#16 - JRL 9098 - JRL Home
From: "P.P. Sharikov" <ppsharikov@hotmail.com>
Subject: Response to Robert Bruce Ware (#9097) [re:
Chechnya, Maskhadov, Akhmadov]
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005
Many who read JRL know Robert Bruce Ware to be a consistent critic of pundits who write on the North Caucasus without engaging in field research. Recently, however, Ware has shifted away from his research on the inherent stability of the Dagestani political system to comment on Chechen politics, speculating from afar about Aslan Maskhadov’s and Ilias Akhmadov’s moral responsibility for everything from Shamil Basaev’s invasion of Dagestan to Basaev’s bloody fiascos at Dubrovka and Beslan. Last week, Ware published a highly partisan obituary in The Moscow Times entitled “Maskhadov the Terrorist” and has followed it up this week with a renewed call to deport Akhmadov abroad (JRL #9097).
Ware has written much in recent years about Maskhadov’s and Akhmadov’s failings during their republic’s brief period of autonomy on the basis of hearsay, gossip and inference rather than rigorous fieldwork. He’s shown less interest in discussing the Chechen government’s general impotence during this time, the Russian Federation’s refusal to honor the spirit of the 1996 Khasavyurt agreement, or the Russian security services’ quiet program of dirty tricks and economic wrecking, apparently intent on holding Maskhadov and Akhmadov to a standard of transparency and openness that no other regional politician or commandant recognizes, even in Dagestan.
Few have ever argued that Maskhadov and Akhmadov were consistent, principled civil servants who represented their unrecognized republic in strict accord with the constitution under which Maskhadov was elected. Maskhadov, after all, was an inexperienced politician who was forced by exigency into ad hoc decisions and awkward compromises, forever outgunned and outfoxed by Russian security forces and the radicals nominally subordinate to his command. A regional specialist, Ware is well aware of such nuances and should know better than to traffic in inflammatory analogies to Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh or the Taliban.
Back when Ware was still focusing on the subject of his fieldwork, his writing was well-informed, nuanced and supported by empirical data. He took pride in this academic rigor and didn’t hesitate to denounce colleagues whom he felt were engaging in uninformed speculation. Now, however, Ware speaks with misplaced confidence about Maskhadov’s and Akhmadov’s radicalization and their deep involvement in insurgent activities while claiming without substantiation in the Moscow Times that the Chechen president enjoyed the sympathy of only 30 percent of Chechen society at the end of his life and would have won just 10 percent of the vote in the 2004 elections if he had been allowed to run.
Of course, Maskhadov was not allowed to participate in the political process and has now been killed, neutralized like his moderate allies Akhmadov and Akhmed Zakaev in exile abroad. But if Maskhadov’s death can only further polarize the situation in Chechnia, at least his passing should provide Ware with an opportunity to return to his research on the progressive world of Dagestani politics.