Political Science 375 Russian Politics
Russia New war on Terrorism “old enemies make strange bedfellows and stranger allies, the new war against terrorism”
Terrorism has existed in Russia for a long time. Stalin used terror to fuel the masses. In fact some scholars would argue that Russians have intimate knowledge about the uses of terror against its own people and the power it wields. During the Cold War state sponsor terrorism and sabotage could be classified as a form of terrorism. For example “a complete sabotage survey of every major industrial centre in the United States was made by the Communist Party in 1947” (1). Terrorism can be state sponsored or can be instigated by individuals, extremist groups or even large segments of population. This Cold War is finished now let us examine in further detail why Russia needs a new war.
After the collapse of the USSR the most trusted institution the military was in chaos. The “collapse of USSR has reduced military cohesion and has been severely undermined thereby denying country political leadership and important source of support” (2). The military in the prior USSR provided support stability and order in a multi ethnic, vastly populated and regionally complex part of the world. Since the collapse of the old USSR, the military has lacked a long-term vision for its new role in the 21 century. Let us speculate that one of the possible reasons for entering the new war on terrorism is to redirect the energy of the military at a new enemy. The military is of paramount importance to the history of Russia. After the defeat against the USA and the defeat in Afghanistan the military is demoralized. This vacuum can be filled with a new enemy rallying the troops to new causes. The support of the military is of critical importance in any country especially Russia. Throughout history Russian military has generally been non-political in nature. However due to the destabilizing times there is a remote possibility that the military could be engaged in partisanship politics.
Wars on terror have often worked to increase the popularity of a political leader. For example when President Putin redeclared a war on Chechnya his popularity soared. Russians seemed to rally when a leader takes a firm military stance against an enemy. In a system of government where populism is a key ingredient to maintaining political control it may be a reasonable explanation for engaging in a war on terrorism. Russia is a country that has paid the price of warfare for example WWI and WWII. The Russian people are strong and gravitate towards strong leaders that take hardliners against enemies of the state. So from a purely political rational the President can gain political currency from this War on Terrorism vis-à-vis domestically and internationally.
Another possible reason for this new relationship is from a purely rational model of defeating a common enemy. “But the terror attacks underlined Russia's wish to be viewed as a good citizen, not least because it is battling an Islamic fundamentalist insurgency in its own back yard of Chechnya.” (3). Russia has keen interests in destroying the Chechnya terrorist movement. Due to the new international recognition of the terrorist problems the world is more sympathetic to the Russian cause. Russia has made numerous incursions to try and stop this enemy. The Islamic culture is fundamentally different from the Russian doctrines. The question is how much of a threat and how far will the Russians go to eliminate this threat? Given the scope of operations in the war on terrorism these days it is highly unpredictable if there can be a peaceful solution.
Russia has a key interest in seeing the destruction of the Al Qaeda network under Osama bin Laden. Shakespeare once said “revenge is a dish best served cold” (14). The Russians have not forgotten the humiliating defeat in Afghanistan during the Cold War. The Russians have provided indirect military and strategic support on this war lead by the USA. Russian citizens and especially the political elite would like to see Afghanistan turned inside out. Revenge is a reason enough to support USA war on Terrorism. How can Russia exact revenge with more lethality?
With the focus on the war on terrorism this can detract international attention from other problems that plague the former USSR. The formation of the new secret police FSB will have interesting roles in the future. Russian KGB will have even more power in the new Russia due to the lack of controls found in the old USSR system. In Russia new democracy the new powers of FSB will be in the interests of the president. Russian intelligence still has powers that are not accountable to the average population. Their networks are everywhere from the state, president, mafia, foreign to internal espionage. The new KGB are here to stay and are still a major threat to the west and even a big question mark to the new Russia. Russia secret police have always been feared but at least in the past the USSR had firm control over them. In the new USSR the former KGB is even more powerful due to the easing of restrictions of control. “ In waging a zero sum battle for command and control of the KGB, Yetlsin and Khasbulatov were both clearly mindful of the KGB instrumental role in determining the political power outcome of Soviet Leadership (4). Considering that President Vladimir Putin was a former KGB agent shows how important the KGB is in the new Russia. The secret police are often charged with the protection of the constitution and state security affairs. The new KGB has even further influence and strategies that no one can really predict. Institutions like the KGB will attempt to ensure the continuation of the Russian way of life.
Another reason for the engagement of the war on terrorism is to prevent further deterioration of the state of Russia. One fear by many analysts is that Russia could implode due to the extreme economic and political changes and create a power vacuum. The fragile democracy has changed for the better but many citizens argue for the worse. A big fear is the possibility of “protracted instability of Russia and around creating uncertainty about the military inheritance of the Soviet Union, especially its nuclear weapons and possibly resulting in a re-emergence of Russia under a militant, radical, nationalist, xenophobic ideology” (5). From the interests of the international community especially the USA it cannot afford to allow the Russians to lose further control of its state. Stability and order are paramount given the world of change we live in. Imagine the hypothetical scenario where a terrorist extremist group acquired control of key Russian military technologies. The Americans have always been concerned about possible compromises in nuclear technology that could fall into the hands of terrorists. The scenario has a low probability of occurring but given the disturbing trends of the world nothing is being taken for granted these days. Do the Russians have full control of there nuclear technology? Considering the Russian army often has not been paid the temptation for a nuclear scientist or personal with advance nuclear expertise to defect is increased. Generally the Russian personal with access to nuclear weapons are loyal to the state. However no one can be 100% certain about the influence of terrorist organizations to acquire nuclear technologies.
An interesting question is the rational of the USA on helping Russia. USA interests are best served due to the possible multiethnic wars that can emerge and fuel terrorist activities. For example “ In the absence of political repression and political domination from Moscow, long suppressed ethnic and religious rivalries are coming to forefront and therefore cause bloody struggles for territory.” (6). The example of Yugoslavia is a stark reminder of what can happen when religion and ethnicity are re-ignited into terrorism, warfare and genocide. The USA has a vested interest to help Russia, and the Russians need the help. This reciprocal relationship is unusual for the Russians to adopt, considering they were once a superpower. The world has changed and so has the enemies of the world order. Religion and race continue to be a major conflict of war and instability in all parts of the world including the spheres of the former USSR. This also illustrates that sometimes order was good for the USSR because these flashpoints were contained. But now that Russia is become decentralized its difficult to predict what other breakaway republics will attempt.
Terrorists have recently have become more extreme and have even considered using nuclear weapons as a method of attack. This theory of nuclear proliferation of terrorist organizations has existed for many years. For example “To manufacture their own nuclear weapons, terrorists would require both strategic special nuclear materials as the expertise to convert them into bombs or radiological weapons. As is now widely revealed both requirements are well within the range of terrorist capabilities” (7). Key components like plutonium, uranium used to make nuclear warheads are now available in over 12 countries. The proliferation of this technology could be used to make a poor mans nuclear weapon. The thought of a terrorist using nuclear weapons seemed absurd in the past. Unfortunately recent reports by Osama bin Laden had made claims he had access to nuclear weapons. Mr bin Laden has threatened to use these weapons if provoked. In a recent interview “Accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is quoted in a Pakistani newspaper as saying he has nuclear and chemical weapons, and that he would use them against the United Do we take his threats seriously or do we discount them? Russia nuclear security has been reduced due to the significant break up of the military. It is theoretically possible however remote that terrorists have access to low grade nuclear technology like a poor mans atomic bomb. The probability of a terrorist cell acquiring a true nuclear weapon is extremely remote considering the high security safeguards. The question is would a terrorist actually have the capacity to use them given the possible apocalyptic destruction that would result of just one bomb. This question has no easy answer, but leaves many countries like USA and Russia fearful of a worst-case scenario. Russians have a vested state sovereign interest to ensure the limited membership into the nuclear club by states and especially rouge terrorist groups. Are Russians part of the problem or the solution to terrorism?.
Russian politics in the past has sponsored indirectly and some would argue directly terrorist movements. This theory cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However many analysts have speculated that the USSR has engaged in proxy terrorist warfare. “ Russia justification of the use of terrorism as a legitimate political tool has its ideological works in the founders of Marxism-Leninism. Only one means exist to shorten the bloody death pangs of the old society and birth pains of new society to simplify and concentrate them – revolutionary terrorism”(9). In the past the USSR has funded indirectly thru the primary method of selling arms to Africa, Asia, Algeria, Angola, Iraq, Libya, Mozambique, South Yemen, Tanzania, and Uganda (10). Some of these states have been affiliated with terrorist movements. This is not to suggest all these countries are state sponsored terrorists. This does however illustrate that some countries have created the conditions favourable to terrorist development. In addition the past USSR policy regarding terrorism “refused to join Western powers in applying to the term international terrorism a broad interpretation which would include the acts committed by national liberation movements (11). The evidence suggests that the Soviet past is not as innocent as one would suggest. Perhaps President Putin wants to learn from his countries prior mistakes. Or perhaps this show of good faith is just superficial and short term with respect to the war on terrorism. Russia must walk a fine line between supporting this new campaign and securing its own national interests.
Russians are entering a new era where “Strategic parity may still be crucial, but what Mr Putin wants first and foremost is for Russia to be accepted as an equal ally in the West's economic and military clubs. In particular, Mr Putin wants his voice to be heard in the G8 meetings of the world's richest industrial nations; he wants Russia to enter the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as quickly as possible “(12). Compared to the G8 Russia is still suffering asymmetrical development in the 21 century. Russia lacks economic and military equality with the USA and other G8 members. Russia is desperate to try and reduce the gap. By capitalizing on the new initiatives on the war in terrorism President Putin can forge new paths for his countries development. Entry into the World Trade Organization would be a critical step for Russians economic and democratic development. This could be a difficult task considering it took 15 years for China to finally be accepted into the World Trade Organization (13). Russia needs the access of the 142 member states of WTO for further economic development. The largest country still geographically people are starving and sometimes don’t have access to basic foods. This is a major problem and one of the many reasons why Russia is influenced by exogenous factors. Russia must move fast for economic reform but at the same time not lose total control of the economy to outside interests. What about Russia new direction in foreign policy?
It appears that Russia wants back into the Western manifold. “Russia’s foreign policy under Mr. Putin has been largely directed at the full reintegration of Russia into the Western World, a policy that-as a result of greater influence of the US-has so far meant a series of reversals for Russia “(15). The most obvious political reward for Russian co-operation would be to postpone-perhaps even indefinitely – NATO enlargement especially in Baltic states. The constant expansion of NATO is perceived by many Russians as a long term increased threat to Russian interests. The original premise of NATO was to contain USSR Warsaw Pact. The Cold War is over and membership continues to increase in NATO. Russians do not want to feel contained considering the uneasy history between Russia and the West.
There is a credible threat with Chechnya as Russians have classified this group as linked with Islamic terrorists. Regardless if these terrorists exist or not, Russia has more leverage from the international community to pursue its harsh military campaign against enemies of the state. The other Western states will take a less intervention list approach to Russia brutal approach to the Chechnya problem. President Putin benefits from this renewed interest in anti-terrorism domestically and internationally. If the USA and Western allies alienate Russians it could backfire. Russians could continue to sell arms and facilitate extremist movements to raise more proceeds from arms sales to fuel the weak economy. Russians are in a win-win scenario in the short term regarding co-operation. This cannot suggest that the Russian interests and USA and Western interests are identical.
NATO and Russia are by no means best friends however this short term alliance may provide valuable bridge building exercises. For example “NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson begins a three-day visit to Russia tonight, aimed at improving ties between the alliance and Moscow. Robertson's visit comes as top Russian officials are calling for an overhaul of Moscow's partnership with NATO.” (16). This statement suggests that relations are changing with NATO and Russia. These changes are contingent to the perception that the West can co-operate with Russia in joint operations such as anti-terrorism. However we cannot mistake co-operation with state security. Russia has vital interests in this alliance. Russians strategy is self-preservation of sovereignty and security at the same time not appearing to bow to the demands of NATO. Some Russians fear the ultimate defeat of Russia would be to join NATO. This fine line of relationship building must be delicate to this point, considering NATO was founded on the premise to keep the former USSR in check. Russia is not completely dependant on NATO for alliances.
Russia has created its own separate alliances to combat terrorism. For example “A key goal of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which incorporates China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, is to fight terrorism and religious extremism with these countries.” (17). Russia and SCO will wage war on terrorism with its own unique strategy. This alliance also reinforces the seriousness of the Islamic extremist movement towards Russian sovereignty. Regardless the new war on terrorism is good for SCO interests particularly Russian interests. Russia also has many economic problems.
The transition from command to market economy has been very painful for majority of Russians. The oligarchs, elites, mafia and select few entrepreneurs made vast amounts of wealth in the new Russian economy. However starvation, unemployment and hyperinflation were some of the major spillovers in conversion to a market economy. Russia has made painful strides towards a market economy. For example “The gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 5.4 percent in 1999 and 8.3 percent in 2000. Industrial output increased by 8.1 and 9.2 percent in these years. This recovery, after more than a decade of virtually uninterrupted decline, was primarily attributable to the import substitution effect after the devaluation of August 1998; the increase in world prices for Russia's oil, gas, and commodity exports; the decline in real wages leading to cost reductions; sound fiscal and monetary policies; and to some restructuring” (17). War is good for business and Russia requires the exports of oil and other commodities to fuel its weak economy. Although the numbers look promising, Russia is a far from economic stability. Russia also heavily relies on oil and arms sales to fuel its weak economy. This fine line between economics and conflict of interests will be difficult to navigate. Russia must further move towards WTO standards if they wish to attract more foreign investment and capital. Political stability is a key indicator for corporations when they want to invest in a country. Russia war on terrorism and economic reforms will help consolidate that position which will benefit this state in the long run. Until then Russia painful transition to the market economy will continue. Economic disparity can create opportunities for the criminal organizations to entrench further in Russian society.
Another major problem is Russian mafia is so powerful today that the citizens often claim that they control Russia and not the government. The mafia in Russia indirectly contribute to proliferation of weapons, gambling, prostitution, and a wide array of illegal activities. The mafia have moved many of its operations into other countries and tried to create legitimate business to hide its funds. This problem is compounded by the repression of the people and the fear the mafia generates in Russia. Russian mafia have connections with political elites, military, economic power, and even the KGB. Russian mafia have ties with other crime syndicates around the world and terrorist organizations. For example “U.S. intelligence agencies have uncovered new information that Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist group, Al Qaeda, are acquiring from the Russian mafia components for weapons of mass destruction.” (18). Terrorism exists in every country including Russia. Does this mean that the USA might perceive that Russia supports terrorism? Difficult to ascertain but is the mafia more powerful in Russia then in many countries. Some would argue no that organized criminals exist in every state. Others would argue that Russia mafia are the most powerful considering access to ex military, ex military intelligence, technology, political elites and economic elites. Some mafia members are part of the political and economic elites and have powerful influence in Russia. The mafia problem not only affects domestic and international security for Russia. There is no clear solution that has worked yet to solve the problem of the mafia in Russia.
In conclusion the Russian interests for now are best served by embracing their old enemies as friends for the time being. This new war on terrorism has created new opportunities for Russia. The Russian military who is demoralized and lacking direction has found a new enemy. The war on terrorism helps to give some direction but hasn’t addressed the long-term goals of the new Russian army. The international community is more understanding of military tactics that Russia has employed against Chechnya. This will allow even greater restrictions on civil liberties and crackdowns all in war against terrorism. Will the government abuse its power to crush government opposition or use these powers to truly combat terrorism? Given Russian history of force it is difficult to speculate. Russia may be able to seek revenge against Afghanistan by allowing the USA and its allies access to its intelligence networks and airspace. The elimination of Islamic extremists would profit Russian interests. Russians have not forgot the humiliating defeat against the Afghans and would like to see blood spilled.
From a purely economic standpoint Russia has gained increased support from the USA and other western countries. This continued foreign aid and investment is critical to the short and long term success of new Russia. Russia has to walk a fine line between supporting its fragile economy with exports of arms and oil to possible terrorist organizations and states. While at the same time painfully adopting the strict standards that are required to enter the WTO. Compounded by reduced capital investment, high unemployment and devalued currency Russia economics is extremely complex. Political and economic stability are key indicators of foreign investors for scarce capital inflows. Considering the recession in the USA and other major countries this economic problem could help or hinder Russia self interests drastically.
The increased role of the KGB vis-à-vis democratization and control will be a fine line to walk. Considering the new enemy of terrorism, will the government further abuse its power? Or will the government crack down on terrorists harder at the same time increasing civil liberties. President Putin a former KGB agent may be more inclined to use the secret police to maintain control if further chaos occurs. This question has no easy answer considering the unique history of Russia development.
The threat of compromised nuclear technology and expertise is frightening to Russia and terrifying for the rest of the world. Does Russia have full control of all its nuclear technology? Difficult to say considering the deep pockets of terrorist countries and organizations and the cash strapped people that guard these key facilities. In a world of scarcity especially in Russia you can never be sure of the lines between patriotism and selfish capitalism. Conceiving a specialist for example a nuclear scientist being paid to create a poor mans atomic bomb isn’t totally inconceivable anymore.
What are the long-term implications behind NATO and its expansion from Russia? Most Russians want NATO to halt or Russia to have special considerations to voice dissent and veto. Could Russia join NATO it is possible but unlikely at this time. Russia and NATO still distrust each otherwise NATO would not be still expanding. Russia has created new coalitions like SCO to combat terrorism. However another possible application of the SCO might be used as a strategic alliance to counter the hegemony of the USA. Russia is still adopting to the lost status of non-superpower and adjusting its foreign policy constantly. Some fanatic may capitalize on the urge to return Russia to the former glory of the USSR. Careful considerations must be taken with regards to NATO on both sides of the equation.
The issue of sovereignty is of paramount importance in this war on terrorism. Russia’s still want control of there own destiny but given the current threats it may be in the best interests in the short or even long term to co-operate. The agenda of Russia is still not crystal clear considering the military, economic, political, domestic and international problems. Russia must strike a balance but the question is how, considering the constant challenges of sovereignty by satellites within Russia. Further terrorist activities could destabilize the region.
Therefore Russian can capitalize on the current war on terrorism. The task will be to strike a balance between co-operation and state self-interests. The economic, political, military spheres will create tensions in Russia. However if Russia plays the game correctly it can create greater opportunities to further its own policies. Or Russian could further slide down the path towards instability and possible anarchy. Until then USA and the West are old enemies that make strange bedfellows and stranger allies, the new war against terrorism.
Bibliography Political Science 375 report
Books
1) Otto Heilbrunn The Soviet Secret Services. Mayflower Press Great Britian 1957 pg 81
2) Eugene B Rumer. The Ideological Crisis in the Russian Military RAND 1994 Santa Monica CA, USA pg vii
4) Jeremy R. Azrael, Alexander G. Rahr. The formation and Development of the Russian KGB 1991-1994 RAND 1993, Santa Monica CA, USA pg 81
5) Eugene B. Rumer. The Building Blocks of Russias Future Military Doctrine. RAND 1994 Santa Monica CA, USA pg 49
6) Norman D. Levin Prisims & Policy US Security Strategy after the Cold War. RAND 1994 Santa Monica CA, USA pg 41
7) Louis Rene Beres. Terrorism and Global Security The Nuclear Threat. Westview Press London 1987 pg 17.
9) Aruek Neravi On Terrorism and Combating Terrorism University Publications
of America 1985 pg 104-105
10) Aruek Neravi On Terrorism and Combating Terrorism University Publications
of America 1985 pg 108
11) United Nations General Assembly, UN DOC A/AC 160/I Add. Jen 12, 1973; Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism, July 16-August 10,1973, p26
15) Economist Intelligence Unit. The New world disorder A briefing on the implications of the terrorist assualt on the US London UK October 2001 pg 66-67
Internet
3)Globe and Mail “Putin and Arms Cuts” (Nov/18/2001) <http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.html&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=russia&option=&start_row=13¤t_row=13&start_row_offset1=0&num_rows=1&search_results_start=11> (nov/18/2001)
8) Nic Roberston, CNN “Bin Laden Interview” (Nov/11/01)
<http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/11/ret.robertson.otsc/index.html>(nov/22/01)
12) Economist Intelligence Unit: Russia Politics “ US summit a success of sorts “(nov/16/2001)
< http://www.viewswire.com/index.asp?layout=display_article&doc_id=167958>
(nov/19/2001)
13) CNN “China Offically enters WTO” (Nov/11/2001) <http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/10/china.WTO/index.html>
(nov/19/01)
14) Quotes by William Shakespeare (nov/20/01) < http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:YJgVfEFzKxs:personal.vallnet.com/ashlynne/quotes.html+shakespear+revenge+is+a+dish+best+served+cold&hl=en>
(nov/20/01)
16) Kathleen Knox, Russia: Officials Call For Shift In Relations With NATO (nov/21/01)
<http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/11/21112001092005.asp> (nov/21/01)
17) Centre for Strategic and International Studies The Russian Economy in September 2001-Highlights (sept/27/01)
<http://www.csis.org/ruseura/rus_econ.htm> (nov/22/01)
18) Middle Eastern Times, By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES Al Qaeda appears to have links with Russian mafia (oct/5/01)
<http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-40/reg/al_qaeda_appears.htm>
(nov/22/01)
