Sveiks, Andrej Komendantov,
Thanks for your commentary on Ozolins' commentary... it's always a pleasure to read your thoughts, and I hope to see many a post from you!
On this issue, we definitely disagree. Here, from today's Diena, is part of a letter by one Zigurds Mežavilks, entitled "Dudajevs puča laikā glāba baltiešus" -- it gives the essence of why many if not most Latvians wanted to name a street after Dzhokhar Dudayev after his assassination by the Russians:
Atgādinu, ka padomju ģenerālis Džohars Dudajevs komandēja kaujas divīziju Tartu un puča laikā, parādot izcilu drošsirdību, atteicās pakļauties pučistiem ar armijas virspavēlnieku Sazovu priekšgalā un slepkavot igauņu un latviešu patriotus. Viņš bija legāli ievēlēts savas republikas prezidents, kura patstāvīgā politika nepatika Kremļa varasvīriem, un tie bez sirdsapziņas pārmetumiem organizēja Čečenijas Republikas ielenkumu, agresiju. Domāju, ka Tartu joprojām ir piemineklis šim drošsirdīgajam čečenu tautas vadonim, tautas, kuras pārstāvjus tagad vajā krievu šovinisti. Tas ļoti līdzinās nacismam.
If I'm not mistaken, there is or was a Dudayev Street in either Vilnius or Tallinn also -- Vidai? There is a caucus for the support of Chechnya in the Saeima and an informal mission of Maskhadov's government here, and a few years ago a number of members of Ichkeria's elected parliament visited Latvia -- part of the proceedings were televised, and the Chechen representatives made a very good impression on most of us.
Yes, Dudayev was a Soviet general -- just as many who fought for Latvian independence from 1918-20 had served as officers in foreign armies. That experience helped Dudayev lead the defence of his country. Dudayev was also a very atypical Soviet officer -- the fact that he learned Estonian is a stunning example of that.
He's definitely a controversial figure, even among his countrymen -- many blame him for allowing Chechnya to descend into chaos and for forging alliances with organised crime. But -- who's going to sort out the truth in a history that's very much in the making? It's a natural Latvian reaction to suspect information sanctioned by the Kremlin -- one need only read much of what was and is said about Latvian nationalism in the Russian press to understand why. One can read a lot of terrible things about the Chechen nationalists -- but where is most of it coming from?
Here is an excerpt from an article I highly recommend, Mel Huang's "Chechnya: An Honorary Baltic State," in a 1999 issue of Central Europe Review -- http://www.ce-review.org/99/24/amber24.html
The most startling difference of opinion can be seen in young people. The public finally began to notice after a shocking revelation in the Estonian daily Postimees on 11 November, in which secondary-school graduates from both Estonian-language and Russian-language schools were asked their views on Chechnya.
Here are some examples of what Estonian-school graduates said:
"Does Russia have to occupy all of Chechnya to catch a few terrorists, while many civilians are also killed in the war? Many villages have been levelled to the ground, and huge caravans of refugees are awaiting their fate at the border."
"Russians need this piece of land only for oil. They want to take it by force and therefore kill and torture innocent people."
"This is not just Russia's internal affair. It is a war which will only make Russia bolder, if it is successful, and then nothing can guarantee Baltic independence any more."
"Chechens are right in any case, because in the contemporary world it should be only natural that each nation decides on its own whether to be independent or not."
"The fact that Chechens can be associated with a few terrorist acts does not give Russia the right to annihilate the whole nation."
"Russia pokes its nose into things where it is not needed. Unless measures are taken, World War III will probably break out soon."
"Chechnya has problems with Russia again. But who doesn't?"
And here a few comments from Russian-language secondary school graduates:
"If the problem of Chechnya cannot be solved peacefully, the enemy has to be destroyed for good. Russia must act even more brutally!"
"For each Russian soldier killed or captured, one Chechen village must be destroyed. Only this way can Russia maintain order and its integrity. How long can one bullshit with Chechnya?!"
"If only Putin had not been dismissed, because he was the one who began to lift Russia from its knees."
"There can be only one solution: level Chechnya to the ground, so that there is no trace left of it, and kill all the people. That is cruel, but war is cruel."
"There can be no state of Chechnya - this is land belonging to the state of Russia, and Russia has the right to enforce order for normal people to live peacefully."
"As soon as Chechnya secedes, it will immediately bring US troops to its territory, and together they will demolish Russia. The whole of Chechnya should be sent to hell so that everyone would learn how to behave toward Russians."
"Russia has no right to wage a war under the pretext of bombing terrorists so that peaceful villages are destroyed and civilians get killed."
Most of the comments from the Russian-speaking graduates seem horrific and brutal, but if one watches Russian TV, one sees that this very much represents normal public opinion in the country. However, the last quote does give some hope.
That's an amazing example of how polarised Baltic residents are along ethnic and cultural lines, and that polarisation is again everywhere evident -- I've been asked my opinion by bank tellers and grocery store clerks in the past couple of days, while my wife remarks that none of her ethnic Russian colleagues have brought the subject up.
Among Latvians, there was intense sympathy for the Chechens in the mid-nineties. Atis Klimovičs' reports countered Kremlin propaganda. When the Saeima refused to consider accepting Chechen refugees, Sinka and Vidiņš asked people to adopt Chechen children -- the response was swift and considerable.
Part of the reason many Latvians mistrust the government's foreign policy is its near silence on thorny issues. Many people feel that it is our sacred duty to defend the Chechens' right to self-determination in the way that Iceland defended ours. No doubt there is reason to assume that not a little of this sentiment is mixed with a desire on the part of many to stick it to the Russkies -- the choice of Kosmonautikas gatve in Purvciems as the location of Dudajeva gatve, an area where many unabashed colonists and not a few retired officers live, was likely guided by that aspect. On the other hand, the streets of central Rīga, with the exception of that part of Marijas iela rechristened after Aleksandrs Čaks and the now polonised names of Stettin and Danzig Streets in Mežaparks, almost all bear their historical names from the period of independence, and that was never a triviality -- restoring their names was an important event during the Awakening. Purvciems also possesses a Sakharov Street since the Soviet names were stricken -- Sakharov doesn't have much to do with Latvia, and according to some people I know made remarks about the processes here that were distinctly questionable.
Yes, one can make a reasonable argument that men like Dudayev were responsible for the chaos and death in Chechnya today. I would agree that they were partly responsible, though the bulk of the blame can be placed squarely on the shoulders of Russian imperialsm, chauvinism, and racism. I'm not a pacifist, and I dare say that most of the people who want Dudayev Street renamed again aren't, either. The government of Chechnya in 1991 supported the coup attempt against Gorbachev. If they'd had their way, there would have been a different bloodbath there, no doubt. At the time, there was solidarity between everyone resisting Moscow's rule. The period was marked by violence in Baku, Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia and other places. Latvia escaped that partly through luck and partly through our commitment to peace and democracy, and the nature of our society. I have severe doubts about whether Chechnya could have escaped it with or without taking the course it took -- it takes two to tango, and two to dance a dance of death. If Russia had bid Ichkeria adieu and allowed it access to the tools of nation-building, who knows what could have been. I cannot judge the dynamics there -- only someone who has lived there can do that, probably -- but Dudayev obviously took the course he took for a reason, and I don't think anyone's independence is "pretense". The words "bandit" and "terrorist" mean very little in Russian -- they're words used to describe most anyone who takes up arms against the Russian meat grinder, just as "fascist" is used to describe anyone opposed to Sovietism, or sometimes any Balt.
Boris Kagarlitsky, a sociologist writing in the Moscow Times, concludes his column on what just happened in Moscow like this:
The percentage of Russians supporting the war in Chechnya had been falling monthly, but the push for a peaceful solution had not developed into a popular anti-war movement. The hostage crisis changed this situation. Many people who used to criticize the war in private stepped up and made their views known. Relatives of the hostages formed an anti-war committee. This was not the result of "Stockholm Syndrome," when victims identify with their captors, or an attempt to please the kidnappers. The morning after the raid, representatives of the anti-war committee affirmed their intention to continue protesting the war.
The authorities sensed a threat, not from the gunmen, but from society -- the first real threat of Putin's presidency. Urgent measures were needed, and they were taken. The crisis made everything clear. The current regime will never agree to peace under any circumstances. While the current president and his team are in power, Russia will be at war.
Visu labu,
/P
Having problems with message search?
Offline 
Send Email