Window on Eurasia
Vienna, January 25 – A unified Circassian republic “is no threat” to
the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, a leading
Circassian organization says, but Moscow’s maintenance or even
exacerbation of Soviet-imposed divisions could well presents the
country with serious problems, according to a leading Russian analyst
of the North Caucasus.
For most of the last two decades, the Circassians, who were divided
by Stalin into four different ethnic groups – the Adygeys, the Kabards,
the Cherkess, and the Shapsugs, one which has its own political unit,
two of which are combined with another group, and one without such a
territory – have called for the formation of a single republic within
Russia.
The clearest such call came last November when an extraordinary
congress of the Circassian people meeting in Karachayevo-Cherkessia
adopted a resolution on this point, something to which both the leaders
of other ethnic groups and Russian officials rejected out of hand.
The
sharpest rejoinder came from Vladimir Ustinov, the presidential
plenipotentiary for the Southern Federal District. On December 22, he
told members of the Federation Council that any moves to create a
single Circassian republic, because of its impact on neighboring areas
and on the radicals, would pour “grease into the fire” spreading across
the North Caucasus.
|
|
 |
| |
|
Circassia: Carte d Asie. Covens et Mortier; Lisle, Guillaume de, 1742, Atlas |
That is because, Ustinov said, the
unification of the Circassians would involve “the dismemberment of the
region.” And such “a misfortune” in that region would represent “a real
danger” for Russia as a whole. Consequently, the plenipotentiary said,
Moscow will not consider it.
Now, Mukhammed Cherkessov, the head of
the Adyge Khase organization of Karachayevo-Cherkessia, has responded.
In comments to Kavkaz-uzel.ru at the end of last week, he said that the
Circassians have reason to be grateful to Ustinov for paying attention
to their concerns but fear that he may be misinformed (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/164515/).
Ustinov’s comments, Cherkessov
continued, show that either Ustinov was “not acquainted with our
declarations and the specifics of our demand or someone had simply
informed him incorrectly.” Most importantly, he said, “none of the
Cherkess, Kabards, and Adygeys never said that [the Circassians] want
to leave Russia.”
According to Cherkessov, the
Circassians “do not see their existence outside of Russia” and are not
interested in forming “a mono-ethnic republic.” Instead, he pointed
out, the Circassians want to become more integrated in Russia and want
ethnic Russians living among them to “remain living on the territory of
the republic as a stabilizing factor.”
A major reason behind current
Circassian demands for the creation of a single unified Circassia
within Russia is that they can see how the powers that be have formed a
Nogay and an Abaza district inside of Karachayevo-Cherkessia.”
Consequently, “it is possible to form a new region in the existing
borders of Adygeya, Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachayevo-Cherkessia.”
Formally, Cherkessov notes, “the
creation of national districts in Russia was prohibited. But then the
Nogay and Abaza districts were created in precisely that way.” Thus,
the Circassians can see that “when the organs of power need such a
structure, it will be made, but when this question concerns the
Circassians, then somehow they see in this a threat.”
Cherkessov did not say what a unified
Circassia would look like if there were no border changes. It would
certainly include various non-contiguous territories. But if a unified
Circassia within Russia would meet the demands of most Circassians in
the North Caucasus, Moscow’s refusal to consider that possibility
points to real problems ahead.
In an analysis of some of the
challenges facing Aleksandr Khloponin, the head of the newly created
North Caucasus Federal District, Sergey Markedonov, one of Russia’s
most thoughtful commentators on that region, argues that the divisions
within the Circassian community are among the most serious (www.politcom.ru/9469.html).
Two recent events have made this so, he
suggests. On the one hand, Moscow’s recognition of Abkhazia has revived
the Circassian national movement, many of whose leaders had become less
active over the last decade. And on the other, the creation of the new
federal district leaves the Circassian people more divided than before.
Not only does this latest step do
nothing to address the Circassian demands, but it leaves the Circassian
people divided between two federal districts, the Adygeys in the
Southern Federal District, and all the others in the North Caucasus
Federal District, something that Circassians on both sides of this new
line are protesting.
Umar Temirov, a leader of the Council
of Adyge Khase who earlier was second secretary of the CP SU
Karachayevo-Cherkessia AO obkom, said this week, Markedonov says, that
“the time has come to remember the problems of the Russian Circassians
(Adygeys) which suffered both from the Russian Empire and from Soviet
power.”
This nationalist revival, the Moscow
analyst suggests, will acquire ever more “radical” forms if as has been
the case up to now Russian officials ignore the situation and fail to
understand the way in which Adgyeya is both symbolically and
practically important for the remainder of the Circassian community in
the Russian Federation.
Despite its location within Krasnodar
kray, its small size, and the small percentage of Circassians in its
population – roughly a quarter of the total – Adygeya during the 1990s
and since that time has served as “a ‘model’ region’ for the other
republics and krays with Circassian populations.”
In the 1990s, Markedonov recalls,
Adygeya set records for violating federal law so as to defend ethnic
rights. Among the most notorious of these was that its constitution
called for an equal number of seats for Circassians and for Russians in
the republic parliament, even though ethnic Russians formed 68 percent
of the population.
Tragically, he suggests, the Circassian
“problem” may now get worse: “The harsh technocratic decisions taken by
a narrow group of people without discussion or an appreciation of human
psychology and a mass of ethno-cultural factors can lead not to the
desired stabilization [of the North Caucasus] but rather toward
entirely different outcomes.”
Source: Window on Eurasia
