Conclusion 

 
Of the efforts to rectify the injustices inflicted on all formerly deported peoples, finding a durable solution for Meskhetian Turks perhaps presents the greatest challenge. For one, the Uzbekistan events of 1989, which caused a large number of Meskhetian Turks to be dispersed across the former Soviet Union, created daunting logistical obstacles to a cohesive repatriation effort. In addition, Meskhetian Turks have faced a higher level of political opposition to their return than have other formerly deported peoples. The Ukrainian government, for example, has appeared more predisposed towards the return of Crimean Tatars and others than has the Georgian government towards Meskhetian Turks. The Forced Migration Projects’ special report Crimean Tatars: Integra-tion and Conflict Prevention provides detailed analysis of that repatriation effort. Certainly, some sectors of the Georgian government, especially the presidential administration, can be considered receptive to repatriation. But so far supporters have been unable to muster the political will to overcome opposition to the return of Meskhetian Turks.

Haphazard leadership has not helped Meskhetian Turk return efforts. The Vatan organization has proved ineffective to date in raising the profile of the Meskhetian Turk dilemma on the international stage. Initiatives to engage the Georgian government in dialogue, as well as to focus international attention on the plight of Meskhetian Turks, have faltered in large part due to insufficient coordination among Vatan leaders. The movement has also suffered from a lack of fundraising capacity. Nonetheless, Vatan’s leadership has taken steps in recent months to address a number of problem areas, and to strengthen the movement’s cohesion.

Likewise, a durable solution would seem to require that Georgian political leaders engage in substantive dialogue. Certain risks are inherent in any repatriation agreement. Given recent experiences in Georgia, politicians’ general aversion to risk, especially on interethnic issues, is understandable. But past catastrophes do not guarantee new confrontations. An open and strong dialogue between Georgian officials and Meskhetian Turk representatives would diminish the chances for misunderstandings that could lead to conflict. Ultimately, the risks would appear worth taking for Georgia. Accommodating the return of Meskhetian Turks in a stable fashion would unequivocally testify to Georgia’s ability to adhere to international human rights standards, thus paving the way for greater integration into the multilateral structures of Europe.


 
 
Preface
Introduction
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Chapter Four
Chapter Five
Conclusions
Interview List
List of Sources
Appendix One
Appendix Two