The annexations of populations : Russian pasportizatsiya strategies in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea

The Annexations of Populations; Russian Pasportizatsiya Strategies in Abkhazia,

South Ossetia and Crimea

Sam Wrighton BA

Supervisor: Dr. Darshan Vigneswaran

Second reader: Dr. Adele del Sordi

June 2016

Table of Contents

Introduction ... 3

Queueing for Passports... 4

Literature Review ... 7

The Passport, the State and its Citizens ... 7

The Significance of the Passport and its Distribution ... 11

Territory and Population in annexation? ... 12

Theoretical Framework ... 15

Territory Over and Above Population? ... 15

Population Before Territory? ... 15

Case Selection and Empirical Focus ... 17

Methodology ... 19

Process Tracing ... 19

Semi-Structured Interviews and Document Analysis ... 21

Empirical Analysis ... 23

The Annexation of Populations ... 23

The Three Waves of Russian Pasportizatsiya Strategies ... 24

The ‘First Wave’ of Pasportizatsiya – 1990 – 2002 ... 25

The ‘Second Wave’ of Pasportizatsiya – Pre-Conflict Escalation ... 29

The ‘Third Wave’ of Pasportizatsiya – During and Post-Conflict Escalation ... 36

Theoretical Implications ... 49

The Annexation Process ... 49

The Strength of the Argument ... 50

Theorising on Intent of the Russian Pasportizatsiya Strategy ... 51

Conclusion ... 53

Bibliography ... 57

Tables ... 74

Figures ... 77

Introduction

The recent annexation of Crimea and the effective annexations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have led some to suggest that Russia has returned to an old fashioned form of sovereignty (Makarychev, 2008) with territorial expansionism hidden behind a humanitarian rhetoric (Tisdall, 2014, December 08). Attributing North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s [NATO] western encroachment as a cause for Russia’s destabilising tactics is another view explaining the root of these practices. However, whilst these positions are not entirely dismissed, it is this thesis’ argument that rather than the territory being annexed in these cases, it is the population that is the target object. If this is proven correct it would suggest there has been a remarkable break with imperialist and colonialist annexation practice which has typically favoured territorial expansion over population enlargement. This new form of annexation is fundamentally reliant on a comprehensive passport distribution, or

pasportizatsiya strategy, operated by Russian authorities to non-Russian nationals on foreign soil.

By examining the relationship between this pasportizatsiya strategy and the annexations of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea this thesis has identified three distinct ‘waves’ of the passport distribution process which allow for an alternative annexation process that focuses on populations, rather than territory. This thesis addresses the research question: What is the relationship between passport distribution and annexation? In researching this question, this thesis engages with the broader ontological nature of the state and its population and territory, and provides theoretical and analytical nuance regarding documentation, seen here as a technology of rule, rather than a purely administrative function of the state. Annexation as a state practice allows us to view these relationships in a new extreme, given it is rare that we can witness afresh a state’s position to a population or indeed a territory, therefore, is it population or territory that is given priority by the state?

The thesis will be structured as follows: a thick descriptive narrative of the passport distribution will introduce the puzzle or problematique followed by a critical review of the academic literature on state documentation, and how this affects the relationship with the population of a state. This literature review reveals gaps in our scientific knowledge on the subject, as theories fail to suggest how these relationships would appear during times of territorial or population change. Likewise, the majority of the annexation literature does not address the processes involved with how an annexation functions, including how a state views or acts towards its newly naturalised citizens, with a particular lack of insight on the role of documentation. Although some literature deals with annexations and the Russian pasportizatsiya strategy individually, it fails to indicate how these two might be related.

The literature review is followed by a theoretical framework which compares a definitive traditional annexation process provided by Korman (1996), with a potential alternative process

repositioning the target of annexation from territory to people and how these two hypothetical processes relate to theory. Subsequently, the case study selection rationale is outlined and justified based on a compilation of major annexations in the past two and a half centuries. This illustrative chart highlights the rarity of state annexations following the establishment of an international norm against conquest.

The section following this details the rationale for choosing a process tracing methodology, employing semi-structured interviews and document analyses to gather evidence in order to examine which of the two processes were involved in these contemporary instances of annexation. The semi-structured interviews will be conducted with employees of NGOs, and members of the public of the annexed populations, who will be found using social media sites Facebook and VK and secondary observable data gathered by NGOs, journalists and other organisations who were present during the annexations and passport distribution processes. The empirical analysis and concluding remarks will be the final part of the thesis which will involve a detailed breakdown of the three waves of passport distribution, and how the annexation of populations has functioned across the three cases.

Queueing for Passports

In any day of early June 2002, streams of people could be seen in Gali, Abkhazia, lining up, surrounded by Russian peacekeeping troops watching over the local residents, as they make their way into the police station armed with their old Soviet Union documents, ready to meet with Abkhazian officials to receive their newly pressed passport. Local media outlets had recently informed members of the population that better individual financial security awaits them, along with the promise of the support of a willing ally in their fight for independence from the Georgian government. Those in the queue are predominately the elderly of the region, hoping that at the end of the line, a better, more stable future nears. The sentiment is positive. There is no evidence of coercion nor intimidation and free will appears to have brought many to this, and other makeshift administrative offices across Abkhazia. Outside the Sukhumi office of the Congress of Russian Communities, local residents have brought their photocopiers onto the street to earn some additional income and facilitate the process, whilst ice-cream venders provide free legal advice and refreshments to those queueing in the Black Sea summer sun (Khashig, 2002). Meanwhile across to the east of Abkhazia in another breakaway region of Georgia, the South Ossetians form similar queues in anticipation of another pivotal step in their region’s turbulent history, following the break-up of the Soviet Union. The driver for this movement of people towards the official and the

ad hoc administrative offices in these regions was not instigated by the government offices of the

respective regions, but by a significant legislation change in their northerly neighbour, Russia. A neighbour’s domestic legislation change would not usually be the catalyst for such a large response in another sovereign’s territory, but when coupled with the overarching discontent with the Georgian state in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the bulk of people reacted quickly. In these regions the legal legitimate sovereign authority, Georgia, is immensely unpopular. The 1991 Georgian independence vote to secede from the Soviet Union had been boycotted by most in these regions, with large majorities rejecting the conferral of Georgian citizenship that followed, rendering a large body of the population effectively stateless (Littlefield, 2009). Referenda continued to play a controversial yet pivotal role in the politics of these break-away regions; an overwhelming 99.7 per

cent of Abkhazian voters opted for independence in a referendum held on 12th October 1999, with

South Ossetia following suit with similarly high percentages preferring independence, seven years later (BBC, 2006, November 13). So, when in May 2002, Russia simplified its requirements for naturalisation processes by modifying citizenship legislation for those who are considered stateless, hundreds of thousands of Abkhazians and South Ossetians began to queue in offices across their regions for the chance to receive a passport in a simplified process, not from their legitimate sovereign authority, Georgia, nor indeed a version of their own de facto government’s documentation, but from their powerful, influential regional hegemon to the north, Russia. “Why would we say no to getting a Russian passport, if we want to work in Europe, America or Russia, then this is our only chance” a South Ossetian Professor told me, and when I prompted him about the possibility of Georgian citizenship he replied “No. That is not possible. I would rather have no passport than a Georgian passport” (see Appendix A).

The comprehensive scale of this operation by Russia to distribute Russian passports to its populations, through Abkhazian and South Ossetian officials, supervised by Russian military personnel, was notable in its scale and visibility, but was not unique. This was in fact the second wave of passport distribution. Preceding this, throughout the 1990s and leading up to 2002, ethnic Russians or Russki, essentially marooned in the former Soviet states surrounding Russia, were distributed Russian passports and conferred with Russian citizenship, in a far more secretive, yet significantly less controversial process. Naturalisations of other states’ citizens is of course a common state practice, provided a legitimate and defensible link can be made between the state and the citizen it wishes to naturalise. Ethnicity can be considered as one of these legitimate links between the naturalising state and the naturalised individual, on the basis of a claim of jus

sanguinis, or right of blood, and it was on this basis of ethnicity that the first wave of passport

distribution occurred. The extraterritorial naturalisations of members of the ethnic Russian communities in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Crimea, operated in a process that did not prompt

significant political resistance or controversy, perhaps due to the micro and individual scale at which it was conducted. Nevertheless, peculiarities with the documentation were evident, namely that the actual place of issue in the document, which in fact occurred illegally from consulates in Crimea, or from collection points in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, had been omitted and falsely stated as issuance points in Russian state territory. This suggests that something beyond a benign state practice was at play. Likewise, in Crimea, word-of-mouth marketing of Russian passports and targeting of the Russian speaking population, or Russophones, many of whom had intimate attachments to the Russian and Ukrainian military personnel stationed at Russia’s Black Sea port of Sevastopol, facilitated this process. Once again, incorrectly labelled places of issue featured amongst this aspect of passport distribution in an apparent bid to hide the overreaching of consular functions from the Russian Consulate General in Simferopol.

The distribution of Russian passports began to slow following following the 2002 mass conferral of Russian citizenship, however, the Russian-Georgian conflict of August 2008 instigated another period of such practices in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The ‘August War’, brought to the fore the significance of this pasportizatsiya strategy, when the Kremlin defended its military intervention in the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia with rhetoric suggesting that it had to intervene in order to protect Russian citizens from a foreign aggressor. In an official statement following the insurrection, Dimitri Medvedev, Russian President, asserted:

In accordance with the Constitution and the federal laws, as President of the Russian Federation it is my duty to protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they may be. It is these circumstances that dictate the steps we will take now. We will not allow the deaths of our fellow citizens to go unpunished. The perpetrators will receive the punishment they deserve. (Medvedev, 2008).

Meanwhile, Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the United Nations, using a similar rhetoric and argumentation defended Russian actions to protect Russian nationals in Georgia to the United Nations Security Council by arguing that “the Russian side had no choice but to use its inherent right to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations” (Churkin, 2008, August 11).

This military conflict that instigated a third wave of passport distribution has many parallels with that of the military occupation of Crimea in 2014. The Crimean population, enticed by propaganda which marketed the potential benefits of Russian citizenship, and displays of military hard power on the peninsular, accepted Russian citizenship conferral in vast numbers, beginning in the chaotic month of March 2014 and into the early summer of that year. Russian military

escalation and occupation of governmental buildings was immediately followed by a successful independence vote by the Crimean regional government, which triggered a snap referendum on unification with Russia. Meanwhile, amidst the excitement of many and angst of others, a simplified naturalisation and passport distribution process enabled over 1.4 million passports to be distributed in a matter of days. Although the queues were extremely long, with many having to wait an entire day, and the experience tedious and riddled with mistakes, the effect of this strategy was comprehensive; Russia’s population had instantaneously swelled in a remarkably efficient but controversial manner. Russia now had many more citizens in Crimea than it did before. However, those who were not included in this strategy, namely anti-Russian political activists, Ukrainian loyalists and some of the Orthodox Muslim Crimean Tartars, were required to reject Russian citizenship in a far more complicated, humiliating and confusing process, than the process required to accept it. Alternatively, they had the option to leave Crimea entirely. Social media groups took matters into their own hands, designing and distributing make-shift citizenship rejection forms in lieu of any official information and documentation from the Russian state. For those that rejected Russian citizenship and passports, like in the South Ossetian and Abkhazian cases, faced increasingly difficult living conditions in Crimea, as their access to state and private services became limited. The rhetoric from the Kremlin following the annexation of Crimea once again has focused on self-defence claiming they are simply protecting Russians from imperious and hostile

enemy forces (Russia Today, 2014, March 01).

Literature Review

The Passport, the State and its Citizens

Theories relating to the state, the population and territory have benefitted enormously from the insight provided by Foucault (1991; 2009) who effectively instigated an entire strand of research named ‘governmentality’. This body of research, examining the policing of populations by the state and the power mechanisms inherent with this, has evolved to include a plethora of related theories, which aim to evaluate various technologies of governance and dispositifs, both by Foucault himself and others. According to Foucault (2009), state dispositifs do not have a specific dividing chronology, but overlap significantly in space and time and constantly relate modes of government to each other. This explicitly questions the notion that a state is simply the authority of a given territory, by suggesting that it is able to relate to its population trans-territorially (Foucault, 2009). The infrastructural developments of the modern nation-state, according to Foucault (1991), allow for the state to effectively survey and discipline its population. Although an infrastructural

development might indeed include state documentation, including the passport, Foucault (1991) has made limited reference to the use of documentation as a technique to distinguish between, and govern, citizens and aliens. There can be little doubt as to the position of the passport as the primary international documentation in registering movement (Caplan & Torpey, 2001), yet if we delve deeper into the role this document plays in international relations by eliciting the relationships between it and its bearer, the state and the citizen and the meaning of these connections, the paramount importance of this document becomes clear. Those researching this more nuanced understanding of the passport in regards to the broader ontological nature of citizenship and the state, do so by considering the passport as a technology of rule, carrying with it inherent meaning, implications, assumptions and intent. In his thorough exploration of the function of the passport, John Torpey (2000) takes up this gap left by Foucault (1991, 2009), as he traces the history of the passport and finds that documenting individuals has been fundamental to a state’s ability to expropriate the “legitimate means of movement” (p. 4) from its individuals – a key aspect of the “‘stateness’ of states’” (ibid. p.3). Scott (1998) also stresses the importance of documents to state capability when asserting that the successful documenting of individuals has resulted in the population becoming suitably ‘legible’ and therefore governable. Ontological interpretations of the state as essentially controlling organisations are plentiful; Proudhon (1969) pessimistically construes the ‘catagolisation’ of individuals through documents, lists and statistics as a means to control populations. Whilst for Giddens (1987), the state has developed substantial surveillance powers by using codification and writing as a tool to control, in lieu of the impossibility of direct supervision of its population. Likewise, both Habermas (1987) and Weber (1946) see the negative implications of the bureaucratic arm of the state, with the former suggesting the state penetrates its people as a means to control, whilst the latter remains critical of the nature and intent of the ‘faceless and impersonal’ bureaucracy (Weber, et. al, 1946).

Mann (2012), like Foucault (1991), focussed on the infrastructural effectiveness of the modern nation state as he sees the population being ‘caged’, arguing that the more competent a state’s infrastructure is, the more effective its caging capabilities become (p. 59). Turack (1972), correspondingly mirrors these conceptualisations by suggesting that the passport has become an effective means by which a state critically controls movement in order to protect its internal security. Salter (2003) furthermore builds on this notion of security with regards to the passport suggesting that our “anxiety about the external other” (p. 81), has necessitated the development of the passport as an institution. In a similar vein, About et. al (2013) attribute the growing suspicions of immigrants and non-nationals to the increasing documentation capabilities.

Although the preceding paragraph highlights a number of scholars who envisage the passport as a tool, or an extension of government’s intent to control internal and external

populations, John Torpey (2000) suggests that we ought to consider the passport to be a means by which a state: “‘embraces’ its population in order to extract the resources they need to reproduce themselves over time” (p. 2). According to Torpey (2000), given that the state is both territorial and a membership organisation, it must therefore be able to effectively distinguish between the in-group and the out-group, by “uniquely and unambiguously” (p. 7) identifying their members. The bordering capabilities of the passport, proposed by Torpey (2000) and Salter (2003), are done so by determining “who is in and who is out” of the nation (Torpey, 2000, p. 121), which follows Polanyi’s (1957), conceptualisation of the form of the modern nation-state as a crustacean like entity (p. 202).

Despite Torpey (2000) apparently providing us with a thorough history of the evolution of the passport, his lack of empirical or indeed theoretical examples involving the relationship of a state towards a new population – in times of colonial expansion, for instance - has meant that he has missed an opportunity to show, in its purest and most extreme form, how the state ‘embraces’ this newly naturalised populous. When a state engages in practices such as annexation, it provides the researcher an invaluable opportunity to test our theoretical understandings of the relationship between the population and the state, as the state comes into contact with a large population previously outside of its authority, requiring action and policy implementation. Therefore, it is surprising that annexation has not been used by theorists on these matters to test robustly their theories, in order to interpret whether the state is embracing, controlling or disciplining its population. This contact between the state and the individual does occur, for instance, when potential migrants, legal or illegal, enter a sovereign territory, and indeed this interaction does provide fascinating consequences for the social scientist. Yet the scale of the population absorption involved in annexation processes are unique. This is particularly the case given when the state interacts with ‘new’ individuals to be naturalised; the instigation is usually from the individual, meaning it is the individual that moves towards the state. However, in situations such as annexation, it is the state that moves towards the populations. If Torpey (2000) is correct in regarding the state as wishing to embrace its population, then it is not clear why his theory should necessarily be limited to those within the state’s territory and not include the embrace of citizens of other states. Likewise, if Foucault’s (2009) argument holds that governments’ control of populations is no longer reliant on territory, then testing this theory against a practice explicitly involving territory and populations, such as annexation, would surely add academic weight to his often cited argument.

Matthews (1993) is correct in asserting that “[t]he Russian experience of ‘passportisation’ (pasportizatsiya) could unquestionably be explored further” (p. 105), this is particularly so with regards to the role this has played in annexation. The Russian passport regime and distribution demands individual attention, as unlike its Western counterparts, which are ‘non-regulatory’, it has

been used in the past to fulfil oppressive purposes (ibid.). As Garcelon (2001) suggests, the legacy of the Soviet passport distribution strategy, specifically that of the internal passport, has profoundly shaped many facets of life in the Russian Federation today. The overwhelming consensus by those writing about the Soviet internal passport system - precursor to the modern passport- is that it was an extremely effective method by which to control, survey and discipline the population (About et. al, 2013; Akturk, 2010; Allworth et. al, 2000; Brubaker, 1997; Garcelon, 2001; Lonergan, 2013; Mälksoo, 2015; Matthews, 1993; Pipko & Pucciarelli, 1985; Salter, 2003; Sasse, 2007; Tishkov, 1997; Tsygankov, 2006), and as an institution, is responsible for shaping, encoding, ascribing and fixing ethnic and nationalist divisions which persist in Russia and the former Soviet nations, long after its implementation under Stalin (Allworth et. al, 2000; Brubaker, 1997; Lohr 2012; Sasse, 2007; Tishkov, 1997). Garcelon (2001) claims that the internal passport distribution strategy “signalled the ascent of repression” (p. 90) whilst Shearer (2004) likens it to a social cleansing tool. Lohr (2012) however, sees the internal passport transforming from “being an instrument of state control, to documenting rights and verifying identity” (p. 116).

Lohr (2012) argues that identifiable patterns emerged in Russian and Soviet policy regarding annexation procedures, in line with what he defines as an “attract and hold” policy, the most resilient population policy in Russian history. The ‘attract and hold’ policy offered by Lohr (2012), may resound with Torpey’s (2000) evaluation that a state wishes to ‘embrace’ its populations; however, this pattern is based on two assumptions that may require further exploration: firstly, that naturalisation occurred immediately following annexation and secondly, that this naturalisation was an inclusive, uniform practice overriding ethnonationalist divisions.

Ethnonationalism has played a large part in Soviet and Russian state policy (Allworth et. al, 2000; Akturk, 2010; Brubaker, 1997; Garcelon, 2001; Lohr, 2012; Peters, 2010; Sasse, 2007; Shearer, 2004; Tsygankov, 2006). Originally the term was defined by Connor (1994), where he treats nationalism and ethnonationalism as synonyms, albeit with a modification from an “identification and loyalty to one’s nation” (p. 1), to that incorporating an ethnic and cultural element (Lecours, 2000; Conversi, 2002). Russian ethnic groupings and nationality are intertwined in a complicated relationship and affects Russian politics deeply, as Brubaker (1997) argues that the:

tendency for ethnic minorities to define themselves in national terms holds a fortiori for the Russians living in non-Russian successor states. They were accustomed, under the Soviet Regime, not only of thinking of themselves subjectively in national terms as Russians, but to enjoying a public existence as Russians, with full cultural and education facilities and with full recognition of Russian as a, if not the, language of public life… They will seek a form of citizenship mediated by nationality, that is, by membership to an ethnic-cultural group…

Russians living in territorially concentrated settlements in successor states, are likely to seek to redefine areas of the successor states, in which they form a local majority or plurality, as ‘their own’ territories by demanding some form of territorial autonomy in those areas (p. 108).

This deeply engrained aspect of ethnic identity can be attributed, at least in part to “institutionalised ethnoterritorial federalism” (Sasse, 2007, p. 90); the ascription of ethnic identity has been facilitated by the passport regime of Russia and the Soviet Union, which occurred, despite the highly fluid nature of the ethnic and linguistic boundaries (Allworth et. al, 2000).

The Significance of the Passport and its Distribution

The relationship between the passport and the identity of its members is complex and contested. Salter’s (2003) otherwise comprehensive dissection of the role of the passport in international relations reveals these difficulties when he claims that the “modern passport does not certify the security or even identity of the bearer” (p. 93), whilst simultaneously arguing that the “passport certif[ies] identity” (p. 96), and later asserting “the passport’s primary function is to denote a person’s identity and citizenship” (Salter, 2003, p.73). The denotation of citizenship and nationality in the passport is, however, highly significant. Many scholars have highlighted the capability of the passport as an institution, structurally reifying national identities (Brubaker 1992 & 1996; Dardy, 1998; Doty, 1996; Tilly, 1990), and can even adopt a nation or community building function (Salter, 2003). Yet from a legal standpoint, as Turack (1972) argues “neither the act of obtaining a passport nor the possession and use of the document should be regarded as renunciation or an attempted change of nationality” (p. 225) and that “a state is able to issue a passport to anyone it wishes according to its own municipal law” (ibid.); thus, “International customary law and many municipal laws do not recognise the passport as conclusive proof of nationality” (p. 231). Dardy (1998) however, focuses on the meaning of documentation to identity as she suggests that “our identity is enacted and re-enacted, stamped and affirmed in these papers” (p. 13), and Allworth et. al (2000) suggest, once nationalities or ethnicities become ‘fixed’ in documentation, the possibility of alterations of these criteria becomes difficult. Noiriel (1996) argues that it is through written documents that “communication at a distance” becomes possible (p. xvii-xviii); passports then fulfil a communicative function.

Even if we accept Anderson’s (1991) position that nations are essentially imagined communities, the implications of nationalistic politics should not be underestimated. The passport ascended to its current position due to the requirement for states to identify individuals by their legal nationality, a structural development given the intensifying interstate control on movement

and has resulted in a “shift from documentary controls on movement to documentary substantiation of identity” (Torpey, 2000, p. 84). As such, national identity ascription thus became a pivotal part of the interstate mobility framework. Although Torpey (2000) goes too far in suggesting that only institutionalised and codified identities are socially relevant, he does correctly highlight the power of the passport in solidifying national identities. This solidification can, in turn, further nationalistic sentiment which can be considered “a primarily inward-looking ideology”, which in turn can become a powerful “normative force” (Paasi, 1996, p. 60), legitimising security measures aimed at protecting a specific population (Wimmer, 2002). Encoding identities in passports thus “reinforces essentialism in the construction of social and ethnic identities” (Shearer, 2004), which can, according to Kalekin-Fishman & Pitkänen (2007), also have a destabilising effect on citizenship when these construct dual national identities. Though the nation state and national identity are social constructs, the constant interaction between the state and its populations strengthens the institutional bond between the two (Scott, 2014). It is these practices which contribute to the legitimacy which the overarching authority can lay claim to (ibid.). From this perspective, as a state extends its sovereignty to a population and begins exercising executive, legislative and judicial powers, the internal legitimacy for the new authority will likely strengthen over time, thus creating significant implications for those who simultaneously question the legality of extraterritorial naturalisations and passport distribution to non-nationals, whilst championing the right to self-determination.

Passport distribution, under normal conditions, can be considered a routine bureaucratic or administrative function of a sovereign state to its citizens. However, when conditions are changed and the recipients of state documentation detailing nationality are not under the authority of legitimate state, this ought to be considered a deliberate policy or strategy in order to reach an objective. It is the latter form of passport distribution which is most closely linked with the Russian

pasportizatsiya strategy. Although passport distribution to non-nationals can be considered at the

very least unusual, naturalisation, the legal process to confer nationality to non-citizens (Fortier, 2013) is an accepted and legitimate state practice (Beckman & Erman, 2012).

Territory and Population in Annexation?

The majority of the scholarly work on annexation address this issue from a legal standpoint (Brownlie, 1963; Dinstein, 1994; Gotberg, 2009; Korman, 1996; Langer, 1947; Lindley, 1926; McMahon, 1975; Sharma 1997). The focus on the legal legitimacy of annexations has meant that the literature has unfortunately failed to consider the populations, inevitably involved in territorial changes. The prevailing assumption amongst these scholars dealing with annexation, is that the

predominant desire for states is to expand territorially and that annexed populations become a mere consequence of this (Korman, 1996). If resources associated to a territory are so plentiful, it might hold true that a state’s ultimate desire to annex territory alone renders the population irrelevant. However, this population gap in the annexation literature is particularly surprising, given that, in many circumstances, territory is a means of getting to the population. By taking for granted a states’ aspiration to prioritise territorial expansion over the incorporation of the territory’s’ population, important annexation processes and objectives may be overlooked. Moreover, many scholars simply refer to annexation, leaving the mechanics unexamined (Dinstein, 1994; Fazal, 2007; Gerson, 1977; Jackson & Zacher, 1997; Langer, 1947; McMahon, 1975; Sharma, 1997), or simply attribute the causes of the practice to “imperialist rivalries” (Halperin, 1998, p. 164). Korman (1996) however, provides us with a notable exception to this; in her highly acclaimed work on the changing nature of the right of conquest, Korman (1996) details the legal history of annexation as an international state practice, historicising the change in norms, practices and international customary laws that have, since the end of the First World War, progressively prohibited annexation. Before this international norm against conquest became established (Fazal, 2007), the international system was “dominated by unrestricted right of war and recognition of conquests” (Brownlie, 1963, p. 19-20), and, as Gerson (1977) argues, annexation was typical as “historically, conquest of enemy territory would be followed by annexation at the end of the war” (p. 530-1). Annexation therefore was a primary driver of recognised sovereignty changes (Korman, 1996). Korman (1996) offers a critique to the legal framework regarding territorial changes and sovereignty, suggesting that annexation has been legally permissible only to the stronger agents in the international political system and as long as the balance of power is not affected (ibid.).

The norm against conquest has dramatically limited, but not completely eradicated, annexations. Since its establishment following the end of the Second World War (Fazal, 2007) annexations have occurred, yet again, almost solely by larger powers, and have been legitimately defended on the grounds of “strategic security” (Korman, 1996, p.171). It has also been defended by those arguing that the territorial change is protecting a populations’ “right of self-determination” (ibid., p. 219), meaning that the annexation can be considered legal if “the inhabitants of the annexed territory actually wish to brought under the the jurisdiction of the occupying state – provided that the conquest had not resulted from an illegal aggression against the state whose territory is occupied” (ibid.). Until very recently, annexation as a state practice, has been rare, indeed Connor (1994) predicted that that the changes in international legal norms were so comprehensive that it has made “it much more unlikely that a militarily weak polity will be annexed by a large power” (p.39), whilst Buchanan & Moore (2003) view it as a “wholly unacceptable means of acquiring territory” (p. 317), with Fazal (2007) suggesting that “annexation has become

criminalised” (p. 53). Indeed, the UN Security Council Resolution 242 states: “all acquisitions of territory obtained by force, without qualification as to lawfulness, are inadmissible (Korman 1996, p. 242). In line with this development in international law, Jackson & Zacher (1997) reject any notion of annexation as permissible, regardless of situation, by arguing that “all states affected by the change must give their consent” (p. 6), and without this, all acts of territorial exchange are illegal and illegitimate. Although the recent annexations are legally contested and generally condemned by the international legal community (Biersack & O'Lear, 2014), they do appear to be ‘successful’ and ‘complete’.

Although broadly applicable theories and research relating population to territory during times of territorial change and annexation are limited, Soviet and Russian historians and political specialists have fleetingly touched upon the subject. Tsygankov (2006) briefly deals with the matter by suggesting that the automatic and instantaneous naturalisations of those present, immediately followed annexations. The Russian words Rossiyanin and Russki refer to two contrasting forms of Russian citizenship, the former operating in line with the principle of jus soli, referring to Russian nationals or citizens who remain subjects of the Russian Federation but are not necessarily ethnically Russian, whilst the later, refers to those who are part of the Russian ethnic group, but are not necessarily Russian citizens, nationals or subjects. The instantaneous naturalisations Tsygankov (2006) refers to were based on the principle of jus soli. This then resulted in a civic Russian nationality ascription – Rossiyanin, to the new population (Tsygankov, 2006). Lohr (2012) argues that these naturalisations were then followed by a “separate deal” (p. 34), where ethnic minorities were, initially at least, given relative autonomy. However, annexation in the Soviet Union was often followed by either mass emigration or deportations (Lohr, 2012; Sasse; 2007; Unwin, 1999). Russian annexation has been of profound importance given that, as Lohr (2012) suggests, the “Russian empire added far more subjects to its ranks through annexation and ascribed subjecthood than through voluntary immigration and naturalisation by choice” (p. 28).

Peters (2010), speculating about the legality of extraterritorial naturalisations by the Russian Federation, suggests that, provided a connection is made between the individual being naturalised and the state doing the naturalising, the requirement for residency may be waived and therefore could be considered legitimate; however, as soon as this is enacted on a collective scale, this connection becomes incoherent and therefore impossible. The naturalisation process aims to either exploit a link between the state and the individual, or constructs one. These linkages can be ethnic claims relating to jus sanguinis, extended permanent residency jus soli, shared language proficiency or cultural aspects (Bloemraad et. al, 2008) and involves an element of confirming the political legitimacy of the sovereign authority.

The gap that this thesis wishes to address therefore, is that left by both the annexation literature failing to sufficiently address the implications for populations, and that of the literature relating to populations, state documentation failing to sufficiently test their theories, missing an opportune moment to view these relationships and theories through the lens of the annexation processes.

Theoretical Framework

Territory Over and Above Population?

Annexation can be defined as: a process by which additional territory is added to a state’s territory through occupation or appropriation thereby changing the authority of the incorporated population (Dani, 1991; Fazal, 2007; Klaff & Fuguitt, 1978; Stevenson, 2010). This definition, like the ‘traditional’ annexation process detailed below, rests on the assumption that territory is prioritised over population. In analysing historical annexations before the establishment of the norm against conquest, Korman (1996) suggests that annexations have followed a definitive process: firstly, the “the territory must be in the effective possession of the conqueror” (p. 8-9). Secondly, “that conqueror may proceed to annex conquered territory only after the enemy has ceased to fight for recovery of the lost possession” (p. 113). Third, “conquest gives title only when there is a manifest intention to acquire the conquered territory” (p. 118). Fourth, there needs to be a coherent “proclamation of annexation” (p. 125). Even without an explicit proclamation of annexation, the last requirement, according to Korman (1996), can be considered satisfied if “other acts demonstrating the will of the conqueror to extend its own sovereignty over the territory were equally operative” (p. 129). As passport distribution is a fundamental administrative function of a sovereign power, it may be argued that this practice thereby fulfils this requirement. The territory is then defended as the final step in this process as the state’s sovereign power extends to the new territory.

Korman’s (1996) theorising on annexation processes which give primacy to territorial acquisition thereby subordinating population allows us to compare annexation processes in order to test whether or not this ordering provides sufficient explanatory power into the mechanics and indeed the intentions of contemporary instances of annexation.

Population Before Territory?

The above framework gives primacy to the territorial acquisition in annexations, placing the subsequent population absorption as a lesser and therefore secondary aspect of this process.

However, if the priorities were reversed, meaning that the state desires to annex a population before claiming the territory to which the population have an attachment, then there would inevitably be a change in process, significantly deviating from the previously listed framework. This ‘alternative’ annexation process considering passport distribution to be a contributing factor in this, may be as follows: firstly, the state distributes passports to those it wishes to annex; secondly, the annexed population are then naturalised; thirdly, the annexing state conquerors the territory using force or threat of force; fourth, the annexation is completed; and lastly, the annexation is defended by the annexing state citing self-defence of its newly naturalised citizens in the territory as the basis of this military involvement.

If indeed there has been a noticeable alteration of the annexation process this would certainly lend support to Foucault’s (1991; 2009) theoretical understanding of the relationship between the sovereign and its people, where although territorial sovereignty claims are giving primacy in the international political system, “the effective, real, daily operations of the actual exercise of sovereignty point to a certain multiplicity, but one which is treated as the multiplicity of subjects, or [as] the multiplicity of a people.” (Foucault, 1991, p. 26). Foucault argues that a shift in governmentality has meant that:

the sovereign is no longer someone who exercises his power over a territory on the basis of a geographical localization of his political sovereignty. The sovereign deals with a nature, or rather with the perpetual conjunction, the perpetual intrication of a geographical, climatic, and physical milieu with the human species (1991, p. 38)

If Foucault (2009) is indeed correct, then the approach to embracing a population should be transterritorial. In altering the referent object or the target in the annexation towards the population over the territory, Torpey’s (2000) notion of the state ‘embracing’ its population through the passport may theoretically support this shift in annexation process, as it appears to contradict the conceptualisations of the state as fundamentally controlling or surveying institutional body(Giddens, 1987; Habermas, 1987; Weber et. al, 1946; Salter, 2003 & 2004). Regarding the legitimacy of annexations, it is possible that despite an observable alteration in the annexation process, appearing to prioritise populations, it may actually be that passport distribution is merely a means of establishing a claim to territory by way of the population.

Empirically, the initially indiscriminate nature by which the annexation of territory deals with the the absorbed population, may be in line with the pattern offered by Lohr (2012) who suggests that Russian and Soviet annexations instantaneously naturalised citizens following the acquisition of territory. However, the annexation of populations, by contrast, would target segments

of populations and therefore is highly selective in defining how and to whom the sovereign state expands its authority over. Although the nation state and ethnicity should always be considered as social constructs (Biersteker & Weber, 1996; Fearon & Laitin, 2000), which are in a constant process of defining and redefining the make-up of the population (Williams, 1999), then if annexation of population is occurring, this then represents a pure and extreme form of this state identity construction, given the selective nature of the population naturalisations. The annexations of populations based on ethnicity, will strengthen the argument put forward by many, that the Soviet ethnonationalist practices, may still prominently feature in Russian political foreign policy (Allworth et. al, 2000; Akturk, 2010; Brubaker,1997; Garcelon, 2001; Lohr, 2012; Peters, 2010; Sasse, 2007; Shearer, 2004; Tsygankov, 2006).

Case Selection and Empirical Focus

In order to appropriately select a case study, given the lack of a comprehensive history detailing instances of annexation, I compiled a non-exhaustive list of major occurrences between 1760 and present, from which the following scatter chart was drawn (Figure 1): -

Figure 1.

1

As is made evident from the chart, international annexation of another state’s territory has been a relatively rare phenomenon following the consolidation of the behavioural norm against conquest following the Second World War (Fazal, 2007). Although such instances of state practice were limited in the second half of the twentieth century, during the nineteenth century, annexationist politics were commonplace in the international political system (ibid.). Yet, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, annexation practices returned, with the Russian annexations of South Ossetia

1

Table 1, from which this chart was drawn, can be found under the ‘Tables’ section, and for the annotated chart, see Figure 1. In the ‘Figures’ section.Sources used to draw chart: Conklin (1997); Fazal (2007); Global Policy Forum (2005); Goldstein & Rimpoche (1989); Halperin (1998); Kappeler (2015); Louis et. al (1999); Newbury & Kanya-Forstner (1969); Pierce (1960); The First Annexation of Crimea 1784 (2016)

Russian annexation of Abkhazia Russian annexation of South Ossetia

Russian annexation of Crimea

1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

International Annexations between 1760 - 2014

and Abkhazia in Georgia, and of Crimea in Ukraine (Mälksoo, 2015). These instances make up the only ‘successful’ annexations in the post-Cold War era, therefore any analysis attempting to determine the relationship between passport distribution and annexation must take into account these cases of Russian annexation given their contemporary relevance to a previously dormant practice.

Hypothesising that Russian passport distribution to non-Russian citizens, or pasportizatsiya strategy, plays a significant role in annexation processes and that population rather than territory is given priority, and examining this theory by taking the Crimean, South Ossetian, and Abkhazian annexations by Russia as the primary empirical foci of this thesis, these cases, can then, according to Gerring’s (2006) classification be considered ‘crucial cases’. This is because, if any theory is to be constructed about annexation and the relationship of the passport, then these case studies, being the only successful instances in the post-Cold War era, must fit this most closely. As our understanding of annexation phenomena increases, these cases may also become ‘typical cases’. The ‘crucial cases’ underpin theoretical arguments about the broader population of cases as they are able to test a theory in the least favourable conditions. Therefore, as annexation is widely assumed to be a practice with territory as its main objective, and with Russia typically framed as a territorial expansionist power, then if the argument that populations are more important than territory is to hold in this scenario it can speak back to the broader population of cases where conditions may be more favourable to this hypothesis and thus provides significant external validity to the argument.

The empirics of the thesis therefore attempt to find patterns and parallels between the Crimean, South Ossetian, Abkhazian cases regarding annexation and passport distribution processes in order to draw cross-case references, using the theoretical framework given in a preceding section to examine which process of annexation fits most appropriately. Within these case studies the specific empirical focus will attempt to determine: (i) the distribution procedure with regards to the annexation process, (ii) who the recipients of the passports were (which will demonstrate the criteria determining eligibility for receiving a passport), (iii) the experiences of those who received a passport, and their relationship between the state and the newly naturalised citizens and (iv) any official statements made about either annexation, passport distribution or both. The data gathered will determine, in line with the theoretical framework, whether or not the pasportizatsiya strategy be considered as a determining factor in annexation attempts, and whether population or territory is more important to these processes.

Methodology

In order to definitively state whether the Russian Federation intended to annex the populations of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea or annex the territories through their passport distribution strategies, it would be necessary to receive a direct response to this question from Russian policymakers. Unfortunately, this is of course, impossible. In ideal circumstances, semi-structured interviews would be conducted with passport officials, policy makers, bureaucrats, administrators etc. in Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and from the Kremlin. However, the restrictive nature of these institutions and regions will direct the focus of the empirical section of this thesis towards the populations of these regions, the subjects of these institutions. Political scientists and state leaders are unable to conclusively determine Russian intent. The intent of a strategy can only conclusively be determined by the strategists themselves; however, the methodology employed by this thesis, to establish the connection between passport distribution and annexation and to correctly position the territory and population in the process, will attempt to overcome this inescapable limitation. In lieu of finding the ‘smoking gun’ on Russian foreign policy relating to this issue, this thesis uses an innovative mixed methodology of process tracing of the passport distribution and annexation by looking at objects of state control, the individuals affected by both these processes, through examining Russian foreign policy documentation and by conducting semi-structured interviews which have provided the thick descriptive narrative at the beginning of this thesis and further paths of investigation.

Process Tracing

In order to determine the relationship between passport distribution as a strategy and annexations, it will be necessary to empirically examine these processes, using a process tracing methodology. By employing this methodology, it becomes possible to “identif[y] a causal chain that links independent and dependent variables” (Checkel, 2008, p. 116), by searching for “theoretically predicted intermediate steps” (ibid.). Given this methodology is essentially determining whether our prior theoretical understandings about the causal mechanisms are valid; it is therefore necessary to map out what conventional theory on annexation and passport distribution suggests the process should be and compare this with a variation on this process. One of the strengths of this process tracing methodology is that it does not require an ontological claim, and thus has been used by positivist and post-positivists alike (ibid.) By using the theoretical framework outlined in a preceding section relating to past instances of annexation, we may expect that the process for naturalising the citizens of a newly annexed region may be as detailed on the left of the following diagram, with an alternate ‘population annexation’ process on the right of the diagram (Figure 2): -

Figure 2.

The annexing state defends its new territory The annexing state issues passports to its newly

naturalised citizens

Annexing state naturalises its new population Annexation is complete

Annexing state proclaims its intention to annex the territory

Fomer soverign authority ceases to fight for recovery of lost population

Annexing state effectively possess territory to be annexed

Annexation of population complete Referendum on 'independence' ratified

Fomer authority of territory ceases to fight for recovery of lost region

Military escalation and effective control of territory Annexing state issues passports and naturalises - large scale Annexing state issues passports and naturalises - small scale

Annexing state military personnel or consular staff legitimately poisitioned in annexed region

Process tracing relies on the gathering of large amounts of data from a wide range of sources, primarily through the examination of “histories, archival documents, [and] interview transcripts” (George & Bennett, 2005, p. 6). The majority of the observable data for the analysis will be collected from third-parties involved in the process, including EU reports, NGO reports, credible journalists and citizens of the annexed regions. In order to enable empirical data collection, semi-structured interviews with those involved in these processes will be conducted alongside written documentation analysis, which will highlight each of the distinguishable steps in the annexation process.

Semi-Structured Interviews and Document Analysis

The interviews will aim to enact the “knowledge-producing potentials of dialogues” (Brinkmann, 2013, p. 21), which will facilitate in: “(i) gathering basic information about a case, (ii) filling in gaps in existing historical accounts, (iii) [address] more theoretical concerns such as finding omitted variables and hypotheses (iv) and uncovering causal processes” (George and Bennett, 2005 in Tansey, 2007), and can corroborate evidence of what other sources have uncovered (Tansey, 2007). The role the semi-structured interviews will take in supporting the process tracing methodology necessitates a form of interview that is experienced-focused, discerning phenomenological positions, which will take a priority over a secondary, albeit complementary, language focused interview (Brinkmann, 2013).

The financial, physical and linguistic constraints involved in conducting research in the annexed regions means that the sourcing of interviewees has to be done unconventionally via digital connections. Online social networks, specifically Facebook and VK, provide a unique opportunity in aiding a search to locate those willing and able to assist in interviews, within region or topic specific groupings. At the time of writing, simple searches using the keywords ‘Crimea’, ‘South Ossetia’ and ‘Abkhazia’ reveals hundreds of Facebook groups with members with some interest or attachment to the regions, such as the ‘Crimean Tartars Cooking Association’, which can be accessed either openly or through submitting a request, that can be approved by an administrator of the group or other group members. On the majority of the groups’ pages, it is possible to write a message on the groups’ ‘wall’ requesting interviewees to come forward. It is through this method that the interviewees for this thesis have been sourced. In addition to those members found on Facebook and a Russian social media site VK, interviews with members of non-governmental organisations [NGOs] were also conducted, hoping to elicit official documentation to substantiate their accounts of their experiences. All the names used in the in-text referencing and in the appendices are pseudonyms to protect the privacy of those interviewed; 23 interviews were conducted as part of this research, with two Crimean NGO employees, one Abkhazian former UN

refugee employee, 14 Crimeans, three South Ossetians, two Abkhazians, and one Transnistrian taking part.

The aim of the interviews was to gather empirical data about the passport distribution and annexation process in order to feed into the process tracing methodology mentioned previously, and to help with gaps in the knowledge created by desktop research. The narrative at the beginning of this thesis was made possible as a result of the experiences recounted by the interviewees (see Queueing for Passports). The primary focus will be on the concrete interactions and administrative process of the passport distribution and annexation, although the subjective meaning of the experiences and how these events are perceived will add valuable insight into a holistic examination of the processes. By opting for a semi-structured interview, it will allow for the interviewee to elicit their most salient aspects of the process. The structure of the interview will involve an attempt to receive answers from key themes, including aspects relating to the perceptions of, and changes to: (i) the former and new passport, its distribution, (ii) identity, (iii) nationality, (iv) ethnicity, (v) legitimacy, (vi) bureaucratic relationship, and (vii) administrative process. These themes will also involve issues relating to what documentation was received or what was told to those in the annexed regions during the annexation and passport distribution processes.

The evidence drawn from the interviews is expected to relate to: (i) any inclusionary or exclusionary practices within the passport distribution process that will suggest the criteria, and therefore possible intent of the passport distribution strategy, (ii) statements and documentation received from the relevant authorities regarding either the passport distribution process, or the annexations, and (iii) the experiences relating to the use of the new passport either for travel purposes or administrative purposes, within and outside the annexed territory. Although sourcing interviews through social media platforms may create a bias, in that only those willing to participate are included in the data, this is inevitably the case for any form open-source interviewing within the social sciences.

The semi-structured interviews served an investigatory function, with responses elicited from the interviewees allowing for further desktop research into strands of enquiry related to Russian citizenship legislation, Russian foreign policy changes, speeches and statements from prominent stakeholders, and other potential groups or communities to investigate. This allowed the research to adapt to the most significant issues of the topic.

Empirical Analysis

The Annexation of Populations

The argument that Russia is engaging in annexation and military involvement on foreign soil in order to destabilise the countries who are increasingly aligning with NATO and other long-term adversaries of the Russian state, is now ubiquitous in international relations scholarship (Forsberg & Herd, 2015; Mankoff, 2014; Mearsheimer, 2014) and indeed mainstream media (Deyermond, 2014, April 27; Peter, 2014, September 03). Whilst these lines of reasoning are not completely dismissed, it is this thesis’ argument that whether through intent or circumstance, Russia has effectively annexed the populations of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea prior to or instead of their territory. The strength of this empirical argument will inevitably vary between each case. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a scale to be able to qualify each claim against the argument that populations rather than territory have been annexed, which are as follows: -

• the strongest- that population is the sole focus of the annexation, • strong –that population is the primary focus and territory secondary, • weak – that population has been used as a means to annex territory, and

• nullified –that population is entirely secondary to territory in the annexation and is merely a consideration because of the consequences of this process.

By suggesting an alternative to the traditional position that Russia’s foreign policy is geared at defence, energy or economic security, all of which are undeniably important in the international affairs of the Russian state, it may be possible to infer Russian intent to secure its demographic security, one which is precariously positioned and has been stated as a major threat to Russian political stability (Putin, 2012, December 12). Russia’s severe demographic problems, with an estimated 700,000-person population decline each year, have been acknowledged by the Russian authorities (Eke, 2006, June 07) and has significant implications for a plethora of economic, social and political aspects. The acknowledgement of these problems was initially outlined in the early 2000s when the Russian state began to officially attempt to strengthen the ties with foreign citizens in the former Soviet Union connected to the Russian state in a legislative and foreign policy framework known as the Compatriot Policy (Grigas, 2016). The introduction of related political activities can be considered as a response to these demographic problems (Schenk, 2010). The polices aimed at improving ties between the Russian federation and compatriots which were

Federation, but related to the Russia through historical, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and spiritual ties” (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 2000, July 11). The ‘Russian compatriots living abroad’ whom ‘self-identify’ as such, would come to be officially discussed as a potential resource for the Russian state, rather than a problem to be solved (Grigas, 2016). In an address to the Federal Assembly in 2012, Vladimir Putin explicitly references the demographic problems Russia faces by stating “Russia needs new blood. That much is clear” (Putin, 2012, December 12). The Compatriot Policy framework of the Russian state coupled with the pasportizatsiya strategy employed by Russia in Georgia and Ukraine can be seen as a vital mechanism in the process of annexing these populations.

The Three Waves of Russian Pasportizatsiya Strategies

A significant finding of this thesis is the identification of three distinct ‘waves’ of the Russian

pasportizatsiya strategy, each with their own particularities, that have significantly affected the

annexations. The introduction of this organising principle allows for analytical nuance, as the relationship between each wave of the distribution and the annexation of populations display variances of implications and affects.

The nation-states that were previously nations within the former Soviet Union were considerably affected by the Union’s integration, consolidation and eventual break-up. One of these consequences has been that Russia remains extremely influential as a political, economic and social hegemon (Blank, 1995). The pasportizatsiya strategy employed by Russia within Georgia and Ukraine relies on both the associative nature of the relationship, forged during the linkages in Soviet times, and the more deliberate attempt at asserting influence. Without the connection formed during the Soviet Union the naturalisation of non-Russian citizens and the distribution of Russian passports to these citizens would fail a test of logic and immediately fall at the first hurdle under legal examination. The notions of nationality and citizenship are complex at best, and this is especially so in the former Soviet Union where the neat overlap between nationalities and nation-states did not exist and has remained elusive in many parts of this now disintegrated bloc. Russia’s relatively rigid citizenship categories, often considered as an effect of the ethnonationalist institutional practices divides its citizens along ethnic lines. Therefore, it is possible to be a Russian citizen – Rossiyanin - without being ethnically Russian – Russki. The breakup of the Soviet Union coupled with this dichotomy in categorisation, has meant that along with those living in Russia, ethnic Russians-

Russki- reside in the nation-states that make up the former Soviet Union in large numbers and make

up significant proportion of the demographic. Russian, as the lingua franca of the Soviet Union, still commands a significant role, as an official language with prominent use, in connecting the

nation-states of the former Soviet Union, to Russia, and further deepens these linkages. These connections between Russia and those people residing in the neighbouring countries have been explicitly referenced by Russian politicians in defending their actions regarding pasportizatsiya strategies (Mühlfried, 2010) emphasising various aspects of these connections depending on the objective being pursued and the political context.

The following sub-chapters will outline the similarities in the processes of pasportizatsiya across the three cases of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea, whilst highlighting contextual specificities to each case and how these are related to the annexations. The timeline of these waves has been illustrated in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. The timeline of passport distribution in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea

The ‘First Wave’ of Pasportizatsiya – 1990 – 2002

The Targeted Population

Between the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and 2002, the Russian state actively engaged in passport distribution and extraterritorial annexations by targeting ethnic Russian communities in the regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea (Grigas, 2016). It is estimated that up to 25 million

Russki reside in non-Russian states (Brubaker, 1997). In Georgia in 2002, 67,671 or 1.5 percent of

the total population were considered to be ethnically Russian (State Statistics Service of Georgia, 2002), with 23,521 ethnic Russians or 10.9 percent of the population of Abkhazia identifying themselves as such (Abkhaz Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010 in Gogia, 2011). Although no official census has been conducted in South Ossetia since 1989, it is estimated that 2,100 people or approximately three percent of the South Ossetian population also identify themselves as ethnically Russian (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 2014, May 22). In Ukraine the

numbers are significantly higher; in 2001, 8,334,100 people or 17.3 percent of the population people identified as ethnically Russian with 1,450,394 people or 58.3 percent of the population of Crimea also identifying as such (State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2001, December 05).

Although the Russian state officially denies that it was engaging in the process of passport distribution to non-Russian citizens in these regions, reports to the contrary have confirmed this to be evident (IIFFMCG Vol. 1, 2009) and have been supported by the interviewees for this thesis (see Appendices B, C & D). The targeting of these individuals was relatively easy for Russian state officials in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, highlighted by a former UN refugee employee who stated that the ethnic Russians:

usually kept to tightly knit groups in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Although there were not many of them you could tell who they were because they spoke Russian, were very proud of Russia and often lived together near each other in the towns, so the Russian’s just had to offer them the passport which most of them wanted anyway. You have to understand that we [the Abkhazians] did not want to be part of Georgia. Yes, it is a problem now we are so close with Russia but it is not that we were first Georgians and now Russians. (see Appendix B).

In Crimea, a similar situation existed. Initially this distribution process mainly applied to residents of Sevastopol, home to Russia’s Black Sea naval base (Blomfield, 2008, August 17) highlighted by a resident stating that:

most of the Russians [Russki] who lived in Crimea lived in or near Sevastopol, because of the navy and military base there. These people in Sevastopol are almost Russian anyway, and have strong connections to the military, so we knew about this happening in Crimea but didn’t consider this to be a problem. I don’t think they ever considered themselves Ukrainian anyway, maybe Crimean but maybe Russian too even before they got their passport (see Appendix C).

Sergiy Kulyk of NOMOS Centre, Sevastopol, estimated that as many as 60,000 Russian passports were issued to pensioners connected to the Russian Black Sea Fleet in order to increase their individual financial security (Hedenskog, 2008). Mykola Stretovych, an MP at the time for Ukraine’s ruling Orange Party, described the process as a “massive operation” (Blomfield, 2008, August 17).