Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 30 – Because of
their small numbers, the Crimean Tatars have had a dramatic history, one in
which Russia has repeatedly tried either to destroy them physically or to
suppress their independent identity as a people. But now they face a new situation,
one of a people divided between those in emigration and those in the homeland.
In many ways, Yan Sinitsyn, a Crimean
journalist says, the Crimean Tatars find themselves in a position like the
French during the Nazi occupation. In
the 1940s, there was “the government of de Gaulle in the emigration,” and there
were collaborators, partisans and “’simple Frenchmen’” at home (ru.krymr.com/a/28765091.html).
The same can be said of the Crimean
Tatars now, the journalist continues. The politically active ones have been
forced to choose between fleeing the occupation and aligning with Dzhemilyev
and Chubarov or remaining in Crimea and collaborating, opposing, or simply
staying out of the way when possible.
And there is another similarity
between France during World War II and Crimea now: “like the Germans,” Sinitsyn
says, “the Russians assert that they respect the culture of the conquered
nation.”
It would have been
“stupid” for anyone to expect that “with the beginning of the Russian invasion,
the Crimean Tatars as one would leave their positions in rural councils and
ministries and categorically refuse from any participation in state
administration,” he argues, especially given how they had behaved on their
return of deportation.
In the years since
their return, Sinitsyn writes, “the Crimean Tatars consistently and in general
successfully got involved with the power structures but avoided direct and
demonstrative cooperation with the changing parties of power and especially
with the communists or pro-Russian party efforts.”
That of course worked for those in
charge: they could always say that Crimean Tatar cooperation demonstrated that
conditions were equal. But at the same
time, it gave the Crimean Tatars a chance to have a certain influence on the
authorities or at least to be kept up to date on their plans.
Not surprisingly, Sinitsyn says, “many
think the same way now; and one must recognize that the Russians are
effectively using this as true colonizers and sons and servants of the Empire.”
Many Crimean Tatars who continue to
work with the occupiers say that “’we are trying to do the best we can for our people
in these difficult times,’” adding that “’to be sure, it is little but what
could Dzhemilyev and Chubarov do besides fruitless declaraitons in the West and
a doubtful coalition with Poroshenko?’”
These Crimean Tatars are in a
survivor mode and have been “already for a fourth year.” Those who are collaborating are viewed by
many as “morally doubtful,” but they are better than nothing, at least some
Crimean Tatars think. And over time, it is likely that there will be formed “a ‘comprador’
Crimean Tatar elite.”
Many will denounce these people and
with good reason, but at the same time, Sinitsyn says, their existence
represents a kind of confirmation of “the vitality of this nation,” of a
willingness to try to find ways to survive.
Both the emigres and those at home are engaged in “necessary and
mutually reinforcing work,” he suggests.
But there will be problems ahead
when Dzhemilyev like de Gaulle returns to the liberated homeland and has to
deal with the questions de Gaulle did “after the Liberation – what to do with the
traitors if it was impossible to live without them.”
No comments:
Post a Comment