Report of debates of the parliamentary hearings on “Problems of legislative regulation and the implementation of state policy on the realization of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people and national minorities, which were deported and have voluntarily returned to Ukraine”(Wednesday 05 April 2000) On 5 April 2000, the parliamentary hearings on “Problems of legislative regulation and the implementation of state policy on the realization of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people and national minorities, which were deported and have voluntarily returned to Ukraine” were held. One can claim without exaggeration that for the first time the parliament of independent Ukraine has openly discussed one of the most painful issues inherited by Ukraine from the USSR. The hearing on the Crimean Tatar issue has its own complicated history. Conflicting approaches by various political forces of Ukraine came into focus around this significant event, the importance of which is yet to be evaluated. The agreement to hold the hearing on the Crimean Tatar problem in September 1999 was reached on during 17 May 1999 meeting in Kyiv between the President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, Chairman of the Parliament of Ukraine Oleksandr Tkachenko, and the leadership of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people. During the course of the year, the Committee on Human Rights, National Minorities and Interethnic Relations has repeatedly attempted to initiate the parliamentary hearings, but these attempts were blocked in various ways by the pro-Communist leadership of the Parliament of Ukraine. Only on 2 March 2000, i.e. after changes in the leadership of the Parliament and the formation of the parliamentary majority, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted Decree # 1532 – III “On holding parliamentary hearings on the problems of legislative regulation and the implementation of state policy on the realization of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people and national minorities which were deported and have voluntarily returned to Ukraine.” Symbolically and notably, the date of the parliamentary hearings in Kyiv coincided with the discussion of Crimean Tatar issue by PACE in Strasbourg. The European parliamentarians considered the report by the special rapporteur, Lord Ponsonby, who has recently visited Crimea. This illustrates that many aspects of the Crimean Tatar issue have not only domestic, but also an international significance. The English version of the bulletin contains a complete verbatim report of the debate in Strasbourg. At the Ukrainian parliamentary hearings, Deputy Prime Minister Mykola Zhulynskyi was the main rapporteur from the Cabinet of Ministers, and Refat Chubarov, member of the Parliament and First Deputy Chairman of the Committee on Human Rights, National Minorities, and Interethnic Relations, was a co-rapporteur. During the debates, addresses were also made by:
In the Ukrainian-language version of the bulletin we publish the full text of all speeches. In the English-language version, we publish the synopsis of these speeches, as well as the text of the final Resolution adopted by the parliament on 20 April 2000 as a result of the parliamentary hearings. Mykola Zhulynskyi, His report described the situation with the repatriation and resettlement of the Crimean Tatar people and national minorities. The report noted that “the lack of a well-defined legislative base for the restoration of the rights of the formerly deported peoples significantly complicates the process of their repatriation and resettlement.” Mr. Zhulynskyi thinks that the adoption by the Ukrainian Parliament of the draft “Concept of the State Policy of Ukraine on Ethnonational Questions,” which was prepared by the Council of Ministers of Ukraine, can help to define conceptual approaches to the solution of the legal status of Crimean Tatar people. Noting the significant role of the Government of Ukraine in creating conditions for the repatriation of Crimean Tatars to their historical homeland, Deputy Prime Minister expressed a concern about difficult socioeconomic situation of the Crimean Tatars in places of their compact settlement, massive unemployment, and poor health of the repatriates. In the opinion of the Government of Ukraine, one of the ways to solve these problems would be to increase the involvement and assistance of the donor countries and international organizations in the resettlement of the Crimean Tatar people and national minorities. Refat Chubarov, In his address, Chubarov stressed the necessity to realize the consequences of the deportation both for the destinies of individuals and for the development opportunities of the entire people subjected to en mass deportation. He identified the lack of the Crimean Tatar representation in the executive and legislative organs of power in the ARC as the main problem impeding the solution of the Crimean Tatar issue. Having no representatives in the organs of power, the Crimean Tatars are not able to participate together with other inhabitants of Crimea in solving either their own, as well as Crimea-wide, problems. Given the Crimea Tatar isolation, some Crimean politicians are constantly trying to push Crimean Tatars into conflict with the Ukrainian authorities, or to provoke the state organs to react inadequately towards the Crimean Tatars. The preservation of many negative stereotypes and myths towards the Crimean Tatars, for decades installed by the Communist regime, is one of the obstacles towards mutual understanding. In this connection, Refat Chubarov noted that locally “state police is replaced by subjective actions of the local authorities, and the processes of harmonization of the relations between different national groups is replaced by the suppression of the rights and interests of the smaller ethnic group by the large one.” Rapporteur also noted that the Crimean Tatar issue can be solved by way of creating appropriate mechanisms to harmonize interethnic relations on the peninsula, based on “mutual coordination of the interests of the state, autonomous republic and all of its inhabitants, including the rights of Crimean Tatar people.” However, integration of the Crimean Tatars would be unlikely if the Crimean Tatars are treated at the national and regional level as a subject, rather than an object, of political relations, and if hierarchy, suppression and distrust replace dialogue, respective attitude towards the problem, and tolerance.” Leonid Kravchuk, He noted that “the creation of independent Ukraine opened the opportunities not only for the discussion, but also for legal and political guarantees of the rights of deported peoples, in particular of the Crimean Tatar people.” Leonid Kravchuk enumerated the main principles that have to be reflected in the final document. “Democracy is in place only when a minority is protected, when it has the rights,” noted Mr. Kravchuk. Henry Grout, It is known that all Germans were subjected to deportation from all European regions of the USSR. In this connection, Mr. Grout believes, all decisions adopted in Ukraine on restoration of the rights of formerly deported peoples and national minorities ought to cover those Germans of Ukraine who lived in other regions of former USSR at the time of deportation. Attention to the Crimean Tatar issue, in the opinion of Mr. Grout, is justified because “the Crimean Tatar issue is the most acute among all these acute issues.” Serhiy Kunitsin, The Head of the Government of the ARC stressed that, “despite the importance of the work aimed at solving socio-economic difficulties of the repatriates,” it is impossible to solve the Crimean Tatar issue without regulating its political-legal aspects in the law. Therefore, holding these parliamentary hearings “can be considered as a very important step in this direction.” Natalia Shtepa, In the opinion of Ms. Shtepa, “unsolved socio-economic problems of the deportees leads to the activization of national radicals,” who put forward knowingly unrealistic demands. Ms. Shtepa thinks that proposals on guarantee representation of the Crimean Tatars in government organs of the ARC is contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine. At the same time, she thinks that the problem can be solved by way of changing the electoral system to the Supreme Council of the ARC (introducing mixed or proportional systems). Borys Bespalyi, Mr. Bespalyi focused on the question of the Crimean Tatar representation in the bodies of power of the ARC. He noted that the Crimean authorities settled returning Crimean Tatars in such a way that they could not constitute more than 20-25% in any given districts of Crimea. Therefore, majoritarian electoral system does not allow Crimean Tatars to elect their representatives to the organs of power. Mr. Bespalyi cited as an example the electoral law of Croatia, which posits that “representatives of ethnic unions or minorities representing more than 8% of the country’s population are to be proportionally represented in parliament.” He expressed readiness to participate in the preparation of an appropriate legislative bill on behalf of the “Reforms and Order” and People’s RUKH parties. Mykola Kovach, Noting the topicality of the Crimean Tatar issue, Mr. Kovach spoke of the deportation of tens of thousand Hungarian males from Zakarpattia. Later only one third of them returned from places of deportation, while the rest perished. The restoration of the rights of the formerly deported peoples and ethnic minorities has to cover all those deported from Ukraine. Ivan Kuras, The report of Mr. Kuras was dedicated to the definition of the legal status of the Crimean Tatar people. He stated that since in international law universal legal standards with regards to indigenous peoples are not yet fully defined, it is important to focus on timely solution of practical problems related to the socio-cultural and spiritual revival of the Crimean Tatars. Roman Bessmertnyi, Mr. Bessmertnyi thinks that the most pressing issues relating to the Crimean Tatar question are:
It is possible to solve all these issues, but it is necessary that all of us “will learn to speak openly, honestly and in terms of legal norms.” Does Ukraine need a law “On the status of the Crimean Tatar people?” It does, because “the situation with regards to the Crimean Tatars is such that it falls outside the scope covered by existing international legislative acts.” Pavlo Baulin, In view of Mr. Baulin “Europe, Americans, Turks, and so-called Ukrainian nationalists are all concern about the Crimean Tatars.” “Obviously, the descendants of those who burnt the Ukrainian lands with fire and sword are not responsible for the genocide committed by the Crimean Tatars against Orthodox south-west Russia,” but why “should I be concern more about Tatars than about Ukrainians, as it is proposes by these parliamentary hearings?” Pavlo Movchan, The final document has to reflect the necessity to solve Crimean Tatar political problems. However, we should not forget who is responsible for all the misfortunes Crimean Tatars have endured. Therefore, in the recommendations we must undoubtedly note that Moscow is responsible for what happened to the Crimean Tatars. Volodymyr Pustovoitov, He proposed to exclude from the draft of the final document the item on the necessity to consider the Draft Law “On the status of Crimean Tatar people,” as well Ukraine signing the Convention # 169 of the International Labor Organization “On Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent States.” Volodymyr Moiseienko, Mr. Moiseenko thinks that the collapse of the USSR led to the Crimean Tatar problem since “the repatriation started only after a decision of Soviet Union government organs.” In his opinion, the restoration of the USSR would have allowed to solve all problems justly, including the Crimean Tatar one. (No comments! – Ed.) Mykhailo Hutsol, Drew the attention of participants to unpunished activities of Russian chauvinistic organizations in Crimea. Petro Tolochko, Expressed doubt with regards to using the concept “people” in the draft of final document, since, according the legislation of Ukraine, a term “minority” should be used in reference to the Crimean Tatar people. Yaroslav Kendzor, Said that he regards speeches of his colleagues from the Communists Party faction as cynical not only towards an unhappy destiny of the Crimean Tatar people, but also towards a significant part of Ukrainians who have also suffered repressions form the Communist regime. Hennadiy Udovenko, Noted that the parliamentary hearings were under preparation for a long time. Despite the fact that previous leadership of the Parliament of Ukraine has artificially delayed these hearings, the mere fact that the hearings are taking place has a profound importance. The discussion of the Crimean Tatar issue, despite dissonant approaches to it, signifies that there is a consensus in understanding the importance of the issue itself. Therefore, the Committee recommended to approve the recommendations, and to task the Working Group, after making improvements to the document, to present it for vote in the Parliament in one week. Ivan Pliusch, He summarized the debates. The participants of the parliamentary hearings approved the draft of the final document, and task the Work Group, after incorporating additional and proposals, to present the final text of the recommendations for parliamentary vote. P.S. The final documents of the parliamentary hearings on “Problems of legislative regulation and the implementation of state policy on the realization of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people and national minorities which were deported and have voluntarily returned to Ukraine” were approved on 20 April 2000. 291 MPs voted in favor of the recommendations. 226 votes in favor were needed to approve the document. |