If we compare the reaction of
Westem leaders to the rnili-
tary invasion of Chechnya
with their reaction to the invasion of
Afghanistan 15 years earlier (which
nearly led us into the Third World War),
it strongly appears that there is Western
connivance with, if not instigation of,
the Russian govermnent's actions.
Why has the government of Boris Yeltsin
been so determined to crush the resis-
tance in Chechnya, and why have the
governments of Bill Clinton, @ohn Major
and Helmut Kohl-to name a few-
been so quiet about what is going on
there? Among the many possible an-
swers to these questions, one should ring
alarm bells for anyone trying to make
sense of what was called (at the time of
the Gulf War) the "New World Order"
In two words: oil and Islam.
Of course, the New World Order is not
really all that different from the old one.
Wars have always been fought over vital
resources as well as over religion. But the
sudden collapse of the Soviet bloc
pushed Western p-oliticians and military
strategists into the desperate search for a
new "enemy" to justify the continuation
of conscript arrnies, hig@ military spend-
ing and the occasional war here and
there.
Is Chechnya Kuwait or is it Iraq?
If you go to Chechnya, you will hear
constant references to the Gulf War. But
what @he Che@hens see as the companson
is the big neighbour (run by the hated
dictator) invading a small harmless
country, which should, according to the
Gulf War precedent, be followed by the
rest of the world coming to the aid of the
small harmless country to push the big
neighbour back out again. Another way
of making the comparison would be to
see Chechnya as the defiant, renegade
Muslim country with significant oil re-
serves and refining capacity which must
be brought, at all cost, under the control
of the West (in this case, via ClintonJs pal,
Boris).
Chechnya does have its own reserves of
oil and natural gas, but although these
would be sufficient to make an inde-
pendent Chechnya wealthier than might
otherwise be expected, they are not sig-
nificant in global terms. The huge oil re-
fineries and petro-chemical complexes in
Chechnya were more significant, reput-
edly producing before the war 92 per cent
of all the high-octane aviation fuel used
by the Russian air force. (Ironically it was
the Russian air force which put these
plants out of action in January of this
year.) sut what may be most significant
of all in global strategic terms is not the
oil in Chechnya itself but the oil which
passes through Chechnya.
Around the Caspian Sea, mainly on the
territory of the newly-independent state
of Azerbaijan, are oil reserves apparently
as large as in the whole of the Middle
East. In other words, this is an area of
strategic important for the supply of oil
to the West well into the next century.
And at present, the two main ports for the
Caspian oil basin are Baku, in Azerbaijan,
and Tengiz, in Kazakhstan. The main
pipelines from Baku and Tengiz to the
West both run right through the centre
of, you guessed it, the Chechen capital
Grozny.
By-pass surgery
Just last month an international consor-
tium of oil giants agreed in London to
invest $10 billion in building a new pipe-
Iine that would run from Baku through
Georgia and Turkey to the West, by-pass-
ir@g Chechnya altogether. This was the
culmination of many months of interna-
tional negotiations, during which Russia
@L ,.@
through its existing Chechnya route. Per-
haps Russia was given a deadline to have
the "little mess" in Chechnya cleared up
before another pipeline would have to be
built? If so, the deadline passed and Rus-
sia lost out. In any case there is only one
pipeline at present, and that pipeline
could wellbewhattheChechnya warhas
been all about.
If it is true that the war in Chechnya has
more to do with oil, and the Muslim con-
trol of oil, than with ethnicity or inde-
pendence, what are the implications of
this? After all, Azerbaijan and
Kazakhstan, where the oil really is, are
both Muslim countries also, but they, un-
like Chechnya, are internationally-recog-
nised independent states. The recent US
agreement to alter the Conventional
Forces in Europe treaty in Russia's fa-
vour means that Russia is "allowed" to
keep large troop concentrations perma-
nently in the Caucasus region. Through-
out the war in Chechnya, the Russian
military has reiterated its intention to
withdraw its troops from the region as
soonasa settlementisreached.Buton the
ground in Chechnya it looks very much
more like those troo@s are settling in to
stay, building highly fortified barracks
and defensive outposts all over the coun-
try. Perhaps Chechnya is not only the
route from which the oil passes from
Baku, but also the route to which any
Russian military influence will pass to
Baku?
The Russian claw-back
There is a real danger, recognised by
growing nurnbers of people in all the
newly independent states of the former
Soviet Union, that Russia will try, one
way or another, to "take back" the terito-
ries of the Soviet Union it lost in the 1991
break-up. Waging war on the scale and
ferocity thatithas done in Chechnya, and
then massing troops on its borders with
Azerbaijan and other former Soviet re-
publics, is in itself a barely disguised
threat to those republics. The real irony
is that such behaviour on the part of their
former "enemy" should be accepted, al-
most to the point of encouragement, by
the West, under the new rules of the New
World Order, in which Russia is the
friend, and the oil-rich Muslim countries
@;@a@
Kazakhstan are the potential enemy.
This is a game the Western military can
play without too much fear of losing,
since the collapse of the New World Or-
der would only bring us back to the Old
World Order, in which Russia is once
again the familiar enemy, and any enemy
of theirs (Bosnians, Chechens, Azerbai-
janis, and so forth) suddenly our friends
again. The pendulum could swing either
way over the next few months and years,
but in either case, where does it leave
anti-militarists and peace movements?
We must resist the fear that we are some-
how playing into the hands of the old
Cold War logic by painting Russia as a
dangerous aggressor. Naked military ag-
gression, involving invasion and occupa-
tion by military forces of any territory
whether already technically part of one's
own country or not, the carpet bombing
of cities and towns, the shelling and
shooting of civilians and cattle, the tar-
geting of water and food supplies,
schools, hospitals, market places and
public transport depots-these are
cnmes against humanity and must be
loudly condemned whenever and wher-
ever they occur.
Rather than condemning "Russia" for
crimes ordered by a few politicians at the
top who do not have the support of their
own population, perhaps we should be
focusing our condemnation on the lead-
ers of our own countries for not standing
up unequivocally against such crimes.
We should be demanding to know why
our own governments have been so silent
about this war-what are they hiding?
And if we rieed some slogans to cam-
paign against the war in Chechnya, how
about dusting off a few from the Gulf
War-"No Blood for Oil" would make
a good start!
FREEDOM PRESS
http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/Freedom