Dividing Divided States. Gregory F. Treverton

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ to the Russians on a scale commensurate with their share of the population. At one extreme, the Baltic states, with sizeable Russian populations, feared that the ethnic Russians would overshadow the titular groups and turn the latter into minorities within their own states. As a result, the new governments established very exclusionary citizenship and language laws. Estonia and Latvia denied automatic citizenship to Russian minorities, and in both countries ethnic Russians were considered in theory illegal immigrants, on the argument that the Soviet Union had occupied the two countries since 1940.³³

      In contrast, in the central Asian countries—particularly Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and initially Turkmenistan—where the ethnic Russians constituted a large proportion of the educated labor force, the governments put in place polices to entice the Russians to stay—for instance, some political representation and dual citizenship in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. They feared an economic loss if the Russians were to leave en masse.³⁴

      At independence, the Russian Federation did not have much of a legislative foundation for dealing with mass population movements, nor did it have the institutional experience. Therefore, in the immediate aftermath of the breakup, with the help of the UNHCR and the IOM, the Russian government took a number of steps toward adhering to international migration norms, abolishing the internal passport system and granting its citizens the freedom of movement, as well as acceding to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention and Protocol. In February 1992, it also devised its first citizenship law, which was in theory supposed to be ethnically neutral: anyone who was a permanent resident of Russia or who felt “ethnically or emotionally connected to Russia” could apply for citizenship, which essentially meant that all citizens of the FSU were eligible to apply.³⁵

      In addition, to avoid a mass return of ethnic Russians, the Russian government advocated forcefully for the protection of the rights of ethnic Russians and Russophones living in the other NIS. Moscow pursued a policy of dual citizenship, which was rejected by all but Tajikistan and Turkmenistan lest it weaken their nation-building efforts, and pushed for Russian to be the language of interethnic communication within the FSU.³⁶ In addition, it pursued a policy of open borders with the other NIS. For example, in October 1992 it signed the Bishkek Accord to allow for free movement among the signatories (Belarus, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova, in addition to Russia). Georgia joined the accord in 1995.³⁷ In 1997, Russia negotiated separate bilateral visa-free travel arrangements with Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

      In terms of resettlement and integration policies in Russia, there was more rhetoric than concrete support for returnees, due in part to resource constraints. In 1994 a Russian presidential decree promulgated a “Basic Conception of a Programme to Help Compatriots” and an accompanying resolution on “Measures for the Support of Compatriots Abroad.” In these pieces of legislation, the Russian government designated the returnees as “forced migrants” or “refugees,” entitling them to resettlement and integration support. Institutionally, the FMS was set up in 1992 to manage the migrant resettlement process. It was supplemented by parallel regional organizations across the country—eighty-nine at the height of the in-migration—that were supposed to coordinate with the federal government to provide the needed support.³⁸

      However, in practice, the level of support for and receptiveness to the returnees varied greatly across the regions, depending on the number of in-migrants to the region and the particular socioeconomic and political environment. In some areas, the returnees were seen as a benefit because they represented either a way to attract more federal resources or a source of labor amid dire demographic trends, high mortality, and low fertility. In others, they were seen as a threat to the socioeconomic stability of the region. In either case, the regional organizations determined their own policies, either encouraging or discouraging in-migration. Some of these policies, particularly those geared toward restricting in-migration, contravened federal directives and international law.³⁹

      Whether they encouraged or discouraged migration, regions provided at most modest support to migrants. Many received only a small emergency payment but no support for key needs like housing and employment. As a result, a number of the migrants had to take jobs that were far below their qualifications and skills, in the process becoming highly disillusioned by the system.⁴⁰

      To some extent, the IOM, the UNHCR, and some international NGOs, including the Danish Refugee Council and Opportunity International, stepped in to fill the void. In 1993, the IOM provided the first set of direct international assistance under its Direct Assistance Programme, which supplied migrant organizations with equipment to help them set up small-scale private enterprises.

      Later, the UNHCR, in conjunction with the two NGOs, implemented regional micro-credit projects targeting the resettling migrants with the similar objective of spurring sustainable livelihoods for the settlers. It also organized capacity-building programs to help migrants set up and manage regional associations, which were then provided with grants to enable them to undertake large-scale projects geared toward resettlement and integration of returnees. In addition, to deal with the more immediate needs, the UNHCR provided small-scale loans to those deemed internally displaced to aid them with essential needs such as housing.⁴¹

      Assessment and Possible Lessons

      The emigration of the Russian diaspora back to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union presents lessons that may be relevant for other secessions:

      Negotiating and advocating for the protection of ethnic minorities in the states where they reside can be key to a strategy for migrant-receiving countries in avoiding a sudden flood of migrants. Russia did just that with many of the other NIS.

      When a nation breaks up, mass population movements of ethnic minorities toward their ethnic home can ensue even in the absence of ethnic persecution and violence. It is therefore important for the migrant-receiving country to at least plan institutions and support for potential returnees from the onset.

      The international community can play a positive role in assisting with the migration and settlement process, especially when the secession involves poor and inexperienced states. States should work with UN organizations, especially UNHCR, and NGOs to establish the required institutions as well as to direct support the returnees.

      In terms of resettlement in the context of a decentralized state, it is important to align the goals and incentives of federal and regional institutions in order to provide consistent support to the settlers. Otherwise, the resettlement process will be nonuniform across the country, increasing the opaqueness of the process.

       Georgia and Abkhazia

      Issue and Outcome

      Following Georgia’s independence from the FSU, two regions demanded independence from Georgia, including Abkhazia in 1992.⁴² The fighting that followed displaced more than 250,000 people, mostly ethnic Georgians. In 1994 a four-way agreement for the voluntary return of IDPs and refugees was negotiated among Abkhazia, Georgia, the Russian Federation, and the UNHCR. Over the more than a decade and a half since the conflict began, the UNHCR, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and other international organizations have been involved in efforts to establish peace in the region and facilitate the safe return of IDPs to their homes in Abkhazia.

      Despite the presence of these international organizations, armed conflicts and ethnic cleansing have continued to flare up periodically. Thus, in spite of official agreement to repatriate ethnic Georgians to Abkhazia and participation by multiple international aid organizations, the return of IDPs to Abkhazia has been stymied by the political issues that remain unresolved between Georgia and Abkhazia. Nearly two decades after the conflict began, the vast majority of those who fled Abkhazia remain displaced, too fearful of further targeted violence to return to their homes in Abkhazia.

      Course СКАЧАТЬ