Russian help is essential in fighting terror
How important is Russia to the global effort to coordinate anti-terror policies and programs? Russia is a key ally in the counter-terror (CT) effort. Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin's statements declaring his nation's allegiance with American CT, Russian actions since the events of 11 September have shown that nation's true colors.
From the beginning of his presidency in January 2000, Putin
pushed the idea of a concerted campaign against terrorism
with American and European leaders. He was one of the first
to raise the alarm about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan
and to warn of linkages between these camps, well-financed
terrorist networks, and Islamic militant groups operating in
Europe and Eurasia. Russia also actively supported the Northern
Alliance in its struggle with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In
December 2000, Moscow joined Washington in supporting
United Nations’ sanctions against the Taliban and later appealed
for sanctions against Pakistan for aiding the Taliban (Azizian 9-2).
It was soon clear, however, that Putin fully intended to use the terrorist label to demonize separatist movements within Russia. His placement of such appellations on the separatists in Chechnya put Russian domestic policy's feet to the fire. "Before September 11, Russia had faced severe criticism for human rights abuses connected with its campaign against Chechen separatists... Washington... came under heavy pressure from Islamic governments as well human rights groups who urged it not to succumb to Moscow’s one-dimensional approach to the Chechen problem" (9-3). Russian willingness to marginalize their internal problems by blaming it on Islamic insurgency complicates the overall War on Terror. Further misunderstandings have come from Moscow: "Russia views the revival of criticism on Chechnya as a betrayal of the post-September 11 understanding for the Kremlin’s fight against terrorism" (Ibid.).
Geographically, Russia plays an important role in reigning in terrorism. Russia borders many hot spots, including the so-called Stans; is the route of choice for transshipment of the drugs and contraband that finance terrorist activities; and serves as policeman for the Asian continent. Without Russian help in CT efforts, all that the West can do is watch as Asian terrorist activity increases.
Possibly the most serious area of disagreement between Russia and the U.S. is over the issue of preemptive strike. While preemptive strikes have normally been frowned upon in the international community, there is a feeling by states targeted by terrorist organizations that preemptive operations is necessary to preventing terrorist attacks. While the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly justified as a response to 9-11, the invasion of Iraq was seen more as a preemptive or preventative war and lacked support from the international community, especially Russia. Yet, ironically, while Russia is criticizing U.S. preventative actions in the Middle East, it has insisted on the necessity of preventative war in Chechnya. There are plenty of contradictions to go around on terrorism and diplomacy between Russia and America. Russia and the U.S. each oppose each other’s preventative operations while each conducting their preemptive operations in Chechnya and Iraq, respectively. The U.S. is irked by Russian pragmatism and circumspection on Iran and North Korea while Russia sees Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as far greater threats in terms of terrorist support and financing, countries toward which the U.S. has been far more pragmatic and circumspect. Of course, Russia and Pakistan are traditional rivals so Russia’s anti-Pakistan policies on the issue of Kashmiri terrorism again reflect traditional great power biases. Further, the U.S. opposes Russian heavy-handed and imperialistic policies in Chechnya, while Russia opposes what seems to them to be U.S. global imperialism on a much greater scale. Russia further cannot understand U.S. opposition to its Chechnya policies when they’re fighting the same radical Islamic terrorists and al-Qaeda operatives in Chechnya as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, U.S. criticism of their Chechnya policies seems incomprehensible in Moscow.
On the WMD issue, the U.S. must realize that it is not in Russia’s interest for North Korea to have nuclear weapons, much less for either North Korea or Iran to pass that technology on to Islamic terrorists who would just as soon use it against Russia as against the U.S. North Korea is recognized as an unstable and economically failed state in China and Russia and certainly neither of those states would be pleased to see Kim Jong Il obtain nuclear weapons, and they’re a lot geographically closer to that madman than we are. Further, Russia is a traditional ally of Iran. As such, Russian cooperation and diplomacy is an important aspect of international counterterrorism efforts. Moscow can facilitate, impede, or alter international counterterrorism cooperation on many issues. On many counterterrorism efforts, we have aligned interests, such as in opposing a resurgent Taliban and striving for the destruction of al-Qaeda. On some issues, we have differing views, such as on the Iraq war, Chechnya, and North Korea. On other issues, frictions and rivalries reflect traditional great power diplomacy, as with Russia’s opposition of Pakistan and support for Iran.
Source:
Azizian, Rouben. "A Marriage of Convenience: Russia and US Foreign Policy." Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, Mar 2003. Internet: Link, accessed 6 Aug 2007.