Avert the Next Afghanistan
Tasks for Russia, China, India and Indonesia
by Stanley A. Weiss

LONDON--What do Russia's Vladimir Putin, China's Jiang Zemin, India's Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Indonesia's Megawati Sukarnoputri have in common? Answer: All four are battling Islamic separatist movements with brutal tactics that make resolution of these local conflicts less likely and global terrorism more likely.

In Russia's breakaway republic of Chechnya, China's northwestern province of Xinjiang, Indian-controlled Kashmir and the Indonesian province of Aceh the stories are strikingly similar. Other nations fearing militant Islamic movements, from the "stans" of Central Asia to Nigeria, should take note. In each case, long-standing and often legitimate religious, cultural, political or economic grievances of local Muslims against their central government have sparked fighting for an independent Islamic state.

All four governments have responded with excessive force, including summary executions, arbitrary detention without trial and torture at the hands of military and security forces.
Without exception, this repression without concession has radicalized the Muslim community, drawn international condemnation and handed a propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network in its attempt to fuse local struggles with its global jihad against the West. (Recall the video of bin Laden appealing for recruits with grizzly images of dead Muslim fighters in Chechnya and scenes of carnage in Indonesia and Kashmir.)

Three of these leaders - Putin, Jiang and Vajpayee - have deftly played President George W. Bush's terror card, claiming that their vicious crackdowns on their own citizens are simply legitimate fronts in the international war on terrorism. Putin now speaks of "our common fight against terrorism," and Jiang argues that "China is a victim of terrorism, too."

And therein lies the dilemma.

The international community has a vital interest in ensuring that the legitimate grievances of restless Muslims are addressed in a responsible manner so that they do not explode into conflagrations that could destabilize entire regions. In India's case, this could lead to nuclear war with Pakistan or, if Muslim-majority Kashmir were to join Pakistan or become independent, the wholesale slaughter and ethnic cleansing of India's 150 million Muslims.

Yet the world also appreciates the importance of preserving the territorial integrity of nations like Russia, China, India and Indonesia. An independent Islamic republic of Chechnya, Xinjiang, Kashmir or Aceh would be stillborn, a weak statelet with a history of Islamic militancy unable to provide for its people. In other words, the next Afghanistan - prime real estate for the next terrorist sanctuary.

How to quell militant Islamic revolts without inadvertently boosting domestic and international support for independence? In short, how can governments facing separatist struggles follow the cardinal rule of counterinsurgency: retain the confidence and loyalty of the people? First, recognize that while military force may be necessary, reckless torch-and-burn tactics are a sure way to forfeit international deference to a nation's sovereignty over a renegade province. It was, after all, not the decades of systematic repression of Kosovar Albanians but an orgy of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing that ultimately cost Yugoslavia Kosovo, which is now under United Nations supervision and NATO protection. The grotesque behavior of Russian troops in Chechnya has earned international condemnation. Second, give disaffected Muslims a compelling reason to remain loyal besides the barrel of a gun. The 26-year separatist revolt in oil- and gas-rich Aceh is as much about the right to practice Islamic law as about keeping more of its oil and gas profits. The 9 million Uighur Muslims of Xinjiang (which the separatists call Eastern Turkestan) suffer as much for their religion as for being a Turkic people in an increasingly Han Chinese-dominated province.

Addressing the sources of separatist movements - lack of economic opportunity and political and cultural inequalities - could do more to end these movements than simply an iron fist. Finally, consider autonomy. Xinjiang is autonomous, but in name only; Beijing pulls all the strings. Even as the Indonesian military continues to engage in human rights abuses in Aceh, Jakarta has wisely granted the province "special" autonomy. Autonomy buys time in which cooler heads on all sides might recognize that force alone will not resolve these conflicts and that the long-term interests of all concerned will be better served by mutual accommodation. Autonomy today may avert independence tomorrow.

Consider the Philippine response to the most recent chapter in a 400-year-old struggle for a separate Islamic state on the southern island of Mindanao. Although the two largest insurgent groups have been largely defeated in recent years, it was Manila's offers of limited autonomy that helped persuade these groups to finally lay down their guns. The religious and political aspirations of Mindanao's Muslims remain, but hundreds of millions of dollars in development aid has helped to undermine support for outright succession. The last holdouts, the small band of Abu Sayyaf guerillas, are hostage-takers and not freedom fighters, and are being hunted down by the U.S.-backed Filipino military.

Putin, Jiang, Vajpayee and Megawati have a problem. Their brutal attempts to crush Islamic rebellions without addressing the roots of those revolts risk the very scenario they fear most: further resentment and the fraying of their own countries. It is not too late to change tactics and avoid another impoverished Islamic state all too eager to embrace the likes of Osama bin Laden.

The writer is founder and chairman of Business Executives for National Security. The views he expresses are his own.