June 26, 2020

June 30, 2015

More

Five years ago, on June 30, 2015, Refat Chubarov, the head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, spoke during a panel discussion, “Crimea: Memories, Reality and Vision,” at Ukraine Crisis Media Center in Kyiv, where he stressed to state policymakers on the importance of a strategy in returning Crimea to Ukraine.

“Strategy is not somebody’s whim or a word in fashion. Strategy drives many daily practical decisions. It provides direction on how we must protect the rights of Ukrainians who remain in Crimea,” Mr. Chubarov said.

Aslan Omer Kyrymly, director of the State Agency on Crimea, said he blamed bureaucracy for the delay in defining policy on Crimea, although civil society organizations had already submitted proposed strategies. However, the government must make the final decision, he added. Mr. Kyrymly also noted the crucial role of European diplomats and their clear position in denouncing Russia’s illegal occupation of the peninsula.

“Diplomats and the entire international community took the civilized side and did not support the Crimean annexation,” Mr. Kyrymly added. “This was a turning point when the civilized world told the aggressors that the 21st century countries of the civilized world will not accept aggression, disorder or brutal violent acts toward an independent Ukraine.”

Olha Skrypnyk, deputy head of the Crimea Field Mission on Human Rights, highlighted the targeting of resistance to the Russian occupation and pro-Ukrainian viewpoints of Ukrainian citizens who remain in the occupied territory. She underscored that there are no means of legal protection in Crimea, only “the ephemeral nature of the Russian law – even if its applied there, it is for the purpose of continuing repression.” Ms. Skrypnyk said that the Ukrainian government needed to differentiate between issues of territorial control and the circumstances of those who remain nearly forgotten in Crimea. The non-residential status for people in Crimea is discriminatory and authorities must regulate the new administrative border-crossing procedures, she said.

She also called for regulations to prevent authorities from refusing entry to foreign nationals, which also prevent lawyers – who actively engage with Ukraine – from effectively defending Crimean residents. There is a need for restrictions related to commerce between Ukraine and Crimea, she commented, but a full blockade could lead to a loss of Crimea and the connection to pro-Ukrainian individuals there.

Latvia’s ambassador to Ukraine, Dr. Argita Daudze, urged the Ukrainian government to understand that “The policy of non-recognition of the annexation is a basis that will help return the situation to its pre-occupation condition.” She underscored the need for closer cooperation between the European Union and Ukraine, not only in public institutions, but also in civil society’s advocacy for the return of Crimea to Ukraine.

A former ambassador of Lithuania to Ukraine, Petras Vaitiekunas, said Ukraine needed to understand the EU mindset and attempt to appeal to the hearts of Europeans by implementing reforms within Ukraine. The fault, he added, was with both Ukraine, for its failure to implement reforms, and the EU, for its own weak position. A clear geopolitical agenda from Ukraine’s leadership on EU or NATO, he said, could facilitate this process. Mr. Vaitiekunas stated clearly: this is Russia’s war, or more precisely, Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine.

Source: “Mejlis leader says Ukraine’s government must adopt strategy on occupied Crimea,” (Ukraine Media Crisis Center), The Ukrainian Weekly, July 19, 2015.

Comments are closed.