| Forced
Return to Chechnya
June 1, 2004
In 2003, the world's largest source country
of asylum seekers was a European democracy, an ally of the
United States, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council:
the Russian Federation. The total number of asylum seekers
worldwide from the Russian Federation shot up 68 percent in
2003 to 33,364 people. At the same time, 210,000 Chechens
– more than 20 percent of the population of Chechnya
– remain displaced within the Russian Federation in
2004.
According to UNHCR, most of these more than 33,000 asylum
seekers from the Russian Federation came from the war-ravaged
territory of Chechnya. Nearly 100,000 Chechens sought protection
through asylum worldwide between 2000-03.
“But hasn’t Chechnya calmed down?”
Many people were familiar with the situation in Chechnya in
the 1990s: the near-complete destruction of the capital Grozny,
kidnappings of civilians and humanitarian workers by rebel
factions, forced disappearances, “mop-up” operations
by the Russian military, terrorist bombings in Moscow and
overall instability.
| The total number of asylum
seekers worldwide from the Russian Federation shot up
68 percent in 2003 to 33,364 people. At the same time,
210,000 Chechens – more than 20 percent of the population
of Chechnya – remain displaced within the Russian
Federation in 2004. |
But with the so-called “normalization” of the conflict
in Chechnya – the Russian government’s attempt to
limit and downplay the scope of the problem – the rogue
territory has fallen from international headlines. Even the
recent assassination of the pro-Russian Chechen President Akhmad
Kadyrov barely mustered more than a day of front-page coverage
in non-Russian newspapers; and few media even cover the increasingly
frequent and brutal activities of the paramilitary organization
run by Kadyrov’s son. Arbitrary detentions, extra-judicial
killings, disappearances, mop-up operations, torture, kidnappings
and pervasive insecurity and fear remain commonplace even into
2004.
Forced Return
One of the most troubling elements of Russian and Ingushetian
government policies has been the forced return of the displaced
to Chechnya. Beginning in 2001 and continuing into 2004, newly
displaced Chechens have been refused forced migrant status by
Russian authorities and camps for displaced Chechens in neighboring
Ingushetia have been systematically closed in contravention
of international standards. There are reports of threats and
intimidation on the part of Russian and Ingush officials to
force people from the camps, including cutting off gas and electricity,
or removing families from humanitarian aid distribution lists.
On the other side of the border, promises made by Russian officials
to resume aid to suffering Chechens, of reimbursements for destroyed
houses, or other incentives have yet to materialize, in many
cases causing returnees to flee once again to Ingushetia.
Seeking Protection Elsewhere
The conflict in Chechnya has been going on, in ebbs and flows,
for a decade now. Why is it only in 2004 that Chechens began
to seek international protection in such large numbers that
it has become the world’s largest nationality of origin?
There are several factors that have come into play, including:
· Deplorable conditions in Ingushetia including scarce
aid, a profound lack of adequate housing, constant pressure
from authorities to leave, and increased tensions with the
local population (who also suffer from extreme poverty);
· An inability or unwillingness to return to Chechnya
due to ongoing security concerns;
· A lack of residency permits and/or forced migrant
status elsewhere in the Russian Federation, therefore preventing
access to state benefits or even, in many situations, legal
housing;
· Increasing anti-Chechen public sentiment throughout
Russia, stirred by Chechen rebel attacks and hostage taking
in Moscow, and not discouraged by government policies.
Of these factors, however, perhaps none is more significant
to the increase in the number of Chechen asylum seekers than
the issue of forced return from Ingushetia to Chechnya. In
a survey conducted by Médecins Sans Frontières
in April 2003, 98 percent of those interviewed said they did
not want to go back to Chechnya. Of those, 93 percent cited
ongoing security concerns as the main reason keeping them
from returning, despite the dire circumstances in Ingushetia.
A further 74 percent also cited lack of housing available
in Chechnya – and this was despite the fact that the
majority of those surveyed were found to be living in cellars,
overcrowded abandoned buildings, leaky tents or worse. Only
2 percent said the aid they received in Ingushetia was the
primary reason for their unwillingness to return to Chechnya
– a response that is perhaps not surprising considering
the precarious state of humanitarian assistance in either
territory. Life in Ingushetia becomes more difficult for Chechens
by the day.
Given a choice, then, between being forced back to a place
so many continue to fear, staying hidden and without support
in an increasingly unfriendly place, or seeking protection
and a better life in another country, tens of thousands of
Chechens have chosen to seek asylum.
International Implications
As with most “internal” conflicts, the consequences
of the war in Chechnya have spilled across borders and have
strong implications for the refugee protection and human rights
regimes and international politics in general. Clearly, 30-40,000
Chechens cannot keep arriving at Europe’s doorstep every
year without causing a policy reaction.
The eventual impact of the increased number of asylum seekers
is likely be most significant for the newest EU member states,
as these nations with more fragile and less experienced asylum
systems are receiving nearly as many Chechens as more traditional
asylum countries such as Germany and Austria. Further, it
is the accession states that now make up the “frontiers”
of the EU to which the Dublin II framework suggests overland
asylum seekers should be returned. Chechens may prove to be
the first major test of both the new states’ asylum
systems and the willingness of the EU-15 to commit to any
of the burden-sharing proposals now under consideration with
the new accession countries.
Beyond strictly European borders, the profound lack of willingness
of many in the international community to criticize the forced
return policies of the Russian government also continues to
be of major concern. Russian President Vladimir Putin has
repeatedly labeled the Chechen rebels as Islamic terrorists
and linked the conflict in Chechnya to the broader post-9/11
“war on terror.” Many in the international community
have questioned the validity of such claims, which remain
notoriously difficult to asses as few, if any, international
observers or human rights monitors are allowed into Chechnya.
Might a continued influx of civilians fleeing the Russian
Federation cause the international community to reconsider
their hands-off approach to Russia’s Chechnya policy?
Or, on the other hand, has the policy succeeded in labeling
all Chechens as terrorists, thereby causing even more fear
and xenophobia on the part of receiving countries? If this
were the case, Chechens who fled first to Ingushetia and again
to seek asylum to avoid forced return could instead end up
being sent back to Chechnya by the country to which they applied
for asylum.
Blind fear should not be used as an excuse for systematically
denying protection to those in need. With this in mind, the
international community must be careful to avoid setting a
precedent in which a mere reference to “terrorism”
can hold the Refugee Convention hostage for entire groups
of civilians. Clearly the Russian people have experienced
truly horrifying incidents in recent years, and all appropriate
steps should be taken to combat such egregious acts of violence.
But hundreds of thousands of Chechen civilians have lived
in their own version of hell for a nearly a decade. With no
end in sight and little or no protection available nearby,
they must be allowed to avail themselves of the international
protections guaranteed by the Convention.
Read the first article in the
series: Ethnic
Cleansing and Forced Displacement in Darfur.
|
