Focus 580; The Passions of National Identity and Ethnic Conflict

Good morning and welcome back to the second hour of focus 580 our morning talk show my name's David Inge. Glad to have you with us the producers for this program Harriet Williams and Travis Stansell and Jason Croft is at the controls. It seems that much of the violent conflict in the world today has either nationalist or cultural dimensions in some cases both. And there would have been a time there certainly was a time when a lot of scholars believe that as more countries industrialized became modern become part of the global economy that ethnic conflict would simply disappear. However it seems the contrary is true. It seems that these kinds of conflicts only have become more intense and raise the question Can ethnic warfare be prevented. And what sort of role is there for outsiders to play in trying to mediate these kinds of conflicts. These are a couple of the questions that we'll discuss in this part of focus 580. As we talk with Ronald Suni He's professor of political science and history at the University of Chicago and is

particularly interested in the history of the Soviet Union and Russia and their various republics that made up the Soviet Union. He's authored a couple of books dealing with these subjects including the revenge of the past nationalism revolution and the collapse of the Soviet Union and another the Soviet experiment Russia the USSR and the successor states. And he's particularly been interested in in his research and writing on non Russian nationalities of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union particularly those of the Caucasus. He's here visiting the campus is going to give a talk. He has a visit sponsored both by the folks at the Russian and East European Center and also the departments of political science history and the folks in the program in arms control disarmament and International Security. I think I've mentioned everybody he's giving a talk on the topic why we hate you know the passions of national identity and ethnic conflict that will take place this afternoon at 4 o'clock at 1 0 1 of The International Studies building and I'm sure that anyone who is interested in attending should feel

welcome to stop by and here of course on this program. Your questions are welcome. We just asked people to try to keep comments brief questions to the point that will really help us and including as many people as possible and keep the program moving here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Well thank you very much. Happy to be here being here. Maybe the place to start is with this idea that I guess it's sort of my impression my understanding that there were there were a lot of people who said you know as the world becomes more modern as nations industrialized nations become part of a global economy that the kinds of conflict along ethnic lines that we have seen in the past people say well that's just that's just going to go away. That's going to fade away and it hasn't. If anything it seems that we see more and more of those kinds of conflicts. So that really raises the question why.

Why is it that this kind of conflict seems to be on the increase and with us more and more. Well first of all you're absolutely right that in fact there were these predictions both by sort of liberal modernization theorists people who thought that was majority what would become important is you know social wellbeing. Other problems of the economy and so forth and if the city would fade as a mark of distinction and also among Marxist you know and socialist theories as well that you know with modernization class would become important. All of these things the idea of the melting pot was prevalent in American political thought. It turns out that many of these ideas were just sort of wrongheaded. Now even though we're entering a globalized world you know so in some ways national boundaries do seem less important. At the same time it's very clear that since 145 ethnic conflict it's sort of intra state rather than interstate

conflict has grown it turns out we know statistically that whereas up to nine hundred forty five. Up to the end of World War 2 most people were killed in interstate wars in World War 1 World War 2 you're talking about 16 million in the first woman about 40 or so million in the second world war since 1945 it turns out most people are now being killed. And we're talking about hundreds of thousands and millions of people in civil wars and ethnic conflicts. Suicide bombings you know those kinds of things that is interstate wars the kind that we just had with Iraq is in fact you know on the downswing sort of thing we should be thankful for that. Right. But since since 45 largely in some part because of the standoff between the two great superpowers right during the Cold War at least there was a balance of terror and the big states didn't fight one another you had to sort of brush wars in third world wars and so on. So you're asking a very difficult question first of all right you're right. It's on the increase and it's not

accidental the people who study or do study international affairs have turned to the study of ethnic conflict and nationals and using many of those tools and then the question is why why is this so. And there are a lot of different answers to this. One is that it states that if first of all in the process of decolonization. It is when great empires sort of gave up power over you know other societies tribal societies mixed societies of all kinds and empires were pretty good about mixing people together because there weren't borders between different nationalities or ethnicities. When those empires gave up power there was a kind of state of what you might call anarchy that is there was no overriding authority now to keep different people from going to each other's throat. And so in fact you know you take something like the Russian Empire or the Soviet empire. When when the Soviet Union collapsed Armenians in Azerbaijan he's now sort of took

off after one another and Ukrainians and Russians they settled there their conflicts you know relatively peacefully or tars and Russians settled them pretty peacefully but there were conflicts place like Chechnya however and Russia. There was no resolution of our problem and they've gone to war and tens of thousands of people have been killed so that's one big reason for that. One of the things that I think makes this confusing and difficult to understand is that I'm not certain that there is any conflict that's purely ethnic. Good point. And that there are you know when you look at the things that people fight about in a lot of these conflicts it seems that they're fighting about the same things that people always fight about who gets the good stuff. You know it's about who gets who is who is in charge who has the control of the important resources. And that. Maybe some people would say well yes it's true that some of these conflicts that we see with within states that as groups

that are competing within states really don't have as much to do with ethnicity as they might seem that what they're really about is about struggles for power and leaders within various groups using some cases nationalist tensions that have been latent for a long time. Fanning the flames and using that to get what they want which is power. I think a lot of people have said that's that's the short explanation of what happened in the former Yugoslavia. This is a very shrewd point I think you're actually right on the right track. That is first of all if you look at much journalism or you look at some what I would call relatively conservative views of ethnic conflict. Then you see that they talk about things like ancient tribal struggles you know conflicts that go back into the primeval past or something of the sort as if you know these conflicts are simply renewals of old conflicts. And many people who write about the fall of empire the end of the Servian say well you know the Soviets put this lid on conflict but it's the

same people hating each other. Well it turns out yes there are conflicts that repeat old conflicts and you're more likely to get a conflict between two groups at the present time. Well there had been conflict in the past so there is some correlation there. But in fact these conflicts when you when you actually do a kind of what we call in political science a large and study or you do lots of different cases statistically you find out that ethnicity or culture is not a particularly strong predictor of conflict. Things are predictors you know. For instance the more prosperous an area is the less likely you are to get conflict. The more democratic in areas the less likely you are to get conflict. And here's a good one for you. The more mountains you have the more likely you are to get play because you can hide in the mountains I mean makes conflict possible. That's always Illinois doesn't have to actually worry about this too much right. But but there are a lot of big predictors like that but there are some. Now it turns out that when you have collapse of

state or you have weak states it is again you don't have this overriding authority then you're likely to get conflict. So even though democracy will tend to lead to non conflict the transition from an authoritarian regime after the fall of an empire to what might be a Democratic. Regime. That is the process of Democrat ization is fraught with conflict. People have to give the rules of the game right. So you've got different peoples around standing around thinking you know what's going to happen in the future. Those guys over there don't look like they're very friendly to us. Maybe we should do something first the idea of proof preemption of acting first and very often that's the problem. But you said something I think very very accurate. The conflicts are mostly about not about my culture has always hated your culture you know or you've done this to us in the past. We want to get redress. But rather over goodies of some kind like territory Armenians and Azerbaijanis have had a conflict now for the last decade over an

area called Cut a box actually happens my grandfather is from that area and they've been fighting over this area this area of Karbala in the Republic of Azerbaijan. In Soviet times but it was full of Armenians 75 plus percent were Armenians. So the Armenians have a claim to that area. That is demographic. You know we are the majority there as about Johnnies have a claim. No that's part of our territory this is territorial integrity international you know law principle. Both of them make historical claims we were here first parent if you got to a place first you have a claim of some kind right. So you let these conflicting claims they fought a war over it. It's actually about who's going to control that territory. Now turns out Azerbaijanis and Armenians have for much of their history actually gotten along pretty well managed to live together not always in one thousand five in one thousand eighteen. There were conflicts and and actually massacres in 1900 by Azerbaijanis of Armenians in after the Soviets fell. There were again

clashes pogroms of Azerbaijanis against our means our means took revenge by driving all the Azerbaijanis out of Armenia. So there are there are clearly clashes. But what they're fighting about is who is going to have political control over that territory. Well you know that's this is a story that that got a fair amount of coverage right in the time right after the Soviet Union Karen apart perhaps because there were people who were saying this this might foreshadow what was going to happen in the future because here we had this vast collection of small states and peoples who were culturally and ethnically very diverse that had been all held together by the Soviet government. But when that was gone. It looked like the thing was going to start to fly apart. All of this all of the states wanted autonomy and then within states there were groups that wanted autonomy and there was I think a lot of people really concerned that there would could be a lot of violence

as all everyone sort of jockey for for their position in various sorts of groups said Well here we want to make sure that we are autonomous in our particular area that same. That was the that was the story where we seem like we were heading. And then recently I can't recall I don't care recall the last time that I actually read something about for example the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan or too much else other than Chechnya. There also are separatist independence movements in Georgia. I'm sure that there are there are some other places. But what has happened now just as the specific talk about Armenia Azerbaijan what is happening with them. Well. You're you're right. In fact when the Soviet was falling apart and when it actually collapsed and broke up into 15 different independent republics the prediction was there's going to be. You know hell to pay. Right that is it was going to be conflict all over the place. You had tens of millions of Russians living outside of Russia proper in these non Russian republics. And there may have been resentments

against these people many of them would go back to Russia. Well it turned out those conflicts didn't occur. There was almost no real retaliation taken against the Russians that's one thing. Secondly there was a thought that Islam the Muslim peoples of of the former Soviet Union would rise up again against Russians or Christians or something. Well very little of that. Actually having against non-Muslims. Muslims do not actually attack non-Muslims. Very few cases of that actually Muslim peoples or whatever that's a traditionally Muslim people because after 70 years of Soviet power the religion was not that relevant or was only for a few people but people who had been traditionally Muslims actually flirt with other people who had been traditionally Muslim so you had kids and blacks clashing out there. But many of those conflicts to have sort of faded away now where you have conflicts at the moment the worst one as you mentioned is Chechnya. This by the way is a brutal struggle. This is a devastating policy on the part of the Russians who are doing

real horrors to people who is a cause of course a constituent people of their own republic the Chechens and something like 50000 people have lost their life. The city of Grozny has been destroyed. Chechens are disappearing are being disappeared you know there's all kinds of atrocities taking place of which the world is not largely unaware except for human rights activists. The Chechens have responded as you know with suicide bombings with the seizing of the theater in Moscow with all kinds of horrors on their side as well. And the president of Russia has taken a personal interest in this conflict he is unwilling to negotiate with the Chechens they've had phony elections there to try to keep Chechnya in a kind of puppet regime in power. This is a really bad case. But I'm happy that you asked about Armenia and Azerbaijan since some of what I've written about and care about a lot. In 1994 the Armenians basically won the struggle. I mean as a Republican about half the size of Azerbaijan. But it was it's a very nationalistic Republic they've managed to mobilize people.

They had the majority in Karbala and they won this little war. And the Russians negotiated a truce between Azerbaijan and Armenia and that truce has largely held a few skirmishes here or there in the borders. And so far so good. There's been attempts by the European community by the OSCE the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe to. Come out with some final solution but neither side seems able to come to the table with a plan. I have my own ideas of how they might solve the problem but that's a separate issue. In any case it's a stalemate. It's been a stalemate now for almost 10 years. Right now the old president the old Communist leader of Azerbaijan Haidar Ile enough has retired from power and in a kind of phony election manipulated election his son. If he has become the new president interesting that after communism comes what we might call Sultan ism right you hand power down to your hair your oldest son or something like that.

And we don't know what's now in the cards. Everyone is standing faster waiting to see what's going to happen but right now the conflict is on hold. I'm just a real quick and I have a caller I get to that I think that. Some people said Well Paul the reason part of the reason maybe the primary reason the Putin took such a hard line in Chechnya was that within Russia there were other places there are other groups of people who are also thinking about autonomy and would like to you know go their own way the way the Chechens would. And this is Putin's way of saying anybody who tries this. This is what's going to happen is if that is indeed the case is it the case that in elsewhere in Russia there are other places where people would say well you know I think we we believe in autonomy too we're a distinct group of people and we feel that we would want to go more our own way and would pose a kind of a challenge to the to the government in Moscow. Russia is a country in which 80 percent of the population are Russians and 20 percent

are non Russians. So it's heavily Russian country but there are very many areas which are at least nominally in the hands of or considered the homelands of different people. So this Mahdi Ellen is you know soccer where the. The people of the North live is Tatarstan and so forth. Some areas at least two others. And Pepper stand have thought about more autonomy or even some people talk about independence. Those were negotiated with the central government and arrangements were made autonomy was given. The non Russian peoples have all kinds of autonomy within Russia. In fact some Russians resent how much they actually have their various tax rights and control over local resources it's a. We have what we call asymmetrical federalism in Russia different parts of the country have different rights and different degrees of autonomy. Unlike the United States where you have symmetrical federalism every state basically has the same relationship

to the federal government. Just you know then was the only place which didn't get a negotiated settlement now they were asking for full independence. My own reading is that there were moments along the line where they could have negotiated some other kind of settlement but the Russians did. Some Russians very much feared this sort of process whereas if they were given to them others will take more so that could be part of it. Secondly. It was imagine or let's say it was constructed in an image as a place where banditry violence and the favorite word now of course of politics terrorism was rampant these were and you could hear this with the Russians. It criminal people. Well once you start envisioning people as terrorists criminals and stuff like this you know people are going to negotiate with these people you have to beat and I remember I was in Russia just the summer and we had a wonderful guy taking us around and seeing Peter's pretty civilized woman. Art historian

lovely. And we were talking about this and we talked about Catherine the Great and everything was fine until we entered the topic of Chechnya. And then she kept you know these are not human they killed their own guess that their own tape machine would tell these stories fantastic stories about the Chechens. Now here's a people who have been oppressed under the Tsars under Stalin. They were driven out of their homeland by Starr into Central Asia brought back by coup shelf. Who are again are being crushed their own city built by the Soviets by the way has now been bombed into ruins. Well you know those kinds of attitudes. There's not going to be any kind of solution to this problem it seems to me and it goes to Susan. It's possible it would require patience generosity. It would require giving Chechens great autonomy let them call it independence if they want it wouldn't be independence. Ultimately states are not going to give up pieces of their own territory that creates other kinds of problems that we don't want to get into.

Well I should introduce Again our guest Ron sonny. He's professor of political science and history at the University of Chicago and he's particularly interested in the politics and the history of Russia and the former Soviet Union. He's here visiting the campus is going to give a talk this afternoon talking about issues of nationalism ethnic conflict. That's part of what we're talking about here this morning questions are welcome we do have somebody who is ready to go. Others are invited 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 for champagne Urbana tour free anywhere that you can hear us around Illinois or Indiana. Eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Here's an urban color line one follow up to related question one is. Oil tycoon that was jailed by Putin recently. Do you happen to know if he was Jewish. He lies. Well I came to the second question as to cure only relevant to

them. And that's taking issue with your idea that democracy. It lowers the possibility of conflict. What I'm referring to in particular is a recent book world on fire by Amy chew on which you may be familiar with. She points out that well a quote from a review here. Free trade financial liberalisation and privatisation have concentrated enormous wealth in the hands of quote market dominant minorities. The Chinese in Southeast Asia. Asia white and Latin American Africa Jews in post-communist Russia India Indians and it can out you both in Nigeria and so on and that this is

part of have generated dislocation insecurity anger and destruction because now people can vote against the quote market dominant minorities and I would I would point to Putin's day one you know. KIRK Yeah I think it's honest. An example could you reflect. Position of democracy. Peace. Yeah that's an interesting question. It very often there will be in in capital societies you know certain groups who will end up at the bottom and certain groups will end up at the top where there is a big kind of could agreements kind of correspondence between let's say ethnicity or race on the one hand and economic position on the other. Right so you know minorities in this

country tend to be more at the bottom certain minorities at the bottom. Maybe others at the top in Russia in the post-Soviet world. Many of the so-called oligarchy a very wealthy man happen to be Jewish from the five or six richest people. Most of them are Jewish and that may be a reason for some targeting now Russia is a country in which anti-Semitism has been widespread for a long time so they don't need necessarily this particular excuse but it adds to the to the flames. And there are other kinds of stereotyping of people for instance after the fall of the Soviet Union the sort of free for all economy that they have certain groups often on ethnic lines were joining together to control certain industries certain markets etc. so you had a Chechen mafia or a Georgian mafia. They call the Mafia is that is would that would control the markets in this area that Azerbaijan is controlling some markets in Moscow and this created resentments. You know statistically was dominant. It was something that

was visible that people understood or they saw they perceive it that way and they would turn their wrath on these groups. And so occasionally the Russian government has rounded up what we what they call Caucasians not white people or we understand Caucasians in this country. But people literally from the Caucasus and they would drive them out of the city. So this kind of stereotyping or or targeting certain groups because of their visibility in the economy that that has that has actually happened over time. Now I see that as part of the process. Marketisation privatization Democrat ization it's the process that that sort of changes the rules of the game that that changes people social status those kinds of things that lead to these these kinds of resentments but notice again the targets are they are chosen and thought to be ethnic or Jewish or religious or so it could be a religious thing or an ethnic thing or something like that. But in fact it may be much more about a cause economics a feeling of

resentment of being left out or under privileged. I'll give you an example from I mean in history in fact. I mean it is we're such a minority sort of a bourgeoisie a middle class entrepreneurial group in the Ottoman Empire and they were very prominent. And Turks who were not as well-off resented this Armenian middle class that sort of made this this group. Now it turns out if you actually looked at most Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were peasants just like Turks most because the pitch were present. But a few were visible successful people in the capital and that few then cause resentment on the part of Turks who felt what this is this is our empire. Muslims are supposed to be on top. I mean just wants to be these nonbelievers underneath. Everything is going upside down and this is called a sort of status reversal the lower groups have gone on top the groups that were supposed to be on top of gone down and that created resentments and that may have fed in to the kinds of massacres and killings that ultimately

culminated in 1015 in the first genocide by the Turks of the Armenians. The first genocide of the 20th century. But you you. Well you're right. I kind of think that you need to it's got some got a hold of something here with the idea that democracy is can actually increase the possibility of conflict took a parting shot here I think it's interesting that nowadays when there are so many minorities in the United States there's an exhibition you know do you abide Chicago art gallery. And titled after whiteness. Where they're there pointing out that the quote from Whitehead Gemini has been has been it. One of its most Integra components has been and is presumptive occupancy of the norm and taken for

granted and so they're trying to put whiteness into were kind to ethnic identity you know pointed out and which which would put you know into a conflict situation but just the fact you might be interested here that. Thank you. It's an interesting idea. You know when you talk about ethnicity you're always talking again something which is considered the norm. So you know what would it be in our country white Anglo-Saxon Protestants or something though they may insist that they're an ethnic group to you know they have their own customs and so on. But in any case it's always something and it's like we can talk about women's problems but that's against the norm of men of the normal way is men. So there's always there's always that kind of thing. It seems to me that what I'm trying to emphasize here is that people construct. Other people in ways whether or not it's there actually are

that way and it is against that sort of image that they've created that they may in fact launch some kind of attack. For instance in the Armenian Azerbaijani come back come back to this because it's one I know well. I mean we talk about the Azerbaijani pogrom in 1909 against a 980 against Armenians in the city of some guy as a genocide. Now I mean you suffered the genocide they see Azerbaijanis as Turks they always call them Turks. They are a turkey people. They are not Anatolian Turks. They're not the Turks who committed the genocide but the Turks so they label them something that you know did to link them with with past wrongs that were done to Armenians. They link this pogrom in which a few dozen people were killed a terrible horrible event a genocide in which. Nearly a million people were killed and and by doing so they increased the intensity the emotion of that conflict. So what I'm saying is what you've got to look at in any conflict is the way in which

people are. Are constructing that conference what images they're using. What kinds of emotive Mannings are they given to what they perceive as the enemy. If there are Jews in among the richest men and you're in Russia what does that say. It's a few Jews have been lucky or or scared or corrupt or whatever to become successful. What do they actually say about most Jews. Not very much but you can project that you can make that mean something far beyond what it actually is. Other questions are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Back of the game we talk about the fact that there there was a time when when people said well you know these get these kind of conflicts over time as the world becomes more modern as we have global you know economic cultural globalization these kind of things or they're going to go away. I suppose there are now some people who would be prepared to argue in fact that globalization really is really not only did it not only did it not make things better

it actually made things worse but somehow there is some connection between globalization and increase in ethnic conflict. I'm not so sure. I think that globalization operates in lots of different directions the big process I've never actually been able to sort of get a firm handle on what people think about you know that's a problem. But. Look what's actually happening in some parts of the world where there's been breakdowns of state authority. So Yugoslavia fell apart. You've got conflict because Serbs wanted a bigger Serbia. Croats wanted to be independent. Bosnia is one of their own state Macedonia and so if you've got conflict Russia you had some conflicts as well. You in particular have won when Czechoslovakia fell apart in what's called the velvet divorce. You don't have for instance conflict between remains and Gary and even there we're not no longer under communist regimes. They should have conflict why not there Hungary and Transylvania they had conflict before they negotiated their way out of it. You will never hear about the places where the conflict doesn't take place.

Every nationality or every ethnic group or every cultural group had a conflict with its neighbor. You have tens of. Potential conflict. We've got a handful of them right. That's one thing. Another thing. Look at other parts of the world look at Western Europe. Right. Western Europe has moved under this globalizing effort toward breaking down borders. Now if I had said to you in 1945 that in 50 years Germans and Frenchmen who had just fought the Franco-Prussian War the First World War the Second World War and had conflicts that went back to ancient girl and the barbarians and all. If I told you that in 50 years these people would not have been able to conceive of a war between them that the most effective border between them you can cross the border at will and that they've been sharing a single currency and they're thinking of joining political units and institutions as well. You say in 1945 you said you're some kind of left wing utopia. It's impossible to think that. And of course it's happened in our own lifetime.

I'm old enough to remember right to go back to World War 2 Even so it seems to me what we've got is situations particular situations that need study first I don't think there's any global explanation of ethnic conflict. There seems to be some rough correlations if you take lots and lots of different areas of conflict between As I mentioned democracy prosperity and mountains right. Doesn't tell you a lot. If you look at a place like India today where there is quite vicious ethnic rioting and urban rioting between groups defined not as ethnic because they're not language groups but as religious groups OK so that's the marker. Well then you've got to go back and find out why is that happening you know and what you find is they're very very complex reasons why in fact people are willing to kill other people on the basis of Islam or Hinduism. Let's talk with some other slots go to Terry Holt over in Indiana. Well in for a well you know yes it's always you're program is very interesting. I want to make some comments about the

church's situation. I was over a year. In Krasnodar Russia and I gave a lecture in the coupon university to journalism students. And the end of the lecture some ask questions and one girl raised her hand and asked me what I thought about my government's position on Chechnya. And I said yes. And the government's position is I see it is roughly what the guest speaker is. And I I said well I was opposed to it and I knew something of what was going on. And I said to explain myself and she interrupted. And she says you know the Ike came from Georgia from Grozny and the Chechens came to my house or our

family and gave us three days to leave Grozny. And then later on I met another family there. The father was a information officer for the press and our City Duma and he and his daughter told the same story that they were given three days to leave and by the Chechens and another family I met in Krasnodar this year when I was over there they were. They were refugees also from Grozny and they left him alone. How long did you have to go. Well they had been given a couple of months or were warned by Chechen friends of that and so they and then a lot of the Russians tell me that the

Chechens are savages. Like this their nickname they say is the wall of the wall and they point out that there's a big difference in their ethnicity from other Muslim groups like this gate and who are peaceful and have normal relationships between men and women. And they point out that the Chechens there are brutal to their wives and the strictly male dominated society and well then the other thing I wanted to comment about is the Chechens say that they're doing this because of discrimination under the rug. Them and also because I moved them out of Chechnya and settled them someplace else like we resettle the Japanese. But on the same

day that the Chechens were resettled they resettled the Caribbean into Kazakhstan and other places. And the Koreans have made a good readjustment and all over are contributing to the growth and prosperity of Russia but not the Chechens. I just want to ask your opinion or rebuttal of that. Well first of all. It's not accidental that Russians who are in this conflict with the Chechens and ordinary Russians who daily hear on the media about the savagery of the Chechens against Russians but not about the savagery of the Russians against the Chechens have very negative views of the Chechens. What's very interesting is there have been very few reports of Chechen atrocities against Russians. The city of Grozny was largely a Russian city that is Russian ethnic Russian

population. And they got along well with Chechens. But now the war has taken such a brutal turn that I wouldn't be surprised that these reports that some militant Chechens you know that is there are now Islamic types and even foreigners. There were various people came from Arab countries and sort of Mujahideen types into Chechnya have radicalized this this conflict and have it have ordered Russians to leave the city a certain point I've had I haven't actually heard about that myself but I I don't doubt that that actually is happening because the struggle and the conflict has taken on such a terrible terrible. Cast in the last couple years. So that's possible. But what I'm saying is the Chechens the idea the Chechens are brutal to their women and all the rest these are seem to me are stereotypes based on this this demonization is taking place in the media. I remember and it's effects everywhere. Now I am sympathetic to the Chechens and to people who are struggling against oppression like the Palestinians against the Israeli occupation and so forth. But.

So but you but it's funny even my attitudes are sometimes affected. I remember once I was in Moscow about a year ago and I was introduced to an anthropologist at the Institute of ethnography a very distinguished man looks a little bit like David sitting here with a very trim beard very elegant Russian we began speaking and I said where are you from and he said I'm from Chechnya. And turns out he was a Chechen. And I realized I had never imagined a Chechen to be a woman. Electional and you have this kind of refined manner and to be a scholar of some kind I myself had thought of Chechens as these you know rough mountain people of. But of course there are all kinds of people in Chechnya very similarly when I was once in Ramallah and Palestine years and years ago during when in the former occupation that the Israelis had in that city I was giving a talk. I actually was supposed to be at the university but the university had been shut down that day by the Israelis so we held it secretly in a house. And as these people came in graduate

students and faculty and I heard these intelligent questions and we had a fascinating discussion that could have taken place on the campus of the University of Chicago I realize my own stereotypes about Arabs which I thought I was over in fact. Affected me and I was surprised and pleased to find out that you know they're an intellectual and interesting people among the Palestinians so you can imagine in a country like Russia where the media is controlled and limited in where Putin is cracking down on opposition and critical media the views of Russians is terribly terribly distorted. Not unlike the way in this country much of our media is now becoming increasingly Fox to fight so we're getting more and more skewed view about the rest of the world. We're coming into but our last five minutes and one question I do as a way of trying to have some closure to the topic. I do want to ask this in when we see these kinds of conflicts we often that is the international community feels we really should do something. If people are dying we should do something about that.

We're concerned about that just on the face of it and also because of the possibility that these kinds of conflicts can contribute to regional instability. And we have seen how they can they can draw in their neighbors and pretty you know pretty soon we could have something that started out as a local conflict becoming a regional conflict. And so it is our impulse to want to do something. But that we know that's extremely difficult. There are issues of national sovereignty when you get into a conflict like that there are people no doubt are going to say well it's none of your damn business and and go take care of your own country. It's very difficult to understand the dynamics of these things if you decide that you're going to intervene. How exactly do you do that. Is there some way that we can as as and international as a world an international community we can get better at trying to mediate these kind of conflicts and perhaps even prevent them before they start.

I think I think there is the first question I have to ask or think about is who is the we are now talking about the international community talking about the U.N. are you talking about the United States let's start with just the United States. Because the United States has a very mixed record on the way it deals with these conflicts in Chechnya itself. I remember when there was the first invasion of Chechnya by the Yeltsin government. Bill Clinton was then the president and he said that Yeltsin is like Abraham Lincoln you know trying to keep his country together and so forth. And I wrote an op ed piece in The New York Times you know against that point of view because this was a very special conflict. You know and it was carried out quite brutally and could have been negotiated in other words. It seems to me the United States must be more consistent given its own ideals and its particular extraordinary power in the world today to defend what are considered international human rights standards so that we must be against these kinds of atrocities that are taking place now we don't criticize Putin very much right now. Oh there are reports in the State Department

reports. But why don't we. Because. First of all he's an ally. And President Bush has looked into his eyes and seen his soul and he's a good man as he's told us. And also because Putin has constructed this conflict as a struggle against terrorism. Now as soon as you fight me name your enemies terrorists then you can do all kinds of terrible things. The same that Sharon has done against the Palestinians they are terrorists therefore you can shoot them down from helicopter gunships invade their cities destroy their homes and so forth. So it seems to me that there's a real deep inconsistency. The one hand we're fighting this terrorism. Terrorism is a good thing to fight. Right. The important thing to fight. I wish it were done by police agencies rather than thinking of it in terms of war but that's another question. But the other hand. We aren't even consistent about defending human rights in all places a very good book by Samantha Powers about America and the question of genocide. We had a chance in Rwanda to

if not initially stop the genocide to prevent it from going on so long and yet we sat back and didn't do it. It took us a long time to think about going into Bosnia. Eventually we did stop that conflict and we prevented perhaps something in Kosovo. Let me just try to get into the question about whether intervention I at this point with the United States now in Afghanistan and in Iraq and with all the problems. I'm not particularly in favor of these kinds of interventions. I think there are many things you can do short of war. And. The danger to the world and to a population has to be imminent and clear before you actually do such a thing as cross borders and and challenge the sovereignty of another state and should never be done it seems to me without the sanction of international bodies like the United Nations. And my threshold to be quite high. I would say if there is active genocide going on. There's a strong power the United States should put all the pressure it

can only international community on international institutions to go and do something quickly short of that. We should be negotiating she would be thinking we should be acting as I wish we had done before Iraq and now of course the chickens are coming home to roost that we understand that this may have been an error. Well there was much much more that we could talk about and I wish that we had more time but we have come to the end for people who are in and around Champaign-Urbana. And if you'd like to hear more from our guest here this morning Ron sonny. He'll be giving a talk dealing with some of these very things this afternoon at 4:00. And the room one of the one of the International Studies building that sound south 5th in Champaign on the U of I campus folks at the Russian East European center political science and arms control disarmament international security all sponsoring his visit here so I'm sure that it would be open to anybody who would like to attend That's again four o'clock this afternoon. One on One international studies on the campus. Well thank you very much. Thank you it's a great

impression.