Date: 2 March 2005
 
Speaker: Anatol Lieven, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Discussant: Bart Staes, MEP, Member of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee
 
 
On March 2, 2005, CEPS hosted a meeting focusing on “The New Western Strategy towards Chechnya”. The speakers were Anatol Lieven, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Bart Staes, Member of the European Parliament. Michael Emerson, CEPS Senior Fellow and former Ambassador of the EU to Russia, moderated the session.
 
Both speakers conceded that the new Western strategy towards Chechnya needs to be more sophisticated, more detailed and more focused on offering practical solutions to a range of problems arising from the Chechen conflict that affect Russia as well as other countries.
 
Lieven prefaced his remarks by stressing the urgent need for a helpful and responsible Western approach to the Chechen conflict. He argued that it is not only our moral responsibility to help these people who have suffered terribly from violence and atrocities, but it is also in the West’s interest to be closely engaged in the Chechen problem. Western assistance to the North Caucasus region will undoubtedly redound to its interest, considering that the ongoing conflict and anarchy in and around Chechnya is helping to feed the wider international jihadi movement and is thus endangering the West as well as Russia. At this point Lieven further stressed that if we take into account that the problems stemming from the Chechen conflict are spreading, it is no longer accurate simply to refer to Chechnya, but to the region of the North Caucasus as a whole. The whole region has a long history of communal strife and huge socioeconomic problems that are breeding instability and radicalism. Hence, the conflict is gaining an international dimension requiring international attention.
 
All hopes of a long-term amelioration of the situation in the North Caucasus depend not on a political settlement or a clear cut ‘solution’ to end the violence, but rather on a process involving growing political participation, economic development and the gradual creation of a modern society in the region. Thus, we should seek to encourage a process that will diminish the violence, create real possibilities for democratic politics in Chechnya and reduce the Russian presence and abuses by the Russian forces.
 
In this respect, Lieven referred to data collected by Memorial, the Russian human rights group, as evidence of a remarkable reduction in overall levels of violence in Chechnya. He underscored that even though casualty figures in Chechnya have been grossly exaggerated by the Western media, they have in fact declined markedly in recent years.
 
Lieven pointed out that the new Western strategy for the North Caucasus region – firstly directed towards Russia – should echo the European approach to Turkey, India and other countries that have fought against similar secessionist and terrorist forces. Given the inevitability of Chechnya’s medium-term development within the Russian Federation, the Western governments should express unqualified support for Russia’s territorial integrity and acceptance of Putin’s strategy of ‘Chechenisation’. However, the Western strategy should combine this expression of support with demands that the Russian state launch a much more broadly-based and democratic political initiative. This would include the holding of genuine parliamentary elections in Chechnya and an offer of talks with Aslan Maskhadov, the Chechen rebel leader, and his followers. (Note from the editor: Maskhadov was killed by Russian special forces outside Grozny just six days after this meeting was held.)
 
Nonetheless, for a more positive and effective approach to be accepted by Russia, Western interlocutors should offer appealing incentives. In this light an opening has already been provided by President Putin in December 2004, when he informed the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of his desire for active Western involvement in the economic development of the North Caucasus region. Lieven suggested that the Western incentives to Russia to modify its strategy in Chechnya should include intensified intelligence cooperation where the EU could offer its experience with separatist movements and terrorist attacks. He argued that it should be also given substantial aid to Chechnya to support a settlement and political process, as a part of a general package of aid from Western states and international institutions directed at the North Caucasus. In particular, Lieven underlined the great importance of supporting programmes aimed at educating Chechen refugees and helping them to rebuild their lives. Lieven also proposed the creation of an international working group, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council or the G-8, which could assist with the development of a more pluralistic political process.
 
According to Lieven, the second Western approach should be directed to Maskhadov and to his representatives in the West. Lieven reminded the audience that Maskhadov’s government in 1996-99 utterly failed in fostering even minimal elements of a state in Chechnya and in protecting its citizens, thereby allowing the breakaway republic to descend into anarchy and to become a base for anti-Western extremists. Thus, Maskhadov’s credibility as a ruler of an autonomous and independent Chechnya is zero. Regardless of the rebel leader’s inability to solve the Chechen conflict, however, Lieven emphasised that he still maintains some symbolic value for the Chechen people as a legitimately elected voice and that it therefore would be prudent to bring him into the political process.
 
At the outset of his speech, Bart Staes underlined that the debate over the Chechen conflict is already a distinct part of the European Parliament’s agenda. Apart from the moral and practical reasons to address the crisis in the North Caucasus, he asserted that the EU has the right to intervene as the greatest donor of humanitarian aid in the region. He pointed out that the London Memorandum entitled “The Road to Peace and Stability”, signed on the 25 February 2005 by the NGO ’Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia’ and Akhmed Zakaev – envoy of Aslan Maskhadov – in a meeting facilitated by the European Parliament, was a step of paramount importance within the process of promoting security, peace and stability in the region of North Caucasus. He underlined that it was the first time that a public organisation not only started peace negotiations with a warring party but also crowned the first phase of the negotiations with an agreement. He also noted plans for a roundtable discussion on the Chechen problem on March 21st in Strasbourg involving Russian officials and European parliamentarians. Considering that Maskhadov should be a part of the future process, the presence of his representatives in the aforementioned meeting would indeed represent an enormous step forward.