The ‘War crimes and politics of terror in Chechnya 1994-2004’ case study describes the constraints, questions and dilemmas experienced by MSF while speaking out during the two Russian-Chechen wars and the following years of ‘normalization’. Was speaking out the right thing to do with regard to Russia, a power with a veto at the UN Security Council and a tradition of propaganda control of the public arena? Was it realistic to rely on raising the awareness of other UN member states via their public’s opinion? In a context of terror, when dealing with a regime in denial of the reality of a conflict, was it useful and was it up to MSF to call for having this situation qualified as ‘war’? Should MSF take into account the possibility of a casual link between instances of its public speaking out and the security incidents involving its staff? When one of its staff members was taken hostage, should MSF speak out in the media to create visibility that affords him/her some protection, or conversely remain as discrete as possible so as to avoid a rise in his/her ‘market value?’ Should MSF publically point out responsibilities, negligence, or even complicity of the government on which soil the kidnapping had occurred, thereby taking active steps to secure the hostage’s release or should it refrain from such a discourse so as to avoid the opposite effect? Should MSF continue to publically denounce the violence inflicted on people in the region, at the risk of radicalising those parties to the conflict responsible for the kidnapping, and place the hostage’s life in danger?

A riveting history of Russia's crimes in Chechnya Terror in Chechnya is the definitive account of Russian war crimes in Chechnya. Emma Gilligan provides a comprehensive history of the second Chechen conflict of 1999 to 2005, revealing one of the most appalling human rights catastrophes of the modern era—one that has yet to be fully acknowledged by the international community. Drawing upon eyewitness testimony and interviews with refugees and key political and humanitarian figures, Gilligan tells for the first time the full story of the Russian military's systematic use of torture, disappearances, executions, and other punitive tactics against the Chechen population. In Terror in Chechnya, Gilligan challenges Russian claims that civilian casualties in Chechnya were an unavoidable consequence of civil war. She argues that racism and nationalism were substantial factors in Russia's second war against the Chechens and the resulting refugee crisis. She does not ignore the war crimes committed by Chechen separatists and pro-Moscow forces. Gilligan traces the radicalization of Chechen fighters and sheds light on the Dubrovka and Beslan hostage crises, demonstrating how they undermined the separatist movement and in turn contributed to racial hatred against Chechens in Moscow. A haunting testament of modern-day crimes against humanity, Terror in Chechnya also looks at the international response to the conflict, focusing on Europe's humanitarian and human rights efforts inside Chechnya.

This book offers a descriptive analysis of the Soviet/Russian wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia, as well as an in-depth exploration of the ways in which these wars are framed in the collective consciousness created by global popular culture. Russian and Western modalities of remembrance have been, and remain, engaged in a world war that takes place (not exclusively, but intensively) on the level of popular culture. The action/reaction dynamic, confrontational narratives and othering between the two “camps” never ceased. The Cold War, in many ways and contrary to the views of many others who hoped for the end of history, never really ended.

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. Examines terrorists¿ involvement in a variety of crimes ranging from motor vehicle violations, immigration fraud, and mfg. illegal firearms to counterfeiting, armed bank robbery, and smuggling weapons of mass destruction. There are 3 parts: (1) Compares the criminality of internat. jihad groups with domestic right-wing groups. (2) Six case studies of crimes includes trial transcripts, official reports, previous scholarship, and interviews with law enforce. officials and former terrorists are used to explore skills that made crimes possible; or events and lack of skill that the prevented crimes. Includes brief bio. of the terrorists along with descriptions of their org., strategies, and plots. (3) Analysis of the themes in closing arguments of the transcripts in Part 2. Illus.

The ‘Violence of the new Rwandan regime’ case study is describing the difficulties and dilemmas that Médecins Sans Frontières faced in 1994 and 1995 when confronted with the abuses and crimes of the new regime that had taken over in Rwanda in July 1994: Was it acceptable for MSF, having denounced the génocidaires’control over the Rwandan refugees in Zaire and Tanzania, to encourage the return of these refugees to Rwanda, given the insecurity that potentially awaited them? Did MSF have a responsibility to alert them to what was occurring in Rwanda? Could MSF – after having issued a call for an international armed intervention to put an end to the genocide – now criticise the regime that had effectively done so, thereby risking accusations of favouring the génocidaires and supporting the revisionists? Should MSF keep silent in order to continue caring for detainees who might otherwise die in the appalling prison conditions?

When Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was founded in 1971, it was founded with both international and associative dimensions. International because it wouldn’t have made sense for MSF France, on its own, to aid threatened populations around the world and associative because civil law in France, especially the 1901 law governing charitable bodies, was perfectly suited to the MSF organisation’s guiding precepts, which are democratic and selfless in nature. Yet, MSF’s development from a small, purely French organisation to an international associative movement was never carefully planned or particularly smooth. MSF’s development was the result of various compromises between the movement’s leaders, with their individual agendas, and the integration of fait accomplis when necessary. The evolving modifications were debated at length to ensure that concerns raised were legitimate and that there was agreement for decisions made. The nature and the validity of MSF’s leadership were regularly challenged, as was the question of how MSF should grow while remaining true to its humanitarian precepts. This case study elaborates the history of the MSF movement from inception in 1971 through 2011, when MSF legitimised an international governance system and architecture. The study is divided in two episodes. Episode One reviews MSF’s first three decades (1971-2000). Episode Two is about the challenges of the early 21st, century, from 2001 to 2011.

The “Genocide of Rwandan Tutsis 1994” case study is describing the difficulties and dilemmas met by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) during the genocide of Rwandan Tutsis in April, May and June 1994. The killings occurred in spite of the presence of UN troops in Rwanda, and the members of the UN Security Council were slow to call the Tutsi extermination ‘genocide’, hence evading the obligation to intervene and stop the slaughter, as stipulated by international law. MSF met with government officials and issued public statements to try to mobilise governments out of their inertia, eventually calling to an international armed intervention. These statements and actions resulted from numerous debates, conflicts and contradictory interpretations of the Rwandan situation and of MSF’s role addressing the following dilemmas: Was it acceptable for a humanitarian organisation, to remain silent when confronted with genocide or, on the contrary, to call for armed intervention, an action that would lead to loss of human life? Could MSF call on UN member states to pursue other means of action, thereby risking giving legitimacy to ineffective responses, given the nature of genocide? Launched just as France proposed to intervene in Rwanda, was there a risk that MSF’s appeal for armed intervention would be appropriated for political gain?