Preface
This report examines the social, economic and political implications of the ongoing repatriation of the Crimean Tatars to their homeland. It looks both at the specific problems faced by the Crimean Tatars as well as the impact of resettlement on the broader inter-ethnic situation in the Crimea. Relations among Crimean Tatars, ethnic Russians and Ukrainians are currently peaceful, but are potentially volatile. The danger of an ethnic conflagration, instigated within the peninsula or from outside, remains a serious concern. The report discusses possible scenarios and concludes with recommendations to manage the consequences of the Crimean Tatar repatriation in ways designed to improve ethnic relations in the Crimea and prevent conflict.
In an era of nationalistic tendencies, demographics are politics. This phenomenon is particularly evident in population displacements in the former Soviet Union. One consequence of the profound and ongoing transformation of society in the 15 countries that have emerged or re-emerged upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 is increased population movements, often across international borders and sometimes under duress. These movements have involved more than nine million persons constituting the largest displacement since the Second World War. Such movements have taken place against a general background of deepening economic and socio-political crisises.
The dilemma is well illustrated by the Crimean Tatars, a "deported people" forced en masse to relocate from Crimea to remote parts of Central Asia in 1944. During this brutal deportation, over 250,000 people were relocated. In 1988, after more than thirty years of pressure, the Soviet Union gave Crimean Tatars permission to return to Crimea. It is estimated that at least 250,000 Crimean Tatars have already returned, and it is expected that tens of thousands more will return before the year 2000. The political implications associated with the movement are grave. Caught in the middle of a simmering dispute between Russia and Ukraine about the political status of Crimea, the Tatars' presence could spark a more fundamental political crisis.
Population displacements in the former Soviet Union, are seen from afar as complicated, geographically remote, and politically risky. The difficulty in addressing the issues is reflected by the modest outcome of the recently-concluded Regional Conference to Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced Persons and other Forms of Involuntary Displacement and Returnees in the Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and Relevant Neighboring States. The meeting was organized in Geneva in May 1996 and attended by representatives of 87 governments, 29 international organizations, and 80 nongovernmental organizations. The principal product of the conference is a non-binding Programme of Action This report seeks to discuss broad trends concerning the repatriation of the Crimean Tatars and make concrete recommendations for preventative approaches by the international community in the context of follow-up to the CIS migration conference.
This report is one of a series of special reports. It is based on a mission of inquiry conducted in May 1996 by Justin Burke, Associate Director of the Forced Migration Projects. He is the principal author of this report. Editorial assistance was provided by James Ross, Elisabeth Socolow, consultants, and Noah Rubins, an intern, with the Projects.
Mr. Burke spent the period from 2-17 May 1996 involved in research in Ukraine, including conducting dozens of interviews with government officials, academic experts and non-governmental representatives. Mr. Burke interviews key leaders of the Crimean Tatar mejlis, and he visited and spoke with the inhabitants of five Tatar settlements in Crimea-two in the Simferopol suburbs, and one each near Sudak, Bakhchisaray and Belogorsk. He also spoke with ethnic Russians and Ukrainians in Simferopol, Sevastopol and Yalta. A list of persons quoted in the report and the principal sources of literature consulted appear as appendices to the report. Some individuals were interviewed on the understanding that the discussions were being held in confidence and no attribution would be made.
There is much discussion in the international community about a "right to return", including for non-citizens and stateless persons seeking to establish themselves in a territory regarded as a homeland. Precepts of state sovereignty and prerogative are in tension with concepts of individual human rights and group rights, including ongoing discussions of the rights of indigenous peoples. The repatriation of the Crimean Tatars, while situated in this evolving legal policy debate, is currently in essence a political question. This report is designed to assist policy makers in appreciating the complex political and social context of the issue. The intended audience includes a wide variety of policy actors concerned with the subject of preventing the causes of forced migration and finding a solution the needs of the repatriating Tatars.
The repatriation issue becoming more active, and no report, of course, can hope to address daily developments. Among these developments is the recent decision in Ukraine to downgrade the Ministry for Nationalities and Migration to the status of a state committee, and the recent, first time announcement by leaders of Uzbekistan that they will consider ways to aid the Tatar repatriation effort. The implications of these developments are as yet uncertain. There is also the promising initiative of the Foundation on Inter-ethnic Relations in the Hague, in conjunction with the Soros foundations network, to consider establishing education projects in Crimea in order to ameliorate tensions. Clearly, the attention of the international community is growing. The fundamental question is, of course, whether it will be sufficient, timely or sustained to the point of truly averting the potentials for conflict.
Arthur C. Helton
Director, Forced Migration Projects
September 1996
