A shorter easier to digest report: http://www.amnesty.org/russia/chechnya.html
Russia so far has been very adept at keeping the conflict out of the spotlight of the international media. The problem is though since the decline of the USSR, Russias power has been on the wane it still is a player of global significance as it has the second largest nuclear arsnal and a permanent seat on the UNSC. But it is clear that the international community should take action against the decay of human rights in Chechnya in terms of econimic sanctions and arms embargoes.
So the question is: what action should be taken against Russia? Also any other aspect of the Chechen conflict such as the terrorist attacks on Moscow is up for debate.
I don’t believe it. Is this the same Russia that took such a principled stance against America at the UN? The same Russia that squeeled in harmony with France, saying that war isn’t the answer? My world-view is torn asunder. That such a vociferous advocate of the UN could be guilty of this…simply astonishing.
That being said, a realpolitik view demands that we judge with who our relations are more important: Russia or Chechnya. Obviously, Russia is more important (IMO, of course.) That doesn’t mean that we can no action, but other than desultory words and unbacked declarations, we best be carefull, lest we push Russia away.
The world would be a truly miserable place if we all operated on realpolitik. Obviously, Russia is a much more important world player than Chechnya. But don’t morals enter into the picture at all?
However, I am astonished that America, who took such a principled stance against Iraq at the U.N., has not seen fit to work over the Russians on this issue, at least much more intensely and publicly than they have so far. My world view is torn asunder. That one of the founders of the U.N. could be guilty of this…simply astonishing.
(What the U.S. could/should do about this: hard to say. It will take a damn long time and a lot of effort on both sides to rebuild the trust needed for meaningful negotiations. It would be nice, though, for starters, if the Russian military saw fit to expend their resources cleansing something besides noncombatants.)
Chechnya has been going on for years and years with Russia having a free hand in the matter. You’d think they’d have learned from Afghanistan, but no. The extreme reluctance of the US in the past to confront Putin or Yeltsin about the conflict there is simply a matter of pragmatism. Russia can’t be stopped short of an invasion.
Since 9/11, Bush is also faced with Putin’s borrowing of the ‘war on terrorism’ angle. How can he oppose cracking down on Chechen ‘terrorists’ when he’s cracking down on Iraqi ‘terrorists’?
Here is a list of US policy acts toward chechnya. I remember when Bush wanted support for the Iraq war he stated he would look the other way on Chechnya. I don’t know if that happened though since Putin opposed the war anyway. Besides, saying you are ‘concerned’ is meaningless. All leaders say that, then do nothing when human rights abuses occur. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2002/10034.htm
Chechnya has been going on for hundreds of years. Heck the British pledged support for Chechen’s IIRC in the mid 1800’s. Maybe Tammerlane can give a quick historical context.
Not sure how viable Chechenya is these days. My limited understanding from some Russians is that most of the active opposition has been wiped out. Chenchenya really had full scale military campaign a couple of years ago.
I should really say why I posted this at this partciular moment in time, I heard a mutterings (sorry no cite to back this up and I can’t vouch for it’s veracity) that they’d discovered a “concentration camp” in Chechenya.