A Muslim terrorist was shot dead on the Tube in London. The secret services were quick and efficient to act: they had knocked the villain off with eight shots in the head. That very moment witnesses, ready to prove that the victim had a “shahid belt” which he was about to put into operation, had emerged from nowhere.

Two days later it became clear that the killed man was neither a Muslim, nor a terrorist. A Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes had but one drawback — Southern type of appearance.

I’ll treat myself to a seditious thought: had the victim turned out to be a Pakistani or an Arab instead of a Brazilian, we would still be listening to those fairy tales about “shahid belt” and heroic vigilance of the police patrol, who had no other way out but the use of force. A good terrorist means a dead terrorist. Even if he is not a terrorist at all.

The incident at the London Tube makes us speculate, to what extent one can trust the secret services’ official reports. In Britain the public reaction to the explosions differed from that in the US after September 11, 2001. The lightning does not strike twice in one spot, especially if these spots are on different continents. No consolidation among the nation is to be observed so far. The population had estimated the scope of the threat, but had instinctively sensed that one of the major sources of the problem appeared to the government itself.

The official version of the tragedy is also a subject to critics, especially after the second, “mock” attack taken place on the 21^st of July. The terrorists-losers, causing no harm, had set a sort of an investigative experiment. They proved that the blast operation could be carried out very successfully with no suicide bombers. The suspicions grow with the increasing number of reports about elements of the clockwork found on the scene of action — mechanisms absolutely needless for kamikaze. Young men, who are supposed to be suicide bombers, don’t quite suite the prescribed image, as analysis of their psychological portraits might suggest.

The story of terrorists — self-murderers is convenient for the police. The criminal is dead, therefore there is no law suit. No law suit means no lawyer willing to contest the official version. The villain is punished, the case is solved. Reporting is in order. Any ID with a “Muslim” name found on the scene of action might serve as “a conclusive evidence”. Of course, this plan will work out perfectly well if no one is going to check the results of the investigation.

I am not Sherlock Holmes to question the competence of the legendary Scotland Yard. However, even professionals do make mistakes. Moreover, they do agree sometimes to support the version, “convenient” for the authorities, especially if they find themselves under political pressure.

Here, in Russia where confidence in the secret service agencies is at a very low level we are used to asking questions. The overwhelming majority of the population doubts the official version of the house explosions in Moscow and Volgodonsk, which actually led to the second Chechen war. Today the official version of the last summer’s double jet crash is also being openly criticized in the media. It is possible that women, referred to as suicide bombers, didn’t intend to blow up anyone.

In all of the aforementioned cases the presumable terrorists were killed. When, following the Beslan tragedy, the state security services dared to expose to the public the living villain, humbly repeating prepared speeches, the officially presented course of events began to fall apart when brought to court. They had to admit the fact of shooting the school by tanks and flame guns and some discrepancy in the number of terrorists involved. A logic question thus arises: where did the dozen of terrorists lost by the secret services come from and go to?

If we are not sure about our secret services’ operations why not then question those of their Western counterparts? When we are being told about a higher level of professionalism, it may be accepted. But when the high level of control is proclaimed, I don’t believe in it. The control may indeed be quite strong, but is it common practice that politicians in power are interested to disclose the truth about certain events to the public? Parliamentarian control will be fruitful only if people are openly discussing the shortcomings of the official versions.

With no facts provided, any criticism on the secret service’s part won’t look convincing enough. As for the former, the Western public won’t get them as it does not display the slightest doubt in their fairness. Few individuals, expressing different point of view, are perceived as paranoid adherents of the “conspiracy theory”. The more they insist on their ideas, the more they look like madmen.

Well, our suspicions might prove to be groundless after all. But it’s not about who was really to blame for the explosion on the London Tube. Free people, as we are, have the right to ask questions. If we voluntarily deny this right, it means that the society, regardless of the system of government, is inevitably moving towards totalitarianism. To become capable of telling a total lie, the authorities need total confidence. Being too tolerant about their own secret services’ activities, the Western society deprives itself of the moral immune resistance, which is essential. It is just the beginning of the path at the end of which one is to find himself in the obscure world of Orwell’s “1984”. By the way, the action in this immortal novel takes place in London. In a city, tired of an endless war with an imaginary enemy, where bizarre blasts thunder from time to time.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Director of The Institute for Globalization Studies. The article is written specially for "Eurasian Home".

July 29, 2005