This is not the first time that we are cooperating with Carnegie Corporation, and I can say with confidence that the research and materials presented at these forums have a positive influence on those policymakers studying conflict resolution not only in Russia and the other CIS states, but throughout the world. We are grateful for this to Carnegie's leaders. They are diligently committed to their task and we hope to keep working with them in the future. Within the framework of the program "Hague Initiative," we have participated in two forums at The Hague and are willing to host a third one in Tatarstan, providing all the appropriate conditions.
Coming to the topic of today's forum, many different causes are invoked to explain the conflicts that broke out on the territory of the former Soviet Union: ethnicity, lack of rights, the legacy of totalitarianism, etc. All of these factors played some role in initiating conflict. But in my opinion, as someone who has directly participated in all these political processes, especially the breakup of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Russian Federation, the main reason for conflict was the incompleteness and imperfection of the Union itself and of the state structure of the USSR.
In such a huge empire, for such a disciplined state, to put it mildly, where everything was centralized, not one Union republic or autonomous republic, let alone the oblasts and krais, had any real rights. Everything was strictly done according to orders from the center and through strict central planning, down to the production of needles and thread.
When perestroika began in 1985, everyone, and first of all republics, began speaking about their rights. This should have been expected. Why? The international community had always spoken of human rights and of the rights of peoples to self-determination. These ideas fell on ripe soil. When the opportunity for realizing these rights opened up, all the ideas that had received lip service but not been realized in the Soviet Union came to the surface. Therefore, when Union Republics and autonomous republics adopted declarations of state sovereignty, I believe it was a natural process. This process was waiting for its historical moment, a time when democratic conditions would give nations a chance to express their wills. At that time the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) also was without rights, as one of the Union Republics within the USSR. It is not accidental that in the courseof work on a new Union Treaty there was a tug-of-war between Boris Yeltsin and Ruslan Khasbulatov, then chair of the Supreme Soviet, about the rights of Russia within a renewed USSR.
Inevitably, when Russia made its demands with the hope that a renewed union would give it the rights it would enjoy in a federation, all the other Union Republics made their demands as well. Thereafter the autonomous republics also declared their rights because they were all equally without rights and could not avoid proclaiming them. That is why the declaration of sovereignty of the Russian Federation is absolutely lawful, as is the declaration of sovereignty of Tatarstan. Both the Union Republics and the autonomies appeared as states under the Soviet Constitution, though only decoratively, since they lacked real rights. And so these states said, since they are states, they need the rights to exercise their state functions. This was a lawful but very painful and complicated process.
For this reason I consider the primary cause of conflicts in the USSR to be neither ethnic nor national problems, but the lack of rights of Union and autonomous republics when they were subsumed under a tightly centralized system. The other factors-ethnic and nationalistic-of course were supporting conditions. Undoubtedly, parties, movements, and leaders appeared and searched for ideas with which to advance their cause, and extreme nationalist ideas were put forth. As a result, those that had made declarations of sovereignty were mistakenly accused of separatism. This is the way the active process of state-building began-in the successor states as well as in Russia.
Why was Tatarstan more vocal than the other autonomous republics during this process? Because the problem of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan as huge republics was always there. The question arose after the Revolution of 1917 when the first constitution of the RSFSR was being adopted, and when subsequent constitutions were being considered it came up again. Because of their economic power and their history, they always aspired to become Union Republics. These questions were always there. Many have now forgotten, but Tatarstan was even given a special status in the USSR state structure. The chairs of the Supreme Soviets of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan were always members of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, along with those of the Union Republics; they were the only two autonomies so represented.
The history of the nation is another important factor. Tatarstan had a long history as a strong state, and had treaty-based equal relations with Russia starting from the tenth century until the battles between the Kazan khanate and Russia in the mid-sixteenth century. In the course of perestroika all of these issues came up in the national movements and among the population as a whole, and were advanced as political demands. In terms of industrial potential Tatarstan was equal to the three Baltic republics put together. It is impossible to ignore these considerations. When the population rose up, it demanded autonomy. Those who are in power, if they are real politicians, cannot fail to take into account popular demands in a republic or a region. The main thing is to know how to evaluate the processes occurring throughout the Soviet space and which processes began in Russia itself.
Unquestionably, the confrontation with Russian state authorities after the collapse of the USSR was based on a total misunderstanding. We never asserted in any official decision that Tatarstan wanted full independence: I always emphasized that Tatarstan demanded more rights and independent development, but without compromising the integrity of the Russian Federation. But at the time, it came off like a bomb. Voices were heard in Russia demanding that no additional rights be given to the autonomous republics, forgetting that just recently Russia had demanded the same rights from the USSR and played a major role in the breakup of the USSR. Perestroika processes could not just occur inside the Garden Ring in Moscow; they consumed the whole country.
When this misunderstanding occurred, we decided to hold a referendum, which is widely considered the highest expression of the democratic process. The world community has high respect for the will of the people. We held a referendum about the status of Tatarstan in accord with the declaration of Tatarstan's sovereignty that had been announced earlier.
But there we were even more misunderstood. We were accused of everything possible, to the point where on the eve of the referendum a brigade of procurators* headed by the general procurator of the Russian Federation was dispatched to every district in the republic to stop preparations for the referendum and keep the polls from opening. And on the eve of the referendum, Yeltsin was persuaded to appear on television to try to convince the people of Tatarstan not to take part in the referendum. After Yeltsin's performance I also appeared on the republic's television programs to say that only a referendum-the most democratic form-could communicate the wishes of the people. Yeltsin warned that if the referendum were held, interethnic conflict would break out in Tatarstan and war would result. I responded that only with a referendum could we find out the people's attitude toward creating a Tatar state, and only a referendum could create peace in the republic.
Despite the procurator's* prohibition, all 2,611 polls were open and the referendum proceeded peacefully. Sixty-two percent voted "yes" for the status of Tatarstan on the referendum.
The question was not about the secession of Tatarstan, but about building a federation on a treaty basis. The results of the referendum were the basis for preparing the new constitution of Tatarstan. We invited foreign experts-leading academics and lawyers-to take close part in the drafting of our constitution. And though the composition of our parliament was very difficult (there were two extreme opposition groups, federalists and nationalists), after long discussions and several nights, we passed the constitution of Tatarstan.
The main thing is that the basis of our constitution incorporated observance of human rights, and for this reason our fundamental law cannot be subjected to open criticism. One could not say that it contradicted the norms of international law. The constitution also established two official languages-Tatar and Russian-and provided for dual citizenship with Russia. The inclusion of these two points was decisive in stabilizing thepolitical situation. You know why the conflict began in Moldova and other states, where those issues were not resolved earlier. We considered these problems ahead of time.
Boris Yeltsin and I were elected president on the same day, June 12, 1991. It is hard to describe what a strong influence the failure to resolve the situation in the republics had on the national election. We had two ballots-one for the president of Russia and one for the president of Tatarstan. Everything took place in the same polling stations and with the same people. Yet no candidate was chosen for president of the Russian Federation. The reason: failure to resolve the problem of national groups in Russia.
When the elections to the State Duma were scheduled, even though we followed all the right procedures, the election was not sustained in our republic. We had a turnout of only 13 percent, while the minimum turnout required for the election to be valid in a region is 25 percent. The people demanded that the status of Tatarstan be resolved before they went to vote. All of these events took place under absolutely peaceful circumstances. We followed a civilized democratic path and did not seek armed confrontation. We sought only to meet the demands of the people.
The same happened with the vote on the constitution of the Russian Federation. We made our own proposals for the drafting of the constitution, considering not only Tatarstan but also all republics in the Federation, and in consideration of what is needed for the development of democracy. Unfortunately, our suggestions were not included. After that, our delegation left the drafting process. We announced that this constitution was creating a unitary government. I can say even today that our republic did not accept the constitution, and we were not the only ones. Thirty subjects did not accept it, not because they did not want to, but because the demands of the subjects, and especially the republics, were not incorporated.
Today I believe that the constitution is more decoratively federal than real. If you carefully study it and start to live under it, it appears more like the constitution of a unitary state. I believe that if this constitution is not peacefully changed, it will always be internally strained.
I recently met with Yeltsin regarding the bilateral treaty with Tatarstan and have to admit that he was among the first to understand that if Tatarstan's demands for creating a democratic federation were not met, an open confrontation could result. For more than two years we worked on a bilateral treaty between the state bodies of Tatarstan and the Russian Federation. We would not sign the Federation Treaty back then, and neither did Chechnya, not because we did not want to sign but because the Federation Treaty was constructed from the top down. It did not meet the norms of a democratic federation. We said this up front: if we are going to create a federation under conditions of a civilized society, we have to do it from the bottom up. We stuck by this position andproposed a treaty for mutual delegation of powers. Today many trivialize this treaty. But the treaty is not only an agreement about division of powers, but also a mutual delegation of authority. It was very important to be able to satisfy all sides at the time. Ours was the first such treaty concluded, in 1994. This was the first agreement with a republic that did not sign the Federation Treaty in the form in which it was proposed to the subjects.
August 30, called "Republic Day," is the anniversary of Tatarstan's sovereignty declaration, which we celebrate every year. The whole population takes part, and it is the biggest holiday we have. On people's faces I can see how important it was to begin building federal relations this way. This is in the people's souls. In the end, we do everything to help people live well.
The treaty we signed is good not only for Tatarstan, we believe, but also for the Russian Federation. If there were no such treaty, it would be hard to say how Russia would be developing today, especially when we know about the imperial thinking so embedded in the consciousness of many. It could have either fallen apart like the mother empire, or become a unitary state.
A unitary state and democracy in Russia cannot coexist, because Russia is a multinational state. Hence Russia cannot have the same state structures as exist in other countries. It is a federal system, and today it is an asymmetrical federalism.
In my last meeting with Yeltsin, he diplomatically asked me when Tatarstan would make its constitution consistent with that of the Russian Federation. I did not deny the inconsistencies. I acknowledged that we have this problem because our constitutions really don't coincide, though we live together peacefully. In the treaty we recognized both constitutions, knowing they were not consistent. But we won time and this was very important in putting off critics from both sides. I responded that the Russian Federation's constitution is not perfect and suggested he take the initiative by changing the federal constitution, to bring it closer to a real federal constitution. There is no other option. Russia has already signed agreements with many subjects of the Federation. It is already a contractual federalism in practice, like it or not. If you make these changes, we will too, because this has to be a two-way street to gradually bring all the constitutions into line. This is a very long and complicated path, but if we understand one another, with time, the constitutions will come closer to one another. This is work for the future.
What worries me? This is a transitional period, and the center can live with an asymmetrical federalism and treaty-based relations. I do not consider myself a naive person, and I think that when the political and economic situation stabilizes, this question will arise in full force and we will move toward a symmetrical federation. Voices will arise calling for a democratic but uniform federalism. We have to be ready for this; it is a reality of life. Only politics that takes reality into consideration is real politics. But for this we need a well thought-out nationalities policy. Like it or not, we need a nationalities policy for Russia. A conception of a nationalities policy has been confirmed by the President but it is mostly toquiet the society and republics for the next year and a half or two. It cannot satisfy a multinational Russia.
We lived under a totalitarian regime in the USSR. Though everything was centralized and we had no rights, the Supreme Soviet was bicameral and there was a chamber for national groups. The Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation until recently was also bicameral with a nationalities chamber. Today neither the constitution, nor the representative organs in the Duma, nor the Federation Council can guarantee the rights of the nations of Russia.
In Russia there are many Russians. Tatars are the second most numerous group, and their interests also have to be taken into account. But there are only 5 million, not 100 million, Tatars. With their numbers, they cannot influence a single policy in the State Duma or the Federation Council. Even if every titular ethnic group were to vote together, that is still only 25 percent of the vote. Consequently, these peoples are deprived of the possibility of deciding issues that affect them. Those politicians who think this will pass are deeply mistaken. I will be among the first to raise this question, but the time is not yet appropriate. While the war in Chechnya continues, we must not abuse our influence. We have to do what is best for all nations. We have to help when Russia is having a difficult time. We must peacefully resolve these problems with respect for each nation.
We all now understand that building a democratic society is extremely difficult. It is easy to call for it, but building and leading it is a lot harder. But the choice has been made, and it is a historic one. This choice draws us toward civilization. We politicians have to be responsible, and understand from history what Russia consists of, and with this sense of reality peacefully strive to defend the rights of each nation. Only in this way can we build a democratic Russian Federation. The experience of Tatarstan can serve as an example in this process.
When we met at The Hague for the first time, there were representatives from Georgia and Abkhazia, Trans-Dniester and Moldova, and Crimea and Ukraine present. We discussed regulation of their relations. Even discussing this topic was difficult. War separates the opposing sides even further, making adoption of a peaceful solution even more difficult. That is why, no matter how difficult, all conflicts should be addressed through negotiations.
From the very beginning, I said that Chechnya cannot be solved by force. You can, of course, try to forcefully subjugate a nation, impose a totalitarian regime on it, especially since our people are used to this already. But we do not have the right to do this. That is why those involved in this conflict today must be ready to negotiate with anyone to find a peaceful solution. The memory of war in this nation will be passed on from one generation to the next. That is why I believe that we have to learn to find the peaceful path and negotiate with everyone involved in the conflict today, even though the war continues. If there is no suitable federal policy for all nations, it will not be a real democratic federation. We are learning this from bitter experience, but we are gaining experience and it shows us we have to extinguish this fire in Chechnya.
The main thing, in my view, for regulating and preventing conflicts in such a complex country as Russia in the long term is not to allow tension to accumulate, especially when economic reforms are proceeding with difficulty. Accomplishing political stability under conditions of an unstable economy is very hard. I believe we do not need to add additional difficulties.
Valery Tishkov: Efforts by myself and Pain and Mikhailov to create a legislative chamber to represent nationalities were not implemented. A few nights ago Mikhailov and I got together to discuss the remarkable proposals from Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. At first the project began from the top, but in the end it was with the agreement of the republics. That was the advantage of this version over the one in 1992 when I was chair of the nationalities ministry. Though I agree with you that it was not a permanent document, the general result is good.
Shaimiev: Were it not for Tishkov and Mikhailov, there would be no concept at all of a nationalities policy, or it would not be accepted by anybody. I also very highly value the contributions of Emil Pain and Vyacheslav Mikhailov on the Chechen conflict. Unfortunately, their efforts were never supported by those of other ministries. I say this as a member of the state commission for resolving the Chechen conflict. We always talked about this and stated our position clearly because there should not be "double politics" on such a complicated question, especially when we are involved with a nation that not for the first time is experiencing the consequences of central force. . . . But with regard to a nationalities policy, I said a year and a half or two years ago that without a change in the constitution, without the constitutionalization of rights of a multinational Russia, no nationalities conception will work. That is what we insisted on with you and Mikhailov, that for the time being we should proclaim in writing that we need at least a special chamber that would include representatives of the state apparatus and the public (obshchestvennaya gosudarstvennaya palata) on national questions. This is the first step. Then it has to be constitutionalized, but it cannot remain a public-governmental organization in that form only.
Georgi Shakhnazarov: You justly noted that there is no existing government institution that allows minorities to influence decisions affecting them. This is felt when treaties are being signed with all oblasts, and I support this move toward real federalism. But how do you view this? Should another organ be created or do we have to reform the whole institutional structure?
Shaimiev: I began to talk about this, about a conception of nationalities policy. We came to an agreement, and it was approved to create an obshchestvennaya gosudarstvennaya palata. If it will come into being, I think the President will use his decree power to give this chamber powers of legislative initiative when problems arise. But the mechanism for realizing the rights of nations inRussia must be developed. The constitution now says only one thing-it forbids secession. But the realization of rights of nations is not limited to this. Take one example: I get letters all the time asking how can we listen to music sung in the Tatar language? This is the demand of any nation. People cannot hear the language they were raised in. I propose that a powerful radio station be set up in Tatarstan so Tatars all over can listen to their language. But this issue is not being addressed. There are many such problems. There is a problem with schoolbooks: we need to supply schools with textbooks in the Tatar language. This is a problem not only for Tatarstan. Every person has a right to listen to music in the language he was brought up in, this is also part of human rights.
Unidentified questioner: Several times you spoke of the rights of nations, but treating a nation as a holder of rights is very difficult. Do you believe this, and will you continue so emphatically to work in that direction?
Shaimiev: The Tatar declaration of sovereignty was written in the name of the people (naroda) of Tatarstan, and we do not divide this people into ethnic groups. That is why there is such a thing as the rights of peoples. For example, take the processes under way now in Chechnya. Everyone forgot about the right to self-determination. They fear it like fire. But there was a time when that right widened and no one ever revoked it. Now the right to self-determination is counterpoised to individual rights. There is a real and theoretical opposition there. Yet, international organizations for the defense of rights of nations are silent. I think this is under the pressure of domestic concerns because each state has its own troubles and considers it best to be quiet. I can tell you that even when the USSR collapsed, those who declared full independence should have considered the international situation at the time; that the world community would not uphold this idea.
Unidentified questioner: What is your attitude toward the signing of bilateral treaties with krais and oblasts?
Shaimiev: I have not discussed this until now, but I believe it was largely done to lessen the importance of the treaties signed with Tatarstan and other republics. This is a well thought-out policy. But at the same time, I am pleased that Russia is putting itself on the path to a real federalism. It is leaving behind the possible path of imperial development. On a political level, these have no analog to the treaty with Tatarstan, if you read the latter carefully. In the economic sphere, I always express support for equal rights for all subjects of the Federation. The rights are there, but they have to be realized. When someone does not know how to realize his rights, he starts to complain that others have more rights. However, to be realistic, all the regions will never be equal.
* The prokuratura (procurator) is a Russian legal office somewhat resembling that of attorney-general in the United States. (Back)