Whatever happened to Chechnya?
Remember Chechnya? A country torn by a separatist war, terrorism, a Russian crackdown? A truly hopeless cause?
Well, guess what? When you weren’t looking, peace—albeit of a very troubled sort—came to that very troubled land.
Make no mistake about it; Chechnya has not turned into paradise. But the city of Grozny, a ruin just two short years ago, is being rebuilt. The Russians have cracked down on a Chechnya that supposedly could not be pacified, and have installed a tough man to control those who would oppose them.
MIght the cure be worse than the disease? This is a harsh place where harsh remedies have been installed. New leader Ramzan A. Mr. Kadyrov illustrates a phenomenon I wrote about here, which is that, in countries in which civil order has broken down, the choice often seems to be between two dreadful alternatives, anarchy or tyranny.
We are trying to implement another type of solution in Iraq right now: to tame the anarchy without substituting another tyranny. It is difficult and requires money, troops, commitment, will, staying power, and perhaps a touch of brilliance (which General Petraeus is attempting to provide).
But, short of that, it seems that tyranny will do in Chechnya.
The NY Times describes the paradox of Chechnya thusly:
Kadyrov’s human rights record is chilling, and allegations of his government’s patterns of brutality and impunity are widespread. Yet even his most severe critics say he has developed significant popular support, in part because of the clear changes that have accompanied his firm and fearsome rule.
The fighting is only sporadic now in a country that had, just two years ago, seemed unfixable, the violence unstoppable. The Russians had cracked down on Chechnya time and again to no avail. But now resident Zulika Aliyeva says, “I compare how we used to live, and it is like we are in a fairy tale now.”
Kadyrov’s program has featured “a two-stage formula: extraordinary violence, followed by extraordinary investment.” The violence has, paradoxically, created enough order that Kadyrov has been able to reconstruct much of the city, and attract more people to come and live there again. There’s even a fledgling effort at a tourist industry.
It sounds as though Chechnya was a nightmare before, and now it’s a different sort of nightmare. Law and order has begun to return, but at a great price.
One of the most interesting aspects of this chain of events is the fact that no one seems to have predicted it; the pundits were taken by surprise, as they often are.
[ADDENDUM: Kim Zigfield thinks the Times is far too kind to the Kadyrov regime.]
After the Beslan atrocity, Chechnya was lucky to escape with just tyranny.
I think Kazakhstan upstaged Chechnya when that Borat movie came out. The Chechens need to deploy their own vulgar yet beloved comic character – preferably not a real Chechen, either.
P.S. – Violence is never the answer. Except when it is…
Kadyrov’s populism today may not be tomorrows preference; a land of freedom must begin with a people of reason.
The surprise is the 10-year peace between Jihads; what’s the term for it?
One should compare Chechnya with Gaza strip before making naive jugement that democracy is always better than tyranny. Democracy can lead not only to anarchy but to Nazi-like regime as well. Real liberal democracy is possible only in enlightened society, in benighted one such attempts are abortive and promise no good, as Plato wisely warned against. And in many cases enlightenment can only result from sufficiently authoritarian regime, like that of Peter The Great or Empress Catherine.
When a nation is ready to self-government? When it will not abuse it to loot, murder or intimidate its neighbours, which is often the case, both in Gaza and Chechnya, and when it is ready for statehood, the latter being incompatible with what was described in this blog as “immoral familism”. Both hurdles are very common to Muslim tribal communities in ME, Africa and Central Asia.
By
Personal regards,
Tim Larkin
http://www.targetfocustraining.com/
Real liberal democracy is possible only in enlightened society, in benighted one such attempts are abortive and promise no good, as Plato wisely warned against. And in many cases enlightenment can only result from sufficiently authoritarian regime, like that of Peter The Great or Empress Catherine.
Um, do any of you actually know the history of the conflict? The Chechens have been fighting Russian/Soviet/Russian rule for a long time, and in my mind there’s no reason to believe that they should have to demonstrate they are capable of democracy before they earn the right to the freedom to decide which government they should have.
Honestly…excuses for imperialistic tyranny? I swear I don’t know what gets into some of you people.
If you think the “anti-war” types are upset now, if we used the type of tactics in Iraq that the Russians used in Chechnya, Iraq would be peaceful, but it would be empty of human life.
Isn’t it possible that the outside forces that were funding and fueling the rebels may have *temporarily* directed their resources to Afghanistan and Iraq? The article offers nothing to support the vague assertion that “As recently as early 2006…” was a turning point. Seems as likely that violence there decreased as money and weapons and foreign fighters were committed to jihad in Iraq.
No, the main reason of weakening Jihadists position in Chechnya is roughly the same that in Anbar province: population was pissed of by islamist brutality, tired of 10 years long combat, and many clan heads prefered to make a deal with the most powerful, Russia-backed Kadyrov clan. Islamists also were weakened by attrition of the most popular and able leaders, who were hunted and killed one after another by Russian security forces. Both quality and quantity of rebels steadily decreased during several years, and now they finally lost any hope of success. This is a lost recruiting position.
I know the history of Russian expansion at Caucasus very well, and Chechens always were the most cruel and belligerent tribe. They were professional robbers and slave-traders, just as barbary pirates in Northern Africa, and Russian wars here remind some episodes of American history, when Thomas Jefferson send frigates to attack and devastate these pirate states. This was the main reason to form Marines corps.
Right to decide what government they want was undermined by inherent inability of a tribal society to form any government at all, only anarchy of rival gangs. They have four years of de facto independency, and no effective government emerged. Formally, Maskhadov was elected president, but actually he was a puppet, and real power was in hands of so called “field commanders”, that is, bandits and psychotic murderers like Basaev of Beslan infamy. And independent Chechnya has no more right to self-determination than Confederation of southern slave-holders during Civil War.
There is a common fallacy of leftists to absolutize rights and completely ignore responsibilities, that came as consequences and necessary conditions of having these rights. No murderous psychopath has a right to walk free, and the same is true for a people engulfed by collective psychosis.
Not surprisring Xanthi likes the Chechens. . .
If the Chechens chose to have an Islam-and-Tribal form of government and kept it within their own borders, then I think hands off would be the best policy. When their internal conflicts start spilling violently over into neighboring states, however, all bets are off.
Which is really the problem, Bugs. These sort of Islam-and-Tribal governments seem completely incapable of keeping their dysfunction within their own borders; one way or another, their violence always ends up spreading out to their neighbors, and said neighbors either have to do something to protect themselves.
I agree with Sergey. A psychotic killer doesn’t have the right to walk around free, and a nation engulfed in collective psychosis doesn’t have the right to inflict its sickness and dysfunction on other nations. I’m all in favor of independence, when a nation can actually govern itself, but too often during the 20th Century, any and every vicious King Ubu type was allowed to pass himself, and his band “Merry men” thugs as some sort of nationalistic freedom movement, bent on throwing off the yoke of the oppressor—which said pretty talk always won him the unquestioning support and admiration of the Left, no matter how murderous or tyrannical he and his “nation” really were.
sergey, I will read more. I did not realize that the Chechen’s history was particularly singular in those parts. That’s interesting, really.
Then, too, it’s possible that Iran and Russia have a gentlemen’s agreement that the former won’t make difficulties in Chechnya if the latter helps them obtain various advanced weapons.
Sergey, care to comment?
PS: On the subject of Chechnya and the independence of Kosovo I say Hurrah for Russia!
I just have trouble figuring out who’s on first. Were the Chechens dangerous to the Russians because they have a dysfunctional society, or because the Russians did terrible things to them? Did the Russians do terrible things to the Chechens because the Chechens were dangerous, or because the Russians were mean old imperialists?
In the midst of all these modern nation-states, we’ve got tribes and religions and ethnicities who are, for practical purposes, stateless. They don’t fit the paradigm. But we still have to deal with them politically and militarily. Sometimes I think the Raj and the Soviet Union ended prematurely.
I do not know exactly, of course, but all foreign terror masters in Chechnya (dozens of them) are Arabs, not Iranians, and all belong to Wahhabbi sect of Islam, backed by Saudi kings. It seems more probable that Shiites, which are not big fans of Sunni, can make some deals with each other, for example, divide spheres of influence. Even gangsters of rival clans that normally kill each other at sight can struck such deals.
As I already said, Chechens were, and still are, if unabated, proffesional robbers and invaders into neigboring lands for slaves and ransom, just as Vikings were some days. There is a tribal ethos in its pure historical form: successful looter is a hero. Were Brish mean old imperialists when their Navy toppled pirate ships and hanged their captains to stop looting and slave trading in early 19 centuary? In my opinion, this was simply the right thing to do, irrespective of motif.
I wish more people today shared your opinion.
I wonder how the whole Barbary Pirates thing would have turned out if there had been Professors of Middle East Studies back back then…
Neo says we are trying for something besides anarchy or tyranny in Iraq. Others of you warn against Islamic tribes having too much power. The thing is, one of the major supposedly “signs of progress” in Iraq is the ousting of Al Qaeda as a foreign element from certain areas. This has lead to relative peace in those areas, which is good. But remember, the U.S. military was not so effective acting alone in those areas; neither was the Iraqi military. The power is in the tribes. This does not bode well for a unified Iraq, or democracy. So I guess this raises a question for Neo which is, what do you envision us achieving in Iraq if we continue to fight this war as you want us to?
The power is in the tribes
That’s like saying the power in the US belongs to the people or the power of the pyramids belong to the slaves at the bottom that worked to make them.
It is only true conditionally and not absolute.
Human progress allows for flaws to be accepted, rather than purged and hidden away as utopias and dystopias do. By accepting known flaws and working on them to temper the steel, flaws are removed and reforged into stronger material. Those that do not believe in human progress have no reason to believe that alliances between Arab tribes and the US would ever bode well.
It seems to me that Elrond and others who have put this theory forward have a dichotomy to explain. When the tribes didn’t cooperate with us, or openly fought us, it proved the war was going badly. Now that the tribes are cooperating and fighting alongside us, it bodes ill for ultimate success in the war.
And the strange “labels” the left applies to the tribes. When they fought us, they were “freedom fighters” opposed to the occupation of their country. Now that they fight with us, they are “the very terrorists” we’re supposed to be fighting.
Every setback is a setback. But every step forward is also a setback. Elrond, explain.
There is nothing new in using local tribes as allies against hostile forces. Brits, Russians and Americans did it (Col. Lawrence of Arabia, Uzbeks and Tadjiks of Northern Alliance in Afganistan against Pashtuns now). The most prominent assassination organized by Bin Laden was murdering of the leader of Nothern Alliance, Ahmadshakh Makhsud. Naturally, there are many former Northern Alliance warriors in Karzay government.
It is impossible to transform a tribal society into normal modern nation-state in historically short time. It will stay tribal for decades. It means that the primal loyality of every tribesman will be to his own tribe, not to the central government or formal law. But it does not mean that consensusal government is impossible, or that dictatorship is the only alternative to chavos. Tribal alliances can be workable form of self-government. See Afganistan before Soviet intervention: it was a kingdom, but in no sense a dictatorship.
I did not use the words “setback” or “freedom fighters,” though I know that some in the anti-war camp have. And whether I believe in “human progress” is irrelevant.
I think my post is clear. The most significant sign of progress is this relative success by some tribes (working with the U.S. military) in bringing peace to their regions. The Iraqi government was not able to do this; nor was the Iraqi military or the U.S. military acting alone. So, given that this much power lies in the tribes, it seems that Iraq may exist more naturally as a collection of tribes with a weak central government. If this is the case, then this is contradictory to the Neocon dream of making Iraq a secular democracy, if that is the Neocon dream. Remember, before our invasion, different Neocons had different dreams. Some wanted to install Chalabi and his cohorts as the replacements for Saddam’s government. Some (David Wurmswer among them) said that the Jordanian monarchy would take control of Iraq. And some (William Kristol, Robert Kagan) said that if we liberated the Iraqi Shia from Saddam’s tyranny, then they would start a democracy that would serve as an example to the rest of the Middle East.
Elrond,
So, maybe what you end up with is a “tribal confederation” of sorts. Just because the “democracy” doesn’t conform to someone’s envisioned parameters, and winds up a more “homegrown” version, doesn’t mean it’s doomed to failure. The important part is it becomes a “free society”.
The question remains up in the air how Iraq will turn out. For the moment, I’m optimistic. I’m just wondering why you seem to think it cannot “bode well” for people to assume their own security, as we have, and show signs of “stepping up”, as it has been put for one of the “benchmarks”, only to say achieving it is not a good sign.
Lee,
If an association of tribes can exist peacefully, and if it can be called a stable and “free society,” then that would be progress, yes. I do hope Iraq turns out according to your optimistic view.
However, in some Shiite areas in the south, Taliban-like strictures are on the rise. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0918/p11s01-wome.html) This signals an increase in religious fundamentalism from the Saddam era. I don’t think you would call this a “free society.” More moderate religious views may eventually prevail, but I wouldn’t count on this happening for at least another generation.
I also doubt that Sunnis and Shia will get along.
I also doubt that tribes in a non-oil region of Iraq will allow other tribes to have control of the oil without a fight.
I also think that nations surrounding Iraq will fight proxy wars in Iraq using the tribes or religious sects there.
I think that no matter how long we stay in Iraq with our current troop levels, these problems I have stated will remain, and will flare up when we leave.
Elrond, so what you are saying is that America will have enemies so long as america exists and Iraq will have problems so long as Iraq exists. The real question is, what are you going to do about it, either personally or indirectly in the policies that you support, Elrond?
A free society does not spring up because it is the destiny of mankind and humanity. It takes work. America wasn’t a free society 30 years, nor 60 years, nor 200 years ago. It is still not a free society because freedom is infinite, it is not restricted to a certain level that says “okay now you are good enough for the liberty aristocracy, allowing you benefits of X, Y, and Z”.
If you believe there is some kind of set goal that you can achieve and then say “we’re done”, you’re on the wrong historical scale. If you keep using it, of course you aren’t going to get anywhere concerning Iraq’s status.
And whether I believe in “human progress” is irrelevant.
Of course it has maximum relevancy. Whether you believe freedom can be achieved or whether it is an infinite quest predetermines your position. There is nothing to talk about when you are a nihilist, Elrond. And a nihilist is someone that believes that because human progress has not been achieved in the past or the present or the near future, that it is now meaningless to even try.
I think that no matter how long we stay in Iraq with our current troop levels, these problems I have stated will remain, and will flare up when we leave.
You don’t have the imagination to perceive a better life for people nor the strength of will to carry through long term with such projects. Whether this is true for you or not, is irrelevant to Iraq for it will be Iraqis and Americans, both military and civilian, that will decide as a group and as a team what happens. After the enemy gets their votes, of course. Thus this means that you can be as pessimistic as you want or Lee as optimistic as he wants, but it is the reality people create that matters. Illusion and propaganda helps, but even the best propaganda cannot reattach someone’s head to their shoulders and breath life back into the eyes.
Problems are problems. If MacArthur and American ancestors sat around and did nothing but write what you have described here in words, there would have been no solution to problems. That is certainly true just as it is true that problems will always arise regardless of what you are or where you are. It doesn’t matter whether Iraq has a tribal problem or not, since if they didn’t have a tribal problem they would have our problems. We have other problems, because problems don’t go away and neither does war. You trade one set of serious and potentially fatal problems for another set of less serious but more annoying problems. That’s the game of life.
Those problems would flare up because those people don’t know any better way to live their lives. What they have have worked for them, so why fix something that isn’t broken, would be their view. You and I cannot use the same excuse, unless we admit to being as parochial as the Iraqi tribal members.
I also doubt that Sunnis and Shia will get along.
The Founding Fathers knew 3 times to be true. They doubted that blacks and whites would ever get along as one or even two societies, barring special individuals. They knew that Native Americans would not be able to get along with white settlers. And they knew that American loyalists would not get along with Crown Loyalists.
By all means, doubt that Shia and Sunni will get along. Such things will become obsolete eventually, because such beliefs are meaningless.