STATEMENT at session of the Committee on Migration, Refuges and Demography of PACE 5 April 2000, Strasbourg

Distinguished members of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography; honourable experts; Ladies and Gentlemen.

Let me, first of all, express my deep and sincere gratitude for being invited to this outstanding event which, I hope, will be of great help in ameliorating the extremely difficult situation that the Crimean Tatar people are currently facing in returning home after almost half-century of living in exile.

Let me also express our great appreciation of the very fact that the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly has reviewed the plight of the Crimean Tatars in detail. We are very grateful especially to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography and its rapporteur Lord Ponsonby for the efforts to provide assistance for resolving the problems of the Crimean Tatar people.

I would also like to note that coincidentally, one-day parliamentary hearings on issues relating to the Crimean Tatars and other formerly deported groups are taking place in Kyiv today. Although the results of the hearings would have been of great importance for the development of the PACE’s recommendations, I hope that the recommendations adopted here in Strasbourg as a follow-up to the debates on Lord Ponsonby’s report will be available in Kyiv very soon, and that they will further contribute to the shaping of Ukraine’s policy towards the Crimean Tatars.

Now I would like to make some brief comments on the latest version of Lord Ponsonby’s report and Draft Recommendations from 18 February 2000 (Doc.8655).

1. In the Summary, and at the beginning of the Draft Recommendations, as well as in the Introduction to the Explanatory memorandum by Lord Ponsonby, it states that “A 1967 Soviet Decree cleared the Crimean Tatars of all charges but did nothing to facilitate their return”. Actually, at that time - and until late 1980s - the main problem was not “facilitating” our return, but the fact that it was strictly prohibited, with many of those attempting to return being arrested and deported once again.

2. The report provides a very accurate description of the current economic, social, and political situation of the Crimean Tatar people. Nothing could be added concerning their economic and social plight except the one very important issue concerning the privatization of land according to the Decree of the President of Ukraine.  Many Crimean Tatars who had no prior opportunity to become members of collective farms in Crimea and who had not yet gained Ukrainian citizenship, faced a great disadvantage compared to other Crimean residents participating in the privatization of farm lands.  This comment is even more pertinent for those Crimean Tatars who have not yet returned to their homeland but wish to do so. Therefore, I ask the honourable members of the Committee to re-consider this part of the Recommendations, and to include a point addressing the land privatization issue. More detailed information can be found in the attached documents.

3. Regarding the political rights of the Crimean Tatar people, I would like to stress that our claim to the special status of an indigenous people of Ukraine is not spontaneous. In fact, it would represent a logical step towards the further development of those articles of the Constitution of Ukraine by which the existence on the territory of Ukraine of indigenous peoples, in parallel with the titular nation and national minorities, is clearly recognized. Following the adoption of the Ukrainian Constitution in 1996, two drafts of the law “On the Status of the Crimean Tatar People” have been prepared, as has the “Draft Concept of the National Policy of Ukraine in Relation to Indigenous Peoples.” English versions of these drafts, as well as an analysis prepared by a Ukrainian non-governmental expert, are also available.  Regrettably, this issue is not addressed in the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea adopted in December 1998.

4. Through the adoption of the above legal acts, many painful and urgent matters that continue to be a source of potential conflict would be settled without any hint of discrimination towards any other national group living in the Crimea. Such acute problems as those concerning the representation of Crimean Tatars in government bodies and the legalization of our traditional representative body – the Mejlis (or National Assembly) of the Crimean Tatar People – could eventually be resolved this way. Restoring the right of the indigenous population to participate in the decision-making process where it concerns its own affairs complies fully with those international norms and standards designed to protect human rights. Therefore, it is highly desirable that this point is also included in the Recommendations issued by the PACE. I hope that this brief explanation and the documents attached might be of help to the highly esteemed Rapporteur who “could not get an answer as to what that status implies in legal terms”, and who “was led to believe that this is an euphemism for titular nation”.

5. Some considerations in Point 11 of the Memorandum are, to my mind, difficult to agree with. Specifically, this relates to the reasons behind under-representation and the proposed remedy. But the most important factual mistake is under Point 12, namely, the sentence “At the same time, by decree, all deputies to heads of Governmental bodies in Crimea are Crimean Tatars”. Nothing even close to such a decree has ever been issued and the situation is very far from the one stated. A detailed reference to the numbers and positions of Crimean Tatars in all Crimean governmental bodies, prepared by a Ukrainian independent expert, is available, though, regrettably, as yet only in Ukrainian.  It will be published very soon in English in the second issue of the “Kryms’ki Studiji” Bulletin.

6. It is possible that the appearance of such a mistake in such an important and otherwise admirable document is attributable to the fact that the Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People was omitted from the list of bodies and individuals whom Lord Ponsonby met with during his fact-finding mission. The same might also be speculated in the case of the above-mentioned misunderstanding regarding the essence and reasons behind the claim to indigenous status. This might also serve as a striking illustration of the need to accommodate the Mejlis into the legal space of Ukraine, thus providing a valid base for the involvement of the Crimean Tatars’ representative body in any negotiations and discussions concerning the fate of the Crimean Tatar people.

7. It is also difficult to accept the generalized statement about the local Slavic population’s xenophobic attitude towards the Crimean Tatars (P.15). It is presented in such a way that no distinction is made between Ukrainians and Russians, or so-called “Russophones”. There are many examples of deep understanding between Crimean Tatars and pro-Ukrainian forces in Crimea and in Ukraine as a whole, including political parties and NGOs.

8. Moreover, I also have some objections against defining Kyiv’s policy towards the Crimean Tatars as simply a means to make Crimea “less “Russian”; thus giving “Kyiv more scope for political manoeuvre, which has been used” (P.15). We have often encountered a quite adequate understanding of our problems as well as goodwill to solve them on the part of Ukrainian authorities at all levels - first and foremost from the President of Ukraine. The Decree on establishing the Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar People, issued by President Leonid Kuchma on 18 May 1999, clearly demonstrates his desire to find a place for the Mejlis within the constitutional space of Ukraine. This issue is addressed in more detail in a working paper on the constitutional process within the ARC, which is also among the attached documents.

9. Somewhat surprising is the view that “this segregation is self-imposed by the Crimean Tatars who prefer to live in compact settlements and send their children to Crimean Tatar, rather than mixed or Russian schools” (P.16). It should be quite clear that for such a dispersed – even in their own homeland - minority as the Crimean Tatars, creating a national environment in compact settlements and wishing that their children be taught in their mother tongue does not equate with “segregation” or isolation as an objective, but, quite naturally, should be viewed as an effort to preserve and revive their own ethno-cultural identity.  Moreover, this is seen as the best, if not the only, way to achieve the genuine integration through a national rebirth of the Crimean Tatar community into Ukrainian society, whereas other paths can only lead to assimilation.

10. In point 22, it is stated that “Up-to-date and accurate information on citizenship-related issues is still, despite concerted efforts by the Ukrainian Ministry of the Interior and awareness-raising campaigning by Crimean Tatar NGOs, a rare commodity, with heavy reliance by returnee community on rumours.” However, Point 23 seems to disprove this statement.

I do hope that the above comments, which by no means aim to diminish the general value of Lord Ponsonby’s Draft Report and Draft Recommendations, will be used to clarify some controversial points and taken into consideration during the preparation of the final version of the text.

Thank you for your attention,