RUSSIA: The Russian threat to strike anywhere in the world cannot be justified, writes Jonathan Eyal.
Three years ago last weekend, the terrorists who struck at the US changed America forever. Now a similarly profound change is taking place in another country: Russia.
Immediately after the massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan - and directly copying the original US response to terrorism - President Vladimir Putin said Russia was "at war".
Shortly after, the Russians also announced a large financial bounty for the head of the top Chechen terrorist, accused of masterminding the school atrocity. And, in a most important repetition of the American response to terrorism, Gen Yuri Baluevsky, the Russian chief of general staff, announced that the country's military now reserved for itself the right to "launch pre-emptive strikes on terrorist bases" anywhere in the world.
There is no doubt that, in coming to terms with the horrific terrorist murders and in seeking to punish the culprits, the Russian government deserves continued support. But if taken to its logical conclusion, the Russian response to terrorism can only create a much wider disruption to international law and order, and may actually end up encouraging further terrorist attacks.
In theory, the terrorist attacks on the US and on Russia bear some similarities. Both were massive, and deliberately designed to kill as many innocent people as possible. Both were also perpetrated by organisations which have adopted terror as their only method of operation, as an aim in itself. There is nothing to negotiate with al-Qaeda, and there is nothing which can be reasoned out with the people who last week slaughtered young children. But in reality, America's war against global terrorism is not similar to Russia's current terrorist challenge. And the solution to the Chechen crisis requires something more than just copying the current US model of warfare, as the Russians now seem to be doing.
The people who struck at the US three years ago rejected everything America stood for: its economic prowess, its technological advances, its notions of society. For bin Laden and his acolytes in the Middle East and Asia , the war is an apocalyptic clash of civilisations, a global confrontation between religions.
However, the terrorism which faces Russia today is of a different variety. It was born out of a classic ethnic war, for the liberation of one ethnic group. All of those who struck at the US were foreign nationals; all of those who struck at Russia were, at least nominally, its own nationals. Furthermore, al-Qaeda rejected the entire developed world. But the Chechens want to join this world, albeit as a separate nation. Nor are the Chechens fighting in the name of Islam; they happen to be Muslim, but they are fighting for the rather traditional nationalist aspiration of independence.
Nothing can excuse the school murders, and the perpetrators must be hunted down. Yet to suggest that the long-term answer to the Chechen problem should be similar to the fight against al- Qaeda is to commit a grave historical error. There is nothing which can be negotiated with al-Qaeda and its allies, even if they gave up violence. But, at least in theory, there is an answer to the Chechen problem: that of granting independence to this Russian province. In essence, the Russian government's threat to deploy its armed forces around the world in search of terrorists represents nothing more than an attempt to avoid discussing the real issue, which remains that of the future of the Chechen nation.
Ironically, when the US announced that it reserved the right to pre-empt terrorism by hitting anywhere and at a time of its own choosing, Russia criticised this move as illegal.
The legality of the American military doctrine of pre-emption continues to be a highly controversial matter to this day but, at least when President Bush unveiled the concept, it made some sense. For, after all, there was Afghanistan, a country which not only provided refuge for the al-Qaeda terrorists, but also refused to hand them over to face justice. In such situations, customary international law does allow the use of force; America's war in Afghanistan duly obtained full United Nations authority.
But what is the situation with Russia today? The claim that the Chechens enjoy a worldwide network of supporters has often been made by the Russian government, but never proven. Immediately after the terrorist attacks on a theatre building in Moscow two years ago, the Russians asserted that Arab fighters were involved. Not a single Arab was subsequently produced as evidence; all turned out to be local Chechens. The same claim was made last week. Even before all the bodies of the murdered children were identified, Russia claimed to know that 10 of the attackers were Arabs. And, yet again, the evidence never came.
The reality is rather simple. Although some links with other terrorist organisations may exist, the bulk of Chechen terrorism has always been home-grown. And, most importantly, there is no government in the world which actively shields Chechen terrorists. In short, there is neither the need, not the legal justification for Russia's threat.
The real reason for the change in Russian military policy is actually connected to much older strategic interests. Ever since the end of the Soviet Union, the Russians wanted to maintain control over the oil-rich and strategically important Caucasus region, and especially over the neighbouring republic of Georgia. The Georgian government, now assisted by the presence of some US military personnel, has always resisted these Russian advances. Under the guise of fighting terrorism, the Russians now hope to reimpose control over Georgia, and it is rather convenient that they can do so by using the same justification which the Americans are using elsewhere in the world.
And, behind the scenes, a more sinister development is taking place. For years, the Russian government demanded the extradition of Chechen political leaders who sought asylum in other countries, claiming that they were terrorists. Without exception, courts in Western countries rejected these claims as unfounded. However, the Russian security services adopted a new technique: that of simply assassinating such people. The former Chechen president was assassinated in the Gulf state of Qatar this February, and further assassinations are now sure to follow. The Russian authorities will claim that they are doing nothing different from what the CIA has done. But in practice, they are targeting all those Chechens with whom a peaceful deal to the crisis can still be negotiated and are eliminating the chances for a political settlement.
On the third anniversary of the worst single terrorist attack in modern history, it would be a rather sad and perverse outcome that a growing number of states are beginning to see respect for international law as a luxury, rather than a necessity.
Jonathan Eyal is director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London.