Living in a Territory Occupied by Russia

by Daragh Gleesonabkhazia_map_395

The world is waiting to see what is Russia’s next move in Crimea. Some say Putin regrets the decision to invade, given his failures to argue international law to his liking in the Security Council, and given the potential economic ramifications for Russia if sanctions are properly implemented. Others say this is just another step in an imperial policy that is not overly concerned about any possible international reaction.

In any case, these events are nothing new. Since the 2008 conflict with the state of Georgia, a country close to Crimea and which also has a coastline on the Black Sea, Russia has been in illegal occupation of two Georgian territories – Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Regardless of whether or not Russia advances from Crimea further into the Ukraine, it seems likely that Russia will attempt to continue to occupy Crimea on a long-term basis. Though there are many differences between Crimea and the Occupied Territories of Georgia, conditions of life in the Territories may serve as an accurate predictor of things to come in Russia’s new acquisition, particularly for the ethnic Tatar population who oppose Russia’s presence.

20139918657496734_20The outlook for those in opposition is not promising. In the aftermath of the 2008 conflict a number of ethnic Georgian villages and settlements were systematically destroyed and pillaged. Since then, a litany of ongoing human rights abuses have been reported in the Territories. These include:

ethnically targeted violence and looting, constant violation of security and property rights, hindering of freedom of movement and residence, destruction of property, (and) forced passporti(s)ation

To restrict the movement of person in or out of the territories, Russian military and local militia under the proxy regime have destroyed bridges and planted mines along the borders, especially around the river fords that were used by the local populations for crossings.

A number of measures have been imposed to marginalise ethnic Georgians. Without a passport issued by the de facto authorities of the Occupied Territories, Georgians can be deprived of basic abilities such as the ability to transfer property, vote in elections, apply for a simplified permit to cross the borders, work in the public sector, or register a business.

But applying for a passport can mean renouncing your national identity. A Human Rights Watch report in 2011 detailed how under Abkhaz law dual-citizenship was only allowed to persons of Abkhaz ethnicity – while others only had the right to obtain citizenship of Russia as their second nationality. This means that Georgians in Abkhazia must sign a form stating that they voluntarily renounce their Georgian citizenship in order to gain access to basic freedoms – and then they are stuck with a passport for a country that is not internationally recognised (unless they apply for a second citizenship with the country that is the occupying power).

There have been reports of social activists being assaulted in South Ossetia, and allegations by the Georgian media that Georgians who have been imprisoned in the territories have been tortured.

Many people are separated from their family or their property by the borders of the territories, but crossing can result in detention by the police. The police themselves often do not wear uniforms or carry badges or credentials, allowing them to act with impunity. In Abkhazia in Georgian communities it seems the police often offer little protection and there have been numerous reports of arbitrary arrests, kidnappings, looting, and extortion.

There are several restrictions on the use of the Georgian language, particularly in schools. In 2010 Russian and de facto authorities reportedly dismantled radio and television transmitters in order to disable Georgian language programming, while even hanging posters in Georgian can result in threats of violence.

Access for International Organisations to the Territories is restricted and Russian troops have recently resumed building fences on the borders.

So, based on this consideration of life in Georgia’s Occupied Territories, what may life look like for the ethnic Tatar population of Crimea if the occupation continues? The Tatars — a Muslim group that was deported en masse from Crimea by Stalin in 1944 and that for decades has waged a peaceful struggle for the right to return — have been coming back in droves since 1989. In 2001 they were estimated to form 12% of the Crimean population, and they have constantly opposed the unification of Crimea with Russia.

Russia has already started the “passportisation” of Crimea – by some accounts this began as early as 2008. If the Tatars are vocal in opposition of the occupation, as they are likely to be, we may see the exercise of rights in Crimea being linked to a very strict regime of issuance of passports. Tatars may be forced to revoke Ukranian nationality in favour of an “autonomous republic” of Crimea. Border access will likely be severely restricted, with International Organisations being given short shrift. Russia will use the carrot and the stick and give grants to groups it favours, while terrorising social activists through arbitrary arrest and detention. Media freedoms will be curtailed and the manifestation and promotion of Tatar culture will become difficult and dangerous.

It is to be hoped that the international opposition to the occupation of Crimea will have a positive outcome. For this though leaders must acknowledge that, as with the occupation of Georgia, mere statements of condemnation have little effect.

  1. senex72 said:

    My immediate response is that appeals to “international law” by NATO/EU/the “West” etc. are so uniformly one-sided as to count for little in this discussion. While it may be true that Bush has to be careful where he steps outside USA if he is to avoid arrest, Blair, and NATO intervention in Serbia’s province, and NATO’s subsequent “out of theatre” involvements (that led to the lynching of Gaddafi etc.) and resulted from its decision to change the limited terms of its original formation pass unscathed.

    In this matter the violent uprising in Kiev occurred with open encouragement for Senator McCain and EU political figures who have appeared on the scene there and offered full support while urging on the violence; this alone would seem to nullify any remnant of an appeal to “non intervention” and to Courts that so obviously try third-world and anti-Western leaders but not others.. To use an appeal to “international law”. against Russia on behalf of an evidently illegal putsch that has abolished the use of Russian in areas of the Ukraine housing huge numbers of Russians and Russian-speakers, and also seeks to deny Russia access to its ancient Black-Sea navel base is absurd, and any thought that such moves could be made without retaliation is ludicrous, as indeed was the move in Georgia to take control of fringe areas seeking separate representation (so far as I recollect)..
    Russia has, I understand, offered funding for the Ukraine, suggested a Federal solution, suggested Tri-partite supervision etc. in vain; while Kiev has put very dubious oligarchs in power, and appears dominated by groups that fought against our then-ally Russia in the 2nd world war; and appear still wedded to a politics of extreme violence and ultra-nationalism. Meanwhile Kiev itself seeks to bring down IMF policies of austerity ad economic destruction on its people and push for a break from the trade-links with Russia that alone keep it afloat.
    How are the majority people living in southern and eastern Ukraine to defend themselves from violence of the style perpetrated in Kiev except b y self-defence leagues and an appeal to their trade partner, fellow Orthodox believers and own language group adjacent? Your case seems to be not that Russia’s actions are precipitate or illegal so much as that they are effective – as necessarily they need to be in the current circumstances.

  2. senex72 said:

    A point that might be made as to the legal status of the Crimea if it declares independence from Ukraine and/or unites as part of the Russian Federation is that such a move is entirely legal in International law (the right to Independence recognised); and has been acknowledged as such: e.g. South Sudan recognised after its break-away from Sudan, and the breaking-away of a Serbian province after NATO bombing (illegal?) and proclaimed as legitimate by US et al although trying to ignore the precedent.

    The legal assault on the status of Crimea would appear to be mere quibbling? There are many other provinces that would appear to desire to break away e.g. Scotland, and parts of Spain, and the Basque country, not to mention Kurdistan that is oppressed by Iraq and Turkey as Crimea would be by a Ukrainian-language coup-d’état in Kiev.

  3. senex72 said:

    Juts in case anyone is reading it might be worth recalling that the whole sorry affair stems from the Western-backed Georgian leader of the time breaking through the UN-patrolled peace-line to attack and take-over adjacent territory. Living under US-backed occupation of East Timor (ended after 200 00 thousand plus deaths) might suggests Georgian success would have been less than pleasant?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: