The third panel of the Temerty Contemporary Ukraine Program conference focused on the intersecting issues of Displacement and Reintegration, particularly as these topics concern Crimea and the temporarily occupied territories (TOTs) of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The panelists had a combination of academic and policy backgrounds, and they came from various parts of Ukraine, including Donetsk and Crimea.
Moderator Viktoriya Sereda began the panel by addressing the potential impact of current Russian threats on creating a new refugee crisis in Europe. However, Sereda said she is concerned that this new issue will distract from the issue at hand in the panel—that of the people in and outside of Ukraine who have already experienced forced migration.
Oksana Mikheieva laid out the current situation in Ukraine, where at least 2 million people have been displaced since 2014. This includes both internally displaced people (IDPs) as well as those who have gone eastward, especially toward Russia and Belarus. Furthermore, people who have stayed in the occupied territories remain citizens of Ukraine. This makes it difficult to calculate the precise number of internally (and externally) displaced people. Mikheieva also pointed to the stigmatization of IDPs and people who continue to live in the TOTs; she argued that interactions with state institutions and representatives can be especially humiliating. Furthermore, she pointed out the challenges faced by people who live in the TOTs but who are registered as IDPs. Before the pandemic began, they were required to cross the line of demarcation every three months to prove their status and access services. In 2020, the checkpoints at the border between Ukraine and the TOTs were closed. Now, people seeking to come to Ukraine must come through Russia; they pay fines for illegally crossing this border. While Ukraine has re-opened their side of the border, the TOTs have not, so this lack of free movement is an ongoing problem.
Nariman Ustaiev focused on how Crimea fits into the issue of displacement. He described the politicized decision making in Ukraine in the aftermath of the annexation of the peninsula in 2014, including a law adopted in 2015 in which the Ukrainian parliament made Crimea a free economic zone. Until 2021, there was also a political order that identified Ukrainian citizens in Crimea as non-residents of Ukraine, which created many challenges for them, ranging from difficulty opening a bank account to psychological trauma. Thanks to MP (and participant in last year’s TCUP Conference) Rustem Umerov, this law was repealed. However, Ustaiev pointed out, these bad decisions right after the annexation allowed Russia to buy time and secure its hold on the peninsula.
Marthe Handå Myhre delved more deeply into the distinctions in the experiences of internally and externally displaced people. In the regulation of IDPs, she suggested, authorities may appeal to their own interests. They want to indicate that “internally displaced” is a temporary status, because it shows they have not given up on the occupied territories. This might be contradictory to the desires of internally displaced people themselves, because they may see their displacement as permanent. Myhre also discussed the role of international aid organizations and other non-state actors that play a role in securing the needs of IDPs. She argued that these organizations should not replace the state, because that contributes to citizens feeling that they have been abandoned by the state, a poor foundation for a positive citizen-state relationship. Anastasiya Ryabchuk brought the conversation to a micro-level based on her anthropological research in communities close to the demarcation line. She mentioned that the Ukrainian state’s lack of clear vision and plan for IDPs is not unique to the issue of IDPs; the state doesn’t have a clear policy on many issues. As far as the problem of displacement is concerned, Ryabchuk described that the state was unable to provide for citizens’ basic needs in 2014, and trust in state institutions is very low (trust in churches and volunteers is much higher). When international organizations come in to help and offer assistance, they fill gaps left by the state’s absence. So, we should ask, what role does aid play in state-building or state weakening? In Ukraine, they largely reinforce the expectation that the state is unable to provide for its citizens. And this is a problem in areas close to the demarcation line, because there, it’s important for the state to show it has a vision of what it will do with this region. People in those regions don’t see the state intervening on their behalf.
The panelists next addressed the question of how best to conduct, write, and disseminate research about the issue of IDPs and reintegration. Mikheieva spoke about the risks and dangers that both researchers and participants face in researching territories and societies affected by war. Next, she discussed some of the issues faced in presenting the results of this kind of research. How do we compile our results, and what language do we use to present it? There is a gap between policy and academic research, because much of the research from civil society is not academically adequate even as it is disseminated quickly. At the same time, academic research often takes two or three years to prepare, but the scholarship is more sound. So how can academics give good information to policy makers more quickly? Ryabchuk completed interviews with sociologists who did their own research with IDPs. In general, they complained about the fragmentation of the IDP experience in much existing research. Policy makers and organizations who work with IDPs are interested in specific aspects of the IDP experience. They ask researchers to look at one aspect, but this means researchers cannot look holistically at IDPs’ lives and how different issues are linked. Further, IDPs and people living in the TOTs are often seen as a kind of raw material. People are there to provide data and give a picture of suffering. This creates a hierarchical structure in which people in the communities have no control over how the information they provide to researchers is analyzed or shared.
The panelists advocated for greater agency of IDPs and migrants in general. Myhre stated that IDPs are not a homogenous group, but rather individuals who are making conscious choices under limited and sometimes impossible circumstances. They are key actors in enhancing our knowledge because they have encountered and navigated so many institutional structures. Ustaiev made further suggestions about how to better integrate IDP experiences, particularly through political participation. He described the important role of IDPs in impacting elections, particularly in local elections that are more significant in Ukraine following decentralization reforms. IDPs must be represented among the local authorities, so creating a platform where people who live in the TOTs can have their voices heard is important. This is especially true because IDPs help connect the Ukrainian government with people living in the TOTs, including Crimea.
The panelists briefly discussed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the TOTs. Ustaiev discussed the high mortality rate in Crimea because they do not have access to WHO-approved vaccines, a lack of hospital beds, a shortage of medicine, and a shortage of qualified medical personnel. Additionally, the Russian Federation refused to lock down Crimea or to restrict the flow of Russians to Crimea as an attempt to reduce social tensions in Russia by continuing the free movement of its citizens and keeping connections with people in Crimea. But Ukraine’s cutting off of the TOTs during the pandemic has made it more difficult to keep their finger on Crimea’s pulse, and the Kremlin will continue to take advantage of the situation. In Donetsk and Luhansk, Ryabchuk reiterated the difficulties in crossing the demarcation line. People are now unable to cross the line to see their families, including to attend funerals. Even when the border is open, it is difficult to cross. It has also been a challenge to get PCR tests, to self-isolate, and to have the required smartphone app to enter Ukraine. At the same time, Ryabchuk pointed to some positive developments—in particular, some social services in Ukraine were transferred online, so now people in rural places do not have to travel to an administrative center to receive services—they can do it online.
The topic of documents was a recurring theme throughout the panel. Mikheieva pointed to the Ukrainian system that links access to services (such as education) to one’s residence registration. IDPs in Ukraine must keep their registration in the TOTs and, in addition, have a certificate that recognizes their IDP status. In order to get this document, they further needed proof of identity with other documents, which created a complicated process of proving their person. People who can’t meet these demands to confirm their citizenship become stateless. A further problem is that many people living in the TOTs now have multiple passports—a Ukrainian internal passport, a Ukrainian international passport, a Russian internal passport, sometimes a Russian international passport, and a passport distributed by the governing bodies of the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics (documents only recognized in those TOTs and Russia). Over 700,000 people in the TOTs have Russian passports, which created a good justification for Russian intervention.
Ustaiev confirmed that it is impossible to live in Crimea now without a Russian passport; people will lose their homes and businesses without it. Because Crimean Tatars are the most pro-Ukrainian ethnic group in Ukraine (leader Mustafa Dzhemilev firmly supports Ukrainian sovereignty and independence), the Russian special services are compelled to keep Crimean Tatars in focus. The Kremlin authorized Tatarstan to bring the Crimean Tatar governing body, the Mejlis, to the Russian side, and the head of the Mejlis agreed to delegate Crimean Tatars to the Russian occupied administration in Crimea, sent a deputy to Tatarstan to prepare a visit, and visited Kazan in 2014 to meet with the head of Tatarstan and sign bilateral documents. Because of their long support for Ukrainian sovereignty, average Crimean Tatars were puzzled by these steps and, Ustaiev stated, will continue to support Ukraine’s independence and democracy.
Myhre pointed out, however, that for many people living in the TOTs, it doesn’t really matter what country they live in—they just want a good job and the possibility of a good pension. Thus, the Russian developments to recognize documents of the DPR/LPR governments allows people to have freer movement. The distribution of Russian passports also helped improve some people’s situations, since they can access some Russian social services. She was optimistic, though, stating that she did not think passportization makes reintegration impossible. And Ryabchuk reiterated that these developments depend on whether it is a theoretical discussion or a choice of immediate significance for someone. People might have different motives, outside of political loyalties, in making a choice to take a Russian passport or seek free health care treatment in the occupied territories.
Ultimately, the panelists advocated that Ukraine must continue to remain in contact with people in the TOTs. Myhre said the territory cannot be reintegrated without considering the people living there. Further, the Ukrainian state must listen to these people before implementing policies. Ryabchuk advocated for a bigger focus on infrastructure, as well as rights and entitlements, rather than just on providing services, to shift the discussion away from the individual level and toward an institutional one. And Ustaiev commended the Ukrainian government for the law recognizing Crimean Tatars as indigenous people, as well as initiating the Crimea Platform in 2021, which has received strong international support.
The TCUP Conference concludes tomorrow with a final panel on current policy priorities, followed by a concluding discussion. Join us tomorrow at noon!