For once, Vanessa Redgrave could do some good

This extradition attempt will create publicity - which the Chechens want and the Russians don't

Tomorrow, a pair of acclaimed actors will appear at Bow Street magistrates' court in London for a procedural hearing that will, with luck, begin a fascinating exploration of the international realpolitik of the "war against terror". One of the actors we are familiar with, for she is part of an acting dynasty. The other, we've barely heard of, for his theatrical tours de force have taken place mainly in the theatres of Grozny.

The news last week that Vanessa Redgrave had stood bail for "Russia's most wanted terrorist warlord", Akhmed Zakayev, was shocking. The story seemed simple. The actress more famous for her espousal of loony-left causes than for her Oscar-winning movies was once again aligning herself with apparent terrorists, just as the world was coming to accept that there is no such thing as a freedom fighter, only a terrorist.

The detail behind the headlines, was less sensational, though. Because of this, it was actually more shocking. The terrorist warlord is in reality the right-hand man of the democratically elected, moderate, fugitive, Chechen president, Aslan Maskhadov. Mr Zakayev, who was culture minister during the reign of the short-lived Chechen government, campaigns around Europe for unconditional peace talks with the Kremlin, and he consistently condemns terrorism.

He arrived in Britain, where he and his family have been living since January with Ms Redgrave, from Denmark. There, he had been arrested and held for five weeks, while an extradition hearing decided whether he should be returned to Russia to answer for war crimes. The Danes dismissed the request on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Among other matters which troubled the Danish courts was the fact that while his crimes are supposed to have been committed up to seven years ago, and while the Interpol warrant for his arrest was issued in 2001, the alleged witnesses to the atrocities he is accused of masterminding were interviewed only last month.

Mr Zakayev is co-operating fully with the British authorities, certain that his cause is just. The Russians have no such respect for the fairness of British courts, though. They have made it clear that they want a political, not a legal, decision about this man's future.

In an extraordinary statement to the BBC at the weekend, a senior adviser to the Russian parliament made Moscow's position plain. "Moscow expects the West, and the UK in particular, to demonstrate its solidarity with the attempts of Moscow to curb terrorism and to fight the Chechen opposition and, therefore, as a matter of principle they would really like to see more co-operation on the British side."

What is most chilling about this demand that the legal process should be overridden in favour of a government decision is the little qualifying phrase, "to fight the Chechen opposition". Fighting the Chechen opposition is quite a different thing from condemning Chechen terrorism. Mr Zakayev is certainly part of the Chechen opposition. But that does not make him a terrorist.

Ms Redgrave is in no doubt whatsoever that her friend would be tortured in Russia, or that he would disappear one day with nothing but a cock-and-bull story left to mark his passing. Summary executions, disappearances, torture and looting – all these have been visited upon Chechen civilians by Russian troops. Since 11 September it has been in the name of curbing terrorism. And it is indeed true that Chechen terrorism is particularly repulsive and frightening.

Yet it is no more repulsive and frightening than the history of Chechen subjugation by Russia. The appalling low point in the history of this debated land came when Stalin exiled the entire nation to the east because it would not succumb to his collectivisation programme. Mr Zakayev himself was born not in Chechnya but in Kazakhstan, where his family had been shipped. This episode alone is enough to explain why Chechnya would prefer to rule itself than be governed by Moscow. Surely this historic crime against a people is enough to ensure that the wish for independence is viewed sympathetically. But there is no such sympathetic view from Moscow, Vladimir Putin's election as president had much to do with his tough stance against Chechen rebels.

The legitimate struggle for Chechen independence has become obscured by the terrorism some of the fighters for the cause have resorted to. Now, instead of listening to a nation's rightful argument for self-determination, the whole issue has been folded within the mantra "we cannot give in to terrorism".

Mr Putin has sought to link his own problems with Chechen terrorism to the international effort against al-Qa'ida ever since the very day of 11 September. Horribly though, it is this desire to unite the causes that will do most to inspire Chechen extremists to ally themselves with Bin Laden's group. But then nothing could suit Moscow's purposes better, as a recent statement from Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, suggests.

"I ask what would happen if another terrorist, Bin Laden, had arrived in London with an international arrest warrant against him," he said, "... would police have talked to him at a police station and let him go?" Such rhetoric is too clumsy to really be dangerous. But the intent is there – to foster a mind-set whereby anyone who wants independence for Chechnya is looked upon as an al- Qa'ida member.

It is a measure of Western indifference to terrorism that does not kill and main its own that Mr Putin and his government feel they must go to such lengths to make their point. Only terrorism against Western targets – that and celebrity endorsement – seems to really grab our attention. In this respect, Mr Zakayev is on to a winner. It is rare to see terrorism and celebrity on the same platform any more.

Yet in many ways, even though she had shelled out £50,000 in bail for Mr Zakayev, provided him with a home and worked tirelessly to publicise the Chechen cause, Ms Redgrave may yet herself prove a dangerous friend. She has supported terrorist causes in the past, in her admiration of both the IRA and the PLO, even though she claims not to condone Chechen terrorism. Because of her controversial past political beliefs, she is widely distrusted. Even much of the left is suspicious of Ms Redgrave, whose socialist convictions did not run deep enough for her to educate her children within the state.

There will be plenty of publicity around the case, that's for sure. This attempt at extradition by Russia will create maximum publicity – which is exactly what the Chechens do want and what the Russians don't.

Mr Zakayev, even before he arrived in Britain to accept arrest and bail, was billed as Russia's most wanted man. Now Moscow will be in a frenzy of wanting to lay hands on him. His life is more threatened back in Russia now than ever.

The legal proceedings that have been triggered by Mr Zakayev's return to Britain are likely to be long and complex. But the really fascinating thing will be watching the way in which national interests operate to exploit the war on terror. The crude pronouncements from Russia as they fume about the inconvenience of international law have already been more than revealing. This is a case worth watching. Whatever you think of Ms Redgrave, the fact is that it needed her to draw it to our attention, even though its importance is vast.

d.orr@independent.co.uk