Civil Society
The headline was, “Israel will aid Russia in fight on Terror.” In an apparent reference to Israel, President Putin said, “Events in other countries have shown that terrorists meet the most effective resistance in places where they not only encounter the state’s power, but also find themselves facing an organized and united civil society.”
The last two words go a long way toward explaining why the headline may be more tactically than strategically significant.
The headline was, “Israel will aid Russia in fight on Terror.” In an apparent reference to Israel, President Putin said, “Events in other countries have shown that terrorists meet the most effective resistance in places where they not only encounter the state’s power, but also find themselves facing an organized and united civil society.”
The last two words go a long way toward explaining why the headline may be more tactically than strategically significant.
Israel can help with “security.” Israelis have grim experience in detecting smuggled explosives, experience in airport and subway security, experience in intelligence gathering and, unfortunately, experience in hostage situations, bomb response and the awful aftermath of successful attacks.
But tactical security is not enough and Mr. Putin at least articulated the requirement that public attitudes are part of the fight. What he did NOT mention, for obvious reasons, is that for the people to tough it out, they have to TRUST their government – not like it, necessarily, but believe it is at least mostly honest with them. And they must believe that their government will try to protect civil society while fighting terrorists.
There are those words again: Civil Society.
Want to start an argument at an American dinner party? Mention the USA PATRIOT Act – a bipartisan attempt to provide intelligence agencies with the same tools that had previously been available to crime fighting agencies. Left, right, or center, Americans have an opinion about whether the government has gone too far or not far enough in compromising civil liberties to fight terror. The fervor of the debate is testament to the strength of our civil society.
We were not enamored of the 9-11 Commission fandango, or the Intelligence Committee’s grandstand show, but it is a fact of American political life that keeping information from the public does more damage than letting it out ever could.
The Russians are led by an increasingly dictatorial president who has closed newspapers, jailed businessmen, and stifled dissent. The people are increasingly unwilling to trust the government for increasingly good reason. Mr. Putin is, he said, willing to authorize an internal investigation into Beslan, but not a parliamentary or independent one, because it would turn into a “political show.” His KGB roots are showing.
It was wrong for the State Department in its public message to pronounce that Chechnya requires a “political settlement.” A more appropriate and more necessary message would have been that Russia needs a “political settlement.” The first and best way to fight the scourge of terror is for the government to be honest with its people and allow them to have their say. Only from that will Mr. Putin find the “an organized and united civil society” he seeks and needs.