|
|
FrameworkGiven the conditions and attitudes connected with Meskhetian Turk issues, achieving a durable solution will require significant compromises by all parties involved. Yet, the principal actors in the debate, including the Georgian government and the Vatan movement, appear intransigent at present. Patience will be needed to bring about better mutual understanding.
Both the Georgian government and Vatan have legitimate concerns that are seemingly diametrically opposed to one another. The country’s recent history, which is rife with interethnic strife, weighs heavily on Georgian policymakers, and they are understandably fearful of newcomers who are not unequivocal in their loyalty to the Georgian state. At the same time, Vatan leaders are equally tenacious in their determination to maintain a Turkic ethnic identity. These positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, compromise is difficult to achieve in the highly charged political, social and economic atmosphere that now exists in Georgia.
The active participation of the international community is essential if the current conundrum is to be solved. Both the Georgian government and Vatan have made it clear that they are willing to explore mutually satisfactory solutions. The active participation of donor governments and international organizations could go a long way towards easing the concerns of the principal actors, paving the way for mutual concessions. A first step might be an intensification of the international diplomatic effort to forge a political settlement in Abkhazia. Such a pact would give the Georgian government greater flexibility to find a durable solution to the Meskhetian Turk dilemma.
Donor governments and international organizations could play a critical role in finding solutions for Meskhetian Turks—whether they concern repatriation or local integration—by providing logistical support and bolstering transitional social services. Any such effort, however, must be carefully managed, given the implications for human security. Words must be backed both by an appropriate financial commitment and by sufficient follow-up action.
Any stable repatriation process additionally depends on whether the states of the former Soviet Union create a framework to facilitate lawful migration. Georgia in particular must elaborate laws that protect the essential rights of newcomers. Such a framework, should begin with a law on rehabilitation.
The following are specific recommendations that ought to be considered by the concerned parties:
Demographic Survey
Precise data on Meskhetian Turks, including their numbers and location, is insufficient. In many cases, experts, advocates, and government representatives are forced to rely on vague estimates when discussing the repatriation dilemma. Extensive demographic research is thus warranted to more clearly define the Meskhetian Turk community, as well as ascertain the hopes and desires of Meskhetian Turks. Formulating a comprehensive repatriation plan would be aided by an accurate count of those Meskhetian Turks seeking to return. The Moscow-based CIS Research Council on Forced Migration, an organization comprising demographic scholars and experts from across the former Soviet Union, would be ideally suited to undertake an appropriate information-gathering effort.
Citizenship
An arrangement should be reached among all relevant countries in the former Soviet Union to ensure that all formerly deported people, including Meskhetian Turks, have access to citizenship of at least one country. Significant numbers of Meskhetian Turks, particularly in the Krasnodar region of Russia, are stateless, either in fact or in law. Not only does statelessness render Meskhetian Turks vulnerable to abuse without recourse in their current places of residence, but it also hinders their ability to voluntarily repatriate to their traditional homeland in Georgia. CIS governments should establish a set of coordinated standards aimed at eliminating statelessness, taking into account a state’s right to define its citizenry while not infringing on basic human rights precepts.
Language
A large majority of Meskhetian Turks cannot speak, read, or write in the Georgian language. This represents an obvious impediment to the successful integration of Meskhetian Turks into Georgia’s political, social, and economic community. The lack of knowledge of Georgian also serves to heighten the anxiety of the country’s political leaders and citizenry, who have exhibited concerns about Meskhetian Turks’ loyalty to Georgia’s statehood, in particular its territorial integrity. A large-scale effort undertaken by Meskhetian Turks to learn Georgian could help assuage state security concerns. The willingness to learn the state language would additionally send an unequivocal signal of Turks’ desires, as Vatan leaders and others have professed, to become active participants in Georgian state-building efforts. At present, however, the overwhelming majority of Meskhetian Turks do not have access to adequate language instruction. The Georgian government, working with donor governments and international organizations, should take steps to promote Georgian language instruction. Vatan and other Meskhetian Turk organizations should also work to increase access to language instruction. Georgia, in implementing the presidential decree of 1996 concerning Meskhetian Turks, should develop a reception center with responsibilities for formulating a comprehensive language instruction policy, including curriculum and textbooks. Vatan, meanwhile, should facilitate language instruction in areas outside of Georgia. International support would be needed to provide adequate equipment and facilities necessary for language instruction.
ToleranceThe current apprehension demonstrated by many Georgians, both inside and outside of government, is fueled by both a paucity of information as well as misinformation. The lack of information, especially the ability of Meskhetian Turks to present their repatriation arguments, permits the perpetuation of stereotypes, which in turn foster prejudice detrimental to durable solutions. The debate is further hampered by the lack of a forum for information exchange, especially mass media. Thus, all concerned parties should take action to promote the proliferation of accurate information and debate within Georgia regarding Meskhetian Turk issues. All points of view should be ensured access to any public debate. Conversely, steps should be taken to convey to Meskhetian Turks outside of Georgia the concerns of the Georgian government, and to provide in advance accurate information about living conditions in Georgia and all other relevant information that would foster a stable repatriation process. In developing a plan for a mass media tolerance initiative in Georgia, it would be worth studying similar efforts in the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine, as well as the Fergana Valley in Central Asia. The experiences and best practices of both endeavors merit incorporation into an information campaign on Meskhetian Turk return. An information campaign can also be beneficial in other countries, especially Russia, where Meskhetian Turks are the targets of discrimination in some areas.
Regulating Travel Barriers
Former Soviet states should remove burdensome customs tariffs and other migration-related fees for Meskhetian Turks, so as to facilitate the transport of personal property across international borders during the repatriation process. Russia and Uzbekistan are two countries that have been cited by Vatan leaders for having exorbitant fees that hamper freedom of movement. For example, the fee originally imposed by Uzbekistan to renounce citizenship was $100, an amount that is roughly two months salary for an average worker. A welcome development is the August 1998 agreement between the governments of Uzbekistan and Ukraine on the removal of the $100 fee. Provided it is implemented, the agreement would serve as an example of measures calculated to help alleviate problems faced by formerly deported peoples. Customs fees should be reasonable and clearly defined.
Specific Country Recommendations
The leadership in Georgia should take steps to ensure that those Meskhetians already residing in the country, and seeking to naturalize, are not subjected to arbitrary abuse by government officials, especially on the local level. A transparent naturalization process must be established. Clear procedures could be covered in a law on rehabilitation. Steps should also be taken to implement all the provisions contained in the 1996 presidential decree providing for the limited repatriation of Meskhetians, and the subsequent findings of the presidential commission entrusted with putting the decree into practice. Georgia should additionally take steps to join the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Georgia should also embrace multilateral efforts seeking to formulate durable repatriation solutions that provide for human and state security.Azerbaijan should follow up on its already stated commitment to adopt appropriate citizenship legislation and establish a comprehensive framework for naturalization, thus providing Meskhetian Turks in that Transcaucasian nation with a reinforced feeling of security. Authorities should also join in multilateral efforts that would facilitate voluntary resettlement of Meskhetian Turks.
Federal authorities in the Russian Federation should take action to curb human rights abuses committed by local officials in the Krasnodar region against Meskhetian Turks. Adequate access to review procedures should also be provided to Meskhetian Turks seeking to obtain residency permits in Krasnodar and other regions of Russia. Those Meskhetian Turks displaced by the 1989 disturbances in Uzbekistan are deserving of special consideration and protection. In addition, Russia should be an active participant in intergovernmental efforts to facilitate Meskhetian Turk voluntary resettlement. Officials at both the federal and regional level should additionally take steps to facilitate an international fact-finding mission to regions with high concentrations of Meskhetian Turks, including Krasnodar and Rostov.
Turkey should maintain reasonable provisions for legal immigration with respect to Meskhetian Turks.
The international community should provide resources to develop a program that offers Meskhetian Turks, among others, access to legal advice and advocacy to help them find durable solutions, either in their effort to lawfully return to Georgia or in their integration efforts in their current places of residency. International actors should also implement capacity-building measures for Meskhetian Turk public organizations, both within and outside Georgia, as well as support the establishment of a round-table comprising Meskhetian Turk public organizations that is aimed at promoting inter-organizational cooperation. In addition, donor governments and international organizations should consider financing an information bulletin to promote informed decision making by Meskhetian Turks on a variety of issues, including resettlement and the conferral of legal status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|