The Circassian issue: ethnicity and policy

 

By Vestnik Kavkaza

 

The report headlined “Ethnicity and policy in the North Caucasus: the Circassian issue” was presented in Tbilisi. It was prepared by the head of the non-profitable partnership of encouragement of international contacts development, the Caucasus Cooperation, Nikolay Silayev.

 

According to him, “the recognition of the Caucasus War as genocide, repatriation of Circassian Diaspora in the Caucasus, the establishing of a Circassian administration entity mean reconstruction of the status quo in the Caucasus of 1763. It is one of myths which appear in the context of global tragic socio-political changes after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; and it cannot be a basis for negotiations in the 21st century.”According to him, “the recognition of the Caucasus War as genocide, repatriation of Circassian Diaspora in the Caucasus, the establishing of a Circassian administration entity mean reconstruction of the status quo in the Caucasus of 1763. It is one of myths which appear in the context of global tragic socio-political changes after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; and it cannot be a basis for negotiations in the 21st century.”

 

“Recognition of the Caucasus War as genocide deserves a separate discussion. A popular argument by activists of ethnic organizations is that “it’s not a big deal for Moscow” to recognize it and receive respect and gratitude from the Circassians of the whole world. The argument may seem reasonable without consideration of the North Caucasus, Russian and the world context. However, in reality the price of such a decision is much higher that it seems,” Silayev thinks. “Modern Russia has few things in common with the Russian Empire, which participated in the Caucasus War. There were insignificant elements of legal succession, which were taken by Russia willingly. The Russian Empire was destroyed by the revolution; the Soviet Union cut off its political and cultural traditions.”

 

However, according to Silayev, “the existence of Diaspora ethnic organizations and international structures couldn’t help but give certain international excitement to Circassian issue. In due time the problem was interesting to organizations from Turkey, the U.S., and other countries. The American National Endowment for Democracy organized the Committee of Solidarity with the Republic of Adygea in 2006. Jamestown Foundation organized a series of conferences on history and modern politics in the North Caucasus. It should be noted that organizations which are close to the current American administration do not support Circassian issue publicly and negatively estimate activeness of the Georgian authorities in this direction.

 

In Turkey, social activeness over the Circassian issue occurs spontaneously; its weakness can be explained by the interests of Turkish business in construction projects in Sochi. Circassian Days are regular in the European Parliament, at the same time, the Abkhaz topic takes the shine out of the Circassian problem.”

 

Influence of state structures in foreign public campaigns in the Circassian issue was absent or thoroughly hidden. Only Georgia was an exception. “President Mikhail Saakashvili spoke in the UN about “the new North Caucasus policy” which includes power activeness in the Circassian issue. In May 2011 the parliament of Georgia recognized the Caucasus War as genocide of the Circassians. Influence of these foreign campaigns on the internal situation in Russia was small,” Silayev thinks.

 

According to him, “the problem of “the new North Caucasus policy” by Mikhail Saakashvili is that is based on a false ground, and the analysis of the Circassian history confirms it. Twenty years ago the forces which acted behind ethnic groups exploded the political system of the Soviet Union. Consequences of the explosion are felt both in the North and the South Caucasus. However, “the new North Caucasus policy” and some Georgian experts didn’t consider that these forces lost their activeness in recent 20 years, disappeared or integrated into the new Russian political system.”

 

Silayev hopes that “normalization of Russian-Georgian relations will lead to appearance of the regional cooperation in the bilateral agenda. It seems even today Moscow is ready to open new border crossing points which will enable extension of turnover between the countries. Cooperation in the sphere of tourism is promising, as residents of the North Caucasus enjoy Georgian mountain skiing resorts so much. Humanitarian cooperation has great potential as well.”