the first Russian Chechen war (1994-1996)- - international organizations that were involved in the decision
conflict Based on the text: The armed conflict in Chechnya, now in its fourth year, is the most serious human rights
crisis of the new decade in Europe. It has taken a disastrous toll on the civilian
population and is now one of the greatest threats to stability and rule of law in Russia.
Yet the international community’s response to it has been shameful and shortsighted.
The international community has a moral and political obligation to protect fundamental
rights of people in and around Chechnya. It should with a unified voice be prevailing on
the Russian government to halt forced disappearances, torture, and arbitrary detention,
which Russian forces perpetrate on a daily basis. It should be compiling documentation
about abuses into an authoritative, official record. It should be vigorously pressing for a
credible accountability process for perpetrators of serious violations of international
humanitarian law, and should think strategically about how to achieve this when the
Russian court system fails to deliver justice. And it should stop Russia from forcing the
return of displaced people to areas where their safety and well-being cannot be ensured.
But none of this has happened. The international community has instead chosen the
path of self-deception, choosing to believe Russia’s claims that the situation in Chechnya
is stabilizing, and so be spared of making tough decisions about what actions are
necessary to stop flagrant abuses and secure the well-being of the people of the region.
The year 2003 saw no improvement in the international community’s disappointing
response to the Chechen situation. All the international community could muster were
well-intended statements of concern that were never reinforced with political,
diplomatic, financial or other consequences.
Chechnya was placed on the agenda of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the
highest human rights body within the U.N. system, but even there a resolution on
Chechnya failed to pass. No government leader was willing to press for specific
improvements during summits with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin. In late 2002
the Russian government closed the field office in Chechnya of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). And to date the Russian government had
still not invited U.N. special rapporteurs on torture and extrajudicial executions to visit
the region. And unlike in other armed conflicts in Europe, few foreign missions in
Russia sought to gather first-hand information about continuing human rights abuses.
It did not have to be this way. Events of the past decade have shown that however
flawed their policies might be in many respects, concerned states and intergovernmental
bodies can play a significant role in addressing human rights violations. Even in the
Balkans, where the international community failed to stop horrific abuses as they were
occurring, concerned states eventually supported the creation of the International
Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, a significant and likely long-lasting
contribution to security and human rights in the region. Hundreds of OSCE monitors
deployed to Kosovo in November 1998 were able to create official documentation of
massacres and other human rights abuses.
To be sure, there are important political obstacles to affecting Russia’s behavior in
Chechnya. Because it is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council,
Russia was able to shield Chechnya from serious U.N. scrutiny, save for the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights in 2000 and 2001. The U.S. and European governments
have broad political and economic agendas with Russia, ranging from strategic missile
defense to energy security to Russian policy in the Middle East. But none of these
factors can justify or fully explain the international community’s reluctance to promote
human rights protections in and around Chechnya, or why Russia never has had to face
significant consequences for abuses by its troops.
International disengagement on Chechnya became more marked after the September 11,
2001 attacks in the United States. Russia, which had since 1999 called the conflict in
Chechnya a “counter-terror operation,” soon began to argue that the war in Chechnya
was its contribution to the U.S.-led global campaign against terrorism. Russia succeeded
in further shielding the conflict from scrutiny in international forums and in Russia itself.
Western governments have emphasized the need for Russia to find a political solution to
the conflict. But they fail to see the role that continuing abuses play in prolonging it. For
this reason, the policy of disengagement is shortsighted. As abuses continue, and as there
continues to be no credible accountability process, Chechens appear to be losing what
faith or hope they may have had in the Russian government. Disengagement, particularly
now, is untimely. Russia has spared little effort to present the situation as stabilizing. But
it has proven incapable of ending the conflict; instead, in 2003 it began to spill into
neighboring Ingushetia, with Russian forces perpetrating the same abuses there as they
have in Chechnya.
In the long term, disengagement on Chechnya is a disservice to human rights in Russia.
Having faced no diplomatic or other consequences for its crimes in Chechnya, the
Russian government has certainly learned an important lesson about the limits of the
international community’s political will in pursuing human rights.
Unchecked patterns of abuse by Russia’s forces in Chechnya will eventually affect the
rest of Russian society. Tens of thousands of police and security forces have done tours
of duty in Chechnya, after which they return to their home regions, bringing with them
learned patterns of brutality and impunity. Several Russian human rights groups have
begun to note a “Chechen syndrome” among police who served in Chechnya—a
particular pattern of physical abuse and other dehumanizing treatment of people in
custody. Russians already face serious risk of torture in police custody. The Chechnya
experience is thus undermining efforts to promote the rule of law in Russia’s criminal
justice system.
Human Rights Abuses in the Chechnya Conflict
Russia’s second armed conflict in Chechnya in the 1990s began in September 1999.
Russia claimed it was a counter-terror operation, aimed at eliminating the chaos that had
reined in Chechnya since the end of the 1994-1996 Chechen war and at liquidating
terrorist groups that had found haven there. Five months of indiscriminate bombing
and shelling in 1999 and early 2000 resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. Three
massacres, which followed combat operations, took the lives of at least 130 people. By
March 2000, Russia’s federal forces gained at least nominal control over most of
Chechnya. They began a pattern of classic “dirty war” tactics and human rights abuses
that continue to mark the conflict to this day. Russian forces arbitrarily detain those
allegedly suspected of being, or collaborating with, rebel fighters and torture them in
custody to secure confessions or testimony. In some cases, the corpses of those last seen
in Russian custody were subsequently found, bearing marks of torture and summary
execution, in dumping grounds or unmarked graves. More often, those last seen in
custody are simply never seen again—they have been forcibly disappeared. Make no
mistake, Chechen rebel forces too have committed grave crimes, including numerous
brutal attacks targeting civilians in and outside of Chechnya, killing and injuring many.
Rebel fighters were also responsible for assassinations of civil servants cooperating with
the pro-Moscow Chechen administration of Chechnya. Anti-personnel land mines laid
by fighters and Russian forces claimed the lives of federal soldiers and civilians alike.
At the height of the Chechen war in 2000, as many as 300,000 people had been displaced
from their homes, with most living in the neighboring republic of Ingushetia. Of these,
40,000 resided in tent camps.
By 2003, the cycle of arbitrary detention, torture, and forced disappearance was well
entrenched, and the crisis of forced disappearances appeared to have become a
permanent one. According to unpublished governmental statistics, 126 people were
abducted and presumed “disappeared” in January and February 2003 alone. In midAugust, the Chechen Ministry of Internal Affairs said that nearly 400 people had
“disappeared” in Chechnya since the beginning of the year. Local officials in 2003 have
also admitted the existence of forty-nine mass graves containing the remains of nearly
3,000 civilians.
As noted above, the conflict increasingly has spilled over the Chechen border into
Ingushetia, still a haven for tens of thousands of displaced Chechens, and Russian
operations there have been as abusive as they are in Chechnya. In June 2003, Russian
and pro-Moscow Chechen forces conducted at least seven security operations in
Ingushetia, five of them in settlements for Chechen displaced persons. The operations
involved numerous cases of arbitrary arrest and detention, ill-treatment, and looting. As
with abuses committed in Chechnya, authorities failed to diligently investigate the
violations and hold perpetrators accountable.
Russian authorities in Ingushetia also have kept up steady pressure on displaced people
living in tent camps to return to Chechnya. Throughout 2003, as in 2002, federal and
local migration authorities intermittently cut off gas, electricity, water, and other
infrastructure services to several of the camps and removed hundreds of people from
camp registration lists, causing them to be evicted. In addition, officials threatened the
displaced people with arrests on false charges such as drugs and weapons possession,
and impending security sweeps. Migration authorities closed one camp in the middle of
winter in 2002, another in October 2003, and as of this writing seemed set to close yet a
third; meanwhile, authorities blocked the construction of alternative shelters in
Ingushetia.
Closing the tent camps, which at this writing housed more than 12,000 displaced
Chechens, and pressuring people to return to Chechnya is part of a larger government
strategy to put the Chechnya “problem” back inside Chechnya so that authorities can
claim that the situation there is “normalizing.” Such claims, in turn, are used to support
Russia’s position that international scrutiny of the republic is no longer justifiable.
The International Response
The international community was poorly positioned to respond effectively to these
developments because it had acquiesced in Russia’s efforts to keep outside observers
from being deployed to Chechnya. In late 2002 the Russian government refused to
renew the mandate of the OSCE Assistance Group, effectively closing the organization’s
important field presence in Chechnya. Since mid-2001, the Assistance Group had
reported on human rights conditions, facilitated humanitarian relief, and promoted a
peaceful resolution of the crisis in Chechnya. Negotiations over renewing the OSCE
mandate collapsed after Russia insisted that the mission relinquish its human rights and
political dimensions. To its credit, the OSCE refused. After the closure, the Dutch
chairmanship pressed for a new OSCE presence with a human rights component, but
did not receive support from other OSCE participating states necessary to make the
effort successful.
As already noted, a resolution sponsored by the European Union on Chechnya failed to
pass at the 2003 session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights for the second year
in a row. It was rejected in part because the European Union seemed to will it to fail: as
in 2002, it used the threat of a resolution only as a bargaining chip to coax the Russian
government into agreeing to a much weaker chairman’s statement. This strategy was
misguided in its optimism, given that the Russian government had ever since the
beginning of the conflict vehemently rejected international criticism of its conduct of the
war and mobilized diplomatic resources to keep the Chechnya issue out of the U.N.
When Russia predictably walked away from the chairman’s statement negotiations, the
E.U. introduced the resolution but then purposively failed to advocate for its adoption,
and refused to share information about its strategy with third party states.
In January 2003, the Chechnya rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (PACE) Lord Judd put forward a resolution calling on Russia to
postpone a constitutional referendum for Chechnya planned for March, citing the
escalating conflict and persistence of human rights abuses and a poor security
environment. After a hot debate, PACE rejected this proposal, and instead called on
Russia to ensure appropriate conditions for the referendum. Lord Judd resigned in
protest. In April, PACE adopted a highly critical resolution on the human rights
situation and the lack of accountability in Chechnya.
UNHCR worked hard to ensure protection for displaced persons in Ingushetia in 2002-
03, and protested Russian government efforts to force them back. As authorities moved
to close camps, UNHCR was able to prevent eighty families from being left homeless in
Ingushetia. UNHCR’s efforts are admirable. But Russia’s intent to close tent camps
could not be clearer, and UNHCR’s efforts will not be sufficient unless U.N. member
states also seek and obtain political commitments from Russia that ensure protection for
displaced persons.
At the bilateral level, little apparent effort was made at the highest levels to press Russia
to improve human rights protections in the region. President Putin received a ringing
endorsement from governments around the world who helped him celebrate the 300th
anniversary of the founding of St. Petersburg. Chechnya was at the bottom of the
agendas in summits with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George
W. Bush. Speaking on behalf of the Italian presidency of the European Union, Silvio
Berlusconi even went so far as to praise the Chechen presidential elections, which nearly
every independent observer said were rigged.
Antecedents to Inaction
Many analysts attribute international diffidence with respect to abuses in Chechnya to
changing international priorities after September 11, 2001, particularly the increasing
focus on global security. But in fact the antecedents to inaction go much farther back,
even to the early months of the war. The international community deserves credit for
the strong and forthright criticism it mounted at that time, and for efforts to bring
diplomatic pressure to bear to convince the government to rein in abusive troops and
allow access to the region. But the effort for the most part was half-hearted and shortlived, ending soon after Vladimir Putin, who became acting president upon Boris
Yeltsin’s resignation on December 31, 1999, was elected president in March 2000.
In the early months of the war, Russian forces razed Grozny in indiscriminate bombing,
killing thousands, arrested thousands more, and summarily executed more than 130
detained persons in post-battle sweep operations. International criticism was sharp. The
OSCE in 1999 insisted on a reaffirmation of its mandate in Chechnya, and in April 2000,
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe suspended Russia’s voting rights,
restoring them only in January 2001. In late 1999, the EU adopted a decision to freeze
certain technical assistance programs because of Chechnya and recommended that
embassy personnel travel to the region and gather information on events there. But after
Yeltsin’s resignation the EU toned down its rhetoric; the recommendation to send in
diplomats was never implemented.
The limits the international community set for itself in this early period would set the
parameters for years to come. Only the PACE recognized massacres of noncombatants
as war crimes. International actors apparently were not prepared to follow through on
the consequences that recognizing the massacres as war crimes would entail.
No government or multilateral institution was willing to consider linking financial
benefits to improvements on the ground in Chechnya or the creation of a credible
accountability process. The World Bank, which arguably had the most leverage and a
mandate to withhold aid on human rights grounds, released U.S. $450 million in
structural adjustment loan payments to Russia during the first year of the war, which
went directly to the Russian government for unrestricted general budgetary spending.
Multilateral institutions and their member states also resisted pressing for an
accountability process that had any international involvement, putting their faith in the
Russian government to establish a credible domestic monitoring and accountability
process. Council of Europe member states did not act on PACE’s recommendation that
they file an interstate complaint against Russia with the European Court of Human
Rights.
In 2000 and 2001 the U.N. Human Rights Commission adopted strong resolutions
condemning human rights abuses in Chechnya and calling on Russia to invite U.N.
thematic mechanisms to the region. But it stopped short of calling for an international
commission of inquiry, requiring instead that Russia establish a national commission of
inquiry. The Russian government bitterly opposed the resolution, and vowed not to
cooperate with its recommendations. At the time, Human Rights Watch and others
urged the Commission to call for an international commission of inquiry, which could
operate, albeit in a limited capacity, in the face of Russian objections. We had serious
doubts that the Russian government would establish a thorough and impartial
monitoring or accountability process.
The Russian government established a human rights office in Chechnya, headed by
President Putin’s special envoy on human rights in Chechnya. A national commission of
inquiry was formed, in name only. Neither institution had the authority to investigate or
prosecute violations of humanitarian law or human rights law, and neither produced an
official record of the abuses committed by both sides of the conflict.
In April 2001, at the request of PACE, the Russian government made available a list of
criminal investigations related to the Chechnya conflict. This list revealed the extent of
the impunity for crimes committed in the conflict: the vast majority of criminal cases
were not under active investigation; no cases had made it to the courts; and there was no
investigation into widespread torture, one of the key abuses of the conflict.
The international community had an important role to play in documenting abuses, both
to inform policy toward Russia and, ultimately, to produce an official record of the
abuses committed in the conflict. In 1999, the EU instructed heads of embassies of its
member states to visit the region to gather information on humanitarian assistance. In
sharp contrast to its efforts in Kosovo prior to March 1999, the instruction was not
implemented, and working-level visits by diplomats to the region were few and far
between.
The OSCE’s Assistance Group to Grozny was the best equipped institution to lead a
documentation effort on Chechnya. It had documented abuses in the 1994-1996
Chechnya conflict, played a crucial role in negotiating an end to it, and was still on the
ground as late as 1998. The OSCE subsequently had gained institutional expertise in
documenting humanitarian law violations in Kosovo. Its book, As Seen as Told, remains
to this day one of the most authoritative accounts of the abuses that occurred in Kosovo
prior to March 1999. It could not apply this experience to Chechnya, as Russia’s
prodigious efforts at presenting obstacles caused the Assistance Group to postpone its
redeployment until May 2001. And even after its redeployment, the Assistance Group
was constrained in its reporting.
In 2000, the Council of Europe seconded experts for Putin’s special representative for
human rights in Chechnya, but they spent most of the year in Strasbourg. After a bomb
exploded near the experts’ passing car in Chechnya in April 2003, they deemed the
security situation too volatile to return. Even prior to that date, the work of the experts
in Chechnya had been severely inhibited by their limited mandate, which prevented them
from freely moving around Chechnya and conducting investigations of key incidents on
their own initiative. The reporting of the experts generally contained little information
that could not be found in other sources and information on human rights abuses was
often of a general nature. The quality of reporting had improved in late 2002, but since
April 2003 the experts have been forced to do their work in Strasbourg, which has made
it impossible for them to directly monitor the situation on the ground.
As prime minister, Putin had staked his political career on the “counterterror” operation
in Chechnya. Under his presidency the government, and he personally, greeted
international criticism of the campaign, no matter how mild, with outbursts, threats, and
indignation. If the strategy aimed to dampen Russia’s interlocutors’ enthusiasm for
constructive intervention, it was successful. By mid-2000, Western leaders understood
that Putin, until then a political unknown, had consolidated power and would lead
Russia for at least four more years. They generally ceased to press Russia for concessions
on Chechnya. This meant that the international community’s most important multilateral
achievements on Chechnya—resolutions at the United Nations Human Rights
Commission, resolutions by the PACE, and the like—received no reinforcement at the
bilateral level, and so went unheeded.
Russia, Chechnya, and the Global Campaign against Terror
By September 11, 2001, the war in Chechnya, its toll on civilians and its broader
implications for the rule of law in Russia had fallen off the agenda of many of Russia’s
interlocutors. After the attacks in the United States, as noted above, Russia cast the
conflict in Chechnya as its contribution to the global campaign against terrorism,
pointing to links certain Chechen field commanders allegedly had to al-Qaeda.
Russia’s cooperation was needed in the war in Afghanistan, and would later be sought in
the U.S. war in Iraq. Several heads of state indicated outright that Russia’s conduct in
Chechnya would be seen in a new light. The horrific hostage-taking by Chechen rebels
on a Moscow theater in October 2002 caused revulsion in Russia and throughout the
world, and lent credence to Putin’s assertions and, in the minds of some, seemed to
confirm the existence of links between certain rebel groups and al-Qaeda. A series of
suicide bombings in Chechnya and other parts of Russia in 2002 and 2003 killed and
maimed hundreds more.
Already made a lower priority, Chechnya practically disappeared from governments’
public agendas with Russia. Neither the European Union, its member states, nor the
United States has had the political courage to mount strong criticism at key moments, or
call publicly for accountability or for U.N. rapporteurs to be allowed to visit the region.
Most governments have called publicly and in a coordinated fashion for Russia to desist
from compelling displaced persons to return to Chechnya. But after so many years of
criticism unmatched by a credible threat of sanction, such words yielded little effect.
In dealing with Chechnya today, governments and multilateral institutions for the most
part stress the need for a political solution to the conflict, rather than pressing for an
immediate end to human rights abuses, let alone holding Russia and Chechen rebels to
account for them. Many argue that the abuses will end only when the conflict ends. The
international community should not be reproached for seeking an end the conflict in
Chechnya, but emphasizing this goal over all others overlooks the fact that it is the
continuing cycle of abuses that fuel the conflict. To end the conflict, the Russian
government has to build in the population of Chechnya an atmosphere of trust in
Russia’s institutions. But the daily grind of torture, arbitrary detention, and forced
disappearances instead sows further mistrust. As people see their loved ones killed or
disappeared they have less incentive not to join the rebel effort.
Russia’s efforts at finding a political solution—at “normalizing” the situation—are not
ending the conflict in Chechnya, but rather making the conflict less visible to the outside
world. The constitutional referendum held in Chechnya in March 2003, and the
subsequent presidential elections in October, were widely advertised by the Russian
government as a final stage of stabilization of conditions in the republic. In reality, the
referendum and elections took place against a background of continuing and escalating
violence, and independent observers unanimously believed that the elections were
rigged. Yet the Russian government has continued to use both elections to convince the
outside world that the situation is normalizing through a political process, and to argue
that international scrutiny or other involvement is no longer justified.

Ironically, as the Russian government is emphasizing the international implications of
the Chechnya operation for the global campaign against terrorism, it is shutting the
region to international scrutiny and cooperation. This discredits Russia’s partners in the
global campaign against terrorism among those inside Chechnya who suffer form
lawlessness and abuse at the hands of Russia’s forces and Chechen rebels.
As Russian forces enjoy impunity for crimes in Chechnya, and as Russia has escaped any
significant diplomatic consequences for such crimes, the Russian government may come
to expect nothing less than international disengagement on human rights more generally
in Russia. The Russian public may conclude that it is acceptable for the government to
be unaccountable for its actions. This will stunt progress on human rights in Russia for
years to come, as the government learns to simply dismiss criticism of its broader human
rights record, confident that words, no matter how tough, will never translate into
action.
The Way Forward
Russia’s sway within the international arena should not hinder a robust response from
the international community on human rights abuses in Chechnya. The international
community should consider that Russia’s involvement in the war against terrorism raises
rather than diminishes the stakes of its conduct in Chechnya. Russia’s status as a
permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and its ability to remove Chechnya
from the U.N.’s agenda, heightens the importance of regional mechanisms—the
Council of Europe and the OSCE. To be effective, these institutions require first and
foremost the support of their member governments in their bilateral relations with
Russia. At the same time, U.N. officials, including the secretary-general, should press
Russian authorities to allow U.N. institutions and mechanisms to play a role in
monitoring and promoting human rights in Chechnya. This too is a message that must
be reinforced in bilateral relations.
Russia’s interlocutors should coordinate to deliver a unified message on the need for
accountability for crimes against civilians, access to the region by human rights monitors,
continued international assistance to displaced persons, and an end to involuntary
returns to Chechnya. They should use summits and multilateral meetings as
opportunities to press for specific benchmarks—including an updated, detailed list of
investigations and prosecutions; invitations to the U.N. special rapporteurs on torture,
extrajudicial executions, and violence against women; and binding commitments not to
compel displaced persons to return to Chechnya until it is safe to do so, to provide
decent and humane shelter to those who continue to be displaced, and to allow for
international agencies to continue to provide relief for them. They should press for these
benchmarks publicly and forcefully, and make clear that political, diplomatic, and
financial consequences will follow should improvements not be forthcoming.
The international community can also help the cause of justice by supporting local
organizations that help victims of abuse in Chechnya press their claims with the
European Court of Human Rights. Once there is momentum on justice, international
financial institutions should make clear that they will make the Russian government’s
compliance with court judgments a condition for future loan and credit disbursements.
Wishing away the human rights crisis in Chechnya will in the long run will not serve the
goal of a peaceful resolution to the armed conflict. It is also a disservice to the thousands
of people who have suffered human rights abuses and who are left with nowhere to turn
for justice. A robust international response to Russia, one that backs words with action,
is a critical part of the solution.