putin's comments came a few weeks after the U.S. granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the "foreign minister" of the Chechen separatist movement.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:02 pm: | |
All this over Akhmadov...? |
Addy
Citizen
Username: Addy
Post Number: 230
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:01 am: | |
quote:Court07040: Frankly, if I were Putin I would escalate.
Looks like he took your advice. He's blaming the USA. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Steven Cohen, a prof of Slavic and Russian history at NYU who has been featured repeatedly on Charlie Rose, was on the program last night discussing the situation in Russia. He brought up Putin's speech in Beslan, called the speech "strange", and, speaking to the portion I posted and emphasized above, said he had no idea who the "others" were whom Putin referred to.
What's missing from anything I've read or heard so far is a complete explanation for Putin's complaints. They are strange. So I'm left wondering, is the US under George Bush chatting with people less savory than Elyas Akhmadov, or has Putin simply lost his marbles altogether?
Neither a loony Putin nor a terrorist-complicit US reassures me much at the moment. But if the Bush admin is indeed doing something inexpressably stupid, then surely this is something the voters ought to know about before November.
On the other hand, it would be ironic, in light of the common public view of Bush as an unsubtle cowboy, to find out that his administration had only ever engaged in an attempt at productive negotiations with peace-loving Chechen nationalists. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
And btw, one Michael McFaul (Senior Associate, Russia & Eurasia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Fellow, Hoover Institution at Stanford University) was also on the program last night. Both men said they were extremely worried about the possibility of nuclear escalation in Russia, and McFaul said he considered the situation there the greatest threat facing the world at the moment, far much more dangerous than anything going on in Iraq.
When Rose asked the obvious question about whether, even if Putin has anyone to negotiate with on the Chechen side (as his guests both asserted he does), it really mattered, given that those negotiating partners might not be capable of controlling the radicals hell bent on revenge or jihad, both men sort of stumbled. Their answer, in effect, was, "I don't know." |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
From a long Financial Times analysis of the Russian/Chechnyan situation yesterday:
Mr Maskhadov's officials and many foreign commentators call for talks that would lead to Chechen independence from Russia. But the demand appears wholly unrealistic. In its war-damaged condition an independent Chechnya wouod almost certainly become an impoverished "failed state", sparking still greater insecurtiy on Russia's southern borders.
|
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 7:07 pm: | |
An interesting interview with:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3895353
The History of the Conflict in Chechnya
Morning Edition audio
Sept. 8, 2004
The conflict between Russia and Chechnya stretches back to at least 1994, when Russian troops invaded the breakaway republic under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin. Some experts allege connections between al Qaeda and Chechen rebels. Hear NPR's Renee Montagne and Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3822
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 8:58 pm: | |
The conflict between Russia and Chechnya stretches back long before 1994. The region was conquered by the old Russian Empire in the nineteenth century, and they fought (unsuccessfully) against the Bolsheviks ater the Russian revolution. During World War II, they tried to re-assert their independence, but were defeated by the Soviets and a large portion of the population was deported. They were allowed back in the late 1950's. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
Actually, if you want to get picky, the conflict started in the 1600s. Here's (http://www.spunk.org/library/pubs/lr/sp001716/chechnya.html) a quick summary:
Russia (then Muscovy) began expanding into Muslim lands to its south and east in the 1500s, reaching the Caucasus about a century later. Russian policy was both imperialist and anti-Muslim. As one history summarizes, "the liquidation of the governing bodies of these territories was followed by a systematic occupation of the former Muslim lands.... Muslim inhabitants were treated as Russian subjects to whom the rights reserved to Christians were denied" (Muslims of the Soviet Empire, 8) Despite some periods of relative tolerance—under Catherine the Great in the 1700s, after the 1905 Revolution, during the Soviet "New Economic Policy" of the 1920s—suppression was the rule.
The Chechens and other tribal peoples, such as Daghestanis, resisted Russian control until the nineteenth century. A major revolt broke out under Imam Mansur in 1783, but the Chechen leader Sheikh Shamil led the longest, bitterest resistance, a harassing guerrilla war from the rugged Chechen hills that lasted from 1834 to 1859. With his capture the Chechen lands became part of Russia, but Chechens and Daghestanis revolted again, against Bolshevik rule, in 1920-22.
In the 1930s, the Chechens and the neighboring Ingush people were organized into the "Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic," ruled from Moscow. Legally, this was part of Russia, unlike Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc., which were supposedly independent republics of the USSR on a par with Russia. (This is why, when these republics declared the USSR dissolved in 1991, Chechnya remained inside Russia.)
From 1928 to 1941—the period of Soviet forced industrialization, collectivization, and purges—Stalin carried out "a frontal assault on Islam within Soviet borders. This assault resulted in the closing of thousands of mosques and the liquidation or imprisonment of most Muslim clerics... clerics and believers were accused of being saboteurs, counter-revolutionaries and parasites.'' (Muslims of the Soviet Empire, 11) In a so-called "super-purge" on Aug. 1, 1937, Stalin's police arrested, executed, or deported 14,000 people in the Chechen-Ingush republic—one out of every 30 inhabitants.
Finally, after anti-Russian, anti-communist movements as German armies approached the Caucasus in 1942, Stalin ordered the deportation of the entire Chechen and Ingush population in 1944. "Security Police units entered the Chechen-Ingush ASSR disguised as ordinary troops. On 23 February, when people were assembled in villages to mark Red Army Day, they were suddenly surrounded by security forces and informed of the decree." (Soviet Disunion, 96) These deportations took an enormous toll in lives. Up to 46 percent of the neighboring Crimean Tatars, also deported en masse, were killed or died in transit or in exile. The number of Chechen and Ingush casualties is not known.
When the Chechens and Ingush were finally allowed to return in the 1950s, they endured rioting and massacres by local Russians (1958) and renewed anti-Muslim campaigns—in the 1960s, when two-thirds of the mosques in the whole Soviet Union were closed, and again in the 1980s. Sporadic resistance to Russia continued too—bombings, secret resistance meetings, and an effort to found a "United Party for the Liberation of the Caucasus" in 1969 (the leader was sent to a mental hospital); mass demonstrations in 1973, and so on.
Despite the brutal suppression, Russia never succeeded in fully controlling the Chechens. Both social and religious reasons help explain why. The clan-tribal social structure, still strong as late as the 1980s, means that the average Chechen, even in the cities, belongs to a social network that has nothing to do with the official government, and that has always been highly resistant to Russian suppression. Religious devotion, too, is a major reason for fighting a government that has repeatedly tried to stamp Islam out. More specifically, a traditional semi-secret network of Sufi brotherhoods, parallel to the official Sunni Muslim religious structure, has provided organization and leadership for resistance. Imam Mansur, Sheikh Shamil, Uzun Haji (leader of the 1920-22 rebellion), and leaders of other Muslim insurgencies elsewhere in Russia were all members of various Sufi societies. The Sufi orders were still strong in the 1980s, and may well be involved in the present resistance.
(This was written some years ago, obviously.) |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page