|
|
|
|
Opinion-editorials decyphered - 7 September 2005
Beslan, London: the different media faces of terrorism
Decyphering
Russia is preparing to celebrate the anniversary of the Beslan hostage taking whose dramatic outcome traumatized the country. This celebration is being prepared while Russia debates about the glorification by the Anglo-Saxons of the organizer of the massacre, Shamil Basáyev. The controversy increased when an interview given by Basáyev to the pro-separatist journalist Andrei Babitsky was broadcasted by the U.S. TV network ABC. He defended himself in the Russian edition of Newsweek by explaining how he got to Basáyev after meeting with different separatist groups, and stated that by giving them the word and debating with them was the best way to not recognize terrorists. This notion of the anti-terrorist fight should count upon the support of ABC that broadcasted the interview, although this logic appears to be applicable only to Russia’s adversaries.
The Russian newspaper Gazeta published a text from Shamil Basáyev himself in which he indicated that Beslan operation was possible thanks to the utilization of a triple agent who manipulated the Russian troops. He expressed his satisfaction for the success of the action (remember that it killed hundreds of people, and most of them were children) and invited to respect the memory of the martyrs of Beslan, that is, his men. In his text, he suggested that it was the Russian forces who triggered the massacre, opinion that was widely admitted by the Western media and supported by the pro-separatists governments such as Lithuania, that made the European Union demand explanations from Putin, or anti-Russian personalities like the French André Glucksman.
The leader of the Russian Peoples Institute, Kim Tsagolov, denounced this point of view in Gazeta. He not only launched an attacked on the Western satisfaction with regard to Basáyev, but also ascertained that the terrorist leader could not be supported without foreign assistance. He mentioned that, contrary to what many international media have said, the Russians are not considered disregarded in the Caucasus, although he recognized the mistakes made in that region.
The latter point of view properly illustrates the one that is generally admitted in Russia, but has little opportunities to be heard in the international media. The Chechen terrorists actually enjoy a wide audience and the calls for the fight against global terrorism rarely include them among the entities that should be fought. In the dominant Western media, “the” terrorist is a “jihadist”, generally Arab, who fights against the West for hating it and wishes to establish a world caliphate. The separatist Chechens do not fit in this model.
London attacks provided a new occasion to lash this figure of the terrorist and stir once more the spectrum of the Muslim internal enemy. In a forum published by the New York Sun, The Australian, and Jerusalem Post, Daniel Pipes rejoices at this wave of racism. The administrator of the U.S. Institute for Peace fully recognizes the politicians who have gone further with the racist discourse and promotion of banning policies of Muslim populations. He even invites the United States to get inspired from them, as a proof that after having launched the movement of the “clash of civilizations”, Washington was joined by one of its followers.
However, no one officially assumes to be in favor of the “clash of civilizations” and every one pretends to avoid it. The Bush administration, which has focused its strategy on Samuel Huntington’s project, denies stimulating it. The advocates of this strategic concept hide behind the most appropriate justifications from the political point of view. So they’d rather speak about a “battle of ideas” between democracy and the “jihad” or a civil war at the heart of Islam between a democratic and an Islamic trend in which, obviously, the West would side with the first ones and help them. This presentation of facts is perfectly illustrated by the column of Bassam Tibi in the International Herald Tribune. This professor of Syrian origin, a specialist of Islam highly welcomed by the neoconservative group, has stated that it is necessary to organize a battle of ideas against “jidahism”, which he presented as a conquering branch in the heart of Islam.
This notion is also shared by Frank J. Gaffney Jr. in the Washington Times. The hawks’ coordinator favors the “battle of ideas” rather than the “ideology of the evil”, a term that he prefers to change for another one more evocative, the “Islamo-fascism”. In his opinion, the main difficulty that Blair’s government will find in this battle would be to differentiate the Muslims from the Islamists. By taking up the analysis of Daniel Pipes pertaining to this matter, he condemned certain Muslim organizations and urged Karen Hughes, in charge of propaganda under Bush administration, not to have relations with them.
This explosion of racism worries the advocates of a “soft” U.S. imperialism grouped around the figure of George Soros. In this regard, James A. Goldston, executive director of Justice Initiative of the Open Society Institute, rejects in the International Herald Tribune that in the name of terrorism the principles of the “open society”, the political model promoted by the multimillionaire, are affected. He therefore requested the government of Tony Blair not to adopt segregationist policies. However, the author does not challenge the vulgate about the figure of the terrorist.
Without questioning the official version about the perpetrators of the London attacks, the journalist Adam Curtis is opposing in The Guardian the image of terrorism given by the media. Author of a documentary about the use of fear as an instrument, he lashed the media “experts”, that after having presented Al Qaeda as a superstructure very well organized to justify the attack on Iraq, described it as an “ideology of evil” to justify the racist policies of Blair’s government. In his opinion, this is counterproductive and could only increase the risk that tensions might come up among the communities.
Far form the very limited debate about the nature of the Islamist threat, the Arab media does not hesitate to ask who are the real perpetrators of the attacks in London. Samih Saab, journalist of the Lebanese newspaper Annahar, indicated that these attacks were a real gush of fresh air to Tony Blair, mistreated in his country due to his alliance with George Bush and the Iraqi adventure. Blair, who had repeated that the Iraqi war was part of the war against terrorism, is able to see how the attacks confirmed his analysis. Hence, he is the first beneficiary. Ayatollah Ahmad Janati, chief of the Council of the Guardians of the Iranian Revolution, goes beyond the limits of the Lebanese journalist. As published in Asharqalawsat, in his point of view the first beneficiary of the attacks, must be considered as the prime suspect. Furthermore since in his opinion the hypothesis of al-Qaeda lacks solid foundations.
Voltaire Network
|
|
|
7 September 2005
From
Lille (France)
Tools
Print
Send
All the versions of this article:
français
русский
Themes
Covert Action: government overthrows, psychological warfare...
Chechnya: The Great Game in the Heart of Russia
Authors and Sources of Op-Eds Decyphered
|
|
“Just the fact of meeting with Basáyev triggered rage”
Author
Andreï Babitsky
 |
|
Andrei Babitsky is correspondent of radio-Svaboda (Radio-Freedom). He is the author of various books about Chechnya. The accreditation from ABC to work in Russia was withdrawn. Babitsky was arrested when the events of Beslan took place in a Moscow airport and was instructed not to take the plane to North Osetia. He was accused of carrying explosive devices. For several years, he has been in the spy hole of the Kremlin due to his coverage of the war in Chechnya, siding with the Chechnyan separatists.
|
Source
Newsweek.ru (Fédération de Russie)
Reference "Just the fact of meeting with Basáyev triggered rage", by Andrei Babitsky, Newsweek.Ru, August 14, 2005. Text adapted from an interview.
Summary I took some vacations and went to Prague by car. I drove through Czequia, Poland, Ukraine, and ended my tour in a cab up to Ingushetia. I wanted to meet with the military chief Doku Umarov and the new president Abdul Halim Sadulaiev. I talked to the representatives of the government of “Ichkeria” [ 1] abroad and put me in contact with a person from Turkey. I bought a SIM card right there and was contacted to fix a meeting.
I spent two days with Basáyev and made me feel lonely. He wanted to check whether his arguments were effective on a person from abroad. He explained to me that the war had began because of a provocation of the FBI, that the people from Dagestan who live en Chechnya had fallen into the trap and he had no other choice but to help them.
As to Beslan, Basáyev confirmed to me that he did not know there were small children and had ordered to release those under 10 if the demands would receive a positive response. I thought that he had completely turned into a Wahhabi, but he calls that the war of national liberalization. He indicated that the religious motives are in a different class. According to what he said, they have 38 sectors and six fronts in the country.
I chose ABC because Nightline show is the best program for analysis of the United States. I was convinced that such meeting was useful, first to recall that Kremlin had built a virtual world in the real Chechnya. Then because terrorism has also already such an important place that the phenomenon deserves to be studied. The most important thing was to show that our values were superior. In the opposition between communism and the Western world, communism lost due to discourse. Such discourse should be used in the future against terrorism.
“We have a lot to say about Beslan”
Author
Chamil Bassaïev
 |
|
Terrorist and guerrilla leader, Shanil Basáyev has just been named First Prime Minister of the Chechen rebel government. He is therefore the right hand of Masjadov’s successor, Abdul Jalim Sadulaiev. Also known as a terrorist by the international community, he was included in the black list of the UN Security Council.
|
Source
Gazeta SNG (Russia)
Reference ”У нас есть много, что рассказать по Беслану...”, by Shamil Basayev, Gazeta, August 31, 2005.
Summary In order to make a good choice and good decisions you’ve got to be independent. The supporters and brothers that criticise me are not only dependent but hostages of the countries that have granted asylum to them. If they speak freely, they can be send to the Russians very quickly. They are the hostages of this wrong policy implemented since the beginning of the war; they believe they’re protected and supported by the West. The whole mistake is related to this.
We have all witnessed the complaints of the “Rus.” [ 2] after my interview granted to Babitsky. All these because I repeated the demands of the martyrs of Beslan: “the withdrawal of the troops or the resignation of Putin.” Logic showed it was better not to say anything about Beslan but, why ignoring a successfull operation that showed the real “Rus?” Why being resposible for something that had nothing to do with us?
This attack was induced by those in charge of Northern Ossetia’s special services that ínfiltrated their agent Abdullah Jodov, known as “Putnik,” into our forces. Jodov was arrested during the funeral of a brother and he had no choice but to choose between going to jail and torture or collaborating with them. To get my trust, they helped him to organize some attacks in Vladikavkaz. By following the orders of the Russian services, Jodov proposed us to launch a kamikaze operation in the Parliament of Northern Ossetia. A month later, Jodov confessed he worked for the FSB. Then, we met and I proposed him to work as a double agent on behalf of Islam. Immediately, he talked to his bosses and complained for our lack of confidence in him. Then, they helped him to organize more important attacks. Since the spring of 2004, and along with the Russian services, we prepare the attack against the Ossetian Parliament whcih was planned for September 6, the date of Ichkeria’s independence. What was planned was that special services were going to eliminate us on our way out of Vladikavkaz, but when a new corridor was opened on August 31, we went to Beslan thus changing the moment and the place of the operation.
We’re prepared for an international investigation about Beslán and we have an alive participant that can testify as a witness. We must put an end to meaningless discussions and identify our real enemies such as Michka Gutseriev who plundered the country during the first war and is doing it at present too. It was him who armed Kadyrov with the purpose of controlling the Chechen oil, it was him who gave 5 million dollars to Aljanov, it was him who paid to the police forces in Beslan, who guaranteed there would be no assault. Thanks to all these, Gutseriev could buy two oilfields in Siberia.
Today, we are not fighting the Russian people, we’re fighting “Rusism”, that schizophrenic and imperialist ideology; a mixture of racism and chauvinism, among other things.
“God, nobody knows what happened?”
Author
Kim Tsagolov
 |
|
Kim Tsagolov was born in North Ossetia. A Phd in Philosophy, participated in the war in Afghanistan. He was expelled from the army in 1989 because of his strong criticism in the Afghan campagin. He participated in the Georgian-Ossetian clash of 1989-1991 against Georgians. He was also the assistance of the Minister of Nationalities of Russia between 1993 and 1998. He quit all his posts and nowadays, he directs the Institute of the Russian Peoples.
|
Source
Gazeta (Fédération de Russie)
Reference “ Там хрен знает что натворили”, by Kim Tsagolov, Gazeta, August 15, 2005. Text adapted from an interview.
Summary The fact that the Russians are not that welcomed in the Caucasian North is quite exagerated. There is no one from the Federation in that region whose blood is not Russian in a 50, 60 and 70%. Of course, there was the war in Chechen in which the local power and the Federals made a lot of mistakes, unforgetable mistakes. What is happening in Daguestan is a war. The Chechen influence and that of its armed groups there is important.
That war in Chechen is linked to many aspects, although not only internal ones, but externals too. Those who support the Chechen opposition know what they are doing very well. If Basáyev had no support abroad, he wouldn’t have remain in power. Let’s see the Babitsky case, how he got there? Who let him do it?
I think this idea of enlarging regions is good. My view is the following: nowadays, there are 89 subjects in the Federation and I believe that after the reforms only 50 would be ‘alive’. We still don’t know what regions are going to be added but I think North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria and Adiguey for they are already a flank of Russia in the Caucasus.
“Islamists, get Out!”
Author
Daniel Pipes
Sources
Jerusalem Post (Israel), New York Sun (United States), The Australian (Australia)
Reference “Islamists, Get Out”, by Daniel Pipes, New York Sun, August 30, 2005.
“Alert West shows door to Islamists”, The Australian, August 31, 2005.
“Civilizational heart of the matter”, Jerusalem Post, August 31, 2005.
Summary Due to the attacks in London, Westerners have begun to widely discuss the problem of the radical Islam. In many European countries, they wonder what is tolerable or not in the attitude of Muslims, but measures are still too few. Last week, the same day, two important western politicians went beyond that.
The Minister of Education of the British Conservative Party, David Cameron, referred to the concept of British identity as the definition for “freedom with regard to right” and compared Islamism with Nazism or Communism: totalitarian systems that must be eliminated. On his side, Peter Costello, the Australian Minister of Financing, said: “Australia hope its citizens to maintain their fundamental beliefs: democracy, respect for law, an independent judicial power, freedoms” and invited all those who wanted the Shariah to be the common law to abandon the country.
Like Costello, more and more politicians have demanded the expulsion of all those who refuse to follow those beliefs. The Minister of Defense of the British Conservative Party, Gerald Howarth went even further by demanding the expulsion of all Islamists, including those who were born in Great Britain.
Why wouldn’t the Americans do the same thing?
“Jihadism’s roots in political Islam”
Author
Bassam Tibi
 |
|
Bassam Tibi is professor at the Göttingen and Cornell universities. He wrote Islam between Culture and Politics.
|
Source
International Herald Tribune (France)
Reference ”Jihadism’s roots in political Islam”, by Bassam Tibi, International Herald Tribune, August 30, 2005.
Summary After a terrorist attack perpetrated by jihadiists two kinds of reactions are expected: some affirm the attacks have their roots in Islam whereas the others, especially the Muslim and the political correct westerners, affirm terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Both sides are right.
Perhaps, terrorism has nothing to do with Islam but it is inspired by Islamism, that is, a political analysis of Islam. The very same jihadiists consider himself non-state combatants who have an irregular war against non-believers. They consider their acts are justified by the new interpretation of the Jihad developed by Islamism. Jihad is extremelly defined in the Koran and terrorism has nothing to do with it. However, affirming that Jihadism has nothing to do with Islam is false because Jihadiists see themselves as real believers. That is the reason why the debate regarding terrorism’s Islamic nature or not is meaningless.
Jihadism is a new direction of the Islamic civilization and it is necessary to work with the Muslim community to find out who the Jihadiists are. These are the followers of Hassan Al-Banna and de Sayyed Qutb’ ideas who laied the foundations of Islamism. I am an inmigrant Muslim in Europe and I reject the idea of the “clash of cilizations” but there is a war of ideas, a war of pacific and democratic movements against the global Jihad.
“Not the place to go”
Author
Frank J. Gaffney Jr..
Source
Washington Times (United States)
Reference “Not the place to go”, by Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Washington Times, August 30, 2005.
Summary Karen Hughes works in Washington in the “War of Ideas” against the “evil ideology” best described as Islamofascism. Hughes’ starting point is that not all Muslims are adherents to Islamism and that to defeat it it is necessary to join forces with Muslims who reject the objectives of the Islamists. That is a good approach.
However, alter the attacks in London, the government of Tony Blair has faced the same difficulty faced by the Bush Administration after September 11: how to distinguish Muslims from Islamists. Thus, the Bush Administration has had many contacts with the Abdurhaman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council. This organization has even been in charge of training chaplains for the U.U. military. However, today, is serving a 23-year sentence after having pleaded guilty to charges of trying to kill the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the United States as a financier of Al-Qaeda.
Currently, Karen Hughes is set to address the Islamic Society of North America. It would be a mistake. That organization favors Wahhabism and Islamofascism.
“Multiculturalism is not the culprit”
Author
James A. Goldston
Source
International Herald Tribune (France)
Reference “Multiculturalism is not the culprit”, by James A. Goldston, International Herald Tribune, August 30, 2005.
Summary The French news daily Le Monde Published last week an article entitled “ The British multicultural model in crisis”. Many British people seem to agree with the idea. The July attacks in London prompted a wave of criticism against multiculturalism.
Some politicians have suggested measures after the attacks. Some of the suggestions are justified like scrutinizing more carefully the files of alleged foreign supporters of terrorism who request to enter the country. However, most of the suggested measures are dangerous such as a proposal that would allow deportation of foreign residents for vaguely defined criminal activity or the opening of criminal files based only for a person’s figures. Actually, saying that tolerance has sown the seeds of terrorist activities is nonsense. On the contrary, terrorism flourishes in closed societies, where there is no freedom of political expression or institutions of good governance. The problem is the marginalization of young Muslims, the lack of measures to fight discrimination; not multiculturalism.
For three decades, Great Britain has led Europe in the adoption of antidiscrimination legislation and it has won as loyalty to an adopted nation is better instilled in immigrants when they see equal opportunities. The argument of terrorism is not to be used to question this system.
“Creating Islamist phantoms”
Author
Source
The Guardian (United Kingdom)
Reference “Creating Islamist phantoms”, by Adam Curtis, The Guardian, August 30, 2005.
Summary Last week, the government published rules relating to the deportation of alleged terrorist sympathizers. It is a key element in the struggle against “evil ideology” of Islamism. However, this behavior may lead to a worsening of the situation.
After September 11, we were told that our enemy was a well-organized network. Consequently, it had to be fought militarily and that was the excuse to invade Iraq: to prevent the network from getting weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we are not fighting a network and our actions in Iraq have only inspired resentment against us in that country and in the Middle East. Last year I made a series of documentaries for the BBC, The Power of Nightmares: the Rise of the Politics of Fear, which showed how the fantasy image of Al-Qaeda had been created as a powerful and centralized network that, unlike previous terrorist organizations, could destroy our societies and our democracy. My documentary showed that this network was a bogus menace. Today, after the attacks in London, the “experts” have radically changed their approach and they are now talking about small groups inspired by the same ideology, which seems more real.
However, although we may all agree on the nature of the threat, there is still a risk: that this common ideology concept may be, like the network concept was, exaggerated and distorted to justify policies. Political Islam is a complex movement and you may disagree with Islamism but it does not mean that there is an inherent link between Islamism and terrorism. Having a reactionary vision of Islam does not necessarily mean that it implies a violent action. If we start acting in an unjustifiable way against the ideas of Islamism it would only make it more attractive for young Muslims who lack models.
“Who benefits from the attacks in London?”
Author
Samih Saab
|
Samih Saab is a journalist for the Lebanese news daily Annahar.
|
Source
Annahar (Lebanon)
Reference “من المستفيد؟ تفجيرات لندن,” by Samih Saab, Annahar, July 7, 2005.
Summary The attacks in London have again given some credibility to those who, along with George W. Bush, called for a world war on terrorism. Before the attacks in London, the Americans had already started to wonder about the real reasons of the war against Iraq. It has been proven that there were no links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks. Going to war in Iraq, using false excuses, caused a notable reduction of Bush’s popularity. And the situation was similar for Tony Blair in the domestic and international political arena, particularly after lying to his people about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Right after the explosions in Madrid, the Spanish Prime Minister, who had been just elected, complied with his promise of pulling his troops out of Iraq. Bush’s appeals did not stop him. On the contrary, the withdrawal of the British troops in Iraq are not even considered, although the reason for the attacks in London, according to those who claimed responsibility, was the presence of British troops in Muslim countries. Before the attacks in London, it is probable that most of the British people asked themselves why Blair abandoned his European allies and joined Bush in an exhausting war at al levels: humanitarian, material…etc. Although the explosions in London represented another argument to establish a link between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, they have also showed the dirtiness of such war in the framework of the “war of civilizations”.
Blair has declared that the attacks in London were carried out in the name of Islam, even when most Muslims condemned them. Actually, this declaration is a call on Muslims to multiply their efforts to put an end to extremism, which does not distinguish among Europeans, Americans or Arabs, as it happened in the case of the Egyptian diplomat killed in Iraq. Anyway, the attacks have been another argument for Bush who insists that his war in Iraq a part of a global war on terror, an excuse that began to tumble with the July 7 attacks and that is not convincing Americans anymore. What happened that morning of July in London allowed Blair to breathe and to get out of the difficult situation in which he was in due to his alliance with Bush.
“The British government may be behind the attacks in London”
Author
Ahmad Janati
 |
|
Ultraconservative ayatollah Ahmad Janati is the head of the Council of Guardians of the Revolution, institutional and conservative pillar of the Iranian regime.
|
Source
Asharqalawsat
Reference “آية الله جنتي: الحكومة البريطانية قد تكون وراء تفجيرات لندن”, by Ahmad Janati, Asharqalawsat, July 16, 2005. Text adapted from an interview.
Summary The hypothesis of a possible involvement of the Blair Administration in the July 7 attacks in London continues to be valid.
Another theory points to Al Qaeda as responsible for those attacks, but, who created Al Qaeda? George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Consequently, these two men should be judged as that terrorist group is their hidden child. A second version has the British government linked to the attacks, similar to the one that links the US administration to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Thus, in order to understand what is really happening, you have to wonder: who benefits from these events? In the past, the United States took advantage of the September 11 terrorist attacks and, today, the British do.
The war on terrorism serves them as an excuse for the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries around the world. In addition, the United States has been in Iraq for over two years and it continues to be one of the most insecure places on Earthy. That is why the Americans, the Israelis and the Europeans should be ashamed of witnessing such attacks in their own countries and doing nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Information base about the 9/11th attacks
Information base about Gulf wars
|
|
