TITLE PAGE

To print  |

Send |  Enter email: Hi! http://www.day.kiev.ua/294491 Enter code: Close X

Send editor Message to editor: Hi! http://www.day.kiev.ua/294491 Enter your name: Enter your email: Enter code: Close X

Crimean Tatars, government, and opposition

Mustafa DZHEMILEV: Restoring historical justice cannot be a matter of dispute

UNIAN photo

Mustafa Abd lcemil Qirimoglu (Dzhemilev), People’s Deputy (MP) of Ukraine and chair of the Majlis of the Crimean Tatar People, returned the other day from Brussels, where he took part in European Parliament hearings on such problems as the current situation in the Crimea and repatriation and settlement of the deported Crimean Tatars. He gave an interview to our correspondent.

Mustafa-aga, the Crimean Tatar debate in the European Parliament coincided with the change of government in Ukraine. Today’s situation in this country is entirely different from what was even a month ago. What do you think about this change of government?

“When I met Viktor Yanukovych and Mykoola Azarov before the elections, we discussed the situation in the Crimea. They asked Crimean Tatars to support them in the elections and promised in return to finally solve the problem of repatriation and settlement within a few years.

“But we failed to meet halfway on this problem. Crimean Tatars espouse an ideology that is somewhat different from that of the Party of Regions, and it is not I but the Kurultai (Congress – Ed.) that decided on our participation in and attitude to the elections. As for the government’s efforts to set things going for the deported people who have come back to their historical homeland, it is the concern of any government, no matter how the Crimean Tatars voted, because the wellbeing and political status of an indigenous nation in its homeland is a matter of political stability in the country, I told them that this issue cannot be a matter of dispute: it is the question of restoring historical justice and the previously-withdrawn rights. Besides, well before the elections, we sent our questions to the main candidates for the Ukraine presidency about their attitude to democracy and the Crimean Tatar problem, about their vision of Ukraine’s future in terms of European integration, national security, the Black Sea Fleet based on our territory, and a number of other problems. But we did not receive even a reply from the Party of Regions.             

“Unfortunately, we can see now that the political forces that have come to power have so far done nothing to solve the Crimean Tatar problem in Ukraine. On the contrary, we said then that Anatolii Mohiliov, who was their campaign manager in the Crimea and went on record for chauvinistic and xenophobic comments and actions, must not be appointed [as minister for the interior] because this is dangerous for the country in general and the Crimea in particular. They promised me [not to do so] and condemned his comments. Yet the person, who threatened to flatly strip Crimean Tatars of their homeland, resorted to intimidation tactics, and is still unaware that some entities even stronger than the one he represents failed to browbeat us, is now minister of the interior. This is an outrageous for a civilized country. What did they think and did they think at all? I do not rule out that they will soon see that they were mistaken.

“Taking into account the mentality, outlook and pragmatism of these people, I think there will be a serious debate.”

Is it possible to remove ideology from politics in order to solve at last the problem of Crimean Tatars settlement? For the problem of repatriation and settlement of the deported could have been solved over the past 20 years.

“It could have, but this requires a good will on the part of the authorities, the desire to build a democratic country, and just know the real, not distorted, history. I can understand that resources are somewhat limited, but there are also many problems that need no resources and could be solved with a stroke of the pen – I mean fair laws, many humanitarian issues, the problems of religion and education. Incidentally, Ukraine has already spent a lot of money, which could have produced a better result. As we have been adhering to the principle of non-violence throughout the history of our national movement, all we have to do is draw the attention of the world public to our problem and teach the government to be really democratic.”

What do you think about changes in the Crimean political situation?

“We spoke to Vasyl Dzharty and his colleagues immediately after the elections, and they requested our faction to support the dismissal of Hrytsenko. I said that we had not installed him, so it is not up to us to dismiss him. And it is not our style to stab in the back. We did not take part in this process, although they hinted us that we might end up without offices at all. I drew their attention to the fact that even today the share of Crimean Tatars in governmental bodies is far smaller than in the Crimea population and that the problems of a people could not be solved without the participation of this people. Therefore, as the new Supreme Council and Council of Ministers chairmen were being elected, the Kurultai-Rukh faction in the Crimean parliament voted for them. We were promised that at least the current share would remain intact, but in reality we were robbed of several key offices in the new government. Nor do I see, unfortunately, any decisions that show the intention to solve our people’s problems. We will be closely watching the further course of events, but we will never go begging to the government. We are contemplating the idea of withdrawing from the Crimean governmental bodies and forming Ukraine’s strongest opposition, but we will make a decision after a meeting with President Viktor Yanukovych, which will take place very soon. But, no matter what stand the government is taking, our demands will remain unchanged because we lead the people who yearn for justice.”

Did you discuss with Mr. Yanukovych the work of the Council of Crimean Tatar Representatives under the President of Ukraine? What are the prospects?

“We have sent a letter to the president, in which we commented on this body and its potential to address our people’s problems and to strengthen stability. After this the Presidential Administration evinced interest in this body and we were asked if the latter could additionally include some other representatives, but we explained that the Majlis is not an interest club – it is people who were elected by and won the trust of the populace, so we have no right to replace them. I think we will discuss the council’s prospects with the president.”

Photo by Leniara ABIBULAIEVA “THESE ARE OUR MOUNTAINS”

What is the current situation in your faction Our Ukraine and what do you think about the formation of the opposition in Ukraine?

“Firstly, there is no united opposition, which is very bad. Unfortunately, there is more haggling in Our Ukraine than in other factions. Actually, I supported the idea of Our Ukraine entering the coalition, for Viktor Yanukovych has been elected President of Ukraine and, whether or not we like him, he is our head of state for the next five years and will have to tackle all the problems. We had only one demand: no communists. And it is one thing that all power will be concentrated in the Party of Regions, the Lytvyn Bloc with its unclear ideology, and the Communists, and it is another thing that the coalition will also include Our Ukraine which will be raising and solving its problems in spite of other political forces. After all, we bear responsibility for the people who elected us, and we must work for the sake of them instead of playing political games. The point is that being in tough opposition is not a very wise and necessary thing – it is more important to make decisions that affect this country’s life.”

Any articles:

• Echo of Moscow blasts
• Energy efficiency as a point of growth
• This day in history

Comments: