(Estimated Pub Date) the Challenge of Ethnic Conflict to National and International Order in the 1990S: Geographic Perspectives- October 1995

Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268
Reaction by Members of Nontitular Groups to
Rising Territorial Nationalism
Acceptance and Accommodation
A certain segment of the nontitular population that
was ethnically marginal was undergoing process of
acculturation and assimilation either with the titular
nation or with the local Russian population. For the
most part, these were nontitular people who had lived
outside their homelands for several generations and
whose ancestors had moved from their homeland
before nationalization processes had begun (Kaiser
1994). Of this acculturating/assimilating segment of
the nontitular population, those who are becoming
acculturated to the indigenous nation will accept, and
even promote, the new ethnic reality if they are
accepted by the titular nation. On the other hand, those
undergoing a process of Russification may respond as
the local Russian population does. Conversely, the
process of Russification itself may be reversed. For
example, children with Russian and Ukrainian parents
who claimed to be Russians in the past may prefer to
identify themselves as Ukrainians, particularly in
states where titular nationalism is directed against the
local Russians (for instance, in Latvia and Estonia).
Beyond this ethnically marginal population, there is
also a segment of the nontiwlar population that has
lived in the same republic and locality for generations
and has developed a strong sense of homeland (see
table 3). Several indicators of acceptance have
become apparent, particularly for the Russians living
in the non-Russian successor states. For example, a
relatively high percentage of Russians favored the
independence of the republics they lived in and voted
for independence-oriented parties, and a relatively
high percentage of Russians also identified Estonia as
their homeland (Drobizheva 1991). Surveys of Rus-
sian interethnic attitudes tended to show a willingness
to remain in the newly independent states, at least
immediately after independence. It may appear
counter-intuitive, but the Russian reaction to the new
ethno-political realities in the successor states appears
more accommodative than resistant thus far; this may
reflect the limited degree of Russian national con-
sciousness and nationalism. The republics where Rus-
sians comprised the highest proportion of nontitular
population are those without violent ethnic conflict.
Table 3 Percent
Population Born in the Republic of
Current Residence, 1989
Republic Titular Russians Non-
,
Russians
67.5
66.9
72.1
82.4
63.5
76.4
87.3
79.9
89.1
87.9
56.7
42.2
52.0
55.0
66.6
59.1
48.5
52.0
48.3
65.5
Uluaine
Belarus
Moldova
Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Zieorgia
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Lithuania
9
Latvia
96.4
97.6
98.1
98.2
95.1
98.5
98.5
98.9
98.8
96.7
78.4 26.4 82.9
97.8 49.7 66.0 _
7 96.9 54.7 35.9
Estonia
*2
95.6 42.9 23.6
In successor states that have experienced violent conflict:
9
bssetians Abkhazians
Georgia 97.1 98.3
Armenians
Azerbaijan 94.0
K
Azeris
Armenia 91.2
Gagauz Ukrainians
Moldova 96.0 67.0
Uzbeks
Kyrgyzstan 93.8 _
Source: Goskomstat SSSR, ltogi Vsesoiuznoi Perepisi Naseleniia
1989 Goda, Volume 12, (Minneapolis: East View Publications,
1993).
However, acceptance and accommodation are also
dependent on the behavior of the titular nationalists. In
the case of Estonia, nationalists seeking to reduce the
Russian presence have alienated Russians who had
behaved as Estonian patriots. A similar situation
occurred in Latvia. Under these conditions, Russians
are unlikely to remain accommodative of titular
nationalism. Russian opposition is on the rise in the
Baltic states, as well zis in Kazakstan—-two regions
where Russian acceptance and accommodations were
dominant through 1992.
66
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268