September 21, 2004

Is Putin's reaction to Chechen terror one of the last nails in the coffin for Russian democracy? On September 13th, Vladimir Putin announced a plan to eliminate the general election of regional and independant seats in parliament. The Kremlin now enjoys (Reg. Possibly Required) control of "an absolute majority in parliament, all major television stations, the Russian gas giant Gazprom (which reportedly is positioning itself to acquire the private oil company Yukos), the country's corrupt judicial system and a massive state security apparatus," and the suppression of viewpoints opposing the Kremlin has prompted parallels to be drawn.

Russia's democratic duo and others (including possibly the blackest of kettles) are speaking out against the plan, but some of those in support may not be those you'd expect. Are we about to witness the return of the Soviet Union, in whole or in some combination of parts? What kind of precedent will this set for the way that world leaders feel empowered to deal with terrorism?

posted by Embryo 20 years ago
  • Back in the 1960s, Solzhenitsyn in Gulag Archipelago wrote about the malaise in Russia, a part of her psychological roots, which would perpetually cultivate this kind of destruction. If he didn't foresee this he at least alluded to it. Now I see Americans jockeying for that path. As I see it terrorism is just one of many possible sparks for the process.
  • I'd like to point out that similar things have happened in America. See Executive power grab on tap at the White House? Other evidence includes increased restrictions on freedom of information requests (the economist claims that documents are being classified at roughly double the rate of the Clinton administration). Not to mention other sublter means of restricting the democratic process such as 6am medicare vote
  • My wife and I were discussing this last night, the parallels between US & Russia. After the fall of the USSR, Russia seemed to be the perfect model of capitalism run amok (i.e., nearly completely unregulated). Now it's a model (not that we need another one, if you crack a history book) of what happens when people value safety over freedom (you get neither). Scares the hell out of me.
  • I can't help but wonder if we are coming around to the awful conclusion that we dare not speak but must certainly, eventually, be confronted: that terrorism works. By works, I mean that it brings about the chaos and political upheaval that it's designed to do, and that there is simply no defense against it AND no policy that effectively ameliorates it. If force doesn't work (al Qaeda, Iraq, Chechnya), and accommodation doesn't work (Palestine, Spain, Turkey), what is left? The only times I can think of where either of these ideas worked in reducing terror would be in '60s and '70s Germany (Baader-Meinhof) for the former and recent Ireland (IRA) for the latter - but each of these is marked by the relative smallness of the terrorist groups, and their lack of support from the populace (less so for the IRA, but they have, imo, limited resources to draw upon). Couple that with the idea that security of the citizenry is the number one priority of any state - indeed, it is the primary reason for which the state gives for the levying of taxes (to fund army and police). If the terrorists can demosntrate over and over that the state cannot accomplish this, then the citizenry must necessarily assume the state is powerless in their primary job, and therefore tantamount to useless. What government can stand such a charge? What government would stand idle when confronted with this? None, neither the most free, nor the most onerous. Government can stand to be wasteful, incompetent, derided, and corrupt. What it cannot stand to be is superfluous. Terror is not new. But time and again, states have failed to protect against it. Israel assassinates Hamas leaders and bulldozes their homes, and yet they have terror. Turkey sends truck drivers - muslims, men who have more in common with the Iraqis than they do with the Europeans they wish to emulate - and they are beheaded by jihadists on film. Saudi Arabia enjoys relations with the US that rival anyone's in the world, their standard of living is near the highest in the Middle east, their sense of Islam ostensibly the strongest and the 9/11 bombers almost universally hailed from there. Freedom gives terror the tools it needs to thrive; oppression the tools it needs to grow. I am coming to the conclusion that there is no winning here - terror as a means has already won, because it simply cannot be stopped. No force is great enough to eliminate and/or cow every terrorist, and no amount of capitulation is sufficient to meet every terrorist's demands. The best we can hope for is to minimize the blood sacrifice we must make to appease terror, and that level grows as the terrorists slowly, but inexorably, realize the success of their methods.
  • I ♥ Fes. If you mean that it can never be eradicated from the face of the planet, if only doing so would constitute a "win," then I agree with you. If you mean that it "works" because terrorists routinely get what they demand, then I'd argue no, it doesn't work most of the time. Yeah, they keep finding chinks in the armor. Yeah, they're never going to give up. Yeah, they're going to keep killing people. We'll keep finding ways to stop them, and they'll keep finding ways of getting around us. But I'll say this: I'd rather live in fear of terrorism than fear of my government. I'd rather die for that cause.
  • I have commented before on the absurdity of what is now happening- we fight the cold war for 50 years, and now we have die-hard conservatives SUPPORTING RUSSIA! The idea that the Chechens have somehow "pushed" Putin away from democracy is absurd. His commitment was always questionable at best. Not excusing the school attack, but it happened because he has invaded Chechnya twice for no reason and his army has committed unspeakable atrocities there. The whole "war on terror" has led to a very flawed conception of what "national security" is. Russia is potentially a national security threat. Terrorists attacks ARE NOT. They are a threat to the safety of individual citizens- a very different thing. We have no "right" to complete safety from them, any more than the Constitution guarantees us the right not to be murdered or hit by a bus. Of course we have to do our best to prevent them, but if I was killed tomorrow by a terrorist bomb, the security of the US is no more threatened than if I was hit by a bus or a meteorite.
  • drjimmy - that might be true if the safety of the nation didn't include the safety of its citizens from attacks from outside the country. If you exclude those, what else is left? A conquering army marching on Washington, killing only local police/militia, with a few civilian casualties? Newer technology (flying airplanes into buildings, suicide bombers, etc.) has replaced the redcoats marching on the capital thing. And it's a much more efficient way of making a point. 20 or so highjackers killing three thousand or so USians, at the willing loss of their own lives. I don't think the Constitution foresaw that this sort of thing would happen. The 9-11 attacks seem to me to be the equivalent of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, except that they didn't target military installations for the most part and, as time has shown, we can't attribute them to one country. But are civilian lives less important than military? Or, doesn't "national security" include you and me? If not, why not? To me, that's the most shocking part - in the old days, when the "rules" of war applied, ordinary citizens could feel relatively safe. Military fought military, for the most part. Now, the attacks are against the ordinary citizens. Getting hit by a bus or a meteorite is a chance thing that doesn't include intent to destroy (and get attention.) But, an attack on our country, against civilian or military, is an attack, and our government owes us protection. I don't agree with our current adminstration's attempts to protect us, especially the invasion of Iraq, but you really can't compare things like 9-11 to chance events,
  • maybe not, but my point is more that people seem to be thinking of total safety as an inalienable right. Living in a free society means accepting certain risks. In the old USSR, there was no crime, b/c the government was watching everyone. If we wanted to live in a fascist society, I suppose we could elimate almost all risk of terrorist attack, but I for one do not want to sacrafice everything our country stands for. I am willing to put up with the risk to my own life (greater for me than most since I live within blocks of the LA federal building) to live in a free country, just as I put up with the statistically tiny risk of being a victim of murder, for example. A better analogy than an accident would be that terrorism is a crime. We can do our best to prevent it, but it will never be eliminated in a free society. I have heard the Pearl Harbor thing before and I dont like the comparison. The signifigance of Pearl Harbor was that it started a real war wherein fascists stood a very real chance of taking over the world. Al Quaeda stands no chance of invading the US and imposing a Taliban-style regime. In fact, Al Quaeda has been described as nihilistic, since they have never even stated a goal of any kind, unlike say the Chechens who, horrible as their methods may be, have a clear, understandable goal: Russia out of Chechnya.
  • How far back are these days when military attacked military for the most part? Because I can't think of a single war where civilians haven't been deliberately targeted.
  • drjimmy11: On the contrary, al Quaeda have stated a number of goals, and have achieved most of them, including forcing a US withdrawl of troops from Saudi Arabia. Suomynona: Certainly the notion of regulating the conduct of war is one which has enjoyed at best sporadic adherance, and certainly has not been the norm throughout history. And path would do well to note it is the US which has aggresively repudiated measures such as the ICJ.
  • rodgerd's day job is as a mediator. He's just taking a minute off while he checks mofi and eats a sandwich.
  • ICJ? What's that?
  • patb -- ICJ
  • *pats Wolof's head*
  • rodgerd - again, I'm not sticking up for the US. So let's go back to drjimmie's thoughts. "We have no "right" to complete safety from them, any more than the Constitution guarantees us the right not to be murdered or hit by a bus. Of course we have to do our best to prevent them, but if I was killed tomorrow by a terrorist bomb, the security of the US is no more threatened than if I was hit by a bus or a meteorite." And my response to that: "Getting hit by a bus or a meteorite is a chance thing that doesn't include intent to destroy (and get attention.) But, an attack on our country, against civilian or military, is an attack, and our government owes us protection." So what does that have to do with the ICJ? And, do you disagree with my assertation that attacking a country's civilians should count? Or, if your country's civilians were attacked, whould you shine it on because it was the equalivant of a meteorite hitting your city? I think I understand your position to an extent, but I don't thing you really read what I said. Gimme your best shot.