Posted on 09/19/2004 10:39:50 PM PDT by MarMema
MOSCOW — Countries react differently to terrorism. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans rallied behind their government of their own free will. After the Madrid train bombings last March, Spaniards ousted theirs. President Vladimir Putin took steps last week that seem to ensure that Russians will do neither.
After modern Russia's worst terrorist act — the horrifying seizure of a school that ended with more than 330 hostages dead — Putin ordered an overhaul of the political system, stripping Russians of their right to elect their governors and district representatives in Parliament.
Putin's response seemed like a non sequitur, since how the country conducts its elections on the regional level has little, if anything, to do with fighting the terrorism that war in Chechnya has spawned.
But there was a logic to it, at least for Putin and his supporters, and it was one that dashed — perhaps decisively — hopes here and abroad that Russia had left behind its long, tortured history of authoritarianism when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Democracy, Putin suggested in remarks after the school siege, does not result in stability, but rather instability. It does not unify, but rather divides. The principal threat posed by democracy in Russia today, he made clear on separate occasions in the past two weeks, lies in simmering ethnic and religious tensions along the rim of Russia where ethnically non-Russian people live. That division, he suggested, can be controlled only with an iron hand from above.
In the tragic arc of Russian history, it has always been so — even if, in the end, the rigid power of the center has always failed.
A theme of those who accepted Putin's prescription was distrust of the unruliness of electoral will in a country with deep ethnic, social, class and religious divisions.
It was those divisions that the fighters who seized the school — terrorists loyal to the Chechen separatist commander Shamil Basayev — seemed eager to stoke when they struck in multiethnic North Ossetia.
They seemed well aware that what Russia has failed to do in more than 13 years of post-Soviet politics is develop a sense of national identity that might overcome those divisions. Indeed, in the southern and Asian areas where Russia's Muslim groups live, an ardent religious identification is threatening to take its place.
"We live in conditions of aggravated internal conflicts and interethnic conflicts that before were harshly suppressed by the governing ideology," Putin said the night after the siege in Beslan ended on Sept. 3. In his speech, he lamented the demise of "a huge, great country," the Soviet Union, and rued the forces of disorder that its dissolution unleashed in Russia.
Clifford Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon Center in Washington, attended a Sept. 7 meeting Putin had with a group of American and European academics and analysts. He summarized Putin's dark view of democracy as "one man, one vote, one war."
"Given that Russia is not a melting pot, but rather a fragmented pot, he does not believe that democracy is the solution," Kupchan said.
In the years since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia's embrace of democracy — and Putin's — has always been awkward.
Grigory Yavlinsky, one of the country's most prominent liberals, said the public's concept of democracy had been tainted by financial scandals and crises, by the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few well-connected billionaires, by a decade of war in Chechnya, and lately by a wave of terrorist attacks, staged not in symbols of grandeur like skyscrapers and government buildings, but in places chillingly familiar to virtually every Russian: trains, subways, airplanes, a theater and, worst, a school.
"All this period of time was called democracy," Yavlinsky said. "The people looked at it and said, 'If that is democracy, then, thank you very much.' " But he added, angrily: "All these things had nothing in common with democracy."
During his presidency, Putin has shown little enthusiasm for the democratic experience. He has smothered political opponents, wrested control of independent television and manipulated the outcome of regional elections, none more so than the two presidential elections in Chechnya, where loyalists were elected by Sovietlike margins last October and again last month, after credible challengers were struck from the ballots.
Still, until Sept. 13, Putin had never reversed the fundamental democratic right of representation through the ballot — a right enshrined in the 1993 constitution's letter and spirit, according to his critics.
Under his proposal, which the Parliament will almost certainly adopt since it is dominated by parties loyal to him, Putin will appoint governors, presidents or other leaders who are now elected in each of the country's 89 regions. Putin's proposals also would eliminate the district elections that choose half of the 450 members of Parliament; instead, they will be selected based on national party lists drafted in Moscow in close consultation with Putin's Kremlin.
What was striking last week was how many Russian elected officials heartily endorsed Putin's plan.
"Elections are often dirty, with money from the shadow economy and criminal groups trying to influence the results," said Valentina Matviyenko, the governor of St. Petersburg, as she fell into line behind a proposal that would deny her much of her electoral legitimacy and political authority. (She was elected last fall and, apparently, knew whereof she spoke.) "All this causes concern and alarm."
Murat Zyazikov, president of the semi-autonomous republic of Ingushetia, who was elected with the Kremlin's help, echoed her opinion, saying elections had turned into "competitions between people with more money, which resulted in tensions in society."
"Western and human values are very close to us, but we have our own way of development," he said. "I think this was done in order to consolidate society."
In other words, it would seem, "the people have spoken" remains a phrase that strikes fear in Russia's ruling elite, which presumes to know better what is better for the country.
"It is soft Stalinism," Yavlinsky said.
He and others have spoken out against Putin's reordering, but they have done so from the margins. A rally organized by Yavlinsky's Yabloko party — with posters of Putin as Hitler — drew a handful of protesters. A few of the 15 independent members of Parliament voiced objections and then admitted there was little they could do to stop Putin.
The most prominent criticism came from the two men who, arguably, did much to create the system Russia has today, for better or worse.
In twinned essays that appeared Friday in the newsweekly Moskovskiye Novosti, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev, former leaders who pushed Russia's move toward democracy, wrote that the nation should preserve the democratic gains of the last 13 years.
"Strangling freedoms and curtailing democratic rights," Yeltsin wrote, "marks, among other things, the victory of terrorists."
The liberals didn't support Hitler, and they were right. Hitler was considered a "conservative" by his fellow countrymen. Throwing around these labels are meaningless as the terms have different meanings in different nations, eras, cultures, etc.
You admit Putin wants to centralize power and is a control freak but say he is not a communist because of his "conservative" economic programs. Hitler revitalized the Germany economy. No, Putin "may" not be a communist in your mind, but he is definitely a fascist and a would-be dictator and in my mind there is no redeeming difference.
Iranian governments strong nuclear friend is Russia.
http://www.iranian.com/Namazie/2004/September/Nuclear/index.html
Against a nuclear Iran
Interview with Ali Javadi
September 17, 2004
iranian.com
Iran has angered USA and European countries by re-starting parts of its nuclear program and refusing to abandon efforts to master uranium enrichment. Iran has declared that threats to send its nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council will not make it drop its quest for nuclear technology. Why won't it back down?
Ali Javadi: I believe all indications are pointing toward the direction that the Islamic regime of Iran is moving forward with its nuclear programme in order to equip itself with weapons of mass destruction. It seems to be the only way at this point in time that the Islamic regime can save itself from confronting the opposition and the protesting people and its contradictions. This is the regime's last resort to save itself at this juncture.
But the Islamic regime of Iran insists it is for peaceful purposes. Is that not the case?
This is what the Islamic regime claims. But all indicators and evidence state otherwise. The degree of the uranium enrichment found is much beyond that which is needed for peaceful purposes. Such a degree is designed for weapons use.
Also it is clear that the Islamic regime of Iran wants to have access to nuclear weapons in order to change the balance of power and face the opposition particularly after 'regime change' having taken place in Iraq. The Islamic regime sees this as the only weapon possible vis-à-vis a regime change policy. They are striving to pursue the line that North Korea pursued, to access atomic weapons and position themselves differently vis-à-vis their confrontations in the world.
Some would say the Islamic regime of Iran has a legitimate right to use advanced nuclear technology. Does it?
Peaceful technology and peaceful use of nuclear technology is something that is obviously within the domain of all countries but the Islamic regime is geared towards developing WMD and nuclear weapons. These Islamic beasts, this political movement must not be allowed to be equipped with the atomic bomb. As it is they are a machinery of killing.
Some anti-imperialists like the fact that Iran is standing up to the USA, west and say Israel has such capabilities and so does several other western countries; why pick on Iran?
Israel should not have WMD. The USA should not have them. Israel's having WMD doesn't justify the Islamic regime having them. No one should have WMD. All of these weapons are geared towards the destruction of humanity and are a threat against people; the victims of these weapons are people alone. If you are on the people's side, you can only argument for their elimination and have a movement to eliminate WMD rather than taking one side over the other.
What would be the purpose of the regime having these weapons? What would the further expansion of nuclear weapons in the world serve? It would only serve to increase the degree of threats against the people.
The history of this Islamic movement has shown what these weapons are used for. Anyone who is even a little familiar with the Islamic movement will not accept such an argument at all.
Is it ever justifiable to have nuclear weapons? Some argue that it's useful as a threat to maintain peace. Do you agree?
No, I don't. The best argument here is that not having it is a much stronger weapon for peace. And if the peace movement could disarm the nuclear machinery, it would be a much stronger means for achieving peace.
What should progressive people's policies be towards the regime's nuclear project?
They should oppose it. They should join our ranks to overthrow the Islamic regime of Iran; that's the only way to stop the regime's accessing nuclear weapons. The safest bet is to speed up the process of overthrowing the regime by the revolutionary movement of people. All progressive forces, socialist forces, all those who care for humanity and want to remove this danger from the world scene should join our ranks to oppose the Islamic regime having access to nuclear programmes and also any other state.
You make some good points. Let me get back to you on it in the morning.
Very well. Good night.
Of course he does, but namecalling is never a good choice.
I totally agree.
Cite the name-calling, please?
I hope Iran isn't making Saddam's mistake of counting on Russia to hang tough with them when the going gets rough.
from post 34.
"You're an idiot"
Along with various accusations that I am communist.
Question from a German journalist: Presidents, Federal Chancellor. The Russian Federation helps the Islamic Republic of Iran to build nuclear energy stations. There is now concern that Iran is also trying to develop nuclear weapons, also with the help of a Russian nuclear research plant. Iran also produces ballistic missiles which can reach Israel and Europe. What is Russia doing to prevent this, and what can Europe do against this? Mr. Chancellor, there are also suspicions that German firms are involved in this.
"Vladimir Putin: Russia indeed works with Iran in many areas, and we will continue to do this. At the same time, like our European colleagues, in France, Germany, Great Britain, and like the U.S.A., we are concerned about questions that arise on the Iran nuclear programme. We were categorically against widening the club of nuclear nations, including the addition of Iran. I want to stress this: we are categorically opposed to this. We hold talks with our Iranian partners, and we will try to achieve certain guarantees from their side, such as agreements, and we believe that this problem can and must be examined by the international community at this stage in the framework of the MAGATE. We will work with our partners on this issue, transparently, actively and persistently. At the same time, our position is that these problems should not lead to an additional unjustified competitive fight for the according markets. The market of nuclear technology used for peaceful means is severely limited. Iran is one of these markets. We need to reach agreements according to which we act by common rules. But all of us, I repeat, are unanimous that we must do everything to prevent the widening of the club of nuclear nations, including the addition of Iran.
"I'll just go have another beer. Perhaps our more erudite FReepers can help me out here?"
When it comes to having another beer, I'm ALWAYS ready to help.
"The Italian State is highly centralized, with a central state authority (the Government), 20 regions and about a hundred provinces. The prefect of each of the provinces is appointed by and answerable to the central government, which he locally represents. The national constitution provides for 20 regions with limited governing powers."
I hope you are not worried about Italy! :-)
Seriously don't let the fearmongering liberal media run your life.
If it's true, as you say, that the USA would resort to this in the event of another terrorist attack, I would imagine our government would have more than islamists to worry about.
All of politics is local. Shut down local politics and there is no democracy. One national election is easy to rig. Hundreds of local ones is more likely to leak secrets. Abolishing the local ones altogether is not the answer in the USA and it's not going to make terrorists leave Russia. Encouraged by this, rather, they will strike Russia again twice before even bothering with the USA. Targets of opportunity.
" The officials said the main purpose of the trip was to explain to Russia how Israel can help. The Israeli team has returned to Israel and is awaiting word on whether Russia will accept the offer of greater cooperation, the officials said. At the same time, at least two senior Russian officers have arrived in Israel to examine a police anti-terrorism facility, said an Israeli official who spoke on condition of anonymity."
" "I think there is a growing realization in Russia that they have to become more prepared for future terror attacks and that it's a good idea to compare notes with us,'' he said. Israeli counter-terror techniques are among the world's most sophisticated, and its public, no-strings-attached offer of assistance could provide a wealth of information."
Or with this
If Russia is so dangerous and pro-islamic and anti-American, why are Sharon and Israel freely offering secrets, technology, and help to Russia? Clearly Israel is not stupid.
Kill all the Muslim terrorists, "Pooty Poot". We back you, Vlad.
Actually rebel is correct I think. Only 2/3 of the regions have governors and Moscow is not one of them.
I am unsure about St. Pete.
What? I thought Putin was only interested in being a good Christian? /sarcasm
In U.S., liberal media = Democrat controlled press
In Russia, liberal media = free press
I had previously noted and verified several dozen sources used in that piece and I am researching the rest now, hoping that we can pick up the continuum line and determine where and how the Axis of Evil (Bush gave us a short list, North Korea (Communist), Iran (Muhammadan-Communist) and Iraq (Communist-Muhammadan).
The piece is quality and must read. The proxys and their masters are in a position to wipe us out and they've always wanted to, why would they stop now?
It's clear as a sunny day for me now, praise God. I've been on these trails for years...we need to update the continuum in the context of the Axis of Evil (a strange blend of Communists and Muhammadans you say?) today.
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.