Crimean Tatars, March 1979 (52.9-2)

<<No 52 : 1 March 1979>>

9-1. Resolution No 700; Deportations from the Crimea
9-2. Crimean Tatars delegations in Moscow. Arrests: Seidamet Mememtov, Mustafa Dzhemilev

Delegations of Crimean Tatars in Moscow

At the beginning of December, a 23-member delegation from the Crimea arrived in Moscow to protest against mounting persecution. On 5 December they went to the Central Committee reception hall. Since the question of registration lies at the centre of the Crimean Tatars’ predicament, Filatov, the official in charge of receiving visitors, and N. Ya. Anosov, Head of the USSR MVD Passport Office, who helped receive the delegates, instructed them to go to the USSR MVD Passport Office.

The following day they did so. After much argument (the Tatars were told to go through to their interviews one by one and to confine themselves to their own personal business; they refused point-blank and explained that they had come to Moscow as representatives of their people), the Deputy Head of the Passport Office agreed to see three of the delegates. The outcome of the discussion was that only individual statements would be examined.

On 7 December, while the delegates were discussing in the street what further action they should take, they noticed that they were surrounded by a solid cordon of agents who were following them persistently and taking photographs of them. The delegates decided that under these conditions they should not approach any other bodies.

Under continuous and unconcealed surveillance, the delegates returned to the Crimea.

At the end of January a second delegation, of originally about 60 members, arrived in Moscow. The composition of the delegation changed over time and it gained some new members; the number of those who came and appealed to various Party and State institutions was roughly 120 in the course of a month.

The delegates brought with them a ‘National Appeal’ of the Crimean Tatars. This document, signed originally by 2,000 Crimean Tatars (the collection of signatures was still in progress in the meantime) contained the following statement:

“The Crimean Tatar people ask the following questions: Does there actually exist a Resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers of 15 August 1978 regarding the brutal, forcible deportation of Crimean Tatars and the deprivation — on the basis of their nationality — of their right to live in the Crimea?

“Does the USSR Council of Ministers have the right as the State executive authority to issue a Resolution which abrogates, alters or opposes the ideological, political and constitutional basis of the Soviet system?

“The ‘National Appeal’ demands that, if such a Resolution does exist, it be published and then revoked as anti-constitutional, and if it does not exist, the provocateurs and instigators of tyranny and violence, who arc subverting the foundations of the Soviet system, be exposed and punished.”

On 25 January 1979, a 52-member delegation handed in the ‘National Appeal’ to the Central Committee and requested an interview. Central Committee instructors N. A. Arestov and A, I. Barulin, in the presence of N. Ya. Anosov, agreed to see a group of six representatives (Lenur Memetov, Seidamet Memetov, Seitnafi Borseitov, Dilyara Suleimanova, Nadir Medzhitov and Aishe Kurasanova). They stated that there were no resolutions regarding the eviction of Crimean Tatars and the deprivation of their right to live in the Crimea, and they promised to report to the leadership concerning the facts set out by the representatives.

Throughout the entire length of the delegation’s stay in Moscow its representatives made daily visits to the Central Committee reception hall to obtain an official reply to the ‘National Appeal’.

On 1 February in the Central Committee reception hall it was proposed to the Crimean Tatar delegates that they each talk about their own personal business only. The delegates refused to take part in such discussions and submitted a telegram addressed to Brezhnev:

“More than 60 representatives of the Crimean Tatar people are waiting for a comprehensive reply to the national appeal. The possible registration in the Crimea of individual comrades now in Moscow does not resolve the fate of hundreds of families living in poverty in the Crimea. Why is there no clear, positive answer from the leaders of the Party and government to the essential points of the questions we have posed?”

The delegates continued to submit to the Central Committee new signatures to the ‘National Appeal’ (for example, 400 signatures from the Kherson Region) and documents relating to new deportations.

On 6 February, during the usual visit to the Central Committee reception hall, the Crimean Tatars were informed that N. Arestov and A. Barulin had been sent to the Crimea and would be joined by a Central Committee representative from the Ukrainian Communist Party in Kiev. This commission had been instructed to clarify on the spot the questions put by the Tatars. It was therefore proposed to the delegates that they leave Moscow.

In reply, the delegates declared that their people were able to call them back only if they were certain that the national question of the Crimean Tatars was genuinely being examined in the Central Committee.

On 9 February a meeting was held in the Crimean Regional Party Committee between representatives from the delegation and members of the Central Committee commission. The latter declared that Resolution No. 700 would continue to be applied in the future and that only individual cases relating to registration would be subject to examination. The representatives replied that they were not satisfied by a decision of this sort.

On 15 February Arestov, who had returned to Moscow, refused to talk to Crimean Tatar representatives. The following day he again showed no desire to see them and stated on the telephone that the delegates should leave Moscow.

On 26 February, again in a telephone conversation, Arestov said that the actions of the local authorities were completely legal and that, should appeals to the Central Committee and other bodies continue, the Crimean Tatars would ‘be treated even worse’.

During the first days of their stay in Moscow the Crimean Tatar delegates submitted the ‘National Appeal’ to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the Council of Ministers (by post), the Procurator- General, the All-Union Central Trades Union Council (M. I. Ruchkin, the senior reception official, promised to report the question of unemployed Crimean Tatars to the leadership), the Committee of War Veterans (they promised aid for the veterans) and the Committee of Soviet Women (the senior reception official Glubokovskaya agreed to see a group of 20 women, listened to their case, but did not promise anything). Tatar Komsomol members were not received at the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League. Officials agreed to take the ‘National Appeal’ only after the delegates threatened to hand in their Komsomol cards.

On 30 January the delegation went to the Institute of State and Law. Yu. A. Tikhomirov, the Deputy Director for Academic Work, admitted them, but refused to take the text of the ‘National Appeal’ on the grounds that it was not related to the subjects covered by the Institute, which dealt only with ‘problem questions’. During the discussion he expressed doubt as to the desirability of returning the Crimean Tatars to the Crimea.

On 8 February the delegates went to the Central Statistical Office with the following questions: ‘How many unregistered Crimean Tatars are there?’; ‘How many unemployed are there?’; ‘Why did the census-takers refuse to register the nationality of Crimean Tatars during the last census?’, G. V. Ostankovich, the Deputy Head of the Central Statistical Office, told them that the data in which they were interested were not available, but in reply to the third question said that no such nationality had featured in previous censuses either [correction CCE 53.32].

The delegates made several visits to the USSR Procuracy. During the second of these (29 January) they asked why the Procuracy did not properly examine the complaints and protests of the Crimean Tatars, but constantly referred them to those whose actions were the object of the complaints. They also asked why no measures had been taken against illegal evictions and the demolition of houses, and raised the question of the fabrication of criminal cases for ‘infringing the residence regulations’ and of civil cases invalidating house-sale transactions (on the basis of suits filed by procurators). Senior Reception Officer N. V. Tsybulnik suggested that the delegates submit a document addressed to the Procurator-General, setting out the relevant information. On 6 February such a document, signed by 62 Crimean Tatar representatives, was submitted.

The introduction, describing the ‘methods’ of discrimination and persecution used against Tatars in the Crimea, contains the following statement:

“We appeal not only as those who have suffered as victims of tyranny and violence, but also as defenders of the inviolability of the laws and principles of our Socialist State against the criminal assault being perpetrated on them in the Crimea.”

The document contains lists of 64 families who have been deported and 85 people sentenced under Article 196 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (‘Violation of the residence regulations’) over roughly the last three years. It notes that these lists are not complete. The Tatar representatives ask the Procurator-General to punish those guilty of tyranny; to return the deported people to their homes and compensate them for their humiliation and material losses; and also to halt the prosecution of people for living in the Crimea.

During further visits to the Procuracy the delegates were informed that the Crimean Tatar question was being studied by a special commission and would be decided in the Central Committee, but meanwhile Resolution No. 700 would remain in force.

From January to March the delegates sent numerous telegrams to various bodies demanding an answer to the ‘National Appeal’ and an end to the persecution of Crimean Tatars for their desire to return to their homeland.

Such telegrams were sent to Brezhnev, Kosygin, Rudenko, Andropov, the Central Committee and the USSR Council of Ministers. The same individuals and bodies were sent copies of the telegrams and protest letters written by Crimean Tatars and brought by the delegates from the Crimea, and also those the delegates received while working in Moscow; the latter contained descriptions of the most recent cases of tyranny and violence.

Among these appeals were the following: a collective protest from the residents of Grushevka village in Kirov district against the forcible deportation by the police of Muzhdaba Asanov’s family (see above), signed by 105 Crimean Tatars; a letter from the residents of Nekrasovo village, Krasnogvardeisky district, about the eviction of Sadyk Usta’s family (see above) and repressive actions against the Crimean Tatar villagers (87 signatures); a telegram to Brezhnev from Belogorsk demanding a full and comprehensive resolution of the national question of the Crimean Tatars; a telegram from Zelenogorskoye village, Belogorsk district, demanding an end to repressive actions; and numerous individual appeals in which unemployed parents of large families pointed out that 1979 was the International Year of the Child.

The work of the Crimean Tatar representatives was constantly hindered by the KGB and the police. Thus, despite the guarantee of safety given to the delegates by Central Committee officials during the first discussion of 25 January, they were detained on 31 January in the Central Committee reception hall and sent to police stations Nos. 98 and 46 Tor personal identification’ — which lasted five hours (until 11 pm). The following night a group of delegates was detained at the Kursk Railway Station on the pretext that they did not have the right to spend the night there.

On 2 February other delegates sent a telegram to Brezhnev:

“We demand an end to the provocations. Return our comrades to our ranks …”

On 7 February at 4 pm all the Crimean Tatars in the Central Committee reception hall were sent to Police Stations Nos. 29 and 92 on the same pretext of ‘personal identification’. The detainees were released the same day.

On 13 February 27 people were dispatched to Police Station No. 46. where they were informed that they would all be expelled from Moscow. On the same day other delegates were taken from the Central Committee building to Police Station No. 92, where a record of violation of the residence regulations was drawn up for each delegate.

The delegates went to the reception office of the USSR MVD, where they lodged a protest against the actions of the police. N. Ya. Anosov, the Head of the MVD Passport Office, replied that the police were obeying orders from above.

On 15 February, at 5 pm, 24 people were taken from the Central Committee building to Police Station No. 92, where more records were drawn up and they were asked to write explanatory notes. They were detained there without food until evening.

The delegates sent a protest telegram to Brezhnev. At the same time they sent a telegram to Rudenko regarding the arrest in the Crimea of people’s representative Seidamet Memetov (see below).

On 19 February ten people were taken from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet to a police station, where they were told to leave Moscow.

On 20 February Shevket Aliyev (from Grushevka village) was taken to the police offices at Kursk Railway Station. He was told to sign a record regarding his vagrancy and violation of the residence regulations. Aliyev refused to sign the record. He was not allowed to sit down until 4 am. The police captain used foul language, called the Crimean Tatars traitors (Shevket showed him his father’s guerrilla card in reply), and threatened to ‘crush them like bedbugs’.

The delegates in Moscow were followed constantly. Murat Voyenny and Seidamet Memetov were followed with especial vigilance.

The delegates have compiled Information Bulletin Nos. 127 (8 February, 95 signatures) and 128 (16 February, 54 signatures); thus they are continuing the numbering system used for bulletins on the work of Crimean Tatar delegates since 1967 (CCE 31.11).

On 9 January S. Asanov, a member of that section of the Crimean Tatar movement which sent an ‘Appeal Statement’ to Brezhnev (CCE 47.7, CCE 51.13), was detained at Samarkand Airport, Letters and documents containing more than 1,200 signatures and addressed to high Party and government organs were confiscated from him.

The confiscated documents included a protest against the tyranny and illegality which led to the self-immolation of Musa Mamut (CCE 51.13) and ten collective letters concerning the forthcoming census, in which the writers demanded that Crimean Tatar nationality be recognized and reflected in the census lists. An air ticket to Moscow and personal documents including his identity card as a Second World War invalid were also confiscated.

Major Khamrayev, Head of the Samarkand Airport police office, stated that he was carrying out the order of Colonel Lukashev, Head of the railway police office, although he understood that the detention and the confiscation of documents were illegal. It would be necessary to apply to Lukashev to recover the documents.

After several hours S. Asanov. R. Kadiyev and I. Asanin (CCE 51.13) sent Brezhnev and Rudenko telegrams reporting these instances of police tyranny.

On the following day a complaint was lodged with the Samarkand Procurator, A, Faizullayev. On the evening of 10 January Colonel Lukashev returned Asanov all the papers and documents taken from him (several hours before, Lukashev had asserted that he had no connection with the case and did not possess any documents relating to it).

On 11 January Asanov flew to Moscow and handed letters to their addressees. He also attempted to obtain a reply from the CPSU Central Committee to the ‘Appeal Statement’. Like the others before him, however, he received none; neither would any of the officials talk to him.

The Arrest of Seidamet Memetov

On 12 February in Lesnovka village, Saki district, two men (a police-officer and a civilian) went up to Seidamet Memetov [¹], a member of the Crimean Tatar delegation in Moscow (see above) who had just returned to the Crimea in order to meet the Central Committee Commission, and ordered him to accompany them for a talk with the Head of the district OVD and to bring his passport with him.

During the next three days Memetov’s mother tried in vain to find out at the police station what had happened to him. On 14 February Shamil Voyenny (Murat Voyenny’s brother) went with her. The duty officer did not let them see the police chief. On the same day they went to see Stepanov, the district Procurator, who said that Memetov was not with him and told them to ‘vacate the premises’. On her return home Memetov’s 60-year-old mother went to bed. It was not until 19 February that Shamil Voyenny discovered that Memetov was being held in a special detention centre in Simferopol.

On 20 February an inspector of the centre revealed that Memetov had been there since 12 February. An inquiry about him had been sent to the work-place he had named and to the police. He might be released on receipt of a reply (i.e., he had been detained for ‘personal identification’). The inspector also said that Memetov was being held as ‘a malicious violator of the residence regulations’. Voyenny objected that Memetov could not be a violator since he had constantly petitioned to be registered in the house he had bought, and was not evading registration. Lately he had been working on the Frunze Collective Farm in Kherson Region.

The inspector explained that Memetov’s arrest could be prolonged for up to one month (detainees can be held for this length of time ‘for personal identification’).

The Arrest of Mustafa Dzhemilev

On 29 December 1978 the second half-year period of surveillance of Mustafa Dzhemilev (CCE 48.14, CCE 49.12 [2] and CCE 51.13) came to an end. As Dzhemilev had earlier been told by the police that he could join his parents in the Crimea when this surveillance period ended, he bought a ticket for 30 December. However, on 29 December he was informed of a new extension of the surveillance.

Mustafa Dzhemilev wrote to the USSR Procurator-General and the Head of the October district OVD in Tashkent, pointing out that the surveillance imposed on him, and the order to live in Tashkent, were against the law, as after his release from prison he had been forcibly sent to Tashkent, where he did not want to register and where it was impossible for him to do so. He wrote that he was leaving Tashkent to join his parents in the Crimea.

‘When I arrive in the Crimea I will inform the police where my residence is registered, so that administrative surveillance can be imposed on me …‘

On 30 December he was detained at the aerodrome and a second ‘violation’ of the surveillance regulations was registered. (The first related to 1 January 1978, when Dzhemilev, with the permission of Police Major Kurbanov, did not report to the police because the day was a national holiday.)

On 19 January a third ‘violation’ was fabricated. Late in the evening a police-officer visited the flat of his brother Asan Dzhemilev, where Mustafa had been told to live. As had happened before, when Asan’s wife opened the door she refused to summon Mustafa, although he was at home. After a few days a record was drawn up at the police station about Dzhemilev’s absence from home. This was the missing third Violation needed to institute criminal proceedings.

On 22 January M. Dzhemilev sent a statement to the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet and the Head of the October district OVD in Tashkent, renouncing Soviet citizenship and requesting permit Sion to emigrate from the USSR. Attached to the statement were his passport and copies of two invitations sent him in 1975 and 1978 by relatives living in the USA. The following are extracts from the statement:

“Renunciation of Soviet citizenship in no way signifies the renunciation of one’s national territory — the Crimean peninsula, forcibly annexed in 1783 to Russia, a power which has exterminated or forcibly deported most of my people and in 1944 expelled all who remained, every last one, from their native land. No matter where I live, I shall continue to fight for my people’s right to return to the Crimea and for the restoration of their national statehood … After my release from imprisonment in December 1977 I was placed, against the laws of the land, in a humiliating position, deprived of rights …

“I am openly told that everything done concerning me is on instructions from above’, more precisely on the instructions of the KGB.

“In fact, I have proved to be someone to whom the published laws of the land do not apply.

“I shall agree to annul my statement renouncing Soviet citizenship if the Crimean Tatars are allowed to resettle unhindered in the Crimea, and if there is an official announcement abrogating all the decrees, resolutions and instructions now in force — published and unpublished — which limit the civil rights of Crimean Tatars because of their nationality.“

On 8 February M. Dzhemilev was summoned by the police, ostensibly in connection with his statement renouncing Soviet citizenship. At the police station he was arrested on a charge of ‘malicious violation of administrative surveillance regulations’.

Izzet and Khatidzha Khairov and Ediya Dzhemileva handed the investigator written evidence that on the night of 19 to 20 January they were together with M. Dzhemilev at Asan Dzhemilev’s flat.

Investigator Strazhev concluded his inquiry after five days He refused the request of M. Dzhemilev and his relatives to be questioned on the grounds that the testimonies of the police-officer and those accompanying him were sufficient.

On 18 February M. Dzhemilev declared a hunger-strike in protest against the manifestly false charge.

============================================

NOTES