Demonization of Chechens by Russian media and its impact on the opinion of international society

Nowadays, the most terrifying image of Chechen terrorist is a woman, to be more specific, “Black Widow”. In order to understand why this image is so frightening, it is important to analyze who is the “black widow”.   It was assumed that black widows are Chechen women whose husbands were killed during the war. They can be characterized as “women who, having lost their men, have also lost their raison d’être, and seek revenge.”  (Sjoberg L. & Gentry C.E., 2007:100). These female suicide bombers were not only technically efficient blasting agents, but they have also become a terrifying symbol of death incarnate. Several dozen black widows have committed acts of terror, mainly in Moscow. Their actions have claimed hundreds of lives. The phenomenon of black widows has been studied by Russian psychologist and professor Krasnov, who wrote: “Ideologists of Chechen separatism try hard to create and promote the image of a desperate widow, avenging her husband’s death. But in practice most of the young women suicide terrorists are not widows. However, it is true that often some of their both close and distant relatives have died or disappeared. This is important in the development of a psychological readiness to terrorist actions, but alone is probably not sufficient. What is also needed is for these immediate or recent losses to be linked with the long term ethnocultural perception that these are insults that require a response, invariably a violent response-in other words revenge”. (Krasnov (2005:108).

Typical scenario of how a woman becomes a “black widow” is this: a young woman experiencing a psychological crisis or prolonged frustration, passing into depression. At some point, experienced guides isolate her from external contacts. After that, these women have usually been gathered together and moved to a remote village where they were subjected to a systematic effects of religious rituals, endless reading of verses from the Qur’an and persistent reminder of the need for revenge to the enemy. Sometime later they become entirely subordinate to their mentors. Next step is the practical training in the craft of terror, such as the use weapons, explosives and search for targets. The last stage of training usually takes place close to the intended object of attack.

Obviously, it is impossible to reject the fact, that these women had real reasons to retaliate the Russian government. Some of the women have been raped by Russian soldiers and at least one of the arrested terrorists was pregnant. But taking in an account all real and imagined grievances, they could not make a systematic terror without the presence of a well-constructed institution and the system created specifically for this purpose and which was designed to sow terror in Russian society, but this kind of terror was soon drowned either due to lack of women (it should be noted, that such acts on the part of women is completely contrary to Islam, and even more so, Chechen traditions), or on grounds of inefficiency of the method.

Nevertheless, most of the serious terrorist attacks which happened recently were carried out by Chechen women, so called “Black Widows”. As Ramzan Kadyrov,

vice premier of the Russian-backed Chechen government said in his interview to

Chechen TV on May 11, 2005, “Chechen women are the most dangerous for national

security because they have carried out the most risky operations. If the current trend

continues, Chechen female bombers will continue to be a grave threat to Russian

national security.” (Speckhard A.&Akhmedova K., 2006:76)  

Media diplomacy

Media diplomacy is directly related to the transformation of traditional diplomatic processes. According to E. Gilboa, diplomacy is a system of communication, through which government officials express and protect the interests of their countries, talking about their decisions and ultimatums. (Gilboa E., 1998) Diplomatic communication process reveals the positions of officials and political levels of states, often conducted with a goal to enlist the support of other actors on the international stage. During the 20^th century, diplomacy consisted of private from the public procedures. At the end of the twentieth century diplomacy was transformed into an open process that involves the media and the international community, which was due to democratization, with active participation of the masses in political processes, as well as technological advances in the field of communication and the globalization of electronic journalism. 

Media diplomacy plays a critical role in the political process and it cannot be underestimated. In this sense, Russia is one of the best example how can society be manipulated with the help of media. State leaders and diplomats today often use global television to broadcast to announce their decisions. The goal of global television news is to fully inform about the various political, social and cultural processes in the world to provide an opportunity for the world leaders to speak, even including opposition ones.

There are few format features of global news networks, in particular the breaking news and ongoing coverage of crises under special headings on the screen, such as “America at war” or “Middle East crisis” involve three groups involved in international policy for example. Editors are constantly demanding new details from reporters from the scene, reports encourage the leaders to quickly respond and comment on the events, leaders are asking experts and diplomats to analyze what is happening and to make recommendations. (Gilboa E., 2002:6).  

A reality of our world today can be described by the words of Friedrich Nietzsche: “You shall love peace as a means to new wars”. Messages about the wars and armed conflicts in the world occupy the news first. Primarily, it happens due to the fact that conflicts of all kind-international, regional and local are now almost the biggest problem in today’s world. During the period from 1989 to 1994 94 conflicts were identified and only four of them were interstate. (Petrovskiy V., 2000)

Despite the transition of many countries on ‘the democratic track’ the number of ethnic conflicts, often associated with nationalism and separatism, has increased. Today the threat of large-scale international wars exists.

Ways of covering wars and armed conflicts on the TV cause a lot of debates among researchers and mass media journalists. There are several approaches to this problem. (Orlova V., 2003)

The first approach to the coverage of the conflict is intended to strengthen public opinion against one of the parties involved. This sometimes has been practically realized by the global television networks, especially in the case of the Chechen war. For example, reports of CNN International and BBC World in the period from December 1999 to March 2000 were focused on the refugee issue, and included numerous interviews with people affected by the federal forces, thus creating an image of illegal policy of Russian authorities with regard to Chechnya. Journalists of global television networks were not looking for an explanation of the true causes of armed conflict and therefore could not objectively assess the problem. The lack of analytical data in the reports also reflected on the quality of reporting on Chechnya.

Quite often the television networks follow the second method of covering the conflict and representing the views of the two conflicting parties. Thus, to discuss some particular problem in the global TV network broadcast representatives of both sides are invited. This is one of the most promising ways to cover conflicts, because the causes of conflicts, in fact, are often reduced to a significant difference in ideologies and viewpoints. Rejection of the opinion of opposition parties leads to more failure in the relationship, the impression that one side suppressing and oppressing another (Indians and Pakistanis, Israelis and Palestinians, Hutus and Tutsis, Serbs and Croats). Listening and understanding different points of view is an opportunity, which is given by a global television. Though, it should be noted that in reality it is extremely difficult to achieve mutual understanding between the opposition parties and even harder is to remain an impartial channel in the eyes of parties.    

Requirements for image processing while covering the war are quite severe. However, self-censorship of journalists is a priority. One of the main concepts of “visual”  broadcast during military conflicts and disasters of CNN, BBC World and Euronews is based on gentle and sympathetic attitude toward the audience. For example, scenes of violence and images of dead bodies do not usually appear without a good reason, because TV networks avoid showing the dismal consequences of shootings and accidents. Such images have very strong impact on the audience, which can include children. Severe restrictions on the displaying and demonstrating violence have a strong reason, because reduce of sensitivity of the audience, desensitization are not allowed.    

On the 28^th of September, 1999 CNN International has showed a tape, where Chechen aims in the head of a captured Russian soldier, but suddenly shoots another prisoner. First time the material was shown, it was not edited by CNN and almost the whole story was on the news. Next time it was shown edited with scenes of murder being cut out. (Laredo Morning Times, 1999). Motivations of journalists are clear: they had a unique video and it is hard to resist the desire to show it in its entirety. However, the demonstration of violence does not fit into the concept of a global broadcast TV.

The visual aspect of conflict is particularly important, because it is most strongly reflected in the mass audience perception of events. Researchers claim that the perception of conflict is largely stereotyped and involves an emotional reaction to a feeling of hostility to one side and a cognitive aspect-the desire to simplify the information, a schematic assessment of the facts, selective perception. (Lebedeva M., 1997:49).

The stereotypical perception of the information depends on the approach to the coverage of conflicts by the media.TV reporters are in a very difficult position- they need to report in tight time frames, which can cause troubles in presenting a complete picture of this conflict. Techniques, such as schematization of the conflict, usually with a friend or foe method, creating an image of an enemy-any action of the opposition are presented to be intentional and malicious. (Lebedeva M., 1997:49-50) are primarily being used by politicians and journalists tend to avoid them, but it does not always work. Correspondents of the opposition parties very often assess conflict from the different perspective and reflect it diametrically opposite. Ideally it is necessary to inform the audience about the interests of both sides.  

The question of the necessary inspection and filtering of information was relevant and while covering the war and anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya. Armed conflict in Chechnya is one of the most difficult subjects in analysis of global networks. Western journalists faced a real problem of obtaining accurate official information and the difficulty of access to Chechnya. Such secrecy has contributed to the fact, that global television had limited material and often used films shot by Chechen separatists, which was evidence not in favor of federal troops.

BBC’s World correspondent Robert Parsons noted that it was much harder to work during the anti-terrorist operation, than during the first Chechen war. However during the second Chechen war they had an opportunity to freely communicate with the fighting troops and officers, with the civilian population who suffers most in war. Their stories were absolutely not coinciding with the information that journalists have received from various news services. It is worth noting that problems with access to all necessary information in time of war are the same for all initiators of force. (BBC, 1999)

Coverage of the Chechen military campaign was accompanied by inadequate assessment and lack of facts, as well as one-sided interpretation of the conflict. CNN covered the first Chechen war and later anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya more harshly than the BBC. Here is an example: on the 22^nd of October of 1999 CNN International BBC World reported the death of about one hundred residents of Grozny after an explosion at the central market of Chechen capital. Russian authorities denied any involvement to an explosion in the beginning, but then took a responsibility, saying that the market was a warehouse of weapons of the militants. After receiving this material, CNN gave a special news release. Steve Harrigan was broadcasting live from Moscow, he commented on the images, saying that massive counter-terrorist war affects the civilian population. While he was saying this, they have been showing pictures of killed people. (CNN International: Breaking News, 1999) in Orlova V. (2003)

BBC World News after an emergence release on the event immediately invited experts to comment on the situation. Jane Sharpe spoke to the host of the news program, who had also conducted a teleconference with the political analyst from Oxford. The debate also included the problem of discrimination against Caucasians in Russia. Responding to sharp criticism of Russian authorities relating to infringement of interests of ethnic minorities in South Russia and anti-Semitic attitudes in society, Jane Sharp said that it is important not to jump to conclusions, because West has already did a lot of mistakes in judging about this country during the “Cold War” and that they might not be able to adequately assess a complex situation in Russia. (BBC World: Europe Direct, 1999) in Orlova V. (2003).  
 
 

 Conclusion

One of the features of covering the counter-terrorist campaign was a so-called confrontation between Russian and Western media. Russian journalists are working with the federal troops, while foreign correspondents are trying to get information from insurgents. However, neither Russian nor Western reader can get a coherent picture, but journalists are getting involved in the information war. Russian-Chechen conflict is seen and evaluated very differently depending on the observer’s position. For a Russian man, it is a central political conflict of the country.

Western media calls the Russian-Chechen conflict a “forgotten war”. In the long list of local conflicts this war bears no comparison. Western media reports about the losses of Russian troops from time to time and sometimes reminiscent of the hardships and privations of hundreds of thousands of refugees from Chechnya, but the interest in this war falls until any sensational act of terrorism happens. This decline of interest in the Chechen war and the sharp contrast between the Russian and the world public opinion to assess the importance of this conflict has deep foundations, especially noticeable, if aware of the significant difference the position of Western government and the polyphony of public opinion.

In contrast to the government of the world, public opinion on Chechen conflict in recent years has developed a range of positions, rather differing between themselves. In case of Chechnya, a variety of positions and opinions about the Chechen crisis weakened the opportunity for public opinion to influence the government, allowing them to step aside and pursue a policy of complete non-interference. The war in Chechnya has become an important factor in a reduction of trust to Russian leadership by centrist and moderate-right groups in Europe and America, who adhere to liberal-democratic orientation. The difficulties which Russian government has experienced in its relations with Chechnya were met in the West with full understanding. Whatever the temporizing policy used by Yeltsin administration in relation to Chechen separatism in early years meant, such policy gave and impression of a sharp break with the theory and practice of Soviet policy and so was viewed as a conclusive evidence of Russia’s move toward democratization.

Armed intervention in Chechnya, its rapid collapse and protracted war have noticeably changed the attitude of the liberal-democratic groups in the West towards the Russian political elite and the Russian society in general. In Western liberal-democratic circles there is a fairly clear understanding that the war in Chechnya casts Russia back, delaying its modernization and limiting Russia’s ability to participate in international politics. No one in the West wants this war to continue and its completion would have been greeted with general satisfaction. But watching the way the war was waged and most importantly, seeing the failure of Russia’s political class to end it, liberal-democratic forces came to the conclusion that this war is a smaller evil. The war has highlighted the following characteristics of the Russian political elite such as backwardness, ignorance, inability to long-term production of contamination problems and ravings about an existence of a special Russian path of development.

Since childhood, people from developed democratic countries learn a simple idea that the greatness and influence of the state is determined not only by its geographical size and military strength, but with indicators of economic well-being, cultural level, the quality of education, health and general living standards, however it is not yet a strong characteristic of the Russian mass consciousness.

The paradox of the Russian-Chechen war is that on the one hand, it strengthens the confidence of Western world that Russia’s elite, for their backwardness and lack of understanding the results of their actions, or in effort to get to talk about themselves and strengthen their albeit wrong impact in the world events may be tempted to continue the traditional policy of confrontation with West and create a suicidal, but an extremely unpleasant for Western authorities alliance with the East and countries of Islamic fundamentalism. On the other hand, the continuing war with Chechnya provides a temporary guarantee that such a script has a little chance to be realized. In this sense, for all the negative consequences of the Russian-Chechen war, such as human rights violation and the slowdown of Russian democratization and transition to a market economy, this conflict is seen as time-winning by liberal-democratic forces and Western governments.

Chechen war in West seems to be ethnic-Russian against Chechens, and imperial-a huge Russia against a small nation of mountaineers. Nothing is said about the ethnic composition of Chechnya and about how different people coexist in Caucasus. Kara-Murza concluded that the Chechen tragedy in Russia, according to Western media is a “well-contested spectacle. Actors are Yeltsin and Dudayev, Shakhrai and Kovalev, Vlinton and Le Carre, does not seem to relate to each other, each playing his own role, but following the same invisible conductor’s baton”. (Kara-Murza S., 1995:3)       
 
 
 

                                     Bibliography:

• Арутюнян Ю.В., Дробижева Л.М., Сусоколов А.А. Этносоциология. Учебное пособие для вузов. М.: Аспект пресс,1999.

Arutyunyan Y.V., Drobizheva L.M. and Susokolov A.A., 1999. Ethnosociology: A manual for Institutes. Moscow: Aspekt Press.

• Гакаев Ж. Постконфликтная Чечня: анализ ситуации, проблемы реконструкции//Чечня от конфликта к стабильности. – М. 2001.

Gakayev J., 2001. Post conflict Chechnya: analysis of the situation, problems of reconstruction. In: Chechnya: from conflict to stability. Moscow.

• Gilboa Eytan, 2002. The Global News Networks and U.S. Policymaking in Defense and Foreign Affairs. – Harvard: Harvard University
• Грабельников А.А. Средства массовой информации постсоветской России. М., Издательство Российского университета дружбы народов. 1996.

Grabelnikov A., 1996. Media in post-Soviet Russia. Moscow: Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia Press.

• Информационная война в Чечне. Факты. Документы. Свидетельства. Ноябрь 1994 – сентябрь 1996.- М.: Права человека, 1997.

Informational War in Chechnya. Facts. Documents. Witnesses. November 1994-September 1996. 1997. Moscow: Human Rights.

• Кара-Мурза С. Форрестол и Фатима//Советская Россия. 1995. 14 февр.

Kara-Murza S., 1995. Forrestal and Fatima. In: Soviet Russia.

• Газета «Коммерсентъ» 1999, №183(1827)

“Kommersant” newspaper. 1999, #183(1827) [online] Available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/227028/print (Accessed: 5 January 2012)

• Krasnov V. N. Approaches to the Study of Suicide Terrorism //  Psychological Responses to the New Terrorism – A NATO-Russian Dialogue, ed. by S. Wessely. Amsterdam, NLD: IOS Press, 2005.
• Laredo Morning Times, 1999 [online] Available at http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/0929/pagea9.pdf (Accessed: 5 January 2012)
• Лебедева М.М. Политическое урегулирование конфликтов. – М.: Аспект Пресс, 1997.

Lebedeva M., 1997. Political Conflict Resolution. Moscow: Aspekt Press.

• Минкин А. Журналисты на чеченской войне. Факты, документы и свидетельства. – М. 1995. с.275