#10
excerpt
US Department of State
International Information Programs
Foreign Media Reaction
October 30, 2002
MOSCOW HOSTAGE CRISIS: CRITICISM MOUNTS WITH DEATH TOLL
KEY FINDINGS

** Critics blasted the Russian government's "Soviet-style" handling of the hostage crisis; only official Russian media found no fault.

** Despite heavy death toll, Putin probably emerged from the crisis stronger than before.

** Most writers agreed the war in Chechnya demands a political, not military, solution.

MAJOR THEMES

Distaste grows for high death toll and 'Soviet'-like actions-- Some papers outside Russia initially concluded that Putin probably had "no other choice" but to attack the Nord Ost theater with gas. Many backpedaled, however, after the death toll of the "blood-stained victory" mounted and Russian authorities refused to reveal the type of gas used. Paris's left-of-center Le Monde spoke for many in condemning the Kremlin's "Soviet" behavior: "the lack of transparency, the obsession with military secrecy, manipulating public opinion and total disregard for human life: all the telltale signs of the Soviet way." A Berlin daily judged that, "Under the new Western-oriented cloak, there is still a great deal of Brezhnev's Russia." Russian papers were mixed. To some, the crisis showed that "no president...will knuckle under" to terrorism; others, like reformist Izvestiya, stated that the struggle against terrorism required courage but also "civil responsibility, discipline and...real and effective democracy."

Observers debate Putin's next moves-- Russian analysts debated how the hostage crisis would affect the country's foreign policy. It was "a moment of truth" that cements Russia to the Western anti-terror coalition, said one writer; another expected Putin to adopt a variation of the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes against imminent threats--including "in foreign territory." European and Israeli writers judged the outcome of "Russia's 9/11" to be "a victory for Putin and his strong state," which would "enhance his standing" at home and give him "a freer hand in the Caucasus." Israel's popular, pluralist Maariv thought it "not inconceivable that [Putin's] understanding of the nature of the world-wide war may also soften his opposition to the military action the U.S. is planning against Saddam Hussein."

Russia 'can't afford to go on as before'-- Most writers contended that the crisis showed the need for Russia to find a political exit from its Chechen "quagmire." France's right-of-center Le Journal du Dimanche urged Putin to "turn his Moscow victory into a victory in Grozny" by adopting "a political out." An independent British daily agreed that the Russian president "would show strength rather than weakness if he now looked for a solution." Tokyo's mass-circulation Asahi argued the end of the siege "could provide an opportunity to truly address the ethnic aspirations of the Chechen people." Reformist papers in Russia argued that the country "can't afford to go on fighting in Chechnya the way it has." Novaya Gazeta, complaining that there is "virtually no true information" about the Chechen war, said that terrorist incidents like the hostage taking will recur "as long as the bloody war continues."

EDITOR: Steven Wangsness

EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 71 reports from 33 countries, October 25-29. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

EUROPE

RUSSIA: "Putin Had No Choice"

Official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta front-paged a comment by Vitaliy Tretyakov (10/29): "Today no president of a country, by definition, will knuckle under in a hostage crisis, with the terrorists refusing a ransom in favor of basic political changes in government. While a president will not, a nonentity can. Given the scale of the terrorist act in Moscow, the president had no choice.... Presidents can do a lot. But they definitely can't forsake their countries' interests, certainly not by handing over power to terrorists."

"Putin Shifts Defense Priorities"

Dmitriy Litovkin said in reformist Izvestiya (10/29): "As confirmed by the Kremlin, Russia is going to change its defense priorities, claiming a right to pre-emptive strikes, including in a foreign territory. It sounds very much like U.S. President Bush's new concept of pre-emptive strikes in the war on terrorism. Notably, there have been absolutely no critical comments on the U.S. concept from the Russian political leadership."

"Russia Trades NATO For Terrorism As Enemy"

Nikolai Poroskov and Vladimir Shpak remarked on page one of reformist Vremya Novostey (10/29): "The Putin statement might imply the renunciation of 'containment' as the doctrine Russia has pursued all along.... As it happens, generals always prepare for past wars. By having taken the first step to global changes, Vladimir Putin intends to do away with that anachronism. It seems like recent terrorist acts have radically altered the political map of the world."

"War Will Be War"

Tatyana Vorozheikina contended in reformist Vremya MN (10/29): "Hostage-taking in Moscow has born out the truth that you can't wage a war at home and remain unscathed. Renaming the war an 'antiterrorist campaign' and, after September 11, a 'war on international terrorism' changes nothing--the second Chechen war, which, in effect, is a war against the civilian population, will always beget people, men and women, who won't stop at crossing the line that separates other people's deaths from their own."

"War Can't Go On Forever"

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta ran this by Aleksey Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma's Defense Committee (10/29): "Obviously, the Chechen war can't go on forever. Since we may face more tragedies, we need to reconsider every aspect of our security. No doubt, the federal center must pursue a more active policy in Chechnya. Up to now it has been adrift, the prevailing feeling in the Kremlin being that, with wars in the past sometimes lasting for decades, the one in Chechnya can take just as long. The Moscow hostage crisis shows that we don't have that long. We must stop the war now. With the situation in Chechnya not under control, we can't be hope for change. The conflict will escalate, spreading to other regions. Since it is a result of the current policy, we need to review it."

"Moment of Truth"

Anatoliy Maksimov pointed out in reformist Izvestiya (10/29): "The October 26 drama in Moscow, in a way, became a moment of truth. Had Putin not made a foreign policy U-turn on September 11, 2001, we would have been on our own, having to fight on two fronts: the Islamic terrorists and (verbally) the West. Really, it is so much better to be inside the antiterrorist coalition than outside of it."

"Proud At Last"

Official government Rossiyaskaya Gazeta published this front-page comment by Valeriy Kichin (10/28): "We learned to live with the idea that Russia is a land of total corruption and all-pervading crime, so the very idea of change seemed like a utopia, with people leaving the country in search of a normal life and a peaceful home. Today, for the first time in a long time, we are proud of this country and its people. The president defined that accurately, as society suddenly and clearly felt united, after so many years."

"Russia Must Change"

Reformist Izvestiya stated in a page-one comment by Georgiy Bovt and Valeriy Volkov (10/28): "As a nation, we can rally in the face of a common threat, terrorism. But unlike in 1941, aside from courage, it takes civil responsibility, discipline and, more importantly, real and effective democracy. With the hostage crisis over, this country can't afford to remain what it was before it. It can't afford to go on fighting in Chechnya the way it has done until now.... It cannot vacillate between total carelessness and neglect of any rules...and the worst traditions of a police state...between relative freedom of speech...paranoia-type secrecy."

"It Was Predictable"

Yevgeniya Albats opined in reformist Novaya Gazeta (10/28): "The tragedy was predictable, which made it doubly horrible. Surprisingly, it had not happened earlier. And there is no certainty that it won't happen again. This is how it is and how it will be as long as the bloody war continues.... There is virtually no true information about the war and all television materials are severely censored, with the Kremlin's point of view presented as if it is the only one.... But as we have seen for ourselves, not even an authoritarian regime that is conveniently called managed democracy can guarantee safety."

BRITAIN: "France And Russia Have Tools To Strike A Bargain With Washington"

Maddox, Bronwen wrote in the conservative Times (10/29): "It will be some time before the U.S. berates Russia about its conduct of the war in Chechnya. Or takes France to issue over its ugly footwork to protect its farmers.... The lesson is a good one, if an old one: If you are going to annoy Washington, make sure you have something else it badly wants up your sleeve.... Since September 11, Russia has been able to trade the long list of things that the West wants from it.... With an Iraqi conflict looming, the wishlist has grown: the silence will no doubt continue."

"The Chechen Crisis Goes On"

The conservative Daily Telegraph opined (10/28): "Russia may have changed but its army has not.... The security services have retreated into Soviet-style denial. It his hard not to sympathise with Putin.... He was let down by bungling on the ground.... The conventional view is that Putin will now have a freer hand in the Caucasus. But it is hard to see how he can be any more aggressive.... Putin might be tempted to extend his operations into Georgia.... But opening yet another front--and in doing, falling out with the United States--would not make Russia more secure."

"Moscow Pays A Heavy Price"

An editorial in the independent Financial Times stated (10/28): "It could have been worse.... But the price of ending the siege was heavy.... Questions about the future of the war in Chechnya are even more pressing. Putin may have had few realistic alternatives to the tactics Russian authorities adopted.... The outcome is likely to reinforce Putin's standing.... The danger is that this atrocity will push Putin, who had been showing some signs of interest in a political settlement in Chechnya, back towards Russian hardliners.... What the crisis shows, is how hard this war is to win.... Moves towards peace would be fraught with difficulty.... But having stood up to the hostage-takers' blackmail, he would show strength rather than weakness if he now looked for a solution."

"Russia's 9/11"

The conservative Times editorialized (10/28): "Already Russians are comparing the attack with September 11; and the long-term consequences could be almost as profound. Putin has, so far, survived this severe test of his leadership.... Putin's decisiveness and cool nerves were admirable.... He has wisely acknowledged the cost.... The greatest failure, however, is the old Russian nemesis: the failure to be honest.... Putin must now firmly demonstrate that the lies and cover-up that turned the Kursk tragedy from a naval disaster into a political scandal will not reoccur.

"After this outrage he may feel justified in venting Russian anger on Chechnya [but that] would play into the hands of the terrorists.... Unless Putin can open a back-channel to moderates to discuss the political future for Chechnya, there will be more hostage-taking, more suicide bombers and more suffering for ordinary Russians."

FRANCE: "The Soviet Way"

Left-of-center Le Monde in its editorialized (10/29): "Nothing has changed in Moscow: faced with the horror of a hostage situation, the Russian authorities handled the situation the 'Soviet' way.... Everything in the method recalls the Soviet era. Putin's priority is not saving the hostages, it is reestablishing order.... The lack of transparency, the obsession with military secrecy, manipulating public opinion and total disregard for human life: all the telltale signs of the Soviet way are here... The Western leaders who thought it useful to congratulate Putin have not come out enhanced. There is an international public opinion which no longer accepts the insults made to its intelligence: it rejects the rhetoric which the White House and the Kremlin seem to appreciate: the war against terrorism justifies everything, including ignoring regional conflicts.... What is at stake here is the credibility of the war against terror."

"Where Is The Victory?"

Bruno Frappat wrote in Catholic La Croix (10/28): "If there is a victory, it is not a political one.... The master of Moscow will go down in history as something between a dictator and a democratic head of state: he uses the methods of one and the objectives of the other.... Such a victory in a state of law would have terrible consequences for the victorious."

"Human Life At Cut-Rate Prices"

Left-of-center Liberation commented (10/28): "Can we still speak of a victory or even of a half-success? In Paris, Washington or London it would be impossible.... In Russia it is possible to claim victory...because the price of human life here is not the same as in the West.... Let us hope that the analysis of the means used by Putin to release the hostages will lead to an analysis of the unfounded colonial war which he is waging in Chechnya and which he will undoubtedly want to intensify."

"Putin Has Won Nothing"

Yves Therard stated in right-of-center Le Figaro (10/28): "Did Putin have a choice? He had no other option but to use the same kind of determination he has always adopted towards Chechnya.... He has never tolerated that province's aspiration to independence. His intransigence and the violence used on the ground are what led to Islamic fundamentalism among the rebels. It is hard to see how the outcome of the hostage situation will give Putin the advantage. While it underscores his determination, it will push the independence fighters to become even more radical."

"Putin, Beyond Victory"

Jean-Claude Maurice in right-of-center Le Journal du Dimanche opined (10/27): "Putin can turn his Moscow victory into a victory in Grozny if he adopts a political out... He no longer needs to prove his determination: he can be bigger than his victory."

GERMANY: "The West's Fatal Signal"

Business daily Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf noted (10/29): "In Chechnya, the Russian president did not act on behalf of the anti-terror alliance. In this region, he pursues his own, nation-state goals. And they have, at best, something to do with the methods, but not with the matter itself.... The controversy in Chechnya is a deeply political conflict, which can be resolved with political instruments.... This hostage drama made clear to the West the serious mistakes it made. This is especially true since Moscow's cooperation in the anti-terror alliance silenced every criticism of Russian moves in the Caucasus. It was a fatal signal. We would like to see Putin take time to rest and listen to his people. If we accept opinion polls then the Russian people are fed up with the war in Chechnya. They do not want revenge, but an end to the dying."

"Moscow's Old Game"

Jens Hartmann opined in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (10/29): "With all its might, the domestic intelligence service FSB is trying to monopolize information [on the storming of the theater]. This 'heroic deed' should not be blemished. But information is filtered, falsified, and hushed up, only nurturing the suspicion that there is something to hide.... Even though Putin wants to make the West believe that there is a link between New York, the Philippines, Bali, Chechnya, and Moscow and that Al Qaida is involved in each of these attacks, the atrocities committed by Russian forces in the Caucasus do not fit the cover of the anti-terror fight. We can only hope that the West will put the forgotten war on the agenda with Russia again."

"Dictatorship In A New Design"

Christoph von Marschall opined on the front page of centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (10/29): "The course of the hostage drama is increasingly turning out to be the product of an authoritarian behavior and chaos. Every new bit of information increases the feeling of having been misled and deceived.... All this cries out for an international probe. But this will not happen, since the West needs Putin for its fight against terrorism, in the UN Security Council and elsewhere. But the hostage drama made it more obvious what kind of ally this Russia is. Under the new western-oriented cloak, there is still a great deal of Brezhnev's Russia with an unacceptable conception of man. The outcome of the hostage drama is a victory for Putin and his strong state. It is no victory for the hostages--and a defeat for the European Russia."

"Intransigent, Not Blind"

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger opined in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/28): "[After 9/11] President Putin...sided with President Bush and initiated a strategic new positioning.... Putin, who is still needed for other affairs, can count on sympathy and approval when he defines the conflict in Chechnya as a variation of international terrorism and places the Russian moves on the same level as the U.S. 'war against terrorism.'... But to act in an intransigent and tough way against political criminals...cannot mean to spread war and violence over the Chechen population. The quiet which Putin wants to create in Chechnya cannot be the quiet of a cemetery and decivilization. It must be a quiet that creates hopes and that will convince the Russians and the world that the talk about a social modernization and the turn to the West is meant seriously."

"Triumph Of Violence"

Moscow correspondent Tomas Avenarius filed the following editorial for center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (10/28): "The hostage-taking in Moscow is the direct consequence of the Chechen war for which Putin is co-responsible. The killing and the marauding of Russian soldiers does not offer a moral justification for the attack on the musical theater...but the things that have happened for more than eight years in Chechnya are the background for the biography of the hostage-takers.... The hostage-taking will confirm the views of most of the Russians and many international politicians that the fight in the Caucasus is a fight against terrorism only. Putin's tough answer will be misunderstood to such a degree that terror can be vanquished with an iron fist policy."

"Implications For Global Politics"

Karl Grobe had this to say in an editorial in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (10/28): "Chechen desperados have pushed the Russian government closer to the United States.... The hostage-taking from Moscow was not a strike from the outside, but a strike from the inside. It was the return of the Chechen war to the site where it was caused.... The argument that the fight is 'against terrorism' is justified when it involves actions like the one of the alpha force in the musical theater. It legitimized an action which was still a police action. But it will be expanded in an inappropriate way, when it is used as a basis for the brutal purge in Chechen villages."

"Success Or No?"

Business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg noted (10/28): "The Chechen rebels succeeded in achieving one thing: They brought back the almost forgotten, reprehensible war in Caucasus to the mind of the world."

ITALY: "Glasnost Is Missing In Russia"

Deputy managing editor Paolo Garimberti commented on the front-page of left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (10/29): "There is no glasnost in the way Putin is handling the aftermath of the bloody hostage crisis of the Chechen terrorists.... What did they use? Until doubts remain, it will be impossible to say if the use of gas was the only way to avoid a massacre...or if Putin's concern to defend his image as well as that of the Russian power did not win over any other humanitarian consideration and on the duty to save the hostages' lives."

"Putin, The Gas And The State Of Need"

Classical liberal Il Foglio (10/29): "At the political level, Putin's moves seem rather balanced. He underlined the role of international terrorism that used the Chechen terrorists, but he did not withdraw the peace plan that was presented last summer to the Council of Europe.... The real black hole in this terrible tragedy is Russia's inability to put on a fully democratic face for itself and for the world and the series of lies, censorships and half truths that fomented the worst suspicions. It is indeed difficult to get rid of 70 years of Communism and its police state, but it would be a good thing for Putin to begin working in this direction."

"Putin Performing Balancing Act Between Two Brands Of Terrorism"

Former ambassador Boris Biacheri wrote inTurin's La Stampa (10/28): "The Chechen war undoubtedly has behind it a long chain of terrorist attacks and a long chain of violent repression, but in terms of brutality, showmanship, and organizational efficiency, the Moscow attack is on a par with 11 September and, in a way, provides an exemplary corollary to it.... Many people deem it sufficient to address the political issues at the root of a number of national demands: to negotiate the autonomy of Chechnya with the Chechen separatists and to put a Palestinian state in place at last. But are we sure it will be enough?... Is Islamic terrorism perhaps less out to achieve specific political ends than a subversion of cultures and, for that very reason, recruiting an increasingly broad, increasingly fanatical legion?"

"At What Price?"

Milian's leading centrist Corriere della Sera carried this commentary by Franco Venturini (10/27): "Put with his back to the wall, as never before since he has been at Russia's helm, President Vladimir Putin opted for a blood-stained victory to defeat the terrorists and save his own power." ....

ISRAEL: "Russia Shows That Israel Is Still No. 1"

The Director of the Interdisciplinary Center's Global Research in International Affairs Center, columnist Barry Rubin wrote in conservative, independent Jerusalem Post (10/29): "While Russian President Vladimir Putin can well be accused of mishandling the crisis, the fact remains that this was not a confrontation of his choosing. He had tough decisions to make and even if he chose wrongly, the Russian leader should not become the main villain of this tragedy. At the same time, the way Putin handled the issue also shows serious shortcomings in Russia's evolution toward democracy. The nature of both leader and system is leading many people to believe that he will be the man to reestablish dictatorship in that long-suffering country."

"A Necessary Operation"

Popular, pluralist Maariv editorialized (10/27): "The commando operation that was carried out by the Russian army...,was a vital, necessary and wise stage in the war against the waves of terror that are sweeping the world. The price in human lives was unbearably heavy.... But the decision made by President Vladimir Putin was the right one. Russia cannot accept a dictate from Chechen terrorists without completely abdicating its status as a world power, and certainly as a regional power. Had it acquiesced to such a demand, the terror striking there would not have diminished but rather would have been encouraged.... Russia, together with the entire West, are still not prepared for a continuous war on terror.... It is not inconceivable that [Putin's] understanding of the nature of the world-wide war may also soften his opposition to the military action the United States is planning against Saddam Hussein."

"War Is War"

Liberal op-ed writer Ofer Shelach commented in the editorial of mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (10/27): "It is certainly possible that the Chechen terrorists receive aid from international terror groups, but it is doubtful that they have a global anti-Western ideology like that of bin Laden. Without justifying their barbaric act, it is also doubtful that Russia's war in Chechnya is a struggle between light and darkness. If the theater attack leads to a deal like the one Russia wanted from Washington--we will support the Iraq war if you turn a blind eye to what we are doing in Chechnya--the West will find itself supporting the acts of cruelty and war crimes that have been taking place there for years."

BACK TO THE TOP    #229 CONTENTS