Déja vu
Maxime Butkevitch and Gisela Neunhöffer, 28.09.2001

The September terrorist attacks, that took a terribly high toll of lives of ordinary citizens, were incomparable in their extent and brutality. They were not accompanied by any demands or communiqués. Nobody could be held definitely responsible - despite the multiple declarations of politicians and security services stating the opposite. The sense, the aims and the details of what had happened, accordingly remained a mystery. In the days thereafter these atrocities led to a public atmosphere that came near to a mass psychosis. There was not one citizen, whether living in a big center or the province, who could feel convinced about his/her own safety. To ensure this safety, be it even by way of harsh measures limiting essential rights and freedoms, became unexpectedly the business of all and everyone. The desire for revenge against the guilty turned out to be the feeling that probably united all citizens of the country the most. As responsible for the attacks, that were conducted by unknown persons, a certain mountain country was detected. It became the target of a big military operation, the political leaders of which became instantly incredibly popular.
This military operation which was shamefully called a "counterterrorist" one, turned out to be a real war - the Second Chechen war, which took a protracted, guerilla character and goes on until now, since already two years. In the meantime the persons guilty of the bombings of apartment blocks in Russia in September 1999 were still not found, so that nobody can be put on trial accordingly.
The similarities of the events in the fall of 1999 in Russia and in the fall of 2001 in USA are indeed striking. Even details and single aspects give the impression of a certain déja vu. Again the euphemism "counterterrorist operation" is being used; it is being confirmed that there won't be a big ground operation, but the activities of the armed forces will be limited to strikes at military bases and communication lines of the fighters. And through the hints at "Islamic extremist international networks" a renewed racism is gaining ground. In 1999 in Russia the responsible forces for the terrorist attacks were named immediately: the Chechen armed formations, that were involved in the conflict in the Russian Republic of Dagestan, and the leadership of the Republic Chechnya in general. The allegation remained unproved, but nevertheless - with the help of the brain washing apparatus - obvious to the overwhelming majority of the population. Today, this seems like a rehearsal to the present events on the regional level.
Only two weeks ago many of those US citizens who are at all interested in international affairs just couldn't understand the indifference of the Russians regarding the Second Chechen war. But today, being under massive propagandist pressure, many of them took a very similar position.
The same can be said about the growing xenophobic tendencies - in Russia the war strengthened the anti-Chechen mood, while after the events in New York the expressions of intolerance and their extreme forms - attacks on mosques, Arabic people and representatives of other ethnic and religious groups of eastern origin - obtained the character of a certain "orientophoby".
The in many respects similar events created also similar developments in many different spheres of life. The change in the informational-ideological content of the mass media is striking. The news about the brutal attacks and the expected US reaction still fill the first pages of all newspapers, and make the breaking news in TV and radio broadcasts. Few is now being reported about such basic facts as the pretty bad condition of the American and World Economies throughout the whole year, and if so, it is inevitably being linked to the aggravating effect of the attacks. Nothing is any more heard about the criticisms toward US president Bush, his hard-line politics especially in foreign affairs, his numerous slips of the tongue - the not long ago much laughed at and hated Bush seems to have grown into the role of the nations main fire fighter and protector of - not only America, but the whole western civilisation. Though not intended, this is pretty much the same effect that the bombings of apartment blocks in Russia and the launching of the Chechen war campaign had for the until then virtually unknown prime minister and future president of Russia Vladimir Putin.
To be sure, there is no parallel to the accusations towards the Russian secret services suspecting that they had staged the bombings themselves to reach their aim of putting Putin on the shield. So far, there haven't been any serious allegations that the CIA could have something to do with the WTC and Pentagon attacks, and the thought indeed seems pretty unlikely. The American state is most probably not responsible for the attacks - but still for American ruling politicians they can have the same useful consequences as had the Moscow and Wolgodonsk bombings for Putin.
The parallels in the answers are equally telling: in an astonishing speed the construction of "we" and "they" in the minds of the people is restrengthened in its most reactionary way. They - that's the bad guys, easily associated with wild, "uncivilised" mountain-people, dark skin and, of course, Islamism. Everybody understands exactly who are the suspects, and it is of almost no concern that there are so far absolutely no proofs being published about the guilt of anybody. And word is not only about Bin Ladens "Al Qaida" group or other allegedly terrorist organisations, but about every "nation" that harbours them, in general everybody who is not on "our" side in this struggle of the good versus the evil. Even if from time to time it is being declared that "we are not fighting against Islam or the arab peoples", the renewed cold-war talking about the "free world" and the western civilisation makes very clear who is on the "They" side. We - that's everybody who is uniting behind the American President to fight these forces uncompromisingly. There seems to be no space for a third force, a third opinion even. It was this kind of polarisation which probably was pretty much the reason for the almost complete absence of a peace movement in Russia in the years 1999-2001.
Reactions are accordingly: much of the population of the so called "civilised world" is demanding revenge, retaliation in the most basic manner, and are only too ready to forget some of the rules that are usually cited as the proof for the superiority of this very civilisation - the rule of law, the superiority of reason over "archaic" emotions, the principle of individualism, including individual responsibility for ones actions, and the simple principle of abstaining from mass murder. If in the Russia of the Second Chechen war it is easy to find people demanding a genocide of all Chechens, in the "civilised world" after September 11 - or at least in the US - it is not much harder to find people holding a sign that just states "Bomb". At the same time, there is a widespread feeling of depression and inability to act oneself, as well among people who are in favour of revenge as among those who oppose military action.
On this background, it is easy to push through the strengthening of the security apparatus, the widening of their rights at the expense of basic citizen's and human rights to be protected from state surveillance. Police, military and intelligence seem the only answer to the forces of evil and destruction. This goes pretty much the same road as the rhetorics of building a strong state in Russia, where sometimes the Pinochet regime is positively cited. A strong state in this sense means inevitably a strong repression apparatus.
The politicians themselves seem to understand very well the parallels in the recent developments. President Putin already a long time ago tried to get approval for his Chechnya policies by pointing to the dangers of international terrorism and the ben Laden connection in particular. The Russian news agencies quote him as saying as early as September, 12 1999 that "'Russia and the USA have a common enemy - international terrorism.' This was stressed on September 12 [1999] by the prime minister of Russia Vladimir Putin after his talk with the President of the United States Bill Clinton. Answering questions about the affinity of Usama ben Laden and his followers to events in the Northern Caucasus, the head of the Russian government said: 'We have reasons to believe, that ben Ladens people are linked to what is going on now in Dagestan and Chechnya. We know, that ben Ladens people are present there, and this should also be of concern to our American partners.'" At the time of his recent visit to Germany, Putin now finally obtained the promise of Germany's chancellor Schröder that the problem of Chechnya will be reviewed in future "more differentiated". A new anti-terrorist international is quickly forming, and its only too ready to forgive many "irregularities" as long as they are carried through by states, not by just some obscure fighters.
But there is more to be learned from these parallels than the old story that the powers-that-be will more often than not find a common language. Looking at what is going on in Chechnya, we apparently are reading the middle pages of the book that is now being written by the United States in Afghanistan. Though with some corrections. While Chechnya was and still is aiming to be recognized by others, and western governments as well, the Afghan Taliban didn't express a serious interest in this. The war and the accompanying developments that destroyed the industry and infrastructure of Chechnya, left to its inhabitants only trade, half legal and also illegal activities as possibilities to survive. But Afghanistan is still a traditional agrarian country, that had never had an industry nor an infrastructure of the same dimension. A drought lasting three years under such conditions has already led a majority of the Afghans to the limit of survival, and the suspension of humanitarian aid and destruction of the few existent communication and supply lines could lead to the death of a great number of people, even without counting those being killed by military actions directly.
Unfortunately humanitarian reasons are unlikely to influence the main story of the book. Washington already has declared its desire to replace the Taliban and implement a different regime in Kabul. Moscow has played "punishing terrorists" for a quite a longer time. But still the federal troops, even after creating in Chechnya local - controlled by them - administrative structures, don't control the situation in the republic. The power is shared between them and the Chechen brigades in a classical way according to the days and nights. The majority of the most famous Chechen field commanders, that are still being termed by the Kremlin "terrorists", are still alive and free, which, alas, can not be said about hundreds, if not thousands of civilian inhabitants of Chechnya. More than 100 000 Chechens have fled their country. International observers from time to time use phrases like "humanitarian catastrophe", the Chechens talk about a "genocide".
The number of killed on both sides, rising every week, is unknown - or unpublished at least. Chechnya, probably, will stay a source of tension for many decades, exporting to the neighbouring countries more and more refugees from those who survive and more and more worn out young people with a psyche crippled by war.
This all seems to be a warning - even more than the Vietnam experience - for the US government with their "war against terrorism". Not only because Afghanistan, which makes for the moment the bad harbouring country, has not been conquered by western foreign invaders since the days of Alexander the Great, as newspapers are fast to report. Not only because from the beginning it is clear that the suspected terrorists are not located in one specific country or world region, but spread all over the world. But also, and it sounds like a pretty simple truth, because in the rush for revenge it has become once more unfashionable to trace the problem down to its origins, to ethnic prejudices, racism and social injustice. The playing ground for the US government is - unlike Russia - not "only" its own territory with some "near abroad" backyard, but the whole globe. Accordingly, its reaction to the September, 11 attacks are of concern to the whole word, - also unlike the mostly forgotten war in the mountains of the Caucasus. It remains to hope, that there is one more decisive difference: that this time there will be enough people ready to act, breaking the logic of escalation and asking for the possibilities for real peace.


anfang