James George Jatras and Paul Weyrich
Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2003

For the past few weeks, hardly a day has gone by without an editorial or op-ed in the Washington and New York elite media attacking the Putin administration for "turning back the clock" to the Soviet era, indeed to Stalinism.

One major newspaper even accompanied an item of this sort with a cartoon of Vladimir Vladimirovich looking in the mirror and seeing the approving Smirk of Iosif Vissarionovich. Supplementing the formal journalistic campaign have been expensive paid ads with the same message: The KGB apparat is back in power.

Within this campaign, the two recurring themes are the alleged persecution of the oligarchs (depicted as the Kremlin's repression of free enterprise) and the war in Chechnya (universally described as "brutal," if not genocidal).

What is going on here?

To take the matter of the oligarchs first: The jury is still out, but anyone acquainted with the issues involved is aware of two facts. First, as a formal matter, those singled out for official attention have committed numerous legal violations, but these are probably no worse than those committed by many others.

And second, the real offense is political, namely violation of a semi-formal agreement between the Kremlin and the oligarchs that the former will leave the latter alone and overlook how their riches were acquired in the first place as long as they do not try to convert their wealth into a political challenge to the Kremlin.

Imprudently, some businessmen decided not to observe that limitation, with predictable results. Is this a harbinger of a return to Communist-era control of the economy? Of course not. Does it mean a greater government voice in Russia's economic course as opposed to the dog-eat-dog 1990s? Perhaps, but as the origin of the word suggests, a dirigiste economy can exist in, say, France, and people do not call it Stalinism.

The real question is, is Mr. Putin's aim simply to expand his own personal power base at the oligarchs' expense and replace a corrupt oligarch with a corrupt autocracy – or is it to build a rule-of-law state that entails stronger overall direction from the government?

Does he intend to be the Charles de Gaulle of Russia and end the anarchy that characterized the Yeltsin era? And if that is his goal, can he successfully force (to borrow a Japanese analogy) Russia's yakuza to transform themselves into zaibatsu?

If so, America and the West have no reason not to wish him success, and the well-funded hyperventilation in the U.S. major media is misplaced.

More troubling is the now-standard depiction of the Chechen war. Reading the opinion pieces here, one might suspect there had never been a Sept. 11, or that President Putin had not been the first to call President Bush with an offer of full partnership against jihad terrorism, starting with the removal of the Taliban regime.

No doubt there is brutal behavior by some Russian soldiers, as there is in every counter-insurgency war, especially when the soldiers on the government's side are underpaid conscripts. But what is striking is the degree to which Russia's Western critics ignore not only the brutality on the Chechen side – including the beheading and torture of both prisoners of war and civilian hostages – but also their war aims.

Recall that under the 1996 deal negotiated by the late Gen. Alexandar Lebed to end the earlier war, Chechnya was given independence in everything but name. But that was not enough for the mujahideen, who re-ignited the war through their attempts to extend their jihad into Dagestan, Ingushetia, and throughout the north Caucasus.

In terms of influential U.S. opinion, the sad fact is that Russian cooperation on terrorism just hasn't met with American reciprocity. Both before 9/11 and after, Russian claims that the Chechen war is fueled not just by Chechen national grievances (to which Moscow was willing to give maximum satisfaction under the 1996 agreement) but also Wahhabist radicalism bolstered by foreign fighters and Saudi money has been breezily dismissed here.

At a time when the same influences are being looked at for the first time in an American context, including elements within the American armed forces, the reality of Chechnya as one theatre in a global jihad to reinstate the Khilafah ("caliphate") state should have been noticed here. But it hasn't been.

Certainly that context is not lost on the jihadist side. A casual Web search for Khilafah yields a host of advocacy sites for re-establishment of a one-world shari'a state, with a host of battlefields: Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Philippines, Xinjiang and others.

To take just one example from a group not on the official U.S. terrorist list:

Without the Khilafah, the Islamic lands will remain torn up and the Islamic peoples will remain divided. Without the Khilafah the kafir, crusader and colonial states will continue to control us, plunder our resources and create divisions amongst us. Without the Khilafah, the Jews will continue to occupy our sacred places and kill and humiliate our brothers in Palestine. Without the Khilafah, the Islamic peoples in Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir, Uzbekistan and so on will continue to be killed. … Without the Khilafah, those Muslims who do not work seriously for its implementation will be sinful and incur the anger of Allβh. … The voices of the Muslims in all parts of the world from Turkey to Nigeria, and from Uzbekistan to Indonesia are resoundingly demanding its return. It will come back despite the efforts and money spent by the kuffar and the agents to prevent its return. – Hizb ut-Tahrir, Wilayah of Turkey

In the foregoing words, students of the late Soviet Union will at once recognize the "wooden language" of ideology, except that here it is not red but green. Just as some in the West throughout the Cold War chose to portray red terrorists in glamorous idealizations – think of the ubiquitous Che Guevara poster – so some insist on peddling the image of the terrorist mujahid as a heroic "freedom fighter."

Western coverage of last year's Moscow theatre siege, and of the Budyonnovsk terror raid in 1995, inevitably refer to the "daring" Chechens and the shortcomings of the Russian defenders, not to the horrors inflicted on the terrorists' victims. The fact that these operations were, in the lexicon of jihad, classic ghazwat – raids designed to inflict terror and demoralization on the infidel, and extort loot from him to sustain the jihad – is never brought to light.

America and Russia today remain stuck at the crossroads encountered over two years ago. Mr. Putin has indicated his readiness for full strategic partnership with the United States on the security front and, maybe even more important for the long term, on the energy front.

Some small and partial gestures are discernable from Washington officialdom, such as the belated listing of three Chechen groups as terrorist organizations. But the establishment media continue to have more of an animus against a Russian state than against al-Qaeda, as if the hijacked airliners had been commandeered by Siberians, not Saudis.

Rather than perpetuating lame stereotypes that were outdated more than a decade ago, it's time for the American establishment – and especially the media – to re-examine their attitudes toward Russia and the Putin administration in light of America's broader global priorities.

James George Jatras is a partner with the law firm of Venable LLP in Washington, D.C., specializing in legislative and homeland security issues. For a number of years previously, he was a senior adviser on foreign policy for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. Paul Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

A product that might interest you:
Is America prepared for the next war? Click here now!

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Russia
War on Terrorism