Politic Analytics

Kosovo. Ukraine. Separatism. Part 1. Ethnic-historical aspect.

Discussions about separatism became of importance in our country during last 2-3 years. The last occasion for such discussions was the one-sided declaration of independence of Serbian region of Kosovo. It is considered that there are several regions in Ukraine where the repetition of “Kosovo precedent” might potentially happen. Is it true or not? In this article we will try to analyze the problem of rise of possible seats of separatism in Ukraine from historical point of view.       

 

But for a start we should define the term SEPARATISM which is interesting for us.

So in general the term SEPARATISM means: 1) urge towards isolation showed as a rule by national minorities in multinational states and directed towards creating independent states or national-state autonomies; ideological and socio-psychological tendencies towards separating one part of the country from another. For making these tendencies show up the presence of several factors is needed. In particular of the ethnic and historical ones.

 

During years of independence our country faced both displays of separatism and establishment of the autonomy in the structure of the formally unitary state; and also the calls to becoming a federal state. First of all it showed up in the regions having most ethnic-political peculiarities on a scale of Ukraine – in the Crimea and Zakarpatye.

 

The events of the first half of the 1990s in the Crimea drew the widest response. The term ‘separatism’ was mostly active applied to this part of Ukraine. There were enough occasions for this. First of all it was the ethnic composition of the population on the Crimea – the only region of the country where the ethnic Ukrainians do not prevail. Moreover the ethnic factor was exaggerated by complex and diverse ethnic-demographic processes, particularly the deportation and return of Crimean Tatars.    

Firstly, after Ukraine leaving the USSR the Russian population of the Crimea (making up the majority) faced two problems: a) separating from Russia and b) return of the Crimean Tatars to the peninsula with property claims. The motion of Russian population on the Crimea for separating from Ukraine and annexation to Russia started. In turn the certain political circles in Russia publicly supported the president of the Crimea Yu. Meshkov and prejudiced the legitimacy of transfer of the Crimea to the SSRU in 1954.

Secondly, the stand of the Crimean-Tatar organizations was of the essence. It consisted in the idea of renewal of the Crimean ASSR which was considered as the form of the national statehood of the Crimean Tatars. The slogan “Renewal of the Crimean ASSR” was an essential request of the political actions of the Crimean Tatars and it followed the requests about organized return of the folk and its political vindication.

At the end of the day the ideas about autonomy and separating from Ukraine were considered by the population f the peninsula in general as panacea from economic and social disorders.

The adoption of the Ukrainian Constitution and approval of the Constitution of the ARC by the Ukrainian parliament completing the legalization of the autonomy status of the Crimea; and also signing of the Big contract with Russia in 1997 made the problems of the Crimean separatism of no currency.

At the same time after solving the problem of Russian separatism on the Crimea the other problem arose: possibility of Crimean-Tatar separatism. Within 90-s of the XX century the Crimean Tatars supported the official Kiev and helped in the struggle with “centrifugal’ moods on the peninsula. The following facts prove this: historical basis (independent Crimean khanate existed till the 80-s of the XVIII century and before the Second World War the Crimean Tatars had their autonomy), linguistic, civilization and religious differences.    

The current generation of the leaders of the Crimean Tatars will not resort to radical actions towards Ukraine. Both Mustafa Dzhemilev and Refat Chubarov are too closely tied to the system of the Ukrainian national democracy. However the next generation of the Crimean-Tatar politicians is less predictable. Taking into account the conflicts that arose from time to time between Crimean Tatars and law machinery, and also taking into account the example of Kosovo it can be stated that there are risks of separatism motions on the Crimea which are first of all based on the ethnic and historical factors.

 

At the same time somewhat similar processes started in Zakarpatye. In 1991 the referendum about becoming autonomy took place in this region. But the results of these processes differed from those on the Crimea. It is noteworthy that the ideas about separating from Ukraine in Zakarpatye were not so serious compared to the Crimea. For a long time being remote from the centers of the Ukrainian life, being isolated by the mountains the region always participated in European events more than in Ukrainian ones. Zakarpatye is always referred to the Western Ukraine but it is a separate world by its political preferences and cultural environment. And this factor was actively used by the supporters of the autonomy. Similar to the Crimea that had the Crimean ASSR during interwar period the autonomy tendencies in Zakarpatye had their own history.

Beside the historical peculiarities there was also ethnic factor in Zakarpatye.

In particular the topic about the autonomy of Zakarpatya in the 90-s was inseparable from the topic about political Rusinism. The following factors contributed to renewal of the Rusin motion: reappraisal of consolidation degree of the Ukrainian nation and underestimation of specific character of some regions particularly Zakarpatye which were used by certain local ambitious individuals; renewal of the problem of national interests including the issue of borders in neighbor post-soviet countries; the discussion of the problem of the Carpathian Rusinism at a number of international symposia and a number of publications in the press in Hungary, Canada, Slovakia and Russia.      

The main guides of the idea about the autonomy (or independence) of Zakarpatye were the leaders of the Rusinism motion. They established the “Temporary government of Undercarpathian Rus”, brought up the recognition of rusin folk and realization of the results of the referendum both on Ukrainian and international level. The natural supporters of the Rusins were the representatives of Hungarian people who counted on their own national autonomy. On their opinion it might have been Beregovo autonomous area or Pritisyan district.

After declaration of independence in Kosovo Rusins organizations in Zakarpatye livened up. So the head the Seim of the Undercarpathian Rusins f. Dmitriy Sidor accused the Ukrainian government of genocide of the Rusins and demanded the autonomy for the region. He also noted that in the light of self-declaration of independence in Kosovo on February, 17 2008 the self-determination of the Rusins became of special urgency.

Thus hypothetically there are ethnic-political and historical occasions for repetition of the “Kosovo precedent” in Zakarpatye.

 

At this more or less materialized examples of separatism and autonomism in Ukraine are confined. But they are still possible. At that not only on the Crimea and in Zakarpatye but also in other regions of the countries. Their geography might be rather unpredictable. First of all it is talked of declaration of Donetsk-Krivirozhskaya republic or separation of Galychyna. However, there are no real preconditions for separation of Galychyna at the moment as well as for declaration of Donetsk-Krivirozhskaya republic.

 At the moment the ideas about separatism in our country are out of time and they are not “sprouted” in the society. But the threat is still in the air that is why the ethic and historical ground for separatism exists. In this context it is noteworthy that the reality of repetition of the “Kosovo precedent” in Ukraine will depend on the stand of the Ukrainian government concerning recognition/non-recognition of Kosovo.   

 

 

 

 

May 26, 2008 // Aleksey Lashenko, analyst of «Research & Branding group»