By Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alexander M. Haig Jr. & Max Kampelman
WASHINGTON: A number of recent indications suggest that the time is ripe for a political settlement of the war in Chechnya. A respected Russian polling firm says that 62 percent of Russians support entering into negotiations with the Chechen resistance, a dramatic turnaround from just two years ago, when only 22 percent favoured talks and 72 percent supported continuation of the war. A Moscow newspaper, meanwhile, reports that a secret meeting — sponsored by the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya — between senior Russian Duma members and leaders of the Chechen resistance was held last summer in Western Europe to discuss a negotiated settlement.
Richard Haass, director of the policy planning staff at the State Department, recently stated that “the United States is prepared to help Russia think through” a resolution to the conflict. And in an interview released June 13, Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov said his side is “ready to discuss any questions with the Russian side, including the questions of independence...if goodwill can be found, no obstacles are insuperable.”
But despite all these encouraging signs, no party has yet put forward a viable peace formula that could serve as the framework for ending the conflict through a political accommodation.
As a result, the carnage goes on. This Chechen war is the second in the past decade, and the two conflicts have devastated Chechen society to the point that fears are justified as to its continued existence. The State Department has recently condemned the “indiscriminate and disproportionate” use of violence by a demoralized Russian military, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Chechen civilians. The Organization of Mothers of Russian Soldiers claims that more than 10,000 Russian troops have died in the past three years.
In these circumstances, a negotiated settlement should be sought that builds on a statement made several months ago by President Vladimir Putin to the effect that the issue in Chechnya is not its “independence” or “dependence” but its role as the source of security threats directed at Russia. With that in mind, a constructive framework for a peaceful resolution of the conflict could involve these major points:
— The Chechens — even if not formally disowning their hope for independence, on behalf of which so many of them died — would acknowledge their respect for the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
— Russia would acknowledge the right of the Chechens to political, though not national, self-determination.
— A referendum would be held in which the Chechens would be given the opportunity to approve the constitutional basis for extensive self-government, modelled on what Tatarstan currently enjoys in the Russian Federation.
— President Maskhadov, the legitimately elected leader of the Chechen people, would urge Chechens to vote favourably in the referendum and, upon their approval of the proposed constitutional arrangement, would demand that those Chechen formations that refuse to accept a peaceful settlement leave the country.
— Russian troops would remain on Chechnya’s southern frontier to protect from there the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
— International support must be committed to a substantial programme of economic reconstruction, with a direct international presence on the ground in order to promote the rebuilding and stabilization of Chechen society.
Maskhadov’s endorsement of such an approach would be essential because of the extensive support he enjoys within Chechen society. There is a reasonable probability that realism would dictate acceptance of that approach by the leadership of the Chechen resistance, except for its most fundamentantalist Islamic elements. On the Russian side, the military and security personnel who profit from the war probably would be opposed, but most Russians would sigh with relief at the war’s peaceful termination.
Such an outcome would be in keeping with the emerging American-Russian cooperation in the Caucasus. And it would resolve a painful issue that has been not only tragic in its consequences but that also continues to impede both the stable democratization of Russia itself and its increasing engagement in wider all-European cooperation. Last but not least, the carnage would stop.
(The writers lead the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Carter. Max Kampelman is former head of the American delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Alexander M. Haig Jr. is a former US secretary of state and NATO commander.)—Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) The Washington Post
