4. PUBLIC RESPONSE

“Moskovsky Komsomolets”:

Yesterday [25.10.2002] Iosif Kobzon brought to the State Duma a statement drawn up by 225 relatives of the hostages with appeal to meet the demands of terrorists. But the deputies refused to hear the statement. Especially negative response was given by LDPR fraction headed by [Vladimir] Zhirinovsky. According to V. V. Zhirinovsky, events taking place in Melnkova Street were nothing but “a criminal shootout in one of the districts of Moscow”.

“Komsomolskaya Pravda”:

State Duma says no to the “Union of the Right Forces” (SPS)

Deputies are not eager to establish a committee for investigation of the terrorist attack

Public committee established by the “Union of the Right Forces” (SPS) to carry out an investigation into the terrorist attack in Moscow held its first meeting. And, as Boris Nemtsov said, it had already obtained a unique data.

It was as early as yesterday at the State Duma session [30.10.2002] that Boris Nemtsov suggested to promptly consider the issue of establishing the parliamentary committee. In the opinion of the SPS leader, its aim would be to give answers to three vital questions: how it could happen that armed gangsters managed to come to the center of Moscow; how soon and how well the medical assistance was rendered to the freed hostages, and why the authorities held back this information.

The colleagues at the State Duma did not support the initiative of SPS fraction: only 44 deputies voted positively.

“The Washington Post” (USA):

Clinical trials and new evidences of the hostages seized in the theater demonstrated that the Chechen gunmen did not start to kill their hostages systematically, as the Russian authorities had asserted before beginning the assault… The decision to keep the most hostages in hospitals without any communication with the outer world provoked new contradictions… Tendency to secrecy and neglect of consequences … for the people during combating within the last fifteen years in the process of establishing a more open society.

“The New York Times” (USA):

Doctors were almost not ready to treat the hostages from the consequences of gas effects. The use of gas questions the compliance of Russia with its obligations to observe the Convention which it has signed and ratified. The treaty known as the “Chemical Weapons Convention” permits the use of such chemical compounds as tear gas for the purpose of “law enforcement”. At the same time, it prohibits using many of the widespread chemical compounds in any circumstances and requires that the effect of chemical compound should “disappear within a very short period of time after it had been used”.

“Suddeutsche Zeitung” (Germany):

Under these circumstances, the only alternative could be to meet the demands of extremists by withdrawing the armed forces from Chechnya. But Putin didn’t take it into consideration from the very beginning.

“Frankfurter Rundschau” (Germany):

While special services and politicians celebrate a “splendid victory”, the authorities are holding back the inner history of assault and the number of victims. The crisis headquarters admitted the fact of using the gas only after it had been reported by “Echo of Moscow” radio and the German doctors.

“The Financial Times” (UK):

As all the circumstances of what has happened are being cleared up, while the international community praises the Russian president Vladimir Putin for his actions taken to settle the crisis, considerable losses of innocent lives and the way they died show that the crisis was resolved at an enormously great expense… Release of hostages in Moscow on Saturday was followed by a mixed reaction — a feeling of relief that a great catastrophe was prevented, and a confusion that the true outcomes of hostages rescue operation and its consequences were yet unknown. Perhaps, it was a recently developed nerve agent likely to cause permanent mental disability or death, according to medical experts.

“The Guardian” (UK)

The attempt of President Vladimir Putin to rescue hostages, at first looking like a military triumph, is now turning into a political catastrophe. The authorities reluctantly admitted that, probably, the Russian special services had killed up to 150 people in the operation. Their deaths were caused by a mysterious dangerous gas which helped disable the most terrorists. At first the authorities refused to tell the medical experts what kind of gas was used by the elite army, and this prevented the doctors from saving the lives.

“Corriere Della Sera” (Italy):

The former Minister of Agriculture Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, the leader of the «greens», declared that “terrorism cannot be overcome by the methods leading to the death of hostages”.

«The Observer» (UK):

“Even when the loss of hostages is only 10%, it’s not the best outcome for an antiterrorist operation”. In the opinion of the leading newspaper’s observer Nick Paton Walsh, “the release of hostages in Moscow turned out to be an antiterrorist catastrophe”.

Statement of the members of “NYET” (“NO”) movement

The tragic events of the hostage taking in Moscow may not become history without a true and fair opinion from the public. The future of our country and all of us depends on whether we call things their real names, or let ourselves and the government figure out a convenient image of the situation.

The events in Moscow expressly showed that people are willing to accept the myth-making of the authorities. The society and the government have established a sort of social contract, which enables both parties to view the situation in such way as to minimize their personal responsibility for what’s going on.

If the people agree to share all the myths suggested to them now and accept the assault as necessary and successful, it will enable the special services to act at their own discretion in the future. And, when a similar terrorist attack takes place, the hostages may be considered already dead, as no-one will take their lives into account.

Edward Limonov, writer:

All that had happened was nothing but killing our own citizens, and whatever they may say now, it was not necessary. The burden of quilt for what’s done is on everyone who participated in it. Surely, Dubrovka will take place again.

Lyudmila Alekseyeva, Chairperson of the Moscow Helsinki Group:

Dubrovka has shown that our law enforcement bodies are not able to prevent such things.

Boris Nadezhdin, State Duma Deputy, SPS:

The Duma refused to launch a parliamentary investigation, but we set up a public committee and carried out our own investigation immediately after what had happened. The results were submitted to the General Prosecutor’s Office and to the President of Russia. However, we got no answer in a year’s time. As far as I know, nobody was punished for what had happened.

Extract from the statement of the Russian human rights defending NPO observers at the 79th Session of the UN Committee for Human Rights Protection held on 24.10.2003:

“Exactly one year ago the state refused to defend a human right to live stated in Clause 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and now it continues to uphold the justice of its case, probably hoping that the UN experts will miss the truth hidden behind the motto of “combating terrorism”. Such approach to “constructive dialogue” is at least irresponsible and demonstrates no respect to the Committee experts and to the memory of Nord-Ost victims.

Alexander Shabalov, head of “Rescue Service”:

I think in our country nobody draws any conclusions. In the first place, it is necessary to tell the honest truth about the tragedy. One year is up, but it’s not known yet who is to blame for the dead.

Yury Levada, Director of the “Analytical Center of Yury Levada”:

In the minds of the Russians, the terrorist attack in Dubrovka has remained the most monstrous deed of the special services, though the authorities are still keeping silence about it. But the people don’t change their opinion. They don’t blame the president directly, but their attitude towards him becomes colder.

Vladimir Ryzhkov, State Duma Deputy:

The breakdown of the state is the result of the politics, absolutely stupid politics. Because in order to stop the terrorist attacks, first of all, when the hostages are taken, they must be rescued. It must be learned how to rescue. They must be rescued at least once. We have failed to do it, both in “Nord-Ost”, and in Beslan. Because, I say it again, there were no headquarters, and no directive. No negotiating position, no negotiators, no anything. To stop terrorism, it is necessary at least to rescue people taken hostages. Second, the president keeps on saying: no dialogues, no negotiations. Until we have such position, we will be killed and blown-up. Because we have to investigate, to use every method, every scenario, and every possibility to reduce the terrorist threat. Third, all over the world special authorities are established especially for the purpose of combating terrorism. And not all the people at once do it. All at once cannot catch terrorists. Our special services are totally unqualified, though our President comes out of the special services, and all around do, but they cannot do their job.

Anna Politkovskaya, journalist:

… It was killing of a certain part of the citizens by the forces of FSB using chemical weapon. Consciously knowing that chemical agent could cause death. In regard to “Nord-Ost”: this is, of course, a shame of our time, it’s a tragedy, and people – ex-hostages and family members of the dead – are left all alone with their grief.

Andrey Soldatov, journalist:

Absurd things took place just after the storming operation. The Kremlin was celebrating the victory because “Russia was not brought to her knees”. Terrorists celebrated the victory because the gunmen took a great number of victims to heaven with them. The defeated were the relatives of hostages yet unaware who to blame for their death, and yet having no worth compensation, and other people deprived from the possibility to influence the situation in one way or another. But nobody paid attention. The winners were so many that a new hostage taking was actually inevitable. The terrorists wished to repeat the success of “Nord-Ost”, and after the victory the Kremlin didn’t try to arrange planning the work of emergency operations centers in case of seizures. The professionalism of spetsnaz (i.e. Special Forces) made it possible to forget mistakes in coordinating actions between different agencies. In Beslan, spetsnaz again showed its professionalism. Moreover, they acted like heroes. But the number of victims was even greater.