Paul
Goble
Staunton, January 10 – Those who
pushed for the formation of a Urals Republic in the early 1990s did so because
they objected to their region having fewer constitutional rights than the
non-Russian republics; those who still think on those llines have a more
immediate political goal: challenging Moscow’s foreign policies which take money
away from the Russian people.
That is the judgment of US-based
Russian journalist Kseniya Kirillova as presented in an article today on the
AfterEmpire portal, and she says that just like two decades ago, Moscow is more
worried about such “separatism” in predominantly Russian regions than in the
non-Russian republics (afterempire.info/2017/01/10/ural-republic/).
And that greater concern in Moscow
explains not only why the Kremlin cracked down so harshly on the Urals Republic
in 1993 but also why it did so again in 2014 and why it is prepared to do
whatever it takes to prevent the revival of a Urals Republic or any other
“Russian” republic on the territory of the Russian Federation.
In her article, Kirillova points out
that “separatist tendencies in the Urals are not as strong as say in Siberia
but that the level of dissatisfaction with the policy of the central powers
that be is traditionally high,” something that helps to explain why almost all
protests in the region now “often are mixed together with ideas of independence
from Moscow that aren’t forgotten.”
The journalist traces the history of
these attitudes and the formation and brief existence of the Urals Republic
between July 1 and November 9, 1993.
(For additional background on Urals separatist attitudes, see Dmitry
Sarutov’s essay at afterempire.info/2016/12/19/ural/
as well as ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Уральская_Республика).
But
Kirillova’s most important points concern the shift in the basis for such
attitudes and the extreme nervousness in Moscow about any manifestation of them
both at the dawn of the post-Soviet period and now, points that could be
extended back at least to the early Soviet period when Stalin redrew the
borders of Russian majority oblasts and krays to undercut separatism.
She
notes that those who backed the Urals Republic in the early 1990s did so
because they did not like what they called “the asymmetric federation” that
Russia was becoming, one in which non-Russian republics had far more rights and
powers than did predominantly ethnic Russian oblasts and krays.
And
those holding such views were provoked to action when the leaders of Tatarstan
and the Chechen-Ingush ASSR signed federative treaties with Moscow in March
1992, treaties
which “became part of the Russian constitution.”
As the founder of the Urals
Republic, Eduard Rossel, put it, “we do not need sovereignty but we very much
need economic and legislative independence,” a statement that caused Moscow to
be more afraid of what ethnic Russian regions might do than anything the
Chechens or others had considered.
Boris Yeltsin initially appeared to
support the idea of a Urals Republic. On November 2, 1993, he told a meeting of
the Russian government that efforts by Russian regions to raise their status to
that of republics was “an objective process caused by the shortcomings of the existing
federal relations in Russia.”
But seven days later, under pressure
from his entourage, Yeltsin issued a decree declaring that those promoting the
Urals Republic were violating the Russian constitution and banning that
structure. (According to some memoirs,
the Russian president hadn’t initially read anything about what the Urals Republic
people were doing.)
Yeltsin’s advisors, Kirillova
continues, “considered that the acquisition by an oblast with a predominantly
ethnic Russian population would be a step toward the disintegration of Russia,”
a view that was intensified by the clash between Yeltsin and the old Supreme
Soviet a month earlier.
Despite the ban, many in the Urals
continued to think about having a republic there. In April 2003, a Urals Republic
Movement was registered; and in September of that year, Rossel, who had been
re-elected governor said that “the Urals Republic legally exists to this day,”
since Yeltsin’s action was based on the earlier constitution and not the
current one.
Such ideas continued to circulate,
Kirillova continues, both during the protests against election falsification in
2011-2012 and against Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. She argues
that that foreign policy action by Moscow gave “a different meaning” to the
idea of a Urals Republic.”
It was no longer “a demand for
economic independence,” she says, but rather “a desire to separate the Urals
from Moscow’s militarist policy and to show the Kremlin how support for
separatist tendencies in other countries will end” in Russia itself.
The reaction of the Putin regime to
this was extremely harsh, an indication of how concerned the Kremlin was and
remains about such “separatist” ideas among ethnic Russians. The Moscow media viciously attacked the Urals
demonstrators, claiming they were set to organize “a Maidan in the Urals” for
the CIA (politrussia.com/society/narodnoe-rassledovanie-maydan-577/
and
cont.ws/@schmidt/76355).
Persecutions and
arrests quickly followed, and as a result, there are no people in the Urals at
present who are ready to risk their lives to push forward an idea which many of
them support at least in private. Indeed, she says, “latent separatist
tendencies in the region continue to exist and under certain circumstance could
appear extremely impressive.”
No comments:
Post a Comment