Fault lines in Pakistani responses to Kosovo and Chechnya

Columnist M. ZAFAR writes about our mistakes in dealing with crisis in Muslim KOSOVO and Chechnya.

Kosovo and Chechnya are two Muslim majority regions in Europe/Eurasi that have been in turmoil for quite some time. Policies of Western powers in regard to each have varied from mere expression of displeasure to active military involvement. This inconsistency confuses the people in Pakistan who see striking similarities in the situation of the two territories.

Muslims’ struggle in these territories is aimed at correcting the political imbalance caused by history and perpetrated by the insensitivity of rulers at the centres of national power. Coincidentally these regions are mountainous territories and lie at remote corner of their respective countries and are suited to irregular warfare. Rebel forces engage in hit and run operations and inflict casualties that they hope will eventually break the national resolve. Part of the strategy lies in building up strong international opinion in their favour that could ultimately bring in diplomatic pressure and perhaps armed intervention from sympathetic quarters. It must be admitted that rebel strategy did come to fruition in Kosovo. The huge humanitarian problem of displaced persons caused by the clash between Yugoslav Forces and Kosovo Liberation Army was enough for the Western powers to line up domestic support. NATO allies then launched a military operation against Yugoslavia that effectively separated Kosovo from Serbia and placed it under Nato’s occupation. That the ruthless aerial bombardment lasting over 78 days compounded the refugee issue was no matter. That the liberating powers also refused to consider independence for Kosovo as a viable political option and reneged from the understanding in this regard was also of no consequence. Kosovars now told to be content with an autonomous status within the republic of Serbia. Of course in order to guarantee the implementation of the political plan Nato forces would have to remain stationed in the province for an indeterminable period.

This was that permanent gain and abiding interest in the region in pursuit of which the Western powers undertook the destruction of Yugoslavia. At geo-political level the prospect of emergence of a strong Slavic state sympathetic to Russia that could provide the latter with a presence in the Adriatic has been effectively thwarted. Despite the ludicrous rush of Russian forces from Bosnia to Kosovo, Russia has been shut out of the Balkans. How far Nato’s invasion of Yugoslavia was in support of Kosovar Muslims and how far was it in furtherance of their own strategic interests is for anyone to guess. But those who chose to speak for Pakistan during the conflict supported Nato’s invasion because superficially it was supportive of the world Muslim cause. They forgot that the attack was prima facie violative of all norms of civilised behaviour. Few raised voice against the blatant disregard of the sovereignty of a member of the United Nations and once a much respected leader of the group of non-aligned nations of which Pakistan is a proud member. Callous destruction of country’s civil facilities and the infrastructure was neither found distasteful nor immoral. Serbs’ record of atrocities on Muslim minority in Bosnia and Kosovo is indefensible, but diplomacy at state level has to be mindful of other norms also. Yugoslavia that was created by the peacemakers of Versailles for having a strong Slav state in South Eastern Europe has ceased to exist. Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia are independent and under Western protection. Montenegro is straining on the leash and will in the near future break away from what is left of Yugoslavia. Serbia the apparent Successor State to Yugoslavia will be kept under restraint by NATO troops in Kosovo. Balkan problem that was the cause of so much of turbulence in 19th and 20th centuries has been decisively solved for the better part of 21st century from the Anglo-Saxon point of view. And what’s there for the Umma?

Now to Chechnya. Russia’s current war in Chechnya began when some two thousand troops under Mr. Shamyl Bassayev made an incursion into Dagestan and declared an independent Republic there. As if on a cue, some elements that remain untraced so far, blew up two apartment buildings in Moscow killing three hundred Muscovites. Mr. Putin blamed the Chechens of these acts of violence and announced his resolve to rid Chechnya of the disruptive elements forever. He issued an ultimatum to Chechens in Dagestan to end their occupation by 31st August 1999 and approved a full-scale offensive in Chechnya to crush the rebels. The President of Chechnya Mr. Aslan Maskhadov immediately pleaded for a negotiated solution and condemned Mr. Bassayev’s attack on Dagestan as a provocation to the people of Chechnya but it cut no ice. Strangely the rebels heeding more to Mr. Putin than to Mr Maskhadov withdrew from Dagestan on the given date. However, Russian forces have not been withdrawn from Chechnya so far despite comprehensive destruction of the country. Why? Mr. Aslan Maskhadov the elected President of Chechnya had been at pains to keep his distance from the rebellious elements. In April he offered to hold talks with Russians without any preconditions but Mr. Nikolai Koshman the top Russian envoy in Chechnya called it a ploy to gain time and regroup. This is not convincing. Chechen guerrilla force has suffered substantial casualties and is down to 50% of the original strength. All cities and major population centres of Chechnya are under control of Russians. Half the population of Chechnya is in refugee camps of Ingushetia and Georgia. Colonel General Valery Manilov First Deputy Chief of Staff of Defence Forces announced a change in the tactics of the Russian forces. They were henceforth to concentrate on small scale operations for netting the rebel leaders. When operations are reduced to police actions it is clear that the military campaign is already over. What is the hitch in normalising the situation by officially admitting that much? Knowledgeable circles say that war in Chechnya will be over when those who started it wish it to end - the oligarchs of Russia.

According to informed persons Mr. George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist among them, war in Chechnya was engineered by a group of oligarchs who needed protection in their own country after the money laundering scandal broke in United States. They argued that if they could have a man of their choice replace Mr. Yeltsin they would find the required protection for themselves and assure immunity to their erstwhile patron as a quid pro quo for his co-operation.

Mr. Vladmir Putin was an ideal candidate, a clean gentleman officer and a strong administrator who could deliver on the promises. War in Chechnya was part of the strategy to rally support of the nationalists. Premature departure of Mr. Yeltsin that would give Mr. Putin immense advantage of incumbency was the other essential component of the plan. Rest is history. After a stint as Acting President Mr. Putin was elected as President in the first round with 53% majority. What degree of control will the oligarchs be able to exercise on Mr. Putin once he is firmly in the saddle is open to question. But no evidence that would contradict the theory of the oligarchs’ initial contribution to the meteoric rise of Mr. Putin has come to surface so far.

So if that were that, reluctance of Western Powers to involve themselves seriously becomes all too understandable. They have expressed their concern over the human rights situation in Chechnya and suspended Russia’s voting rights in the European Assembly. Nothing more is on the cards.

Wherever Muslims are involved our concerns are doubled for obvious reasons. Some leaders of the public opinion in Pakistan lost no time in condemning both Russia and the Western powers but for wrong reasons. Pakistan is of course opposed to all forms of oppression, exploitation, and neo-colonialism and supports genuine movements in the cause of democracy, freedom and human rights. But at the same time, it is opposed to all forms of violence and terrorism as a state policy. Moreover, in the case of Chechnya some other very delicate issues were involved and factors apparently paraded needed closer scrutiny.

Following the advent of new American policy in the Indian Ocean, Russians are also recasting some of their assessments and estimates. In that exercise, Pakistan is a factor of decisive importance. Similarly after the American rebuff, Pakistan should also be thinking of fresh options. In that search Pakistanis cannot ignore Russia. In fact the key which can break the current Indo-Pakistan deadlock lies with Russia and not with the West. Remember it was change in the Russian attitude in the Security Council in mid-fifties that effectively blocked all United Nations initiatives on Kashmir. The reasons are not difficult to locate.

The need, therefore, is a realistic assessment of our chances of a constructive dialogue with Russia. Read the fine print of recent Russian initiatives in the Middle East, Central Asia and indeed Pakistan you will find some hints. If we proceed with fuller knowledge and comprehension of facts we may find that without giving up our principled stand we can find enough leeway to cater for the sensitivities of our northern neighbour. It is a time of opportunities. A well-calculated finesse may yield a grand slam and a place like Belgrade could still play a role.