A sickening lesson for the world

Children make it different. Like the tragedies of Columbine and Dunblane, the terror that stalked the classrooms of Middle School 1 in Beslan, North Ossetia, was uniquely disturbing.

Who in these torrid days of random, global violence has not become accustomed, even inured, to the suicide bombings in Iraq or a host of other troublespots? Yet who, anywhere in the world, was not touched, frightened and sickened, first by the thought of young kids traumatised and then by the reality of young kids slaughtered by masked killers wearing bomb-belts?

When the victims are children, the sort of horror we saw in Beslan represents the adult world's ultimate betrayal of innocence, its final failure to nurture and protect. Here is a shared disgrace, born of a universal grief. Here is an international crying shame, beseeching an urgent remedy.

The Chechen conflict, in which the Ossetian siege was inextricably bound up, has become internationalised in many other ways since it reignited, in its modern incarnation, in the early 1990s.

Like Czechoslovakia in a different time, the Caucasian lands of Chechnya, North and South Ossetia, Ingushetia and Dagestan cannot be dismissed as distant countries of which we know little and care less. What happens there matters elsewhere.

"Their suffering is our suffering," Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, said before the massacre. "The awesome responsibility of President Putin and his Government is our responsibility, too."

The mere fact of nonstop international media coverage made Beslan school a shared reality around the world.

The inescapable fact that the Chechen conflict once again pits Muslim peoples against Christians or plain non-believers, setting "Islam" against the "West", sounds an only-too-familiar post-September 11 global echo.

Putin seeks to pin the blame for the crisis, the gravest of his presidency, not on home-grown Chechen fighters but, primarily, on an international Islamist conspiracy linked to al-Qaeda.

The evidence for his contention is thin and often contradictory. But one thing is undoubtedly true. Since plunging recklessly back into Chechnya in 1994, Putin, his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, and the once-proud Red Army have caused such untold misery, such rank injustice, such fury and despair that, like the Americans in Iraq, they created a breeding ground and magnet for the religious extremists they struggle to extirpate.

In effect, it was Russian generals and their turncoat allies who internationalised a war that should never have begun and that could have been peaceably resolved long ago. For this foolishness, Russia's conscript soldiers still pay a terrible price.

The risk of a spreading, regional conflagration grows with every outrage, every unanswered act of blood - and with every broken child.

Since the time of the tsars, the mountain tribes of the Caucasus have fought for land, faith and just for the hell of it. In A Hero Of Our Time, novelist Mikhail Lermontov wrote admiringly in 1840 of the bravery of his opponents along Russia's lawless southern flank.

But now Caucasian instability threatens ever more broadly. Neighbouring Georgia, home to last November's "rose revolution", is no model of stability. And by coincidence, the Beslan siege forced the postponement of a presidential visit to Turkey, Russia's historic Ottoman rival. Putin wants to build up trade and other links. But primarily, he needs Turkey as a southern bulwark of stability and security in a region sliding dangerously beyond Moscow's control.

Ten long years of destructive, on-off conflict, egregious human rights abuses, massive refugee displacements and blatant flouting of international law have also rendered Chechnya a matter of undeniable international concern. Organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have kept a brave and faithful tally of the human toll and political cost of Russia's heedless policy. Again and again, campaigners have lobbied Western governments to draw a diplomatic line, to sponsor a political process, to honestly recognise Chechnya for what it ever more evidently is - a threat to international peace and security, as defined by the UN. Again and again, those same governments have mostly preferred to look the other way.

When Tony Blair, for example, talks of Britain's "'moral responsibility" in Darfur and Iraq; when he speaks of the criteria for intervention; when he sends troops dashing off to Kabul and Freetown, where in all this is there a thought for Chechnya? Ten years of conflict, tens of thousands dead and no end remotely in sight.

When Jack Straw last week spoke of the "expanded range of issues" on which the UN will now consider the use of outside force under chapter 7 - including "the overthrow of democratically elected government, terrorism, large-scale human rights violations, humanitarian catastrophe (and) refugee crises" - can he credibly exclude Chechnya which, in truth, arguably qualifies in all categories?

Russia has always maintained that the Chechen conflict is an internal matter, to be resolved internally. But now that Putin, by asking for international support, has for the first time effectively invited the UN Security Council to consider the issue, Western leaders have a clear choice.

They can hide behind the pretence that, as Putin maintains, violence in the Caucasus is just another front in the US-led "war on terror" - and close their eyes to causes and remedies. They can give Putin what he wants, which is carte blanche to do whatever he deems necessary. Or they can find the courage to change the habit of the past decade. They can dispense with the sort of mealy-mouthed, turpitudinous shuffling-about indulged in by France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder at their recent meeting with Putin. And they can insist instead that in return for active Western support, Russia must finally accept the obvious: that Chechnya is a pressing, international problem requiring an agreed, collective, non-violent, international response.

Is it so absurd to suggest that EU troops, or even forces organised through NATO, be deployed under a UN peacekeeping mandate? Is it practically impossible to set in train some form of externally mediated peace dialogue?

Chechnya offers a key test of how, if at all, new, much-discussed post-Iraq rules governing future humanitarian and security interventions can be made to work. Certainly Chechnya is a devilish hard case to crack. Certainly it would be a fraught undertaking. But it is surely worth it - if only for the sake of the children.

More root cause BS. Yes, the Russians were heavy-handed in Chechnya; but that's not what brought 10 Arabs into Beslan. It was Islam.

Yet who, anywhere in the world, was not touched, frightened and sickened, first by the thought of young kids traumatised and then by the reality of young kids slaughtered by masked killers wearing bomb-belts?

Being "touched, frightened and sickened" is one thing, doing something about it is another. Liberals like Kerry aren't willing to fight.

And they can insist instead that in return for active Western support, Russia must finally accept the obvious: that Chechnya is a pressing, international problem requiring an agreed, collective, non-violent, international response.

About as powerful as Kerry's spitballs.

"...pits Muslim peoples against Christians or plain non-believers, setting "Islam" against the "West"... "

Betcha former-reported/writer Simon was relegated to the kitchenette area, for simple clean-up duties, for writing accurately.

The real joke is, that before the Russians even stated who the terrorists were. the media was already saying the Russkies killed their brothers and husbands and thats why the black widows targeted babies. But theres no MEDIA BIAS???

Does it sound to any one else as if this individual is speaking out of "both sides of his mouth"? On one hand he speaks of a peaceful resolution in Chechnya, yet he speaks of Iraq's potential positively, totally discounting the fact that there would have been no possibility of democracy in Iraq without war.

I think the suggestion that the "civilized world" is totally responsible for the actions of the "uncivilized world" is a horrific oversimplification. The writer may have been right on some fronts, but was wrong on far more. The only way to convince terrorists that they have chosen a losing path is to present a united front of nations unwilling to cave to their demands.

...the once-proud Red Army have caused such untold misery, such rank injustice, such fury and despair that, like the Americans in Iraq, they created a breeding ground and magnet for the religious extremists they struggle to extirpate.

I stopped reading at this point. It's the same old pacifist approach of "if we don't take it up the @ss from bloody Islam fanatics, not fight back, and go ahead and let them take over our neighborhoods & countries one at a time (killing others - which is OK), then they'll get pissed at us and anything they do in response is our own fault."

Many persons don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done in the wake of such a cowardly "kill the women & children" attack.

Unfortunately for Chechneya, it's not Russia. When Putin made his "we're weak and the weak get beat" speech he called everyone onto the carpet.

Russia will retaliate so severely, that even those of us who want to see these people extinct will stop and pause.

So, give up. Let the Muslims dismember yet another country. Like Hitler, they will not be satiated -- only nourished in preparation for the next conquest.

You want to talk 'mass refugee' situations? If they don't stop this, there will be an outpouring of Muslims -- a forcible outpouring -- from countries worldwide.

I wonder if anything like this was written in the early '40s?

The evidence for his contention is thin and often contradictory. But one thing is undoubtedly true. Since plunging recklessly back into Germany, Churchill and Roosevelt, and the once-proud British Army, have caused such untold misery, such rank injustice, such fury and despair that they created a breeding ground and magnet for the Nazi's they struggle to extirpate.

This garbage about how the enemy ALWAYS gets stronger when you attack it is getting very old.

We have made our schools, and many other parts of our country into disarmed victim zones by virtue of our willing ignorance of the 2nd Amendment. When I was in Junior High our science teacher brought a Garand into class over lunch one day so the hunter safety class could inspect it. Today he would be in jail. In his autobiography Colin Powell relates how he used to take his 22 rifle on the subway (and without a case) when he was growing up in NYC. Today that would put you in jail. The founders had it right about the militia - every person should be able to carry a weapon if they want to, in every public place. Crime would disappear if we did this. Islamofascists wouldnt stand a chance if the dads dropping their kids off at school saw something start. It would be over in minutes as the parents sent those %^&**s to satan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.