The dreadful, cold-hearted attacks on New York and Washington provoked feelings of horror and sympathy everywhere. They also brought Russia and the US closer together than perhaps at any other time in history.
Having lived through such a tragedy on their soil for the first time, it is no surprise that Americans demand retribution. Their forces now pound the supposed terrorist bases of Osama bin Laden's network -- and those of his Taliban backers -- in Afghanistan. Yet important elements in this war remain unclear: who, most importantly, is the enemy? Is it only Osama bin Laden? Is it his state sponsors (if they can be identified)? Who? Until we answer that question with precision, the terrorist threat will not and cannot be eliminated.
For the invisible enemy has, undoubtedly, not stopped his vile work. The spreading of anthrax in America may be the deed of the same terrorist groups that attacked New York and Washington, or it may not. We do not know. It is not clear how these terrorists can be neutralized and how their organizational and financial roots can be cut off. Nor is it clear how thou-sands of new volunteers can be prevented from joining these terrorist organizations with a global reach. In the midst of such uncertainty, establishing a viable policy to eliminate terrorism will be horribly difficult.
Russia confronted the tragic violence of international terrorism perpetrated by an invisible enemy far earlier than other countries. For a decade, it stumbled about in search of a viable response.
At first, the rebellion in Chechnya, which was headed by General Dzhokhar Dudayev and began with the collapse of the Soviet Union, seemed to be an upsurge of national self-awareness by a nation long insulted and oppressed by Stalin and Soviet communism. At first, the Yeltsin administration turned a blind eye to the violence in Chechnya, hoping against hope that it would burn itself out.
As time passed and the violence spread beyond Chechnya, it became clear that Russia was dealing with a conspiracy of international terrorists whose ideas were becoming fused with the fanatical beliefs of extreme Islamic fundamentalists. All of the Northern Caucasus seemed under the threat of becoming destabilized by these ideas. Making matters worse was the threat that this instability would spread to the newly independent states of Central Asia, with the emergence of a second Taliban-style regime a realistic possibility.
After trying to ignore it, Russia responded to the threat militarily, not once, but twice. The five plus years of brutal warfare in Chechnya that followed have been costly in every possible way: ruined cities, thousands of lives lost, many more thousands living the most pitiable of lives as refugees. Russians, who are deeply divided over the support President Vladimir Putin has offered to America in its war against terrorism, can only wonder if the scale of violence seen in Chechnya is a precedent for America's Afghanistan campaign.
Beyond wondering about the scale and duration of a war now being waged not far from Russia's borders, Russians are also looking inward. It is now becoming clear that, in one respect, American warnings to Russia about its own sales of military hardware and support to "rogue states" make sense. Under no circumstances should Iran, Iraq and other states that support extremist ideologies gain access to the materials needed to produce nuclear weapons.
Indeed, dread to think of what would happen if nuclear weapons fell into terrorist hands. The terrorist attacks on America may, at last, have fully awakened Russian policymakers to the impact of military exports to Iran and Russia's political support for Iraq.
Yet, though Chechnya may offer a hideous precedent for the scale of violence that may occur in Afghanistan, the events of Sept. 11 have provided the impetus for Russia to look anew toward settling the war in Chechnya. I think it extremely important that Putin approached the heads of the illegal armed militias in Chechnya with a new proposal for a settlement soon after the terrorist attacks in America.
That the heads of the independent states of Central Asia that were once part of the Soviet Union support the anti-terrorist coalition and agree with Russia's cooperation with America helps to quarantine the Chechen insurgents. Recognizing their potential isolation and the diminished sympathy for their cause around the globe, the rebel commanders in Chechnya must now be rethinking their attitudes and links to international terrorism.
So Putin's initiative may not fall on deaf ears. But the willingness of the Chechen insurgents to reach a settlement may tell us much about how deeply they are controlled by the invisible enemy of international terrorism. If they refuse, the implacability of international terrorism will be revealed for all to see.
Should an agreement be reached in Chechnya, however, an example will be set for the states in the Muslim world that are interested in refashioning peaceful relations with the modern civilizations of the West. This would mark a longstanding antagonism between Islam and the West that will have ended through negotiations. Here, the Central Asian states may play a historic role in forging cooperation with Muslim countries, serving as a bridge between East and West in combating terrorism and preventing a conflict between civilizations.
Fedor Burlatsky is chairman of the Council on Political Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath