Talk:Chechnya/Part 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chechnya broke from Russia in 1991, but this move was not recognized by Moscow. Nor was it recognized by the world community. The agreement that ended 1994-1996 conflict actually left Chechen status in limbo until 2001

Consequently, Chechnya should not be listed as an independent country (yet). It should also (rather) be removed from the list of countries

To the anonymous author of the entry: fait accompli method will not help independence! It will just produce more confusion and misunderstanding, which is the last thing all conflicts need!!! -- Piotr Wozniak

What Encyclopedia should care about are actual facts, not Russian propaganda. In 1991-1994 and 1996-1999 it was a normal country, with all features you would expect from an independent country, and it certainly wasn't part of Russia. If Chechnya were to be removed from Countries of the world, Taiwan would also had to be, and that would be a plain absurd. Chinese government in Beijing still doesn't recognize Taiwan's independence, nor most of what you call world community do. But the facts are that it's independent country. Chechnya was also before last war.

You do not list important criteria: legal basis (1996 treaty) and/or (degree of) recognition by other countries. Parallels to Taiwan are remote (e.g. see: CIA Factbook country list). Recognition by Beijing and Moscow are not critical indeed -- Piotr Wozniak

I would add that at one time most states recognized Taiwan, and around a score or two still do. Few or no states have ever recognized Chechnya. Many of the states that don't recognize Taiwan (e.g. most Western countries) still maintain strong informal relations with the Taiwanese government. And Taiwan is represented in several international organizations, under names such as "Taiwan, Province of China" or "Chinese Taipei" or "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan" -- SJK

Should the House of Culture Incident have its own page? -- kwertii

I think so. -olivier 09:04 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

-- Yes, with links from both Chechnya and Russia. --GABaker

It would still be interesting to have a couple of lines about it in the Chechnya article. olivier 15:14 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

-- I agree, but I don't have time to write them this morning, dentistry calls. Could you put them in for me? --GABaker 15:23 Oct 29, 2002 UTC

-- Got it. kwertii

Dear Kwertii, you wrote:

Chechnya's current status is unclear. Chechen leaders declared independence in 1991 and operated as a de facto independent state for several years, but Russia has since invaded Chechnya twice in attempts to retake the country, a war that is ongoing as of mid-2003.

However, it is not truth in at least two issues:

  1. Current status of Chechen Republic is absolutely clear. Separatists failed to obtain independency. Even US gave up in attempts to force RF to grant independance to Chechen Republic. Presidential election will be held in October 2003, and any speculations about leadership of Maskhadov will die.
  2. Chechen Republic was never under full control of single separatist government. Some areas were always loyal to to the federal government, other areas were controlled by teips rival to Dudaev/Maskhadov.
  3. Even your wording is not NPOV. Chechen Republic is not country, it is a territory. Russia didn't invade Chechen Republic, because a) it was never a separate country, b) federal army have never completely left the republic.

I don't understand why do you insist on this non-NPOV staff? Why wouldn't you add an "unclear status statement" into the Ireland article - note, that article even doesn't contain any link to IRA! Drbug 22:17, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Relax, I want NPOV as much as you do. Perhaps we can change the wording a bit. Most people who come here to read this article are probably going to become interested in Chechnya because of news reports of the ongoing rebellion. And they will also not know much about the status of Chechnya.
I don't think that the status of Chechnya is clear at all; from what I've read (and this may or may not be correct), the southern portions of Chechnya are still very much under the control of the seperatist armies, and even the northen areas are not stable as the rebel army attacks Russian forces regularly.
From 1991-1994 and 1996-1999, Chechnya operated de facto as its own country, without Russian influence or control (regardless of which other countries officially recognized this). The Second Chechen War that started in 1999 is still ongoing, so how is the status of Chechnya at all clear?
Northern Ireland is different because the IRA does not de facto control any portion of the land. In Chechnya, there is a substantial area which is controlled by the seperatists, and they have elected leaders.
Will the Russians even let Maskhadov run in the October, 2003 elections? I think not, and from what I understand he has forces loyal to him, so I doubt that will resolve the issue.
Anyways, my point is we should put some mention of the facts that a) Chechnya operated as an independent country for most of the 1990's, and Russia's war to reclaim it is still ongoing; and b) there are still a large number of armed individuals who think that Chechnya is and ought to be an independent state, who control a certain area in the south of the country and who shoot any Russian soldiers that come into this area.

Kwertii 23:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] applying to template

Please try to get this in the format of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. --Jiang 23:24, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] applying to be more factual and be careful with putting sensitive stuff; comments related to recent changes

Details of declaration of independence are given below in the article. Jiang's sentence "the Chechen-dominated parliament of the republic declared independence" is misleading implying much more legitimation to the declaration than it actually has.

Invasion is a sensitive term implying that use of force is not legitimate. Following all the international treaties, efforts of the federal center to put constitutional order in the respublic were legitimate.

Russian language is primary state language. Chechen language is secondary one. It is not explicitly stated in the constitution of the Chechen Republic that Chechen language is secondary one to respect chechen population feelings, but it is stated in the constitution that only russian language (not chechenian!) may be used for litigations and official documents.

Concerning president V.Putin - please either remove presidents at all (as with California) or put federal president too (as with chinese SARs). Should I mention again that Chechen Republic is NOT an independent country? And never was.

Drbug 00:31, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I took the statement out of the Columbia Enclyclopedia: http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chechnya.html. Please show me a neutral source to verify your version of the events.

The table has both the pro-federal and pro-rebel presidents listed. Are these two individuals (the federally appointed one at least) not presidents of the Chechen Republic? Why should they only stay if Putin is listed too? I don't see your point here.

The newly declared republic did function independently for some time. How was Chechnya never independendent, de facto or de jure? Please explain. --Jiang 00:39, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

" group of Chechen politics illegally declared independence as the 'Chechen Republic of Ichkeria"

How was a declaration of independence illegal? Are you saying any declaration of independence is illegal? That's POV!! --Jiang


Events are neutral by default. They may be truth or lie.

As for source, that Columbia Encylopedia is NOT neutral. It neglects sensitive details that doesn't seem to be important, because it's just an article about far barbaric asian country titled Russia + it unintentionally reflects false accent put by cold war legacy propaganda.

I'd refer you to list of DOCUMENTS (oppinions too, but I'm not talking about oppinions)at http://www.duma.gov.ru/intafcom/news/hottalk/mashadov.htm (yes, it's web server of Russian Parliament's - but documents are not false).

Despite it may be considered as non-fair method, but I should mention it, because we are not fighting, but finding a consensus: you read about this issue from encyclopedia, and we live with it for more than decade. My school friend was born in Grozny and had much relatives there. And I don't like my government, I understand Chechen people much better than most or Russians.

I'd ask you to point which information seems to be doubtful to you. I didn't write that your phrase is lie. It's just a misleading. Yes, there really were several people named themselves "Chechen parliament". But it was only the part of it! Please read the article itself, it doesn't contradict your statement, but explains it. If there is still a questions, I'll try to find more...

And belive me, situation is not as easy: "Nice Chechens declared independence, and evil Russians are trying to make them slaves." Chechen society has specific organisation. Dudaev's or Maskhadov's power is a power of their teip. After coming to power, they used it to make it more strong over other teips. Kadyrov works with federals, but not because he cares of Russia, but because it's his way to come to power. Independence is nothing, power is everything.

Concerning presidents - for all the territories that are parts of some country (or even for all dependent territories) there either specified head of the country of which it depend, or no head (including its local head) is specified at all. Specifying local authorities for Chechen Republic and omitting federal authorities make it look like Chechen Republic is an independent state.

About republic that was acting as independent - it's not fully correct. Yes, separatists tryed to establish a state and to act like independent state, but they failed in almost every issue. They failed to create police forces that may put law and order. They failed to create any kind of social security. They failed to create any sector of economics that was not relied on crimes. They failed to be recognized by other countries. They failed to be recognized by their own people. They failed to became a government for the whole territory of the republic.

"Illegal" means "not legal". Declaration that meets law and made by legitimate authority is legal. Otherwise it is not legal. There is governing law - constitution of Russian Federation. There are procedures that must be followed. Arbitrary group of people doesn't have right to declare any territory to be independent - it is essential for the current international law. If not, I declare my flat to be independent state.

Drbug 01:32, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the information is necessarily wrong. It's just one-sided and misleading. You can dismiss Columbia for thinking that "it's just an article about far barbaric asian country titled Russia" but you cannot ignore the facts. The cards are stack much more against the Russian government, as a player in this conflict, than against a western encyclopedia. You need to provide a neutral source. A western encyclopedia is the most neutral I can find. If such an anti-Asian motive were behind it, I'm sure I would have heard about it by now. Please find a source that is not involved in this conflict to give both sides of the argument.

As for listing the president of the Russian Federation here, I'm still conferring with Oliver. I tried to remove the president of the PRC from the HK and Macau articles but he reverted. I think it should be obvious from the first sentence that Chechnya is a republic of the Russian Federation. That is clear enough. Maybe mention on how the president is appointed/elected and his powers, etc will improve it.

Arbitrary group of people doesn't have right to declare any territory to be independent - it is essential for the current international law. There is a spectrum of self determination and territorial integrety that meets on murky lines. In every case of secession, the group being seceded from claims the same things you are claiming - that it is illegal to secede. The group that is seceding claim it as their right to self-determination. Since there are different opinions, we cannot endorse a single one. Otherwise, we would be going to every country article and declaring that the country illegally seceded. Imagine the response we would receive! Just leave out the word "illegal". It's open to interpretation. International law doesnt cover this - since its not an issue of one country invading another. Go ahead and declare your flat independent. When you verify that you have successfully prevented yourself from paying taxes on that flat, then I will recognize your independence! --Jiang 04:02, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dear Jiang, I object to your revertion. Instead of finding consensus, you just revert changes. If you some points are weak, try to make them better. And don't roll back to the worse version. Wasn't it you who called for meeting standard wikiproject template? So why do you revert changes that meet your request? Please, be more careful.

You don't like word "illegal"? Ok, remove it. One who is really interested, will understand it anyway.

Starting "reverting war" is not wise. Change details that you suppose to be wrong.

Drbug 01:59, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)