3. The Slavs feel the loss of power of the socialist
countries, the threat of intervention of Western Europe and NATO, and
associate their intervention with the aspiration to change the existing
borders of Eastern European countries, and to weaken the former
socialist camp. The Crimean Tatars attribute Western European and NATO
intervention as their desire to operate within Eastern Europe with the
purpose of preventing ethnic conflicts. They consider Europe as their
home, and it is therefore important for them to feel that they belonging
to Eastern Europe.
4. The Crimean Tatars see the future of Crimea as a
Crimean-Tatar Independent Republic, but the Slavs disagree with that.
The Crimean Tatars oppose any re-integration of Crimea into Russia.
5. Both ethnoses have positive autostereotypes and
negative heterostereotypes of each other. The Slavs' stereotypes of the
peoples of Western Europe are more positive than the Crimean Tatars'
stereotypes.
Results of multiple regression analysis show very
interesting connections between attitudes.
The Slavs.
Attitude toward Milosevic. The attitude toward
Milosevic is influenced by the following attitudes: that the termination
of bombing in Kosovo signals his victory (beta = 0.27), that Milosevic
is an enemy of European civilization (beta = -0.30); stereotypes, that
the Slavs are egoistic (beta = 0.30), that the basic features of the
Muslims are haughtiness (beta = 0.23) and cunning (beta = 0.31), and the
basic feature of The West Europeans is mind (beta = -0.20).
Hence, the Slavs' attitude toward Milosevic is
basically connected to stereotypes. Probably their attitude toward a
particular person depends on the estimation and perception of the
personality traits of the ethnic participants in the conflict.
The attitude toward Serbia. The attitude toward
Serbia is influenced by attitudes that Milosevic is an enemy of European
civilization (beta = -0.34). Therefore, Serbia is estimated by the Slavs
on the basis of the role of its leader in European politics.
The attitude toward the decision of NATO to bomb
Yugoslavia. This attitude is connected with attitudes that Serbia
has the right to expel the Kosovars from Kosovo because they are a
foreign people in Serbia (beta = -0.27), that Serbia should belong to
the Serbs (beta = -0.31), that the Muslims should live in the East,
instead of in Europe (beta = 0.25), and that Crimea should become
Crimean-Tatar Independent Republic (beta =0.23).
In summary, the negative attitude toward bombing in
Kosovo is connected with the ethnic concept of the country, the
unwillingness to recognize the right of the Muslims to live in Europe,
and the denying of an opportunity to transform Crimea into an Autonomous
republic.
The attitude toward NATO peacekeepers. This
attitude is connected with the attitudes that The West and NATO do not
want to change the existing borders of Eastern European countries,
because that would evoke much ethnic conflict (beta = 0.24), that
military intervention in a sovereign country is acceptable only if the
United Nations are too powerless to prevent the violation of the human
rights of minority groups (beta = 0.29), that the Crimean Tatars should
have equal rights with the Slavs in Crimea (beta = -0.25); stereotypes,
that the Slavs are tolerant (beta = -0.23), the Muslims are egoistic
(beta = 0.31) and aggressive (beta = -0.26), and depends on a place of
residence (beta = 0.18).
So, the attitude toward NATO peacekeepers is rather
inconsistent. On the one hand, the Slavs consider that it is necessary
to protect the rights of ethnic minorities, and that The West and NATO
do not want to change the existing borders of Eastern European
countries, because that would evoke much ethnic conflict; on the other
hand, the Slavs consider that peacekeepers can help the Serbs, because
the Slavs of Crimea stereotype the Muslims as egoistic. The negative
estimation of peacekeepers is connected with the stereotype that Muslims
are aggressive, and therefore, the Slavs consider that it is necessary
to revenge or to punish them. A recognition of the equal rights of the
Crimean Tatars and the Slavs in Crimea also causes a negative estimation
of the peacekeepers, since the Slavs most likely link the situation in
Kosovo with the situation in Crimea. This negative estimation amplifies
the perception of the Slavs as tolerant.
Crimean Tatars.
The attitude toward Milosevic: this attitude is
connected with the attitudes that the Kosovar Liberation Army has the
right to struggle for the independence of Kosovo (beta = -0.34), that
foreign military intervention in a sovereign country is inadmissible
(beta = 0.54), that the Muslims threaten European civilization (beta =
0.25); stereotypes, that the Slavs are kind (beta = 0.27), the
representatives of the Muslims are haughty (beta = - 0.53), the West
European peoples are tolerant (beta = 0.38), and depends from age (beta
= - 0.32) and place of residence (beta = -0. 30).
Hence, stereotypes played an important role in the
attitude toward Milosevic (as well as toward the Slavs); however, this
attitude is more connected to an estimation of military actions taken by
the Kosovar Liberation Army and NATO.
Attitude toward Serbia. This attitude is
connected with attitudes that now Yugoslavia is completely subordinated
to Western Europe (beta = 0.22), that The West and NATO want to divide
the Eastern European countries to improve their own dominant power (beta
= 0.26), that the Eastern European countries have lost their force and
power (beta = 0.26), and that the Kosovars should have the equal rights
of citizenship with the Serbs (beta = -0.48), that military intervention
in a sovereign country is unacceptable even if the human rights of the
minority ethnic groups are violated (beta = -0.41), that the Muslims
have the right to live in Europe and to have autonomous republics (beta
= - 0.20), that Crimea should become a Crimean-Tatar Autonomous Republic
(beta = - 0.22); and stereotypes, that the Slavs are aggressive (beta =
0.23), kind (beta = 0.22), mind (beta = 0.22), that the Muslims are
egoistic (beta = 0.40), aggressive (beta = - 0.20), that the basic
features of The West Europeans are aggressiveness (beta = -0.46), mind
(beta = - 0.27), and cunning (beta = 0.26).
In summary, the Crimean Tatars' attitude toward
Serbia is connected to the place and the role of Yugoslavia in Western
Europe, and the perception of the expansion of Western Europe; however,
they condemn the absence of equal rights for ethnic groups, and will
carry out the analogy between Crimea and Serbia. Stereotypes also play
the large role here.
The attitude toward the decision of NATO to bomb
Yugoslavia. This attitude is connected with the attitudes that the
introduction of the peacekeepers will help to restore the autonomy of
the Kosovars (beta = 0.57), feelings of the unification of the former
socialist countries of Eastern Europe by common interests (beta =
-0.31), that the people in the former socialist countries feel that
their life and history during the communist period was a failure (beta =
-0.43); and a stereotype about the haughtiness of the Slavs (beta =
0.42), and their mind (beta = - 0. 34).
Hence, the Crimean Tatars justify the decision of
NATO to bomb Yugoslavia by the fact that it has resulted in the
introduction of peacekeepers, and consider that the Slavs by their
haughty and unreasonable actions have triggered the response of NATO.
However, unlike the Slavs, the Crimean Tatars want to see the
unification of the former socialist countries and therefore, they
disagree with Western Europe's display of force against Yugoslavia.
The attitude toward NATO peacekeepers. This
attitude is connected with the attitudes that The West and NATO want to
control Europe and the world (beta = -0.40), that Russia is still a
world power that has to be taken into account (beta = 0.29), that Serbia
has the right to expel the Kosovars from Kosovo because they are a
foreign people in Serbia (beta = - 0.54), that Serbia should belong to
the Serbs (beta = -0.37), that military intervention in a sovereign
country is unacceptable even if human rights of minority groups are
violated (beta = -0.45), that Muslims have the right to live in Europe
and have the autonomous republics( beta = 0.34); stereotypes, that the
Slavs are aggressive (beta = 0.33), clever (beta = -0.42), artful (beta
= 0.43), and Western Europeans are tolerant (beta = -0.49)
Hence, the attitude of Crimean Tatars toward
peacekeepers, like the attitude of the Slavs, is inconsistent. On the
one hand, they support the peacekeepers, and consider that they can
restore equal rights for Kosovars and their Autonomy, and that the Slavs
have deserved the introduction of peacekeepers because of their
aggressiveness, cunning, and not so clever actions. On the other hand,
the Crimean Tatars are afraid that Western Europe wants to supervise the
whole world and consider that foreign military intervention is
inadmissible. It is interesting that the perception of Russia as a world
power that has to be taken into account strengthens the positive
estimation of the observers.
The factor analysis helped to allocate two factors
for the groups of the Crimean Tatars and the Slavs.
Table 3.
This factor can be named as the factor "of the
ethnic concept of the country ". This concept asserts that only the
ethnic majority should live in the given country and have all rights.
The feeling of a threat from the Muslims and the denial of the equal
rights of the Crimean Tatars and the Slavs in Crimea are connected with
this concept. A recognition of equality of the rights of all ethnic
groups is connected with miscibility of aggression.
Table 4.
This factor reflects the attitude toward Western
Europe. People with a higher education consider that military
intervention in a sovereign country is unacceptable, and feel the threat
of NATO and Western European expansion. They positively concern
Milosevic and consider that Yugoslavia is now completely subordinated to
Western Europe. In this factor the phenomenon of "self-hatred"
fixed Clarc and Clarc in 1940 for Black Americans is reflected. The
Slavs consider their own ethnos haughty, aggressive, and egoistic, and
can justify actions of NATO and the Kosovar Liberation Army. They see
fair motivation in the actions of Western Europe.
Crimean Tatars.
Table 5.
This factor, as well as the first factor for the
Slavs, is connected with the attitude toward ethnic conflict in Kosovo.
The Crimean Tatars will carry out a precise parallel between events in
Kosovo and Crimean problems. They assert the equal rights of Kosovars
and consider that the Crimea should become a Crimean-Tatar Independent
Republic. Thus, they support violent methods, such as the struggle of
the Kosovar Liberation Army, military intervention in a sovereign
country, and the introduction of peacekeepers for the establishment of
an Autonomy. The autostereotypes and heterostereotypes of the Slavs and
Western Europeans play a very large role in this factor. Here, the
phenomenon of "self hatred" is possible.
Table 6.
In this factor, the discrepancy of the orientation of
the Crimean Tatars is reflected. The older people hope that Western
Europe can aid in the establishment of a national autonomy, and that all
of NATO's actions are fair. The younger representatives of
Crimean-Tatars are guided on cooperation with the Slavs and consider
that The West and NATO want to control Europe and the world.
In summary, the research has revealed two basic
factors: attitude toward the ethnic conflict in Kosovo, and the attitude
toward Western Europe and NATO. The first factor is connected with a
recognition or denying of the rights of all ethnic groups, and it is
visible obviously, that both ethnoses will carry out a parallel between
events in Kosovo and Crimea. However, this factor has specific features
for the Crimean Tatars and the Slavs. For the Slavs, this factor carries
the character "of the ethnic concept of the country;" however,
violent actions are denied. The Crimean Tatars connect the problem in
Kosovo with the establishment of their own national autonomy in Crimea,
and support any violent methods in order to obtain such a goal, from the
struggle of a Liberation army, to foreign military intervention for the
protection of minority rights.
The second factor also has essential distinctions for
both ethnoses. For the Slavs, condemnation of NATO's actions and support
for Milosevic are connected to a high self-estimation of the nation,
while the Crimean Tatars have inconsistent tendencies in orientation
either with the Slavs, or Western Europe. Accordingly, they either
support Milosevic, or condemn him. Probably in these factors there
exists the phenomenon of self-hatred. Stereotypes play a large role in
these factors.
In Crimea today, we may estimate a situation of
interethnic tension. Too often scholars seem to implicitly accept the
argument that ethnic differences provide the casus belli for these
conflicts. But the image of ethnic groups in conflict may be an
ideological construct of nationalist historians and politicians pursuing
their own political ends. An example of such can be found in Crimea:
when the Crimean Tatars began to return to Crimea, the Communist Crimean
Government tried to foster negative attitudes in them, which in turn
would serve as a vehicle for scapegoating the economic problems due to
re-settlement.
Describing a conflict as an "ethnic" one
often says very little about it. We need to analyze the religious,
economic, political, numerical, and geographic factors involved when
describing a conflict. However, as the results of our researchers show,
in such conflicts, the objective situation doesn’t play the main role;
what is more important is how people perceive and estimate this
situation. And cultural and ethnic differences have an important
influence on this process. This is why cultural differences not only
directly determine the outcome of ethnic conflicts, but also influence
the perception of other groups and social validity. The analyses of
these problems can help to answer the question: to what extent and under
what conditions are ethnic groups more likely to cooperate rather than
to fight.
Social conflict is a inescapable part of life, but it
is not always undesirable and antithetical to peace. Building peace
requires the creation of social processes that encourage the
constructive handling of conflicts. I think that further
social-psychological research can help to create effective peacebuilding
processes in Crimea.
Table 1. Crimean Tatars' and Slavs' Categories of
Social Identity (in %)
