IMPLICATIONS: In a recently published obituary, it was pointed out that the wife and child of Abdul-Khalim Sadulayev had been kidnapped by pro-Kremlin Kadyrov groups. Over the last two years, similar reports have also emerged which highlight how this tactic has been adopted by pro-Kremlin Chechen groups. Although subsequently released, the relatives of the then Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov were arrested, while relatives of Dokku Umarov and Shamil Basayev remain in custody. Over the last three years this tactic has gained pace. Although not a policy, one newspaper, published in 2005, noted that the “relatives of separatist commanders were being arrested en masse”. Amongst other implications, this tactic of ‘counter hostage-taking’ brings the continued violence in the region into focus. First, this tactic results from the transfer of power from Russian authorities to pro-Kremlin Chechen groups. In 2003, the interim Chechen administration, under the stewardship Akhmad Kadyrov, sought to develop strategies to undermine the ongoing resistance. At the same time, as activists and reporters have noted, a significant number of amnestied fighters began to become incorporated into pro-Kremlin militias. These groups had intimate knowledge of family and clan connections and the whereabouts of relatives of separatist fighters. To this end, local knowledge was exploited by the pro-Kremlin Chechens as part of a broader Russian policy of ‘normalization’ in the republic. As some reports by the Russian human rights group Memorial indicate, zachistka or ‘cleansing’ operations coordinated by the Kadyrovtsi have targeted villages and particular regions. Since 2003 this has led to a divide in the normal bonds of Chechen society, as Chechen-on-Chechen violence increased. Thus, targeted ‘counter hostage-taking’ provides an individualized corollary to this tactic, providing evidence of a further stage of internecine violence in Chechnya. Second, ‘counter hostage-taking’ has also been discussed by speakers of the Russian Duma, as an appropriate policy to deal with the continued threat. One Chechen source noted that the tactic of ‘counter hostage-taking’ had been devised ‘in the hope of forcing them to give up their struggle’. Far from being condemned by politicians in the Kremlin, the policy has lead to a public debate. Vladimir Ustinov sought legislative support for the policy of ‘counter hostage-taking’. When Ustinov addressed the Russian parliament on this issue, he said that “detaining a terrorist’s relatives during a terrorist attack would undoubtedly help us save lives”. The issue was, in part, raised as a reaction to the events in Beslan, with Ustinov placing the tactic in the same category as ‘pre-emptive policies’. In contrast, human rights groups such as Memorial and Human Rights Watch place the strategy as ‘part of a pattern of Kremlin-backed Chechen forces targeting the relatives of known separatists’. As statements by Chechen rebels indicate, this tactic may, then, have led to a further radicalization of elements in the Chechen separatist ranks, pushing the separatist movement further underground.
CONCLUSIONS: The issue of ‘counter hostage-taking’ has been largely ignored in the West. And this creates an environment in which the Chechen issue can be interwoven into the broader anti-terrorist policies related to the ‘war on terror’. Whether ‘counter hostage-taking’ is an explicitly designed policy or a more reactive tactic, resulting from events such as the Dubrovka hostage taking in Moscow or the Beslan tragedy, remains unclear. However, it does seem to reflect a broader tendency to use such tactics, including ‘extraordinary rendition’, by leading powers after 9/11. As the case of Imam Shamil demonstrates, ‘counter hostage-taking’ has historical precedents. This tactic has undoubtedly played a role in the radicalization of the Chechen resistance. These attempts to exert pressure on the Chechen rebels also serve to widen the divide between the pro-Kremlin Chechen groups and the myriad of associations and organizations now involved in resisting Russian forces. Much like the U.S.-led policy of ‘extraordinary rendition’, the facilitation of ‘counter hostage-taking’ by pro-Kremlin Chechens has been justified by the wider discourse of the ‘war on terror’. Whereas the U.S. policy reflects a global shift after 9/11, in the Chechen case the tactic of ‘counter hostage-taking’ is localized, simultaneously reflecting a long-standing conflict and a transformation in the nature of violence, marking a period of Chechen-on-Chechen violence, further radicalization, and a shift away from earlier examples of Russo-Chechen war.
AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Cerwyn Moore is a Lecturer in International Relations at Nottingham Trent University.