For years the US and its intelligence
services have championed the
Chechen cause legitimizing terrorism
as righteous resistance. But after news
that the two alleged Boston bombers
were of Chechen origin, the story took on a new political dimension. How Boston has changed the language In the last 48 hours, an astounding change has occurred in the
lexicon of the mainstream media in the United States, as
Chechen Islamists are no longer being referred to as rebels
and freedom fighters. In the wake of the news that
Chechens were involved in the Boston bombing (an assertion
that has not actually been proven despite the media having already convicted the Tsarnaev brothers), the language
immediately shifted. The Associated Press, Reuters, and
countless other media and news outlets have published
articles discussing the jihadist threat from places like
Chechnya where suicide attacks, blood feuds, and hostage
crises are routine. Though this description of the terrorist element in Chechnya is
quite correct, it seems to be directly in conflict with the
language used to describe that same group a matter of weeks
ago. In late January 2013, the NY Times carried a story from
Reuters entitled Rebels Killed in Chechnya in which terrorist leaders Khuseyn and Muslim Gakayev were referred to astwo
of the most wanted Islamist rebels. The use of the
wordrebels is a clever propaganda ploy used to legitimize
their cause in the minds of readers, portraying a terrorist war
as simply a resistance struggle. This is precisely the same strategy used in almost all Western
media coverage of the conflict in Syria, where NATO-backed
terrorists are consistently referred to as rebels, activists,
and revolutionaries. Going back further, Osama Bin Laden
and the mujahideen, which came to be known as Al-Qaeda,
were described as freedom fighters when fighting the Soviet Union, and then magically transformed into terrorists
once they turned their ire toward the US. What becomes clear
is that the language used by the mainstream media serves the
political agenda of US and the Western imperial powers.
However, language is only one facet of this issue, as the
relationship between the United States and terrorism in Chechnya is much more than mere words. US connections Despite more than a decade of protestations from Moscow, the
United States has long supported the cause of Chechen
terrorism under the guise of freedom fighting. In an interview with CNBC on Friday April 19th, former New York Mayor and prominent right wing politician Rudolph Giuliani
stated, Weve been, Im not going to say sympathetic with
them, but weve certainly been critical of Putin and how far
hes gone in dealing with Chechnya
I would imagine there
are people in Russia who believe that [the US] has been
somewhat unrealistic about the Chechens. Though Giuliani uses the termunrealisticto describe the US
establishments attitude toward the Chechen terrorist
networks, in fact the State Department, along with prominent
individuals from both sides of the political establishment, has
provided aid, assistance and propaganda for the Chechen
cause. Prosecutors in Finland revealed last year that one of the most prominent Chechen extremist websites, Kavkaz
Center, was funded directly by the US State Department. The
site, universally recognized as the mouthpiece of terrorist
leader Doku Umarovs Emarat Kavkaz (Caucasus Emirate),
disseminates propaganda that portrays terrorists
asheroesand Russian victims of terror aspuppets. It should also be noted that the United Nations has listed Emarat Kavkaz as an organization associated with Al-Qaeda. This should raise
serious questions about the nature of the relationship
between this organization and the political ruling class in the
United States. However, this represents merely one of the
ways in which Washington has been a primary force driving
the Chechen terror movement the connections run much deeper. Despite the fact that organs such as Kavkaz Center operate in
the service of terrorists who advocate the destruction of
Russia, their activity alone is not altogether significant if seen
in a vacuum. Rather, it is the association of these types of
individuals and organizations with the US State Department
and US intelligence community that makes them particularly insidious. One such entity that bears scrutiny is the American
Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (ACPC), previously known as the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. As reported by Right Web at the Institute for Policy Studies,The ACPC was founded in 1999 by Freedom House, a
neoconservative organization that has worked closely with
the US government, receiving funds from the National Endowment for Democracy and other U.S. democratization initiatives. This intimate relationship between the ACPC and
the US State Department indicates not merely a confluence of
interests, but rather a direct relationship wherein the former is
an organ of the latter. The ACPC has taken the lead in championing the cause of
separatism and terrorism directed toward Russia, both tacitly
and overtly. After having championed the cause of former
Chechen Foreign Minister Ilyas Akhmadov in his quest for asylum in the United States subsequently granted along with
a generous taxpayer-funded stipend ACPC member and
notorious Russia-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski went so far as to
write the foreword to Akhmadovs book The Chechen
Struggle. The alliance between political figures such as
Akhmadov and terrorist leaders in the region demonstrates conclusively the partnership between the various terror
networks and the imperialist ruling class in the West. As more information comes out regarding the alleged bombers
and their ideological leanings, there will undoubtedly be a
propaganda assault to shape this narrative in the interests of
the United States and the West. Talking heads will be on
television twenty four hours a day explaining to Americans
why Chechnya is such a hotbed of terrorism, asking how something like this could happen, etc. The truth is however,
Washington has perpetuated the conflict through its
propaganda machine that will now be employed to once again
turn friend to enemy. Perhaps, instead of being the worlds
greatest purveyor of terror, using it as a weapon to achieve
geostrategic objectives, the United States should actually work with peaceful nations such as Russia to combat terrorism
worldwide. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column
are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
