The hostage standoff in Beslan, Russia, ended in a siege by Russian special forces and many casualties. An authoritarian Russian Federation government led by Vladimir Putin versus a Chechen pro-independence terrorist group -- that's a combination that can only result in more deaths and an escalation of hostilities, with neither side willing to back down.
On the one side are radically militant terrorists who do not mind killing themselves and innocent bystanders, and hence often do not even have any "exit plan" in their terrorist attacks. They feel justified by what they think is a higher and noble cause -- to free Chechnya from Russian rule, an effort that began long before troops were ordered by Boris Yeltsin to invade Chechnya to keep it from becoming independent from Russia. They of course are wrong, because no amount of wrong on the part of one's enemy can justify terrorism -- especially when innocent people, children in particular, are killed as a result.
On the other side is Putin, who has a tough policy toward Chechen independence and terrorism, and has never made compromises in the face of terrorist demands. Moreover, the Russian Federation remains a state in which human rights and lives are not exactly valued as a top priority. Therefore, in the Dubrovka theater siege, the Russian special forces' Alfa Brigade deployed poison gas which successfully ended the standoff, but also took the lives of more than 100 hostages.
In the Beslan hostage-taking episode, Putin repeatedly said that his government would give top priority to the lives of the hostages. But the standoff nevertheless ended with a siege and mass bloodshed. The Russian government claims that the siege was not planned, and was only triggered when the terrorists began to fire shots at the hostages. But over the past 30 years, out of the twelve sieges that resulted in the most casualties, four were launched by Russia -- and not surprisingly, all four were related to Chechnya. So, in view of Russia's record in handling similar situations, it's no wonder that many feel skeptical. The European Union is among those demanding an explanation from the Russian government about how this could have happened.
What results is a seemingly never-ending series of terrorist attacks with high death counts, including the Beslan school episode, two Russian plane crashes, the bomb attack in the Russian metro station and the Dubrovka theater hostage standoff two years ago. The tragedies will more than likely repeat themselves, since no resolution of the issue of Chechen independence appears near.
With terrorism rapidly flowing across national borders and becoming an international rather than domestic problem, countries face a dilemma. It is important to keep in mind that refusing to give in to terrorists' demands often does not deter or discourage them, since unlike common criminals, they are often motivated by what they believe to be higher causes and ideals. Between a tough and uncompromising policy such as Russia's, which typically results in the loss of innocent lives, and caving in to terrorist demands -- which will only encourage more terrorist attacks over other supposedly noble causes -- no workable solution seems to exist.
One way to ease hostilities is to address root problems behind conflicts in accordance with universal principles of human rights and democracy. That is how Putin and his government can begin to deal more effectively with the situation -- instead of stubbornly claiming that Chechen independence is only an internal problem.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs