The Failure of Pragmatism

The Chechenpress website has published an article by Salamu Talkhigov, entitled Samoubiystvennyi "pragmatizm" zapada (The West's Suicidal Pragmatism), which roundly condemns the world public for backing Russia in Chechnya:

The world public, either by its indifference or its direct support for the actions of the Kremlin in Chechnya, is encouraging the Russian occupation forces to take an even more savage attitude towards the Chechen population. In response to this cruelty, the Chechen people are carrying out actions which the international community describes as "terrorist" and through the mouths of its leaders voices its support for the "fight against terrorism" which Russia is allegedly waging. The result is a vicious circle of hypocrisy, lies and increasing mutual hatred.

Chechnya sacrificed for the sake of cooperation with Russia

Of course, only an incorrigible idealist would today try to appeal to the conscience and morality of eastern or western politicians. In politics conscience and morality serve as a fig leaf which from time to time covers up a brutal and cynical pragmatism. "When it comes to the situation in Chechnya," notes Gabriel Juen of the Brussels office of Amnesty International, "we can see that some influential states, members of the European Union, have decided to take Russia's side for the sake of their own supreme strategic objectives." He could have added that all countries, and not just the countries of the European Union, are behaving in this way.

Each state or community of states has its own "pragmatic" reasons for sacrificing the Chechen people for the sake of cooperation with Russia. France relies on its alliance with Russia to create in the UN Security Council a counterweight to the Anglo-American alliance, which often ignores the political-economic interests of the west European countries. The British leaders, who are being subjected to increasing criticism from the British public for their participation in the war against Iraq, have been forced to justify their close alliance with the USA by the presence of an "international terrorist network", of which Chechnya is, allegedly, one of the cells. And that being the case, [Prime Minister] Tony Blair, in order to preserve his reputation as a "fighter against terrorism", is resolutely supporting [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's "anti-terrorist operation" (albeit artificially protracted) in Chechnya. Germany has a vested interest in Russian oil, gas and the market of investment and consumers of German goods.

The USA, having declared its "anti-terrorist alliance" with Russia, has consolidated its military presence in Central Asia and South Caucasus in two of the most important strategic and energy centres of Eurasia.Iran, which invariably blocks any, even the mildest condemnation of Russian policy in Chechnya adopted by the League of Islamic Countries is clinging with all its might in the hope of Moscow's help in gaining access to nuclear technology.

The Arab regimes are counting on the Kremlin's support in opposing the American-Israeli tandem in the region. China, India, Pakistan, and so on and so forth - all these countries are weighing up the situation on the "political scales" on which the huge nuclear power of Russia clearly outweighs tiny Chechnya.

The so-called "CIS countries" or, more broadly, the countries of post-Soviet space, the majority of whom have scarcely repulsed Russia's military blackmail and the subversive activity of its special services, not only do not support the liberation struggle of the Chechen people, but are themselves, in trying to "placate" the Kremlin, conducting a repressive policy in relation to the Chechen refugees on their territory, submissively and fully aware of their mendacity repeating after Russia's propaganda the rubber stamps of "Chechen terrorism". And all this, despite the fact that in these "young countries" the Chechens have not carried out any "terrorist acts" or serious crimes whatsoever.

Humanitarian principles or support for Russia

As we can see, the reason for the world community's support for Moscow in the Russian-Chechen confrontation has nothing to do with "Chechen terrorism"; on the contrary, this notorious "Chechen terrorism" is a means of escape which enables the democratic countries to violate those very principles, to protect which, allegedly, all these structures were established: the UN, OSCE, NATO, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, EU and so on and so forth. And one can easily understand that faint touch of relief, with which the New York Times newspaper states: "At the same time, the restrictions imposed by Russia on the work of foreign journalists in Chechnya have led to a reduction in the amount of video footage shown in Europe depicting the suffering of the Chechen people."

But, paradoxical as it may sound, it is precisely those "pragmatic considerations", for the sake of which the West turns a blind eye to the methodical annihilation of the Chechen people, declaring it to be "Russia's internal affair", which already make the Chechen tragedy one of the world's most acute international problems.

In the first place, given the whole scarcity of information reaching the West from Chechnya, Western politicians are invariably faced with a dilemma: humanitarian principles or support for Russia. Chechnya has become the touchstone on which the whole reputation of Western civilization is subjected to a fierce examination, and it will not succeed in putting off the ultimate verdict year after year.

Secondly, it is precisely because of the monstrous terror unleashed by the Kremlin against the Chechen people that the hopes for Russia's integral incorporation into the system of Western democracies are becoming more and more illusory. There cannot be a democratic whole, if part of it is anti-democratic and totalitarian. Totalitarianism is so called precisely because it is all-embracing in the social and political aspects.

The genocide of the Chechens, the torture, the bloody activities of the "death squadrons", the extra-judicial executions and the system of hostage-taking and collective responsibility cannot be legalized by means of democratic laws. What is more, these crimes cannot be committed if there is a free and democratic press in the country. Therefore, the crimes of the Russian military in Chechnya inevitably introduce into domestic political life the true elements of totalitarianism. And totalitarianism, in turn, can be based only on a corresponding ideology. Such ideologies can be of only three types: "class", nationalistic and radically religious. For historical reasons (the discrediting of the ideas of communism and the weak religious nature of Russian society), totalitarian trends in the evolution of the Kremlin regime can only be backed up by a nationalist ideology, of which the state-owned church and marginal communist cells have become servants. It is precisely nationalistic ideology, as all independent political scientific research both in the West and in Russia itself proves, that has today become the dominating world outlook of Russian society.

And third and finally, nationalistic ideology, which is the natural outcome of the long years of the war in Chechnya, cannot for long be preserved within the framework of the Chechenophobia established by the Kremlin. Nationalism always generalizes its "enemies", forms them up, as Hitler recommended, "into one line", so as not to complicate propaganda and to concentrate the hatred of the "popular masses" in one direction.

West driving Russia into "bloody swamp of totalitarianism"

Who will be Russia's "enemy" after Chechnya? The answer to this question is obvious: the Islamic peoples, since the Chechens are Muslims, and the West, since it is precisely the West which will absorb the spaces which for a long time were Russia's imperial possessions. But the best "fuel" for nationalism is, as we know, hurt pride and thirst for revenge. Thus, if the East (the "Islamic world") and the West condemn the Chechens to destruction, trying to justify this genocide by "pragmatism", then one has to accept that this "pragmatism" amounts to nurturing and setting a
fascist monster in the shape of Russia armed with a nuclear bludgeon against oneself.

Nationalism, unlike the West's "rational democracy", is an emotional ideology, which does not recognize "pragmatic" restrictions. This means that a nationalistically minded society easily starts a war if even a "pragmatic calculation" shows the suicidal nature of such a war. Germany and Japan in World War II proved this formula by their own fate. Therefore, if the lack of morality of Western politicians and leaders in relation to the Chechen tragedy is absolutely beyond question, then it is time to ask the question: are these politicians and leaders so pragmatic from the point of view of really following their interests? After all, by gaining geo-strategic and economic benefit in supporting the carnage in Chechnya, the West by this support is driving Russia more and more into a bloody swamp of totalitarianism in its nationalistic version. Consequently, Western politicians are thinking in terms of tactical advantages, sacrificing for the sake of these the strategic future of democratic freedoms - the very foundations of Western civilization. And in politics this is called not "pragmatism", but dilettantism, shortsightedness and failure.

(Via chechnya-sl and BBC Monitoring)