May 1999, No. 29
Table of Contents
CIS Conference: Reflections on Lost Opportunities and Potential New Directions
The meeting of the Steering Group of the CIS Conference on migration-related issues offers an annual opportunity for reflection and improvement of the international community’s response to forced migration issues in the former Soviet Union. The Steering Group meeting, to be held from June 22 to 25 in Geneva, is not an exception. There are few reasons for this year’s participants—including governmental officials and representatives of international organizations—to feel satisfied. As the end looms for the CIS Conference mandate, much remains to be done if human suffering in the former Soviet Union is to be significantly eased.
Large numbers of the displaced remain in limbo, struggling to re-establish their lives. While international actors have been able to establish a general framework for the humanitarian response, many plans have not been fully implemented. The muted enthusiasm of donor governments for funding has hindered the implementation of projects envisioned in appeals from both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM).
Dwindling resources and mounting needs are fueling a sense of despair among the displaced, as well as those in the nongovernmental sector. Under present conditions, building the capacity of local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in CIS states may represent the best hope for easing human hardship in the region. A vibrant third sector can provide crucial momentum to civil society development, which would facilitate durable solutions for those already uprooted. A strengthened civil society would also act as a deterrent to potential migration emergencies in the future.
Given current funding realities, the international community should focus most available resources on strengthening local NGOs in the former Soviet Union. In doing so, the international community would not depart from the original aims outlined in the Program of Action, adopted at the 1996 CIS Conference. Promoting the greater involvement of local NGOs in migration-related project implementation was one of the key goals enumerated by the Program of Action.
Initially, NGOs were largely excluded from the CIS Conference process. In subsequent years, however, NGO capacity-building efforts have emerged as a major gauge of the CIS Conference’s performance. Unfortu-nately, efforts to promote NGO development have been somewhat disappointing. A small fund administered by UNHCR to promote local NGO capacity building has not been utilized in the most efficient manner possible. NGO working groups, established under the auspices of the 1996 CIS Confer-ence, remain embryonic, not yet fulfilling their potential to foster a stronger third sector in CIS states.
Admittedly, the obstacles in an inhospitable operating environment in the CIS have been daunting. A lack of infrastructure, a shortage of funds and deficit of governmental capacity all complicate efforts to address the needs of refugees and displaced persons. Despite difficulties, however, some nongovernmental actors have persevered. A few notable achievements have been registered, providing reason to hope.
For example, modest success can be found in the activities of the NGO Working Groups. In one case, the Working Group on NGO Legislation served as the forum for an important local NGO initiative in 1998 – a written report of NGO activity in the region. The NGO report, which will include the results and analysis of a survey of local NGO actors, is scheduled to be released at the Steering Group meeting in Geneva. A major aim of the report is to help guide the expansion of an association of migration-related local NGOs, which was established in December 1998. The association plans to be in position to assume a measure of implementation responsibilities upon the expiration of the 1996 CIS Conference mandate.
The Forced Migration Projects (FMP) have been an active supporter of NGO development. The FMP have sponsored over a dozen consultations and meetings in recent years designed to help local NGOs forge closer links on the local and international level, while also advocating wider NGO participation in the CIS Conference’s implementation process. These meetings not only helped identify potential areas of cooperation among NGOs, but additionally confirmed the need for a greater dialogue of NGO representatives with government agencies of CIS member states.
A key to fostering network building is the creation of an adequate operating environment for local NGOs in the CIS. In many countries, burdensome taxation and registration policies hinder third-sector growth. Some local NGOs, with the assistance of other organizations have advocated the reform of taxation and registration legislation in order to provide incentives for NGO development. In carrying out such efforts, the Working Group on NGO Legislation in 1999 issued an appeal for pilot projects in CIS states that would promote reform and effective implementation of NGO legislation. They will include legislative initiatives, monitoring and advocacy, public education, technical advice, capacity building, and government-NGO relations. These new local NGO pilot projects will be designed to promote systemic reform in this crucial area of promoting freedom of association in the region.
With the end of the CIS Conference in sight, members of the Working Group in NGO Legislation have met regularly for the past year to prepare for the establishment of an independent association of NGOs in the region. At a four-day-long meeting in Tbilisi in April, they drafted the results of a survey they distributed to migration-related NGOs throughout the region, which revealed the progress and shortcomings of the CIS Conference process.
With this and other information, the local actors plan soon to announce the formal registration of the regional association, which will serve as a new vehicle for regional activities on forced migration after 2000. Among its tasks will be to engage local NGOs more actively in planning, designing, and implementing projects ranging from humanitarian assistance to long-term development.
A regional association will also build upon the cooperation already achieved in relations between local NGOs, international organizations, and national governments. With its broad-based membership, it will act as an intermediary between local NGOs and potential donors. Equally important, the association will bring strength and expertise to advocacy efforts with national and local governments, to ensure that existing migration laws are properly enforced, and to spur the establishment of better mechanisms for their enforcement.
The CIS Conference process has so far been mostly characterized by lost opportunities and unfulfilled expectations. This June’s Steering Group meeting provides the last clear chance for the revitalization of the CIS Conference process. The legacy of the Conference process itself is at stake. If participants wish to leave a lasting impression, the Confer-ence should embark in a new direction.
A new strategy based on local NGOs in the CIS offers perhaps the best chance for success. The international community should place greater emphasis on NGO development. Provisions in the Program of Action concerning the development of the nongovernmental sector should be fulfilled to the utmost. In addition, the nascent regional association of migration-related NGOs deserves the full material and logistical support of international organizations, including UNHCR and IOM.
Bolstering local NGO capacity in CIS states makes sense given current
conditions. Donor governments likely will not make any significant changes
in their giving patterns. Dangerous security conditions in some areas can
hamper humanitarian action. Thus, the international community’s ability
to influence developments will remain restricted. The chief responsibility
for the formulation of sustainable approaches rests with the governments
and citizens of CIS states themselves. Local NGO actors are often in the
best position to identify those most vulnerable to hardships, assess needs,
and provide assistance. However, even though they may have the desire,
they often lack the capacity to adequately address migration-related issues.
If action is not undertaken now to bolster local NGO effectiveness, hundreds
of thousands of displaced persons in the former Soviet Union could be doomed
to ongoing hardships for the indefinite future.
Chechnya Struggles with Aftermath of Conflict
Chechnya is a land forsaken, where those uprooted by the ruinous war are struggling to come to terms with a future fraught with uncertainty. For many Chechens, military victory has brought nothing but misery.
The fighting created hundreds of thousands of displaced persons, including tens of thousands of ethnic Russians. As the conflict raged, most resettled in the Russian Federation and other countries within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Outside Chechnya they faced pernicious discrimination at the hands of local officials. Chechen asylum seekers have been prone to harassment because of bureaucratic machinations that have made it difficult for them to acquire proper residency documentation, known colloquially as the propiska.
The hardships were such that many of the displaced opted to return to Chechnya after the cessation of hostilities, even though the autonomous republic’s infrastructure had been devastated by the war. Life amidst the ruins of Chechnya was preferred to one elsewhere that involved constant discrimination and abuse at the hands of authorities.
These days, homelessness is a serious problem in Chechnya. Large numbers of homeless beggars congregate each day at the central market in Grozny. It is not unusual to see women, children, and the elderly begging in the streets.
Not only the homeless are suffering. Everybody living in Chechnya is caught in a bureaucratic maze that hinders freedom of movement. The Chechen government issued its own passports in 1998, bearing the separatist region’s national insignia, but Russian officials in Moscow do not recognize these self-styled documents. Neither do the governments of other CIS countries. At the same time, Chechen officials refuse to facilitate the issuance of Russian documents, despite the fact that Chechnya remains de jure a constituent part of the Russian Federation.
The stance of Chechen authorities is designed to reinforce the notion that Chechnya is an independent country. Nevertheless, the situation makes conditions harder for civilians, preventing them from traveling beyond the territory’s borders. It is impossible for Chechens to travel without experiencing harassment, given that they are targeted by authorities who are looking to augment their salaries by taking bribes.
The main cause of homelessness is simple enough to discern. Many villages were literally obliterated during the war, destroyed by Russian artillery barrages and air attacks. Rebuilding villages is not feasible. Inhabitants are prevented from returning by the dangers posed by landmines. Before departing the region, the Russian military booby-trapped buildings and sowed fields with dangerous explosives, capable of lying dormant for decades before detonating.
Ruslan Aslanov, the mayor of the destroyed city of Bamut, risks his life to return to his hometown from time to time. He says that each time he walks down the deserted main street, a sense of hopelessness overcomes him. “The mines left by the Russians have killed many persons,” he says. “It is a war after the war. We don’t have the means and the appropriate personnel to clean up the area, so people just stay away from the village, and we can do nothing to help them.”
Chechen leaders have claimed that Russian forces planted landmines in up to 56 percent of Chechnya’s arable land. They add that no maps or guides exist that could help them identify minefields. In the mountainous regions of the republic, where people survive mostly from farming and herding cattle, the danger of mines has paralyzed agricultural activity. Not only humans, but also animals, including goats and cows, fall victim to mines. Larger cities are filled with those who have lost limbs to landmines, most of them are now forced to beg to survive.
The experience of Ruslan Akhmatov underscores the devastating consequences of the conflict. Akhmatov was a carpenter in his mid forties who formerly lived in the small village of Makhketta, in the Vedeno region, along with his wife and son. Before the war, Ruslan was a migrant worker, traveling across Russia during the summer, and finding odd construction jobs. His wife and child, meanwhile, remained in the village, cultivating grains and vegetables. Ruslan could normally earn enough money during a summer to allow him to spend the winter at home. Such an arrangement might be described as typical in Chechnya.
War thoroughly shattered Akhmatov’s relatively peaceful life. Both Ruslan and his 17-year-old son joined the resistance to the Russian invasion. His wife, Awa, went to Grozny. During the fighting, Ruslan was seriously wounded, ultimately losing his right leg to a mine. Their house was bombed and ruined. All of the family’s official documents, including identity papers, were lost when the house went up in flames. Now the lack of valid Russian documents has turned the family into virtual prisoners. Their Chechen documents are virtually worthless outside the republic. Ruslan needs a prosthesis, but is unable to travel. Awa currently lives with relatives, while their son remains part of a renegade band of fighters.
Ruslan scratches out an existence by begging in Grozny. “I have lost everything that I had in my life. Even my friends cannot help me because they have their own problems,” he said. “We are free for now, but what a freedom? Where is the future?”
The displaced are largely left to fend for themselves. Some Russian philanthropists and wealthy Chechens residing abroad have made donations to help orphans and wounded children. But the available funds come nowhere close to meeting the needs. Most homeless adults do not receive any assistance. During the day, they beg and then spend their nights in abandoned buildings, without proper access to water and electricity. Chechen authorities, who seem more preoccupied with internecine political struggles than with rebuilding the shattered infrastructure, lack the means to provide the homeless and invalids with aid. Because of the dangerous security environment, international humanitarian organizations do not operate in the region. Hostage taking is a major source of income in Chechnya, and foreigners are prime targets.
Health care is insufficient. Hospitals are in ruins and there exists a drastic shortage of medicines. Due to the desperate economic situation, much of the medicine donated by international organizations ends up being sold on the black market at prices that are unaffordable to most. “It doesn’t make sense to go to a hospital because I do not have the money to buy the medicine that the doctor will prescribe for me,” said Amina, a pensioner.
Another problem stems from the fact that Chechnya’s autonomy is limited by its economic dependence of Russia. The Russian ruble remains the currency of Chechnya, and the Russian government is responsible for paying state-sector salaries, pensions, and other payments. The lack of a political settlement, however, is causing severe wage and pension arrears.
Stability is likely to remain elusive in Chechnya until problems related to forced displacement are addressed. Finding solutions will certainly be a long-term process, but there are several steps that could be undertaken immediately to help ease human hardships. For one, Russian and Chechen authorities should take steps to improve the security environment to permit the return of humanitarian aid workers. In addition, Russian legislation permitting the freedom of movement should be properly implemented. Steps should be taken to eliminate abuses committed by local authorities related to residency permits. Without such measures, Chechnya will remain a place of indefinite devastation.
Editor’s Note: This article was reported and written by Alpha Diallo,
an FMP consultant who lived and worked in Russia for over a decade, and
who recently traveled to Chechnya.
Chairman’s Statement From Vienna Meeting on Meskhetian Turk Issues
On 15-17 March 1999 informal consultations took place in Vienna, which were a follow-up to the meeting in The Hague in September 1998 on Meskhetian Turk Issues.1 The participants couldn’t agree on a common term to denote the population in question (which was deported from the Meskhetian region of Georgia in 1944).
The delegation of Azerbaijan declared that it would use the term “Meskhetian Turks” in connection with these people.
The delegation of Georgia declared that it would employ the term “population deported from the Meskhetian region in 1944,” as it is used in the documents of the Council of Europe. The delegation of Georgia also stated that this is the term, which will be used in laws and other normative acts dealing with repatriation.
The delegation of the Russian Federation declared that it would use the term “Turks-Meskhetians.” The Russian delegation expressed understanding for the declaration of the Georgian delegation and affirmed its readiness to take into account the terminology used by the Georgian delegation at the meeting and also during the preparation of Georgian legislation dealing with that part of the population of Georgia which was deported in 1944 from Meskhetia in the Georgian SSR. The delegation also took into account that Georgia will be guided by its existing international commitments.
The representatives of the population deported from Meskhetia in 1944 who took part in the meeting declared unanimously that they do not object to the use of the term “deported population from Meskhetia” and that they are interested in discussing the substance of the issues and not terminological squabbles.
Participants agreed that joint efforts to find mutually acceptable solutions will continue without prejudice to the right of every person to choose their own ethnic identity and the outcome of the discussion about terminology.
The meeting in Vienna was initiated and hosted by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Forced Migration Projects of the Open Society Institute. Participants included representatives of the Governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States, as well as representatives of civic organizations of the category of people in question. ... OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Mr. Max van der Stoel, Forced Migration Projects Director Mr. Arthur C. Helton and Deputy Director of UNHCR’s Bureau for Europe, Mr. Hasim Utkan served as co-chairmen. The Head of the OSCE Mission to Georgia, Ambassador Jean Michel Lacombe, chaired the opening session.
The Vienna consultations were a continuation of the discussions initiated at the meeting in The Hague. In particular, the co-organizers noted with great satisfaction the broadening of the participation on the governmental and nongovernmental levels at the Vienna consultations. ...
Participants at the Vienna consultations recognized that the broad parameters of the problems relating to the category of population in question have been identified (rehabilitation, repatriation, and regularization of their status in their places of residence), and that attention should shift to the exploration of concrete solutions that stress the humane management of the problems of the category of people in question.
The co-organizers welcomed the personal invitation of Azerbaijan’s President Heydar Aliev to host the next consultation session in Baku, Azerbaijan, in late 1999. The co-organizers additionally lauded an invitation by the Georgian Government delegation to host consultations in mid-2000. ... Given the expressions of interest from the participants, the co-organizers agreed to undertake to act under auspices of the OSCE HCNM to establish a focal point that will collect and act as a depository for project proposals relating to the issues of the category of people in question. In this regard, the co-organizers expressed their readiness to receive proposals upon the conclusion of the Vienna consultations. The co-organizers agreed to then analyze the collected material and present selected proposals to donor Governments for funding consideration. An early forum for the presentation of proposals will occur at the meeting of the Steering Group of the CIS Conference on migration-related issues, scheduled to be held in Geneva in June 1999.
In pursuit of the formulation of frameworks and mechanisms for the human
management of the problems of the category in question, some participants:
• Expressed unease over the length of the Council of Europe’s timeframe
for Georgia to address issues of the category of people in question—including
the formulation of a legal framework regulating rehabilitation and repatriation—in
connection with the country’s accession to Council of Europe membership.
• Emphasized that any potential repatriation to Georgia by the category
of people in question should be of a voluntary nature.
• Stressed the need to take action to prevent and reduce statelessness
among the category of people in question. ...
• Underscored the importance of providing humanitarian assistance in
the process of establishing durable solutions to the issues of the category
of people in question.
The Georgian delegation:
• announced that a Presidential De-cree is expected in the near future
on the establishment of a State commission to prepare, in connection with
the country’s accession to the Council of Europe, the resolution of the
issue in question;
• pledged to resolve the question of the citizenship of the repatriants
currently living in Georgia by the end of 1999;
• offered to host a mission by internationally recognized experts to
Georgia at the earliest possible date in order to assess conditions in
the areas of origin of the deported population;
• indicated a willingness to ratify the 1951 UN Geneva Convention relating
to the status of refugees, and to bring national legislation into conformity
with international norms;
• expressed a desire to seek the help of international experts in repatriation
for adhesion to and ratification of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness;
• emphasized the need for greater co-operation among CIS member states
on issues relating to issues concerning the problem of the deported population;
• called for the creation of a data base of information relating to
the deported population;
• requested international assistance to help with the creation of repatriation
centers that would facilitate the adaptation and integration of the deported
population into Georgian society, the training of the proper personnel
and carrying out of tolerance building work among the local population.
The Delegation of the Russian Federation:
• agreed to look into taking steps to ease conditions for Turk-Meskhetians
living in Krasnodar Krai. In particular, the delegation announced that
the regional administration would consider lifting fines imposed in connection
with the expired registration of Turk-Meskhetians in the region. The delegation
of Russia pledged to propose to the Krasnodar Krai that it regularize the
procedure for the registration of the Turk-Meskhetians in Krasnodar Krai
in order to lengthen the period of temporary registration;
• pledged that the relevant State authorities will carefully study
the requests of the Turk-Meskhetians, particularly in the social sphere.
...;
• expressed the intention to continue regular contacts with representatives
of Turk-Meskhetian civic organizations in the Krasnodar Krai;
• expressed the readiness of the Russian Ministry of the Interior to
assist in the identification of Meskhetian Turks, and also help local authorities
compile information on the intentions of those people, now residing in
the territory of the Russian Federation, who want to leave Russia for permanent
residence with the agreement of the host country;
• indicated that the Ministry of Interior would issue foreign passports
in accordance with existing procedures to those individuals wishing to
leave Russia to take up permanent residence with the agreement of the receiving
country.
The representative of the government of Turkey:
• reiterated the Turkish Government’s commitment to deal with questions
connected with these issues.
Representatives of civic organizations of the category of people in
question:
• expressed the desire to further strengthen contacts among their civic
organizations, including for the purposes of return to the historical homeland;
• called for the regularization of the status of the category of people
in question and application of (Russian) federal legislation to the category
of people in question living in Krasnodar Krai.
The representative of the Russian nongovernmental organization, the
Memor-ial Human Rights Center:
• called for measures to be implemented in order to safeguard the basic
civil and social rights and freedoms of the category of people in question
Participants expressed their support for the process initiated at the consultations in The Hague and their readiness, in cooperation with relevant international organizations and in the spirit of responsibility sharing, to contribute to the joint search for sensible and just measures that will contribute to the humane management of the issues relating to the category of people in question.
1 The representatives of Georgia stated at the meeting in The Hague that they preferred to use the term “Meskhetians” instead of “Meskhetian Turks”. To show good will and for the purposes only of the Concluding Document of the meeting in The Hague, the Georgian side agreed that the term “Meskhetian Turks” would be used, as along as its own official point of view was duly registered.
Note: This text is an abridged version of the full document.
Early Action Needed in Macedonia for Kosovo Refugees
The refugees arriving in Macedonia from neighboring Kosovo have already survived unspeakable hardships. Nevertheless, their travails may be just beginning. Only approximately five percent of the refugees possess all essential documents, such as passports and property titles. This lack of documents could greatly complicate repatriation efforts, especially given the large-scale destruction of Kosovo’s housing stock. The process of forging mechanisms that address the document issue should commence immediately, thereby helping to facilitate repatriation once it becomes possible.
Estimates on the number of refugees in Macedonia vary greatly—roughly between 200,000 and 300,000 per- sons, or nearly 15 percent of Macedonia’s overall population. Whatever the actual number, the scale of displacement is placing an enormous burden on Macedonia’s infrastructure. This pressure makes it all the more imperative to facilitate the early voluntary return of refugees, many of whom have been subjected to identity cleansing.
A Forced Migration Projects consultant in Skopje reports that over the short term, a lack of documentation does not create substantial additional hardships for refugees in Macedonia. They have access to emergency assistance regardless of whether they possess documents. They could encounter hardships and uncertainty over the longer term, however. Yet, in theory, the means remain available to confirm identities and citizenship. At the Department on Citizenship within the Ministry of Interior of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, both written and computerized records exist that would confirm the citizenship of Kosovo refugees.
Of course, the question arises; what happens if these books or computer files are destroyed or lost? One can assume that all these refugees would then have serious problems proving their citizenship status. Steps should be taken now, both by Macedonian authorities and by international organizations, to prepare for this possibility.
The same holds true for property rights. Refugees should be able to prove ownership by consulting property records, so called catastarski knigi. Once again, however, if the records were to be de-stroyed, or otherwise disappear, it would create serious difficulties for those lacking other documentation. In such cases, a process for re-establishing property rights could be long, controversial, and ex-haustive. Property rights decisions would be especially problematic in cases in which the property had been occupied in the meantime by someone else who disputes the refugee’s claim. Such uncertainties and disputes could frustrate repatriation and rehabilitation assistance.
The return of refugees figures to be a crucial element of any peace plan for Kosovo. Thus, all efforts should be undertaken to prepare for an early voluntary return. The international community should plan for the worst case scenario, in which pre-war Yugoslav citizenship and property records are not available. International planners would do well to study the best practices of similar efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Any mechanism established to decide property and citizenship disputes in Kosovo must be equipped with the mandate and the will to foster substantial repatriation.
Forced Migration Projects Open Society Institute
400 West 59th Street, 4th floor
New York, NY 10019
tel: (212) 548-0655
fax: (212) 548-4676
e-mail: refugee@sorosny.org
http://www.soros.org/migrate.html
Advisory Committee:
Ludmilla Alexeeva
Jeremy R. Azrael
Arthur C. Helton (convenor)
Murray Feshbach
Morten Kjaerum
Aryeh Neier
Barnett R. Rubin
Warren Zimmermann
Staff:
Arthur C. Helton, Director
Justin Burke
Eliana Jacobs
Marie J. Jeannot
Paulette A. Layton
Alexander Lupis
Tatyana Lyutova
Yuri Spartesnyi
The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating
and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open
societies around the world. OSI-New York develops and
implements a variety of domestic and international programs in the areas
of
educational, social, and legal reform, and encourages
public debate and policy alternatives in complex and often controversial
fields.
OSI-New York is part of a network of more than 24 autonomous
nonprofit foundations and other organizations created and funded by
philanthropist George Soros in Central and Eastern Europe,
the former Soviet Union, Haiti, and South Africa, as well as in the United
States.
© OSI, May 1999