Colonialism in the 21st Century: Systematic Suppression of Crimean Tatars as a Challenge to International Law

Colonial Analysis of Crimean Tatar Persecutions: From Historical Roots to Modern Political Prisoners

Keywords: Crimean Tatars, Indigenous people, Colonial persecutions, Political prisoners, Occupation of Crimea, Postcolonial theory, National-territorial autonomy

Introduction

The persecution of Crimean Tatars, which began with the annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire in 1783 and continues under the Russian occupation of Crimea since 2014, represents a stark example of long-term colonial policy. This study aims to analyze the historical roots and contemporary manifestations of these persecutions, using colonial theory and critical discourse analysis to reveal the underlying mechanisms and consequences of the systematic oppression of the Crimean Tatar people.

Methodology

This study employs a comprehensive qualitative approach, combining critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995; van Dijk, 1993) and phenomenological method. This approach allows not only to identify the factual aspects of events but also to reveal their semantic content in the context of the colonial experience of the Crimean Tatar people. The theoretical foundation of the study is based on works on colonial and postcolonial theory (Said, 1978; Spivak, 2010; Tlostanova, 2015), which help to understand the mechanisms of colonial domination and its modern manifestations.

Historical Context

The ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars represents a complex and centuries-long process rooted in the Bronze and Iron Ages of the Crimean Peninsula. Contemporary archaeological and genetic studies convincingly refute the long-dominant historiographical myth about the origin of Crimean Tatars exclusively from the Mongol-Tatar tribes of the Golden Horde who settled on the peninsula in the 13th century (Williams, 2015; Aibabin, 2019).

The formation of the Crimean Tatar people as a consolidated nation reached its culmination in the 13th-15th centuries. However, this was preceded by a long process of ethnocultural integration and assimilation of numerous autochthonous and allochthonous elements. Key components of this ethnogenesis include Taurians, Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Goths, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs, Kipchaks (Polovtsians), as well as Greek, Italian (Genoese and Venetian), and Slavic elements (Vozgrin, 2013). Recent archaeological data and paleogenetic studies (Naumenko, 2020; Khitrinskaya et al., 2021) confirm the continuity of cultural and genetic succession of the Crimean population from the Bronze Age to the late Middle Ages, serving as irrefutable evidence of the autochthonous nature of Crimean Tatars as the indigenous people of the peninsula.

A crucial stage in the history of Crimean Tatars was the existence of the independent Crimean Khanate from 1441 to 1783. The Crimean Khanate developed its distinctive culture, statehood, and economy. This period of independence laid the foundations for Crimean Tatar national identity and state traditions.

However, in 1783, an event occurred that radically changed the fate of Crimean Tatars – the first annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire. This marked the beginning of a long period of colonial rule, characterized by systematic attempts to alter the demographic and cultural landscape of Crimea. The Russian Empire pursued a policy of displacing Crimean Tatars from their ancestral lands, encouraging the settlement of Slavic populations on the peninsula. Nevertheless, Crimean Tatars remained the predominant population until 1944.

A brief period of hope for the restoration of national autonomy arose in 1917-1918 when Crimean Tatars created the independent Crimean People’s Republic. This episode, though short-lived, demonstrated the unwavering aspiration of Crimean Tatars for self-determination and statehood. However, with the establishment of Soviet power, these hopes were crushed.

From 1921 to 1945, the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic existed within the Russian SFSR. Despite formal autonomy, this period was marked by the strengthening of Soviet power and the suppression of Crimean Tatar identity. The culmination of this repressive policy was the genocide of Crimean Tatars committed by the Soviet authorities. Under the guise of “deportation,” on May 18, 1944, the total expulsion of the Crimean Tatar people to Central Asia and other regions of the USSR was carried out. This action, essentially an ethnic cleansing, led to the death of 46.2% of the entire Crimean Tatar population and the destruction of their cultural and social structure (Williams, 2015).

The formal rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars in 1967 did not lead to significant changes in their situation. De jure rehabilitation was accompanied by de facto continuation of repressive methods against the indigenous people of Crimea. Crimean Tatars were prohibited from returning to their homeland, demonstrating the duality of Soviet policy and unwillingness to restore the rights of the deported people.

Only in the late 1980s and early 1990s, against the backdrop of the USSR’s collapse, did the mass return of Crimean Tatars to their historical homeland begin. This period was marked by a struggle for the restoration of rights and cultural revival. However, the return was accompanied by new difficulties: lack of housing, work, social infrastructure, and often hostile attitudes from local authorities.

A new tragic turn in the history of Crimean Tatars occurred in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. This event led to a new wave of persecutions and violations of Crimean Tatars’ rights, including arrests of activists, ban on the activities of the Mejlis (the representative body of Crimean Tatars), restrictions on the use of the Crimean Tatar language, and cultural expression.

Thus, the history of Crimean Tatars represents a continuous struggle to preserve their identity, culture, and right to self-determination under constant pressure from imperial and post-imperial regimes. From the first annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire in 1783 to modern persecutions in Russian-occupied Crimea, a clear line of colonial policy can be traced, aimed at suppressing Crimean Tatar autonomy and assimilating the indigenous population. This historical trajectory explains the roots of modern persecutions and helps to understand why Crimean Tatars continue to face systematic violations of their rights and freedoms in the 21st century.

Understanding this history is critically important for comprehending the modern persecutions of Crimean Tatars by Russia.

Analysis of the Current Situation

Colonial Practices in Occupied Crimea

Since the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, there has been a sharp escalation of repressions against Crimean Tatars. These persecutions can be viewed as a continuation of centuries-old colonial policy aimed at suppressing Crimean Tatar identity and resistance. Using critical discourse analysis, several key aspects can be identified.

A central element of this policy is the criminalization of Crimean Tatar identity. Russian authorities systematically present manifestations of Crimean Tatar national identity as a security threat, which is expressed in the persecution of Mejlis members, the ban on Crimean Tatar media, and restrictions on the use of their native language (Belitser, 2019). This is accompanied by the active use of “terrorism” and “extremism” discourse as a tool for suppressing dissent and civic activity, creating an image of Crimean Tatars as an “internal enemy” (Bidochko, 2023).

Colonial biopolitics is manifested in the refusal to provide adequate medical care to political prisoners, such as Amet Suleimanov and Yashar Muedinov (Crimean Solidarity, 2024), demonstrating the colonial power’s control over the bodies of the colonized (Foucault, 1980). This practice is part of a broader strategy that includes mass arrests, long prison sentences, forced disappearances, and torture.

Illustrative examples of this policy include the case of Ansar Osmanov, sentenced to 20 years in prison, and Ruslan Suleimanov, a civilian journalist and father of four, sentenced to 14 years. These disproportionately harsh sentences for peaceful activism demonstrate the punitive nature of Russian justice in Crimea and attempts to suppress independent coverage of events.

The use of anti-terrorism legislation has become a key tool for suppressing peaceful dissent. Crimean Tatars are persecuted not for real preparation of a coup, but for public criticism of Russian authorities and expression of disagreement with the 2014 annexation. This tactic, along with long prison terms for activists, leads to the destruction of families and communities, having a destructive impact on the social fabric of Crimean Tatar society.

The persecutions of Crimean Tatars, the indigenous people of Crimea, reflect systematic colonial practices aimed at suppressing resistance and establishing full control over the territory. Since 2014, hundreds of Crimean Tatars have been imprisoned on fabricated charges, reminiscent of repressive methods of the Soviet period. The case of Appaz Kurtamet and the persecution of mothers of political prisoners (Zure Emiruseinova, Zelikha Abkhairova, Emine Abdulganieva) for solitary pickets illustrate the multifaceted nature of these repressions. These actions include the use of the legal system to legitimize persecutions, manipulation of public opinion through accusations of terrorism, collective punishments, suppression of civil society, and gender-targeted repressions. Such policies demonstrate the colonial power’s desire for total control over public space and the destruction of Crimean Tatar social structures. International attention to this problem underscores its global significance and the need to counter these colonial practices.

The situation of Crimean Tatars has parallels with other cases of indigenous peoples’ persecution both in the post-Soviet space and in other regions of the world, highlighting the continuity of colonial practices.

Buryats in Russia, although having formal republic status, face similar problems of losing real influence on political and economic processes in their region. However, unlike Crimean Tatars, they are not under direct military occupation and do not face the same level of political persecution. Inuit in Canada and Greenland have achieved significant political autonomy and control over natural resources, especially in Greenland, which could serve as a certain model for Crimean Tatars, although the geopolitical context differs significantly.

The Sami in Scandinavia and Russia, fighting for land rights and preservation of traditional lifestyles, have a more developed system of legal protection, but their aspirations do not include the same level of political autonomy as Crimean Tatars. Basques in Spain have achieved significant political and economic autonomy, which in some aspects corresponds to the aspirations of Crimean Tatars, but the historical and geopolitical context is substantially different. Sorbs in Germany, while enjoying legislative protection of their cultural rights, do not strive for the degree of political and economic autonomy that is the goal of Crimean Tatars.

These comparisons demonstrate that while many indigenous peoples face similar challenges in preserving culture and language, the situation of Crimean Tatars stands out in its complexity and acuteness. Their struggle for national-territorial autonomy, full participation in all spheres of life in Crimea, and control over resources occurs under conditions of military occupation and systematic political persecution. This makes their case particularly complex and requiring special attention from the international community, as it touches on fundamental issues of self-determination, territorial integrity, and indigenous peoples’ rights in the modern geopolitical context.

Analysis of the Reasons for Ongoing Persecutions

The analysis of the reasons for the ongoing persecutions of Crimean Tatars, the indigenous people of Crimea, reveals a complex system of colonial practices rooted in the 1783 annexation and sharply intensified after the 2014 occupation. The central factor is Russia’s imperial logic, which views Crimea as a strategically important territory and Crimean Tatars as a threat to its control, corresponding to the classical colonial paradigm described by Said (1978). This logic is exacerbated by fear of Crimean Tatar identity, closely tied to Ukraine and the Turkic world, which challenges Russia’s monopoly on the historical narrative of Crimea (Yurchuk, 2021). The policy of assimilation, aimed at eroding the unique cultural and political identity of the indigenous people (Charron, 2019), is combined with a demonstration of force through harsh repressive measures designed to emphasize the incontestability of Russian control. These actions are fueled by colonial paranoia – a constant fear of resistance from the indigenous population, leading to preventive repressions even in the absence of real threat (Bhabha, 1994). Such a comprehensive approach to suppressing Crimean Tatars reflects deeply rooted colonial practices aimed at denying their status as an indigenous people and their legitimate rights to self-determination within their historical homeland.

Theoretical Analysis

Applying Edward Said’s concept of “Orientalism” to the analysis of political persecutions of Crimean Tatars reveals the deep mechanisms by which the Russian state apparatus constructs and maintains a false image of Crimea’s indigenous people as the “Other” and a potential threat. This practice is aimed at undermining the legitimate status of Crimean Tatars as the sole indigenous people of Crimea, who have no other homeland outside the peninsula.

In the context of the current occupation of Crimea, this manifests in several key aspects directly related to political repressions and the creation of an “internal enemy” image. Firstly, there is a deliberate Islamization of the image of Crimean Tatars, where their religious identity is used as a tool for stigmatization. Russian discourse actively exploits global Islamophobic narratives, artificially linking the indigenous people of Crimea with concepts of “Islamic extremism” and “terrorism”. This serves as a powerful tool for justifying repressive measures and mass arrests, when the entire indigenous population is presented as a potential security threat.

Secondly, there is intentional generalization, where all Crimean Tatars, especially political activists and national leaders, are presented as a unified opposition force, ignoring their status as an indigenous people and the diversity of political views within the nation. This allows the occupying authorities to apply collective punishments and persecute entire families and communities, violating the fundamental rights of the indigenous people.

Furthermore, an artificial binary opposition is created between “loyal citizens” and “subversive elements”, where Crimean Tatars asserting their legitimate rights as an indigenous people are automatically assigned to the latter category. This reinforces the false narrative of the necessity for harsh measures to “ensure security” and “maintain order”, ignoring the inherent right of Crimean Tatars to self-determination in their homeland.

It is particularly important to note the use of manipulative terminology in the historical context. The forced expulsion of Crimean Tatars in 1944 is erroneously called a “deportation”, which diminishes the scale of this crime against the indigenous people. It is more accurate to speak of the forced expulsion of the indigenous people from their ancestral land, which emphasizes the severity of the crime committed.

Knowledge is used as an instrument of power: pseudo-scientific research and manipulative media narratives are employed to justify persecutions, creating the appearance of objective grounds for repressive practices. This is particularly evident in court proceedings against Crimean Tatar political prisoners, where expert opinions are often used to support fabricated charges, ignoring the inherent rights of the indigenous people.

The application of these theoretical concepts to the situation of political persecutions of Crimean Tatars allows for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of modern colonial domination, revealing resistance strategies used by the indigenous people, and exposing how discursive practices form and maintain the repressive system. This analysis is critical for understanding the essence of political persecutions of Crimean Tatars and developing effective strategies to protect the rights of political prisoners and the indigenous people of Crimea as a whole.

It is crucial to emphasize that all other ethnic groups in Crimea, including Russians, Greeks, Belarusians, Jews, and others, are diasporas, while Crimean Tatars are the sole indigenous people of the peninsula. This fundamental difference should be central to any analysis of the situation in Crimea and the rights of the Crimean Tatar people.

Violations of International Law

Crimean Tatars are the sole indigenous people of Crimea, a status confirmed by several international and national legal acts. Their unique status is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples¹, which guarantees the right to self-determination and protection from forced assimilation. Ukraine officially recognized Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people in 2014², and in 2021 adopted a special law strengthening their legal status³. This law defines Crimean Tatars as a people formed on the territory of Crimea, possessing a unique language and culture, traditional social, cultural, and political institutions, and considering themselves distinct from other communities. It is important to note that Crimean Tatars do not have a state entity outside of Ukraine, which underscores their inseparable connection with Crimea as their only homeland. Despite this legal recognition, under Russian occupation of Crimea, Crimean Tatars continue to face systematic violations of their rights as an indigenous people⁴.

Future Projections

Possible scenarios for the development of the situation include:

  1. Continuation of the status quo, which will lead to increased assimilation pressure and growing international isolation of Russia.
  2. Escalation of conflict, potentially leading to mass repressions and the risk of armed resistance.
  3. De-escalation and normalization, which may lead to a gradual easing of repressions and the resumption of Crimean Tatar institutions’ activities.
  4. Return of Crimea to Ukrainian control and granting national-territorial autonomy to Crimean Tatars:

This scenario implies not just a restoration of the status quo, but a qualitatively new stage in the history of Crimea and the Crimean Tatar people. Granting national-territorial autonomy to Crimean Tatars within Ukraine will have several important consequences:

a) Strengthening Ukraine’s sovereignty: Crimean Tatars, having received autonomy, will become a key factor in maintaining Ukrainian sovereignty on the peninsula. Their deep historical connection to Crimea and commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity will make them a natural counterbalance to separatist tendencies.

b) Containment of pro-Russian sentiments: Crimean Tatar institutions and leaders will play an important role in containing and transforming pro-Russian sentiments among part of Crimea’s population. Their presence and active position will help prevent possible attempts to destabilize the situation from outside.

c) Model of interethnic harmony: Successful implementation of Crimean Tatar autonomy can become a model for resolving similar issues in other regions, demonstrating the possibility of harmonious coexistence of different ethnic groups within a single state.

d) Restoration and development: Autonomy will allow Crimean Tatars to more effectively restore their cultural, educational, and economic institutions, contributing to the overall development of Crimea.

e) International recognition: Such a solution will receive broad support from the international community, strengthening Ukraine’s position on the world stage and promoting the country’s integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures.

f) Overcoming the consequences of occupation: Crimean Tatars, having experience in resisting occupation, will be able to effectively participate in the processes of de-occupation, reintegration, and reconciliation in Crimea.

This scenario emphasizes not only the restoration of historical justice for Crimean Tatars but also their key role in ensuring a stable and pro-Ukrainian future for Crimea. The national-territorial autonomy of Crimean Tatars in this context becomes not just a recognition of their rights as an indigenous people, but a strategic step in strengthening the territorial integrity and national security of Ukraine.

Conclusion

The analysis of the situation with the persecutions of Crimean Tatars through the lens of colonial theory and critical discourse analysis allows us to see the deep mechanisms and long-term strategies of colonial domination. From the annexation of 1783 to the modern occupation, the policy towards Crimean Tatars demonstrates striking continuity, based on the logic of imperial control and suppression of alternative identities.

Modern persecutions are not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic policy aimed at undermining the social, cultural, and political structure of Crimean Tatar society. This policy, however, faces persistent resistance, manifesting in various forms of civil activity and preservation of cultural identity.

Understanding the colonial nature of these persecutions is critically important not only for academic analysis but also for developing effective strategies to counter and protect the rights of the Crimean Tatar people. It also underscores the need for broader international attention to the situation in Crimea and support for efforts to decolonize and restore the rights of the indigenous population.

Historical narratives and modern geopolitical interests deeply influence the perception of and reaction to the conflict around Crimea and the rights of Crimean Tatars. The Russian narrative of “primordially Russian Crimea” contrasts with the Crimean Tatar narrative of centuries-long history on the peninsula, creating a complex picture of competing historical claims.

It is important to emphasize the need to consider the conflict in its full historical context, from the imperial expansion of the 18th century to modern geopolitical tensions. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of the roots of the conflict and the motivations of its participants.

Finally, the situation of Crimean Tatars calls for a deeper understanding and solidarity with oppressed peoples worldwide. It demonstrates how colonial practices can persist and adapt in the modern world, and underscores the need for constant vigilance in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities.

 

Bibliography

Aibabin, Alexander I. «Ethnic History of Early Byzantine Crimea». Simferopol: Salta LTD, 2019.

Belitser, Natalya. “Report on the Results of the Study of the Situation of the Crimean Tatar People under the Occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.” Kyiv: Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research, 2019.

Bhabha, Homi K. «The Location of Culture». London: Routledge, 1994.

Bidochko, Lesia. “Tatar Banderites and Extremists: How Russian Propaganda Discredits Crimean Tatars.” Detector Media, 2023.

Charron, Austin. “Crimean Tatars’ Postcolonial Condition and Strategies of Cultural Decolonization in Mainland Ukraine.” «Euxeinos» 9, no. 28 (2019): 26-47.

Crimean Solidarity. “Civil Journalist Amet Suleimanov Urgently Needs Surgery to Replace a Heart Valve.” August 19, 2024. https://crimean-solidarity.org/news/2024/08/19/grazhdanskomu-zhurnalistu-ametu-sulejmanovu-srochno-trebuetsya-operaciya-po-zamene-serdechnogo-klapana-2991.

Crimean Solidarity. “80-year-old Activist Yashar Muedinov Has Developed Edema of the Lower Extremities in Ulyanovsk Prison.” August 18, 2024. https://crimean-solidarity.org/news/2024/08/18/u-letnego-aktivista-yashara-muedinova-v-ulyanovskoj-tyurme-poyavilsya-otek-nizhnix-konechnostej-2990.

Fairclough, Norman. «Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language». London: Longman, 1995.

Foucault, Michel. “Two Lectures.” In «Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977», edited by Colin Gordon, 78-108. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.

Khitrinskaya, Irina Yu., Mikhail I. Voevoda, and Vladimir N. Babenko. “Genetic History of Crimean Tatars: Review of Studies and New Data.” «Vavilov Journal of Genetics and Breeding» 25, no. 1 (2021): 79-89.

Memetov, Aider. “Crimean Tatar Language.” In «History. New Research and Discoveries», 2018.

Naumenko, Valery E. “Taurica in the System of Russian-Byzantine Relations in the Middle of the 10th – Early 11th Centuries.” Doctoral dissertation, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2020.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Situation of Human Rights in the Temporarily Occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol (Ukraine).” September 25, 2017. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Crimea2014_2017_EN.pdf.

Said, Edward W. «Orientalism: Western Concepts of the Orient». New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?: Revised Edition, from the ‘History’ Chapter of Critique of Postcolonial Reason.” In *Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea*, edited by Rosalind C. Morris, 21-78. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.

Tlostanova, Madina V. “Postcolonial Theory, the Decolonial Option and Post-Socialist Writing.” «CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture» 17, no. 1 (2015).

United Nations General Assembly. “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” September 13, 2007. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf.

van Dijk, Teun A. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” «Discourse & Society» 4, no. 2 (1993): 249-283.

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. “Resolution on the Statement of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Guaranteeing the Rights of the Crimean Tatar People as Part of the Ukrainian State.” March 20, 2014. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1140-18#Text.

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. “Law of Ukraine On Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine.” July 1, 2021. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1616-20#Text.

Vozgrin, Valery E. «History of the Crimean Tatars: Essays on the Ethnic History of the Indigenous People of Crimea in Four Volumes». Simferopol: Thesis, 2013.

Williams, Brian Glyn. «The Crimean Tatars: From Soviet Genocide to Putin’s Conquest». London: Hurst & Company, 2015.

Yurchuk, Yuliya. “Historians as Activists: History Writing in Times of War; the Case of Ukraine in 2014-2018.” «Nationalities Papers» 49, no. 4 (2021): 691-709.