Open Society Institute International Policy Fellowship

Nana Sumbadze

Issue of repatriation of muslim Meskhetians

1.Issue of the problem

On early morning of November 15, 1944, an endless row of Studebecker cars, especially purchased for this reason, appeared on the roads of Meskheti, the southern province of Georgia (also known as Samtskhe-Javakheti). Local people were summoned to village centers, and all Muslims were given two hours‘ notice to collect their valuables, take provisions for 3 days and get into cars. 92,307 persons from five admininstative rayons (districts) of southern Georgia: Adigeni, Akhaltsikhe, Aspindza, Akhalkalaki and Bogdanovka (now Ninotsminda), as well as from the autonomous republic of Ajaria, were thus deported to Central Asia (deportation from Ajaria took place on 25-26 of November). 457 people died on the way. The number of deportees slightly increased later as soldiers started to return to Meskheti from the World War II. In the place of the Muslims, some 30,000 Christian Georgians were then forcefully resettled from its other parts (Zemo Imereti, Racha).

This was part of Stalin‘s policy of forcibly resettling so-called „unreliable peoples“, that is potential collaborators with the Nazis and their allies, to Asian parts of the Soviet Union. Local Muslims were accused of close ties with Turkey, the ally of the Nazi Germany, and conspiracy against the Soviet Union. The deportation supposedly constituted a preventive security measure in the time of war and was intended.to strengthen the USSR border with Turkey.

Many years have passed since, and the issue of all other peoples who shared the fate of Meskhetian population is more or less clear by now: either they returned to their homes, or have found some other durable solutions. The prospects for Muslim Meskhetians, however, who are scattered accross different parts of the former Soviet Union and Turkey, continues to be uncertain.

Interests of many countries intersect at the solution of the problem of the community of about 300 000 Meskhetians. Due to the original location of Meskhetians at the border with Turkey, their fate always was under the strict control of outside forces. To fully understand the problem, feelings of Meskhetians, their strivings and the resistance their desire to return meets, a brief historical outline is needed to be made.

2. Historical sketch

Misfortunes of Meskhetians began in the second half of XVI century, with the Ottoman occupation of Meskheti. Until that time Meskheti as a Southern part of Georgia was a renowned center of Georgian culture. Number and beauty of Christian Churches and castles, as well as books written by the inhabitants of the region, the stories of travelers, all speak of the glory of the region.

Ottoman occupation, which lasted for the three centuries drastically, changed cultural, social and even natural landscape of the region.

Step by step empire induced a big part of inhabitants of newly acquired lands to turn to Islam, to speak Turkish, to observe Islamic traditions and even to stop cultivating grapes. Population resisted the pressure of Islamization as much as it could, but Ottoman policy rendered Islamization as a mean to physical survival. Extremely high taxes were imposed on land and only conversion to Islam freed person from paying tax. It often happened that one male of the family converted to Islam and others retained Christian faith as long as possible helping each other with the payments.

At the same period by the negotiations with Ottoman authorities part of Meskhetians was baptized as Catholics and in this way managed to stay Christian. Even long after Islamization population covertly observed Christian rituals. XIX century Georgian historian Proneli recites the story of a local on how villagers in Meskheti celebrated New Year. The priest of Georgian Orthodox church went from house to house with a sack filled with pork, distributing it to villagers. Priests covertly performed wedding ceremonies in remote houses. Often from five to ten weddings were performed simultaneously. Georgian language was for a long period spoken at homes of Muslim Georgians. Women for longer time than men retained traditions and knowledge of Georgian.

Georgian kings made several unsuccessful attempts to bring back Meskheti under their rule. One of the provisions made in the treaty with Russia was reunion of Samtskhe-Javakheti with Georgia by the help of Russian Army. And indeed after Eastern Georgia became part of Russia in 1801, the Russian Empire made several attempts to extend its rule to Samtskhe-Javakheti. In 1828, the Russian Army, which included its new Georgian subjects, won the battle at Akhaltsikhe, the main town and the strategic fortress of the province, and subjected the region to the Russian throne. To the surprise of Georgians, however, who considered this to be a reunification with a historically Georgian province, the Russians opposed the tendency of the part of the local population to come back to the Georgian culture, and, instead, expelled part of the local Muslim population to the southern territories controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The ousted population was quickly replaced by some 35,000 Armenian refugees from Erzurum. This policy of ethnic resettlement was obviously aimed at inhabiting the strategic southern border region with more loyal and reliable subjects. However, the majority of Samtskhe-Javakheti population continued to be Muslim and considered „unreliable“ due to links to Turkey. According to 1897 census carried out by Russian authorities in districts of Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki 31-35% were Turkic speaking population (Muslim Georgians, Turks, Karapapkhs and Anatolian Turkmens), Armenians (Gregorian and Orthodox) comprised 48%, Georgians (Orthodox and Catholic) 12%, Russians (Dukhobor and orthodox ) 5% and Kurds 2%.

The brief period of Georgian independence in 1918-21 underscored marginality of Meskhetian Muslim population within the context of emerging Georgian statehood. In several border conflicts between the new Georgia and the Ottoman Empire in its last period of decline, large part of the local Muslims sided with the latter. Stories of atrocities allegedly perpetrated by them against Christian Georgians and Armenians constitute crucial part of collective memories of the local population that are highly relevant to understanding current attitudes of the province’s population towards repatriation of the deported people.

Soviet Russia further pursued the policy of its Tsarist predecessor though added some new touches. While the Tsarist empire divided its subjects mainly into religious categories, the Soviet one introduced identity registration along ethnic lines. It was decided to attach to the majority of Meskhetian Muslims, apart from a small number of Hemshils (who are believed to be Islamicized Armenians), Kurds and Tarakama, the marker of ‚Azeris‘. Thus, religious marginalization of the local Muslims was appended by ethnic one, or rather reformulated into ethnic terms. The marker of „Turks“ was first attached to this people in the 1944 decree and was intended to justify the deportation, as it was involvement in anti-Soviet conspiracy with Turkey that constituted its formal ground.

Deportation

If Turkisation was a gradual process and was not associated with a definite date or accute event common to the whole community, the day or deportation was an ordeal shared by the whole community and created a pool of collective menory from which much feelings and associations are still drawn.

Decision and preparations for deportation were kept in secret. Neither local authorities nor the population could detect any signs of tragedy, even when looking back. Although as is evident from the document presented below thorough preparations began three months ahead of the event itself.

Top Secret

State Committee of Defense

Decree of GOKO n,6279cc

July, 31 1944

In order to improve the situation at the state border of Georgian SSR, the State Committee decides:

1.To deport from the border zone of Georgian SSR-from Akhaltsikhe, Adigeni, Aspindza, Akhalkalaki, Bogdanoka regions and Ajara Autonomous Republic 16 700 households with the population of 86 000 Turks, Kurds and Khemsins to

Kazakh SSR- 40 000

Uzbek SSR- 30 000

Kyrgyz SSR- 16 000

Deportation to be carried out by NKVD (Popular Commissariat of Interior Affairs) of USSR.

To oblige NKVD of USSR (comrade Beria) to carry out deportation in November of 1944.

2.To allow the deportees from the border zones of Georgian SSR to take with them all the personal valuables, money, household things (cloths, dishes, agricultural tools) and food-in all 100 kgs. per family.

3.For the organization of the reception of the agricultural produce, live stock, farming tools, buildings, orchards and other property from the deported to form the commission, headed by the deputy of SNK (Council of Popular Commissariats)of Georgian SSR, comrade Khoshtaria, with members of commission: the representatives of “Narkommiasomolprom” of USSR, “Narkomzaga” USSR, “Narkomzoma” and “Narkomfina” of Georgian SSR.

To oblige the commission to receive all the property, left behind by the deportees, and to provide them with the personal exchange checks to each household separately for the left behind agricultural produce, grain, poultry, live stock and orchards with the indication of the estimated price for orchards.

The reception to be carried out as the following: of horses by organs of “Narkomzem” of USSR, other livestock and poultry by organs of NKMMP USSR, agricultural produce and grain by the organs of “Narkomzag”, all other property and orchards by the local organs under the directions of SNK of Georgian SSR.

4.To oblige Central Committee of Communist Party and SNK of Kazakh SSR (comrades: Skvortsov and Undasinov); Kyrgyz SSR (com:Vagov and Kulatov), and Uzbek SSR (Jusupov and Abdurakhmanov) in cooperation with NKVD of these republics to carry out all the necessary steps for the relocation and permanent accommodation of deportees:

a)To organize the placement of all deportees in kolxozs and for this purpose to allot places for living, to make repairs where needed and to prepare the buildings for the winter season;

b)To mobilize transport for transporting deportees and their property from the railway stations to the places of their permanents residence.

c)To prepare plots for deportees and farming tools for their purchase.

To finish preparatory works by November, 1 of 1944.

5. To oblige NKPS (com.Kaganovich) to prepare and send in time echelons to the stations in scheduled times by the orders of NKVD USSR for transporting deportees to Kazakh, Kirgiz and Uzbek SSR and by the request of SNK of Georgian SSR for transporting deportees inside the Republic.

6.To oblige “Narkomtorg” of USSR (com. Lubimov) to provide provision for feeding with special deportees in the way.

7. To oblige “Narkomzdrav” of USSR (com. Migarev), to provide sanitation and medical service to special deportees in their way and at places of relocation.

8.To oblige “Narkomzem” of USSR (com. Andreev), “Narkommiasomolprom” (com. Smirnov), and “Narkomzag! (com. Subbotin) in cooperation with SNK of Kazakh, Kirgiz and Uzbek SSR to give deportees in exchange to their personal exchange checks for live stock:

a)Cattle, sheep, goats and poultry before May, 1 1945

b)Grain and other agricultural produce before April, 1945

c)Horses to the Kolxoz were deportees are relocated before January, 1 1946.

To give the amounts and quality as indicated in personal checks.

9.To oblige Selkhozbank of USSR (com.Kravtsov) to provide the deportees in Kazakh, Kirgiz and Uzbek Republics loan of 7 000 rubles per family for 7 years for arranging household, building the houses and construction of farm buildings.

10. To exempt deportees, according to item 1 from agricultural produce and taxes for 1945 and to cover the prices of the orchards according to estimations given by SNK of Georgian SSR.

11. To let SNK of Georgian SSR to locate in listed in Item 1 border regions 7000 households with the population of 32 000 people, kolxoz members and others from the Georgian regions with the land deficiency.

To carry out relocation by the whole Kolxozs as well as by separate households. Places for relocation in border zone to be decided by the agreement with Administration of frontier troops of NKVD of Georgian district.

12. In order to arrange households and support remaining of relocated from the places of land deficiency places to let SNK of Georgian SSR in border zones:

a) To give to newly organized Kolkhozs and population free of charge the civil and individual buildings and all farming tools in a loan for 5 years.

b) To give relocated people plots by the maximum for the border zones norm.

c) To give Kolxozs and farms left by deportees Kolxozs and individual orchards, by the condition of covering state price of orchards during 7 years.

d) To provide the relocated households provision loan from – up to 5 centner of grain, depending on the family size.

e) To exempt newly organized Kolxozs and farmers from agricultural produce and taxes for 1945.

f) To provide assistance to relocated farmers, who did not have a live stock in purchasing cows, goats or sheep and for this purpose to allow SNK of Georgian SSR to increase the plan of contraction and purchase of live stock from farmers, workers and employees.

g) To transport farmers and their possessions to places of relocation free of charge, covered by the special fund provided to “Sovnarkom” of Georgian SSR for this purpose.

h) To begin the relocation in November of 1944 (after finishing deportation from border zone) and to finish it in 3 months period.

13. To Narkomfin of USSR (com.Zverev)

a) To provide NKVD of USSR with 30 million rubles for the operation of deportation, transportation and relocation of special deportees, and SNK of Georgian SSR with 4 million rubles for covering expenses for relocation of Kolxozs in border zone of the Republic.

b) In cooperation with “Narkomzem” of USSR, “Narkomzag” of USSR and NKMMP of USSR in a month time to present for approval to SNK of USSR recommendations on the ways of compensation of deportees from Georgian SSR for the live stock, poultry, grain and other agricultural produce, the price for orchards left in places of residence and on the ways of covering the expenses by “Narkomzem”, “NKMM” and “Narkomzag” for this operation.

14. To oblige “Glavneftesnab” (com. Shirokov) to provide for the purpose of special deportation in October-November the petrol above the fund to: NKVD of USSR-75 tones, SNK Kazakh SSR-75 tones, SNK of Kirgiz SSR-35 tones, SNK of Uzbek SSR-70 tones and SNK of Georgian SSR-100 tones.

The head of state Committee of Defense-I.Stalin

sent:comrades: Molotov, Beria (NKVD), Malenkov, Voznesensky, Andreev, Benedictov, Zverev, Central Committee; SNK Georgian SSR, Chaadaev-all.

To Smirnov-1,3,8,10,13b; Subbotin-1,3,8,11,12g,d,13b; CC CP and SNK Kazakhstan, CC CP and SNK of Kyrgyzstan and SNK of Uzbekistan and -1,4,8,9,14;

Kaganovoch-1,5, Lubimov-1,6, Miterev-1,7,Kravtsov-1,9,11,12, Shirokov-14. Vishinsky, Kavtaradze, Delkanozov, Andreev (Upr.CC18.7ns

GARF.F.R. 9401 . Op.2.D.66.L. 20-25.

Archive of president of Russian Federation. F.3.Op.5.8.D.178l. 137-142.

Source:

Procedure of deportation in Meskheti was standard, the same as used already at several times. On November 15, 1944 the marshal law was declared, people were gathered and told to collect their belongings and food for 3 days. They were given 2 hours for preparations. Declared to the population reason for deportation was their protection from the war actions as a result of expected Turkish attack. In an official document presented below deportation was justified by the need to strengthen the state border. The operation began in early morning. Studabeker cars drew people from 220 villages to railway station. Railway was finished just before the deportation, so deportees became the first passengers of the way. Deportation was deportation, so as deportees became the first passengers of so much expected railway. Deportation was carried out in an organized way. At 16 o’clock of November,17 already 81 324 Meskhetians were on their way to Asia. Only the women who were married to other nationalities were spared.

Nine regional and 259 local commissions in Kolxozs (collective farms) were formed counting 589 party and Soviet workers and 300 teachers. The commission registered all the livestock, poultry and agricultural produce left behind by deportees.

People were transported by goods tracks. Each of them contained about 90 persons. It was extremely cold in train and many were frozen to death. The dead bodies were thrown from the train or taken out at the stops and left unburied.

State Committee of Defense

To comrade Stalin I.V.

SNK of USSR comrade Molotov V.M.

CC VKP to comrade Malenkov G.M.

No 1281/b November, 28 1944

In line with the decision of State Committee of Defense of NKVD of USSR the operation of deportation of Turks, Kurds, Khemshins from the border regions of Georgian SSR.

The considerable part of these population, connected by kinship with the population of border regions of Turkey, was occupied with smuggling, revealed inclinations to immigrate and served Turkey intelligence as a source for recruiting the spying elements and propagation of bandit groups.

Preparation for deportation was carried out from September, 20 to November, 15, the protection of the border with Turkey was strengthened in order to prevent crossing of the border by persons targeted for deportation. Operation of deportation of Akhaltsikhe, Adigeni, Aspindza, Akhalkalaki and Bogdanovka regions was carried out in the period of 15-18 November of 1944, from the regions of Ajara Autonomous Republic in the period of 25-26 November of 1944.

In all 91 095 persons were deported.

All the echelons with deportees are on their way to the new places of residence in Uzbek, Kazakh and Kirgiz SSR. Deportation went on in an organized manner, without any accesses.

In above-mentioned border regions of Georgian SSR from the regions of Georgia, which experienced land deficiency 7000 households of farmers, will be resettled.

At the same time NKVD of USSR carries out special activities for strengthening border regime in the regions of Georgia bordering Turkey.

Narkom of Internal Affairs of USSR L.Beria

GARF.F.R.-9401. OP. 2D.67.L.400

Source: Bugai

53,163 people from Meskheti were resettled in Uzbekistan, 28,598 – in Kazakhstan, and 10,546 – in Kyrgyzstan. First years were especially hard for deportees. Majority was starving and was plagued with epidemics. As a result 7.5% of them died in that period. Deaths outnumbered births 11.5 times.

The gravity of the situation induced Soviet authorities to provide assistance to the deported population.

Narodni Commissariat of Internal affairs

SNK of USSR, to comrade Mikoian, A.I.

January, 13, 1945

In line with GOKO No 6279cc decision of July, 31 of 1944, 92 374 persons are deported from the border regions of Georgia to Uzbek, Kazakh and Kirgiz SSR

At the deportation Narkommaag and Narkommiasomolprom received from them grain-8252 tone, potatoes 3948 tones, vegetables.453 tones, fruit-312 tones, cattle -60 007 heads, small cattle 80 042 heads.

Many deported arrived at the places of relocation without any food. Taking this into an account I consider necessary before the final settling with them for livestock, grains, and other produce received from them at deportation, immediately assist with food in the form of prepayment for received from them grain,

giving them for the period of January, 15 to March, 15 each person 16 kg. flour and 4 kg. groats. For this is needed 148 tone of flour, 371 tone groats.

Project of directions is appended and I ask you to consider it.

Narodni Commissar of Interior Affairs of USSR L.Beria

GARF.F.R.-5446. Op.48.D3211.L.Z.

Source:Bugai

In accordance to the decision No35 of Sovet Narodnix Kommisarov from January,8 1945 on judicial conditions of special settlers for twelve years Meskhetians were not allowed without the special permission to leave the place of residence and thus were devoid of possibility to see the kin who often were resettled in different place.

Leaving special settlement zones was persecuted. Heads of the families were obliged to report on any changes (child birth, death, run away) in family in three days time. But despite strict regulations during the first four years 2671 persons, that is 0.03% of deportees made attempts to run away.

In the fifties, the situation improved and the deportees succeeded to arrange their lives in the new land. Many purchased houses and, through hard work in the fields, actually achieved higher level of affluence than the majority of local population.

April 28, 1956 marked the beginning of a new era in the life of the deported peoples. The USSR Supreme Soviet decree No135/142 lifted some restrictions from deportees, although did not allow them to return to places of original inhabitance. Another Supreme Soviet decree of October 31, 1957 allowed deportees from Georgia to resettle to Azerbaijan. This decree refers to part of deportees as ‘Azeris’ rather than Turks as it was the case back in 1944. Only on January 9, 1974, all legislative acts restricting return of Meskhetians to the places from where they had been deported were declared null and void.

.

Decree

Of the Supreme Soviet No135/142

On lifting restrictions from special deportees, Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Turks-citizens of USSR, Kurds, Khemshils and their family members, deported during the World War

April, 28 1956

Taking into an account that that existing legislative limitations for Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Turks-citizens of USSR, Kurds, Khemshils and their family members deported in 1943-1944 from North Caucasus, Georgian SSR and Crimea, are not needed any more the Supreme Soviet decides:

1. To take off from register of special settlements and to free from administrative monitoring by the organs of MVD SSR (Ministry of Internal Affairs) Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Turks-citizens of USSR, Kurds, Khemshils and members of their families deported for special resettlement during the World War.

2. State that taking off limitations from persons listed in item 1 of the present Decree, is not followed by return of property confiscated at deportation and that deportees are not allowed to return to places from where they were deported.

Chairman of Supreme Soviet K.Voroshilov

Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet n. Pegov

Source:Bugai

Decree

Presidium of Supreme Soviet

October, 31 1957

On the taking off the limitations from the citizens of SSR of Azerbaijani nationality, deported from Georgian SSR in 1944 and as in deportation of 1944 from Ajara SSR , Akhaltsikhe, Akhalkalaki, Adigeni, Aspindza, Bogdanovka regions of Georgian persons of Azeri nationality were incorrectly deported, and on them afterwards the restrictions for mobility were spread, Presidium of the Supreme Soviet decides:

1. To take off all the restrictions from the citizens of Azeri nationality deported in 1944 from Ajara SSR, Akhaltsikhe, Akhalkalaki, Adigeni, Aspindza, Bogdanovka regions of Georgian SSR to Kazakh, Kirgiz and Uzbek SSR

2. Taking into an account than the regions of Georgian SSR, from were deportation of persons of Azeri nationality took place presently are populated, and there are no possibilities of their relocation and accommodation in other regions of Republic by the statement of Georgian government is not possible, to let these citizens according to their desire to resettle in Azerbaijan SSR.

Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of USSR K.Voroshilov

Secretary of the presidium of Supreme Soviet of USSR M.Giorgadze

Source:Bugai

According to the secret document-part of the minutes of the meeting 65 of Politburo of CC of Communist party of USSR of October, 26 1972 which was distributed to the secretariat of CC CPSS and Central Committees of the Republics, and to Mjavanadze among others the limitations for choosing residence were lifted from the deported peoples, but in its second item it stated that as deportees managed to organize their lives in places of resettlement. It was highly recommended to support the deported to remain permanently at their present places of residence. Authorities also were recommended to strengthen the fight with the “display of national limitations, attempts of certain persons from the so called “Autonomists” to ignite national moods, to bend the persons of certain nationalities to move in masses to the places of previous residence”

By the 1974 Decree the limitations in the choice of residence were lifted, but this did not imply the opportunity for actual return, however. Free movement of people within the USSR was restricted for all its citizens through the institution of propiska (residence registration). In the case of Meskhetians, special border status of the whole province from which they had been deported constituted an additional and very serious impediment: nobody could even travel to this region which constituted border area between the Soviet Union and NATO without procuring a special pass from the authorities. Therefore, large resettlements of people were only possible in the event of proactive policies of the government. While the Soviet state did organize return to their homes of some peoples deported during the World War 2 (such as Chechens or Ingush), in other cases (Meskhetians, Crimean Tartars, and Volga Germans) it resisted such return. Since 1956, representatives of these peoples organized themselves in movements for return and petitioned the government on numerous occasions, but the mentioned resettlement to Azerbaijan was the most the Meskhetian community could achieve. While the authorities opposed repatriation, some Georgian dissidents and intellectuals had been sympathetic to their cause and in the 1970s and 80s actively lobbied for their return. As a result of their efforts, several hundred Meskhetian families did return to Georgia, though none of them were allowed to go back to their home area: they were settled in other parts of Georgia.

Period of liberalization

The liberalization of the Soviet regime and its following demise did not ease the condition of Muslim Meskhetians, but actually turned some of them into forced migrants once again. On June 3 of 1989, a violent intercommunal conflict started in Ferghana Valley in Uzbekistan that led to eviction of the Meskhetian community from their homes by the local Uzbeks. Before these events, 109,000 deported Meskhetians had resided in Uzbekistan. In the events of June 3-12, 112 persons were killed, 1,032 were injured, and 856 houses were burned or destroyed. The riots took place in 15 regions of Ferghana. 17,000 Meskhetians were evacuated by the Soviet Army troops. The clash repeated although on a smaller scale in February and March of 1990. This time 2,000 persons were evacuated, 4 persons were killed and 46 houses were burnt.

Soviet Army evacuated Meskhetians from the conflict zones. According to the No 503 of June, 29 1989 Decision of Council of Ministers of USSR Meskhetian Turks who were induced to fled from Uzbekistan. The Meskhetians were resettled “in the agricultural regions of “nechernazomie” (non-black soil) , which experienced a huge deficiency of work force. 2000 rubles for family head and 500 rubles for each family member were provided.

Problems arose at the places of resettlement already at the very beginning. 60% of able-bodied persons refused to work, justifying their refusal by temporary character of their stay. Many of them insisted on return to the historical place of residence and creating autonomy there.

Besides resettlement carried out by the state Meskhetians themselves went to different parts of Russia. Many settled in Krasnodar and Stavropol Krai and Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Republic, where already lived some of their relatives. Due to the difficult economic and demographic situation intolerance of local population to Meskhetians was revealed. Authorities of these regions asked central authorities to hinder the farther influx of Meskhetians and to organize the return of already arrived ones to Uzbekistan.

Willingness to take Meskhetians was not revealed by the Georgian government either. In his letter to the central committee deputy head of Council of Ministers G. Mgeladze wrote the following:

“Due to social-economic situation in Meskheti resettlement of Meskhetians can produce slowdown of economics and can worsen the social situation which can create conflict situation precedence of which we had in 1988 during the visit of different villages of the region on May 28-31 by 12 representatives of Meskhetians and the group of Georgian authorities. In numerous meetings local population expressed negative attitude to resettlement. The reasons were first of all economic, specifically lack of plots.

Meskhetians who visit the region individually express desire to return to their own houses and this creates discontent among local population.

Due to political and social tensions and above listed reasons it is recommended to abstain from repatriation of Meskhetians.”.

The attitude towards repatriation became even more negative after April 9, 1989 massacre against pro-independence demonstrators by the Soviet troops. As a consequence nationalist slogans dominated the public discourse, and internal ethnic tensions were starting to pick up. The prospect of spontaneous resettlement of thousands of people who called themselves “Turks” was considered a recipe for creation of a new source of ethnic tensions and even another ploy by the Soviet authorities to undermine the Georgian movement to independence. As a result, leaders of the Georgian national independence movement, such as Akaki Bakradze and Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who had previously supported the Meskhetian cause, reversed their position and actively opposed resettlement to Georgia of people who fled Ferghana Valley massacres or other Meskhetians, and called for at least postponing the issue until after the Georgian independence. It was since this time that sharp opposition to the return of Meskhetians turned into a steady trend of the Georgian public opinion, while only a handful of people continued to actively support the repatriation. Moreover, in a situation of anti-Meskhetian psychosis, part of them that had already resettled to Georgia was evicted from Georgia again.

3.Fight for return

From the very beginning of the movement to return, two strategic orientations, one proclaiming Georgian origins and orientation and the other Turkish origins and orientation were contesting. These were identified as two possible ways of speeding up return and it is not clear how much convictions and beliefs were behind these declarations. Many people, including the most active advocate of Turkish orientation, head of the Vatan organization Sarvarov, who at the beginning of the movement signed the documents by his Georgian original name of Didebulidze, oscillated from one position to another, based on the change in judgment of the most effective practice.

Meskhetians began to organize themselves around the repatriation issue in 1961, when Turkish society for the defense of national rights of the Turkish people in exile was founded.

In 1962, Latifshah Baratashvili and Khalil Umerov-Gozalishvili founded another movement, pro-Georgian

1964-Meeting of provisional organizing committee for the return of people to homeland (VOKO) of Turkish society for the defense of national rights of the Turkish people in exile headed by Enver Odabachev took place.

After 1968, May Order of the Presidium of Supreme Soviet Meskhetians was politically rehabilitated and was allowed “to reside on the whole territory of the USSR in accordance with existing legislation, employment and passport regulations”

7000 Meskhetians demonstrated in Tbilisi requiring return to homeland.

In May of 1970 VAKO changed the tactics of approaching central and Georgia’s party authorities and decided to appeal to Turkish Embassy in Moscow to allow emigration to Turkey of those Meskhetians who wished so. In their appeal they stated that “if the Supreme Soviet was not ready to react to Meskhetians’ demands to punish those responsible for their deportation and was not ready to form Meskhetian Turkish Autonomous Republic or province in the Georgian SSR and to organize their return than they have (to ask to be let in Turkey”) .

In February of 1986 in Kabardino-Balkaria Sarvarov chaired the meeting on liquidation of VOKO and founding the Committee of Public Representation (KNP). But soon, in April 1987 Sarvarov declared the liquidation of KNP and founding Temporary Organizational Committee (VOK) and headed it.

In 1988 Meskhetian Congress represented by 250 Meskhetians was held. Congress decided to accept a return to Georgia only under the condition of recognizing their Turkish nationality.

VOC was resolved and new organization Vatan (Fatherland in Turkish) was founded on its place. It was registered in 1991. Vatan aims at the recognition that 1944 deportation was unjust and strives for unconditional repatriation to Meskheti. Its program rests on the assumption that Meskhetians have distinct Turkish cultural identity. It wants repatriation legislation to recognize and protect their cultural heritage, to grant Meskhetians special cultural rights, such as the right to receive at least part of their education in their native tongue. Vatan defines this as a claim to cultural rather than political autonomy. Yusuf Saravarov is a chairman of Vatan. Its head office is situated in Moscow. Vatan has branches in Krasnodar of Russian Federation and an office in Azerbaijan. Vatan is the only association that is recognized by Russian authorities as representing the deported Meskhetians and it has more supporters than any other Meskhetian organization. However, it still cannot speak for the whole deported population. The majority of Meskhetians are not aware of its existence. Being preoccupied with pushing for the repatriation, Vatan is not effective in dealing with the problems that deported Meskhetians face at their places of residence.

Another non-government organization Khsna (Salvation in Georgian) founded in Kabardino-Balkaria was registered in 1992. It is chaired by Isa Ashrafov and rests on the assumption that deported Meskhetians are Turkicized Georgians. Khsna has representatives in Krasnodar Krai of the Russian Federation. It calls for repatriation to the whole territory of Georgia rather than necessarily to Samtskhe-Javakheti. However, its following is small.

Several organizations of deported Meskhetians operate in Georgia: Latifshah Baratashvili Foundation – Meskheti; Halil Gozalishvili International Association of Muslim Georgians-Gurjistan, The International Union of the Young deported Meskhetians – Meskheti. They tend towards Georgian self-identification and try to promote the Meskhetian case in Georgia and help small Meskhetian community that is already there.

Umid (Hope in Turkish) was created in 1994. It operates only in Krymsk district in Russia. The organization considers the deported population as ethnically Turkish and aims at the emigration of Meskhetians to Turkey.

Several organizations are based in the Central Asia. In Uzbekistan, Meskhetians are united in Tashkent Meskhetian Turks’ Cultural Center. The two organizations operating in Kyrgyzstan are the Association of Turks Residing in Kyrgyzstan and International Federation of Ahiska Turks of CIC countries. Both promote resettlement to Turkey.

Turkey houses thirteen associations of Meskhetians. Turkish citizens, who are descendants of natives of the province who arrived in the country before 1944 and hence did not experience deportation, run all of them. Majority of them operates in Bursa, is well organized and provides a considerable assistance to Meskhetians who arrive to Turkey. Organization of Meskhetian youth, of those who were granted state scholarship (Turkey annually invites one hundred Meskhetians from different countries of ex-Soviet Union to study at Universities) publishes a quarterly journal “Ahiska” in Istanbul.

4. Legal status of Muslim Meskhetians

Today legal status of Meskhetian population differs from one country to another and even between the regions of the same country. In the worst condition are Meskhetians living in the southern parts of Russia, namely in Krasnodar Krai, where deported Meskhetians are openly denied civil rights. According to the Russian legislation, like all Soviet citizens who had resided in the territory of Russia as of 1992, Meskhetians had the right to claim Russian citizenship. However, they are refused one. Meskhetians who reach the age of 16 are not able to get passports, and older people cannot restore them in the event of lost. Some managed to get them at the place of their previous residence in Uzbekistan. Others accepted the offer to serve in the army in exchange to getting passports, but found themselves deceived: the local authorities did not satisfy the request of the army to issue passports for them. Lack of passports and residence permits complicates their lives in numerous ways: they cannot register their marriages, hence their children carry their mothers’ rather than fathers’ family names; they cannot register purchase or sell of property such as houses or cars, neither can they obtain driver’s licenses; they are not allowed to make contracts of employment for longer than 2 months period, and they have problems in getting university education. Pensioners cannot get pensions in Krasnodar, so they have to travel to Uzbekistan to collect their moneys. Meskhetians can only get the temporary residence permits, which allows employment and studies, but is issued for six-month period only. Getting it is a costly and strenuous procedure.

Both legal and economic conditions are much better for deported Meskhetians in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. In Uzbekistan, they constitute more urban, entrepreneurial and relatively affluent part of the population. Uzbek government wants to maintain Meskhetians for economic reasons. Therefore, contrary to their kin in Russia, it is those who want to leave the country that face difficulties. Bureaucratic and financial barriers are built against renouncing Uzbek citizenship, which is a necessary condition for obtaining the citizenship of another country, such as Georgia.

About one third of the total population of deported Meskhetians, about 100,000 people, resides in Azerbaijan. They mostly live in rural areas. From 55,000 to 70,000 hold Azeri citizenship; among them up to 40,000 are registered as ‘Azeris’ and 30,000 as ‘Turks’. Many still hold Soviet passports. Like in Uzbekistan, the problem for Meskhetians residing in Azerbaijan is renouncing Azerbaijani citizenship as Azerbaijan has the policy of keeping and assimilating its Meskhetian population.

All of roughly 10 000 Meskhetians who have settled in southern parts of Ukraine after Ferghana events, have Ukrainian citizenship.

Not having a citizenship of their country of residence is not always result of the state policy. In some cases it is explained by the lack of need and economic reasons –villagers do not really need passports, obtaining of which entail costs. Many young men do not seek citizenship as they want to avoid army service.

In 1992, the Turkish Parliament adopted the law, which stipulated that 500 families of Muslim Meskhetians would be allowed to resettle in town of Igdir. Item 6 of the law stated that Meskhetians, whom the Turkey decides to admit would get double citizenship notwithstanding which country they consequently decide to reside. During 1993-1994, Turkey received only 179 families that comprised 750 persons. In the following years, the country changed its policy towards Meskhetians and ceased to support their immigration. About 12,000 people who immigrated until 1997 have a status of “national refugees” under the Law on Settlement No2510 that refers to “people of Turkish ethnic descent and Turkish culture”. Those falling in this category are entitled to migrate to Turkey, settle there and eventually receive citizenship. This status gives them access to work, education and health care. The permit is to be renewed every two years. Holders of the permit could theoretically acquire Turkish citizenship in 2 years, but in reality the process takes much more time. Presently, according to the information of Turkish embassy in Tbilisi, 25,229 Meskhetians live in the country.

Today 643 deported Meskhetians and their family members reside in Georgia, 400 among them are adults. 389 or 97.2% have Georgian citizenship and only 11 are stateless.

From the end of 1993, the repatriates were granted the status of refugees, which entailed monthly allowance of 14 GEL (about 7 USD), and free transportation in town on state owned vehicles and underground. However, in 1998, following the enactment of a new law on refugees, Meskhetians were denied such a status and respective benefits. In this law, the refugee was then defined as a person not having Georgian citizenship, for whom Georgia was not a country of origin.

Georgia’s accession to the Council of Europe (CoE) was supposed to stimulate creation of a new and firm legal grounds for solving the Meskhetian issue. The final decision of the CoE Council of Ministers to admit Georgia to the CoE on April 29, 1999 was linked to a number of obligations that Georgia took. One of such provisions stipulated that Georgia would “adopt, within 2 years after its accession, a legal framework permitting repatriation and integration, including the right to Georgian nationality, for the Meskhetian people deported by the Soviet regime; consult the Council of Europe about this legal framework before its adoption; begin the process of repatriation and integration within three years after its accession and complete the process of repatriation of the Meskhetian population within twelve years after its accession” (Parliamentary doc. 8275. Amendment 6.January, 25 1999).

In line with the requirements of Council of Europe preparations of adopting the law on repatriation are made.

Two versions of draft laws were prepared in Georgia and presented before parliamentary committees, one prepared by then head of repatriation service Guram Mamulia and the other by Georgia’s Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA). In early 2001, following hearings in the Parliamentary Committee of Civic Integration and in the National Security Council, the draft of GYLA “On Repatriation of persons deported from Georgia in 1940s by the Soviet Regime” was taken as a basis. In March 2001, an official Georgian delegation traveled to Strasbourg to discuss the draft with CoE experts. The office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, that had funded the GYLA work on the draft, also took active part in the consultations. After certain alterations, the draft was handed to the Ministry of Justice for final revisions and submitting to Parliament.

The draft law prepared by GYLA stipulates for the two-phase procedure for getting citizenship. Deported person or his or her descendent, after presenting to the representative of Georgian government in the country of his or her residence documents proving the fact of deportation, gets approval for obtaining the status of repatriate. Then she or he arrives to Georgia and can seek the citizenship after a year. During this period, repatriates are supposed to decide whether they have adapted to the local conditions and were ready to apply for the Georgian citizenship. Authors of the draft consider that the Georgian government should sign agreements with governments of all the countries where the deported population currently reside. The law does not provide for legal rehabilitation of the deportees on the ground that the crime of deportation was committed by another state – the Soviet Union, and Georgia cannot take responsibility for it.

Some groups defending interests of Meskhetians criticized the latter point, as they insist on the necessity of rehabilitation and unconditionally granting Georgian citizenship without any waiting periods. Similar objections were raised by some international experts: they demanded that any legislation pertaining to the Muslim Meskhetians should not provide for the latter lesser status than one stipulated by the 1997 Georgian law Concerning the Social Protection of Repressed Persons and Acknowledgement of Those as the Victims of Political Repression. The latter law expressly excluded deported Meskhetians on the ground that special legislation would take care of their issue.

Other criticisms of the draft issued by the experts refer to the presence of technicalities that would seriously complicate implementation of the law. Difficulty, if not impossibility of obtaining documented proof of a person’s or his ancestors’ deportation required by the draft can easily be envisaged. Another big problem refers to a possibility when the Georgian government denies to the claimant the status of a repatriate after initial endorsement by the Georgian representation at the country of residence, or denies him or her the citizenship an year later. In this case, a repatriate who first sells his property at the place of residence, cuts out his social ties and arrives to Georgia to get refusal, finds oneself in a legal vacuum and dire economic circumstances. Therefore, the deportee should have firm guarantees for obtaining Georgian citizenship before moving there. The draft also leaves a possibility of non-statelessness for some period of time, which may create a set of problem for repatriates.

There are a number of other issues in the existing draft that needs improvement. The main problem, however, is lack of movement with regards to the issue in the last period. According to Georgia’s obligations following the accession to the CoE, enactment of the law was expected by April 2001. However, as of beginning of 2002, the draft was still in the Ministry of Justice and no firm deadline for its enactment was defined. Extreme complexity of the issue, unpopularity of the repatriation among the Georgian public, as well as bitter political infighting in the Georgian parliament that led to fragmentation of the erstwhile parliamentary majority are among the reasons. However, this also means that fate of Muslim Meskhetians continues to be uncertain and not clear prospect of its resolution is in sight. .

5. Residence of Meskkhetians

Many Meskhetians found shelter in different parts of then USSR where many of them still remain. Part of them managed to go to Turkey. There is no exact data on the number of Meskhetians at different locations. Census has not been carried out in some countries of ex-Soviet Union since 1989. Situation is further complicated by the fact that deportees and their descendants are registered under different nationalities, e.g. Turks, Azeris, Uzbeks, Kazakhs and even ‘Caucasians’. The total number of Meskhetians, however, can be roughly estimated at about 300 000.

Estimation of their distribution in different countries is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Distribution of Meskhetians in different countries

Russia

According to IOM estimations (1998) 72 000 Meskhetians live in Russian Federation. They first appeared in the country in 1960 and after 1989 Ferghana events were joined by 50 000 Meskhetians, who fled Uzbekistan. Many of them live in Krasnodar krai. The choice was determined by the existence of unoccupied houses, abandoned by Crimean Tatars and Greeks since 1988, and the neighborhood to Georgia. In total 13 000 Meskhetians are settled in Krasnodar, mainly in rural areas of Krimsk (8 500), Abinsk (1 700) and Apsheronsk (1200) regions.

Russia views Meskhetians as temporal residents until their return to Georgia. Ministry of Nationalities’ affairs and the Ministry of Internal Affairs are trying to find agreement with Georgia on their repatriation. The Federal Migration Service provided Krasnodar regional authorities funds to buy houses of those Meskhetians who want to leave. Russian authorities do not recognize any responsibilities as the legal successor Of Soviet Union regarding Meskhetian issue and transfer the whole responsibility on Georgia.

Russia is apparently unwilling to deal with Meskhetians and it did not want them in the country. This policy is pursued through denying Meskhetians citizenship, although many of them qualify for it. Local authorities do not oppose if not to say support the oppression, terrorization and discrimination of Meskhetians. By actual abuse, assault and threats Cossacks, paramilitary nationalistic group operating in Krasnodar Krai, act in accord with regional government putting on Meskhetians the pressure to leave the region. Anti-Meskhetian campaign is strongly supported by local media. International agencies as well as Russian Human Rights Activists repeatedly point to the facts of violation of human rights of Meskhetians in Krasnodar.

In May 1998 Krasnodar authorities launched a campaign of pushing out Meskhetians to Turkey. Those who wanted to leave to Turkey, could sell their dwelling to the authorities and get Soviet passport valid for one year with a stamp that did not allow them to return. They entered Turkey with a tourist visa and stayed there illegally.

Meskhetians also reside in Belgorod, Rostov, Stavropol and Volgograd.

Uzbekistan

The biggest number of Meskhetians lived in Uzbekistan, as it was the major place of their resettlement, but after Ferghana events only 40000 of Meskhetians remained in the country. This mostly is a heavily urban, entrepreneurial population. Uzbek government is interested in maintaining Meskhetians due to economic reasons, so it creates a number of beurocratic and monetary hurdles against renouncing Uzbek citizenship.

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan houses the biggest number of Meskhetians. The reason originates from Soviet policy back of twenties when it tried to impose Azeri nationality on Muslim population of Meskheti. Following 1957, October 31 Decree of the Supreme Soviet of USSR on rehabilitation of Azeris deported from Georgia in 1944, they were allowed to resettle in Azerbaijan. 24 304 Meskhetians were registered as having Azeri nationality and as such went to Azerbaijan.

First small group of Meskhetians appeared in Azerbaijan on June, 24 in 1958. The group was followed by 10 000 compatriots. By 1970 about 25 000-30 000 Meskhetians were registered as Azeri. Since 1970 they came to the country as Turks. 1989 Soviet census registered 17 705 Turks in Azerbaijan, although this group is not composed solely of Meskhetians.

Next wave of Meskhetians appeared in Azerbaijan after Ferghana events in1989. By the data of State Statistic Committee on December,1 1990 in Azerbaijan were registered 43 718 Meskhetian refugees.

The biggest influx of Meskhetians comes on 1991. A considerable number of Meskhetians went to live in Nagorni Karabakh, but during the war actions a number of them perished while others fled and became IDPs. At this period in Azerbaijan also appeared Meskhetians from Georgia and Russia, who fled from intolerable for them conditions.

The total number of Meskhetians residing presently in Azerbaijan is estimated as approximately 90 – 100 000. The number comprises of 43 175 Meskhetians registered by the state statistical committee by April,1 of 1997 as Turks and 30-40 000 Meskhetians registered as Azeris.

As almost in all other countries, in Azerbaijan as well Meskhetians mostly live in rural areas, do not participate actively in political life, think of repatriation although have good relations with local population. Due to their love for work they manage to lead a decent life. They are culturally and linguistically similar to indigenous population and do not experience any specific, different from their neighbors problems. Not all have Azeri citizenship, but at the same time not all have any need of having it, due to little mobility. Many still hold Soviet passports.

Meskhetians enjoyed benevolent attitude of Azeri leaders. But the conditions of Meskhetians who came to the country before and after 1990 differed in a significant ways. Those who arrived early benefited more from the state (where settled in better places, had better possibilities of obtaining University education).

Meslhetians also get the assistance from International organizations. In 1990-1996 they received food as a humanitarian aid. Since 1997 development programs began to operate. Vatan has a contract with UMCOR ( Project ended in 2000) on the development of agriculture and medical service. The Danish Refugee Council and UNHCR also provide the assistance.

In Azerbaijan operates a branch of Vatan, which leads independent from Moscow headquarters policy and is more oriented on solving the local problems and answering to the needs of population, than any other branch of Vatan. Women’s organization affiliated with Vatan SONA operates in Azerbaijan as well. It is located in Baku and mainly deals with the distribution of humanitarian aid at Meskhetian settlements.

Majority of Meskhetians living in Azerbaijan express their desire to return to Georgia. The main reason they point in the survey carried out by IOM is the fear of repetition of Ferghana events. But when interrogated more deeply many accepted that it would be difficult to leave Azerbaijan after being there for so long, to make a new life in the country they never lived in without assistance. Overwhelming majority of Meskhetians does not speak Georgian and as indicated in IOM report for many desire to return is more political demand, when in practice many are not ready to use this possibility.

Turkey

During Soviet period Turkey kept low profile in regard of Turkic peoples living in Soviet Union. Meskhetians appeals of 1970s emigration to Turkey were left unanswered. But beginning with 1990s Turkey activated its policy. Due to linguistic affinity Turks consider Meskhetians to be their brothers assuming under it special considerations.

In 1992, the Turkish Parliament adopted the law No3835, which stipulated that 500 families of Muslim Meskhetians would be allowed to resettle in town of Igdir. Item 6 of the law stated that Meskhetians, whom the Turkey decides to admit would get double citizenship notwithstanding which country they consequently decide to reside. During 1993-1994, Turkey received only 179 families that comprised 750 persons. In the following years, the country changed its policy towards Meskhetians and ceased to support their immigration. About 12,000 people who immigrated until 1997 have a status of “national refugees” under the Law on Settlement No2510 that refers to “people of Turkish ethnic descent and Turkish culture”. Those falling in this category are entitled to migrate to Turkey, settle there and eventually receive citizenship. This status gives them access to work, education and health care. The permit is to be renewed every two years. Holders of the permit could theoretically acquire Turkish citizenship in 2 years, but in reality the process takes much more time. Presently, according to the information of Turkish embassy in Tbilisi, 25,229 Meskhetians live in the country.

Turkey is not much involved directly and openly in Meskhetian issue. Rather it tries to influence Georgian authorities to involve more actively international organizations in the solution of the problem.

Officials do not support, but neither actively opposes the immigration of Meskhetians. Almost every day in Bursa and Ankara one or two Meskhetian family from Krasnodar and Stavropol appear. The biggest community of Meskhetians is in Bursa (about 12500), many especially young people live and study in Istanbul. The youth have their organization, which consolidates around itself young people who come to Turkey by Turkish state scholarships to study at Universities. Students have one preparatory year for mastering the language. Then they take entrance exams similar as are taken by Turkish citizens but with less strict demands imposed on the performance. The youth organization has its office in Istanbul and publishes a quarterly journal Ahiska .

Ukraine

After Ferghana events 10 000 Meskhetians settled in 12 regions of South Ukraine.. They were well received and live in harmony with locals, but fear the loss of ethnic identity and non-violent assimilation. All of them have Ukrainian citizenship

6. Meskhetians in Georgia

6.1. Position of the state

Georgian authorities routinely acknowledge that forcible deportation of Muslim Meskhetians has been an unjustifiable act of cruelty. However, it is usually added that the Georgian state or society cannot be held responsible for the deeds of the Soviet regime. Georgia had never much say in the decisions taken by the Communist party leadership in Moscow. This was especially true during the Stalin rule, but even in a relatively relaxed post-Stalin regime Georgia just had to follow instructions from above. Moreover, while the Soviet government made overtly liberal decisions that seemed to lift restrictions for the Meskhetians, these were often accompanied by secret instructions that ran contrary to the ostensibly official policy. Good example for such practice is contained in the minutes of the October 26, 1972 meeting of the Politburo of Central Committee of the Soviet Communist party, which recommended to strongly encourage the deported population to remain permanently at their present places of residence while the published law had already lifted all legal restrictions on their return.

However, the fact of the matter is that the Soviet Georgian authorities were far from welcoming the repatriation.. No steps to encourage repatriation were taken either under the leadership of Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first democratically elected president of independent Georgia.

Since 1993, the government began to take some measures for assisting the repatriation process. Small groups of Meskhetian students were admitted from the CIS countries. The government provided them a hostel, an adaptation center and an opportunity to study. The Meskhetians studied language and history at the adaptation center and attended preparatory courses for Universities. Upon completion, they continued their studies at Universities or in vocational schools. The scheme is still operating. Currently Meskhetians study not only in Tbilisi, but also in the Akhaltsikhe branch of Tbilisi State University.

In 1994, the Repatriation Service was established under the Ministry of Refugees and Settlement to provide assistance to repatriates and to coordinate efforts for further repatriation. In 1999, the State Commission on the Repatriation and Rehabilitation of the Population Deported from Southern Georgia was established.

Despite this small scale progress, the Georgian government – as it was discussed above – is dragging its feet with regards to creation of a clear overall framework for solving the repatriation issue. The main problem is extreme unpopularity of the repatriation with the Georgian public. While international obligations, a wish to comply – or to be seen complying – with general liberal values and pressure from human rights organizations prevent the Georgian government from contesting the right of the deported population to return, almost no party or politician who cares for popular supports wants to be perceived as an active champion of the repatriation. Conversely, some political capital may be gained from publicly resisting it. This is especially true of politicians from Samtskhe-Javakheti, for whom strong anti-repatriation stance is the absolute must.

Passivity of the state in a considerable degree is determined by existing restrictions, which can be conceptualized as the following:

Possibilities to support repatriates. Georgian economy is in a dire state. Poverty is the most pressing problem. According to the World Bank Report (Georgia-poverty and income distribution, 1999) about a half of the population can be considered poor by official poverty line. As a result of ethnic clashes with Ossetians and Abkhazians, country with the population of 5 millions has up to 300000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDP-s). State is unable to pay in time even the negligable allowences and pensions to IDP-s which often provokes demonstartions.

Seccesionist trends. Having faced and lost sessecionist wars with Osetia and Abkhazia state is reluctant to create new source of conflict and of disintegration. Some organizations of deported Meskhetians insist on resettlement in Meskheti and declare their desire after repatriation to unite with bordering Turkey.

Public discontent. State is afraid of negative reaction of local population to the influx of Meskhetians. Repatriation long ago became a political issue. A number of political figures use it as a means for getting public support and an instrument for mobilization of people.

Clash over scarce resources. There is already some tension over the rooms between IDP-s and Meskhetians living in the same building. Mass repatriation can result in an open confrontation.

Interests of other countries. Georgian government cannot ignore the concerns of Armenian government. About more than half of the total population of Meskheti (130000 by the 1989 census) are of Armenian ethnicity and traditionally anti-Turkish. Interests of other countries are not much articulated due to different political reasons, but cannot be ignored. Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan are all involved in the issue of repatriation.

6.2. Pattern of repatriation

The first Meskhetians appeared in Georgia In 1969. At that time four hundred families arrived from Azerbaijan and resettled in Achigvara State Farm of Gali region (Western Georgia), but soon they were pressed by local authorities to leave. They went to Kabardo-Balkaria (Autonomous Republic in Russian Federation).

The second wave of arrivals began in 1982. From that time and until 1990 1 270 Meskhetians moved to Georgia. However because of ethnic conflicts and economic difficulties the majority was forced out again.

According to the survey made in 1999 there are 643 repatriates in Georgia. Among them are 400 adults (221 males and 179 females) and 243 children ( 130 males and 113 females). In all 120 families and 64 single students reside in Georgia. On average family consists of five members.

Table 1

Age composition of Meskhetians

Age	Number	%
0-5	66	10
6-13	111	17
14-17	66	10
18-29	166	26
30-49	158	25
50-69	57	9
70>	19	3
Total	643	100

Source: Meskhetians in Georgia and their status

Meskhetians reside in 17 locations.

Table 2

Settlement of Meskhetians in Georgia

No	Place of residence	Number	%
1	Ozurgeti Region, Guria
	Nasakirali	137
	Naruji	47
	Subtotal	184	28.6
2	Samtredia Region, Imereti
	Akhali Ianeti	148	23
	Subtotal	148	23
3	Tbilisi	90	14
4	Khelvachauri Region, Ajaria
	Gonio	3
	Akhalsheni	9
	Khelvachauri	46
	Ureki	11
	Qveda Sameba	7
	Subtotal	76	11.8
5	Akhaltsikhe Region, Meskheti
	Akhaltsikhe	60
	Mugareti	2
	Subtotal	62	9.6
6	Kobuleti Region, Ajaria
	Tsetskhlauri	15
	Tskavrorka?	8
	Ochkhamuri	18
	Subtotal	41	6.5
7	Khashuri Region, Kartli
	Tskhramukha	26
	Agarebi	3
	Subtotal	29	4.5
8	Batumi, Ajaria	13	2
	Total	643	100

Source: Meskhetians in Georgia and their status

Figure 2

Distribution of Meskhetians in different regions of Georgia

45.3 % of repatriates (291 persons) were born in Georgia, among them 10% (64 persons) before the deportation. Remaining 352 persons were born in different CIS countries.

Table 3

Country of birth of repatriates

Country	Number	%
Georgia	291	45.3
Uzbekistan	177	27.5
Azerbaijan	124	19.3
Kazakhstan	29	4.5
Russia	15	2.3
Kyrgyzia	5	0.8
Ukraine	2	0.3
Total	643	100

Source: Meskhetians in Georgia and their status

227 persons were born in repatriate families after resettling in Georgia so among returnees 416 persons entered Georgia. Before resettling in Georgia the majority (57.5%) resided in only one country, 35.8% in two countries and 6.7% in more than two.

Figure 3

Years of repatriation

Source: Meskhetians in Georgia and their status

As can be seen from Figure 3 the majority repatriated before 1993. If at the first years of repatriation Meskhetians were relocated in six different regions and two towns, with the biggest share coming on Ozurgeti and Samtredia regions (62.8%) and Tbilisi (12.4%), in later years resettlement took place mainly in Akhaltsikhe Region (2.7% of before 1993, 23% of 1994-1996 and 63% of 1997-2000 returnees). Share of those residing in Tbilisi decreased (12.4% of before 1993, 6.5% of 1994-1996 and 4.8% of 1997-2000 returnees).

It should be noted that repatriates who reside in Ajara came to live with their relatives who were spared the deportation.

24% of surveyed by Union of Georgian Repatriates pointed that the place of their residence was determined by Georgian authorities, studies was named as the reason of location by 16.6%, former place of residence of family by 11.8% and joining the family by 38.5%.

As a motive of return majority (76.7%) named desire to return to motherland, remaining 23.3% reunion with the family.

Table 4

Countries from which Meskhetians came to Georgia

No	Country	Number	%
1	Azerbaijan	203	48.8
2	Uzbekistan	106	25.5
3	Russia	49	11.8
4	Kazakhstan	42	10.1
5	Kyrgizia	11	2.6
6	Other	3	0.7
7	Ukraine	2	0.5
	Total	416	100

Source: Meskhetians in Georgia and their status

6.3. Public opinion on repatriation and problems of adaptation of Meskhetians

The attitude of the Georgian public towards the idea of repatriation can be described as predominantly negative. This attitude is reflected in publications, TV discussions, various meetings as well as in public opinion surveys. In the province of Samtskhe-Javakheti, it is overwhelmingly negative. There is small difference between attitudes of Georgian and Armenian communities there, though Armenians tend to be even more negative than Georgians.

Main reasons of such attitude can be conceptualized as the following:

Competition. Suffering under economic hardships, an influx of any group is perceived rather sensitively by the population. IDP-s from Abkhazia, being undubiously ethnically Georgian, speaking the same language and having the same confession as local population, are perceived aggressively by many as are seen as competitors for scarce resources of employment or plots. Much more negative is attitude of population towards deported Meskhetians. The formation of such attitude began already in XIX by special services first of Russian Empire and later of the Soviet Union. Today some politicians fuel the threats of repatriation. First of all threats concern competition for land. 43.2% of household monthly expenditure (in cash or in kind) is allocated to food. A bit less than one-third of country‘s population is occupied in agricultural production (Georgia-poverty and income distribution, 1999). Therefore posession of a plot acquires a survival valie. Tensions over land ownership are already apparent among the local population. In May 13, 2001 inhabitants of Vale made a protest demonstration demanding distribution of land which was rented by authorities to agricultural cooperation.. Inhabitants of region fear that repatriates will reclaim their land and property presently occupied by 30000 persons and their descendants who were also forcibly resettled from the Western part of Georgia.

Demographic threats. Population believes that mass repatriation of Meskhetians will soon change the demographic structure in Georgia due to high reproduction rate of Meskhetians. In last decades birth rate was not high in Georgia, but now due to poverty it declined dramatically from 16.6 births per 1000 population in 1991 to 10.7 in 1997 (Human Development Report-Georgia, 1998).

Religious threats. Population believes that the influx of Moslems will pose threat to Christian Orthodox Church.

Existing in attitudes may be widely divided into three categories. Many people are radically opposed to the idea of repatriation and even deny the very right of the deportees to return. More moderate people admit that the idea of repatriation is justified as a matter of principle but under difficult circumstances that Georgia faces, a repatriation en masse, especially the return of all the repatriates to the same area from which they have left, is unacceptable. Therefore, repatriation should take place, if at all, only gradually and under the strict control of the government. It is only a handful of people that advocate repatriation without any conditions attached to it. The existing official draft law (prepared by GYLA) may be considered to reflect the second attitude, while the one submitted by the Repatriation Service, is based on the third attitude.

Both the opponents and supporters agree that public opinion is mainly against the repatriation. The supporters, on the other hand, mainly appeal to human rights values in general and Georgia’s international obligations in particular. Therefore, in the last years the opponents have largely redefined the issue as “the Council of Europe vs. national interests of Georgia”. Therefore, there have been statements that if the CoE insists on the repatriation, Georgia should quit membership in this organization. Such a turn is notable as joining CoE in 1999 has been widely popular and welcomed by all political forces.

Ethnic identity of the deportees plays an important role. It has to be noted, that opponents of the repatriation tend to denote the potential repatriates almost exclusively as “Turks”, while the supporters tend to stress their Georgian origin. Some groups that champion repatriation do so mainly on the ground that deportees are really Georgians, even if Turkicized, although there are others – a relatively small group – who think that ethnic affiliation of the deported population cannot be the decisive factor as far as injustice was done to them and they should be able to return if they so wish.

Being fully aware of the power of national identity as a tool for monitoring repatriation process, deported Meskhetians seem to tailor their presentation of national belonging according to own interests or the interests of political forces, engaged in the process. For the Turkish oriented organization “Vatan” deported are Turks and should return to Georgia as Turks at the place from which they were deported, notwithstanding the fact that soon after deportation people from other parts of Georgia were relocated at the region. More extremist part of the organization claims that eventually the paths will be followed to form an autonomy and reunite with neighboring Turkey. On the opposite side is Georgian oriented organization “Khsna” who asks it members to regain their Georgian family names and give the obligation that their children will attend Georgian schools.

For obtaining a better picture of public opinion on repatriation in collaboration with the Center for Geopolitical Studies we carried out the study among the repatriated Meskhetians and their neighbors. It aimed to assess self-presentation of repatriates in regard to national identity, to find out the factors hindering their adaptation to local communities, to measure attitude and perceptions of local population towards deported Meshketians.

7.1. Empirical study

7.2. Sample characteristics

In all 154 (52% male and 48% female) repatriated Meskhetians were interviewed in Tbilisi, capital of Georgia (27.9%) and in two regions of Western Georgia, Guria (35.7%) were repatriates live in multi-ethnic surrounding and Imereti, where they have a compact settlement (36.4%).

Age of respondents ranged from 18 to 81 years olds (M=35.3, SD=14.7). Majority of respondents were born in Uzbekistan, where they were relocated initially after deportation.

39.6% of the sample had high education and 22.1% had 8 classes of education. 12.4% were students.

71.4% of respondents had Georgian, 12.2% Azerbaijanian and 0.7% Russian citizenship. 15.6% possessed no citizenship. Among respondents 14.3% have been deported themselves, however the majority - 67.5% were younger, in fact children of those who experienced deportation. The earliest date of arrival to Georgia of our respondents was 1966. The biggest share of arrivals falls on the period of 1982-

Figure 4

Time of arrival of Meskhetian respondents to Georgia

1986. Respondents lived in Georgia on average for 13 years (SD=6.5). The latest arrivals are more frequent in Tbilisi –85.7% of interviewed in the capital live there less than 8 years (M=6.3; SD=4.8). These are mostly young people who came from Azerbaijan to get University education. In Guria respondents on average live for 16.9 years (SD=5.1) and in Imereti, where they have a compact settlement for 14.5 years (SD=4.6). Almost half of the respondents arrived from Azerbaijan, 31.2% came from Uzbekistan, 14.3% from Russia, the rest from Kirgizia and Kazakhstan.

441 respondents (55% female and 45% male) representing local population in the age range of 16-81 (M=42.2; SD=15.1) were interviewed. 69.2% had a personal contact with Meskhetians through living in neighborhood (34.2%), working or studying together (7%) or in other way (27.9%).

Interviews were taken in the same location as interviews with Meskhetians-50.5% in Tbilisi, 23.6% in Guria and 25.9% in Imereti.

7.1.2. Main results

National identity

77.4% of Meskhetian respondents consider themselves Georgians, more 12.3% think in much narrower than national or ethnic terms, of being Meskhetian, 4.8% cannot classify the self in regard to nationality, 3.4% perceive themselves as Turks and 2.1%

name other nationality.

As for local population 42.6% or respondents consider Meskhetians as to be Georgians, 33.3% Turks and 24.1% others.

So Meskhetians perceive themselves much more as Georgians and less as Turks than are perceived by locals.

To measure attitude of Meskhetians towards Georgians and Turks and of locals towards Meskhetians and Turks Bogardus Social Distance Scale was incorporated in the interviews. Respondents were asked to choose one from the seven presented options, whether respondent would accept representative of respective ethnic group as: related through marriage, a friend, a neighbour, co-worker, grant citizenship, or not allow in the country.

Meskhetians showed greater distance to Turks than to Georgians.

Figure 5

Social distance of Meskhetians towards Georgians and Turks demonstrated by Meskhetian respondents

As can be seen in Figures 5 and 6 Meskhetians have considerably smaller social distance to Turks than local respondents (21.4% of Meskhetians and 6.5% of

Figure 6

Social distance to Meskhetians and Turks demonstrated by local respondents

Georgians accept marriage to Turkish persons in family). They also showed more positive attitude to Georgians than Georgians to them (62.7% of Meskhetians approve marriage of family member of Georgian, while only 20.8% of Georgians are ready to accept marriage to Meskhetian).

Respondents were asked to choose from the provided list of twelve any number of features characterizing Georgians, Meskhetians and Turks

Figure 7

Evaluation of Meskhetians, Georgians and Turks by repatriates

Graph 7

Evaluation of Turks, Georgians and Meskhetians by local respondents

As is evident from Figures 7 and 8 both, Meskhetians and locals characterized themselves in the most positive and Turks in the most negative way. Repatriates and locals perceive each other in a more similar way than either of them perceive Turks.

In general respondents do not have good command of Georgian language. 80.7% pointed that they encountered problems with language at the time of arrival. Now language still comprises a problem for 64.6%.

Less than a half of our respondents (46%) were able to answer our questions in Georgian. The majority (84.7%) did not know Georgian before arrival. Now 71% can speak Georgian. According to respondents’ memories, the parents of 64% of them talked with children in, as they call it, Anatolian (which should be interpreted as Anatolian dialect of Turkish, but the latter term is rather avoided), and of 15% recall talking with their parents in Turkish. Majority of respondents (65.3%) continue to use the same Anatolian when talking with their spouses. While 47.9% of respondents continue to speak Anatolian to their children, the proportion of those who talk with their children in Georgian is obviously increasing and is significantly bigger than in case of the previous generation of respondents‘ parents - now 16% claim to talk with their children in Georgian, while only 6% of respondents remember to communicate with parents in their childhood in Georgian. More 24.4% talk with children on both Anatolian and Georgian. Naturally, most respondents claim to know what they call Anatolian best of all. The tendency of wider use and an improvement of the command of Georgian are evident, while importance of Turkish does not diminish.

Figure 9

Language known best

Similar to Meskhetians local residents (27.6%) also consider bad knowledge of Georgian as a main source of problem for adaptation of Meskhetians to local community. 72.3% think that Meskhetians have the problems with Georgian and by the opinion of 81.1% returnees should get assistance in language acquisition.

Feelings associated with living in Georgia

It seems that Meskhetians are rather satisfied with their living in Georgia. Different indirect indicators, like the desired place of residence and advice to other Meskhetians to return, point to this. E.g. Majority of Meskhetian respondents pointed to Meskheti (57.8%) and other places (38.2% ) in Georgia as desired place of residence. The biggest portion of respondents also wishes that their children live in different parts of Georgia (42.8%) and more specifically in Meskheti (30.3%).

So the desire to live in Meskheti is prevalent, despite the fact that 53.9% of respondents have never been there but is less pronounced in regard with desired residence for children.

94.7% is willing to advise Meskhetians to return to Georgia.

Attitude of local population to repatriation

73.4% of local respondents think that Meskhetians should be repatriated. From them 46.4% name justice as the reason for repatriation.

Big portion of respondents is for imposing limitations on repatriation process. According to 56.4% knowledge of Georgian and/or Georgian self-identity should be a prerequisite for repatriation. 21.6% considers that returnees should not be allowed to live in Meskheti.

26.6% is against repatriation. Among them 61.1% names as a reason for their position probability of Meskhetians forming autonomy with a prospect of reunion with Turkey.

Local population associates with a repatriation a host of fears and concerns. The fears concern not only economics, e.g. decrease of economic opportunities through increased competition for employment (64.6%) and for plots (65.1%), but also politics, i.e. increase of Turkish influence (54.9%) and conflict (52.3%). It is worth noting that next to the threats population also considers possibilities of positive outcomes, as increase of international assistance (54.7%) and economic growth (54.8%).

Social capital and adaptation of Mesckhetian repatriates

A social network is a powerful resource through which a person can reach her or his goals. Network of relationships, their quality and accessibility in many ways determine quality of life. Its well functioning becomes especially vital in periods of major changes and crises, experienced personally or in mass. Networks provide support and in this way buffer the harmful effect of stressful event. It is well documented that a perception of unavailability of support or failure of actually obtaining it has a detrimental effect on longevity, physical and mental. Relocation is a stressful event, which may have long-lasting negative effect as along with other things, it is generally experienced as a loss of established social surroundings. Successful adaptation to the novel environment greatly depends on existence of social networks. Hence networks can be understood as a social capital, which can in a certain extent determine the success or the failure of adaptation.

Adaptation itself is a complex process and consists of several phases. Initial stage, usually characterized by the positive feelings towards new culture is followed by the period when difficulties of everyday living, often matched with inability to speak native language become salient. The data points out that at this period people especially value others in similar conditions with which they can share and compare own concerns, validate beliefs and perceptions. Feeling of lack of control due to poor understanding of prevalent culture is a usual outcome of this phase. After this person can pursue on of the following paths: one can either take no farther steps for adjustment, close in herself or restrict her communication as much as possible to co-nationals or people of the similar fate, or can actively begin coping through communicating with natives and learning more about the local culture. Following the later path person consequently learns the norms and habitual ways of conduct and gains deeper understanding of the host culture. In fact there are three possible final scenarios of adjustment: 1.Communicate predominantly with representatives of own culture and also behave according to the norms of own culture; 2.Become bi-cultural; and 3. Go native.

Choice of the scenario is greatly determined by the features of social environment such as the possibilities of contact with local population, attitude of locals to the newcomers; personal resources such as communication skills, knowledge of language and culture of host country; and the pressing need of integration, such as living among local population versus living with among representatives of own group.

Pattern of living of Meskhetians demonstrate special importance of social capital to them. Results of the survey serve as a proof of this importance. Family life was the second, preceded only by health, most often chosen value from the listed eleven important aspects of life by repatriates. 51% considered it as one of the three most important things in life. Relationships with kin were chosen by 22.5% and relationships with friends by 19.1% of respondents.

Respondents‘ children and spouses mostly live in Georgia. As for the parents, about the half of them live in Georgia, the similar is the situation with father/mother –in-laws. More syblings and nieces/nephews live outside Georgia than in Georgia.

Figure 10

Residence of family members

Although 84.7% of our respondents live presently with their family or other kin, still living apart from kin is perceived by Meskhetians as persisting and the most acute problem. Its severity increased a little with the time, if 91.4% estimated it as the problem looking back at the moment of their arrival, 92.4%% considered it as such at the time of survey. As for problems associated with other types of relationships, i.e. with colleagues, local population and friends the problem diminished with the time. Especially great was decrease in problem of relationship with local population. This was the biggest problem among relationships at the time of arrival, while presently the biggest problem is formation of friendship.

Figure 11

Problems encountered at the time of arrival and presently

Relationships with local population seem to be ones that need time. Significant difference in estimation of this problem was found between those who lived in Georgia less and more than 10 years (Chi-square=9.6, p<.05). More people with shorter (57.1%) than bigger length of residence (42.9%) perceived it as a problem at the time of survey.

Difficulties in relationships with colleagues and getting friends was much less among Meskhetians living in Guria, where as mentioned above they live next to people of different nationalities, than either Meskhetians living compactly in Imereti or those living in Tbilisi.

20.1% named desire to be near relatives as their motive for settlement in Georgia.

Meskhetians keep close contact with the kin who lives in the same town/village. 86.2% have a contact with them several times a week. Contacts with kin are more vived in Imereti. 94.1% of respondents reported meeting kin several times a week, In Guria 85.4% of those respondents who had kin locally met with them several times, and in Tbilisi only 66.7% didi so.

Meskhetians have relationships with Meskhetian neighbours. 73.2% of respondents often visit them. Most often neighbours are visited in Guria (84.1%), than in Imereti (71.7%) and least of all in Tbilisi (63.2%).

Meskhetians were asked to name number of their Meskhetian and non-Meskhetian friends in place of residence and outside it. Many respondents avoided answering the question, naming numbers 100, 300, 500 or even 3000, or by just saying „many“. In statistical analyses we considered as missing all the numbers exceeding 100, as well as an answer „many“. Meskhetians named on average 12.8 (SD=19.5) friends living in the same place, e.g. in Tbilisi for Tbilisi residents, etc. Inhabitants of Tbilisi report the biggest number of Meskhetian friends (M=28.7, SD=28.1). Respondents in Guria have on average 7.3 (SD=9.1) and in Imereti 5.2 ( SD=6.7) friends. In all three locations respondents reported having more Meskhetian friends outside the place of their residence, namely 33.3 (SD=41.3), than in the location: Respondents in Tbilisi reported as having on average 31.5 (SD=36.5), in Guria 35.9 (SD=44.3) and in Imereti 30.4 (SD=41.4). Respondents named less number of non-Meskhetian friends both locally 11.8 (SD=25), as well as outside place of residence 10.9 (SD=27.3). Locally in Tbilisi respondents reported having on average 25.6 (SD=37), in Guria 6 (SD=10.5) and in Imereti 5.3 (SD=16.6) friends. Outside the place of residence Tbilisi respondents named having on average 22.8 (SD=46.8), respondents in Guria 4.1 (SD=4.9) and in Imereti 7 (SD=10.1) non-Meskhetian friends.

Respondents meet both Meskhetian and non-Meskhetian friends several times a week, but more (74.2%) meet so often with Meskhetian than non-Meskhetian friends (52.3%). More respondents in Imereti (78%) had contact with their Meskhetian friends than respondents living in Tbilisi (76.2%) or Guria (70.4%).

It seems that the need to have possibilities of contact with local population determines Meskhetians preference to live rather next to local population than Meskhetians. Majority (78.4%) of respondents expressed desire to live with locals.

Most of all wanted to live next to native inhabitants respondents living in Imereti (83.9%) and least of all those, living in Tbilisi (62.8%). 81.8% of those living in Guria expressed desire to live next to natives.

Integration of newcomers is a two way process in which the attitudes of representatives of the host culture play an important role. Our study concedntrated on the social mileu in which adaptation takes place, on the perception by local population of Meskhetians, their problems and issues of repatriation. We were also interested in the role that personal contacts played in shaping the attitude towards repatreates and the repatriation. For this goal as outlined above,interviews with local population, on one hand with those being in contact with Meskhetians and on the other with those, not having contact with them were carried out.

In regard to problems facing Meskhetinas concerning their relationships, local population perceives all of them, except difficulties living apart from kin much more gravely than Meskhetians themselves. Besides locals who do not know Meskhetians give more extreme evaluations than those who know Meskhetians.

Figure 12

Perception of problems of Meskhetians by local population

Local population has relationship with Meskhetians but the frequency of contacts with them is much less than with non-Meskhetinas. If 79.2% report visiting their non-Meskhetian neighbours often, only 57% do so in regard to Meskhetian neighbors. Contact with Meskhetian neighbours more often (in case of 23.5% respondents) than meeting non-Meskhetians (in case of 6.2%) is restricted to meeting them only in common space.

The similar is the situation with friends. 68.6% of respondents meet their non-Meskhetian friends and 54.5% Meskhetian friends several times a week.

Contact with Meskhetians determines more positive perception of Meskhetians and more similarity to the perception of Georgians. This is revealed in answers to the checklist describing characteristic features of Georgians and Meskhetians, as well as perception of ethnic identity of Meskhetians. As is shown in Table 5 significant differences between those being in contact and not being in contact with Meskhetians was found in evaluations of nine out of eleven personality features describing Meskhetians.

Table 5

Difference in evaluations of Meskhetians

	Feature	Chi-square	p
1	Kind	6.3	<.05
2	Lazy	8.9	<.05
3	Loyal		n.s
4	Unreliable	7.4	<.05
5	Helpful	5.8	<.05
6	Trustworthy	4.9	<.05
7	Understanding	7.5	<.05
8	Sincere		n.s
9	Strong	5.5	<.05
10	Miserable	5.5	<.05
11	Honest	28.4	<.001

Figure 13

Perception of features of Georgians and Meskhetians

More people who are in contact (43.9%) perceive Meskhetians as Georgians opposed to those (39.5%) who do not personally know Meskhetians.

Contact not only decreased the distance to Meskhetians but also contributed in forming more positive attitude to repatriation. 30.3% of those who do not know Meskhetians and 26.5% of those who know them believe that Meskhetians should not be repatriated.

Contact with Meskhetians seem to decrease the fears of the population. Non-compact resettlement of Meskhetians advocate 54.7% of those respondents in contact and 47.8% of those not in contact with Meskhetians. As a whole contact proved to result in a more positive outcome. 48% of those in contact with Meskhetians point that knowing them changed their attitude towards Meskhetians to the better, while for 13.2% the image of Meskhetians became worse.

7.1.3. Conclusions

Before the beginning of the study we were aware and our results confirmed our expectations that due to gains of demonstrating Georgian national identity not all the results of our study could be taken at their face value. Thoughts, feelings, attitudes and concerns manifested by our Meskhetian respondents more reflect the facade that they put out in their relationship with the surrounding and can be in a considerable degree assumed to depend on the features of this surrounding. Nevertheless study allowed us to unveil some concerns of repatriates and local population hindering adaptation of Meskhetians. The results allow for planning the process of repatriation in a way minimizing possible tensions and conflicts among returnees and locals, to identify spheres where Meskhetians need for assistance is more pressing and to find ways for the formation in population of a more positive attitude towards Meskhetians.

Many of the problems of adaptation and integration of the repatriated Meskhetians are linked to much debated controversy of their group identity. Whatever arguments might be used by supporters of one or another theory (dubious toponymic or similar arguments are applied in order to prove their dominant Turkic, or, respectively, Georgian origin), it is clear that both Georgian and Turkic elements played certain roles in formation of the group known today as Meskhetian Turks or Muslim Meskhetians or Ahiska Turkleri. However, controversy in perception of national identity, among Meskhetians themselves, the Georgian population at large, and international supporters of the case, continue to play important role in developing attitudes and policies. This controversy, juxtaposed over the gloomy experience of deportation and victimisation, makes it extremely difficult to measure in reasonable methodology not only the self-identification of Meskhetians, but also their attitude toward any issue even remotely related to such identity and perceived as having impact on the chances of repatriation and rehabilitation. In fact many respondents avoided answering questions concerning Turks and refused to express their attitude towards Turks. Results of the study give reliable evidence for closer links with Georgian than Turkish identity among the majority of respondents. This can be interpreted either to the existing before repatriation orientation or the effect of Georgian cultural surrounding. But still lack of clear-cut national identity among deported is evident. The need of belonging prompts to find replacement to national identity. Labelling of deported people as Meskhetian or Ahiska Turks (Akhaltsikhe, name of town in Meskheti in Turkish) contributed to replacement national with a group identity based predominantly on narrow geographical location and in a lesser degree in combination with language, religion and collective memory of trauma. Obscurity of national identification can be seen as a major reason hindering to build potent organisation and movement for repatriation and a reason that makes Meskhetians prey of politicians.

Refusal of declaring Georgian identity by Meskhetians living outside Georgia seem to fuel the feeling of national humiliation of Georgian population which is intensified as a result of secession of autonomous entities of Oseti and Abkhazia. The fears of population of a possibility of a similar threat from Meskhetians cannot be considered irrational. Competition for land, accommodation and market, demographic and religious threats, increased influence of Turkey is still other issues that population associates with repatriation of Meskhetians. Problems being real, their scope is much inflated by politicians.

Our study demonstrated a need of deeper study of the problems of repatriation among local population and Meskhetians living in different countries. Results pointed to the possibilities of planning repatriation process in a way, which can minimise possibilities of conflict and can increase the chances of effective adaptation of Meskhetians to the host culture.

Repatriation process should accommodate for the use of social capital of returnees in the best possible way. For succesful integration person needs old ties with family, kin and friends to ensure continuity of own identity and also new ties, to better undestand the new culture and incorporate in self- concept new features, needed for adaptation.Thus social network should provide both continuity and the change for the person. Our study demonstrated that living among the local population seems to put pressure to contact locals, to learn more about prevailing norms and language and thus results in better integration. Attitude of local population also becomes more favourable as a result of contact with repatriates.

8. Conclusions and recommendations

Repatriation is a moral imperative for the Georgian state and society. It should be thoroughly planned to avoid conflict and worsening of the living environment for people who have already experienced horror of deportation twice. At the same time, repatriation should not turn out against the interests of the local population who is in dire economic conditions and has almost no access to social benefits. Repatriation also should correspond to interests and security of the Georgian state. Realism with regards to options that the state has should prevail in the planning and implementation of the process of repatriation.

Adoption of a good law on repatriation is the most urgent and important issue. “Good” means that it should outline mechanisms that will promote successful integration of returnees with the local population and reduce the potential of conflict – but it also should be implementable, that is realistic. Moreover, it should avoid pitfalls such as throwing repatriates into a legal vacuum on any stage of the process or encouraging repatriation for transitory solutions, such as getting citizenship only for obtaining legal status enabling further emigration, or for getting property in order to sell it. It should spell out clearly such issues as possibilities of property restitution, rights and obligations of the status of repatriate (if such special status is envisaged by the law), as well as provide for the rights of those who fail to meet conditions for citizenship within a given period. The law has to clarify issues concerning the documented proofs of belonging to deported population that will not create insurmountable bureaucratic obstacles to the repatriates. The mechanisms for warranting the transparency of the process of repatriation should be worked out. The state should formulate reasonable requirements for citizenship.

Apart for the law, a set of policies should be planned for successful implementation of the repatriation process. Among other things, such policies should be based on careful study of attitudes, concerns and fears of the deported population on the one hand and the local population on the other.

Repatriation process should rest on the guiding principles outlined by 1996 CIS conference, conclusions of the Hague meeting and other recommendations by different experts. They can be summarized as the following:

· The need of voluntary and orderly return, regulation of the status of Meskhetians in the countries of their present residence. As it was already outlined, the legal status as well as conditions of Meskhetians and the level of their integration varies considerably in countries of their present residence. The repatriation may be regarded truly voluntary in the event it is not induced by the conditions at the present place of residence and is not aimed at escaping such a situation. Therefore, efforts should be directed towards regulating and improving legal status and living conditions of Meskhetians. This requires interstate cooperation as well as using leverage of international organizations.

· Accessibility of full and objective information on the situation in the country. For many, especially elderly Meskhetians repatriation has acquired symbolic meaning and is linked to a mythologized image of homeland that hardly corresponds to reality. Georgian government has to provide Meskhetians at the places of their present residence with the reliable information on economic, social and political situation in the country. This should include detailed data on the chances of assistance that can be obtained (e.g. housing and payment schemes, availability of land plots, employment and education opportunities, etc.) as well as obligations to be fulfilled by the repatriates (service in the army). The repatriates should have access to information on requirements and procedures for obtaining citizenship.

· Assistance in integration. Collective memories of deported Meskhetians abound in images of oppression and abuse. They have been subjected to manipulations by different countries and powers. This may account for their traditional alienation from local inhabitants in different areas of residence, and strong internal community ties as witnessed by a number of observers. Therefore, special effort is required to ensure the integration of repatriates in new locations. Possibilities of contact and command of language are the two obvious factors facilitating integration. Repatriated Meskhetians acknowledge importance of these factors by expressing preference to living next to local population. Unlike most other countries where Meskhetians now live, Georgia is rather small and Meskhetians may not necessarily need compact settlements to retain kinship and social ties among themselves. But establishing cultural centers for Muslim Meskhetians is to be promoted. Opportunities for the acquisition of Georgian language are preferable to be provided even before repatriation. Special cultural events should be scheduled in countries of their present residence so that they learn about Georgian culture and make contacts. Special schemes, like seed loans should be introduced to ease the adaptation to new economic surroundings. Repatriates have to get consultancy and legal advice concerning possibilities for economic activities.

Upon arrival repatriates should be able to continue to study the language at adaptation centers, where they also can learn about culture, history and the customs of the country, their own rights and obligations, master communication skills. Akhaltsikhe branch of Tbilisi State University has a successful experience in this regard and can be used as a base for regional integration center.

It is highly advisable for planners of repatriation to get acquainted with the international experience of working of integration centers.

· Increase acceptance and understanding of the integrative process by the local population. Constructing a favorable framework for the contact between local population and repatriates is crucial since first contacts may provoke conflict rather than lead to cooperation. The image of returnee as a competitor for resources should be changed through channeling assistance to the local community in general rather than to returnees only. People should feel benefits of living next to repatriates.

· The repatriation process is to be gradual to give population time and chance to evaluate its results. People should to be informed on the plans of repatriation as well as on stages of its realization. Through TV broadcasts, films, newspaper articles, books and exhibitions the true story of the Meskheti and its inhabitants, the history and the present day of Georgians living compactly in Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran is to be told. Personal stories of ordeals the deportees underwent after 1944 should be conveyed to local residents.

· Not upsetting status quo in places of resettlement and ensuring people’s safety. Early warning system is highly desirable to monitor relations of repatriates with the local population, especially in Meskheti. Current population of Meskheti constitutes a diverse and sensitive group. It comprises such groups as indigenous Christian Meskhetians, Armenians resettled by the Russian empire in XIX century and Georgians who had been forcibly relocated to the houses of deported population from different parts of the country. All of them have their own memories and grounds for mistrusting the repatriates. More recently, IDPs from Abkhazia (who reside also in Samtskhe-Javakheti, but not only there have been added to this mix, and they bring their own set of concerns. Potentiality of developing secessionist trends among the repatriates cannot also be ruled out.

In short the case of Meskhetian return seems to be especially complex. This complexity is often used as a pretext for procrastination, and currently such tendency to postpone the issue indefinitely is the major source of concern. But it would be counterproductive to propose simplistic solutions instead that would not take into account all the risks and pitfalls. The issue of the repatriation is a serious challenge for the Georgian state and society, but it is the challenge Georgian cannot simply avoid.

Selected bibliography

Adam, Segoline (2000). The Meskhetian Issue: Coping with the Soviet Legacy. University of Geneva.

Baratashvili, Marat. (1998). The Legal state of Meskh Repatriates in Georgia. Tbilisi.

Bugai, Nikolai (1994). Meskhetians: a Long Way to Rehabilitation. Moscow. (In Russian).

Darchiashvili, David (2000). Ethnic Relations as Security Factor in Southern Georgia. Central Asia and the Caucasus. 1, 43-53.

Deported peoples of the former soviet union:The case of the Meskhetians. (January 1998). IOM International Organization for Migration

Georgia, Poverty and income distribution (May 27, 1999). Document of the World Bank

Human Development Report: Georgia (1998). United Nations Development Programme. Tbilisi.

Lomsadze, Shota (2000). Meskhs and Meskheti. Tbilisi.

Meskhetian Turks: Solutions and Human Security. (1998). Forced Migration projects. open Society Institute.

Meskhetians in Georgia and their Status. (2000). Report on the survey carried out by the Union of Georgian Repatriates.

Ray, Kakoli (2000). repatriation and De-territorialization: Meskhetian Turks’ Conception of Home. Journal of Refuge Studies. Vol. 13. No.4 391-413.

The Violation of Rights of Forced Migrants and Ethnic Discrimination in Krasnodar Territiry. (1998). Moscow. Memorial Human Rights Center. (In Russian)

Yunusov Arif (2000). Meskhetian Turks: People deported twice. Baku:Zaman. (In Russian)