"We proved that it is impossible to force Russia to its knees. We are not able to save everyone. Forgive us.” These emphatic lines were delivered by Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in a televised message while defending the war against terrorism and the use of a chemical agent against Chechen rebels. On 23 October 2002, some fifty odd Chechen rebels siezed a Moscow theater and took all the spectators (more than 700) hostage. After three days of ordeal, Russian law enforcement authorities stormed the theater and rescued the hostages.  In the process, some 117 hostages died from the effects of the chemical agent used through the ventilators of the theater. Some 70 Chechen terrorists were also killed. Although the civilian casualties were large, a massacre was definitely averted and the Russian leadership showed resolve to put down similar uprisings against the establishment. 

  Having said this, two questions remain unanswered: Can the chemical substance used in the event be called a weapon, and does that violate international norms or conventions? After initial reluctance, Russian officials disclosed that the chemical was ‘fentanyl’, a fast acting calmative to incapacitate the rebels. The substance used is a narcotic and was first synthesized in Belgium in the 1950s, and introduced into clinical practice for anesthesia.  The biological effect of fentanyl is similar to heroin, but it is much more potent.

  The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP) categorized fentanyl as a chemical weapon and has included it on the list of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention lists fentanyl as an incapacitating chemical agent, but not as a weapon. It can temporarily produce physiological or psychological debilitation, since it affects the central rather than peripheral functions of the body, causing disorientation. 

  Recently, some reports in the media suggested that countries are promoting psychopharmacological warfare programmes. Whether the Russians have weaponised these chemical substances or not, is yet to be ascertained. But the United States has certainly made its intentions clear in this regard. The Pentagon’s Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) in one of its reports has revealed the need for psychopharmacological weapons. Its report “The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives for Use as a Non Lethal Technique” mentions fentanyl as one of the drugs of choice, and that a new weapon could be developed from it.

  The next point of concern is whether the use of fentanyl or substances like it violates international norms. Russia’s Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko, vehemently denied any violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).  So did the experts. Andy Oppenheimer of the Jane’s Defence Weekly concluded in a recent interview  that the CWC does not proscribe calmatives or anesthetics like fentanyl. Earlier, in 1994 and 1995, the Pugwash Study Group commenting on the Implementation of the CBW Conventions widely discussed possible future developments of disabling chemical weapons or riot control agents such as fentanyl. But, disagreement prevailed in all these discussions. The Chemical Weapons Convention does not ban riot control agents. It only prohibits their use in warfare, but allows law enforcement use in riot control situations, since the agent has only temporary side effects. Fentanyl is not listed in any of the three schedules of the CWC, which would ban its production and use under any circumstances. Again, according to the experts, fentanyl or its derivatives hardly lasts for thirty minutes and is characterized by rapid onset. However, this debate is still open and the experts are studying the CWC and the Russian hostage crisis in detail.

  This particular incident would feature in every future debate on chemical weapons and arms control. The Russians are now getting ready for a war without frontiers and boundaries. Its defence minister reiterated that new weapon systems, such as the recent one, are needed to meet the challenge posed by terrorism. 

  This event, considered by many as Russia’s 9/11, forced the Kremlin to redraft its national security doctrine. The new draft envisages plans for the development of new generation smart weapons for pre-emptive strikes on terrorists and their hideouts. The Russians have shown the world and particularly India how a responsible state can counter terrorism under any circumstances.