CRIMEAN TATAR DIASPORA IN FREE WORLD

YflK 325.2(=1-81)"19"

Crimean Tatar Diaspora in Free World

Alter Kahraman

(Middle East Technical University)

Abstract. Crimean Tatars were forcefully displaced from their historic homeland Crimea to numerous places in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), because of alleged collaboration with Germans during Great Patriotic War. In the meantime, they had already constituted significant diaspora in Turkey and Europe. This paper covers the history and evolution of the Crimean Tatar National Movement outside the USSR. Moreover, it discusses the way the diaspora approached and evaluated the developments among the West and East blocs and in the USSR, and the concepts which were circulated in their publications such as Emel and Dergi. It will also analyze whether Crimean Tatar community and its national movement outside the USSR to be considered as diaspora and diaspora movement.

Concept of Diaspora

The term diaspora originally referred to the Jewish experience for centuries, together with the Greek one [54, p. 9]. However, it is currently used for various communities in addition to Jews. Indeed, Butler contends that «communities that [were] once labeled as immigrant, nomadic, exilic [and so on] began to be called diasporas» [10, p. 190].

Safran&s definition of diaspora and diaspora community seem to overlap with the Crimean Tatar case, helping to understand it. Since his ideal type was the Jewish case, the definition of the concept was built on it. The definition and the Crimean Tatars& case entail six characteristics:

(1) Crimean Tatars had been en masse expelled from the «original center», Crimea, to multiple «foreign regions» of Central Asia and Russia;

(2) they maintained «a collective memory» through intergenerational narrative regarding the homeland Vatan Crimea; (3) their interaction with the host societies was troublesome, and deportation experiences, discriminations and injustices they encountered never let them mentally root where they were forced to settle down; (4) they considered Crimea as «their true, ideal home», and they never ceased to insist on returning and repat-riating1; (5) they got organized for the «restoration» of homeland Crimea

and Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic; (6) they vividly attached their collective identity to the homeland during the struggle to return to Crimea [51, p. 83-84].

Other scholars have put forward almost the same characteristics regarding diaspora communities. First and foremost, the indispensable element of being a diaspora, the birth of diaspora, is existence of a forced resettlement, «dispersal», or «a separation more like exile» of a community to «a minimum of two destinations» [14, p. 304; 10, p. 192]. The second element is «self-awareness of the group&s identity» [10, p. 192] or «collective memory» [65, p. 13] that was circulated. A collective memory is constructed and fed by narrations, recollections, or «transgenerational transmission» of both a «chosen trauma» and the homeland [81, p. 48].

As Butler pointed out, «diasporization often arises from extremely traumatic conditions» [10, p. 204]. For instance, deportation of a people is that kind of trauma. Moreover, violence, ill-treatment and tragic loss of close relatives before, during, and after migration all feed collective memory. The more tragic events they experienced, the stronger their collective memory became. «Chosen trauma» in accompanying deportation, dispersal or exile, and recollections around it help to define deportees& and following generations& identity [81, p. 48-49].

However, without the attachment to a certain territory, to the historical homeland, which is the third element of being a diaspora, [65, p. 14; 10, p. 204] all «collectives» aforementioned would be groundless. Butler stated that «[homeland] functions as the constituting basis of collective diasporan identity» [10, p. 204]. Such a collective identity was probably grounded on two concepts: collective memories of a shared tragedy, and homeland ideal, i.e., myth of homeland, or «cause of return» as in the case of Crimean Tatars.

Crimean Tatars& experience of displacement from the land would trigger a loss of sense of identity, as Spicer pointed out for Indians in Americas. According to him, «retention of land bases was an important basic condition permitting a continuity of tribal sense among Indians...» [59, p. 577]. On the other hand, loss of land does not always mean loss of identity. Instead, total displacements can even reinforce collective identity as happened in such cases of Jews, Yaquis and Navajos [60, p. 798]. The answer to the question why some lose sense of identity while some others might lie in the combination of two concepts, which may be interchangeably used; oppositional process and diasporization, or organizational process of displaced communities. Both help «produce intense collective consciousness» and «promote solidarity among» these communities [60, p. 799; 54, p. 79-80].

Although Safran&s characteristics of a diaspora is associated with Crimean Tatars, who were forcefully deported from Crimea at the night of 18 May, in 1944, the same characteristics may not fit the Crimean Tatars outside the USSR. For instance, despite the fact that Crimean Tatars in Turkey were «dispersed from the original center», Crimea, to different regions of the Ottoman Empire during the 18 th and 19th centuries, they were not en masse dispersed, (referring to the lack of a shared trauma) but were exposed to many voluntary or involuntary migrations. Moreover, they did not regard Turkey as a foreign region but as the land of the caliph and called &white soil&, ak toprak. Besides, except a handful intellectuals like Cafer Kirimer and Mustecip Ulkusal, they maintained a collective memory which was not as strong as the ones in Central Asia. The larger mass were assimilated to Turkish community. Return to Crimea, restoration of Crimean Tatar polity in Crimea, and Crimean Tatar identity based on the homeland Crimea might be only limited to a group of people, intellectuals, until the end of the Soviet Union2. In short, it is possible to argue that the &outer diaspora& does not suit well with the characteristics of Safran, but as stated before, the term diaspora is expanding [8, p. 4; 32, p. 115] to include the other cases or «categories which reflect processes of politically motivated uprooting and moving of populations, voluntary migration, global communications and transport» [55, p. 42; 65, p. 3]. Connor&s broad definition of diaspora, the «segment of a people living outside the homeland»[51, p. 83], includes Crimean Tatars in Turkey, as & outer diaspora& in this study.

This paper study &outer& diaspora of Crimean Tatar by focusing on three Crimean Tatars as to their leadership positions and activities in political, social, cultural and scientific life: Cafer Seydahmet Kirimer, Mustecip Ulkusal, and Edige Kirimal. Kirimer (1889-1960) took office during Numan £elebicihan and Suleyman Sulkiewicz governments in Crimea. Upon leaving Crimea because of Bolshevik occupation of Crimea, he became one of the most respected figures among Crimean Tatars and de facto leader of the Movement in the diaspora. He represented the Movement in Prometheus League during the interwar period in Europe and in Turkey after the World War II (WWII). Ulkusal (1899-1996), was a Romanian-born Crimean Tatar. He was very active among Crimean Tatars in diaspora. He was the founder of Emel Journal in Romania and its lead author in Turkey until early 1980s. After Kirimer died, Ulkusal took his place. [77, p. 166] The third figure, Kirimal (1911-1980), was from Polish Tatars born in Crimea, who was a representative of Crimean Tatars

in Europe. During the WWII, Kirimer supported him to work with the Germans. After the War, he became a member of the Institute for the Study of the USSR and his articles on Crimea, Crimean Tatars and Russian rules in Crimea were published in the Institute&s publication, Dergi. This paper focuses on the publications of the National Movement outside the USSR: Emel in Turkey and Dergi in Munich. It discusses how the National Movement outside the USSR perceived the developments and activities of the National Movement in the USSR as is revealed in these publications.

Interwar Period: Prometheus League

After Bolsheviks defeated anti-Red forces and seized the power in Tsardom, people from various nations of Russia had to leave the country. Those who were non-Russians and who settled in Europe mostly cooperated with Poland, which positioned herself against Russia pursuing antiSoviet policies. There were many Turkic people from Turkestan, Caucasia, Idil-Ural, and Crimea among these émigrés. A Turkish diplomat expressed the general political inclination of these émigrés of Russia at the time, in 1939, to another such émigré from China as follows: «Some outer Turks counted on the English, some on the German, some on the Polish, and some counted on Japan, now» [3, p. 370]. Indeed, as the Turkish diplomat stated, Crimean Tatar émigrés had good relations mostly with the Polish, as others did.

Those Crimean Tatars fled after WWI and Russian Civil War to countries such as Poland, Romania and Turkey, where diaspora Crimean Tatars had been living for some time [56, p.23-38]. In the interwar period, Crimean Tatar intellectuals such as Cafer Seydahmet Kirimer, Edige Kirimal and Mustecip Ulkusal kept contact with Prometheus Organizations of the non-Russian peoples of the USSR3 [45, p. 19]. They were also in contact with other Prometheus Organizations throughout Europe. For example, National Centers of Émigrés of the Nations of the USSR worked together as part of Prometheus Project in Warsaw4. Two examp3 Kmmer carried out leadership of Crimean Tatar movement outside the USSR until he died in 1960 and represented the movement in Prometheus Movement and other organizations [75, p. 1153].

In interwar period, Poland supported dissident émigrés and their organizations, national committees and governments-in-exile against the

ning and dissolving Russian Empire would also bring enlightenment to enslaved nations of the Russian Empire (the USSR) [38, p. 476]. Prometheism was actually a plan to protect Poland&s wellbeing against the century-old enemies and to prohibit Poland to experience the annihilation, again, that came over after 1795 and lasted till WWI.

USSR. Most were Muslim and Turkic groups from Turkestan to Crimea. There were Ukrains, Kalmyks and Cossacks among them. Some volunteers from Russia&s Muslims such as Azerbaijanis and some Georgian servicemen retreated from Red Army in 1921 and joined the Polish army under authorization given by Pilsudski [29, p. 123-125; 50, p. 123]. However, Promethean Movement was not a success story for Poland because the war did not begin where Polish policymakers predicted. Poland was occupied and divided up by Germany and the USSR in cooperation and all plans fell through [29, p. 125]. Moreover, Germans had different objectives than Poland toward the USSR and did not awaken the latter&s endeavors.

Dergi and Emel

Dr. Edige Kirimal was one of the most, if not the most, leading figures among the diaspora of the Crimean Tatars in Europe during the Cold War years. He was the European representative of Turkish sect of Crimean Tatar National Movement and the editor of Dergi, which was published in Turkish by the Munich Institute.8 Kirimal mainly wrote about Crimea and Crimean Tatars. He published articles discussing general Crimean history, Crimean Tatar history, Crimean history during Tsarist Russia and the USSR, Soviet politics of nationality and religion, situation of woman in Crimea and more specific topics about literature.

Crimean Tatars in Turkey gathered around Emel in the years that follow. Emel was first published by ten young Crimean Tatars under the

leadership of Mustecip Ulkusal in Romania in 1930 to be the voice of the Crimean independence movement, and their aim was «to pave the way to the unity in thought and ideal of the Turkic peoples living in distant parts of the world and speaking different Turkish dialects» [31, p.4]. It was declared that Emel would be advocating the Crimean Tatar cause outside Crimea after a few issues were published [75, p. 1153; 77, p. 152]. After 11 years of publication, it was closed down because of war time deficiencies in 1940. It started to be republished in Turkey in 1960.

Since Dergi was closed down due to financial and political reasons in 1971, it is elaborated only briefly in this study. It was included to the research because Kirimal was an active member of the Movement in Europe. He was also the editor of it. For this reason, it might be claimed that Dergi fulfilled a somewhat low-scale and de facto role of organ of the Movement in Europe. As for Emel, it was the first accepted organ of the Movement in Romania, then in Turkey since 1960. The two journals had some common points. One of the featured topics which these journals focused on was the nationality issue9. Evaluation of the nationality problem by Dergi or EmeVs writers was far from the Soviet thesis. The essence of the issue was hostility and distrust among Russians and non-Russians, as Lenin referred to [57, p. 420-421]. The nationality problem was one of the top issues that Soviet authorities had focused on-from the beginning different policies were adopted depending on the time and conditions, from flourishing national entities and cultures to pressure. Roughly speaking, the 1920s were the years when non-Russian nationalities flourished. In 1930s, everything was upside down; revitalization of Russian nationalism and culture took place in this period. WWII was an interim period when deportations of some nations resumed. The end of the WWII marked a new epoch symbolized by the toast Stalin proposed after victory over Nazis: «I drink, above all, to the health of the Russian people, for it is the most outstanding nation of all nations forming a part of the Soviet Union» [26, p. 140]. The violations that occurred during the Stalinist period were tried to be retrieved during Khrushchev era by rehabilitating and repatriating of some nationalities. Some other un-rehabilitated peoples, specifically Crimean Tatars, used Leninist principles in their rhetoric during their struggle to correct the problem when the Soviet authorities were unresponsive to Crimean Tatar requests denying the existence of such a problem [61, p. 35-37].

On the other hand, for the publications of Dergi and Emel, the nationalities problem was not only left undealt, but the distrust and hostility

continued to exist against Bolshevik Soviet rule. Unlike émigrés in Europe, the Crimean Tatar diaspora in Turkey were more homogenous, and their writings might be considered as more independent. For them, Czarist or Bolshevik Russians were identical in that both regimes were chauvinist and defended Russian interests, and Crimean Tatars suffered under both regimes [73, p. 2; 66, p. 1-4; 2, p. 19; 78, p. 7]. Therefore, the evaluation of 1957 and 1967 decrees by the writers of Dergi and Emel was based on the feelings of distrust and hostility. This is why they interpreted both issues directly related with nationality and policies such as «peaceful coexistence», détente which were developed by the Soviet authorities, with suspicion. Moreover, according to them, the rapprochement and fusion of Soviet nations and the solution to the nationality problem only referred to the assimilation of non-Russian nations to Russian people [33, p. 100; 16, p. 7].

When the communist and the capitalist blocs& relations tended to improve as a result of Soviet and American attempts, diaspora Crimean Tatar National Movement opposed this. In other words, peaceful coexistence in the 1950s, de Gaulle&s own détente toward the USSR in 1960s, Federal Germany&s Ostpolitik toward Eastern Bloc, the process of Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and détente of the USA in the 1970s and Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) were marked as the tough years for diaspora National Movement in Turkey. They criticized such policies in Emel. In general they approached such policies and negotiations skeptically and evaluated them as the continuation of the status quo [23, p. 13; 32, p. 1-8; 70, p. 1-6].

What they offered and wished to see was a united and strong front against the USSR and communism [80, p.4-5]. United front refers to both micro level among émigrés which were fragmented all along and macro level among the free world [80, p.5]. M. Ulkusal repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with the disunity of the Western bloc against the USSR and the peaceful coexistence approach. For instance, he seemed displeased with the policies of de Gaulle when France, led by him, began to follow a more independent policy toward the Soviet Union. Under his leadership, France gradually withdrew her armed forces from the NATO and tried to follow her détente policy with the USSR [35, p. 712]. Ulkusal criticized de Gaulle&s policy of friendship with the communists on the grounds that it would weaken the unity of the West [67, p. 4]. He also implicitly criticized the USA for wasting their (captive nations of the USSR) time and giving them false hopes on their freedom and independence. On the one hand, the West designated a week for Captive Nations10 to win the sympathy of world nations and captive nations of the Communist Bloc. On the other hand, it traded with communists and made money under peaceful coexistence. Thus, these were not favored by Ülküsal [74, p. 4; 9, p. 48].

Ülküsal repeated his criticism after the self-immolation of Musa Mamud in Crimea in 1978. Musa Mamud burned himself to protest the local Crimean Soviet authorities& raids to Crimean Tatar properties and re-deportation of Crimean Tatars outside Crimea. The news reached the West by phone and samizdat, and Ülküsal summarized the feelings of émigrés in the editorial of Emel: (reminding Captive Nations Week) the West neglect captive Turkish Muslim peoples and their causes while they keep preaching about human rights (referring to Helsinki period) [79, p. 4]. Criticism was not directed towards only the West but for other Muslim states, governments, international or local human rights organizations, commissions, committees, congresses and so on, too [25, p. 42].

Final featured issue that appeared in the articles of Emel and Dergi was Soviet colonialism and self-determination of Soviet nations. During the Cold War, decolonization of the colonies in Africa and Asia was an issue in international relations. Colonies of the western states began to get their independence one after another following the war, and decolonization became a propaganda tool for the USSR during the Cold War period. The USSR supported the independence of the colonies of the western states and used it to its own benefit.

While the Soviet Union favored the freedom of colonies and accused the western countries for imperialism, the émigrés turned the same gun against the Soviet Union. That is, the Soviet Union clamored for the independence of even the tiniest islands of Oceania in the international arena, but she kept her own colonies in Central Asia, the Caucasus and Europe under strict control [42, p. 27-29; 72, p. 3]. Whenever the Soviet Union pushed for a colony&s or a minority group&s freedom, the émigrés responded likewise and put their kinships& situation and their colonized lands in front of the former. For instance, if the Soviet Union talked about Kurds of Iraq, Emel responded to this with the situation of Crimean Tatars in the

USSR [36, p. 25]. The western representatives to international institutions reacted similarly. For instance, a western representative to the UN asked the situation of the captive nations in the Soviet Empire when millions of people and tens of nations became independent at the time (in 1962) [21, p. 60]. Another representative to the UN compared the British colonies with the Tsarist and Soviet colonies. When Britain occupied Ceylon, Russia invaded Azerbaijan in the 19th century. Ceylon became independent just after the WWII, and the representative inquired when Azerbaijan would become independent. In the same way, he compared the British colonies in Africa and Tsarist Russia&s colonies in Central Asia, indicating that African colonies of the British were free then, and asked about the independence of Central Asian republics [21, p. 61; 7, p. 32].

Self-determination and Soviet colonialism were the concepts the news sections and the articles of Emel and Dergi covered the most widely at the time [28, p. 36]. Crimean Tatar Diaspora in Free World considered Crimea as a colonized land, and just as colonized nations had the right to self-determination, Crimean Tatars had the right to independence from Russia. This was the goal of Diaspora Crimean Tatar National Movement, first to keep the Crimean cause alive and make Crimea Crimean Tatar homeland again [69, p. 7].

Cold War Years: Émigrés

Soviet émigrés in (and outside of) Europe had different hopes about the future of the USSR after the WWII. Non-Russian nationalities wished for disintegration of the USSR and establishment of their own national states. Russian émigrés wished for disintegration of Bolshevism in Russia and the continuation of Russian domination throughout Soviet or ex-Tsarist Russian land.

To make their wishes come true, they firstly got organized, despite many internal factions. Getting organized is a step but for sure it is not enough. Next, they, either voluntarily, or desperately, cooperated with the host countries led by the USA, just as some considered the Germans as a vehicle to reach their aims, or to survive just as the case a few years ago. This time, Americans were a hope for the émigrés after the war. Who actually benefited more in this relation depends on whose side the issue is considered. However, Americans used «émigrés as a vehicle for reaching the people inside» [47] and émigrés considered the enemies of the USSR as friends and tried to fulfil their goals, even if they might comply. They worked where they settled in accordance with priorities or conditions of the host country.

Emigrés were very active in broadcasting and publishing through research centers of their host countries [47; 5]. This explains diaspora Crimean Tatars& engagement with Emel in Turkey, and limitedly Dergi in Europe. This was in fact an American policy. They mostly hired the émigrés in these fields. As stated, the USA endeavored «to reach the Russian people in Russia by any means possible» [13], by exploiting émigrés and the committees they found, yet it seems they refrained from setting high expectations from émigrés11. Instead, they concentrated on radio broadcasting to reach Russian people and on the research institute (publishing) to carry out propaganda and discredit Soviet way of economic development as an option for the Third World [46, p. 30-31].

After the war, émigrés who had already settled in Europe and Soviet citizens (ex-POWs) who were living in Europe without Soviet soldiers catching them, either left Europe for the USA and for some Muslim countries where their kinships lived, or stayed in Europe. In the years that follow the Cold War, people who stayed in Europe and/or migrated to the USA were holding posts within the institutions of the Western bloc12. Those who stayed in Europe worked in Munich-based, CIA-supported Institute for the Study of the USSR (henceforth the Munich Institute) or Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Like other peoples& representatives such as Azeris, Turkistanis, Idil-Ural Tatars, Crimean Tatars either worked at or had close relations with these institutions.

The Munich Institute was established in 1950. It was supported by the American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia13 (AMCOMLIB) and covertly by CIA like RFE/RL until 1971. AMCOMLIB was intended to be «a center which could speak to the Russians in the name of Russians» with the main interest of «reaching the people still within the Soviet Union» [47]. This Committee was a cover organization, which was established as a tool for Americans (for CIA) to organize fragmented émigré organizations (Russians and nationality groups) and to provide funding to support institutions against the USSR such as the Institute and free radios. In this project, «prime emphasis was placed on the development» of radio broadcasting, and next, research institute in Germany [6]. The Munich Institute&s nucleus was a «Russian

library» founded, before 1950s by Boris A. Yakovlev, an ex-POW and a member of Russian Liberation Army of Vlasov14. It supplied information on European issues. Then with the assistance of Americans (Harvard&s Russian Research Center), the library was converted into a research institute and was staffed with American officials who had émigré origin [46, p. 5-9].

Evaluation of the Developments in the USSR by the Diaspora Movement

Diaspora Movement in the Free World informed Crimean Tatars of the events and any development connected to Crimean Tatars and their activities in the USSR. Before samizdat publishing became an organized circulation after the end of 1960s, it was accessible by channels such as newspapers, books, and encyclopedias published in the USSR, and by correspondence. Diaspora in Turkey did not have direct information channels with the USSR, but it was informed mostly through the West. Indeed, until the first direct connection was established between diaspora and the National Movement in the USSR in the late 1980s, the western links had continued to be intermediary. This might account for the cooperation between Emel and Dergi, as well as Kirimal factor, and his ethnic affiliations. However, the cooperation was seemingly one-sided. Various Dergi-origin news and articles mostly connected with Crimean Tatars and their cause were published in Emel since the time its inception in 196015. There was no organic connection between the two publications but only mutual objectives16.

After the Stalinist years and the 20th Party Congress in 1956, a new progress started regarding the deported nationalities in the USSR. First, the «special settlements» regime was lifted in April 1956; then, for five deported nationalities (Kalmyk, Karachai, Balkar, Chechen and Ingush) decrees restoring and reorganizing national autonomies were issued in 1956-57, and repatriation was set for them [45, p. 136]. «Various news» section in Dergi, first, informed about these decrees on national autonomies as published in the USSR. Then, an analysis, which was actually a summary of a press conference held in Munich, was published. [41, p. 123-124; 18, p. 119-124] One member of the Munich Institute, Garip

Sultan [1] stated that the motive behind the decree[s] was not humanitarian, but a communist propaganda for Muslim countries. The domestic reason behind these decrees was to put an end to stirrings within the national republics of the USSR, which began after 1956 during de-Stalinization period17 [18, p. 120]. One of the issues about the rehabilitation of the deportees was discussed in Dergi. The discussion probed why Crimean Tatars and Volga Germans were not rehabilitated and repatriated. Kirimal concluded that it was due to imperialist Russian politics-Crimea without Crimean Tatars [18, p. 121-123].

After the Khrushchev era, another decree was issued on September 5, 1967. This decree lifted accusations on Crimean Tatars, 11 years after collective rehabilitations in 1956 and 3 years after of Volga Germans in 1964. Consequently, they were rehabilitated. However, Crimean Tatars were not allowed to repatriate, and to establish their previous Autonomous Republic in Crimea. They had the right to settle and live in any place in the USSR except Crimea, as would be experienced by Crimean Tatars.

Upon arrival of the news about the decree, a program was broadcast in Radio Liberty, hosting Edige Kirimal and a Russian émigré named Y.I. Granov. The decree of September 5, 1967, was perceived positively, yet it was under Kirimal&s expectation [43, p. 13]. Since it did not include the return of Crimean Tatars to Crimea, which they prefer to anywhere in the USSR. Besides, the decree was not published in the major newspapers of the Union, so it did not reach the mass public18. This actually disclosed the fact that the circulation of news about lifting accusations and materializing rehabilitation was limited for Crimean Tatars, rather than to the general Soviet public. Moreover, according to Kirimal, since Crimean ASSR was not restored and repatriation was not set for Crimean Tatars, all these indicated that Soviet government planned to keep Crimea Russian, [43, p. 15] namely untatarized.

Diaspora Crimean Tatars in Turkey, specifically Ulkusal, hoped that the Soviet Union would allow Crimean Tatars to return to their homeland [68, p. 11]. The first information about it was published in Emel in the first issue of the year 1968. Though uncertain, Crimean Tatars& individual return and expel from Crimea, was opposite to the expectations. Accor17 After the April decree of 1956 reached to the West, AMCOMBLIB released an analysis about it and stated that «The decree was motivated not by any humanitarian feelings the Soviet leaders may have by the need to calm the dangerous ferment which has been observed within the country and which is evidence of growing opposition from Soviet peoples towards the central authorities», «The Meaning of the &Rehabilitation& of Deported Peoples in the USSR an Analysis by the American Committee for Liberation» [62].

ding to the news, the incomers were made to settle in the regions surrounding Crimea such as Ukraine and Caucasia rather than in Crimea by local Crimean authorities [76, p. 3]. Following the unsuccessful attempts to return, Crimean Tatar National Movement passed to a new phase. In this phase, the Movement encountered the ex-general Petro Grigorenko, who offered the Movement a vividness and new ways of struggle that actually helped them to pass from a petition period to a protest period. The encounter with the general was on March 1968, and the following month Chirchik events broke out in Tashkent19. This triggered another protest in Moscow for the events in Chirchik. This led to the first encounter of EmeVs readers with samizdat. Thanks to samizdat and western correspondents in Moscow, the current news regarding Crimean Tatars in the USSR increasingly appeared in the journal [53, p. 1; 40, p. 7; 58, p. 1215]. For instance, an article written by Henry Kamm narrating two Tatar families and their experiences was published in New York Times. These two families moved to Crimea just after they were informed of the decree of September 5. They arrived at their ex-village before deportation from Crimea but were not allowed to work in sovhoz and to accommodate in the guest house or elsewhere. They tried to refuge in ruins and then in tents, but were expelled from both, and finally from Crimea [63, p. 5-7]. Such stories and news regarding Chirchik events, trials, and the help dissidents provided to Crimean Tatars were printed in western newspapers like Le Monde, the Guardian, Newsweek, and so were they published in Emel [82, p. 13-15; 84, p. 16-17; 64, p. 18-20].

As mentioned previously, the news, articles and information that were printed in Emel on Crimean Tatars were western-oriented, or the West was holding an intermediary position. After A Chronicle of Current News20 Journal emerged in Moscow and reach the West, diaspora Crimean Tatars became aware of the current events and developments of the National Movement in the USSR. For instance, articles about Mustafa Cemilev were frequently printed throughout 1970s. Apart from that, the stories of return attempts to Crimea and expel of incomers from Crimea, the news of demonstrations, prosecutions and trials of Crimean Tatars and the news regarding dissidents such as Petro Grigorenko, Alexei Kosterin21 and Saharov in Moscow appeared in Emel.

The end of 1960s and 1970s were samizdat years, but 1970s were also stagnation years of the Movement just as Brezhnev years of the Soviet Union. Besides, hunger strikes and trials of Cemilev broke the stagnation in Emel. As can be followed in the Journal, his hunger strikes made Cemilev the most famous Crimean Tatar for the Turkish public. In the second half of the 1970s, some fake news about Mustafa Cemilev&s death in a hunger strike hit Turkish public. The news was heard in Turkey in February, 1976 via samizdat and announced by Ulkusal to the Turkish public. However, two months later, another news broke negating the previous one. This piece of news was about Cemilev&s court which would be in April [44, p. 33]. During this period, nationalist-conservative parts of the society such as the Associations of Medical Students, University Students, Idealist Workers, Turkish Women, Azerbaijan Culture, and Grey Wolves reacted to the incident. A Committee for the Arrangement of Mustafa Cemilev Week was established. News were printed in various newspapers and journals. People went on hunger strikes, held demonstrations, and fasted upon Cemilev&s death. Even a senator in the Turkish senate fasted as a reaction to Cemilev&s end [24].

Lenin Bayragi

Diaspora Crimean Tatar Movement also followed the cultural developments of Crimean Tatars in Uzbekistan along with their social and political activities in the USSR. After 1956, institutions which were devoted to Crimean Tatar people were established. In the first group in and after 1956, Crimean Tatar radio program, ensemble, Crimean Tatar section within Uzbek Writers Union and a newspaper, Lenin Bayragi, came to life, and a Crimean Tatar department in the Institute followed after 1967 and finally a journal in 1980. Diaspora in Europe and Turkey via Germany link, were well aware of the developments. Edige Kirimal, to the best of the existing knowledge, was the first person who systematically examined and wrote on Crimean Tatar cultural activities and on these institutions among diaspora. He described these Crimean Tatar institutions in Uzbekistan in one of his articles in Dergi [34, p. 20]. They were Kaytarma (dance and song) Ensemble, Crimean Tatar Publications in Gafur Gulam Publishing House, the Department of Crimean Tatar Language and Literature at the Nizami Tashkent Pedagogical Institute, and the newspaper Lenin Bayragi. Kirimal&s article refers to Lenin Bayragi with a positive tone even though it was an organ of Uzbek SSR22. Kirimal

claimed that the newspaper was one of the centers where Crimean Tatar intellectuals gathered together with the publishing house. These two institutions would be unchallenged until Yildiz Journal began publishing in 1980 [48, p. 4]. Kinmal compared Lenin Bayragi with Tercuman of Ismail Bey Gaspirali in terms of its role in Crimean Tatars& national, cultural and social life [34, p.16]. After Kirimal, secondly Nadir Devlet assessed Lenin Bayragi and other Crimean Tatar institutions in 1983 [22, p. 82-90]. Both scholars gave revealing information about the institutions considering the era and the limitations. He also pointed out the special place of the articles on the heroes of the WWII [22, p. 88-89].

Conclusion

The aforementioned representatives of Crimean Tatars in the West apparently acted in accordance with the motto «the enemy of my enemy is my friend». First, the Crimean Tatar National Movement in the inter-war period was firmly connected with the Promethean Movement initiated and supported by Poland against the USSR. Kirimer represented Crimean Tatars in this project. In WWII, after Poland was occupied by her century-old enemies, some members of the outer diaspora approached Nazi Germany. This time, not Kirimer but mostly Edige Kirimal and Mustecip Ulkusal tried to contact with the Germans. After the war, Nazi Germany was defeated; this time the enemy&s enemy turned out to be the Western governments such as the USA and West Germany. One of the leading figures of the National Movement was still Kirimal, who was active around the Institute for the Study of the USSR. That is to say, the members of diaspora Crimean Tatars cooperated with states and blocs which positioned themselves against the Soviet Union. They first cooperated with Poland, then with Germany, and after WWII, with the West and states such as Turkey, West Germany and the USA.

In 1950s, the Crimean Tatar National Movement emerged with the aim of achieving the repatriation of the Crimean Tatar people to Crimea, the restoration of Crimean ASSR, and the rehabilitation of the people. After a half-century struggle, the Movement could only achieve the repatriation to Crimea; that is, according to Cengiz Dagci, it remade Crimea homeland again [30, p. 3]. In spite of decrees regarding the rehabilitation issue, all attempts could not go beyond paperwork and could not clear people&s name. As for the restoration of the Crimean ASSR, an autonomous entity came to life in the early 1990s. However, that was not the one Crimean Tatars struggled to create because they were not its co-founder.

either through samizdat or western correspondents in Moscow. However, none of them were printed at the pages of Lenin Bayragi at the time because of the Soviet censorship.

More than two decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Russian Federation completed Crimea&s integration, which she could not achieve in 1990s due to its powerless state and the turmoil she got through. However, the Mejlis opposed to the referendum held in Crimea and the invasion in March, 2014, that is, a Russian future. People affiliated with Mejlis declared that Crimean Tatars& future relied on Ukraine. They knew that invasion of Crimea by Russia did mean dark news for their own people. The occasions which took place since March, 2014, such as the cancellation of commemorating the 70th anniversary of the 1944 deportation, the ban of Cemilev&s, Chubarov&s and other activists& entering to Crimea for five years, the harassment of Crimean Tatar representatives and journalists by armed men, so-called Crimean self-defense, and the pressures against the Mejlis by the local authority and Crimea&s prosecutor general appointed by Moscow are clues to what is coming for Crimean Tatars in the following period. A report submitted by the UN Human Rights Office already states that the «leaders and activists of the indigenous Crimean Tatar people face prosecution and limitations on the enjoyment of their cultural rights» [49]. Moreover, although it is not an en masse migration, already a few thousand Crimean Tatars responded to the Russian invasion by fleeing Crimea, and settling in Ukraine&s safer regions.

REFERENCES

Free Europe and Radio Liberty, CIA mandatory declassification review document number C01434012. Available at: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter. org/document/114488

About the author: Alter Kahraman - PhD Student, Middle East Technical University (06800, Avrasya Cali§malari Ofisi Be§eri Bilimler Binasi ODTU, Cankaya Ankara, Turkey); alter@metu.edu.tr

Крымскотатарская диаспора в свободном мире

Алтер Кахраман

(Ближневосточный технический университет)

Аннотация. Крымские татары были насильственно депортированы со своей исторической родины - Крыма - в различные регионы Союза Советских Социалистических Республик (СССР) вследствие огульного обвинения в сотрудничестве с немцами в период Великой Отечественной Войны. К этому времени они уже имели значительную диаспору в Турции и Европе. Данная работа раскрывает историю и эволюцию национального движения крымских татар за пределами СССР. Кроме того, она раскрывает путь, по которому диаспора развивалась и рассматривала это развитие между Западным и Восточными блоками и УССР, концепции, которые циркулировали в изданиях, таких как «Эмель» и «Дерги». В статье также будет проанализирована возможность считать крымскотатарское сообщество и его национальное движение за пределами УССР диаспорой и национальным движением диаспоры соотвественно.

Сведения об авторе: Алтер Кахраман - аспирант (Ph.D), Ближневосточный технический университет (06800, Офис Евразийских исследований, Корпус гуманитарно-социальных наук БТУ, Чанкая Анкара, Турция); alter@metu.edu.tr