Everyday Emergency Doctors Without Borders

The first war of independence of Chechnya with the Russian Federation starts in 1994 and runs for two years. In 1999, while the country and its people are still struggling to recover, the Russian authorities start bombing Chechnya again.

Through these tough years in the North Caucasus and when access is repeatedly blocked by the Russian forces, MSF staff continues to try to provide food and medical aid to people inside Chechnya and to Chechen refugees in the surrounding republics.

From the start of the first war, MSF feeds the press with information on the rapidly deteriorating conditions and the Russian’s refusal to let them into many areas of the country.

While the Russian Federation President, Boris Yeltsin talks publicly about a peace plan, his forces carry out a ruthless bombing campaign on rebel-held villages in southern Chechnya.

MSF sections are united in wanting to speak out about what their staff witnessed before being forced out of the region, but there’s vigorous debate on how best to draw attention to the atrocities.

What is the best way to bring the world’s attention to the plight of the Chechen population? MSF national staff are still working on the ground in southern Chechnya, so will speaking out put their lives in even more danger?

With hostilities in Chechnya flaring up again in what the Russian Federation terms as “anti-terrorist operations”, MSF leaders decide to use the ceremony of the reception of Nobel Peace Prize to call on the international community to intervene. But MSF teams are struggling to work in a Chechnya facing all-out war and dangerous security problems.

Instead, MSF starts support refugees in the neighbouring republics where they collect first-hands accounts. Inside Chechnya, operations are run through staff members from the Caucasus who are trained, supported, and managed from afar by international teams in the region.

MSF is in a difficult situation that raises many questions: Should MSF be speaking out based on refugees’ testimonies if there are no operational activities with international staff permanently on the ground sin Chechnya? When dealing with a regime in denial of the realities of a war, why is it important to use the word ‘war’? Is it up to MSF to call for this qualification?

Throughout the year 2000, MSF seizes every opportunity to raise the alarm on the Chechen’s fate with governments and institutions around the world, but to little concrete effect other than general condemnation.

With still no international staff in the country, MSF sections resort to so-called ‘remote control’ management, using locally hired employees to deliver aid on the ground. Concerns over the organisation’s legitimacy in speaking out remain and soon one of the sections starts making unauthorised and dangerous trips over the border into Chechnya from Dagestan where they ran distributions of basic care items.

Under attack in the Russian media, MSF wonders whether it should ignore or address the accusations of espionage regularly thrown at the organization?

MSF’s operations in Chechnya are slowly starting back up again after 3 years of being run remotely. Although the bombing stops, general insecurity is pervasive and restarting these programmes is not without risks.

With an international team back on the ground in Chechnya, everyone agrees on the need to document the situation more thoroughly. A collection of patients’ accounts in the report “Chechnya: The politics of terror” is handed over at a press conference.

The various MSF sections agree on a coordinated media strategy for getting news out of Chechnya and into the press, in particular the Russian media.

Kidnappings are becoming more commonplace in Chechnya and closer to home for MSF as various staff members are held for questioning. Then, a key member of the team in the North Caucasus is taken hostage and questions are asked as to whether there's a causal link between MSF’s decision to speak out in the media and the kidnapping?

Other difficult questions are raised: should the organisation speak out in the media to create visibility and hopefully bring their colleague some much-needed protection? Or should MSF be as discreet as possible to avoid a rise in the hostage’s so-called ‘market value’? And is it a good idea to take active steps to secure the hostage’s release, such as publicly pointing out a government’s responsibilities, negligence, or even complicity?