3 June 2003, Volume
BUSH IN KRAKOW CALLS FOR TRANS-ATLANTIC UNITY.
U.S. President George W. Bush visited Krakow on 31 May, where he made a keynote speech on U.S.-European relations at Wawel Royal Castle, the seat of Polish kings from the 11th to 17th centuries. Speaking ahead of a meeting with European leaders at the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Evian, France, Bush called for U.S.-European unity in the face of current challenges. He said there is no conflict between the United States and Europe. "This is no time to stir up divisions in a great alliance," PAP quoted him as saying.
"I have come to Krakow to state the intentions of my country," Bush said. "The United States is committed to a strong Atlantic alliance, to ensure our security, to advance human freedom, and to keep peace in the world."
The U.S. president took an evidently conciliatory note toward European countries that opposed the U.S.-led war on Iraq, notably Germany and France, when he said, "We welcome, we need the help, the advice and the wisdom of our European friends and allies." "Europe and America will always be joined by more than our interests," he added.
Bush praised the role of Polish soldiers in fighting terrorism. "In the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq, Polish forces served with skill and honor," he said. "Poland rose to the moment. Again you have lived out the words of the Polish motto: for your freedom and ours."
Apparently addressing the fears in Poland that the close U.S.-Polish partnership may tarnish Warsaw's relations with the European Union, Bush stressed that Poland's future was in the EU. "Poland struggled for decades to gain freedom and to fully participate in life in Europe," he said. "And soon you will be a member of the European Union.... Poland is a good citizen of Europe and Poland is a close friend of America -- and there is no conflict between the two."
In an interview with Polish Television before his address in Krakow, Bush commented on French President Jacques Chirac's derogatory statement earlier this year that some Central and Eastern European countries that voiced official support for the U.S. action in Iraq missed an opportunity "to shut up."
"I think that it is unfortunate that some European states attempted to wipe Poland's nose in the dirt for standing up for its convictions," Bush said. "I don't think you will be isolated [in the EU]. I feel that Poland is too important a state. In my view, the days of sharp lectures have passed. I think that Poland will be an important member of the EU and that it will be received with open arms. And so I think that this was just a momentary explosion of emotional rhetoric."
In a step that has a chance to considerably contribute to healing the U.S.-European rift over Iraq, NATO decided on 2 June to provide support in intelligence, communications, logistics, movement coordination, and force generation to the Polish-led stabilization force in Iraq, Reuters reported. (Jan Maksymiuk)
CHORNOBYL -- 17 YEARS LATER.
The Committee on Problems of the Consequences of the Catastrophe at the Chornobyl Nuclear-Power Station, subordinated to the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus, has published a new report.
"The Effects of Chornobyl in Belarus: 17 Years Later" (Edited V. E. Shevchuk and V. L. Gurachevskii, Minsk, ZAO Propilei, 2003) is, as one might expect, a depressing document -- the all-too-familiar picture of increased morbidity and reduced immunity, negative population growth, and, in particular, child health causing "especial concern." And the future outlook remains unclear. Although in the case of thyroid cancers (triggered by the short-lived radioactive iodine-131 immediately after the explosion) is now forecast at around 15,000 cases in Belarus over the next 50 years, the extent of other radiation-related diseases still cannot be fully predicted, due to the "more prolonged latent period and chronic nature" of other sources of radiation. Estimates to date suggest that the incidence of other forms of cancer will increase by "several percent" over the "lifetime of those affected by the accident"; but, the report says "carefully planned long-term radiation-epidemiological investigations" are still needed.
According to the report, in the 17 years since the accident, the "basic part of the population" has already received up to 80 percent of the "expected lifetime dose" of radiation. "However, in those born after 1990, the formation of the doses of radiation will continue throughout their whole lifetime due both to external radiation and to internal -- the ingestion of contaminated food products." Yet at the same time, the report stresses the importance of the "complex radiation-related and socioeconomic rehabilitation of the contaminated territory." In other words, in spite of the ongoing hazard from contaminated food, the emphasis is on bringing the land back into use as soon as possible, even though "optimal systematic countermeasures for agriculture and forestry" still need to be worked out. A major impediment to this rehabilitation is what the report terms the "Chornobyl victim syndrome" which requires "the creation of a public information and education system on the radiation situation, effectiveness of countermeasures and other aspects, enabling the population of the contaminated areas to implement the recommendations of science and medicine."
It is, of course, an inherent feature of radioactive contamination that it gradually decays. The main constituents of the Chornobyl fallout were caesium-137 and strontium-90 with half-lives of approximately 30 years. With one-quarter of the area of Belarus affected by fallout, there is a certain pragmatic logic, 17 years after the event, of trying to bring back into cultivation the less-contaminated areas, provided this can be done with minimal additional health risk. However, as the report itself admits, the long-term effects of even low-level radiation are still unknown. Moreover, although in certain areas of Belarus radiation levels due to Chornobyl are now comparable with the above-average but "natural" background levels of granite areas (e.g. Cornwall, Aberdeen), the inhabitants of those granite areas have not previously been exposed to the high radiation levels prevailing in much of Belarus in the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Rather than the current policy of gradually resettling the evacuated areas, it might have been prudent at least for a time to bus workers in each day to till the reclaimed fields. All the more so, since although it has proved possible to some extent to treat the soil so that the radiation is not taken up by the crops, no measures have been taken to decontaminate the forests. Hence such traditional additions to the Belarusian diet as berries and mushrooms remain a hazard.
Furthermore, to date, relatively little research has been done on transuranic "hot particles" -- tiny fragments of the fuel core of the wrecked reactor. The contamination map for americium-241 and plutonium-241 shows this hazard only in the extreme southeast of Belarus. But this map is, inevitably, based on averages. Particles from the core were carried a considerable distance -- in one well-reported case, a Western student returning from Minsk in 1986 was found to have core material on his clothes. Certainly, in far-field areas, the probability of ingesting such a particle is low, but that is of little consolation to those unlucky enough to do so. Detailed mapping of far-field transuranic contamination is clearly needed but this is an issue that the report barely addresses.
In the meantime, President Alyaksandr Lukashenka seems unwilling or unable to bear the continuing support of (actual or potential) Chornobyl victims. Recently he abolished the special allowances to the residents of contaminated areas on the grounds that if they had not yet succumbed to radiation, they had clearly learned to live with it -- an argument which shows a marked lack of understanding of radiation-related disease. He has also ordered the removal to Homel of the Institute of Radioactive Medicine and the Institute of Radiobiology of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences. At first glance, this relocation has a kind of logic -- to move Chornobyl-related research close to the most affected area. However, no provision seems to have been made in Homel either for the housing of the scientists who are supposed to move there, nor the necessary laboratories. The "move" seems likely therefore to mean a major cutback if not suspension of such research. Another major institution that focuses on Chornobyl, the International Sakharov University of Radio-Ecology in Minsk, has, to date, not been ordered to move (possibly because it is a teaching, rather than a purely research, institution). Currently, however, its work is considerably hampered by organizational problems; its rector, Alyaksandr Milyutsin, died suddenly last October, and President Lukashenka has, to date, not approved a successor.
(This report was written by Vera Rich, a London-based freelance researcher.)
HOW TO RIGHT THE INJUSTICES INFLICTED ON CRIMEAN TATARS?
The Crimean Tatars are a Turkic people who inhabited the Crimean Peninsula, now part of Ukraine, for more than seven centuries. They established their own khanate in the 1440s and remained an important power in Eastern Europe until 1783, when Crimea was annexed to Russia. In 1944, Soviet leader Josef Stalin ordered the Crimean Tatars deported en masse to Central Asia on suspicion of having collaborated with the Nazis.
Mustafa Dzhemilev is chairman of the Mejlis (parliament) of the Tatar People of the Crimean Autonomous Republic and a member of the Verkhovna Rada. Since 1961, he has spearheaded the Crimean Tatars' campaign to be allowed to return to Crimea. Dzhemilev was arrested several times in the 1960s and 1970s and sentenced to labor camps for anti-Soviet propaganda.
Although the Soviet leadership acknowledged in 1967 that the collaboration charges brought against the Tatars were unfounded, little was done to enable them to return to Crimea. The repatriation process began spontaneously during Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's "perestroika" in the late 1980s. Today, some 250,000 Crimean Tatars who have managed to return to Crimea are engaged in a new struggle with the Ukrainian authorities to obtain housing and preserve their language and culture.
RFE/RL spoke with Dzhemilev on the sidelines of a recent conference in Berlin that focused on the plight of deported peoples from the former Soviet Union.
May marked the 59th anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars. What memorial events took place this year?
Every year we commemorate the day of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars [on 18 May]. This day is not only a day of recollection of those who died during the Soviet regime but also a day of unity for our people. We are now summing up the situation we are in now, and how we can right the injustices inflicted on our people and also discuss what else we have to do further, and to set out our main demands in the form of a resolution adopted by the participants at the meeting. The same things happened this year. Our demonstrations and meetings always take place peacefully and in a well-organized manner.
Have all the Crimean Tatars returned from exile? And what are the Ukrainian and Crimean governments doing to rehabilitate them?
It's a pity that not all of our people could come back. According to our data, 150,000 to 200,000 Crimean Tatars still live in other countries of the former Soviet Union. They have not yet been able to return. Most of them live in Central Asia, especially in Uzbekistan. They have not yet been able to return, mostly because of social reasons. But also there are some legal obstacles to giving up the right to residence in Uzbekistan and to obtaining Crimean residence permits. But the main thing is that there are financial possibilities [for returning to Crimea]. And there is no doubt that nearly 90 percent of Crimean Tatars living in Uzbekistan want to come back. Apart from the problem of coming back, there is a problem of [reuniting] with their families. Most Crimean Tatars living in Central Asia have relatives in Crimea. That's why the question of their returning is only a question of time.
As for the government of Ukraine, it's a pity Ukraine is the only country which gives some money from its budget to solve some of our social problems. We have of course some complaints about how much they deliver, but nevertheless Ukraine takes some measures. And every year a certain amount of [financial] means [for our problem] is planned and put in their budget. We have also some demands in deciding our rights, on defining the [legal] status of the Crimean Tatars.
What demands are the Crimean Tatars making to broaden their civil rights?
The problems of the Crimean Tatars can be divided into two parts: legal problems -- this means consolidation of all legal rights -- and social problems. The most important of our legal demands is for us not to be considered as a national minority in the territory of Ukraine, when there are some 150,000 to 160,000 Crimean Tatars in Ukraine. We want Crimean Tatars to be recognized as indigenous to our land with all ensuing consequences.
Firstly, the recognition of the Crimean Tatar language as the official language on the territory of the autonomous republic. And we want adequate representation in the structure of representative and executive power in the Crimean Autonomous Republic. This can be achieved by introducing a quota at least proportional to our numbers, or giving Crimean Tatar representatives a veto on questions that relate directly to urgent problems of the Crimean Tatars.
It's a pity that during the 12 years since it became independent, Ukraine has not yet passed a law on the elected parliament of the Crimean Tatars.
You mentioned legal issues. What social issues are involved?
There is also a social aspect. In any law-based state, if something was taken from a person, it should be given back. We understand the situation. We are not saying that the authorities should give us back all our houses, all our belongings. That is impossible because other people are now living in our houses, or our houses are destroyed. What the state gives is very little, but again we understand the position of the state. It cannot give enough. But the state should pay more attention to the question of land. There is a law according to which only people who were kolkhoz members before privatization may own land. But Crimean Tatars couldn't be kolkhoz members in Ukraine. They are only just returning there. It's a pity the Ukrainian law didn't consider these peculiarities, that Crimean Tatars coming back to their own land couldn't get the land of their ancestors and have to be hired laborers on their own land.
What is the present status of the Crimean Tatar language?
There are a lot of other problems, including restoring education in our language. At present, only about 10 percent of Crimean Tatar schoolchildren can study at schools in their native language. But 90 percent of schoolchildren have to go to Russian schools. A total [linguistic] Russification is going on. Russification is even faster than in the places of deportation. If we are doomed to lose our identity on our land and to become Russians, why did we come back and become victims of our struggle?
Is Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma favorably inclined toward the Crimean Tatars?
Kuchma is a person who considers the distribution of political forces in the country. If he sees that there are more supporters of not resolving a given problem, he tries to distance himself from that problem. But we should give him credit for his positive attitude. He visits Crimea regularly, meets the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars, listens to our problems and gives corresponding orders. But as a rule, these orders are not implemented; they are sabotaged.
What is the situation in the villages? Do they have adequate funding and representation?
The situation here is like this. When we started coming back to our native land, we didn't ask for our former houses back. We only asked them to give us some land for us to build houses there. But the authorities rejected that request for different reasons, either because the land belonged to collective farms or that something else is planned to be done there. But at the same time, they began mass propaganda among Crimea's Russian inhabitants, encouraging them to lay claim to land for dachas or orchards, and there was an open propaganda to take possession of the land as soon as possible or the Crimean Tatars will return and if you don't take the land, the Tatars will take it, and Crimea will belong to the Tatars. There were even appeals to invite relatives, friends from Russia, in order to occupy this land quickly.
As a result, we had serious collisions with the state. Sometimes there was violence and even bloodshed, but nevertheless Crimean Tatars took possession of 90 percent of the land allocated for them because the state hadn't enough strength to throw us out. Eventually, the authorities started to allocate land to the Tatars, but much of it was in places where it is difficult to build. And by then inflation had started, and many Crimean Tatars had lost their savings. That's why many Crimean Tatars did not have enough money to build, even though they received land plots. That's why today approximately 100,000 Crimean Tatars have very bad housing conditions.
The budget the state gives for construction is very small. Many of these settlements are without roads, water, heating. In some places, there is even no electricity. It looks like the Middle Ages. In the last few years, Ukraine has allocated more funds to improve conditions, but the money is only enough for 10 percent of what is needed.
Have any other countries contributed help?
An international fund for the integration and development of Crimea was established under the auspices of the UN. We hoped that this meant that other states would participate in the discussion of this problem, but our expectations didn't come true. This fund was created in 1994, but nearly 10 years have passed and only $7.5 million was collected, most of it contributed by Turkey. It's a pity that we didn't get what had been expected.
(This interview was conducted by RFE/RL correspondent Charles Carlson.)
"Make [Lukashenka] a king, then anybody else may be a president." -- Uta Zapf, a member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's working Group on Belarus, commenting to journalists in Minsk on the Belarusian government's recent resolution to ban the use of the word "president" in official titles by everybody except President Alyaksandr Lukashenka; quoted by RFE/RL's Belarusian Service on 28 May.
"Within the framework of the Commonwealth [of Independent States], we have concluded more than 60 free-trade agreements, starting in 1994. In this way, today, the CIS consists of a market that is composed of 60 different segments with rules of the game that often contradict each other. At the same time, the basic package, whose foundation is a protocol on establishing a free-trade zone, signed in 1994, and an additional protocol from 1999, continues to remain a mere declaration." -- Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma at a CIS summit in St. Petersburg on 30 May; quoted by an RFE/RL correspondent.