| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Back to the Contents of News Review Special Edition
On October 26, Russian special forces used a gas based on the opiate fentanyl to incapacitate around 50 heavily-armed Chechen terrorists holding hundreds of civilians hostage in a Moscow theatre. By October 30, when details of the gas were belatedly provided by Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko, it was clear that almost all but two of the 119 hostages killed in the action (a figure which later rose to 128) had died from the effects of the drug, customarily used in small doses as an anaesthetic. Shevchenko blamed the poor condition of many of the hostages - suffering from acute lack of sleep, food and water, and under intense stress - for the opiate's drastic effect. He added, attempting to quash spiralling speculation: "I officially declare that chemical compounds that could fall under the authority of the international convention banning chemical weapons [the CWC] were not used during the course of the special operation."
The Russian authorities were strongly criticised for not informing medical personnel of the nature and possible effects of the gas. As Alexander Vershbow, the US Ambassador to Russia, remarked (October 30), this degree of secrecy "contributed to the confusion after the immediate operation to rescue the hostages was over... It's clear that perhaps with a little more information at least a few more of the hostages might have survived." On October 29, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated that the "President views this entire matter as a tragic one, but it's a tragedy that was brought on as a result of the terrorists who put people in the way."
The incident raised broader questions, however, particularly concerning the dangers of so-called 'non-lethal weapons'. According to Lev Fyodorov, President of the Russian Union for Chemical Safety (October 28): "This was a military operation using non-lethal chemical weapons developed during the Cold War. They would have been intended for a military opponent." On October 27, Amy Smithson, an expert on chemical and biological arms control at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, told The New York Times: "This is kind of like pornography - you know it when you see it. There are going to be people...who argue that the [chemical weapons] treaty does not prohibit it. But how it was used, I think, is going to make it a huge debate." Part of the debate is sure to revolve around the purpose and scope of the CWC itself. As Dr. Jean-Pascal Zanders, chemical and biological weapons analyst at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), noted on November 4: "The Convention doesn't ban chemicals, it bans purposes under which those chemicals are applied". On October 29, Dr. Jonathan Tucker, Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington, stressed that the "Chemical Weapons Convention makes a very clear distinction between riot control and incapacitants".
On November 4, the Global Security Newswire (GSN) released details of a Pentagon document - Chemical Immobilizing Agents for Non-Lethal Applications - seeking corporate bids to research the development of 'non-lethal' chemical compounds for military or law-enforcement use. According to the GSN article, the first of three planned research phases was contracted for in 2000 and has already been completed. The Newswire quoted Dr. Mark Wheelis, a microbiologist at the University of California, as commenting that "I do see as very destabilising the development of new non-lethal weapons, whether they're riot control agents or not, being done by the military, for military purposes... [Such development could] seriously erode the norm against military use of chemicals as weapons."
Dr. Wheelis is conducting research into the issue with Professor Malcolm Dando, a biologist and arms control expert at Bradford University's Department of Peace Studies, UK. On October 29, Professor Dando told The Guardian newspaper: "What happened in Moscow is a harbinger of what is to come. There is a revolution in life sciences which could be applied in a major way to warfare. It's an early example of the mess we may be creating."
The legal grey area of 'non-lethal' chemical use for military or civilian-control purposes is acknowledged in the Pentagon document obtained by GSN, according to which the second phase of the research programme will seek to "determine implications of the Chemical Weapons Convention for proposed scenarios of use".
Notwithstanding such acknowledged uncertainties, a pre-publication copy of a report from the US National Research Council (NRC) - An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology, released to journalists on November 4 - strongly urged the US Navy, in the words of an NRC press release, to "move toward integrating non-lethal weapons - designed to incapacitate people or materiel while minimising unintended death and damage - into naval warfighting requirements, research and development programs, acquisition plans, and operations". The NRC urges greater support and funding for the Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, established in 1996 under the auspices of the Marine Corps.
Reports: Official silence on gas raises vexing questions, New York Times, October 28; Anger grows over Moscow gas mystery, BBC News Online, October 28; Excerpt - White House comments on hostage crisis at Moscow Theater, Washington File, October 29; US weapons secrets exposed, The Guardian, October 29; Russia names Moscow siege gas, BBC News Online, October 30; Report urges focus on non-lethal weapons, Reuters, November 4; US military studying nonlethal chemicals, Global Security Newswire, November 4; Developing effective non-lethal weapon options is needed to enhance naval force capabilities, US National Academies' Press Release, November 4 (http://www.nationalacademies.org); Moscow gas likely a potent narcotic, Washington Post, November 9.
© 2002 The Acronym Institute.