Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 6 – By annexing
Ukraine’s Crimea, Moscow has acquired a more serious ethno-political problem
than xenophobic attitudes toward migrants or violence in the North Caucasus,
Vladimir Ryzhkov says. It must now deal
with the Crimean Tatars, their aspirations, and their relations with the Russian
occupation regime.
But even more than that, Russian
politician and commentator Vladimir Ryzhkov says, the Crimean Tatars are
highlighting something Moscow is unprepared to recognize: “Russia today does
not have the institutions and mechanisms for the integration of ethno-cultural
communities with strong group identity and traumatized history” (echo.msk.ru/blog/rizhkov/1431652-echo/).
And the Kremlin is learning, he
says, that its favored methods of dealing with ethnic challenges elsewhere –
corruption, intimidation and expulsion – are “only intensifying the conflict”
in Crimea, an indication of what Moscow is going to face in the future not only
there but also in the Russian Federation more generally.
The Crimean Tatars opposed the
annexation of their homeland by Russia. They refused to take part in the
Moscow-orchestrated referendum on that action and in the regional elections there.
And Moscow responded brutally and forcefully.
It blocked Mustafa Cemilev and Refat Chubarov from entering their own
homeland, burning the books of the former Soviet dissident and forcing the
latter, who is now the head of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis to run its sessions
from Kyiv via Skype. It banned as “dangerous” the commemoration of the 70th
anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars.
Moscow has launched a wave of terror
against the Crimean Tatars, with armed searches of the Mejlis building, mosques,
businesses and homes, unsolved murders and “disappearances,” crimes that have
been documented by Nils Muižnieks, the
EU human rights commissar following his visit to Crimea ten days ago.
And now the situation is deteriorating further.
According to Chubarov, “Moscow is seeking the chance to realize in Crimea ‘a
Chechen scenario,’ that is, to find among the Crimean Tatars an analogue to
Ramzan Kadyrov who could by force and
money consolidate a restive community and secure its loyalty.”
If that is the case, Ryzhkov says, “this
is bad news. The Russian empire and the Soviet Union fell apart to a large
extent because of an inability to find a solution for the nationality question.”
Both of them sought to “combine repression and the buying off of national
elites,” and both of them failed.
What happens next with the Crimean Tatars, he
suggests, will provide “answer about the future of Russia just as the fate of
the Poles, Jews and Georgians gave an answer about the future of the Russian
Empire a hundred years ago.”
No comments:
Post a Comment