Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 27 – There are some
700,000 Circassians in the region of their North Caucasus homeland and more
than seven million of them in diaspora communities around the world. The former have been forcibly divided by
Moscow into separate nations, and the latter have become part of the peoples
among whom they live.
Those divisions have been their
greatest weakness allowing a series of Russian governments to play
divide-and-rule tactics against them, but their very dispersal can be a source
of strength, allowing those abroad to act in support of those at home and those
at home to stand as symbols for a new national rebirth.
Until the age of the Internet, it
was difficult for these various communities to come together to reinforce their
common identity and to decide on common strategies to achieve their goals. Over
the last two decades, that has changed. And Circassians in the homeland and in
the diaspora have created and maintain a multitude of portals.
Now, the Circassians have taken a critical
next step: they have brought together online ten activists and national leaders
who reflect a variety of views for a discussion about where the Circassians as
a nation are today and what they hope to become in the future. At the risk of a certain grandiosity, their
conversation is a kind of Constituent Assembly for the nation.
The 12,000-word report on the
responses of ten Circassians from the homeland and throughout the diaspora to
questions prepared by Avraam Shmulyevich, an Israeli specialist on that nation,
contains a wealth of ideas about where the Circassians are and what they may do
next (aheku.net/news/society/cherkesskij-krug).
To give some idea of the richness
and thoughtfulness of their comments, I have decided to focus on the response
of one of them, Zeynel Abidin Besleni of SOAS, to two questions: “What are the
political and cultural goals and tasks of the Circassiuan national movement?”
and “What must be done to achieve them?”
He argues that the Circassians face
a critical choice as to whether they want to be a cultural or political nation.
If they choose the former, those in the North Caucasus can “continue their
efforts for the preservation of the current status quo,” one in which they have
state institutions, borders and some language and cultural supports.
But for Circassians in the diaspora,
such an approach leads to two dead ends, an obsession with Abkhazia based on
cultural similarities with it and a neglect of developing with relations with
neighboring nations, few of whom want to see a Circassian cultural nation take
political shape on lands in which they too live.
“For those who are concerned about
the future of the Circassian nation and its survival not only as cultural but
also as a political formation in the centuries ahead, there exist various strategies
which must be followed and also priorities to be set and choices to be made,”
the London-based Circassian says.
They must make a choice between the
two main dialects of Circassian and stick with it, they must reduce their focus
on Abkhazia, and they must focus instead on their relations with the Karchays
and Balkars who live among them. And as a start, they must insist in the homeland
and in the diaspora that they are “Circassians and only Circassians.”
They should revive the idea, widespread in the
early 1990s, of uniting the three Circassian republics and make it the focus of
their efforts, recognizing that “this is not Greater Circassian. This can be only
a new double Circassian-Karachayevo/Balkar republic where Circassians and
Karachayevo-Balkars would be titular nations.”
“This new republic would have an
area of more than 35,000 square kilometers, that is, more than Armenia, and
have about 1.8 million residents, including about 700,000 Circassians and
320,000 Karachayevo-Balkars, 600,000 Russians, and also thousands of Abazas,
Nogays, Ossetinas, and other ethnic groups,” Besleni suggests.
“No one ethnic groups would dominate
but each would take part in the future of this republic,” he says, adding that “this
would be useful for Russia because in the Western Caucasus would appear a more
effective form of administration with all its economic and social advantages.
Political stability would grow and inter-ethnic relations would be calmer.”
“This new formation also would raise
the political significance of both the Circassians and the Karachayevo-Balkars
in the eyes of the federal center” and “could even stop the outflow of young
people from these republics to Moscow and St. Petersburg in search of work and
other opportunities.”
In the early 1990s, North Ossetia
added Alaniya to its name. The Circassians must do the same now. They already
have Karachayevo-Circassia, but they need to rename Adygeya into the Republic
of Adgyeya-Circassia as it was in the early 1920s, and Kabardino-Balkaria
should be renamed the Republic of Eastern Circassia-Balkaria.
In support of this, Circassians need
to declare themselves Circassians in the upcoming census.
Other participants gave equally
thoughtful discussions of these issues. Besleni’s remarks are offered as
evidence of the new seriousness of Circassian thinking rather than as the only
way forward. But they are certainly suggestive that the nation has evolved to
the point that it is thinking in this way and not only in terms of the past or
its emotions.
No comments:
Post a Comment