Putting up against Islamic terrorism
Putting up against Islamic terrorism
Author: Seshadri Chari
Publication: The Organiser
Date: May 28, 2000
A Marxist utopia, Russia, the iron curtain state presided over by a
dictator who had to quit the scene unceremoniously to pave the way for
his successor, is an open society now. Today power is voluntarily transferred
to a democratically elected President who, after assuming office, visits
the capitalist west, first thing.
Vladimir Putin, who is widely known in the west as the man 'who handled
the Chechen rebellion with a strong hand, went to the European capitals
with a different message. In the background of a collapsed economy, uncertain
politics, powerless rouble, and endless civil strife Putin stepped into
the Presidential shoes. With a cold look in his eyes, he told his people
"miracles don't happen". As though to add dressing to his roubled cake,
the spectre of terrorism became a glaring reality all along the Russian
border, after stalking through the erstwhile Soviet States.
But the West seems to be playing a dual role in what was earlier the
Soviet Union. It does not appear to be serious helping in putting a stop
to the Islamic groups following a fundamentalist agenda. Simultaneously,
it loses no time to shout hoarse from rooftops that human rights are being
violated in these states. Short of funds and looking westwards for support
the governments of the CIS are caught in a quagmire- they have to bear
criticism they full well know is unjustified.
The scene is more or less like what prevails in India. The, comparison
is apt and real. The setting up of the National Human Rights Commission
and getting all allegations of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir-has
exposed India to more and more allegations and a sustained vilification
campaign by Pakistan. Of late and grudgingly, the Western governments have
now come to accept that the victims of terrorism also have their human
rights and that these stand violated for long. Terrorism is gaining international
dimensions.
This double game becomes obvious in the way the West has looked at Chechnya.
It has acknowledged the threat of terrorism to Russia, but has been unsparing
in its criticism of Moscow's handling of the separatist- movement in Chechnya
and Dagestan. The Putin Government, and earlier the Yeltsin government
that the West bent backwards to sustain, have been put to considerable
pressure not only by the US, but by most of the European countries who
give importance to the human rights aspects of the Chechens and Dagestanis,
but have no clear solution in their beads as to how the separatist movements
could be promptly and effectively contained.
The major difference is that while the Russians have withstood pressures
and President Putin indeed made hardline in Chechnya, the basis of his
policy is dud the weaker Central Asian states have been considerably pressurised.
During her recently- concluded visit to Uzbekistan, US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright asked the leaders of the Central Asian nation
not to use the threat of terrorism to "repress" the country's Muslim population.
A similar problem exists in Muslim-dominated provinces of China that
of late have put up separatist movements.
Even the US is not spared-that country's diplomatic establishments in
Africa were bombed by Osama bin Laden's group.
A series of bomb blasts that ripped through Tashkent in February 1999
narrowly missed President Islam Karimov and killed 16 people. Karimov blamed
the attacks on radical Muslims and responded with a harsh crackdown. "One
of the most dangerous temptations for a government facing violent threats
is to respond in a heavyhanded way that violates the rights of innocent
citizen" Albright said in a policy statement during a recent tour of three
Central Asian states. Yet, the US would not have responded any differently
in a similar situation.
The Uzbek authorities have said 128 persons were prosecuted over the
bombings although some independent regional analysts say the number of
people arrested after the incident touched the 5000 mark.
Albright, speaking to an audience of academics and experts at the University
of World Economy and Diplomacy, said the US would help Central Asian countries
police their borders against drug traffickers and the spread of religious
militancy.
This is important as Uzbekistan is still in the process of setting up
its border vigilance force. Neighbouring Tajikistan, which has a border
with Afghanistan, the world's second largest source of contraband drugs,
has stationed some 25,000 Russian border guards.
The question that Albright's offer raises is whether the US wants to
take over what is now entirely a Russian domain. Russians, indeed, continue
to think Central Asia is their region of influence.
Speaking in Tashkent, Albright said Washington would not back all measures
to fight such problems. "It is essential to distinguish between people
who advocate or commit criminal acts and those who are simply expressing
their religious faith", she said. This confusion in the US interpretation
is adding fuel to the fire.
Albright met President Karimov during her visit and had talks with foreign
minister Abdulaziz Kamilov over democracy and rights issues. Albright said
governments in the region were "too interventionist and drew a parallel
with the Soviet years, when the communist party played a pervasive role.
She observed. "By any modem standards, it is clear that throughout Central
Asia, governments remain too involved in the economy and the day-to-day
lives of individuals. As a result, the great human potential of the region
has gone mostly unrealised." A clear case of lack of vision for human resource
development.
President Vladimir Putin went to the western capitals probably with
a view to correcting their perception. His interaction in London with the
media made it increasingly clear that the new master of the Kremlin is
in the business of giving lessons, not taking them.
The man of whom Tony Blair said that he was "comfortable with" gave
a passionate defence of his hardline policies that sent a shiver down the
spine and left his host clearly uncomfortable. His implacable opposition
to "interference" in Chechnya was matched by his determination to thwart
any plans by the West to upgrade its missile defences.
He told Western Europe in clear terms that it would pay a heavy price
unless it woke up to the threat of fundamentalist extremists on its borders.
A silver lining is that some countries are teaming up to nip international
terrorism of the Islamic ilk in the bud.
The Russian President, under fire from human rights bodies and Western
politicians over the Chechen conflict, turned the tables on his accusers
alleging that Russia had been left alone in its fight against the "common
enemy" of international terrorism. Putin's statement dominated his joint
press conference with Tony Blair in the Foreign Office at the end of three
hours of deliberations.
"For Russia it is completely untenable that one of its territories should
be used as a launching pad for enemies of Russian statehood and sovereignty."
His voice rising Putin said that Russia's aim was not the enslavement of
Chechnya but liberation of its people from Islamic extremists and terrorists.
In this context, the US theory of "human rights being superior to sovereignty"
is portrayed as ridiculous. While advocating this theory, one argument
of the Western countries is that "the key threat to international security",
which used to be "conflicts between countries", is now the "internal Violence
of a country". This argument says that aggression on a state's sovereignty
by another country, is no longer the major threat to international security.
Could this be true at the real ground level?
In the present-day concept of a global village, no country is an island
by itself. International terrorism of the Islamic hue has to be fought
to the hilt by not only those countries that are adversely affected but
by those too that may be its victim tomorrow. Any fire fighting measures
on single country basis for any length of time may not deliver the goods.
The combative steps have to be continent-wise, better globally on a war-footing.
Back
Top
|