Legacy of an empire

In considering political conflicts between Russia and the republic of Chechnya, Ukraine or any other part of the former Russian empire, one important common denominator should always be kept in mind: those non-Russian states had all been conquered at one time or another by either tsarist Russia or its successor state the Soviet Union. I think one should not make the distinction between the now independent "union-republic" of the former Soviet Union such as Ukraine and Kazakhstan on one hand, and the "autonomous republics" of Chechnya, Daghestan, Tatarstan etc. of the Russian Federation (which was the most important union republic) on the other hand. The reason being that politically or morally all those conquered territories should be free and independent, regardless of the rather arbitrary distinction in their republican status.

In the light of the foregoing consideration, I find it deeply disappointing that Indonesia and some other countries should have taken an overly legalistic standpoint by saying that Chechnya is strictly an internal affair of Russia while at the same time recognizing the independence of the former union republics like Ukraine, Uzbekistan etc. The Indonesian Foreign Minister seems to have overlooked the simple point that Chechnya, being a nation conquered by the Russian empire, should be allowed to regain its independence just like the other non-Russian republics which had been similarly subjugated. Indeed, from a legalistic point of view, our own war of independence against the Dutch colonialists in 1945-1949 could well have been perceived by some outsiders as strictly an internal affair of the Dutch, but that did not prevent countries such as India and Australia helping us win our freedom. I am convinced that Indonesia's stand on Chechnya, as recently expressed by the Foreign Minister, is really unjustified, especially considering the fact that Indonesia is the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement and the upholder of the Pancasila principles.

Although it may displease certain Russian ultranationalists, I believe it would be politically wise and expedient for Russia to free not only Chechnya but also most of the other 20 autonomous republics of the Russian Federation. These mainly Moslem republics have not only rejected the Federal Treaty proposed by President Yeltsin in March 1992 (which would have regulated the division of power between Moscow and the local governments) but asserted their strong desire to secede from Russia. They include the Caucasian speaking Chechnya, Ingushetia and Daghestan in Northern Caucasus, as well as the important Turkic speaking republics of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and Chuvashia in the Volga- Ural region. By freeing all these areas, Russia would lose merely 1.5 percent of its gigantic territory of 17.1 million square kilometers, whereas the percentage of ethnic Russians within Russia would increase from the present 82 percent to approximately 90 percent.

Much more importantly, however, Russia would be relieved of millions of alien and often hostile subjects and at the same time gain the deep sympathy and goodwill of 54 Moslem countries throughout the world. But if the Russians emphasize the question of territorial integrity and oppose the secession of Chechnya, Tatarstan etc., why is it that Russia has tacitly or even overtly supported the secessionist movements of the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Abkhasians in Georgia?

MASLI ARMAN

Jakarta