Paul Goble
Staunton, October 4 – Most analysts have suggested that President Dmitry Medvedev’s ouster of longtime Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov represents a clear opening for the opposition either by reshuffling the cards, providing a new leader for that opposition, or by provoking Muscovites into demonstrating over a partial loss of their city’s unique status.
But Grani commentator Irina Pavlova argues that the Kremlin-orchestrated campaign that resulted in the ouster of Luzhkov represents “a crushing defeat” for “the coalition of democratic forces” whose leades have just united under the slogan “For a Russia without Arbitrariness and Corruption” (http://grani.ru/opinion/m.182296.html
On the one hand, she writes today, “by initiating a campaign against Luzhkov involving charges of corruption and arbitrariness, the Kremlin seized the main slogans of the opposition,” almost as if the powers that be had taken them more or less unchanged from Nemtsov and Milov’s pamphlet, “Luzhkov. Results.”
And on the other, by so doing and by thus attracting the support of the opposition for what it was doing, the Putin-Medvedev tandem not only transformed its harshest critics into co-conspirators but strengthened the powers that be far beyond what it will gain by appointing a replacement for Luzhkov.
By attacking Luzhkov, she continues, “the Kremlin concealed its own corruption and arbitrariness and showed that it can no worse than any opposition struggle with these ‘weaknesses’ of local chiefs,” thereby winning support for itself from the public and the West without necessarily changing course or liberalizing the country.
All this has certainly worked to the benefit of Medvedev, with even the Moscow organization of the ruling United Russia Party turning to him “with a request that ‘the selected’ (not elected!) candidates for the post of mayor of Moscow” become “information for reflection” by the Russian president.
“Entirely forgotten,” Pavlova points out, “are Medvedev’s previous actions – counter-extremism centers in the interior ministry and the law broadening the powers of the FSB which are intended to strengthen political control in the country, the lengthening of the term of president, the rejection of elections of the chairman of the Constitutional Court and so on.”
Moreover, “having yet again lost to the Kremlin, the liberal opposition has clearly demonstrated that besides general calls for observing the constitution and struggling with corruption and arbitrariness, it does not have a strategy for consistent opposition to the supreme power.”
It lacks, the Grani commentator says, “a program for the defense” of small and mid-size business. It lacks “a strategy for working with other political forces.” It lacks a program for revising the privatization programs of the 1990s. And it lacks any concrete ideas for reducing the gap between the country’s rich and poor.
Pavlova says that it is “striking” that those involved do not seem to be drawing “any lessons from the past,” even though in so many ways Russia seems to be displaying in Merab Mamardashvili’s phrase, “a genius of repetition,” that would appear to suggest that a glance back at the way Russian rulers have behaved earlier would be useful.
Until the recent campaign against Luzhkov began, Pavlova says, she herself did not reflect about the show trials of 1937 against local chieftains, a process that “certain historians have also called ‘democratization’” and one that she suggests she now cannot get out of her head.
“The Stalin-Molotov tandem of that time by several classified telegrams calls for the organization ‘in each oblast by district two to three show trials over the enemies of the people” and to use the local press to mobilize the population for “the struggle with wrecking and those responsible for it.”
When these trials occurred, Pavlova continues, the population was not simply permitted but required to show up and then to declare its complete support for the guilty verdicts that the Stalinist courts handed down, thereby implicating the population in what the powers that be at that time were doing.
But far more serious, she argues, was the reality that “by such open trials, the Stalinist powers that be were covering a more massive terror” against a wide variety of opponents, a terror that also “strengthened the system still further.” And because it had made the people “co-conspirators,” it could present its crimes as reflecting “the moral-political” unity of the country.
And as far as the situation in the country after the local leaders were shot, Pavlova notes, “it did not improve.” Instead, “the participants of these trials – the judges, the witnesses and the invited public, soon themselves fell into the cycle of terror,” with victors on one day becoming the victims on the next.
Under current conditions, “the liberal opposition, which has supported with enthusiasm the campaign against the major of Moscow in the hopes that this will help shake the regime to its foundations and open the way to democratization, should remember the lessons of history,” even if this time around the victims of the process are unlikely to suffer as much.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Window on Eurasia: Al Qaeda has Failed to Redirect Chechen Movement away from Nationalism, Moscow Expert Says
Paul Goble
Staunton, October 4 – Recent events in the North Caucasus show, a Moscow expert says, that attempts by Al Qaeda to subordinate the Chechen national movement to a radical Islamist agenda have failed but that the influence of its representatives in Daghestan and Ingushetia remains strong, suggesting that even more violent terrorist attacks will emanate from there.
Yu. B. Shcheglovin of the Moscow Near East Institute argues that the recent criticism by the Caucasus Emirate’s head Doku Umarov of the Saudi representative Moganned “in fact marks the end of attempts of the worldwide ‘green international to subordinate the national separatist movement in Chechnya” (www.iimes.ru/rus/stat/2010/01-10-10b.htm).
As many observers have pointed out, the tensions within the Caucasus Emirate have their roots in money problems, but Shcheglovin says that it is important to understand why the Emirate has these problems. If one considers that issue, he suggests, it becomes obvious that Al Qaeda and its financial backers have shifted their focus.
That requires an understanding both of events in the North Caucasus and of changes in the agenda of the “green” international. Moganned, the object of Umarov’s wrath, is Al Qaeda’s representative in the region. He replaced the late Abu Haf, one of the Arabs who came to Chechnya earlier.
Such “emissaries” of the radical Islamist group, Shcheglovin continues, first came there “with the concrete goal of ‘taking control’ of the separatist movement as a whole and giving it a religious-ideological character and not in any case a purely nationalistic one,” as had been the case with the Chechen movement since the early 1990s.
To that end, the Arab representatives pushed for terrorist attacks outside of the region and the organization of suicide bomber units, but they also served as “political commissars” of the movement, seeking to direct the anti-Moscow movements in an Islamist direction, as those in Saudi Arabia providing the money wanted.
Shcheglovin says that the same thing is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq, an indication that the world has to do with “a system set up by far from poor or stupid people,” one that operates on its own without the need so many Russian and other commentators feel to refer to the CIA and Wall Street.
In the early 2000s, this system focused on the North Caucasus because Al Qaeda and its backers thought that was a place for a breakthrough in their conflict with the non-Muslim world. “But with the rise of rise of Iraq and Afghanistan,” Shcheglovin continues, “the situation changed in a cardinal way.”
Al Qaeda and the Saudis “redirected their financial flows and recruits,” and that in turn “immediately had an impact on the situation in the North Caucasus,” a region that in the view of these people was now of only “peripheral” importance.” Given the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, “weakening Russia” was no longer a task of first importance.
That shift in the views of the Islamists, the Moscow analyst says, was first highlighted in the statements of the Saudis about “a multi-polar world” and the end of fetwas like the ones that its religious scholars had issued. Indeed, the more recent fetwas from there became “acceptable for Moscow in tone and meaning.”
Not surprisingly, Umarov continued to hope for getting such funding back, and his recent statements and actions, including his brief “resignation” and his attacks on Moganned, are all about that. But they reflect the deeper division between the Chechens who have nationalist goals and the Arab emissaries who reject such projects.
Arab influence among the Chechens began to fall and “the purely national began to win” with the deaths of Yandarbiyev and Basayev, on the one hand, and the appearance of Kadyrov and Maskhadov on the other. And that trend was reinforced by Chechen antagonism to the Arab “outsiders” who viewed the Chechens in many cases as little more than “pagans.”
As Arab financing declined, the Chechen militants sought to organize their own financing just as they had done earlier, not only compelling “contributions” domestically but also seeking money from abroad. Neither of these sources included many who backed the ideas of jihad and universal war.
But if that is the situation in Chechnya and among the Chechen militants now, Shcheglovin argues, “unfortunately, one cannot say the same about Ingushetia and Daghestan.” There, the influence of the Islamists remains strong as shown by the terrorist attack on the Moscow metro which Daghestanis conducted without the knowledge of Umarov.
And in Chechnya itself, “in our opinion,” Shcheglovin says, “the recent suicidal raid on Tsentoroy [Kadyrov’s home village] also was carried out by supporters of Moganned or under his direct influence” rather than by the Chechen militants. That is because, the Moscow analyst suggest, “he needs actions” in order to get financing.
This shift within the anti-Moscow forces, he says, is important because, unlike what many analysts argue, it points to a change in the kind of attacks the militants are likely to launch. Moganned is certain to push for even “bloodier” attacks, something he may increasingly organize from Daghestan or Ingushetia rather than Chechnya itself.
What Shcheglovin doesn’t say but what many of his readers in Moscow may conclude is that this shift in the pattern of Al Qaeda funding and influence may have more to do with the relative stability in Chechnya compared to other North Caucasus republics than the actions of Ramzan Kadyrov.
And if officials in Moscow reach that conclusion, one of the major reasons why the powers that be in the Russian Federation have felt that they cannot dispense with him, however many problems he causes, will disappear or at least decline in significance, something that could lead some at the center to consider more actively his replacement.
Staunton, October 4 – Recent events in the North Caucasus show, a Moscow expert says, that attempts by Al Qaeda to subordinate the Chechen national movement to a radical Islamist agenda have failed but that the influence of its representatives in Daghestan and Ingushetia remains strong, suggesting that even more violent terrorist attacks will emanate from there.
Yu. B. Shcheglovin of the Moscow Near East Institute argues that the recent criticism by the Caucasus Emirate’s head Doku Umarov of the Saudi representative Moganned “in fact marks the end of attempts of the worldwide ‘green international to subordinate the national separatist movement in Chechnya” (www.iimes.ru/rus/stat/2010/01-10-10b.htm).
As many observers have pointed out, the tensions within the Caucasus Emirate have their roots in money problems, but Shcheglovin says that it is important to understand why the Emirate has these problems. If one considers that issue, he suggests, it becomes obvious that Al Qaeda and its financial backers have shifted their focus.
That requires an understanding both of events in the North Caucasus and of changes in the agenda of the “green” international. Moganned, the object of Umarov’s wrath, is Al Qaeda’s representative in the region. He replaced the late Abu Haf, one of the Arabs who came to Chechnya earlier.
Such “emissaries” of the radical Islamist group, Shcheglovin continues, first came there “with the concrete goal of ‘taking control’ of the separatist movement as a whole and giving it a religious-ideological character and not in any case a purely nationalistic one,” as had been the case with the Chechen movement since the early 1990s.
To that end, the Arab representatives pushed for terrorist attacks outside of the region and the organization of suicide bomber units, but they also served as “political commissars” of the movement, seeking to direct the anti-Moscow movements in an Islamist direction, as those in Saudi Arabia providing the money wanted.
Shcheglovin says that the same thing is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq, an indication that the world has to do with “a system set up by far from poor or stupid people,” one that operates on its own without the need so many Russian and other commentators feel to refer to the CIA and Wall Street.
In the early 2000s, this system focused on the North Caucasus because Al Qaeda and its backers thought that was a place for a breakthrough in their conflict with the non-Muslim world. “But with the rise of rise of Iraq and Afghanistan,” Shcheglovin continues, “the situation changed in a cardinal way.”
Al Qaeda and the Saudis “redirected their financial flows and recruits,” and that in turn “immediately had an impact on the situation in the North Caucasus,” a region that in the view of these people was now of only “peripheral” importance.” Given the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, “weakening Russia” was no longer a task of first importance.
That shift in the views of the Islamists, the Moscow analyst says, was first highlighted in the statements of the Saudis about “a multi-polar world” and the end of fetwas like the ones that its religious scholars had issued. Indeed, the more recent fetwas from there became “acceptable for Moscow in tone and meaning.”
Not surprisingly, Umarov continued to hope for getting such funding back, and his recent statements and actions, including his brief “resignation” and his attacks on Moganned, are all about that. But they reflect the deeper division between the Chechens who have nationalist goals and the Arab emissaries who reject such projects.
Arab influence among the Chechens began to fall and “the purely national began to win” with the deaths of Yandarbiyev and Basayev, on the one hand, and the appearance of Kadyrov and Maskhadov on the other. And that trend was reinforced by Chechen antagonism to the Arab “outsiders” who viewed the Chechens in many cases as little more than “pagans.”
As Arab financing declined, the Chechen militants sought to organize their own financing just as they had done earlier, not only compelling “contributions” domestically but also seeking money from abroad. Neither of these sources included many who backed the ideas of jihad and universal war.
But if that is the situation in Chechnya and among the Chechen militants now, Shcheglovin argues, “unfortunately, one cannot say the same about Ingushetia and Daghestan.” There, the influence of the Islamists remains strong as shown by the terrorist attack on the Moscow metro which Daghestanis conducted without the knowledge of Umarov.
And in Chechnya itself, “in our opinion,” Shcheglovin says, “the recent suicidal raid on Tsentoroy [Kadyrov’s home village] also was carried out by supporters of Moganned or under his direct influence” rather than by the Chechen militants. That is because, the Moscow analyst suggest, “he needs actions” in order to get financing.
This shift within the anti-Moscow forces, he says, is important because, unlike what many analysts argue, it points to a change in the kind of attacks the militants are likely to launch. Moganned is certain to push for even “bloodier” attacks, something he may increasingly organize from Daghestan or Ingushetia rather than Chechnya itself.
What Shcheglovin doesn’t say but what many of his readers in Moscow may conclude is that this shift in the pattern of Al Qaeda funding and influence may have more to do with the relative stability in Chechnya compared to other North Caucasus republics than the actions of Ramzan Kadyrov.
And if officials in Moscow reach that conclusion, one of the major reasons why the powers that be in the Russian Federation have felt that they cannot dispense with him, however many problems he causes, will disappear or at least decline in significance, something that could lead some at the center to consider more actively his replacement.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Window on Eurasia: New Bashkir Head Takes Direct Control of Religious Affairs Agency
Paul Goble
Staunton, October 3 – Reflecting the deterioration in relations between Ufa and the Muslims of Bashkortostan, the new republic head has renamed and taken direct control of the agency responsible for supervising religious affairs there, a move that could presage similar changes in other Muslim republics of the Russian Federation.
Like most of these republics, Bashkortostan has had a Council for Religious Affairs attached for the republic government since the end of Soviet times, but now the new republic president, Rustem Khamitov, has renamed it the Council for Government-Inter-Confessional Relations and attached it to his own office (www.bashinform.ru/podrob/305279/).
Vyacheslav Pyatkov, the head of the council, told the Bashinform.ru news agency that Khamitov was devoting particular attention to religious affairs because “a constructive dialogue between the state and the representatives of various confessions is important in our days as never before.”
On the one hand, he said, “the reorganized Council has been dealing with the resolution of a large number of problems” left over from the previous regime. But on the other, the Council chairman suggested, “Russia has encountered a global confessional problem. And this problem is Islam.”
“Of course,” Pyatkov quickly added, “the issue here is not in the religion itself.” But “unfortunately, there are people are trying to distort this religion and force it to serve their criminal goals,” with evidence coming in each day about “acts of force and terrorism which are carried out supposedly under the banner of Islam.”
Some of the responsibility for this development, he said, lies with the government “which not always and everywhere turns out to be capable” of dealing with the problems of young people. But “no less responsibility” for this trend is born by “spiritual leaders” who have failed to act in ways that assure them of “the necessary authority” among young people.
Such problems have been frequent in the Caucasus “for the last two decades,” Pyatkov continued, “but in recent times such organizations under the cover of Islam have sought to develop their activity also on the territory of our republic, a region where the followers of Islam and Christianity have lived in peace and harmony already more than 450 years.”
Indeed, the Council head said, “the events of last summer show that attempts at the explosion of gas pipelines and the murders of imams are completely possible also with us,” in Bashkortostan, a danger that the state and the spiritual leaders must oppose lest “such pseudo-religions survive in our society.”
“Our task,” he continued, “is to introduce ideological order in the republic. Although on the whole we have such order.” Among the most problematic areas, he said, are those far from the capital of the republic in which there is now “a far from simple economic and spiritual situation.”
Pyatkov added that “of course, the struggle with bandits which plant explosive devices on gas pipelines will be conducted by law enforcement organs and the special services.” The Council on State-Inter-Confessional Relations will use “more peaceful” means and conduct “an ideological struggle” through meetings and the media.
Pyatkov suggested that his agency would focus on the young so that those entering on adulthood would reflect before entering a path of extremism that could lead them to “nothing except punishment and shame.” And he stressed that “a believer is a patriot,” who will “never turn arms on his fellow citizens.”
But even as Pyatkov was giving his interview, some 120 Muslims, most of them young, were assembling in Ufa to protest what they said were “an increasing number of arrests” and also “illegal actions toward them from the side of the state organs,” including the arrest of publishers and editors (www.rslt.ru/ru/news/.view/id/625/).
And while most of the protesters were restrained in their criticism, some shouted “Allah is Great,” carried the flag of Saudi Arabia (the homeland of Wahhabism), and called for an end to “falsification of criminal cases against Muslims.” Not unimportantly, no representatives of the official Muslim establishment were present.
This combination of greater official attention to Muslims and greater activism among Muslims in opposition to the actions of the state suggest that Bashkortostan, long noted for the relative peace among its historically moderate Muslim community, may be changing in ways that point to more clashes ahead.
Staunton, October 3 – Reflecting the deterioration in relations between Ufa and the Muslims of Bashkortostan, the new republic head has renamed and taken direct control of the agency responsible for supervising religious affairs there, a move that could presage similar changes in other Muslim republics of the Russian Federation.
Like most of these republics, Bashkortostan has had a Council for Religious Affairs attached for the republic government since the end of Soviet times, but now the new republic president, Rustem Khamitov, has renamed it the Council for Government-Inter-Confessional Relations and attached it to his own office (www.bashinform.ru/podrob/305279/).
Vyacheslav Pyatkov, the head of the council, told the Bashinform.ru news agency that Khamitov was devoting particular attention to religious affairs because “a constructive dialogue between the state and the representatives of various confessions is important in our days as never before.”
On the one hand, he said, “the reorganized Council has been dealing with the resolution of a large number of problems” left over from the previous regime. But on the other, the Council chairman suggested, “Russia has encountered a global confessional problem. And this problem is Islam.”
“Of course,” Pyatkov quickly added, “the issue here is not in the religion itself.” But “unfortunately, there are people are trying to distort this religion and force it to serve their criminal goals,” with evidence coming in each day about “acts of force and terrorism which are carried out supposedly under the banner of Islam.”
Some of the responsibility for this development, he said, lies with the government “which not always and everywhere turns out to be capable” of dealing with the problems of young people. But “no less responsibility” for this trend is born by “spiritual leaders” who have failed to act in ways that assure them of “the necessary authority” among young people.
Such problems have been frequent in the Caucasus “for the last two decades,” Pyatkov continued, “but in recent times such organizations under the cover of Islam have sought to develop their activity also on the territory of our republic, a region where the followers of Islam and Christianity have lived in peace and harmony already more than 450 years.”
Indeed, the Council head said, “the events of last summer show that attempts at the explosion of gas pipelines and the murders of imams are completely possible also with us,” in Bashkortostan, a danger that the state and the spiritual leaders must oppose lest “such pseudo-religions survive in our society.”
“Our task,” he continued, “is to introduce ideological order in the republic. Although on the whole we have such order.” Among the most problematic areas, he said, are those far from the capital of the republic in which there is now “a far from simple economic and spiritual situation.”
Pyatkov added that “of course, the struggle with bandits which plant explosive devices on gas pipelines will be conducted by law enforcement organs and the special services.” The Council on State-Inter-Confessional Relations will use “more peaceful” means and conduct “an ideological struggle” through meetings and the media.
Pyatkov suggested that his agency would focus on the young so that those entering on adulthood would reflect before entering a path of extremism that could lead them to “nothing except punishment and shame.” And he stressed that “a believer is a patriot,” who will “never turn arms on his fellow citizens.”
But even as Pyatkov was giving his interview, some 120 Muslims, most of them young, were assembling in Ufa to protest what they said were “an increasing number of arrests” and also “illegal actions toward them from the side of the state organs,” including the arrest of publishers and editors (www.rslt.ru/ru/news/.view/id/625/).
And while most of the protesters were restrained in their criticism, some shouted “Allah is Great,” carried the flag of Saudi Arabia (the homeland of Wahhabism), and called for an end to “falsification of criminal cases against Muslims.” Not unimportantly, no representatives of the official Muslim establishment were present.
This combination of greater official attention to Muslims and greater activism among Muslims in opposition to the actions of the state suggest that Bashkortostan, long noted for the relative peace among its historically moderate Muslim community, may be changing in ways that point to more clashes ahead.
Window on Eurasia: Siberian Identity Drive Reflects Continuing Impact of Soviet Approach to Russian Nation, Moscow Commentator Says
Paul Goble
Staunton, October 3 – Because the Russian Federation inherited from Soviet times a system which deprived the Russian nation of any “mechanism permitting it to defend its interests,” ever more people who should identify as Russians are choosing to identify as Siberians or Ingermanlanders, according to a Moscow commentator.
In an essay on the “Chastny correspondent” portal today, Aleksandr Khramov says that in most countries, declarations about nationality “would be of only ethnographic interest. But Russia is a special case,” one where “since Soviet times, the state has been organized on the basis of nationalities (www.chaskor.ru/article/russkie_i_ili_sibiryaki_20207).
That means that Tatars or Chuvash or Chukchis are interested in maximizing the number of those who declare for their titular nationality in order to achieve more influence and resources, he continues, but this reality extend to all nationalities except one – the ethnic Russians – because the Soviets and now the post-Soviet government never gave them an ethnic territory.
On the one hand, this means that ethnic Russians lack many of the reasons members of other groups have for declaring their nationality in the census. And on the other, it means that groups within that ethnos such as the Siberians are seeking to promote their identities in the hopes of acquiring an autonomous territory.
In the Russian Federation census later this month, Khramov argues, ‘there is every chance that in Siberia there really will appear a new people – the Siberians. How large it will be is difficult to say, but one thing is clear: Russians as a people at the level of subjects of the Federation do not have a mechanism permitting it to defend its interests.”
“And the more people who recognize that fact, the more Siberians or Ingermanlanders (as certain residents of St. Petersburg and its environs call themselves) will appear.” That is a reality that most Russian nationalists refuse to understand, Khramov says, even though the evidence for it is overwhelming.
The Tatars of Tatarstan have been able to keep more profits from the oil industry than the Russians of Siberia because they have the institutional and political mechanisms to do so, and even the numerically small Evenks have been able to block the construction of a hydro-electric dam they don’t like while the much larger Russian community has not.
That reality rather than some “splitting of a single Russian nation” is what explains the Siberian drive, he says. But there is more to the issue as well, Khramov argues. “In the Russian Empire there was an effort to create ‘an all-Russian nation’ of Ukrainians, Belarusians and Great Russians.” But it “failed.”
“A new effort to construct a Russian nation was not undertaken,” he says, “and the majority of so-called Russian patriots up to now continue to discuss matters in all-Russian categories,” adding that “as a result, the Great Russians up to now have not been transformed into a single nation but rather remain an amorphous mass without rights.”
Indeed, Khramov continues, “those who see the Russians as some kind of ‘product of empire,’ formed in its depths are incorrect: the empire sought to build an all-Russian nation but it was not able to achieve that, and the Russian nation (itself relative to that project a form of separatism) up to the present simply has not taken shape.”
Because the Siberian “nation” movement highlights that reality too, it has drawn fire from many “nationalist” groups, including from the Russian Orthodox Church which has its own concerns about the census, fearful that if the percentage of those declaring themselves to be ethnic Russians declines so will the status of the Church.
That is because the Moscow Patriarchate has insisted that all ethnic Russians are to be counted as Orthodox Christians because that faith is the traditional one of the Russian nation, a claim that sociological research does not support but one that the powers that be in Moscow find comforting at least so far (news.babr.ru/?IDE=88695).
There is a way out of the current identity crisis, Khramov says. “If the Russians of Siberia, sensing their attachment to the Russian nation, receive the opportunity to defend their regional interests through effective federal institutions, the regional Siberian identity will remain an important element of the Russian nation,” instead of powering the rise of a Siberian “nation.”
For many in Moscow, such demands for genuine federalism are yet another reason to campaign against declarations of Siberian nationality, but those behind that campaign are certainly playing to it. One activist says that all Russians should declare their solidarity with Siberia by declaring themselves Siberians in the census as well (globalsib.com/8434/).
Staunton, October 3 – Because the Russian Federation inherited from Soviet times a system which deprived the Russian nation of any “mechanism permitting it to defend its interests,” ever more people who should identify as Russians are choosing to identify as Siberians or Ingermanlanders, according to a Moscow commentator.
In an essay on the “Chastny correspondent” portal today, Aleksandr Khramov says that in most countries, declarations about nationality “would be of only ethnographic interest. But Russia is a special case,” one where “since Soviet times, the state has been organized on the basis of nationalities (www.chaskor.ru/article/russkie_i_ili_sibiryaki_20207).
That means that Tatars or Chuvash or Chukchis are interested in maximizing the number of those who declare for their titular nationality in order to achieve more influence and resources, he continues, but this reality extend to all nationalities except one – the ethnic Russians – because the Soviets and now the post-Soviet government never gave them an ethnic territory.
On the one hand, this means that ethnic Russians lack many of the reasons members of other groups have for declaring their nationality in the census. And on the other, it means that groups within that ethnos such as the Siberians are seeking to promote their identities in the hopes of acquiring an autonomous territory.
In the Russian Federation census later this month, Khramov argues, ‘there is every chance that in Siberia there really will appear a new people – the Siberians. How large it will be is difficult to say, but one thing is clear: Russians as a people at the level of subjects of the Federation do not have a mechanism permitting it to defend its interests.”
“And the more people who recognize that fact, the more Siberians or Ingermanlanders (as certain residents of St. Petersburg and its environs call themselves) will appear.” That is a reality that most Russian nationalists refuse to understand, Khramov says, even though the evidence for it is overwhelming.
The Tatars of Tatarstan have been able to keep more profits from the oil industry than the Russians of Siberia because they have the institutional and political mechanisms to do so, and even the numerically small Evenks have been able to block the construction of a hydro-electric dam they don’t like while the much larger Russian community has not.
That reality rather than some “splitting of a single Russian nation” is what explains the Siberian drive, he says. But there is more to the issue as well, Khramov argues. “In the Russian Empire there was an effort to create ‘an all-Russian nation’ of Ukrainians, Belarusians and Great Russians.” But it “failed.”
“A new effort to construct a Russian nation was not undertaken,” he says, “and the majority of so-called Russian patriots up to now continue to discuss matters in all-Russian categories,” adding that “as a result, the Great Russians up to now have not been transformed into a single nation but rather remain an amorphous mass without rights.”
Indeed, Khramov continues, “those who see the Russians as some kind of ‘product of empire,’ formed in its depths are incorrect: the empire sought to build an all-Russian nation but it was not able to achieve that, and the Russian nation (itself relative to that project a form of separatism) up to the present simply has not taken shape.”
Because the Siberian “nation” movement highlights that reality too, it has drawn fire from many “nationalist” groups, including from the Russian Orthodox Church which has its own concerns about the census, fearful that if the percentage of those declaring themselves to be ethnic Russians declines so will the status of the Church.
That is because the Moscow Patriarchate has insisted that all ethnic Russians are to be counted as Orthodox Christians because that faith is the traditional one of the Russian nation, a claim that sociological research does not support but one that the powers that be in Moscow find comforting at least so far (news.babr.ru/?IDE=88695).
There is a way out of the current identity crisis, Khramov says. “If the Russians of Siberia, sensing their attachment to the Russian nation, receive the opportunity to defend their regional interests through effective federal institutions, the regional Siberian identity will remain an important element of the Russian nation,” instead of powering the rise of a Siberian “nation.”
For many in Moscow, such demands for genuine federalism are yet another reason to campaign against declarations of Siberian nationality, but those behind that campaign are certainly playing to it. One activist says that all Russians should declare their solidarity with Siberia by declaring themselves Siberians in the census as well (globalsib.com/8434/).
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Window on Eurasia: Proposed Congress of Peoples of Daghestan Could Prove Explosive
Paul Goble
Staunton, October 2 – Daghestani President Magomedsalam Magomedov has called for the convention of a congress of peoples of his republic in order to consolidate society against extremism, but many fear this will be only a public relations stunt and some are concerned that it could prove explosive, given the high level of tensions there.
On Wednesday, Magomedov called for the organization of a congress of all the peoples of Daghestan, modeled on the one his father who preceded him as president held, in order to “show the true attitude of Daghestanis to the criminal activity of the extremist underground and condemn terrorism” (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/174964/).
But condemning extremism in and of itself is not enough, the Daghestani leader said, arguing that “this Congress must serve as an impulse to the consolidation of society and of all healthy forces in the republic … and mark the beginning of an all-Daghestani dialogue about the future of Daghestan.”
Both those possibilities, however, have prompted some in that increasingly unstable North Caucasus republic to question the utility of such a meeting, even though, as a survey of opinion there by the Kavkaz-uzel.ru portal makes clear, Magomedov can count on the support of his own bureaucracy if not on the backing of others.
Gadzhimet Safaraliyev, who represents Daghestan in the Duma, said that he believes the measure would play “a positive role in the life of the republic,” all the more so because “the president of Daghestan … told me that he needs people who will speak the truth at the congress however bitter that truth might be.”
Akhmed Azizov, a deputy of the republic’s Popular Assembly, agreed and said that among those who should be invited would be “moderate Salafites” [those who advocate “pure” Islam against the Sufi traditions of the republic] because “now the time has come for open dialogues” not just with those who support the powers that be but also with those who oppose it.
And Akhmed Azimov, the chairman of the executive committee of the Russian Congress of Peoples of the Caucasus as well as an advisor to the leadership of the Council of Muftis of Russia (SMR), also supported the idea, arguing that if those who take part are prepared to speak “the truth in every case,” that could help “restore order and justice.”
He suggested that “today, Daghestan is at the edge of the abyss and needs an open conversation with the participation of genuinely authoritative personalities.” To that end, he suggested, the congress must include “representatives of all strata of the population, including Daghestanis living beyond the borders of the republic.”
But Isalmagomed Nabiyev, the head of the independent drivers and entrepreneurs union, expressed skepticism, noting that such meetings had been tried before without success, were bureaucratic exercises and did not offer any real possibility for a breakthrough. Indeed, he said, after Magomedov’s father held one, the situation got “much worse.”
Nabiyev said that the fight against terrorism and corruption should not be presented as “the work of one day” but rather must become “part of the routine” over a long period of time. Holding meetings is fine, but unless the actions of the powers that be change, nothing will be improved.
Zaur Cherilov, a Makhachkala resident with whom Kavkaz-uzel.ru spoke, also opposed the idea of the meeting. He said that he had never encountered terrorism but “on the other hand, each day I see incompetence, corruption, and the clanic quality of the bureaucrats, their triumph, the arbitrariness of the siloviki, the death of young people, and the collapse of infrastructure.”
As for himself, Cherilov said, “it would be funny to see on the tribune of [such a] congress a corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat who will call all of us to the struggle with terrorism as if we were in equal circumstances.” If that happens, it could easily make the situation worse.
Just how angry Daghestanis are was highlighted on Thursday when approximately 100 people assembled there to protest against state terrorism in the republic, including cases of kidnapping by official forces (www.zaprava.ru/component/content/article/89-k-akczii/2484-maxachkala-miting-protiv-gosudarstvennogo-terrorizma).
The meeting called on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to take steps to protect the rights of Daghestanis as “Russian citizens” and pointedly warned that this week’s meeting is “only the beginning” because “we will no longer put up with the illegality and ignoring of our rights. Our patience is at an end and it is better that you understand that.”
Staunton, October 2 – Daghestani President Magomedsalam Magomedov has called for the convention of a congress of peoples of his republic in order to consolidate society against extremism, but many fear this will be only a public relations stunt and some are concerned that it could prove explosive, given the high level of tensions there.
On Wednesday, Magomedov called for the organization of a congress of all the peoples of Daghestan, modeled on the one his father who preceded him as president held, in order to “show the true attitude of Daghestanis to the criminal activity of the extremist underground and condemn terrorism” (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/174964/).
But condemning extremism in and of itself is not enough, the Daghestani leader said, arguing that “this Congress must serve as an impulse to the consolidation of society and of all healthy forces in the republic … and mark the beginning of an all-Daghestani dialogue about the future of Daghestan.”
Both those possibilities, however, have prompted some in that increasingly unstable North Caucasus republic to question the utility of such a meeting, even though, as a survey of opinion there by the Kavkaz-uzel.ru portal makes clear, Magomedov can count on the support of his own bureaucracy if not on the backing of others.
Gadzhimet Safaraliyev, who represents Daghestan in the Duma, said that he believes the measure would play “a positive role in the life of the republic,” all the more so because “the president of Daghestan … told me that he needs people who will speak the truth at the congress however bitter that truth might be.”
Akhmed Azizov, a deputy of the republic’s Popular Assembly, agreed and said that among those who should be invited would be “moderate Salafites” [those who advocate “pure” Islam against the Sufi traditions of the republic] because “now the time has come for open dialogues” not just with those who support the powers that be but also with those who oppose it.
And Akhmed Azimov, the chairman of the executive committee of the Russian Congress of Peoples of the Caucasus as well as an advisor to the leadership of the Council of Muftis of Russia (SMR), also supported the idea, arguing that if those who take part are prepared to speak “the truth in every case,” that could help “restore order and justice.”
He suggested that “today, Daghestan is at the edge of the abyss and needs an open conversation with the participation of genuinely authoritative personalities.” To that end, he suggested, the congress must include “representatives of all strata of the population, including Daghestanis living beyond the borders of the republic.”
But Isalmagomed Nabiyev, the head of the independent drivers and entrepreneurs union, expressed skepticism, noting that such meetings had been tried before without success, were bureaucratic exercises and did not offer any real possibility for a breakthrough. Indeed, he said, after Magomedov’s father held one, the situation got “much worse.”
Nabiyev said that the fight against terrorism and corruption should not be presented as “the work of one day” but rather must become “part of the routine” over a long period of time. Holding meetings is fine, but unless the actions of the powers that be change, nothing will be improved.
Zaur Cherilov, a Makhachkala resident with whom Kavkaz-uzel.ru spoke, also opposed the idea of the meeting. He said that he had never encountered terrorism but “on the other hand, each day I see incompetence, corruption, and the clanic quality of the bureaucrats, their triumph, the arbitrariness of the siloviki, the death of young people, and the collapse of infrastructure.”
As for himself, Cherilov said, “it would be funny to see on the tribune of [such a] congress a corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat who will call all of us to the struggle with terrorism as if we were in equal circumstances.” If that happens, it could easily make the situation worse.
Just how angry Daghestanis are was highlighted on Thursday when approximately 100 people assembled there to protest against state terrorism in the republic, including cases of kidnapping by official forces (www.zaprava.ru/component/content/article/89-k-akczii/2484-maxachkala-miting-protiv-gosudarstvennogo-terrorizma).
The meeting called on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to take steps to protect the rights of Daghestanis as “Russian citizens” and pointedly warned that this week’s meeting is “only the beginning” because “we will no longer put up with the illegality and ignoring of our rights. Our patience is at an end and it is better that you understand that.”
Window on Eurasia: Post-Soviet States Involved in ‘Dangerous’ Arms Build Up, Russian Commentator Says
Paul Goble
Staunton, October 2 – Despite the absence of real foreign threats, all the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States are rapidly increasing their military spending, not only diverting funds from other uses but creating a series of regional arms races that represent “an extremely dangerous trend” for the region, according to a Russian commentator.
Yuri Sigov, Washington bureau chief for “Delovoye lyudi,”, says that “the latest events in Kyrgyzstan, the signing of a [basing] agreement between Moscow and Yerevan, the purchase by Azerbaijan of anti-aircraft complexes and the strengthening of the Russian military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia” are only the most visible aspects of this process.
And while military build ups in and of themselves do not necessarily create wars, such preparations for conflict by one country inevitably provoke others into doing the same. That means that the continuation of peaceful relations is put at risk and any cooperation among these countries less likely (topwar.ru/1604-vooruzhayushheesya-sodruzhestvo.html).
Moreover and perhaps even more important in many of these countries, the growth of the military not only is used by the powers that be to maintain tight control over their populations but ensures that senior officers have a major voice in the direction these countries take in the future, thus limiting the prospects for democratization.
Sigov notes that “not one” of the violent conflicts which broke out as the Soviet Union collapsed has been resolved by peaceful means, and that reality, plus the impact of the spillover of violence from Afghanistan, provides all the justification most of these countries feel they need for expanding their defense capabilities even at the sacrifice of social needs.
But what this means, Sigov continues, is that in the 20 years since the collapse of the USSR, “not one of its former republics has been living a peaceful life and all of them to one degree or another continue to arm themselves at an increasing rate,” often acquiring arms from Russia, NATO, Turkey, China and the United States.
Military spending in the 11 CIS countries rose “approximately 5.5 percent” this year, Sigov says, a figure that does not include the much higher rate of growth in such spending in Georgia which left the Commonwealth after the August 2008 war and which now enjoys substantial military assistance from NATO and the United States.
“The most rapidly arming” countries now in this region are Armenia and Azerbaijan, the journalist says. That is “not surprising” given that “the possibility of a military confrontation between the two neighbors in the CIS is very great.”
At present, Sigov says, Azerbaijan has increased its military budget “up to 10 percent of GDP. And Armenia’s increase while less is also large given that on the Armenian side, one must add the increased spending on the military units in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories.
The situation in Central Asia is even more alarming. On the one hand, none of the militaries there is in a position to counter any external aggression from the Taliban. But on the other, each is trying to build up its forces either to control the borders it shares with its neighbors or even more often to maintain a tight hold over its own population.
Uzbekistan currently spends “approximately 3.5 percent of its GDP on the armed forces,” while Kazakhstan spend about one percent. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan spend less but that is because they hope for assistance from the outside and especially on the defense capabilities of Russian or American bases.
Meanwhile, Turkmenistan, which proclaims its neutrality, “nonetheless spends large amounts in the support of its armed forces,” but this almost certainly has more to do with maintaining the powers that be in Ashgabat against any domestic challenge than responding to any foreign threat.
Ukraine has been increasing its military spending as well, apparently out of concerns about the Transdniestria situation and its territorial disputes with Romania as well as to present itself as an independent actor or potential partner, east and west. And Moldova too has boosted defense spending, Sigov says.
As for Belarus, the Russian commentator continues, evaluating the military budget is hard because it is “difficult and with regard to certain things impossible” to separate out “the ‘purely’ Belarusian military budget” from the expenditures of the Union State with Russia. But even given that, it is clear that Minsk now spends nearly 1.5 percent of GDP on defense.
Staunton, October 2 – Despite the absence of real foreign threats, all the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States are rapidly increasing their military spending, not only diverting funds from other uses but creating a series of regional arms races that represent “an extremely dangerous trend” for the region, according to a Russian commentator.
Yuri Sigov, Washington bureau chief for “Delovoye lyudi,”, says that “the latest events in Kyrgyzstan, the signing of a [basing] agreement between Moscow and Yerevan, the purchase by Azerbaijan of anti-aircraft complexes and the strengthening of the Russian military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia” are only the most visible aspects of this process.
And while military build ups in and of themselves do not necessarily create wars, such preparations for conflict by one country inevitably provoke others into doing the same. That means that the continuation of peaceful relations is put at risk and any cooperation among these countries less likely (topwar.ru/1604-vooruzhayushheesya-sodruzhestvo.html).
Moreover and perhaps even more important in many of these countries, the growth of the military not only is used by the powers that be to maintain tight control over their populations but ensures that senior officers have a major voice in the direction these countries take in the future, thus limiting the prospects for democratization.
Sigov notes that “not one” of the violent conflicts which broke out as the Soviet Union collapsed has been resolved by peaceful means, and that reality, plus the impact of the spillover of violence from Afghanistan, provides all the justification most of these countries feel they need for expanding their defense capabilities even at the sacrifice of social needs.
But what this means, Sigov continues, is that in the 20 years since the collapse of the USSR, “not one of its former republics has been living a peaceful life and all of them to one degree or another continue to arm themselves at an increasing rate,” often acquiring arms from Russia, NATO, Turkey, China and the United States.
Military spending in the 11 CIS countries rose “approximately 5.5 percent” this year, Sigov says, a figure that does not include the much higher rate of growth in such spending in Georgia which left the Commonwealth after the August 2008 war and which now enjoys substantial military assistance from NATO and the United States.
“The most rapidly arming” countries now in this region are Armenia and Azerbaijan, the journalist says. That is “not surprising” given that “the possibility of a military confrontation between the two neighbors in the CIS is very great.”
At present, Sigov says, Azerbaijan has increased its military budget “up to 10 percent of GDP. And Armenia’s increase while less is also large given that on the Armenian side, one must add the increased spending on the military units in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories.
The situation in Central Asia is even more alarming. On the one hand, none of the militaries there is in a position to counter any external aggression from the Taliban. But on the other, each is trying to build up its forces either to control the borders it shares with its neighbors or even more often to maintain a tight hold over its own population.
Uzbekistan currently spends “approximately 3.5 percent of its GDP on the armed forces,” while Kazakhstan spend about one percent. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan spend less but that is because they hope for assistance from the outside and especially on the defense capabilities of Russian or American bases.
Meanwhile, Turkmenistan, which proclaims its neutrality, “nonetheless spends large amounts in the support of its armed forces,” but this almost certainly has more to do with maintaining the powers that be in Ashgabat against any domestic challenge than responding to any foreign threat.
Ukraine has been increasing its military spending as well, apparently out of concerns about the Transdniestria situation and its territorial disputes with Romania as well as to present itself as an independent actor or potential partner, east and west. And Moldova too has boosted defense spending, Sigov says.
As for Belarus, the Russian commentator continues, evaluating the military budget is hard because it is “difficult and with regard to certain things impossible” to separate out “the ‘purely’ Belarusian military budget” from the expenditures of the Union State with Russia. But even given that, it is clear that Minsk now spends nearly 1.5 percent of GDP on defense.
Window on Eurasia: International Turkic Peoples’ Congress Calls on Moscow to Restore Rights of Nogays
Paul Goble
Staunton, October 2 – Turkey’s efforts to promote an alliance of Turkic-language countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia have attracted a great deal of attention from other states around the world, but a parallel drive to promote unity among Turkic peoples, many of whom are minorities in other countries, has not even though it may prove equally important.
That is because each of these minorities has its own grievances and aspirations, many of which enjoy support from other Turkic peoples and governments but most of which are supported by too few people within the countries in which these nationalities find themselves to make a difference.
And consequently, the construction of such alliances for the Turkic peoples appears likely to play a role similar to the one Finno-Ugric groups have which add the strength of three independent countries – Estonia, Finland, and Hungary – to the numerically small Finno-Ugric groups within the Russian Federation.
A month ago, the International Organization of Turkish Youth and the Gagauz Social Organization Umut held the first International Congress of Turkic Peoples in Komrat, the Gagauz capital within Moldova. That five-day session has now been described in detail by a Daghestani journal (gazeta-nv.ru/content/view/4877/109/).
Among the groups represented, Ayshat Batyrmurzayeva reports, were Daghestani Nogays, Siberian Tatars, Chuvash, Crimean Tatars, Azerbaijanis, Kyrgyz, Turks, Serkels, Iranian Azerbaijanis, Bulgarian Turks, Iraqi Turkmens, Mafuns (Karelians, Finns and Maris, and the host Gagauz.
The meeting was opened by Semsettin Kuzeji, the deputy president of the International Organization of Turkic Youth, Nikolay Dudoglo of the Komrat mayor’s office, and A.Kh. Kharlamenko, the chairman of the Popular Assembly of Gagauzia, who said he was especially pleased that the meeting was gaining so many new friends for his people.
Dudoglo for his part stressed “the importance of this forum for [all] the peoples of the Turkic language world” and noted that Komrat “for seven years has been a member of the Union of Municipalities of the Turkic World,” another body that seeks to link Turkic groups across the world.
But in one of the meetings most important actions – and the reason that the session was reported in such detail by a Makhachkala journal – the session adopted an appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin about the problems of the Nogays of Daghestan.
Noting that Nogays have “more than once raised the questions of building a civil society in Daghestan” but that “the policy conducted by certain highly placed officials in the power structures of the republic” has not taken the necessary steps to ensure it for “indigenous numerically small Nogay people,” the international meeting is calling on Moscow to intervene.
In order to overcome “the difficult social-economic situation of the Nogay people and the infringements of its constitutional rights in the Russian Federation,” the appeal continues, the central Russian government should take the following six steps, all of which would represent a challenge to the way business is done in Daghestan.
First, Moscow needs to evaluate and then move to quash the September 1996 Daghestan law which “infringes on the right of the Nogay people to use the territories” traditionally belonging to its members but that have now been taken over by other larger ethnic communities in that republic.
Second, the document says that “for the preservation of the native language, cultural customs and traditions, and the preservation and development of the unique culture of the Kum Nogays, it would be useful to consider and accelerate the re-establishment of the Nogay district in Stavropol kray centered on Kayasul which existed until 1944.”
Third, it calls for a revision of Makhachkala-imposed division of fighting rights on the Caspian so that the Nogay living on the shores of that sea can make a living. Fourth, it calls for “the construction of a hard-surface road” connecting Nogay auls and the extension of gas lines to heat the houses in these villages.
Fifth, it urges Moscow to investigate the ecological situation in all Nogay regions and to clean up contaminated areas. And sixth, it urges Moscow to “create a commission to consider the further correction of the illegal and criminal points concerning the Nogay people” in the January 1957 RSFSR decree allowing deported peoples to return.
None of these demands is new: the Nogays have been making them for more than 20 years. But what is new is that they and presumably other Turkic peoples in the region now have an international body they can use to gain greater attention and that Turkey has gained yet another means of projecting Ankara’s interests into the Caucasus and beyond.
Staunton, October 2 – Turkey’s efforts to promote an alliance of Turkic-language countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia have attracted a great deal of attention from other states around the world, but a parallel drive to promote unity among Turkic peoples, many of whom are minorities in other countries, has not even though it may prove equally important.
That is because each of these minorities has its own grievances and aspirations, many of which enjoy support from other Turkic peoples and governments but most of which are supported by too few people within the countries in which these nationalities find themselves to make a difference.
And consequently, the construction of such alliances for the Turkic peoples appears likely to play a role similar to the one Finno-Ugric groups have which add the strength of three independent countries – Estonia, Finland, and Hungary – to the numerically small Finno-Ugric groups within the Russian Federation.
A month ago, the International Organization of Turkish Youth and the Gagauz Social Organization Umut held the first International Congress of Turkic Peoples in Komrat, the Gagauz capital within Moldova. That five-day session has now been described in detail by a Daghestani journal (gazeta-nv.ru/content/view/4877/109/).
Among the groups represented, Ayshat Batyrmurzayeva reports, were Daghestani Nogays, Siberian Tatars, Chuvash, Crimean Tatars, Azerbaijanis, Kyrgyz, Turks, Serkels, Iranian Azerbaijanis, Bulgarian Turks, Iraqi Turkmens, Mafuns (Karelians, Finns and Maris, and the host Gagauz.
The meeting was opened by Semsettin Kuzeji, the deputy president of the International Organization of Turkic Youth, Nikolay Dudoglo of the Komrat mayor’s office, and A.Kh. Kharlamenko, the chairman of the Popular Assembly of Gagauzia, who said he was especially pleased that the meeting was gaining so many new friends for his people.
Dudoglo for his part stressed “the importance of this forum for [all] the peoples of the Turkic language world” and noted that Komrat “for seven years has been a member of the Union of Municipalities of the Turkic World,” another body that seeks to link Turkic groups across the world.
But in one of the meetings most important actions – and the reason that the session was reported in such detail by a Makhachkala journal – the session adopted an appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin about the problems of the Nogays of Daghestan.
Noting that Nogays have “more than once raised the questions of building a civil society in Daghestan” but that “the policy conducted by certain highly placed officials in the power structures of the republic” has not taken the necessary steps to ensure it for “indigenous numerically small Nogay people,” the international meeting is calling on Moscow to intervene.
In order to overcome “the difficult social-economic situation of the Nogay people and the infringements of its constitutional rights in the Russian Federation,” the appeal continues, the central Russian government should take the following six steps, all of which would represent a challenge to the way business is done in Daghestan.
First, Moscow needs to evaluate and then move to quash the September 1996 Daghestan law which “infringes on the right of the Nogay people to use the territories” traditionally belonging to its members but that have now been taken over by other larger ethnic communities in that republic.
Second, the document says that “for the preservation of the native language, cultural customs and traditions, and the preservation and development of the unique culture of the Kum Nogays, it would be useful to consider and accelerate the re-establishment of the Nogay district in Stavropol kray centered on Kayasul which existed until 1944.”
Third, it calls for a revision of Makhachkala-imposed division of fighting rights on the Caspian so that the Nogay living on the shores of that sea can make a living. Fourth, it calls for “the construction of a hard-surface road” connecting Nogay auls and the extension of gas lines to heat the houses in these villages.
Fifth, it urges Moscow to investigate the ecological situation in all Nogay regions and to clean up contaminated areas. And sixth, it urges Moscow to “create a commission to consider the further correction of the illegal and criminal points concerning the Nogay people” in the January 1957 RSFSR decree allowing deported peoples to return.
None of these demands is new: the Nogays have been making them for more than 20 years. But what is new is that they and presumably other Turkic peoples in the region now have an international body they can use to gain greater attention and that Turkey has gained yet another means of projecting Ankara’s interests into the Caucasus and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
