1. State ethnic policy of Ukraine. Present ethnic composition of the population of Ukraine.1Legal basis of the state policy in the sphere of ethno-national and migration relations, including safeguarding the rights of national minorities and FDP is formed by Constitution of Ukraine, Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine, Act of Proclamation of Independence of Ukraine, Declaration of Rights of Nationalities in Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine “On national minorities in Ukraine” and other legislative Acts adopted by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. A characteristic feature of the present stage of legislative process in the sphere of inter-national relations is that it place takes place while Ukraine moves towards integration into European structures and corresponding influence of commonly accepted in European community norms and standards concerning the national minorities rights safeguarding. In particular, in a draft law “On amendments to the ”Law of Ukraine on National Minorities in Ukraine” are taken into account all remarks and observations made in summary analyses of OSCE High Commissioner on national minorities. This draft law is submitted to Verkhovna Rada. Besides, draft laws “About conception of state ethno national policy”, “On development and use of languages in Ukraine”, “On rehabilitation and safeguarding the rights of persons belonging to national minorities who suffered from repressions and were deported from the territory of Ukraine”, “On procedure of granting sanctuary to foreign citizens and stateless persons”, “On immigration”, “On amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On refugees”, have been prepared submitted to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The laws “On amendments to the Laws of Ukraine “On refugees” and “On immigration” have been adopted in June 2001. It must be noted that according to the conclusions of international organizations such as UN, Council of Europe, OSCE, the legislative basis concerning ensurance of the national minorities’ rights in Ukraine is in full conformity with international standards in this sphere. The control over observance of legislation in force in the sphere of ensuring the national minorities rights is carried out by Supreme Court of Ukraine and courts of general jurisdiction, Committee on Human Rights, National Minorities and Inter-National Relations of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Commissioner of Verkhovna Rada on Human Rights (Ombudsman). Indispensable condition of realization of the legal rights of national minorities is the existence of special state institutions authorized to carry out the regulation of the ethno-political processes in the Country. An important achievement of Ukraine during the years of independence is maintenance of peace and concord, as well as the fact that due to the well balanced ethno-national policy all problems existing in this sphere are being solved in a civilized way. Ukraine is a country with a polyethnic composition of the population. According to data of the 1989 census of the population (data of the 2001 census are not available as yet) there were 37, 7 mln. of Ukrainians (72.7% of the total) and 14.0 mln. (27.3%) persons of 130 other nationalities. The most numerous national minority in Ukraine are ethnic Russians numbering 14 mln. or 22.1% of the total population. Eight ethnic groups number from 100 to 500 thousand persons: 486.3 thousand of Jews (0.95%), 440 thousand of Byelorussians (0.9%),324.5 thousand Moldavians (0.6%), 233.8 thousand Bulgarians (0.5%), 219.2 thousand Poles (0.4%), 167 thousand Hungarians (0.3%), 134.8 thousand Rumanians (0.3%). There are 13 ethnic groups number more the 10 thousand persons: Greeks, Tatars, Armenians, Gypsies, Germans, Azerbaijani, Gagaouses, Georgians, Chuvashes, Uzbeks, Mordvinians, Lithuanians, Kazakhs. Other nationalities number less then 10 thousand each. It is quite clear that implementation of such ethno-national strategy makes the safeguard of national minorities’ rights one of the priorities of the state policy. Cultural and educational requirements national minorities are ensured by their equal access to all the state, cultural and educational organizations. In this regard realization of the “State Program of National Minorities Education for 1994-2000” and implementation of the “Complex Plan of Measures for Development National Minorities Cultures for the period up to 2001” had made an important contribution to implementation of the State ethno-national policy. In particular, in 2000/2001 school year educational needs of national minorities in Ukraine were satisfied in schools with national languages of teaching: 2215 Russian, 97 Rumanian, 68 Hungarian, 5 Jewish, 3 Polish, 9 Moldavian, 10 Crimean Tatar languages schools. Besides, in 2287 schools teaching was in two and more languages. In Chernovtsy and Uzhgorod regional scientific and methodological centre had been established to provide assistance on organization of teaching process in national languages. The State provides support to mass media in national minorities languages. Presently more than 1.3 thousand periodicals in Russian and almost 100 periodicals in other languages of national minorities are published in Ukraine. There are also special TV and Radio programs for national minorities in their national languages (yearly broadcasting: 1229 - TV, 1988 - radio). Every year a festival of TV and Radio Programs for national minorities is held. 2. The Crimea in the political life of UkraineThe Crimea is reallya unique region of Ukraine in geographical, climatic, geological and historical respects. It is inhabited by people of various ethnic origins with their own languages, cultures, traditions and history. The history of Crimea has left many knotty questions and problems. One of the problems inherited from the recent past is the problem of the forced deportation of Crimean Tatars and persons of other ethnic origin in the fourteenth. The problem was not created by the Ukrainian People, nor by the Ukrainian Government. At the beginning of 90-th development of political situation in the Crimea showed negative tendencies. In 1992-94 some pro-Russian political forces raised the question of belonging the Crimea to Ukraine. It was an attempt to tear Ukraine apart and therefore to destroy Ukraine as State. Internal political situation was becoming more and more acute. The problem of Crimean Tatars accommodation and integration into Ukrainian society was also increasing. One of the most important factors aimed at creation of critical situation in the Crimea was, we have to admit it, was “Russian factor”. In 1995-98 some of negative tendencies had been overcome - the judicial status of the Crimea an Autonomous Republic as an integral part of Ukraine had lessened the influence of separatist forces in the Crimea. However it is too early to say that all political problems concerning Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) are solved. The analysis of political, economical and social situation shows that a considerable conflict potential still exists. It is caused by following factors: insufficient legislative regulation of the relations between Kiev and Simferopol; imperfection of the mechanism of political conflicts settling both on central and regional levels; conflicts between central and regional budgetary relations; overall political instability in ARC; specificity of national and religious problems in the Crimea; a series of pending economic and social problems connected with accommodation of returnees, particularly of the Crimean Tatars; and, last but not the least, the influence of external factors including political, economical, humanitarian, informational and military spheres. Presently (data on 1-st January 2002) the population of ARC is 2 mln. 100 thousands persons (4.2 percent of total population of Ukraine)2 of more than 80 ethnic groups. The most numerous of them are ethnic Ukrainians, Russians, Crimean Tatars, ethnic Germans, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Karaites. ARC consists of 14 districts; there are 18 towns one of which, namely Sevastopol, has special status according to which it is under direct legislation of the Government of Ukraine. 3. Problems of Crimean Tatars’ repatriationThe problem was not created by the Ukrainian People nor by the Ukrainian Government. But after Ukraine gained independence the problem of FDP (particularly their repatriation) has become Ukrainian national problem. In fact, Ukraine was left alone with this problem. In 1991-2000 years period the Government could provide about 300 mln USD to create proper economic and social conditions for repatriates. It has to be taken into account that the process of repatriation will continue for some years to come. Therefore we must to recognize that if existing problems remain unsolved the situation in Crimea may aggravate. Economic and social problems of Crimean Tatars. Government financial and material provisions for programs of the repatriates accommodationThe history of Crimea has left many knotty questions and problems. One of the problems inherited from recent past is the problem connected with forced deportation of Crimean Tatars and persons of other ethnic origin in the fortieth. The problem was not created by the Ukrainian People nor by the Ukrainian Government. Nowadays more than 270 thousand Crimean Tatars and persons other FDP had returned to the Crimea. However the measures adopted by Ukrainian Government for accommodation of the repatriates are insufficient: only about half of repatriates have permanent dwelling and permanent jobs; in most of 300 places of compact settlement of repatriates engineering and social infrastructure is either minimal or not existing. At present 120 thousand of Crimean Tatars practically do not have habitation. 21 thousand families can not complete construction of individual houses because the lack of means. Out of three hundred settlements and housing areas of FDP compact settlement the two-thirds do not have water supply networks, practically all of them do not have sewerage systems. Hard surface roads constitute only 3 per cent of requirement. Extremely acute situation exists in provision ofmedical services, transport and telephone communications. Less then half of working age repatriates have permanent employment. It has to be taken into account that the process of the FDP repatriation will continue for some years to come. Therefore it must be recognized that if existing problems remain unsolved, the situation in the Crimea may aggravate. The most acute and urgent problems are:
Taking into account the poor state of the economy the Government of Ukraine defined following priorities in repatriates accommodation:
According to the National Program of Settlement and Accommodation of Deported Crimean Tatars and Persons of Other Nationalities Who Had Returned to Crimea for 2001-2005” annual financing from the state budget of Ukraine and the Budget of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea should constitute 50-70 mln. UAH. Taking into account decreasing volume of the State financing of the above and other programs growing attention should be directed at attraction of financial assistance from external sources. The role of international assistance in solution of social, economic, cultural and educational problems of FDPIn 1995 year Ukraine Appeal to a number of international organizations and representatives of potential donor countries started the process of international assistance for accommodation of deported Crimean Tatars and peoples of other nationalities who have returned to the Crimea. Assistance and active participation of OSCE and UNHCR permitted to hold three international donor conferences. The first meeting took place in 1996 in Geneva, two following were held in Kiev in 1998 and 2000. The first meeting was devoted to general review of the problem of FDP (formerly deported people) return to Ukraine and the necessity of international cooperation in this sphere. The second and the third meetings defined practical measures and financial as well as material requirements needed for accommodation of FDP in Ukraine. As a result of these meetings total amount of financial assistanceprovided by more then 20 countries and more then 10 international organizations in 1995-2000 for solution of problems connected with adaptation of FDP into Ukrainian society reached more then 20 millions USD. Particularly important contribution was made by United Nations family organizations that elaborated Crimean Integration and Development Program. In six years about one hundred projects in humanitarian and socio-economic spheres have been implemented. Particularly important contributions into realization of this program have been made by UNHCR, IOM, UNICEF, UNESCO, OSCE, International Red Cross, International Renaissance Foundation and a number of countries, such as Switzerland, Canada, Turkey, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Italy and others. One of the problems related to adaptation of FDP into Ukrainian Society was that of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship. In this connection we have to mention an inter-governmental agreement between Ukraine and Uzbekistan on Simplified Citizenship Procedure that permitted to more then 62 thousand formerly deported Crimean Tatars holding Uzbekistan citizenship to become citizens of Ukraine. However, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that despite increasing volume of financing of the Program by Ukrainian state Crimean Tatars are insistently raising the issue of ineffective use of financial resources provided by international community, a significant part of which is spent on administrative needs, various seminars, symposia, round tables, trips abroad etc. Particular concern is caused by lack of proper co-ordination of international donors’ activities by Ukrainian and Crimean state institutions. The same may be said about diminishing volume of international aid for accommodation of repatriates. Unfortunately, there are grounds for such anxiety. After The Third Donor Conference held in Kiev in December 2000 the amount of international assistance has significantly decreased. Crimean Integration and Development Program intended to collect from 9 to 15 mln USD of international assistance for the next 5 year period that would be twice as much then in previous 5 years. However in 2001 expenditure for the implementation of the Program totaled only 500 thousand USD as compared with 1 mln 350 thousand in 2000. Financial resources provided by UNHCR were about one half of the previous year volume. Besides, on the 31-st of July UNHCR Mission in Crimea was closed. Two years ago International Organization for Migration had practically sensed to finance programs of assistance to FDP. After 1997 financing of “Integration Program” initiated and financed by International Renaissance Foundation is annually reducing. A number of foundations, and charity organizations, particularly International Assistance Foundation had discontinued financing of humanitarian programs in Crimea. CIS parties of well known Bishkek agreement had practically kept aloof from assistance to accommodation of Crimean Tatars. At the same time the situation concerning solution of urgent problems in Crimean Tatars accommodation remains rather acute and further delays in solution of these problems may result in rather complicated and perilous consequences. According to the “National Program of Settlement and Accommodation of Deported Crimean Tatars and Persons of Other Nationalities Who Had Returned to the Crimea for 2001-2005” annual financing from the state budget of Ukraine and the Budget of Autonomous Republic of Crimea should constitute 50-70 mln. UAH. Required financial assistance from international sources is 25-30 mln. UAH or 5-5.5 mln. USD per year. Presently it amounts only to USD 1.0-1.5 million. Political and legal aspects of the problemThe most acute problem associated with repatriation of Crimean Tatars is the problem of their integration into political and social life of the Autonomous Republic. High level of the conflict potential has been accumulated in connection with the fact that a series of Crimean Tatars’ political and legal demands had been left unsatisfied: legal recognition of the Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people of Ukraine, recognition of Mejlis as a lawful and competent representative of the Crimean Tatars People; reparation of material losses caused by deportation; introduction of the simplified procedure of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship. Among other political and legal demands of the Crimean Tatars is introduction of a quota of representation of Crimean Tatars in ARC Verkhovna Rada, granting the Crimean Tatar language the status of official language etc. In Ukrainian legislation there is no special law concerning full and complete rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars and persons of other nationalities forcibly deported from Crimea in 1944 on account of their ethnic origin. A draft law “On rehabilitation and ensuring rights of national minorities who had been forcibly deported from the territory of Ukraine” worked out in cooperation with Mejlis in 1991-1994 period is still not adopted. The attempts to create necessary legal basis in the Crimea have also failed. In April 1996 the majority of the Crimean Parliament voted dawn the draft law “On Restoration of the rights of Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Germans deported from the Crimea in 1941 and 1944”3 that was submitted to Verkhovna Rada of the Crimea in 1994. As a compromise between various fractions the Crimean Parliament in 1997 adopted a Decree “On Urgent Measures in Regard of Return, Settlement, Accommodation, National Development and Securing Rights of Persons Deported from Crimea on account of Their Ethnic Origin.” In March 1996 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted “Program of Urgent Measures in Regard of Settlement and Providing with Amenities for the Deported Crimean Tatars and Persons of Other Ethnic Origin, Who Returned and Live in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.” The Program envisaged a complex of measures and appropriate financing for a five year period (1996-2000). In October 1999 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a Decree “On the Process of Implementation of the President of Ukraine Assignment and Acts of the Cabinet of Ministers in regard of Crimean Tatars and Persons of Other Ethnic Origin” that envisaged development of a draft program for 2001-2005 concerning settlement and accommodation of the deported Crimean Tatars and persons of other nationalities who returned to the ARC for permanent residence. The goal of the Draft was to determine main measures and to make proposals concerning provision of social and engineering infrastructure in settlements of compact residence of the repatriates. This Program has been prepared and submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers. According to data of the Central Board of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in ARC in November 2001 total number of repatriates was 260 thousand (including 256959 Crimean Tatars, 306 Bulgarians, 320 Armenians, 1865 Greeks, 535 Germans) or 12.4 percent of total population of the Crimea. CitizenshipDuring the last ten years one of the most important problems in the legal and political sphere related to the Crimean Tatars repatriation has been the problem of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship. Holding of Ukrainian citizenship is an important precondition of successful integration of the returnees into Ukrainian society. One of the aspects of this problem was the problem of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship by the returnees having status of stateless persons. Now it is practically solved: nearly 62 thousand FDP became holders of Ukrainian citizenship in the course of implementation of the agreement between Ukraine and Uzbekistan on cooperation in citizenship issues. One more step in the direction of solving the problem of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship by FDP in general and this category of persons in particular was the adoption of amendments to The Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine” by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Due to the measures taken by the Government and Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine majority of the FDP and their descendants who had returned to Ukraine and did not have Ukrainian citizenship obtained it. At the end of the previous year 235043 of the Crimean Tatar repatriates had become citizens of Ukraine. This constitutes 90 per cent of their total number in the ARC. According to the data of Ministry of Internal Affairs total number of the returnees in the Crimea is 261.1 thousand or 12.t per cent of the Crimea population It has to be noted that 26.1 thousand or 10 per cent of repatriates in the Crimea still have the status of foreigners. These persons have arrived from: Russia - 11.2 thousand, Kazakhstan - 3.1 thousand, Tajikistan - 2.9 thousand , Kyrgyzstan - 1.6 thousand , Georgia - 1.0 thousand , Azerbaijan and Armenia - 657, Moldova - 51, Baltic States - 16. Besides, 4.1 thousand Crimean Tatars still have not obtained Ukrainian citizenship. Ukrainian Government continues its effort to achieve inter-government agreements with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan Kyrgyzstan and Russia on introduction of the simplified procedure of obtaining Ukrainian citizenship for the Crimean Tatars. Here we must underline the very important role of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that provided expert assistance, helped in organization and holding of interstate negotiations, training seminars for officers of executive authority bodies, information campaign etc. Representation of Crimean Tatars in legislative and executive institutionsNew Constitution of ARC (1998) practically excluded Crimean Tatars from participation in social and political life. They are virtually not represented in Verkhovna Rada of ARC of 1998-20024 (the quote of guaranteed representation of Crimean Tatar in Verkhovna Rada of the ARC was abolished in 1998) and strongly under represented in institutions of executive power and in bodies of local self-government. The quote for a guaranteed representation in bodies of government (as representative, as executive) on the basis of nationality is not provided by effective legislation of Ukraine. However it would further be solved under norms and practice of international community, including the recommendations of the Lund conference5. After 1994 elections to Verkhovna Rada of Crimea there were 14 deputies elected according to the list proposed by Kurultay (14 deputies or 15 percent out of total 98 deputies). In January 1995 Kurultay deputy fraction in Verkhovna Rada of the Crimea succeeded to achieve adoption of a law concerning elections to institutions of local government according to which Crimean Tatars got the possibility to elect their representatives in proportion to the share of Crimean Tatars in total population of corresponding districts. In March 1995 the Parliament of Ukraine abrogated this law as contradicting to the Constitution of Ukraine. If according to Bishkek agreements Crimean Tatars had the right to take part in elections irrespective of holding Ukrainian citizenship; new election law of Ukraine deprived them of this right and Crimean Tatars do not have their representatives in Verkhovna Rada of Crimea. Such situation is considered by some forces as so called “ethnic cleaning” that sadly reminds Stalin times. And it is fraught with danger of mass protests since peoples are deprived of the possibility to defend their rights by parliamentary means. It goes without saying that such protests will aggravate the situation in the peninsula. In the previous period Crimean Tatars language had status of the official language; Crimean Tatars had a guaranteed quota in the ARC Verkhovna Rada (14 deputies). Now there is only one deputy. In the staff of Council of Ministers there are 3 Crimean Tatars of professional category; in 40 republican state institutions there are 10 Crimean Tatars holding posts of superiors (up to the posts of department chiefs). Legal status of the Crimean Tatars MejlisLegal status of Crimean Tatar Mejlis and Kurultay has been a problem since the 2-nd Crimean Tatar Kurultay was held in Simferopol in June 1991. It elected Mejlis consisting of 33 members that had to act as “the sole legitimate representative body of the Crimean Tatar people between the sessions of Kurultay.” While the Crimean Tatars have demanded that the authorities recognize Kurultay and Mejlis as representative organs of the Crimean Tatars people, the official position was that these organizations are rival bodies of the official Crimean organs of power and thus are illegitimate. After the 2-nd Kurultay the Supreme Soviet of the Crimea has denounced Kurultay and Mejlis for their “unconstitutional attempts” to create “parallel structures of power”. The Constitution and laws of Ukraine specify the system of representative and other organs in the state (interests of the people can be represented by organs of the state power, organs of local self-government and public organizations). Mejlis can not be considered as an institution of state power or as an institution of local self government. According to the experts conclusion Mejlis is a public organization of citizens in accordance to their national or ethnic origin. Therefore such organization may be registered only according to Article 14 of the law of Ukraine “On public organizations of citizens” as a public organization. Official position as to legalization of Mejlis as a public organization or a political party is unacceptable to the Crimean Tatars leaders. They maintain that unlike a political party or a public organization that represents interests of a limited group of people, Kurultay and Mejlis having been democratically elected by all Crimean Tatars, represent the interests of all Crimean Tatars6 and should be recognized as such. Mustafa Dzhemilev stated in this respect that “Mejlis is not a public organization. Mejlis is an elected representative organ of the Crimean Tatar people, a National parliament, if you like. It is not yet recognized by the law. The authorities propose that we register as a public organization or a party, on an equal footing with the party of Beer Lovers. We can not agree to that.” Crimean Tatars leaders are also concerned that if Mejlis is registered as a party or a public organization it will allow the government to treat Mejlis as just one of more than 50 other public organizations of Crimean Tatars, thus playing upon differences in positions of various groups - a tactic to downplaying the representatives of Mejlis in order to avoid dealing with the issues it raises. While considering Kurultay and Mejlis as representative bodies of the Crimean Tatar people, Crimean Tatars leaders deny that Kurultay and Mejlis are parallel structures to the official government bodies of the ARC. Deputy Chairman of Mejlis Refat Chubarov argues, for example, that Mejlis wants to be a consultative body with which the government would consult on a limited range of policy issues of direct relevance to Crimean Tatars. Controversy around the status of Mejlis, and especially hostile attitude towards it on the part of Crimean authorities, is not only of a legal, but primarily has a political nature, given political and ideological differences between Mejlis and Crimea’s dominant elites. Furthermore, fear that recognition of Mejlis can set precedence for similar claims by the organizations of other ethnic groups in Ukraine further complicates the situation. The situation with Mejlis’ official status remained deadlocked for years, but on May 18 1999, as some 30 thousand Crimean Tatars held a rally in Simferopol to commemorate 55-th anniversary of the 1944 deportation, the President of Ukraine signed a decree creating a Crimean Tatar advisory council attached to the President, composed of all 33 members of Mejlis and headed by the Mejlis Head Mustafa Dzhemilev. The decree, also short of full recognition of Mejlis, has been commonly regarded as de-facto recognition of Mejlis and its capacity as the main interlocutor on behalf of the Crimean Tatars. The full recognition in law is still to come. The Fourth Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar peopleIn November 2001 the 1-st Session of the 4-th Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar people7 was held in Simferopol. 234 delegates out of 246 elected took part in its work. Kurultay was also attended by guests from various regions of the Crimea, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tatarstan, Turkey, Rumania and Tajikistan. The representatives of State Committee on Matters of Nationalities and Migration, Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Ministry of Education, Government of the ARC, and others were also present. According to the decision of the 3-rd Kurultay the number of delegates at the 4-th Kurultay was increased from 170 to 246 that made Kurultay more representative. The delegates of the 4-th Kurultay were much younger than that of the 3-rd one. The average age of the 4-th Kurultay was 46.8 years as compared to 59 years of the 3-rd Kurultay. The educational level of the delegates of the 4-th Kurultay was notably higher than that of the 3-rd one: 71 per cent of the 4-th Kurultay delegates had higher education, while at the 3-rd Kurultay this index was 65 per cent. At the 1-st session of the 3-rd Kurultay among delegates there were: 11 deputies of the ARC Verkhovna Rada; 2 officers of the Cabinet of Ministers of the ARC; 4 heads of district executive committees; 3 employees of mass media; a Chief of a Mobile Building and Construction Enterprise; a Deputy head of the Main Board of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Crimea; 19 representatives of regional mejlises; 3 chairmen of local Moslem communities; 26 businessmen; 11 representatives of public foundations etc. Among delegates of the 1-st session of the 4-th Kurultay there were: 2 deputies of the ARC Verkhovna Rada; 3 officers of the Main Board of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the Crimea; 6 deputy heads of regional state administrations; 3 deputy Mayors; 11 deputy head of settlement council; 13 high ranking officers of administrative institutions; 2 members of the Crimean Muftiat; 20 Chairmen of Regional Mejlises; 5 employees of mass media; 26 businessmen; 11 officers of public foundation, etc. The number of women delegates has slightly increased (from 23 to 26) but their share dropped from 13.5 per cent in the 3-rd Kurultay to 10.5 per cent in the 43-th Kurultay. The main events of the first day were the Report of the Mejlis Head Mr. M. Dzhemilev and the adoption of the Agreement on political cooperation at forthcoming elections to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the protocol on the conclusion of which had been signed on June 31, 2001. Delegate E. Shabanov proposed to include in the agenda of the item “About implementation of the Declaration of the National Sovereignty of the Crimean Tatar People”, adopted at the 4-h Kurultay. However this proposal had not been adopted. Then the delegates adopted Regalement (Rules of Procedure) of the 4-th Kurultay” and provisions concerning the status of Kurultay delegates. The delegates considered and adopted the Statement of the 4-th Kurultay “On restoration of religious life of the Crimean Tatars and maintenance of religious life in the Crimea”, “Address of the 4-th Kurultay to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”, “Address of the 4-th Kurultay to the president of Uzbekistan”, “Statement on Prevention of the Danger of Terrorism and maintenance of mutual understanding between Peoples, “Address of the 4-th Kurultay to the Organization of the United Nations, Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe, European Union”8. Kurultay has also adopted the resolution “About participation in election of people’s deputies of Ukraine, people’s deputies of the ARC and to bodies of local self-government”, resolution” On creation of provisional commission for study of circumstances of bringing a criminal suit the delegate of Kurultay Mr. A. Sulejmanov, the statement of Kurultay “About the Rights of the Crimean Tatars for Land”, “Address of the 4-th Kurultay to Democratic Community of Ukraine”. 4. Political situation in the Crimea on the eve of elections to Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea to be held in March 31, 2002The alignment of political forces in the Crimea at the eve of elections is constantly changing and its final disposition may become known after the 9-th of February 2002. Presently it is as follows: I-st bloc headed by L. Hrach (about 40 per cent of voters) includes representatives of the Communist party, other left oriented forces and elderly people. II-nd bloc “For the United Ukraine” (15-20 voters) is headed S. Kunitsin -adviser to the President of Ukraine, ex-prime minister of the ARC. It includes members of People’s Democratic Party, Labor Ukraine party, Party of regions and republican branches of other political parties and organizations supporting the President of Ukraine. III-rd bloc “Our Ukraine” (10 percent of voters). It includes the representatives of the Narodny Rukh of Ukraine, Party of reforms and order, and majority of the Crimean Tatars. IV-th bloc consists mainly of the representatives of Social democratic party of Ukraine (united) and other political forces that together may collect 10-15 per cent of votes. According to the last interrogatory conducted by Crimean Centre of independent journalists on December 25 2001, the most influential politicians figure following persons:
Resignation of Sergey Kunitsin in summer 2001 has not relieved the tension in the political situation in the Crimea and it may happen that a pro-communist Parliament of the ARC will try to force resignation of the present Government headed by V. Gorbatov. In this connection the President of Ukraine stated that the course of ”the left” at aggravation of the political situation before the elections “is not just an opposition to the power but the opposition to the State”. Here are some examples of the countervail between the Parliament and the Government. 1. L. Hrach alleged that “Prime Minister executes the Budget not according to the Law, but at his personal discretion”. He mint that the Parliamentary newspaper “Krimskiye Izvestiya” (The Crimean News) is insufficiently financed by the Government. When it have become known that the Government news paper “Krimskaya Gazeta” (The Crimea Gazette) is also in very difficult situation and that “The Crimean News” having smaller circulation is financed more generously, the scandal had settled “by itself”. 2. The contradictions were also manifested in the Council of Ministers decision to provide financial assistance in paying salary to educational workers of Armiansk city. Two and a half month after submission of this decision to Verkhovna Rada for approval, Head of the Parliament L. Hrach had not even put it to the vote. The desire to sow the grains of discontent among Crimean population is evident. In the Crimea there are no political parties of its own, instead there are branches of all state parties. In the Crimean Parliament there is an acute countervail between “L. Hrach’s bloc” and the bloc of parties forming the coalition ‘’For United Ukraine”. Presently these blocs are waging tough fight for votes. In ideological basis of Hrach’s bloc a special role is placed on pro-russian sentiments and to so called “protection” of Russian speaking population rights. At the December session of the Crimean Parliament the final delimitation between the deputies had taken place. At the eve of the session deputy group “For the United Crimea” was formed which included the centrist deputies-members of “Labor Ukraine party“, Agrarian party, People’s democratic party, Party of Regions and Party of industrialists and enterprisers. However this group refused to take part in the work of the December session because of controversies with the Speaker of the Parliament on account of Electoral Committee formation and its policy. As a whole the situation at the eve of elections in Crimea is complicated and strained and requires to adopt preventive measures, on the part of the State institutions and demonstration of understanding and tolerance on the part of various political forces. The problem of representation of the Crimean Tatars in Verkhovna Rada of the ARC and in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is one of the most painful questions that is constantly raised by the representatives of the Crimean Tatars at all levels. Despite the efforts to ensure the due and legally guaranteed representation of the Crimean Tatars in the Verkhovna Rada of the ARC the situation still remains very complicated. If the election system remains the same it was in 1998 the results of the election most likely will be the same as they were in 1998. In the previous elections in 100 electoral districts there were 78 Crimean Tatar candidates; in 44 districts none of them had been elected to Verkhovna Rada of the Crimea. The only Crimean Tatar elected to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC was running as a representative of the Communist Party of the Crimea. One of the reasons of the Crimean Tatars failure in the elections was the fact that in more than half of electoral districts (in 24 out of 44) there were 2 or more Crimean Tatar candidates for one seat. For example, Reshat Ablaev lacked 14 votes to be elected and at the same time another Crimean Tatar candidate, who had not been elected as well, collected 669 votes. Other important reason is that 85 thousand Crimean Tatars could not take part in elections due absence of Ukrainian citizenship. To obtain the right to nominate the candidates for elections to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the basis of party lists it was necessary to collect not less then 4 per cent of the votes. In the Crimea only five parties out of 30 parties and associations have surmounted this “4 per cent barrier”:
In total 10 representatives of the Crimea had been elected to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, among them only two Crimean Tatar: Refat Chubarov- First Deputy Head of Mejlis and Mustafa Dzhemilev. The last was elected by voting according to party lists (as a member of Narodny Rukh Ukrainy). In the elections to the Crimean parliament the dominant place was won by Communists that obtained 36 seats out of 100. Representation of the Crimean Tatars in other elective institutions is much lowers then their share in total population of the ARC. In local Radas their share is: 5.1% in town radas, settlement radas- 3.9% village radas- 11.8%, district radas - 4.9%. According to the information of Center of Information and Documentation for Crimean Tatars election results look as follows (Crimean Tatar deputies):
Lately the radical forces in the Crimean Tatar midst were advancing the proposal to boycotter 2002 elections in Crimea if the demands of the Crimean Tatars concerning legislative guaranteed of their representation share in elective institutions are not satisfied. However the I-st Session of the IV Kurultay (9-11 November 2001) rejected these proposals and decided that Crimea Tatars shall participate in the elections. At the IV Kurultay Narodny Rukh of Ukraine and Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People signed an agreement according to which Mustafa Dzhemilev are to be included into the first tens and Refat Chubarov into the second ten of the list of Narodny Rukh of Ukraine in the elections to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The last Meeting of Mejlis (29 December 2001) also adopted a statement “About establishment of one mandate electoral districts.” In addition to that at the Meeting of Mejlis held on 29-th of December 2001 it was decided that following person are to be included into the lists for election to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in all 6 of 10 electoral districts of the Crimea: The Resolution concerning the Crimean Tatars candidates to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC was taken at the II-nd Session of the IV-th Kurultay that took place on January 19 2002 in Simferopol. This session was held ahead of schedule and was dedicated to problems of the Crimean Tatars participation in the forthcoming elections to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Verkhovna Rada of the ARC. The II-nd session of the IV-th Kurultay adopted a resolution concerning the Crimean Tatars candidates to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC. The list of the candidates includes 55 persons. M. Dzhemilev in his speech announced a list of candidates approved by the Meeting of Yuschenko bloc (V. Yuschenko is a ex Prime Minister of Ukraine and Head of electoral bloc “Our Ukraine”). In this list Head of Mejlis figures under ¹28 and R. Chubarov - another candidate recommended by Kurultay - figures under ¹ 60. According to estimates of various sociological centers, Yuscheno bloc is able to ensure election of more than 60 deputies and therefore it can be assumed that both Kurultay candidates have good chances to be elected9. The Resolution also states that active participation of the Crimean Tatars in the elections, their good organization and concentration of efforts aimed at support of the candidates proposed by Kurultay for election to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC and candidates for elections to local institution of self government, proposed by regional Mejlises are the only possible tactics for the Crimean Tatars People at present stage. At the same time, states the Resolution, appeal for active participation in the elections of 2002 does not mean that the Crimean Tatar People is in agreement with the electoral system existing in the ARC. Participation in the elections is consider as one of the stages in political history of the Crimean Tatar People, and notwithstanding their results, is a kind of a statement about their determination to continue the struggle for full and complete restoration of national rights of the Crimean Tatars. Kurultay also decided to provide all possible support to electoral bloc “Our Ukraine” in the elections to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Besides, Mejlis was granted the authority to take all decisions connected with the elections, including decisions about recall of the candidates, approved by Kurultay. Further development of the events may be as follows. The results of the elections will strongly depend on the unity of the Crimean Tatar national movement, and on mutual agreement with other political forces in the Crimea. In the present political situation it may be expected that 1 or 2 Crimean Tatars candidates recommended by the IV Kurultay will be elected to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and 5-6 candidates to Verkhvna Rada of the ARC. There is also a probability that 2-3 Crimean Tatars candidates appointed by Hrach’s bloc may be elected. In this case there shall be two groups of the Crimean Tatars deputies in the Crimean Parliament that shall be in opposition and shall counteract to each other. From editorial staffThe analytical reference note was prepared by Y.Belukha and O. Vlasenko in January of 2002, but in moment of finishing of work over this number of “Krimski Studii” in April 2002, the elections of People’s deputies of Ukraine and bodies of local self-government were already held on March 31, 2002. Fortunately, one would like to note that a part of predictions of authors concerning elections to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC and People’s deputies of Ukraine have come true (with the exception of a number of deputies – Crimean Tatars, which were elected by support of Hrach’s bloc). Below, we give operative information of results of elections of deputies to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC and bodies of local self-government in the ARC. Verkhovna Rada of the ARCTotal composition is 100 deputies. 7 deputies of Crimean Tatars were elected – 6 of them of Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar people, and one – Hrach’s bloc. Bodies of local self-government
First session of new elected Verkhovna Rada of the ARC, which on April 29, 2002 was held, was finished by defeat of Leonid Hrach. The head of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC was elected Boris Deych, and head of the Council of Ministers of the ARC Serhiy Kunistsin. It is a natural end of Crimean politician, who for realization of own ambitions almost took in hostage a peninsula and its population. 1 In accordance with results of census of 1989 – Ed. 2 In accordance with operative information of Main Department of Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the ARC – Ed. 3 The last version of draft Law “On status of the Crimean Tatar people” (author-People’s deputy of Ukraine R. Bezsmertnyi) was registered in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 10.09.1999 #4041. The Committee on human rights, national minorities and interethnic relations approved this draft Law in October of 2000 and was submitted to Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine – Ed. 4 Lentun Bezaziyev was a single ethnic Crimean Tatar, who was elected by support of Crimean branch of Communist Party of Ukraine – Ed. 5 One can to read Lund recommendations in “Krimski Studii”, #4, 2000 – Ed. 6 At the same time, one should to stress that Crimean Tatars don’t insist on giving to Mejlis any emergence powers. The fact is that for final solution of political-legal aspects of Crimean Tatar problem, Mejlis could have a right for complex presentation of existing problems of Crimean Tatars before bodies of government of Ukraine and together define the ways of their solution. By the way, a creation by indigenous peoples own representative bodies and cooperation with official bodies of government is not international practice as extraordinary. For details see “Krimski Studii” #1(7), 2001. – Ed. 7 Delegates of Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar people are elected on 5 years. – Ed. 8 One can to familiarize oneself with documents of I-st session of IV Kurultay in “Krimski Studii” #5-6 (11-12), 2001 – Ed. 9 As it is well-known under results of elections the electoral bloc Viktor Yuschenko received 70 mandates.—Ed. |
