Blogstream   -   Create a Blog!   -   Login Chat   -   Options   -   Clean   -   Flag   -   Family Filter: Off   -   Recent   -   Rndm >>    

Blogstream  >  Politics  >  Blog  >  Page #27
 
Dans Blog


 U.S. Agents Bribed by Drug Smugglers at Mexican/US Border
 

Drug smugglers bribing U.S. agents on Mexico border
Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:08pm EDT
By Robin Emmott

HARLINGEN, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. Border Patrol agent Reynaldo Zuniga was arrested last month lugging a bag of cocaine up from the Rio Grande, one of a growing number of law enforcement officers accused of taking bribes from drug gangs.

Former colleagues say Zuniga used to wait until agents in the south Texas town of Harlingen were distracted with paperwork, then slip down to the river and help smuggle in drugs from Mexico.

The increasing use of bribes by Mexican drug cartels to corrupt U.S. agents comes as Washington is sending $400 million to help Mexico's army-led war on the trafficking gangs, whose brutal murders have surged to unprecedented levels.

"Zuniga was a good agent and a hard worker. I can't understand why he would do this. We're supposed to be protecting our borders," said Border Patrol agent Daniel Doty, a former colleague.

Data on agents convicted of graft are not made public, but the U.S. government is probing hundreds of border corruption cases where a decade ago it saw a few dozen a year. The FBI-led Border Corruption Task Force says it is busier than ever.

"We've seen a sharp increase in investigations along the border over the past three years," said Andy Black, who oversees the San Diego task force, near the busy border crossing of San Ysidro.

"We are talking about a minority of agents but they are a very significant threat, a weak link in efforts to secure the border."

Some put the rise in bribery down to a recent tightening of border controls and a jump in hiring new agents. Smugglers can offer hundreds of thousands of dollars to get past the heavily policed border with drugs and immigrants -- much more than a border agent or sheriff makes in a year.

Gangs also often use attractive women as bait, setting a "honey trap" to entice officials.

"I was offered sex to let a woman across the Rio Grande, but I have a family, I turned her down," one agent told Reuters as his sniffer dog searched a freight train for immigrants and drugs in the Texan borderlands, steamy with tropical rain.

"BAD AGENTS"

Corruption south of the border is a major hurdle to Mexican President Felipe Calderon's quest to crush drug gangs, with up to half the country's police thought to be crooked. Spiraling drug violence has killed 1,700 people in Mexico this year.

U.S. anti-drug officials have pointed to higher street cocaine prices as proof of tighter border controls.

But the campaign is weakened by cases like that of a border agent and his brother in Texas who netted $1.5 million by letting tonnes of marijuana through checkpoint inspection lanes from 2003 to 2005.

Trafficking drugs and people generates billions of dollars a year. Powerful gangs use crooked officials well beyond the border to open smuggling lanes into the United States.

In one case showing the breadth of the problem, two California-based employees of Wackenhut, a contractor that transports detained illegal immigrants, were charged last month with freeing them for $2,500 each.

Also in June, police arrested a Los Angeles attorney for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for allegedly accepting huge bribes to issue green cards and other papers.

"This was an amazing compromise of our system and its integrity," said Paul Layman, a special agent who oversees ICE's corruption investigations in the western United States.

"Smugglers are willing to do anything to get people into the country, they will move anything for a dollar."

U.S. Customs inspector Richard Elizalda, arrested in 2006, was paid $70,000 to let through hundreds of immigrants after a persuasive female smuggler he met at the San Ysidro crossing became his lover.

A sudden influx of Border Patrol agents may have worsened the problem. The number of agents along the border has jumped to more than 14,700 now from less than 9,000 four years ago.

Agents receive intense training and ethics courses, but some officials worry about the screening process.

"Just given the increases, the odds are you'll get more bad agents," said Paul Charlton, a former U.S. Attorney for Arizona.

(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor in Phoenix; Editing by Kieran Murray)

© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Posted by Dan's Blog at 1:18 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 Russia Presses U.S. Bank Over Money Laundering
 

July 4, 2008
Russia Presses U.S. Bank Over Money Laundering

By ANDREW E. KRAMER
MOSCOW — The Russian government sought Thursday to make Bank of New York Mellon liable under United States racketeering laws for $22.5 billion in damages arising from a money laundering scandal that helped undermine the Russian economy in the late 1990s.

The appearance of a team of pastel-clad trial lawyers from Miami, representing Russia, capped a long effort to enforce civil liabilities here against the bank, which reached a settlement with the United States government in the case in 2005.

As Russia’s economy collapsed in the late 1990s, capital flight was one of the contributing causes. And at that time, about $7.5 billion was improperly transferred out of the country through Bank of New York accounts to a shell company owned by the husband of a bank employee, Lucy Edwards.

Both Ms. Edwards and her husband were later sentenced to five years of probation, and the bank, which admitted lax oversight, agreed to pay $14 million to the United States.

In a novel legal theory on choice of law, the lawyers — working on a contingency fee for the Russian Customs Committee — are seeking to apply the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, known as RICO, against the bank in a Russian court. The bank argues that the statute of limitations for new legal suits against it has expired.

One of the lawyers for Russia, Steven C. Marks of the Podhurst Orseck law firm, argued that a new lawsuit was valid because the bank’s 2005 settlement qualified as a criminal admission of guilt, making it liable for civil damages.

The case, being heard at Basmany Court in Moscow, has attracted the attention of prominent legal experts. Alan M. Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, prepared an affidavit in support of the Russian plaintiffs, and a former United States attorney general, Dick Thornburgh, prepared one on behalf of the bank.

On Thursday, the court heard testimony from experts on whether it had jurisdiction to decide American criminal law, and whether the RICO statute could be applied outside of the United States.

“I believe very strongly that in a time of globalization of banking and globalization of money laundering, it would be a terrible tragedy if RICO laws were confined to the United States border,” Mr. Dershowitz said in a telephone interview.

But Mr. Thornburgh said no foreign court should hear cases under the RICO statute, a 1970s law aimed at fighting organized crime that allows civil penalties for certain criminal acts. “Only U.S. courts can adjudicate RICO,” he said in an interview in Moscow.

Bank of New York Mellon also contends that the improper wire transfers did not amount to a precursor crime under RICO, and that Russia’s claim to damages was not supported by evidence.

The bank says the Basmany Court’s decision will never be upheld outside of Russia. The same court heard the politically tinged bankruptcy case against the Yukos oil company, which ended in dismantlement of the company and was criticized for what some saw as judicial irregularities.

Still, Mr. Dershowitz, arguing for the Russian customs agency, said the Bank of New York should observe the court’s ruling. “A great bank founded by Alexander Hamilton will not want to be perceived as running away from judgment,” he said. The plaintiffs are arguing that the widespread harm caused to Russian people by the collapse of the Russian ruble should be considered in the damage calculation.

In many other legal cases, officials in Russia and other countries have objected to applying American law to disputes outside of the United States.

The practice has drawn objections in several widely publicized cases, including Exxon Mobil’s dispute with Venezuela and Cuban exile suits against the island’s Communist government. In the Venezuela case, Exxon sued in United States, British and Dutch courts.

Courts around the world, however, routinely apply other countries’ laws in contract disputes.

Bruce Marks, a Philadelphia lawyer who filed RICO claims against an aluminum conglomerate controlled by the Russian billionaire Oleg V. Deripaska, testified in court Thursday for the customs agency. Mr. Marks said that the American racketeering law could be applied in a foreign court, though no foreign court had yet passed judgment on such a case.

At one point, with the spires of Moscow’s skyline outside the courthouse window, Mr. Marks was drawn into a discussion of United States Supreme Court precedent on the question of whether civil damages could be sought under the RICO law even if the defendant had not been convicted of a criminal offense. He said it could, telling Judge Lyudmila Pulova that Sedima v. Imrex clarified that point.

In that case, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1989, the court ruled that a fraudulent scheme, even one that is part of a legitimate company’s “regular way of doing business,” can establish proof of a racketeering violation.

Steven Marks, the lead plaintiff’s lawyer, who is not related to Bruce Marks, specializes in airline crash cases that fall under international law. He had also represented the governments of several South American countries seeking damages from American tobacco companies.

In Russia, Steven Marks was authorized to seek damages on the cigarette claims with a 29 percent contingency fee. That agreement, with the Russian customs committee, was later extended to the Bank of New York case.

Mr. Marks says his payment terms are not material to the case. He said the lawyers would seek to use the Russian court’s judgment to garnish Bank of New York reserves at central banks in some of the 90 or so countries where the bank does business.

Sara Rhodin contributed reporting.

Posted by Dan's Blog at 1:09 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 Continued Bluster of threat to Close Strait of Hormuz by Iran
 


Iran's chief of staff expands threat of Strait of Hormuz closure
DEBKAfile Special Report
July 10, 2008, 12:13 PM (GMT+02:00)

Iran's chief of staff Maj. Gen Hasan Firuzabadi
Chief of staff Maj. Gen. Hasan Firuzabadi said Saturday, July, 5, Iran’s strategy is to keep the Strait of Hormuz in “southern Iran” open, but “if the country’s interests are jeopardized in the region, we will not let any ship pass through.”
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that this statement, quoted by the official IRNA agency, enlarges on earlier threats by the IRGC commander Ali Jafari that the waterway would be closed if Iran was attacked. Iran’s “strategic interests in the region” cited now by Firuzabadi could extend to attacks on its allies and terrorist arms, Syria, Hizballah or Hamas.
It is in keeping with Iran’s refusal to give up uranium enrichment in its reply to the six-power proposals for ending the nuclear standoff.
Iran offered nothing more than negotiations, its standard gambit for spinning out time to achieve progress on its nuclear bomb program.
The latest drumbeat from Tehran also posed a fresh challenge to Washington after Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned on July 2 that the US would not let Iran block the strategic waterway through which 40 percent of the world’s oil supplies are transported.
The New York Times Saturday quoted Tehran as stating: “The time for negotiations from the condescending position of inequality has come to an end,”
in its response to the incentives package offered by the five UN Security Council members plus Germany. The letter made no reference to the proposal of preliminary talks to start with a mutual six-week “freeze” both on a fourth round of UN Security Council sanctions and on the expansion of Iran’s uranium enrichment program.
Further hardening its position, Tehran’s reply to the proposals presented last month by Europeam Union foreign executive Javier Solana denounces such sanctions as “illegal.” Chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili was named to lead the delegation in comprehensive negotiations.
By failing to address the “freeze-for-freeze” approach, in which high hopes of a more accommodating Iranian approach had been pinned, Tehran has put an end to the optimistic intimations emanating from Washington, Europe and Israeli officials in the last two weeks. Some American sources were certain that a closed Iranian parliamentary conference Monday, June 30, had endorsed the mutual freeze offer.
DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources add: The Iranian reply to Solana demonstrates that Tehran was not intimidated by the implied threats of an imminent US and/or Israel attack on its nuclear facilities published in the last two weeks; neither is Iran deterred from continuing to enrich uranium by the prospect of more sanctions. Even in accepting the offer of negotiations, the Islamic Republic stiffly denies any world power the right to strike a “condescending position.”
Posted by Dan's Blog at 12:47 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 Karen DeYoung Answers Questions about Iraq...
 

DeYoung, author of "Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell," is senior diplomatic correspondent and an associate editor of The Washington Post.

____________________

Karen DeYoung: Welcome. Lots of questions here about whether Iraq is demanding a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, status of forces agreement, etc. I'll try to explain.

_______________________

San Diego: Why did negotiations for the status of forces agreement collapse? Was it because of an impasse, a lack of sufficient time/will, etc.? Also, is the Iraqi government planning to recess for the month of August, as it did last year? Was that also a factor?

Karen DeYoung: The negotiations didn't collapse. What started in March were bilateral negotiations over two separate documents--a status of forces agreement to provide a legal framework for U.S. military presence and activities in Iraq, and a "strategic framework agreement" that would set a course for a longterm economic, political, cultural and security relationship between Iraq and the United States. The strategic framework negotiating teams have been moving ahead fairly steadily. The SOFA negotiating teams got deeply bogged down by the end of May, a situation that got even more difficult when the terms of a U.S. draft proposal were leaked. It basically allowed U.s. military to continue doing what it has been doing--conducting military operations and detaining Iraqi civilians when and where it wanted, without asking Iraqi permission. Also gave blanket immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law for U.S. military, DOD personnel, and U.S. DOD security contractors. Iraqis balked at this as an infringement on their sovereignty--not least because it's a political hot potato and elections are pending. Particularly sensitive is a "timeline" for withdrawal. To make a long story short, it was decided last month not to go for the full monty on a SOFA, but to do what the military calls a "temporary operating protocol" that will cover the most urgent needs of the military for the next year or so, while continuing to talk about the longerm SOFA. They have papered over the operations and detainee control issues by forming a joint high level U.s.-Iraq committee that has titular control over both, and the Americans have agreed to include a "time horizon" for withdrawal...a kind of notional date when they'll withdraw from more visible positions in Iraqi cities, etc., assuming all is calm.

_______________________

Karen DeYoung: Excuse the delay in the above long answer. I got called away for a few minutes in mid-typing. Will go on a bit after time limit to get to your questions.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Two similar questions: First, are they any plans to get the 5 million displaced persons in and out of Iraq back to their homes, particularly if they came from an ethnically cleansed area such as Baghdad or Kirkuk? Based on the history of civil strife from the 30 years war to Bosnia, I believe there is a high probability that many (more than 2 million) will have to die before stability can be achieved. Even if you only believe there is just a possibility of such a catastrophe, should we have some plans to deal with it? Do we?

Karen DeYoung: Little progress made on the refugee issue. The International Crisis Group this week published a lengthy report on refugees, which you can find on their site. It calls on the Iraqi government--which has said a lot but done little--to spend some of their oil surplus on helping those running out of money in Syria and Jordan. And calls on the international community to start paying more attention. Those relative few (out of about 5 million displaced within and outside Iraq) who have returned home have done so largely because they've run out of resources to stay away.

_______________________

Minneapolis: What's going to keep Afghanistan from becoming the next Iraq (though they've had years to regroup and learn our modus operandi), and what will prevent Iraq from becoming the next Lebanon? (I don't see how pullout/redeployment solves any of our problems, both from a counterinsurgency standpoint and from a logistical one (i.e. a friend of mine is on his fifth tour). Thank you.

Karen DeYoung: Things are not going well in Afghanistan. Although there seems to be widespread agreement more foreign troops needed, it's not at all clear that will be the answer.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Sen. Obama pointed to Malaki's call for a timetable in his op-ed outlining his plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, but the BBC is now reporting that Malaki did not say what was widely and incorrectly reported. What he actually said was "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence." What is the position of the Malaki government? Have they clarified their statement? When will The Post print a correction or clarification?

washingtonpost.com: Iraq faces dilemma over US troops (BBC, July 14)

Karen DeYoung: See above response. Maliki said he wanted "either a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know [their presence] will end in a specific time." I think the Iraqis agree on some kind of conditions-based departure. But Maliki also wants some dates to counter pressure from Sadr and others who have demanded a "timetable."

_______________________

Freising, Germany: How is the oil business doing in Iraq these days? I've read that technical support agreements were pending between the Iraqi government and international oil companies, but is there any hope of increasing production in the short or medium term?

Karen DeYoung: They're somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million bpd--not great, but high oil prices have meant a lot more money. Oil ministry still shooting for 5 million, but it's been very slow going. The contracts are to improve production in existing fields. Development and longer term production contracts still await passage of a hydrocarbons law.

_______________________

Stone Harbor, N.J.: The poll today shows voters equally divided for/against the Iraq conflict. Why is it, do you think, that so many commentators and journalists keep trumpeting that the majority of Americans want us out immediately? Is it wishful thinking on their part (hoping Obama will be elected) or are they really so out of touch?

washingtonpost.com: Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions (Post, July 15)

Karen DeYoung: Split in today's Washington Post poll is between those who agree with Obama's 16-month combat troop withdrawal timetable, and those who favor McCain's "conditions-based" approach with no timetable. Respondents also split down the middle on who they think better able to handle the war in general. A sizeable and largely unchanged majority (63 percent) say the war was not worth fighting in the first place, although there is a slight uptick (up to 46 percent from 40 percent) who say current U.s. policy is making some progress in restoring civil order.

_______________________

Seattle: Easy one: Is Maliki's call for a timeline a negotiating tactic, an attempt to boost domestic support, or genuine? Probably a combination of all three, but which is primary, in your opinion?

Karen DeYoung: I agree it's all three. A realization that he can't have it both ways--can't say things are better, Iraqi security forces are doing great, but we still need as many Americans here for the forseeable future. Iraqis are tired of seeing so many American soldiers around. That's one of the reasons why the "time horizon" now being negotiated is likely to be initially for withdrawal from more visible positions in Iraqi cities, rather than withdrawal from the country altogether.
Posted by Dan's Blog at 12:39 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 The Rise of the Chechen Emirate..... ?
 

The Rise of the Chechen Emirate?

by Dmitry Shlapentokh
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2008, pp. 49-56
http://www.meforum.org/article/1931
Send
RSS

Chechnya has been at war with Russia for generations. By 1999, when the second Chechen war broke out, two resistance groups had emerged: nationalists and jihadists. While long simmering below the surface, the schism between the two camps erupted publicly in 2006 on the Internet after Akhmed Khalidovich Zakaev, the moderate foreign minister of the shadow Chechen government, argued that the goal of the Chechen resistance should be an independent Chechen state modeled after Western democracies and integrated into the global community. Movladi Udugov, a jihadist and editor of Kavkaz Center, the best-known online resistance publication, vehemently disagreed and declared that for real Muslims, spiritual bonds should be more important than blood ties. He argued that he would rather embrace ethnic Russians who had converted to Islam than Chechens who had strayed from their religion. There was no point modeling society after Western states, he contended, because all non-Muslim states, or those that are Muslim only in name but not in essence, are corrupt. Instead, Chechens should fight for the establishment of a global caliphate.

In October 2007, this ideological conflict led to a definitive split when Sheikh Doku (Dokka) Khamatovich Umarov, shadow president of the Chechen Republic, threw his support behind Udugov. Umarov endorsed the dissolution of the republic and its replacement by an Islamist "emirate" and argued that Chechens, as Muslims, cannot live outside Islam and must defend all Muslims. The dispute between Umarov and Zakaev provides insight not only into the future direction of the Chechen movement but also into the tactics and strategy of global jihadists and the resistance they face from nationalist Muslims.

Chechen Resistance

Tension in Chechnya existed during the Soviet period and grew through the Gorbachev years. Chechen resistance erupted openly in 1994.[1] As the first Chechen war (1994-96) proceeded, the friction between nationalist resistance leaders and their Islamist counterparts grew. By the start of the second Chechen war in 1999, jihadists began pressing the Chechen government. A certain Khanif, a contributor to Chechenpress, argued that the jihadists began to press the Chechen government almost from the start of the second Chechen war. In 1999, Aslan Maskhadov, the Chechen president who took power after the death of Dzjokhar Dudaev in 1996, introduced Islamic law. Three years later, Shamil Salmanovich Basayev (1965-2006), one of the best-known radical commanders, declared the Chechen state to be a "dead body."[2] The jihadists apparently had become the leading force in the Chechen resistance and proclaimed that turning to jihad was the only way to victory.[3]

The Formal Split

The Chechen leadership's divorce was nasty. Both sides sought to delegitimize the other. Umarov, the Islamist, argued that those who represent the Chechen resistance should be in the Caucasus risking their lives, not enjoying comfort in exile. He painted Zakaev and his nationalist followers as not only having ceased to be Muslims but also as pawns of adventurers like Boris Berezovsky, a corrupt tycoon prominent during the Yeltsin era (1991-99) who escaped to the West following Russian president Vladimir Putin's accession. Guilt by association was a frequent theme. Jihadist websites show Zakaev not only in the company of Berezovsky but also of Yurii Filshtinskii, a Russian-Jewish émigré and historian who had coauthored a book with the late Alexander Litvinenko accusing the Russian secret police, Federal'naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti (FSB), of staging bombings in several apartment buildings in 1999 to create a pretext for Russia to launch the second Chechen war. Indeed, Russian authorities accused Chechens of the bombings. Putin, in his position as prime minister and Yeltsin heir, proclaimed that he would pursue terrorists everywhere and launch a full-fledged assault on Chechnya.

The jihadist sites also presented Zakaev as an associate of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Putin-appointed Russian viceroy of Chechnya, and, by extension, an ally of Putin himself.

Zakaev supporters, on the other hand, depicted jihadists as Islamist Bolsheviks, fanatics lacking strategy and indifferent to ordinary Chechens. Such an accusation resonates among Russians and those living among them: Vladimir Lenin was indifferent to the outbreak of World War I because, he believed, the misery accompanying that conflict could catalyze revolution.[4] As Lenin cooperated with anyone—even German Kaiser Wilhelm—to achieve his aims, so too did Zakaev accuse Umarov of striking bargains with his arch foe Putin. After all, both Putin and the Islamists sought political gain at the expense of Chechen blood. Abdul-Malik Isaev, a contributor to Chechenpress, explained:

In 1917, the major ideologists of Bolshevism, following the bidding and [with] the money received from Germany, staged a military coup in Russia and proclaimed the words that became famous: "Comrades! Revolution, the necessity of which the Bolsheviks have [fore]told for such a long time, has finally taken place!" Today in Chechnya, the events are essentially the same—Dokka [Umarov] has confirmed his decision to promulgate a "Caucasian emirate," the "necessity" of which our "Islamist-radicals" of Bolshevik "mazhab" have [fore]told for a long time. The traitors of the Chechen people still await Shari‘a court for their provocative call for a Dagestan campaign, putting their knives in the back of our people and our state.[5]

While Lenin believed that only he could interpret Marxism, Umarov and Udugov––the "green commissars"––believed that they alone were the true interpreters of Islam. Many Chechen government officials distanced themselves from Umarov after his October 2007 declaration of an emirate.[6] As foreign minister, Zakaev declared himself leader of the Chechen government-in-exile and demanded that Chechen representatives abroad should follow his orders.[7] Umarov's declaration of an emirate took the Chechen parliament by surprise; and after receiving no answer from Umarov to the question of how he could occupy a position that does not exist in the Chechen constitution,[8] Zhaloud Lema Sarliapov, chairman of the Chechen parliament, proclaimed that power in the Chechen Republic should belong to parliament, and not to the president, who had actually abdicated his position.[9] Others, such as the Chechen veterans of its Russian wars and a parliamentarian who was also the brother of Chechnya's former vice president, also took Zakaev's side. Sultan Asaev, a colonel in the resistance army, said that Chechens who had suffered in fighting the "fascist dictatorship" should protest the creation of an "emirate" that would lead to even greater tragedy.[10] Salambek Amaev, a former military commandant and representative of the Chechen Republic in Poland, also protested.[11]

Zakaev also won the support of the Chechen "elders" who in traditional society are seen as the ultimate moral authorities. Alla Dudaev, widow of the first Chechen president, Dzjokhar Dudaev, argued that the promulgation of the emirate was a betrayal of her martyred husband's life's work. [12] Chechen elders in Istanbul, Udugov's city of residence, also flocked to Zakaev's side despite Udugov's assertions to the contrary.[13] Zakaev also received considerable support from the approximately half-million strong Chechen diaspora. The consuls of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and representatives of the Chechen diaspora stated that if Umarov believed he needed more titles to engage in the liberation of the Caucasus, he could just resign from the presidency of the Chechen Republic and take whatever title he wished.[14]

While Chechnya has newspapers, most are controlled and do not permit open debate. Most Chechens, especially those in the diaspora, turn to websites for news and to debate ideas. The editorial boards of some Chechen websites dissociated themselves from Umarov. The board of the Daymohk news agency, which had served since the administration of former Chechen president Abdul Khalim Sadulaev (2005-06) as presidential spokesman, severed its connection with Umarov.[15] The split divided other Internet papers into two camps. While the Chechentimes adopted a pro-Umarov position, Chechenpress contributor Mairbek Taramov urged readers to be aware that the Chechentimes had nothing to do with the old Chechen Times, which had been "the vehicle of a European-oriented group of Chechens."[16]

Lastly, the declaration of the emirate antagonized Chechnya's foreign supporters. Adam Borovskii, consul of the Chechen Republic in Poland, proclaimed that he and "his Polish friends" had done their best to liberate Chechnya. But now, after the promulgation of the emirate, he saw the Chechen leaders identifying themselves with Al-Qaeda, something with which he wanted no connection.[17] Zakaev became de facto leader of the Chechen government-in-exile.

Delegitimizing Jihadists

Any divorce is difficult. In order to justify the schism to the broader Chechen community, Zakaev developed a number of arguments to justify his claim to leadership. First, he argued, since Umarov had implicitly abandoned the presidency, he, Zakaev, could not be his representative.[18] In Umarov's stead, parliament should take power.

Second, Zakaev argued that the declaration of the emirate made it impossible to cooperate with Kadyrov's government. Even before the February 2007 split, Zakaev had developed the notion that Moscow was losing control over Chechnya and that Kadyrov's regime had become part of the Chechen opposition. For example, he argued that its security forces and militia are perhaps 70 to 80 percent former members of the resistance, who uphold Chechen independence in their heart.[19] Kadyrov's trend toward independence provided the opportunity, Zakaev suggested, for compromise with the moderate segments of the Chechen resistance. The declaration of the emirate upset any chance at compromise. Udugov and Umarov wanted, Zakaev implied, a war without end.[20]

Pushing this further, Zakaev put forth a third argument: that Russian intelligence played a role in the declaration of an emirate. He alleged that the FSB had met with and bribed members of the Chechen resistance; rumors spread that about half a billion dollars changing hands.[21] These Russian agents, Zakaev said, had convinced Umarov to abrogate the Chechen constitution, abolish the Chechen state, and proclaim an emirate, thereby giving Moscow justification for war against the Chechen resistance by arguing that it was fighting against a branch of Al-Qaeda.[22]

The corruption argument resonated. Larisa Volodimerova, a contributor to Chechenpress, suggested that Udugov and Putin cynically collaborated to profit at the expense of the Chechen people.[23] Others noted that many jihadist leaders lived in luxury. Udugov, for example, lived well in Istanbul with his four wives, seemingly with no regard for the families of jihadists killed and wounded in Chechnya. [24] Chechenpress contributor Turko Dikaev stated with an air of irony that it might turn out that the reason for Umarov's promulgation of the emirate was quite personal and quite petty. Beyond profit, the move would enable Umarov to purge Zakaev since a foreign ministry would no longer be necessary.[25]

Most of Zakaev's supporters accepted his arguments. Umarov's desire to build an emirate defied logic. One contributor to Ichkeria FR—the Internet publication of the Chechen diaspora in France—said that Umarov justified his plan to create an emirate by arguing it would help Chechens find support for their struggle among the other people of the Caucasus although a regional emirate based on Islam rather than nationality would require the dissolution of the Chechen state. Absent the emirate declaration, Chechens could preserve their own state and strike alliances with the other people of the Caucasus.[26] Zakaev's backers countered that idea by noting that Umarov's actions would alienate the Chechen resistance from the major global powers and by suggesting that even if bribery did not motivate Umarov, he had certainly overestimated the importance of Islam in Chechen life.

Chechenpress contributor Larisa Volodimerova argued that those who proclaimed the emirate repeated mistakes made by past Chechen leaders, such as Shamil, who tried to create a theocratic state: They believed that Islam would solidify the Chechen ranks and make them resolute fighters for independence. But the Islamization of Chechen life and theocratic despotism led to the opposite result: Chechens resent autocracy, theocratic or otherwise, and chose not to fight for it.[27] El'mira Magometova, another Chechenpress contributor, argued that Chechens had never regarded Islam as an essential aspect of their national identity and noted that Islam only came to Chechnya in the seventeenth century. Further, she argued, a major reason for Imam Shamil's defeat in 1859 was Chechens' intolerance toward monarchy; many assumed Shamil had such ambitions. Another contributor stated that he could, of course, be regarded as a heretic, but he did not believe the Qur'an could be used as a detailed guide in present-day society: It could only provide a general outline for behavior.[28] Vakhi Surko, another Chechenpress contributor, argued that those who promulgated the emirate and joined the global jihadist movement had alienated the global community.[29] A certain Iskander, a contributor to Chechenpress, stated that the supporters of the emirate actually said that they intended to engage in a war with the entire world, which he said is sheer madness.[30] Irchula Shmaiser, another contributor, supported this view. She stated that the jihadists are mocked as insane because they actually propose jihad without end.[31]

While the emirate's proponents said they were not bothered by the absence of international support—the global community does not care about Chechen suffering, they argued—Surko countered that, however true, needless antagonism of the international community was a misstep since it drew the world closer to Russia because of international antagonism to Al-Qaeda and its jihad. But the belief that Putin and Islamists cooperated resonates in the North Caucasus. Chechen writers blame the 1999 war in Dagestan, launched after terrorists blew up apartment buildings in Moscow and Volgodonsk, on both Putin and the Islamists. Subsequent Islamist terrorist attacks in Dubrovka and Beslan provided the Kremlin with justification to continue its war against Chechen civilians.[32] In the view of other Chechenpress contributors, events suggest a Putin role.[33] "There is a clear understanding that Udugov worked together with the FSB,"[34] one Chechen writer declared.

Not only might the emirate help Putin justify war against the Chechen resistance, [35] but it could drive a wedge between Chechnya and the West.[36] The West might be transformed from passive and often sympathetic observers into Chechnya's enemy and Russia's helper. Even after the September 2004 school massacre in Beslan, many Westerners expressed sympathy toward the Chechen cause.[37] Since that attack, there have been no major terrorist attacks against civilians. Should there be, however, Moscow would be able to link Chechen resistance with international terrorism. Prior to Udugov's statements, most Americans did not regard the Chechen resistance as part of the global terrorist movement.[38]

Nor would reliance on global Islamism necessarily help Chechnya. Khanif suggested that the umma, the global community of Muslims who band together for justice and liberty, is an illusion, existing more in the minds of jihadist ideologues than in real life. He questioned the assumption that Muslim people and Muslim governments care about Chechens. The Muslim world is not only disunited but also corrupt and remains the "old, sinful man." The mythical heroic umma united for the common struggle is similar to the mythical global proletariat whose heroic faculties and sense of solidarity exist only in the minds of believers.[39] One contributor to Chechenpress proclaimed that the Chechen people are more the victims of Islamists than of Putin.[40]

The conflict between Islamists and nationalists is irreconcilable and may lead to internecine violence within the Chechen resistance. While Zakaev may entrench himself in Europe as a good, "moderate" nationalist, Islamists will increasingly consolidate the battlefield. Chechnya might be for them just a weak link in the global chain of the "worldwide revolution." While Chechens will form the entirety of the moderate nationalists, the jihadists will embrace a variety of ethnic groups connected not just with foreign jihadists but with a network of Islamic—and possibly non-Islamic––extremists all over Russia. In this way, the Islamist movement in Chechnya parallels the Bolshevik movement in Russia in the years prior to World War I.

Conclusion

What of the implications of the schism within the Chechen movement? Jihadists are unpopular among many in the Chechen diaspora, most of whom would like to be seen as legitimate political refugees promoting an understandable cause rather than representatives of an Al-Qaeda type movement. Western politicians sympathetic to Chechen nationalism will certainly side with Zakaev. In embattled Chechnya, quite a few—at least judging by Internet discussions—might opt for Kadyrov's rule, which provides some modicum of stability and a chance for gainful employment for Chechen youth. Still, the small but dedicated groups of jihadists will not evaporate because of the lack of recruits: Regardless of what Chechens think of their cause, jihadists can attract Islamic extremists from across Russia and around the world.

What would be the implications of the small, dedicated bands of religious zealots in the Caucasus for Russia and ultimately the world? Here, comparison between Bolsheviks and jihadists is enlightening. Those who study the Bolshevik movement offer many arguments for its victory. Some credit Lenin's political genius; others, Marxist ideology or the centralized structure of the party. These elements played important roles, but there is another aspect of the story, which is the Bolshevik similarity to a religious movement. Bolshevik messianism led the movement to persist even when Russia's political and social order was stable. For Lenin, as well as for many other radicals in Europe, the revolution was just an abstraction. In fact, Russia had not experienced a mass upheaval since the Pugachev rebellion in the late eighteenth century, and Europe had not experienced a major revolution since that of the Paris Commune in 1871. Still, the Bolsheviks faithfully believed both in their providential mission and in the instability of the global order and persisted. So when they appeared to be right, and the global order collapsed in the wake of WWI, they were quick to take advantage of the opportunity. The same could be said about the jihadists. If Russia remains stable, the jihadists' influence on Russia and global politics most likely will be marginal. But if a breakdown happens—what Russians call katastroika—the extremists and jihadists, like the Bolsheviks before them, will play an important role in shaping events, at least in the North Caucasus. If this were indeed to happen, the present split in the Chechen resistance would be seen as important as the split between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks more than a hundred years ago.

Dmitry Shlapentokh is an associate professor at Indiana University-South Bend.

[1] James Hughes, Chechnya, From Nationalism to Jihad (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), pp. 16-18.
[2] Khanif, "Khimera v. Chechne," Chechennews, Oct. 29, 2007.
[3] Lorenzo Vidino, "How Chechnya Became a Breeding Ground for Terror," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2005, pp. 57-66.
[4] Christopher Reed, Lenin: A Revolutionary Life (London: Routledge, 2005), p. 107.
[5] Abdul-Malik Isaev, "Pritcha pro otrublennuiu golovu," Chechenpress (Tblisi, Georgia), Dec. 1, 2007.
[6] Amir Dokka, "Declaration of the Caucasian Emirate," Kavkazcenter.com (Grozny, Chechnya; Tblisi, Georgia), Nov. 22, 2007.
[7] "Press-reliz MID CHRI," Chechenpress, Nov. 1, 2007.
[8] "Soobshchenie Press—Sluzhby Parlamenta Chechenskoi Respubliki Ichkeriia," Chechenpress, Nov. 5, 2007.
[9] "Postanovlenie Parlamenta CHRI, No. 1-Bl," Chechenpress, Nov. 6, 2007.
[10] Sultan Asaev, "Obrashchenie," Chechennews, Oct. 28, 2007.
[11] "Zaiavlenie Salambeka Amaeva," Chechennews, Oct. 22, 2007.
[12] Alla Dudaeva, "Obrashchenie k Glave Natsional'noi Sluzhby Informatsii CHRI Movladu Udugovu," Chechennews, Oct. 25, 2007.
[13] Administratsiia CIA, "Chechenpress ob adnoi Udugovskoi fal'shivke," Chechenpress, Nov. 3, 2007.
[14] "Gosudarstvennyi suverenitet i nezavisimost Chechenskoi Respubliki nedelimy, nezyblemy," Ichkeria FR (Paris), Oct. 24, 2007.
[15] "Zaiavlenie Informatsionnogo Agenstva Daymohk," Daymohk (Baku, Azerbaijan), Nov. 3, 2007.
[16] Mairbek Taramov, "Obrashchenie k redaktoram SMI CHRI," Chechenpress, Nov. 4, 2007.
[17] Adam Borovskii, "Ia ni khochu byt' predstavitelem Severokavkazskikh Emiratov," Chechennews, Oct. 26, 2007.
[18] "Zaiavlenie Ministra Inostrannykh Del CHRI," Chechenpress, Oct. 31, 2007.
[19] Akhmed Zakaev, "Kadyrov prodolzhaet politiku dekolonizatsii Chechni-Akhmed Zakaev," Caucasus Times.com (Prague), Feb. 27, 2007.
[20] Akhmed Zakaev, "Sdelat' takoe zaiavlenie bylo moim dolgom," Chechenpress, Nov. 1, 2007.
[21] Rava Prezhnii, "U menia takoe vpechatlenie chto menia lishili Rodiny," Chechenpress, Nov. 5, 2007.
[22] "Zaiavlenie Ministerstva Inostrannykh Del CHRI," Ichkeria FR, Oct. 21, 2007.
[23] "Kruglyi stol. Zasedanie pervoe," Chechenpress, Oct. 30, 2007.
[24] Rubati Mitsaev Laramtsa, "Nas ne nado uchit'," Chechenpress, Nov. 2, 2007.
[25] Turko Dikaev, "Zabludshie i pribludshie," Chechenpress, Nov. 1, 2007.
[26] Musa Taipov, "Kakoe gosudarstvo my stroim?" Ichkeria FR, Nov. 5, 2007.
[27] Larisa Volodimerova, "Sovremennaia istoriia khorosho zabytoe staroe," Chechenpress, Oct. 30, 2007.
[28] "Kruglyi stol. Zasidanie pervoe," Chechenpress, Oct. 30, 2007.
[29] Vakhi Surko, "Vrag v mecheti," Chechenpress, Oct. 30, 2007.
[30] Iskander, "Pis'mo Amiru Chechni," Chechenpress, Nov. 5, 2007.
[31] Irchula Shmaiser, "Romanticheskoe puteshestvie," Chechenpress, Nov. 1, 2007.
[32] Prosto Chechenets iz Groznogo, Seichas Zhitel' Strasburga, "Sukiny deti," Chechenpress, Nov. 6, 2007.
[33] David Kudykov, "Vremia ispytaniia na zrelost'," Chechenpress, Nov. 2, 2007.
[34] "Kto otdaet prikazy?" Chechenpress, Nov. 6, 2007.
[35] "Kruglyi stol. Zasedanie pervoe," Chechenpress, Oct. 30, 2007.
[36] "V itoge k chemu ia prishel?" Daymohk, Nov. 9, 2007.
[37] See, for example, Richard Pipes, "Give the Chechens a Land of Their Own," The New York Times, Sept. 9, 2004.
[38] Nadezhda Banchik, "O palachakh i zhertvakh, ili o sukinykh detiakh i sukinykh (krestnykh) ottsakh," Chechenpress, Nov. 9, 2007.
[39] Khanif, "Khimera v Chechne," Chechennews, Oct. 29, 2007.
[40] Vladimir Krapivinsky, "Kogo nam vsem blagodarit' za Vtoruiu voiny?" Chechenpress, Nov. 8, 2007.

Related Topics: Central Asia, Radical Islam, Russia/Soviet Union | Summer 2008 MEQ


Posted by Dan's Blog at 11:51 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
Pages:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597
   
  About Me
Author: Dan's Blog
 
This blog is about...
This will include articles and comments on various International relations issues along with my... more
 
My: Profile  Gallery  Guestbook 
 
Bookmark   History

  Blogstream Sponsors
Have you checked out the new Blogstream site,

Question Stream.com?

Many Blogstream members are there already! Quotes from members: "It's like blog lite!" -- "I like the instant gratification!" -- "Stop spectating, get in the game!"

If you have not joined in, you are really missing out!

Send Free
Just Saying Hi
Greeting Cards
at

Greeting Cards.com


Good Morning


  Recent Posts

  Blogs I Like

  Archives

12081 Visitors