Bilkent University Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BILKENT UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES POLITICS IN AND AROUND THE CRIMEA 1990-2001 BY ELVIS BEYTULLAYEV A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SEPTEMBER 2001 ANKARA To my nephew, Kam BILKENT UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES POLITICS IN AND AROUND THE CRIMEA 1990-2001 BY ELVIS BEYTULLAYEV A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SEPTEMBER 2001 ANKARA i Approved by the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences ii I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. (Thesis Supervisor) Prof. Norman Stone I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. (Thesis Co-supervisor) Assoc. Prof. Hakan Kırımlı I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations. Assoc. Prof. Ferhad Hüsseinov iii ABSTRACT After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Crimea had to define the terms of its status within a new context – the maintenance of Ukrainian sovereignty. The issue regarding the Crimea’s territorial status had two aspects: the status of the peninsula per se, that is, whether it should form a part of Ukraine or Russia, and the status of the territory within the state, part of which it constituted. The overall situation was complicated by the claims of the separatist-minded Russian majority, who now was opposed by the native inhabitants of the peninsula – the Crimean Tatars, who were in process of mass return from Central Asia, where they were deported en masse in 1944. Inter-ethnic clashes could have detrimental effects on Ukrainian independence and, therefore, their avoidance was essential for Ukrainian authorities. In this context, the constitutional process, which this thesis aims at presenting, acquired great importance, as it was the only tool through which the accommodation of interests of different national groups inhabiting the peninsula and protection of their basic rights was possible. Examination of this process, however, reveals the inability of the Crimean authorities to achieve these goals and their failure to grant the Crimea a legal “passport” that would reflect the historic, ethnic, and cultural peculiarities of the region. The Ukrainian-Russian confrontation over the Crimea and the dispute between these two states over the possession of the Black Sea Fleet was exacerbating the situation further and had great impact on the political situation in the peninsula and on national, regional, and international security. iv ÖZET Sovyetler Birliği’nin 1991 yılında dağılmasından sonra, Kırım kendi statüsünün koşullarını Ukrayna’nın bağımsızlığı gibi yepyeni bir içerikte belirlemek zorunda kalmıştı. Kırım’ın toprak statüsü ile ilgili sorun iki yönü ile ortaya çıkmaktadır. Birincisi, Kırım yarımadasının statüsü, yani onun Ukrayna ya da Rusya’nın bir parçası olması gerektiği konusu, ikincisi, bağlı olduğu ülke içerisindeki toprak statüsü. Kırım’daki genel durumu zorlaştıran sebebi 1944’te toplu halde sürüldüğü Orta Asya’dan geri dönüş çabasında olan yarımadanın yerel halkı, Kırım Tatar’ları tarafından karşı çıkılan ayrılıkçı düşünceli Rus çoğunluğun talepleri oluşturmaktadır. Etnik sorunların Ukrayna’nın bağımsızlığı üzerinde yıkıcı etkisi olabileceğinden, Ukrayna devleti için sorunlardan kurtulması hayati önem taşıyordu. Bu koşullar altında bu tez yarımadasında yaşayan değişik milli grupların isteklerinin yerine getirilmesini ve onların temel haklarının korunmasını mümkün kılan anayasal gelişmelerin büyük önem kazandığını göstermeyi amaçlar. Fakat konunun incelenmesi, Kırım’daki idarenin bu amaçlara ulaşmasındaki başarısızlığını ve Kırım’a onun tarihi, etnik ve kültürel özelliklerini yansıtacak bir yasal ‘pasaport’un sağlanamamasını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Ayrıca, Ukrayna ile Rusya arasındaki Kırım ve Kara Deniz filosu üzerindeki hakimiyeti ile ilgili sorunlar iki ülke arasındaki durumu kötüleştirmenin dışında, Kırım yarımadasındaki siyasi durumu, ulusal, bölgesel ve uluslararası güvenliği de etkilemektedir. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisors, Professor Norman Stone and Associate Professor Hakan Kırımlı, whose knowledge and encouragement were the major sources of motivation for me during my master’s programme. They offered me every kind of support and contributed greatly to my understanding of history and politics. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Ferhad Husseinov who, regardless of his own burdens, took part in my defence committee and made important and useful comments on the draft of my thesis. I am very grateful to Professor Duygu Bazoglu Sezer for providing me with important source materials. I have learned many things from her concerning academic research; she was always very helpful during my studies in Bilkent. I owe a lasting debt of gratitude to my parents, Muzeir Beytullah and Elvira Yakub, my brother, Emil, and sister, Eleanor, for their unending material and moral support during my whole education life. I am deeply grateful to all my friends for their patience (as they often faced and tolerated a nervous and depressed person) and understanding. Their moral support was an invaluable asset for me during my studies. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………………………………… i Özet………………………………………………………………………………….. ii Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………… iii Table of contents…………………………………………………………………….. iv INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………. 1 CHAPTER I: KEY PLAYERS: POLITICAL PARTIES, MOVEMENTS, AND BLOCS. 1.1. Introductory Remarks………………………………………………………… 6 1.2. The Pro-Russian Movement…………………………………………………... 7 1.2.1. Russian or Russophone Parties…………………………………………………7 1.2.3. The Communists..……………………………………………………………. 15 1.3. Democratic or “Centrist” Forces.……………………………………………. 18 1.4. The Pro-Ukrainian Forces..…………………………………………………... 22 1.5. The Crimean Tatar National Movement..……………………………………. 24 1.5.1. The Organisation of the Crimean Tatar National Movement and the Crimean Tatar National Meclis..……………………………………………………….. 24 1.5.2. Milli Fırka, Adalet and its “Askers”.………………………………………… 29 1.5.3. The National Movement of the Crimean Tatars – Shadow of the Past.……... 32 CHAPTER II: THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS IN THE CRIMEA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTER-ETHNIC RELATIONS: 1990-1995 2.1. The Formation of Crimean Autonomy……………………………………… 35 2.2. The Beginning of the Crimean Separatism.………………………………… 41 2.3. The Assertion of Independence and the Centre’s Reaction………………… 46 vii 2.4. Elections to the Supreme Soviet of Crimea and the Question of ‘National Quotas’..…………………………………………………………………… 50 2.5. Presidential Elections in the Crimea...……………………………………... 55 2.6. The Results of Presidential Elections………………………………………. 60 2.7. Parliamentary Elections…………………………………………………….. 62 2.8. The Crimea under Meshkov...……………………………………………… 63 CHAPTER III: THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS IN THE CRIMEA IN THE CONTEXT OF INTER-ETHNIC RELATIONS: 1995-2000 3.1. New Status of the Crimea…………………………………………………… 79 3.2. Elections to the Local Soviet Councils of People’s Deputies...…………….. 83 3.3. Towards New Constitution………………………………………………….. 88 3.4. The OSCE and the Crimean Question………………………………………. 91 3.5. The Ukrainian Constitution and the Status of the Crimea……………………96 3.6. The Third Qurultay…………………………………………………………100 3.7. Renewed Attempts to Secede?……………………………………………...103 3.8. The 1998 Parliamentary Elections………………………………………….107 3.9. The Adoption of the Crimean Constitution…………………………………111 3.10. Post-Adoption Events and Developments…………………………………..114 CHAPTER IV: THE ISSUE OF THE CRIMEA IN RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE, AND THE ROLE OF TURKEY 4.1. Russian-Ukrainian Relations in 1990-1991………………………………....125 4.2. The Beginning of the Confrontation over the Crimea……………………….128 4.3. The Impact of the Crimea’s Domestic Politics on the Russian-Ukrainian Relations……………………………………………………………………..136 viii 4.4. Second Phase of the Confrontation………………………………………….137 4.5. The Treaty on Friendship and its Aftermath………………………………...140 4.6. The Division of the Black Sea Fleet…………………………………………142 4.6.1. The Formation of the Ukrainian Army………………………………………142 4.6.2. The Evolution of the Dispute………………………………………………..146 4.6.3. The Dagomys Agreement……………………………………………………151 4.6.4. The Yalta Agreement………………………………………………………..154 4.6.5. The Moscow Agreement of June 1993………………………………………156 4.6.6. The Massandra Agreement…………………………………………………..158 4.6.7. Kuchma at the Helm…………………………………………………………160 4.6.8. The Sochi Agreement………………………………………………………..162 4.6.9. The Final Accords…………………………………………………………...166 4.7. Issue of the Crimea and the Crimean Tatars and the Role of Turkey……….170 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………176 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………...180 ix INTRODUCTION The Crimean peninsula, situated on the northern shores of the Black Sea, has an area of 27,000 square km and population of approximately 2,700 million. The natives of the peninsula – the Crimean Tatars – are Turkic people, who have inhabited the Crimea