Mass Media survey for 1-6 May 2000
All the material is given in an abridged form
On April 28 the Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine Nikolay Julinskiy had a meeting with the heads of Ministries, Departments and State Committees. They discussed the issue of preparation for the 56th anniversary of deportation the Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Bulgarian, Greeks and Germans. On May 11 they are going to have a meeting for the state leaders, the Council of the Crimean Tatars' representatives, the President of Ukraine, intelligentsia and the deported veterans of the World War II. A joint mourning sitting will take place in Simferopol on May 17. It will be held by the leaders of Verkhovna Rada, Ministry Council of the Crimea and Simferopol executive committee. The Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine will participate there as well.
Lentara Halilova, "Golos Krima", # 19 (338), 5 May 2000, p.1.
At the press-conference on April 28 the Chairman of Crimean Tatar nation's Mejilis, Mustafa Djemilev, noted that a lot of speculations had been made by communists concerning adopting the law of the Crimean Tatar nation's status.
As for the hearings in PACE, L.Grach's reproached M.Djemilev in speaking about needs of Mejilis instead of the Crimean Tatars' problems. M.Djemilev's reply was as following: "There is no need to tell about Crimean Tatars' condition, because Lord Ponsonby, the representative of PACE, had a special visit to the Crimea in September 1999. He made a detailed report about the social condition of the Crimean Tatar nation". M.Djemilev pointed out that L. Grach had a new theory in his report. This theory left no place for native nation in the Crimea. Crimea was a "dormitory" for all nations, and there were no political problems on the peninsula.
The head of Mejilis emphasized that it was the first time that the Crimean Tatar problem had been included to the agenda. While speaking of PACE recommendations, he noticed the following: "I cannot say that they have completely satisfied us. The focus was made mostly on socio-economic problems." While speaking of positive sides of recommendations, he said that they had been satisfactory. He also noted that they had been essential in the area of social problems. It was the first time that they used the term "native nation" for the Crimean Tatars. It also mentions the necessity for the guaranteed Crimean Tatars' representatives and functioning of the language of the native nation.
Leylya Alyadinova, "Golos Krima", #19 (338), 5 May 2000, p.1.
Session participants have blamed Kyiv for violating Crimean Tatars' rights. According to the members of European Parliament, in assisting program from the West housing issue for Crimean Tatars in the historical homeland should become the priority. The Crimean authorities are still preventing settling of native nation on the peninsula. Sometimes they even destroy their dwellings that were hurriedly constructed in despair.
According to the official data, about 260 thousand Crimean Tatars have returned to the Crimea. The Assembly Resolution states that these people have come across with "complex many-sided problems like citizenship, job opportunities, housing, social care and restoration of culture." And all these prevent Crimean Tatars from gaining “full self-identity.”
It seems that Ukrainian delegates could not explain properly to the European Parliament members in Strasbourg that Kyiv had never planned Crimean Tatars' "full self-identity" on the territory of Ukraine. And it looks like the Europeans sincerely believe that “the assistance programs for returning Crimean Tatars initiated by the Ukrainian government are delayed due to the economic crisis in the country.”
I.Guzheva, S.Petuhov, "PACE wants to the Crimea", "Expert", 04.10.2000.
* * *
- Some analysts say that the Crimean Tatars are the destabilizing factor in the Crimea and their presence is a threaten to the national security of Ukraine…
- No, it's not true. A nation can never be the cause of destabilization. The main destabilizing factor is the absence of adequate policy for solving problems. Today we are just approaching the realization what kind of policy we should imply when solving the problems of the deported.
- Have joint Crimean Tatar social and political organizations ever gave any kind of pressure on you?
- Obviously, the Crimean Tatars have some problems that cannot be left unsolved. And our goal is to create conditions for representatives of the deported to exist and have self-determination (…) The main way of stabilization in relationships between government and the Crimean Tatars is the intensive development of economy.
A.Smoliy, "The Crimea has never been so close to being out of "red" regions to the economic prosperity," (interview with S.Kunitsin), "Zerkalo nedeli", 04.08.2000.
* * *
It seems that the Crimean Tatars are provoked again. The repatriates' are in such socio-economic condition that they are unable to support their national press. There is no national bourgeoisie. The Crimean Tatars have not integrated into politico-economic elite of the Crimea. They can expect help from nowhere but the state. But if the autonomy and the state find hundreds of thousands of grivnas for financing parliament and government newspapers then some thousands may also be found for the press in the language of ethnic minorities. In any case, Ukraine used to have some responsibilities in this regard.
V.Pritula, The end of Days "For the New World"?, "Zerkalo nedeli", 04.08.2000.
Prepared by G.Veliullayeva, "Kirim", #20 (569), 6 May 2000, p.2.
Our information: *Krimtsy - the Crimean Tatars
The working group had been elected at the Crimean Tatar nation's Kurultay 3. On April 28 they held a meeting in Crimean Tatar nation's Mejilis. They discussed proposals to the project "Regulations on elections of delegates for the Crimean Tatar nation's Kurultay 4". Regional mejilises and non-government organizations are invited to the discussion of this project.
Seyran Ibraim, "Kirim", #20 (569), 6 May 2000, p.1.
One of the most ancient educational establishments of Eastern Europe, Zindjirli Medrese, has its 500th anniversary this year. The 6th conference on science and theory, devoted to this significant day, started in the Crimean State Industrio-Pedagogic Institute (CSIPI) on April 27. The conference will last till May 11. 360 reports will be delivered in its 17 sections. Three reports, dealing with the history, architecture and life at Zindjirli Medrese were delievered at the plenary sitting of the conference. After it the actors from the Crimean Tatar music-and-drama theatre had a theatre performance. The final sitting of the conference will be held on May 11.
S.Asanov, “Yani dunya”, (“New world”), #18 (519), 6 May 2000, p.8.
Thoughts on the recently held sittings dealing with the Crimean Tatars’ problem in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and Parliament Assembly of European Council (PAEC).
From the very beginning it was clear that it would be impossible to begin discussion of this problem without the mighty Verkhovna Rada of ARC and its representative, the ideologue of “everyone’s equality”, comrade L.Grach. His report, like all reports of this kind, could not but have some intimidation tone. “…It is inadmissible and unrealistic to solve national problems by emphasizing one or several nationalities with “special” rights for the Crimea. It is also impossible to talk about the problems of native nations, national-and-territorial autonomy, electoral quotas, status of Mejilis as a representative organ of the Crimean Tatars in the Crimea.” Could one try to make something possible if the right to govern belongs only to the ethnic majority? Everything is under their authority - power, machinery of State, laws, courts, the office of public prosecutor, security organs. What kind of equity and possibilities can one talk about if the Crimean Tatars are allowed to solve the problems under culture-and-national autonomy, a creation of national-chauvinist ideologues.
Another weighty argument of comrade L.Grach is following: all the problems related to the Crimean Tatar nation can be solved only on the basis of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Constitution of the Crimea. How can one solve political and legal problems of the whole nation on the basis of the Constitution that does not even mention this nation?
Mejilis, which is illegal according to L. Grach, “pushes” Crimea towards confrontation. And it supposedly causes “destabilization of political situation and possible threaten to the security of Ukraine.” But were not communists among those who were unsatisfied with the steps made by the sovereign Ukraine? Among the things that caused the headache for the young state were threatens, pickets, bacchanalia in chauvinist press, demonstrations, not adopting of the Ukrainian language, open pro-Russian orientation, even demands of annexation of Crimea to Russia.
It sounds unreasonable to assure endlessly that the Crimea is a multi-national republic with a reference to the Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Germans. Yet all of these population groups have got their ethnical homeland. Having turned on the radio any Crimean dweller of any other nationality can tune a necessary wave and listen to the native language all day long. But on their own homeland the Crimean Tatars have got only 80 minutes a week on the television and the same time on radio. That is how our national-and-cultural autonomy in the Crimean looks like…
L.Grach rudely falsifies history in an inadmissible way, changing it according to his likes and dislikes. The Crimea has never been multi-national. Crimean Tatar nation was formed as a result of a prolonged process of confluence of ancient Krimtsy with later Turkic tribes (4-13 centuries). For about 700 years Krimtsy were a single nation in the Crimea. They made up 5 million, more than 90 per cent of population, in the second half of the 18th century. Russian and other colonists gradually ousted them after the annexation of the Crimea. The Crimea became a mono-national region again after the deportation in 1944. But the ethnos was different this time. Due to the policy of the state leadership the Russians made up 90 per cent of the Crimean population. The peculiarity of results of the Crimean referendum in 1991became a hidden basis of speculation. It could not be different and have any other results since 90 per cent of the Crimean population was a mono-national one. The present Constitution of the Crimea is based on the same idea. The Constitution has pushed the native nation of the Crimea – Krimtsty aside from the social-and-political life. Under such circumstances, L.Grach can afford speaking from all tribunes that “Tthe way of quotas is not our way. The way of strengthening the status of the Crimean Tatar nation is not our way. Conceding the Mejilis rights of Crimean Tatars’ representative organ is not our way.”
Confrontation still goes on. It is pointless to expect progress with this kind of opinions.
N.Biyazova, “Kirim”, #20(569), 6 May 2000, p.4.