Political discourse

The leading role in producing the discourse of ethnicity in the reporting period was played by political figures of the region. The tone was set by Governor A. N. Tkachev himself, who in the spring showed unprecedented activity in his speeches in the all-Russian media. One of the indispensable questions at them was the discussion of the topic of migration and ethnic minorities. The governor's press conference at the Interfax agency on the occasion of his recognition as the laureate of the "Person of the Year" award received the greatest response both in the regional press and in the federal press. Turning to this topic, A.N. Tkachev, as always, noted that "no one has ever fought with visitors on a national basis" [1] . However, all his further reasoning became a denial of this thesis. Migration is conceived solely as a problem, and, characterizing the deviance of migrants in general, the governor cannot refrain from using the ethnic code. “Using the lack of control, loafers break through to us, who then demand housing. They don’t want or can’t work, they start stealing and robbing,” Alexander Tkachev complained. “And if you saw how aggressive the children of such migrants are, it even comes to the rape of Slavic boys !" [2] . When the governor refers to specific examples, the opposition between "good" and "bad" is based solely on ethnicity. The Meskhetian Turks and Kurds are causing extreme dissatisfaction with the regional authorities. "In one of the schools in the Krymsky district, out of 1,400 students, more than 600 are children of Meskhetian Turks and Kurds. Only last year, out of the eight first grades, four consisted of children of these nationalities. This school was badly damaged as a result of a summer flood. Teachers, parents, themselves schoolchildren - all worked on restoration work. But we did not see a single representative of the Turks or Kurds there. Either they will live according to local laws, observing and respecting them, or let them go to their homeland "[1 ] . As an example of "good" migrants, the governor mentioned Armenians and Greeks, praising them for "good assimilation" [2] .

Representatives of the legislature of the Krasnodar Territory also showed public activity in demonstrating their understanding of ethnic issues. Chairman of the Legislative Assembly of the region V. A. Beketov is inclined to positively assess the activities of local authorities in this area. “If we talk about the migration policy of the regional authorities in general, I think it is producing positive results. And it is very important for us that the commission of the Federation Council, which visited us last year, supported our work to restore order” [3 ] . However, in this case, in his opinion, "excesses" could not be avoided. The ethnic situation in the region should not be dramatized, there are no prerequisites for this. "The last census showed that there have not yet been any very large distortions in the ethnic composition of the population of the region. And after that, talk that it is flooded with refugees from the former fraternal republics of the Caucasus can be considered a myth dispelled. Yes, indeed, there are many Caucasians for stalls in the markets. But it has always been like this. By the way, you also need to be able to trade, and they succeed in it " [3] .

It should, however, be recognized that such conclusions are not common among regional politicians. There is a dominant tendency to associate real or potential problems with ethnicity. Thus, AI Shustenkov, First Deputy Chairman of the ZSK, who criticized the reform of local self-government proposed by the presidential administration, considers the possibility of forming municipalities in the region with a predominance of a non-ethnic population as one of its weaknesses. "The draft law opens a wide road for the creation of purely national enclaves with their own national governing bodies and with all the ensuing consequences" [4] . The deputy is sure in advance of the destructiveness of such administrations, and it is difficult to explain his confidence only as appropriate ethnic stereotypes.

The tendency to regard groups of other ethnicities as a "danger" is manifested in the practice of applying the federal law "On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation" in the region. In contrast to the intention to legalize migrants demonstrated by the central leadership of the Federal Migration Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the regional authorities focus their work on their deportation and restriction of activities. At the beginning of March 2003, a meeting of the Territory's Security Council was held, at which the issue of the implementation of this law was considered. The Secretary of the Security Council, AS Sidorenko, who delivered the report, considered it necessary to note the following results of the work of law enforcement agencies in this direction. "In 2002, about 39 thousand people were held accountable for violations of migration legislation in the Kuban, of which 7.5 thousand were citizens of the Republic of Armenia, 6 thousand were citizens of the Republic of Ukraine, and 5.6 thousand were persons without any citizenship at all" [5] . As a result, 488 people were expelled from the territory of the region, and voluntarily, but under the control of law enforcement agencies, another 3428 people left the region. In the two months of 2003, according to the Secretary of the Security Council, 74 foreigners have already been deported from the territory of the Krasnodar Territory. On the whole, estimates of the volume of illegal migration in the region made at the meeting give a figure of 200-250 thousand people a year.

According to members of the Krai's Security Council, the Passport and Visa Service and other subdivisions of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of the Krasnodar Territory, neither in terms of numbers nor in terms of population coverage, can fully control migration processes. In this regard, the Security Council decided to create a migration inspectorate consisting of 400 people in the structure of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of the Krasnodar Territory. By his second decision, he approved the creation of deportation centers in the region for the temporary detention of persons subject to deportation. The first such point is being created in the Adler region. According to the secretary of the regional Security Council, the work of the migration inspection and deportation points will be financed from the regional budget, although the maintenance of only one such point a year, according to preliminary estimates, will cost about 15 million rubles.

The first reports of the practical implementation of innovations by law enforcement agencies cause serious concern. Widespread (and with a rather positive assessment) coverage in the regional press received information about the activities of the PVS of the city of Yeysk. “The experiment with the introduction of migration cards is considered by the employees of the passport and visa service to be very effective. It became possible to track the movement of foreigners around the country. This is especially true for residents of the North Caucasus . . The fact that this violates a whole range of human rights, apparently does not bother the law enforcement agencies. To explain such actions as a significant threat to public order on the part of migrants, in my opinion, is not possible. After all, according to the head of the Yeysk PVS, Y. Dudnik, "persons of Caucasian nationality in the city do not exceed 1% of the population. The Union of Armenians and the Azerbaijani community themselves bring illegal fellow countrymen to the police" [6] . The first results of the experiment, demonstrated by Y. Dudnik himself, in no way allow us to talk about the special criminality of migrants, which would justify the application of discriminatory measures against them. "Since the beginning of this experiment, we have identified 35 foreign citizens who were on the territory of Yeysk and the region with violations, as well as 17 Russian citizens who provided them with housing. At the moment, 2 expulsions of foreign citizens illegally staying in the city are being prepared. This is 1 citizen of Armenia and 2 citizens of Georgia" [6] .

There is such an opinion that only the expansion of their powers is important for the power structures of the region. Even the newly introduced mechanisms of migration control, as the leadership of the regional police department believes, do not sufficiently use the potential of the internal affairs bodies and other state structures. At a videoconference held in early March 2003 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia on issues of migration policy, the head of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of the Krasnodar Territory, S.A. from 500 minimum wages or imprisonment), as well as to propose to the government of the Russian Federation to finalize the mechanism for coordinating the procedure for attracting foreign labor. In his opinion, at present there is no effective mechanism of employers' responsibility for the illegal use of the so-called guest workers, which provokes an influx of illegal workers, introduces a certain social tension, and creates prerequisites for committing crimes and abuses. In addition, S. A. Kucheruk noted that it is important at the federal level to speed up the process of negotiations on the return of the Meskhetian Turks to their historical homeland. This will allow, according to the words of the police chief, to a large extent to relieve tension in interethnic relations, to eliminate the centers of possible conflicts in the future. [5] .

These practices of the implementation of migration laws allow us to see the relationship between the cultivated discourse of ethnicity and real discriminatory actions. When migrants of different ethnicity are seen as a problem, a cause of conflicts and a threat to security, it is quite natural to apply a repressive model to them. Since the emphasis is on maintaining stability, the authorities are entitled to be inactive in protecting minorities, because this will be assessed as a factor of destabilization.

In April, the Krasnodar public was able to get acquainted with the "Report on the activities of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Krasnodar Territory in 2002". This report is actually the first official statement of the regional ombudsman, and most of the interested parties were inclined to consider it as a kind of policy document. The Plenipotentiary himself does not appear to attach such a definite meaning to the text. As noted in the introduction , "guided by the requirements of the Law, the compiler in the report analyzes the most significant violations of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen that took place in 2002. It contains general assessments, conclusions and recommendations related to ensuring the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in Krasnodar Territory, state bodies, local self-government bodies and their officials are indicated that systematically violate the rights and freedoms of man and citizen and evade taking measures to restore and protect them . At the same time, in his first report, the Ombudsman does not claim to be a complete and exhaustive description and assessment of the situation with human rights in the Krasnodar Territory, defining for himself the goal "draw the attention of all branches of government, law enforcement agencies, municipal authorities, all officials, as well as the general public to the problems of human rights, the need to respect them, ensure guarantees and protection" .

The structure of the report was determined by its authors in accordance with the requirements of "Article 10 of the Law, which determines the main tasks of the Commissioner's activities, as well as Article 17, which reveals its content" . Therefore, the main attention was paid to the implementation of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen, legal education, development of cooperation and interaction of the Ombudsman with various institutions, as well as proposals for ensuring human rights in the Krasnodar Territory.

Analyzing the situation regarding the implementation of fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms in the region, the Commissioner first of all (at least in this order of mention) singled out the problems of ensuring the rights of national minorities. Unfortunately, we have to state that the report does not demonstrate new approaches to understanding the ethnic situation in the region, different from those rooted in the regional public discourse. An essential feature of its characteristics is the fact that "the overwhelming majority of the population in the region, more than 86%, are Slavs. The Kuban Cossacks are also among the Slavs - a peculiar and most ancient ethnographic group that lived in the Kuban, which largely determines the regional ethno-cultural flavor" .

The ombudsman sees the main problem of "regulating interethnic relations" in the region in finding a balance between the national majority and the minority. "Balance can only be achieved when the majority respects the guaranteed rights of the minority, and the minority does not seek to violate the established rights of the majority. The loss of this balance leads to ethnic conflicts." One gets the impression that the authors of the report consider "the rights of the majority" and "the rights of the minority" as two mutually exclusive phenomena, and even in opposition. The inadequacy of such an interpretation of the theory and practice of law is obvious. However, the concept of "ethnic balance", which dominates the discourse, has become so firmly established in the views of regional politicians and not only figures that all discussions about ethnic issues are built around it.

Turning to an analysis of specific events, the Commissioner notes that "in 2002, interethnic relations in the Kuban continued to develop on the whole on a conflict-free basis. At the same time, they remained complex." As examples of this, the report mentions incidents of violence motivated by ethnic intolerance. When they are characterized by the Ombudsman, the strategy of belittling the xenophobic component of the committed actions is quite clearly manifested and the question is raised about the unreasonable focus on it of the attention of the media, leaders of national communities and non-profit organizations. In such aspiration, the Commissioner even allows the use of incorrect information. Indicative in this regard is the description of the events connected with the pogrom at the Krasnodar city cemetery in April 2002. The report notes that "the court convicted the perpetrators, qualifying their actions as hooliganism. There were no motives related to national issues in their behavior" . However, the court verdict, cited by almost all regional newspapers, says just the opposite: "desecration of the bodies of the dead and their burial places by prior agreement by a group of persons, motivated by national enmity."

A separate section of the report is devoted to the problems of exercising rights by the Meskhetian Turks. The Ombudsman notes that recently this issue has become so well-known that it is almost always in the center of attention in all forums where issues of national minorities are discussed. According to the authors of the report, for certain leaders of parties and public organizations, this issue has become a resource in their political game, and as a result, "in some cases, the Meskhetian Turks even turned out to be hostages of intrigues, against their will" .

Outlining the key moments in the history of the Meskhetians in the XX century. The Ombudsman states that in 1989 about 12,500 Meskhetian Turks moved to the Krasnodar Territory directly from Uzbekistan. "Most of the Meskhetian Turks who arrived in the region did not receive a residence permit (subsequently registered). At the same time, according to the statements of the leadership of the region, voiced in the media last year, about four thousand Meskhetian Turks have permanent registration in the territory of the region. Currently, the general The number of Meskhetian Turks, according to various sources, ranges from 13.5 to 21 thousand people.They form two main compact settlements in the region - in the west (Crimean and Abinsk regions) and southeast (Absheronsk region and Belorechensk). part of the Meskhetian Turks, more than 98%, live in rural areas and are engaged in the traditional cultivation of agricultural products.

The report highlights two main approaches to understanding the situation with the Meskhetian Turks. "The first of them boils down to the resettlement of the Meskhetian Turks to the Republic of Georgia, to the areas where they previously lived." As an argument, supporters of this point of view cite the fact that this ethnic group has never lived on the territory of the Krasnodar Territory, and this makes it difficult for its representatives to adapt to local customs and conditions, their isolation. "In their opinion, the settlers bring with them an alien culture, which negatively affects interethnic relations, examples of offenses are given, and more." Within the framework of this approach, the issue of the obligations taken by Georgia on the repatriation of the population is also updated and a demand is put forward that "the federal authorities activate the negotiation process with the Republic of Georgia in order to promptly resettle the Meskhetian Turks to their historical homeland." According to the Ombudsman, "such a position is inherent in a part of the population, primarily those who traditionally identify themselves with the Cossacks, Slavic nationality and some national minorities, whose history is connected with pogroms" .

The second approach, as noted in the report, is to reject resettlement as such without the consent of the Meskhetian Turks themselves, bilateral agreements with Georgia, and provision of all necessary guarantees. "This position is mainly held by non-profit human rights organizations of various levels."

The Ombudsman states the ineffectiveness of the attempts to resolve the situation, the main reason for which he sees in the lack of mutual understanding of the problem and ways to solve it. Unfortunately, the Commissioner does not demonstrate his own approach to this issue in the report and is limited to general remarks. "The search for ways to solve the problem of the Meskhetian Turks is possible only on the basis of a dialogue of all interested parties, including the Meskhetian Turks themselves. The federal government, which has actually taken a "non-intervention position" for a twelve-year period, should also take an active part in the process.

The Ombudsman states a significant offense on the part of the authorities of the Krasnodar Territory in the field of exercising the rights to freedom of movement and choice of residence. The provisions of the regional law No. 460-KZ adopted in 2002 "On stay and residence in the territory of the Krasnodar Territory" and the resolution of the head of the regional administration No. 676 "On strengthening state control over migration processes and ensuring the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens of the Russian Federation in the territory of the regions" directly affect the regulation of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. According to Article 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, such actions are within the competence of the Federation, therefore, the relevant norms of these acts should be considered as unconstitutional. In addition, they have established more stringent restrictions on stay and residence in the territory of the region, do not make a clear distinction between Russian citizens and other migrants, which also contradicts federal law.

The report notes the following human rights violations. "Article 6 of the Law limits the terms of registration at the place of stay to six months, while federal legislation does not establish such terms." Both regulations authorize the creation of a regional commission of migration control, which decides on granting the right to stay and reside in cities and rural areas of the Krasnodar Territory, while federal legislation does not provide for the activities of such a body. "Often the Commission refuses to register with reference to Article 12 of the Law, which determines the norm of living space for all premises, which is contrary to federal law." The law also establishes other rules for regulating the residence of foreign citizens in the Krasnodar Territory than those provided for by the new federal legislation. There are other contradictions, which creates, as the Commissioner summarizes, unreasonable restrictions on the exercise by citizens and other categories of the population of their rights.

The report also highlights the problems with the realization in the region of the rights of citizens to judicial protection, a fair and impartial court and the rights of citizens in obtaining guaranteed extrajudicial protection.

Drawing conclusions about the situation in the region, the Ombudsman notes that, despite many unresolved problems, the year 2002 became indicative in ensuring the guarantees of human rights and their implementation. "Serious advances have taken place in the region in understanding the very problem of human rights and the need to create conditions for their implementation. The protection of human rights has become systemic in the activities of the authorities." In order to increase efforts to ensure guarantees of human rights, it is necessary to intensify the interaction of all interested parties. To improve the situation with human rights in the region, the Ombudsman, first of all, proposes "to further initiate the legislative process for the implementation by Russian citizens of their rights to freedom of movement and choice of residence within the Russian Federation and the Krasnodar Territory, in particular, to create a Commission on Interethnic Relations under the head administration of the Krasnodar Territory with the involvement of members of the public in it , endowing it with advisory functions. In turn, the Commissioner is ready to cooperate in the closest way with such a structure.

It appears, however, that the Ombudsman exaggerates the degree of positive developments in the province, and this approach is generally characteristic of the entire report. It is gratifying that the document, designed to characterize the human rights situation in the Krasnodar Territory, focuses on ethnic minorities, primarily the Meskhetian Turks. The state representative first began to speak about the problem from this perspective. However, the demonstrated position is extremely contradictory. There was no place in the report to characterize the offenses practiced against the Meskhetians, which allow speaking of ethnic discrimination. The problem of the growth of xenophobic sentiments and violent actions on this basis not only did not find due reflection, but an attempt was made to accuse non-profit organizations of unreasonable updating of it. The strategy of demonstrating loyalty to the regional authorities, chosen by the Ombudsman, programmed a positive assessment of the situation around the realization of the rights of ethnic minorities, and the problems characteristic of it are considered as separate incidents. The Commissioner seeks not to show his own position, and where this cannot be avoided, he confines himself to general remarks. All this does not make it possible to unequivocally assess the prospects for the development of the institution of the Commissioner in the Krasnodar Territory, however, it is obvious that constant looking back at the authorities will not allow the Ombudsman to productively fulfill his mission.

A constantly raised topic in the regional public discourse is the discussion of the issue of the oppressed position of Russians in modern Russia. In such interpretations of reality, peoples act as independent collective subjects, some of which lead a righteous life, while others are immoral and inhuman. Such views are produced both by representatives of marginal political circles and high-status politicians.

An example of the ideas of the former is the position of Yu Serebryakov, chairman of the Russian Party of Kuban. The key point of Russian realities is the fact that "Russians were not only deprived of the right to designate their nationality in their passports, but they were generally forbidden to have their own nationally oriented party, to raise national issues at the state level and in the media" [7 ] . Ethnicity is traditionally interpreted in line with orthodox primordialism as a kind of natural entity, determined by its roots and impossible without them. "We are few, and we are no longer enough to preserve our territories, habitat, without which a Russian is not Russian. We are few, because due to drunkenness and drug addiction, rampant crime, we cannot restore the lost gene pool" [ 7 ] . Such an interpretation of social reality ensures the setting of appropriate political goals: in Russia, "a prosperous and prosperous society must be Russian, with its age-old traditions and mentality. Russians must be masters in their own land" [7] .

The fact that such ideas are also characteristic of the political establishment was once again demonstrated by N. I. Kondratenko. Almost all major regional newspapers published his speech at the First Congress of the Peoples of the Union State of Belarus and Russia. The central place in the publication is occupied by reflections on the "ongoing" genocide of the Russian people. "Today, we, Russians, on our land are exactly like Palestinians. Only the Palestinians have not lost the ability to make self-sacrifice, protecting their national interests, and we, Russians, have lost this quality too" [8 ] . Proof of the oppressed position of the Russians, according to N. I. Kondratenko, is the fact of their removal from the management of the material and intellectual resources of the country. “Is it normal that there is no one Russian in the financial structures of the country again? Can it be considered normal when, after robbery privatization, oil, gold, diamond, nickel, uranium fields and mines went to non-Russian owners? will you find a Russian face? You won't hear Russian logic" [8] .

Unfortunately, we have to state that such views bordering on the absurd are not on the periphery of political discourse. They are actively broadcast to the masses, who readily absorb them. Discourses about the dominance of other ethnic groups in Russia are one of the determining factors in maintaining xenophobic attitudes, still provoking violence against minorities.

The report on political discourse used materials from the following newspapers:

1. Krasnodar news. - 2003. - March 29.

2. Independent newspaper. - 2003. - March 28.

3. Kuban today. - 2003. - March 14.

4. Free Kuban. - 2003. - April 16.

5. Kuban News. - 2003. - March 12.

6. http://www.yuga.ru/news/16721/index.html

7. Kuban today. - 2003. - May 8.

8. Free Kuban. - 2003. - March 22.