|
|
During the last half of the 20th century the Meskhetian Turks have suffered from the calamity of mass deportation and persecution, only to become engulfed in the interethnic turmoil that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union. These days, most Meskhetian Turks must grapple with the constant uncertainty that is the product of an unjust stigma arising from phantom crimes against the state.Meskhetian Turks have remained largely undaunted by their tribulations. Many now focus on gaining formal rehabilitation, and doggedly cling to hopes of returning to their mountainous homeland along Georgia’s border with Turkey. But their determination raises questions in the post-Soviet age about how best to formulate just solutions to problems arising out of communist-era malfeasance. Economic and geopolitical factors pose significant obstacles to Meskhetian Turk repatriation efforts, and ignoring the nuances of current conditions could expose those repatriating to undue risks.
The difficulties in promoting repatriation extend to the terminology involved in the debate. In the post-Soviet age, the term “Meskhetian Turks” has taken on political connotations that the Georgian government finds objectionable. The country has been riven by interethnic strife since it gained independence, and officials presently react in an extraordinarily sensitive manner on questions of ethnicity. Given the sensitivities, the government’s position is that Meskhetian Turks are ethnic Georgians who adopted Islam. Many of the formerly deported peoples, however, categorically reject the notion that they are ethnically Georgian. Some also dislike the term Meskhetian Turks, and instead describe themselves as either Akhiska Turks, or simply Turks.
If any kind of mutually acceptable repatriation solution is to be found, it will begin with compromises in terminology. “There are new geopolitical conditions, and old terminology is no longer useful,” said Guram Mamulia, Georgia’s Deputy Minister of Refugees and Accommodation, who is the head of the country’s Repatriation Service. “We should try to demythologize the positions of both sides,” Mamulia added.
This report employs the term Meskhetian Turks in reference to the formerly deported peoples. This terminology reflects the agreement of the participants of a September 7-10 meeting in The Hague dealing with Meskhetian Turk repatriation.
Beyond nomenclature, there are a host of substantive issues in need of resolution, in particular, building an effective legal framework to govern migration. In addition, inadequacies in the economic and social infrastructures must be addressed. The Meskhetian Turk diaspora is dispersed across several countries within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), in particular Azerbaijan, Russia, and Uzbekistan, and thus intergovernmental cooperation would appear to be a prerequisite for any humane and secure return. Intergovernmental cooperation is also needed to provide adequate protection for Meskhetian Turks who choose not to return.
Ultimately, the resolution of the Meskhetian Turk dilemma will depend greatly on the ability of the parties involved to make the necessary compromises. Concerning the repatriation option, the Georgian government needs to be reassured that returning Meskhetian Turks would be loyal to the fledgling state, and strengthen civil society. Meskhetian Turks, in turn, would likely welcome assurances on the development of a repatriation framework allowing them to preserve their distinct cultural and linguistic traditions, including the ability to openly practice Islam in what is a predominantly Christian state.
The goal of this report is to examine all sides of the issues and present realizable policies that promote solutions to the repatriation dilemma. In doing so, the report will pay special attention to the geopolitical context surrounding repatriation efforts. It will also examine current conditions for Meskhetian Turks not only in Georgia, but in Azerbaijan, Russia, and Uzbekistan. This report will also compare and contrast the Meskhetian Turk experience with that of other formerly deported peoples, especially Crimean Tatars. A comprehensive examination of the situation can facilitate an understanding of what it will take to achieve a solution that ensures human security and cultural persecution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|