|
English Language Page The theme of the Meskhetian Turks has been continuously commented on in the Krasnodar mass media; it receives much less attention in Moscow newspapers. The Krasnodar newspapers (both territorial and district) follow a well-coordinated pattern of issuing publications on the Turks, usually as a series of articles, following statements made by local bosses, a visit paid by some Moscow officials or a major incident. The most noticeable anti-Turk campaigns were conducted in April-May and November-December of 2000 and March-April of 2001; the last one was started in February 2002. A statement or a visit of a important government personage also triggers publications in the Moscow media on this subject. Moscow gave its most extensive coverage to the Turks in March 2001, during the aforementioned visit of Minister for Federation Affairs, A. Blokhin, an official with uncertain powers, who is not much of a public figure. Although information about the persecutions of the Turks is easily available, journalists are rarely interested. Generally speaking, all publications may be split into two groups: those which are openly racist and those claiming to be “objective.” In recent years, honest publications sympathetic towards the Turks have been rare exceptions. The Krasnodar newspapers are largely dominated by xenophobia-charged publications, the Moscow newspapers — by the so-called objective ones. Obviously, xenophobic publications all sound quite the same. They often spell out the position of the territorial authorities (i.e., the Turks are illegal migrants with an “alien” and even hostile culture, criminals and a parasitic element, they should be relocated to Georgia, they are used as an instrument of demographic expansion, etc.). Such publications are also “flavored” with rumors and speculations (the Turks are raping teenagers and old people, accumulating weapons, making threats against local residents and the authorities, etc.) (31). Here is an extract about the Meskhetian Turks that is rather typical of the material published in the Krasnodar newspapers: The settlers have not been socially assimilated: two thirds of them are residing in the Krasnodar territory illegally, engaging in illegal activities. According to data from the territorial Chief Police Directorate, the districts of the Krasnodar territory which contain dense concentrations of the Meskhetian Turks have seen a sharp increase in the turnover of narcotics and weapons. Theft from fields has risen to the level of a genuine disaster. There are more horrible crimes such as murders and rapes of children and old people. The Turkish population is not contributing much to the government budget of the territory and its districts. <…> The situation is aggravated by the fact that the Meskhetian Turks demand rather aggressively that they be granted rights on equal terms with the local population. The leaders of the Turkish association “Vatan” are applying to all international organizations demanding that they be allowed to participate in elections and to put an end to registration within the Krasnodar territory so that the Turks could settle in any Kuban locality without any restrictions (32). The “objective” publications interpret the situation in the same manner as the xenophobic ones (i.e., the Turks are illegal migrants, they are not citizens of the Russian Federation, they provoke conflict, the region is suffering from an influx of new-comers). Nonetheless, they do criticize unduly tough measures and Cossack reprisals. In practice, the racist and “objective” publications are no different. The journalists claiming to be “objective” agree that the absence of residence registration implies “illegal” residence and that the “alien” ethnic group by itself poses a problem. The rest is of no importance, as can easily be inferred from those two premises. The so-called objective publications point out that the territorial authorities are violating the RF Constitution and federal laws, a point also mentioned by grossly racist articles. The difference lies in the fact that the latter expressly assert that the prevailing laws are “bad” and are being violated involuntarily while the former try to impress that idea on the reader in an indirect way. While one article claims that “the problem” requires a drastic solution at the federal level, the other insist that Moscow should take tougher measures. Here is a specimen of an “objective” publication about the Turks by the Moscow on-line media: The Krasnodar territorial authorities have long been quite concerned about the changing demographic situation in the region, which is not favorable to Russians. The Kuban Governor, Alexander Tkatchev, just as his predecessor Nikolai Kondratenko, is trying to counter that trend by administratively regulating the number of non-Slavic people residing within the territory. <…> The ethnic composition of the population of the town of Sochi has changed dramatically over past several years. Today, Russians there constitute a minority compared to Armenians arriving into the region which, according to some estimates, account for 50% of the city’s population. <…> The Kuban Cossacks fear that the same may happen in other areas of the territory as well. The Cossacks’ fears are associated not with the Armenians but with the Meskhetian Turks residing within the territory. The Cossacks’ sentiments seem to be shared by local authorities. In the Kuban area, they officially banned registration of Meskhetian Turks residing there. As a result, the Turks are denied the right to lease lands, to take employment, and are not allowed to trade, since that requires documents which are obtainable only upon registration. The Meskhetians are actually deprived of all means of subsistence. <…> The Cossacks are claiming that the Meskhetian Turks have deliberately settled on strategically important lands in order “to appropriate” them, even though thirteen thousand people — the number of the Meskhetian Turks currently living in the Kuban area — even theoretically, are unable to do this. Under the laws of the Krasnodar territory, the Meskhetian Turks who have resettled there from Uzbekistan after the 1989 Fergana pogroms are not entitled to Russian citizenship, they may not own real estate, and have no right to register their children under their true family names. As of February 1, 2001, they have been denied even temporary registration. The local Cossacks demand that the Turks be evicted, accusing them of disseminating Wahhabism and claiming that the Cossack and Asian ways of life are incompatible. <…> The Soviet leadership secretly prohibited registration of the Meskhetian Turks for residence in the Crimea and Kuban areas, seeking, in all probability, to prevent changes in the demographic situation in regions which are traditionally regarded as the best Russian vacation resorts. Meanwhile, according to representatives of the Meskhetian Turks, they have never looked upon Russia as their country of permanent domicile. The Turks are still waiting for a decision from the Georgia authorities allowing them to return to their native land — Meskhetia.” (33) At first glance, the text does contain some truth, even if peppered with a number of lies. In essence, it tries to sell the reader the same idea as obviously xenophobic publications, i.e., “a demographic expansion” is under way and it is difficult to control this problem with “bad laws.” Noteworthy are several new trends. As of 1999, newspapers in the Krasnodar territory have been employing the new rhetorical technique of comparing the territory, allegedly suffering from “a Muslim demographic expansion,” to Kosovo. Blatantly racist publications and broadcasts about the Turks in the Krasnodar territory started to appear in Moscow mass media. A graphic example is provided by an article by Irina Kiryanova published in the Literaturnaya Gazeta newspaper (34), which urges driving the Meskhetians out. The conclusion of the article describing how Abinsk residents would happily wave farewell to the last train carrying the Turks away would have done credit to Hitler’s “Volkischer Beobachter.” A new accusation, “espionage,” has also been leveled in the anti-Turk campaign. In April, 2001, an article appeared signed by the press service of the RF Federal Security Service Directorate for Krasnodar territory, alleging that Turkey’s special services were in close cooperation with the “Vatan” association of Meskhetian Turks, seeking to have the Meskhetians entrenched within the territory in order to use them as “a fifth column.” (35) A little later, the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper (36) accused the “Vatan” of having links with Turkey’s intelligence services. CONCLUSION Many experts tend to perceive new, latent and more sophisticated forms of discrimination and xenophobia as the most crucial problems of racism in Russia. The Meskhetian Turks’ situation does not meet these criteria. In the case of the Meskhetians, we are witnessing an organized “soft ethnic cleansing” orchestrated by the state under straightforward and simplistic racist slogans. The scale and significance of the campaign, as well as the tenacity of the authorities at all levels, make it impossible to regard it as being accidental. Naturally, the two eternal questions must be asked: “what to do?” and “who is to blame?” (or, to be more precise, “why is it happening?”). The answer to the first question is rhetorical. The situation may be successfully resolved only when the federal authorities start to honor their own laws and become aware of the hopelessness of “cleansing” the country of its fellow residents of non-Russian ethnic origins. Unfortunately, this calls for a political solution, as no individual case won in the courts of law will ever change the situation in the aggregate. The next general question may broken into three components. Firstly, what are the cause of these, not exclusively Russian phenomena, i.e., the so-called migrantophobia, Islamophobia and Caucasophobia? There are various, more or less convincing explanations, which we prefer not to dwell upon in this report. Secondly, why is it that only the Meskhetians have found themselves under pressure and specifically in the Krasnodar territory? One may look at various hypotheses which assert, in essence, that the entire thing was an “unfortunate coincidence”: the Turks happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is fitting to emphasize one small point. The Krasnodar territory used to be one of the two regions of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic where, prior to perestroika (the reorganization of the state system), the police, party and administrative machine was already set in full swing for persecution of certain ethnic groups. In the 1980s, the Krasnodar territory was running a campaign against the Crimean Tatars (whose place was later taken by the Turks), and in the Prigorodny district of Northern Ossetia — against the Ingushes. Why is the federal administration so persistent and unambiguous in supporting the most rabid forms of racism, not even attempting to cover its tracks? The answer may be found after a thorough investigation of official comments and publications of recent years. The official leadership at all levels is represented mainly by people who have a Soviet-type of tunnel-vision. They perceive it to be normal when the population is manageable and the administration is in a position to control, specifically, the deployment and composition of its residents, including, “their ethnicities.” The weakening of Soviet mechanisms of control (the nominal elimination of residence registration, the opening of borders, economic freedoms, and the limiting of powers of law enforcement bodies) is perceived as a threat to security, leading to the onset of chaos. Suffice to say that essentially senseless expressions such as “uncontrolled” or “spontaneous migration” and “the upsetting of a demographic balance” are capable of throwing officials into a panic. The administration that perceives itself as a weak administration usually prefers not to abide by the law but to engage in manipulation, specifically, “to regulate interethnic relations” and to court extremists. “The strengthening of the hierarchy of state power” and “the concern for security” implies, among other things, a desire to restore “the manageability” of the population, including the control over its ethnic composition. The Soviet ideology of “internationalism” and “friendship of the peoples” used to imply “playing fair politics” in its own peculiar way. It carried a certain obligation to play by the party rules, in the interests of foreign policy, etc. Under current conditions, that component has turned out to no longer be needed. Nobody is watching and nothing is forbidden. Post-Scriptum: During late March 2002 while this article was being written, the situation in the Krasnodar territory began to sharply deteriorate. The Legislative Assembly of the Krasnodar territory issued Statement ¹1381-P, dated March 27, 2002, “On Measures Aimed at Strengthening State Control Over Migration and Administrative Extradition of Persons Illegally Staying in the Krasnodar Territory.” This document actually sanctions deportation of persons who do not have official registration. On April 11, the Governor signed Territorial Law ¹460-KZ “On Temporary Stays and Residence in the Krasnodar Territory.” (37) This new law introduces permissive authorization of registration at the place of residence and temporary domicile but mandates strict sanctions against unregistered people. The authorities are declaring their intention to deport so-called migrants on a mass scale. On April 13, two Kurdish families were expelled to the Rostov region. The authorities are increasingly putting pressure on the Meskhetian Turks. Spontaneous passport and registration checks, assessing fines for “land seizure,” and land and property confiscation are continue to be common practices. (31) Suffice it to have a look at the titles of the following articles: L. Tkatcheva, “When in Russia, the Turks Should Do as the Russians Do.” Krasnodarskye Izvestiya ( March 3, 2001); S. Garmash “The Kuban-type Balkans?” Kubanskie Novosti (March 27, 2001); “Is It a Country or a Hotel?” Kuban Segodnya (March 7, 2001); S. Perov, “We Do Not Want the Turkish Land so why Should the Turks Want the Kuban?” Kubanskie Novosti (March 15, 2001). (32) “The Trojan Horse of the Meskhetian Problem.” Kuban Segodnya (February 1, 2002). (33) A. Rabin, “Without the Right To Registration.” Strana.Ru (March 19, 2001 — www.strana.ru). (34) I. Kiryanova, “The Day of Reckoning for the People’s Friendship.” Literaturnaya Gazeta (April 4–10, 2001). (35) “The Turkish March.” Krasnodarskye Izvestiya (April 14, 2001). (36) A. Khinshtein, “The Janizary of Cloak and Dagger.” Moskovsky Komsomolets (April 18–19, 2001). (37) Kubanskie Novosti (April 13, 2002). |
Íàøà êíîïêà  |
|