Права человека бесценны

Комментарий на статью "Абхазия должна улучшить показатели по правам человека" Хью Уильямсона, директора    отделения  Human Rights Watch  по   Европе и Центральной Азии в The Guardian

Полная негатива и  оголтелого цинизма, одна из крайне необъективных об Абхазии статей,  которые появляются  в Интернете время от времени.    Но особое сожаление вызывает тот факт, что автором ее является  представитель   влиятельной международной организации как Human Rights Watch,   каковой совсем недавно она считалась.

Нескрываемая предубежденность автора  и  политизированность  подхода  к проблеме прав человека в стране,  которую  он совсем недавно посетил, вызывает глубокое разочарование .  

Мы  не  в  коей  мере   не собираемся представлять какие – либо аргументы к его высказываниям,  но  хотели  бы напомнить о  некоторых вещах, о которых г-н Уильямсон, осведомлен, но предпочитает не говорить, в виду того,  что  это не выгодно грузинским властям,   и  в то же время,  забывает о  ситуации с правами человека в самой Грузии  сегодня.

Права человека не являются  исключительной привилегией больших народов. Они  равны  для всех, как пишут  во всех известных конвенциях, декларациях, протоколах и резолюциях и других документах. Каждый  имеет право пользоваться  ими, но как оказывается  иногда  на деле, в наше время существует беспрецедентное  деление, когда одни народы в  силу  различных политических процессов  возвеличиваются и почитаются, в то время как другие  лишь  осуждаются,  или рассматриваются как  объекты, на которые можно  выплеснуть свою озлобленность  или   насмехаться.

Хотелось бы напомнить, что Абхазия пережила жестокую войну в 1992-93 гг., и что её начала Грузия. После войны Абхазия находилась в блокаде,  которую поддержало  международное сообщество ( включая  и РФ, участвовавшей долгие годы в этом процессе); более того, после довольно неожиданного признания Россией и несколькими другими странами, нас постоянно предупреждают о том, что наша республика  никогда не будет признана другими странами, но,  тем не менее,  требуют следовать международным стандартам  (презрительно именуя страну “территорией“ в статье)  каким и должно быть  высокоразвитое государство с настоящим  демократическим обществом - далеко не легкое дело  для государства,  ввергнутого в войну и  затем  оказавшуюся в   блокаде. По мнению г-на Уильямсона мы обязаны строго следовать всем международным конвенциям и документам, но исключительно в отношении жителей т.н. “грузинской“ национальности ( в данном случае  мегрельского населения  республики).

В Абхазии никто не отрицает уважение прав и  достоинства личности любой  национальности  проживающей в нашей стране и наше общество уделяет этой важной проблеме большое внимание. Однако  мы сталкиваемся с такими препятствиями  и обстоятельствами (политическими,  экономическими,   социальными и т. д.)     которые  трудно  преодолеть за короткий срок  в  состоянии изоляции, в которой  пребывала  страна в течение долгого времени и   особенно,  когда  мнение людей, проживающих в ней не только пренебрегается мировым сообществом, но даже дискриминируется в угоду Грузии,  которая как уже  упоминалось, 19 лет назад  начала войну против нас, нарушив самое священное  из человеческих прав  - право на Жизнь.

Кто  же должен понести  ответственность за  преступление против  народов  Абхазии, совершенное  14 августа 1992 года? Г-н Уильямсон даже не соблаговолил упомянуть об этом вопиющем событии в своей вызывающей  сильное удивление статье в The Guardian, он  с издевкой пишет о Чемпионате мира по домино, состоявшегося в Абхазии пару месяцев назад. На самом деле, трудно сказать, что более беспокоит Уильямсона, то что Чемпионат мира  по домино происходил именно в Абхазии или ситуация с правами человека, для улучшения которой он ничего не сделал. Или может быть он   рассказал   бы    как она была улучшена и как соблюдают  права человека в уважаемой  им Грузии?  Грузинское  правительство не упускает ни одной   возможности,   чтобы не пожаловаться мировому сообществу на каждой конференции или ином политическом событии о нарушениях на т.н. “оккупированных  территориях”,  хотя они никогда не говорят о том,  что Абхазия и Южная Осетия были принесены в дар  Грузинской  Советской Социалистической Республике  лидером большевиков И. Сталиным (по совпадению, грузином по  национальности) и рекомендуют посольствам государств не выдавать визы, когда детские  ансамбли или студенты из Абхазии приглашаются  участвовать в международных событиях. Так, под давлением грузинских властей в  получении виз было отказано даже тем, кто должен был выехать по проблемам здоровья, что является неслыханным и вопиющим фактом  нарушения прав человека в наше время.

Мы не станем комментировать несправедливые законы, принятые парламентом Грузии в отношении иностранных граждан, переходящих абхазо-русскую  границу, по которым они должны  быть арестованы, в случае их приезда в Грузию.  Г-н Уильямсон  хранит молчание по этому поводу. Может быть, потому что он одобряет такие нарушения  и дискриминацию не только  против жителей Абхазии, известной своим гостеприимством, но также и её гостей?

English version: http://allsmediamonitoring.blogspot.com/2011/12/response-to-article-abkhazia-must-raise.html

The Cost of Human Rights Is Priceless

Commentary on the article “Abkhazia must raise its game on human rights” by Hugh Williamson, Director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe & Central Asia Division, in The Guardian

One of the most negatively biased, skewed, overwhelmingly and excessively cynical articles among the many others that have recently appeared on the Internet about Abkhazia. It is all the more regretful to read as it has been written by the person who represents such an influential international organisation as Human Rights Watch was once considered to be.

Deep disappointment is the only outcome of this perfect demonstration of the author’s prejudiced attitude and his politically motivated approach to the country to which he has recently paid a visit.  

We do not suppose to present counter-arguments to every passage in his piece - we would just like to mention a few points of which Mr. Williamson, Director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe & Central Asia Division, is surely well-aware but to which he prefers not to pay attention, since they are not on the agenda of Georgian authorities, whom he fully supports, forgetting the human rights’ situation today inside Georgia itself.

Human rights are not the exclusive preserve of larger nations — they are equal for all, as has been stated in all the famous covenants, declarations, protocols and resolutions, etc.; every human being has the right to enjoy them, but it seems that nowadays there exists an almost unheard of division whereby some peoples, due to political processes, are exalted and highly respected, whereas the others are deemed to be worthy only of blame, accusations, venom and jibes. Let us recall that Abkhazia suffered a bloody war in 1992-93 and that it was instigated by Georgia; thereafter, the country has suffered years of blockade imposed on all its peoples by the international community (including, for many years during this period, the Russian Federation); furthermore, even today, after Abkhazia’s unexpected recognition by Russia and some other countries, we Abkhazians are continually warned that our republic will be never recognised by other countries, which nevertheless lay upon our country (insultingly styled a “territory” in the said article) the obligation to build a highly developed state with truly democratic society - no easy task, even when no war or economic blockade has been imposed on an emergent state. In the words of Mr. Williamson, we  are expected strictly to follow all international conventions and documents but solely in regard to the residents of so-called ‘Georgian’ nationality (viz. the Mingrelian members of our population).
 No one in Abkhazia denies the respect due to the dignity of all human beings of any nationality living in our country and our society pays great attention to it.  But we face many barriers and circumstances (political, economic, social etc.) which are hard to overcome in the short term in the state of isolation that the country has been kept for so long, and especially when the opinion of the people living in the country is not merely utterly neglected by the international community but often discriminated against in favour of Georgia, which, as stated above, 19 years ago inflicted upon us a war for the base purpose of restoring its already fractured territorial integrity, violating in the process the most important human right of all – each individual Abkhazian’s sacred right to Life. Who, pray, will be held responsible for that crime, instigated on Abkhazia’s own day of infamy, the 14th August 1992? Mr. Williamson even does not even deign to make mention of this crucial event in his hard-hitting article in The Guardian, in which before the whole world he exposed the World Domino Championship, held in Abkhazia a couple of months ago, to his savage mockery. It is really hard to discern what concerned Williamson more, the Domino Championship or the human rights situation, which he has done nothing to improve. Should he not at least have told us how it has been improved or indeed respected in his beloved Georgia? 

The Georgian authorities lose no opportunity to complain at every possible conference or political event around the world about alleged violations on what they call their “occupied territories”, though they never mention that Abkhazia and South Ossetia were gifted to the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic by the  SSR’s Bolshevik leader Josef Stalin (coincidentally Georgian by nationality) and address appeals to the relevant states or their embassies when dance-groups or students from Abkhazia obtain visas to participate in international gatherings. For example, under pressure from the Georgian authorities, visas have been denied even when people are applying to travel outside Abkhazia on medical grounds, which is surely utterly unjust and unheard of in our time. We refrain from commenting on the unjust laws adopted by the Georgian Parliament relating to foreigners crossing the Abkhaz-Russian border, other than to note that these laws make them liable to arrest if ever they step on Georgian territory. Mr. Williamson keeps silent about this. Is this (just maybe) because he approves of such violations and rank discrimination when they affect not just the people of all nationalities resident in Abkhazia (famed for it hospitality) but their guests too?

Georgian Stance by Tom Trier

Tom Trier, senior research associate for the European Centre for Minority Issues and its regional director in the Caucasus was interviewed by Sergey Markedonov (Caucasus Times) on the subject of the publication: Under Siege: Inter-Ethnic Relations in Abkhazia Authors/Editors: Tom Trier, Hedvig Lohm and David Szakonyi (Publisher: London: Hurst & Co., 2010).

As a Regional Representative for the Caucasus with a background in social anthropology, Tom Trier specialises in ethno-national and migration issues in Eastern Europe and the CIS, particularly in the Caucasus region. Though Tom Trier was deployed in Tbilisi as Regional Representative for the Caucasus, it is hard to imagine a European expert living in Georgia who, under the guise of research, could express such a one-sided attitude to the Abkhazian question. One of his biased assertions (viz. the “privileged status of the Abkhazians”) can only be understood if we assume it to be of Georgian origin.

One cannot but accord Georgia’s propaganda machine due respect, for, as in so many other cases one could cite, Tier simply took its output on trust, not even bothering to seek any proof of the accuracy of his Georgian sources.

Even so, some information could have been found in Georgia, had the author made the effort to acquaint himself with the researches of some Georgian political experts in Tbilisi.

Paata Zakareishvili, the Chairman of the Georgian NGO Institute of Nationalism and Conflict Studies, describing Georgian reluctance both to admit past mistakes and to seal a dignified peace with the Abkhazian people as a dangerous symptom of Georgian malaise, has clearly stated that the bid for independence was triggered by Georgian xenophobia and intolerance. “Either through reluctance or incompetence, the government in Tbilisi proved incapable of driving a wedge between its separatist leaders and the population at large. It then proceeded to adopt short-sighted and even criminal policies towards the Abkhazian people, forging a new solidarity among the breakaway factions."                                                  
                                                                                           
Revaz Gachechiladze in his research entitled Geographical Background to a Settlement of the Conflict in Abkhazia described the growth of the ‘Georgian’ population in Abkhazia since the end of the 19th century as the rapid consolidation of the Georgian nation and an increase in its national consciousness. The area of Georgian settlement was constantly expanding, and they were becoming the direct competitors to the Russians in this sector along the Black Sea coast.

Georgian journalist and human rights activist, Sozar Subeliani, who served as Ombudsman of Georgia from 2004 to 2009, thinks that the rise and fall of the Georgian nationalist movement  were equally swift. Many political observers contend that this phenomenon was deliberately engineered by the Soviet regime in a bid to manipulate the independence-process. In his research entitled The rise and fall of Georgian nationalism, he quoted Ramaz Sakhvarelidze, a psychologist and former prime minister, as saying that "The Russian government plotted to give the nationalist movement an ethnic rather than a political flavour - an emotional, aggressive nationalism that was not conducive to forming solid state structures." He also refers to political commentator Nodar Dzhibladze, who thinks that Georgia needs a nationalist ideology to establish its identity and its position on the international map.
                                                                                                                                                 
Furthermore, Subeliani quoted ex-President Eduard Shevardnadze as saying that they were working to establish an independent and democratic Georgian state with geo-political and international integrity and that their opponents had to prove that they could improve on their policies or introduce a more acceptable political direction and that he knew no politicians capable of achieving this. Subeliani termed as paradoxical the fact that  Shevardnadze seemed to embody the nationalist ideology to a far greater extent than those who accuse him of betraying the national interests.
                                                                                                     
Gia Tarkhan-Mouravi, of the Institute for Policy Studies, considers that the demand for exclusive rights to a specific territory by one ethnic group or another is often linked to the demand for "autochthonous" status, while only "guest"-status is attributed to other groups. Such claims are generally based on an arbitrary use of historical facts. Some Georgian scholars have argued, for instance, that the Abkhazians came to Abkhazia from the North Caucasian mountains only relatively recently.

Worth recalling in this regard is the Report No 34. Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Uppsala University On Conditions for Durable Inter-State Boundary Agreements

Territory is equally important for social units, such as the "nation". Concepts such as "nation-state" and "state-nation" point to two types of relationship between the state as a political unit and the nation as a social unit. The territory "bridges" these two concepts, since the state as well as the nation include territory as a defining property. There is no non-territorial "state" and definitions of a "nation" usually include a reference to territory. The "nation" is an identity - shaping unit, as is "family". Both need a territory- a certain geographical area, or a home- in order to function as identity-giving. Here, focus is on the situation where a certain disputed area contains values, for one or both parties, that relate to the identity of the party or of a group within each party.

Commentary on the Resolution of the European Parliament for Georgia, 17 November 2011

SPECIALLY FOR ALLS by Iraklii Khintba

On 17 November 2011, the European Parliament by a majority vote adopted a resolution on Georgia, which the government of Saakashvili has already christened "historic". The resolution’s text comprises exceptionally strong language, unusual in the rhetoric of European representatives: “to recognise the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as occupied territories”, “to call upon Russia to withdraw the recognition of Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and stop the occupation”, “to welcome Georgia’s Strategy on [the] Occupied Territories and Action Plan as an effective instrument to promote reconciliation”, etc...

This resolution, from a purely formal viewpoint, may be deemed a definite achievement for Georgian  diplomacy. However, in essence it is another example of the advancing of a fallacious and ineffective strategy regarding the post-August reality vis-à-vis the South Caucasus. To ignore the existence of the ethno-political Georgian-Abkhazian conflict and the problems surrounding the ethnic compatibility between Georgians and Abkhazians after the bloody war of 1992-93, concealing all this under the guise of confrontation between Georgia and Russia and a purely mythical occupation, is utterly useless from the point of view of the actual situation on the ground in the region and the still unresolved conflicts.

It should be underlined that this resolution has a recommendatory character, and yet it is hardly able to achieve any cardinal changes in the region. Furthermore, it is unlikely that it will have any influence whatsoever on the official rhetoric of those European officials who participate directly in what is going on with regard to the unsolved Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. And there is absolutely no doubt that even such toughly worded formulations will not make Russia abandon its own national interests and obligations.

Another matter is that the adopted resolution strikes yet another blow on the negative image of Europe and the West as a whole that has already formed in the consciousness of the people of Abkhazia. The majority, who do not scrutinise the refinements and nuances of European politics with regard to the Southern Caucasus, are more and more disposed against Western influence in their country. As a result, the legitimacy of any possible joint-action in the sphere of culture, education and democratic development might be lost. Who will be the winner here? I do not think that it will be Europe.

If one speaks of specifics, the peremptory nature of the formulations contained in the resolution is surprising. And the resolution itself looks extremely partial and unjust. Attention can be drawn to the fact that in the preamble there is no reference to any document or evidence that takes into account the position of the authorities of Abkhazia, whereas there is mention of Mikheil Saakashvili’s speech in the European Parliament is indicated. It is clear that no groundwork had been done for the collection of facts, just as the position of the Abkhazian side was not listened to and its opinion was simply ignored.

Conclusions are drawn in the resolution regarding the “occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia” without any definition of clear criteria for “occupation” or the application of appropriate argumentation and facts. Not one of those who voted for the resolution bothered to find the time to visit Abkhazia and see everything with their own eyes. For example, where did information about “ethnic cleansings” come from? Nothing of the kind has appeared in any document, even the most critical, regarding Abkhazia since 2008. Why has it become possible to adopt such an unprecedentedly biased document?

In our opinion, quite apart from other reasons, there is a prosaic political logic at work here: after the “bitter pill” it is necessary to offer a “sweet bon-bon”. Georgia had to abandon its basic negotiating position on Russia's WTO accession under pressure from the West. Having withdrawn its demand for Georgian custom officials to be present at the Russian-Abkhazian border on the River Psou, Tbilisi, one can say, has recognised these borders as not its own. A private audit at the border will quickly in time become a mere formality, and, after three years can be done away with altogether. Moreover, in Georgia irritation has long been brewing over the unwillingness of European officials to identify for Tbilisi at least some prospects of EU membership. We recall how the bitterness of another failure in fixing the time-frame for membership of NATO was similarly sweetened for Tbilisi by means of the odious Resolution of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly, adopted a few days before the Lisbon Summit.

In general, the said resolution once again marks out a problem that prevents the effective participation of the EU in resolving the conflicts and promoting development in the Southern Caucasus. In particular, it undermines the efforts of the EU Southern Caucasus office regarding cooperation with Abkhazia. If the Abkhazian authorities are just puppets who decide nothing, as follows from the resolution, then why do European officials visit Sukhum and meet with Abkhazian officials? However, just recently, the new EU Special Representative for the Southern Caucasus, F. Lefort, visited Sukhum and noted the importance of contacts with the authorities of the republic.

Consequently, the main problem is the total lack of coordination in Europe’s involvement in the region. Firstly, there is lack of agreement at the level of EU policy-formulation, comprising rivalry between the branches of European power, and within certain structures (opposition between K. Ashton and P. Semneby). Secondly, there is a dramatic gap in the real understanding of the situation existing between a small number of EU officials and the expert-groups supporting them, on the one hand, and the bulk of not only European officials and MEPs, but Europeans in general, on the other hand. The crises that are shaking the European Union at the present time have an impact on this situation.

As a result, we have a resolution that has little impact on the rhetoric and political tactics of Europeans who interact directly with Abkhazia, and which, naturally, will have no bearing on Russian politics but will clearly worsen the overall perception of the West in the eyes of the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If the adoption of such a one-sided resolution is also able to encourage the morale of the Georgian leadership, then it is doubtful that it can play a positive role in strengthening stability in the Southern Caucasus.

- Русская версия: Комментарий на Резолюцию Европарламента по Грузии от 17 ноября 2011 г.

Комментарий на Резолюцию Европарламента по Грузии от 17 ноября 2011 г.

Специально для ALLS от кандидата политических наук Ираклия Хинтба, Абхазский государственный университет и Центр гуманитарных программ.

17 ноября 2011 г. Европейский парламент подавляющим большинством голосов принял резолюцию по Грузии, которую правительство Саакашвили уже успело окрестить «исторической». Текст резолюции содержит крайне жесткие формулировки, обычно не свойственные риторике европейских представителей: «признать грузинские регионы Абхазию и Южную Осетию оккупированными территориями», «призвать Россию отозвать признание отделившихся грузинских регионов Абхазии и Южной Осетии и прекратить их оккупацию», «приветствовать Грузинскую стратегию по оккупированным территориям и План действий как эффективный инструмент примирения», «этнические чистки, имевшие место в оккупированных территориях» и так далее.

Эту резолюцию формально можно считать определенным достижением грузинской дипломатии. Однако по сути - это очередной пример продвижения ошибочной и неэффективной стратегии в отношении поставгустовских реалий на Южном Кавказе. Игнорировать существование этнополитического грузино-абхазского конфликта и проблемы этнической совместимости грузин и абхазов после кровопролитной войны 1992-1993 гг., маскируя все это противостоянием Грузии и России и мифической оккупацией, совершенно бесполезно с точки зрения сложившейся ситуации в регионе и неразрешенных конфликтов.

Следует подчеркнуть, что данная резолюция носит рекомендательный характер и, на самом деле, вряд ли способна привести к кардинальным изменениям в регионе. Кроме того, маловероятно, что она повлияет на официальную риторику тех еврочиновников, которые непосредственным образом участвуют в ситуации неразрешенного грузино-абхазского конфликта. Несомненно, что даже такие жесткие и определенные формулировки не заставят Россию поступиться своими национальными интересами и обязательствами.

Другое дело, что принятая резолюция наносит еще один удар по и без того негативному образу Европы и Запада в целом, формируемому в сознании жителей Абхазии. Большинство, которое не вникает в тонкости и нюансы европейской политики на Южном Кавказе, все больше настраивается против западного влияния в своей стране. В итоге, могут окончательно потерять легитимность возможности для взаимодействия в области культуры, образования, демократического развития. Кто от этого выигрывает больше? Не думаю, что сама Европа.

Если говорить по сути, то удивляет безаппеляционность формулировок, содержащихся в резолюции. Сама резолюция выглядит крайне пристрастной и несправедливой. Можно обратить внимание на то, что в преамбуле нет ссылки ни на один документ или иное свидетельство учета позиций властей Абхазии, зато есть указание на речь Михаила Саакашвили в Европарламенте. Очевидно, что не было проведено вообще никакой полевой работы по сбору фактов, равно как не была выслушана позиция абхазской стороны, которая попросту игнорируется.

В резолюции делаются выводы по «оккупации Абхазии и Южной Осетии» без определения четких критериев «оккупации», приведения соответствующей аргументации и фактологии. Никто из голосовавших за резолюцию не удосужился побывать в Абхазии и увидеть все своими глазами. К примеру, откуда взялась информация об «этнических чистках»? Ни в одном документе, даже наиболее критического свойства, не содержится ничего подобного в отношении Абхазии после 2008 г. Почему вообще стало возможным принятие такого беспрецедентно ангажированного документа?

На наш взгляд, здесь, помимо иных причин, действует прозаическая политическая логика: после «горькой пилюли» необходимо предложить «сладкую конфету». Грузии пришлось отказаться от своих основных переговорных позиций по вопросу вступления России в ВТО именно под нажимом Запада. Сняв требование о присутствии грузинских таможенников на российско-абхазской границе по р. Псоу, Тбилиси, можно сказать, признал эти границы не своими. Частный аудит на границе со временем, скорее всего, превратится в пустую формальность, а через три года и вовсе может быть свернут. Кроме того, в Грузии давно зреет раздражение нежеланием еврочиновников наметить для Тбилиси хотя бы какие-то перспективы членства в ЕС. Напомним, как горечь очередного отказа в фиксированных сроках членства в НАТО была аналогичным образом подслащена для Тбилиси одиозной резолюцией Парламентской Ассамблеи НАТО, принятой за несколько дней до начала Лиссабонского Саммита альянса.

В целом, данная резолюция в очередной раз обозначает проблему, препятствующую эффективному участию ЕС в урегулировании конфликтов и содействию развитию на Южном Кавказе. В частности, она подрывает усилия Южнокавказского офиса ЕС по взаимодействию с Абхазией. Если абхазские власти - это лишь ничего не решающие марионетки, как следует из резолюции, то зачем тогда еврочиновникам приезжать в Сухум и встречаться с абхазскими официальными лицами? Однако буквально на днях Сухум посетил новый спецпредставитель ЕС по Южному Кавказу Ф. Лефор, который отметил важность контактов с властями республики.

Таким образом, основная проблема состоит в общей несогласованности европейского участия в делах региона. Во-первых, существует несогласованность на уровне выработки политики ЕС, заключающаяся в конкуренции как между ветвями европейской власти, так и внутри определенных структур (противостояние К. Эштон и П. Семнеби). Во-вторых, имеет место драматический разрыв в реальном понимании ситуации между небольшим кругом официальных лиц ЕС и поддерживающих их экспертных групп и основной массой не только еврочиновников и евродепутатов, но и европейцев в целом. Кризисы, которые сотрясают Евросоюз в настоящее время, также влияют на это положение.

В итоге, мы имеем резолюцию, которая мало повлияет на риторику и политическую тактику европейцев, непосредственно взаимодействующих с Абхазией, и, естественно, не будет иметь никакого отношения к российской политике, но явно ухудшит общее восприятие Запада в глазах жителей Абхазии и Южной Осетии. Если принятие столь односторонней резолюции и способно поддержать моральный дух грузинского руководства, то сыграть позитивную роль в деле укрепления стабильности на Южном Кавказе она вряд ли сможет.

Политическая пропаганда за ширмой «научной объективности»

Комментарий к резолюции 1832 (2011) Парламентской АССАМБЛЕИ Совета Европы кандидата политических наук Ираклия Хинтба, Абхазский государственный университет и Центр гуманитарных программ.

Принятая ПАСЕ 4 октября 2011 г. Резолюция 1832 «Национальный суверенитет и государственность в современном международном праве - необходимость уточнения», производит неоднозначное впечатление. С одной стороны, по своему стилю и способу аргументации она напоминает конспект университетской лекции по международному праву и практике. С другой стороны, несложно заметить, что за ширмой «научной объективности» явственно проглядывают элементы  политической пропаганды.

Резолюция, которая носит рекомендательный характер, начинается с признания того, что «критерии государственности и законной сецессии являются недостаточно четкими», и что «критерии государственности остаются спорной проблемой в современном международном праве». Читатель ожидает, что далее в документе будут предложены такие критерии и соответствующие разъяснения. Но, к сожалению, то, что следует далее, представляет собой лишь догматический аргумент неприятия отделения как формы национального самоопределения.

Таким образом, возникает первый вопрос: зачем авторы резолюции призывают к выработке четких критериев и разъяснению проблемы, если их цель состоит лишь в повторении старого, но все еще неоднозначного и сомнительного аргумента?

В заключительной части резолюции ПАСЕ содержится призыв ко всем государствам-членам «воздерживаться от признания или любой поддержки де-факто властей территорий, образовавшихся путем незаконного отделения». Однако если нет правовой определенности по вопросу законности сецессий, то как можно, например, характеризовать отделение Абхазии в качестве незаконного? Почему резолюция выступает за «непризнание» в отсутствие четких критериев государственности? В Резолюции говорится, что «критерии государственности, включая те, что относятся к образованию новых государств в результате законной сецессии, так же как способы защиты национального суверенитета и территориальной целостности государств должны быть тщательно исследованы в рамках последующей конференции Международной Комиссии по вмешательству и государственному суверенитету». Прекрасно, но это все еще не сделано. Если признается существование определенной «правовой бреши», почему бы тогда не воздержаться от политически пропагандистских заявлений о незаконности сецессий и движений за самоопределение в регионе?

Второй вопрос касается механизмов или инструментов разрешения конфликтов и других споров, проистекающих от устремлений различных идентичностных групп в Европе. Почему авторы Резолюции преднамеренно смешивают социальные и политические конфликты с этнополитическими конфликтами (этнотерриториальными)?

В Резолюции имеется ссылка на более ранний документ (Резолюция 1334 (2003)), который должен был разъяснить и узаконить единственный способ разрешения «конфликтов идентичностей» - автономизацию и децентрализацию. Однако здесь мы снова сталкиваемся с указанной подменой понятий. Подразумеваемые ими конфликты являются политическими, преимущественно ненасильственными, вызванными несправедливым распределением власти и экономических ресурсов. Группы, которые борются за улучшение структурных условий, необходимо отличить от групп, которые прошли через ожесточенные войны и требуют независимости. Децентрализация подходит для исправления структурной несправедливости и усиления властных полномочий групп. Однако в качестве инструмента разрешения жестких этнополитических конфликтов она вряд ли применима.

Подобное нежелание признавать различную природу конфликтов в регионе способствует низкой эффективности европейского вовлечения в разрешение и трансформацию конфликтов на Южном Кавказе. Характерный пример: авторы Резолюции предпочли забыть о том, что причиной конфликта между Грузией и Абхазией служит совсем не то, что они называют «российской интервенцией» в 2008 г. Настоящие причины - это советский квази-федерализм, который на деле поощрял этнонационализм, и агрессия нелегитимного грузинского правительства против его собственных граждан и их государства в 1992 г. (в соответствии с советской Конституцией, автономные республики [такие как Абхазия] обладали статусом государства).

Единственное, что внушает надежду, - это заключительный пункт Резолюции о необходимости «проанализировать происхождение и тенденции развития движений за самоопределение». Европа действительно нуждается в более лучшем понимании конфликтов на Южном Кавказе. Возможно, этот процесс приведет к установлению истины, что поможет Европе более эффективно работать с конфликтами.

English version: Political propaganda under a veil of “scientific objectivity”

Political propaganda under a veil of “scientific objectivity”

Commentary of  a Professor in Political Sciences Iraklii Khintba,  Abkhaz State University and  Centre for Humanitarian Programs  on the Resolution 1832 (2011) of CE Parliamentary Assembly adopted on 4 October, 2011

Resolution 1832 (2011) of the CE Parliamentary Assembly  «National sovereignty and statehood in contemporary international law: the need for clarification» produces a rather ambiguous impression. On the one hand, it resembles a synopsis of a lecture on international law and practice by virtue of the style and argumentation employed. On the other hand, one can easily detect elements of political propaganda masquerading under a veil of «scientific objectivity».

The Resolution, which in fact is just a recommendation, begins with the acknowledgment that there is «the lack of clear criteria for statehood and for lawful secession» and «the criteria for statehood remain a contentious issue in contemporary international law». The reader expects that further on the document will provide such criteria and clarifications. But unfortunately what follows is just a dogmatic argument on non-acceptance of secession as a form of national self-determination.

So the first question arises: why do they call for elaborating clear criteria and clarification of the issue, if their purpose is just reiterating old but still ambiguous and disputable arguments?

In the concluding part of the document, the PA «invites all member states to refrain from recognizing or supporting in any way the de facto authorities of territories resulting from unlawful secessions». If there is still no certainty on the issue of lawful secessions, how to determine that, for instance, the Abkhazian secession was unlawful? And why does the resolution call for non-recognition in the absence of the criteria for statehood? It proposes that «the criteria for statehood, including those for the emergence of new states by legal secession and the modalities of protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of states be examined thoroughly in the framework of a follow-up conference to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty». Great, but it has not yet been done. If they acknowledge the existence of a certain «legal gap», why not continue to refrain from politically propagandistic statements on the illegality of secessions and movements for self-determination in the region?

The second question concerns the mechanisms or the machinery for resolving conflicts and other disputes stemming from aspirations of different identities in Europe. Why do the authors of the Resolution deliberately confuse the notions of cultural and political conflicts and ethno-political conflicts (ethno-territorial)?

The Resolution refers to the earlier document (Resolution 1334 (2003)), which was to clarify and legitimize the only way to resolve identity conflicts, i.e. autonomization and decentralization. And here again we encounter this substitution of notions. The conflicts they consider are political and primarily non-violent ones, caused by unjust distribution of power and economic gains. Groups that struggle for improving their structural conditions need to be distinguished from groups which have undergone violent wars and claim independence. Decentralization is appropriate for correcting structural inequities and empowering groups. But as an instrument to address strong ethnic and political conflicts it is hardly relevant .

This reluctance to acknowledge the different nature of conflicts in the region contributes to the low efficiency of European engagement in conflict-resolution and transformation-processes in the South Caucasus. For instance, the authors of the Resolution prefer to forget that the reason for the conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia is not what they call «Russian intervention» in 2008. The real reasons are Soviet quasi-federalism, which spurred ethno-nationalism, and the aggression of the illegitimate Georgian government against its own citizens and their state in 1992 (under the Soviet Constitution autonomous republics [such as Abkhazia] enjoyed the status of a state).

The only point that inspires confidence is the final provision of the Resolution «to analyze the origin and trends of self-determination movements by addressing the most salient factors, in particular instances of growing tensions among minority or ethnic groups». Europe does indeed need a far better understanding of the conflicts in the South Caucasus. Maybe this process will help the truth to come out, so that the conflicts are more properly addressed.

There is no limit to cynicism

Andrei Illarionov at his best as a “great” expert.

In his article Abkhazia's Independence Farce Illarionov asserts: “The Abkhaz regime exists only because Russia backs it with military might and financial support”. The author called the international recognition of Abkhazia a mockery of international law and a chilling validation of ethnic cleansing. He expressed bewilderment at Abkhazia’s strive to continue achieving recognition as an independent state and expressed his satisfaction with the European Union and the United States reject of recent Abkhaz presidential elections as totally illegitimate.

From the Abkhazian perspective, after what Georgia did to Abkhazia during the Soviet regime (especially at the time carefully orchestrated by Stalin), actual pure mockery is rather to be found in the attitude of the European Union and the United States, now coinciding with the opinion of their vassal Illarionov, the dependent opinion which surely have been derived out of Georgian brainwashing. Any sober-minded reader will question several of the author’s assertions, lacking (as they do) simple logic, or citations from doubtful sources. 

His desecration of Abkhazia as totally subordinated to Russia immediately raises the question whether the expert Illarionov is aware of the following: “The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,580,255 active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories. Most of these overseas personnel are deployed in combat zones in the Middle East, as part of the ‘War on Terror’. Many of the remainder are located at installations activated during the Cold War, by which the US government sought to counter the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II. U.S. personnel are seeing active combat in several countries, most notably Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.”

Illarionov speaks of “international recognition conveniently overlooking how it was established: through the killing of around 10,000 civilians in the 1990s”. Such an allegation cannot be ignored. Perhaps this information was lifted from some source without due consideration, for Illarionov seems to have no clue as to the identity of the victims. Abkhazia was invaded by Georgian tanks headed by Georgian commanders who in a televised address to the Abkhaz population declared their intention to cleanse all Abkhazians even at the expense of sacrificing thousands of Georgians to attain their goals. Preconceived Georgian sources hide facts how Georgian soldiers were searching for Abkhazians holding the lists of Abkhaz names and their addresses to torture, humiliate or kill. Abkhazians want to live on their Abkhazian land, as there is no place designated for them. That is why they defended their motherland, families and their children and Georgian army had to retreat.

It is not quite clear what Illarionov was trying to say. One may conclude: 

1) Georgians cleansed Abkhazian civilians when they invaded Abkhazia in 1992. 

2) Shame Georgians for being incompetent and disorganized. 

3) Point out the lack of ability of a mere 100,000 Abkhazians to inflict a humiliating defeat on a five million Georgian nation. 

4) Unmask Georgian trick to delude international community presenting the Abkhaz - Georgian conflict as Russian - Georgian.

Illarionov’s use of Soviet census data, where ethnic Abkhazians comprised 17.8% of the 525,000 residents of Abkhazia in 1989, whilst ethnic Georgians accounted for 45.7% (numbering roughly 240,000) is tricky. The point is that the term ‘Georgians’ (or ‘kartvelebi’, as they call themselves in Georgian) actually covers Georgians properly so-called, Mingrelians, Svans and the Laz. Mingrelians, Svans and the Laz have their own languages, but, since the 1930s they have been deprived of the right officially to state their ethnic identity, being compelled to register themselves as ‘Georgians’.

Illarionov’s suggestion that international courts should define the legal nature of the atrocities gives hope that truth might finally be revealed. Last and for all.

Truth will out

A reply to Daniel Hamilton’s article "The Abkhazian Presidential election: an irrelevant sideshow."

It seems that minds of commentators have been entirely seized by the latest Abkhazian presidential elections, and totally biased, partial and unfair articles, similar in character one to another, have sprung up like mushrooms after a shower of rain, and Abkhazia has become the talk of the town.

Who could ever have thought back in Soviet times that Abkhazia would ever attract so much attention and become spoken about every single minute, as seems to happening nowadays? This is especially true of internet resources, where people sometimes, regrettably, assert false and critical things about our country, which they have never personally visited and about which they have not the slightest idea with respect to everything that has happened in this tiny piece of the globe over the last 19 years.

One can immediately grasp the prejudiced attitude at the start of Mr. Hamilton’s article when he places titles like ‘President’ and ‘Acting President’ in quotes. It is as if the author fears being accused of contravening international law, if he does not resort to the quotation-marks. Neither could he hide his arrogance, given his caustic remarks  on the relationship between Abkhazia and Russia and the few other countries which have dared to recognise the independence of the Abkhazian state despite the huge efforts made by the Georgian authorities and their Western friends to frustrate these acts of recognition.

Mr. Hamilton, the Director of Big Brother Watch, states: “This election does nothing to strengthen the case for the independence of Abkhazia.” One should point out to the author that elections are a significant aspect of modern democracy developing in a sovereign state in which people vote and select their government to lead their country. To call this act “farcical”, when (pace The New York Times) the ballot was observed by representatives of 28 countries from all over the globe, is blatant nonsense. Mr. Hamilton ignores facts and blindly supports Georgia, which has regularly instigated conflicts for the past several decades. And this commentator should not forget that Georgia itself was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of  non - Georgian population after its unlawful invasion of Abkhazia in 1992. His entirely one-sided approach and proclivity to throw accusations exclusively at the Abkhazians betrays his absolute ignorance of the history of the conflict. To repeat, Georgia bears the responsibility for the war and ethnic cleansing its troops committed against non - Georgians during its occupation of Abkhazia in 1992-93. When Abkhazian forces returned to the capital Sukhum and eastern parts of Abkhazia, local Georgians (Megrelians) elected to leave for Georgia before Abkhazian soldiers appeared in their settlements, as they were afraid to stay and be accused of collaboration with the occupying forces. This fact was established by contemporary commissions sent both by the UN and UNPO, Mr. Hamilton, and your rewriting of history does you and your argument no credit.

In similar vein we have the assessment given by the “Human Rights Watch” report of last year. It examined the welfare of ethnic Georgians returning to the province and was scathing, outlining the “arbitrary interference by Abkhazia’s de facto authorities with returnees’ rights to freedom of movement, education, and other political and economic rights”. The person who cited the report is not familiar with reality. He should have been aware of the fact that the Georgian government does not recognise officially the returnees to the Gal Region of Abkhazia and even places obstacles in the way of international organisations like UNCHR calculating their number for the simple reason that this would interfere with its own manipulation of the refugee-issue. Human Rights Watch and other respected organisations pay no great attention to the living conditions of the refugees from Abkhazia who have been resident in Georgia for a full 18 years since the war instigated in Abkhazia by Shevardnadze’s military junta. Georgian authorities have consistently and artificially hindered the process of integrating the refugees into Georgian society, leaving the problem of the refugees unsolved, whilst blocking the process of any decision taking and insisting on a once-and-for-all mass return, instead of seeking alternative, more reasonable solutions. A mass-return of the refugees could easily cause the conflict to flare up once again. So, either the author is not competent or he deliberately distorts the fact of Georgia deliberately wrecking the talks on conflict-resolution and their violation of agreements. Failure to mention all naturally (mis)leads the reader to a biased (mis)understanding of the conflict and the processes in progress here, and one can only conclude from the article of Mr. Hamilton that he is one of those thus befuddled.

Unfortunately, no foreign commentators, who are so exercised by the problem of the Georgian refugees, ever mention the descendants of those Abkhazian refugees who, since the end of the Russian–Caucasian war in 1864 have had to find shelter in Turkey and other countries without ever being awarded the status of refugees and without any right of return to their homeland, as is accepted in international law. Better that Mr. Hamilton not talk at all about the right of free movement. Otherwise, he should be looking into the gross violations of the human rights of the citizens of Abkhazia, who for years had great difficulty crossing the Abkhaz-Russian border (particularly after the war started in Chechnya) and who were similarly subjected to years of blockade imposed on Abkhazia by the Yeltsin regime in a move intended to compel the return of Abkhazia to Georgia and its full reincorporation into that hostile state, as was achieved during Soviet times under the Georgian Joseph Stalin — so much for the view of Mr. Hamilton and his ilk that Russia has always favoured Abkhazia and that the Abkhazians are puppets of the Kremlin.

Finally, we would remind the Big Brother Watch commentator that Abkhazians travelling on Russian passports still face difficulties entering certain ‘freedom loving’ countries within the European Union; indeed, visas have been refused (e.g. by Germany) to sick individuals who have subsequently died for lack of appropriate treatment — a fine example of the EU’s commitment to human rights, wouldn’t you say, Mr. Hamilton?

A Farrago of Misinformation from a Former Minister for Europe

A response to the article "Abkhazian Elections: Russia's pawn in Georgian game?" of Denis MacShane, a Labour Party member of the British parliament and former minister for Europe in Tony Blair's government. He was a member of the Party of European Socialists executive committee for several years. 

Abkhazia has been to the polls and elected the one to whom people legitimately, honestly and independently gave the majority of their voices. Why does it happen nowadays that certain Members of the British Parliament one after another, under the pressure of Georgian propaganda and in full admiration of Georgian disloyalty to Russia, involve themselves in the complexity of Abkhaz-Georgian relations? Would it not be more equitable and prudent if, instead, they displayed a lack of prejudice and balance between both parties, assuming that they really wish peace for this part of the world, which from ancient times has never enjoyed sustained tranquillity because of its favourable geographical location and which has now seemingly become so important for Europe and especially for two British MPs (former junior-ministers in the government of Tony Blair) with self-confessed interests in European affairs, namely the Rt. Hon. Bruce George and Denis MacShane?

The whole world observed the election-process in Abkhazia thanks to a range of observers from across the globe, and, without any hiccups, it went smoothly without the slightest hint of trouble, thereby confounding the expectations of those Jeremiahs who were eagerly expecting a bloody scenario. The prudence and wisdom of the citizenry of Abkhazia exhibited that day for some reason apparently darkened the minds of some supposedly civilised commentators.

The most staggering thing is that a British ex-minister for Europe arrogantly deigns to pronounce negatively on the elections in Abkhazia without ever having visited the country. Like others one could name, he has undiscriminating swallowed all that the Georgian propaganda-machine has fed him, including the fabricated notion that Abkhazia is under the occupation of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the phrase ‘occupied territory’ has been repeated so often over recent months that it has become quite hackneyed. And, of course, it offers the international community a quite false picture of the nature of everyday reality in Abkhazia; Georgian policy-makers continue to try to influence Westerners (especially the gullible Americans) by losing no opportunity to disseminate the phrase. What is most alarming is that the latter evince no interest in finding out if there is any substance to the claim. Can they not see that it is a ruse designed to drag out more money and assistance for this weak Caucasian state, Georgia emerged after the post-Soviet wars that it provoked itself against two of the autonomies (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) created artificially during the black terror of (Georgian!) Stalin’s hegemony and seems (quity falsely) to lay the blame for its self-imposed miseries on others — a classic example of the psychosis of victimhood.

What credence can be given to the MacShane farrago of misinformation when he writes that the election in Abkhazia in 2009 was "won" by Moscow's man, Sergei Bagapsch [Bagapsh]? The fact is that in the 2004 election, Moscow made no secret of its backing for the late Bagapsh’s opponent, Raoul Khadzhimba, and was not pleased when his opponent won. If he were acquainted with the recent history of our recently deceased president, Macshane would never have written such nonsense. It would be nice if all the countries who have come out against recognising the legitimacy of the elections in Abkhazia could take the time to remember their own, often uneasy, paths to modern statehood.

Russia recognised the independence of Abkhazia, and it did not shrink from encouraging other countries to do the same. It would be interesting to examine when and how quickly this or that European country earned recognition. What about Kosovo? Was recognition here not achieved basically because Kosovo lies very close to Western Europe and it was hoped to quench the threat of Balkan fire being reunited by the recognition of a second Albanian state under the UN umbrella? This is the same august body which refuses to listen to Abkhazian or Ossetian opinions and privileges just one side in the conflicts, namely the aggressor-state of Georgia.

Concerning the fate of refugees and their right to return, what is to be said of those Abkhazian descendants forced to leave Abkhazia in 1864 - 1877-78? According to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, those who use arms in an armed struggle and then flee do not fall under the international definition of refugees. The responsibility for these people falls fully on the Georgian side. It is important to note here that a great many of those who fled from Abkhazia were recent immigrants. They were forcely resettled by Stalin and his cruel assistant Beria from Megrelia to Abkhazia. See Demographic change in Abkhazia 1897–1989, http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/georgia-abkhazia/graph2.php. This will be very interesting for Mr. Macshane to compare with the data introduced by him in his article. His sophisticated reasoning that "Russia is content to create a no man’s land without freedom or democracy. Georgia’s President Saakashvili has pledged not to use force to take back the territory and so Tbilisi is trying a different strategy of opening up Georgian healthcare and educational facilities to residents of Abkhazia, rebuilding transport links, and facilitating greater connections between communities ripped apart by conflict" shows again where this predistined interpretation comes from.

Abkhazia is building a democratic state and it is supposed to be deeply committed to the principles of democracy, though the circumstances in which it exists have been more then hard and all this recent time especially the country stumbles over the ignorance or misunderstanding of international community.

Finally, what would the esteemed ex-Minister for Europe say if Georgia decides to recognise Abkhazia? This idea has started to circulate among Georgian society of late, promulgated by no less than the person who began the war on our soil in 1992, Eduard Shevardnadze. MacShane and others of his persuasion would do well to ponder this point.

Vice President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly under the Georgian mesmerism

The science of mesmerism emerged roughly at the end of the Age of Enlightenment and the very early beginnings of Romanticism. Originally introduced by Franz Anton Mesmer, the emergence of mesmerism during this time significantly influenced British social, political, and cultural thought.

A 1791 London publication explains the Mesmer’s theory of the vital fluid: “Modern philosophy has admitted a plenum or universal principle of fluid matter, which occupies all space; and that as all bodies moving in the world, abound with pores, this fluid matter introduces itself through the interstices and returns backwards and forwards, flowing through one body by the currents which issue there from to another, as in a magnet, which produces that phenomenon which we call Animal Magnetism”.

Politically, mesmerism was used as an explanation for a confusing time frame involving not only a resistance to enlightened thought but also a period fraught with war and conflict, including the French Revolution. Likewise, political individuals and those in government positions who faced the daunting task of maintaining a stable country in the midst of warfare and political strife, also used mesmerism as an explanation for the behavior. Mesmerism became a politically threatening tool because it is believed that it can be used to bend the will of individuals mesmerizing people into passive puppets.

Rt Hon Bruce George in his publication titled: “Sham elections in Abkhazia should not distract us from finding peace in the Caucasus” said that “he took part in a conference in Batumi, on the Black Sea coast, to discuss security issues and the steps Georgia is taking to prepare for NATO and EU membership. At his capacity as Vice President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly he regularly did battle with those who wanted to turn a blind eye to Russian aggression. He also expressed satisfaction with rapid development of Batumi as testament to what is being achieved”.

Judging from his conclusions: “Compare this to life in Abkhazia. Residents live in rundown conditions. There is little or no infrastructure and corruption is rife”. It should not be that surprising that having no knowledge of what Abkhazia is or who Abkhazians are he seems showed no desire to travel to Abkhazia preferring the Georgian version of schooling.

Had the Georgians not withheld evidences of their forced resettlement of the Georgian (mostly Megrelian) population into Abkhazia at the  result of which the number of  the Georgian(Megrelian) population in Abkhazia significantly increased in a majority and the conclusion that “Prior to 1992, ethnic Georgians made up half of the population of the area” would not be  ever stressed upon.

Concealing their essence Georgians definitely passed over in silence the fact that those resettled Georgians were housed in the houses of evicted into Kazakhstan residents of Abkhazia and that those Georgians who fled after the 1993 return of Abkhazians are citizen of Georgia and Georgian language speakers whom they virtuously play with using them as a trump card in their battle for territories.

The assertion “the vast majority of Georgians have been forced out, their lives ruined, homes destroyed, and their property handed over to new Russian dwellers” is currently in use of the Georgia’s policy makers who show no concern of the  Abkhazians in Abkhazia, who had forced Abkhazians out during the Georgian occupation in 1992-1993, ravaged Abkhazian villages to the ground,  property was handed over to Georgian soldiers, lives ruined, homes yet destroyed. Who cares really that great number of Abkhaz people were subjected to  various indignities, insults and ethnic cleansing during the Georgian occupation.

Georgia perhaps is veiling its purposes when it makes somebody to conclude that “These displaced people now live in other parts of Georgia, in accommodation provided by the Government, or with friends and family, but they dream of returning to their homes”. Conceivably there is not a single case in the world practice where the country’s own citizens are granted a refugee status moreover for about 20 years they are being deprived of possibility to be integrated into their native community. 

The survey was carried out by the Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC) in conjunction with Conciliation Resources, with the financial support of the European Union’s Instrument for Stability. This policy-brief is based on the findings of a survey conducted in June 2010 among one thousand refugees from Abkhazia, displaced as a result of the 1992-93 war. Only 9% would consider return if Abkhazia remains outside of Georgia’s jurisdiction.

Georgia’s message that the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will not to be retaken by force looks encouraging however in the light of Georgian mesmerism is not yet confident.  

ALLS Media Monitoring Team

Sukhum, Abkhazia

Сomment on an article in the Vanuatu Independent: To Tamar Vashakidze and the people of Vanuatu

Facts can be discussed in an objective and meaningful way. Then there are the ‘facts’ disseminated by Georgian lobbyists, which are neither meaningful nor (by definition) objective. Sadly, the contents of Tamar Vashakidze’s article, which was recently published in the Vanuatu Independent, fall into the latter category.

Vashakidze places quotation-marks around the phrase ‘national self-determination, raising a question thereby about the legitimacy of the use of this term with reference to the Abkhazians. But for us Abkhazians our self-determination is a crucial counterpoint to the colonialism and imperialism practised against us over the decades by Georgia, and understanding this is crucial to reaching a peace-settlement.

We Abkhazians have our own self-designation in our native tongue; this is ‘Apswa’ (plural ‘Aspwaa’). When Georgians and their foreign supporters refer to us in this way, it is not to honour our ethnonym but to cast aspersions on our historical entitlement to our native territory. The reason for this is the gross distortion of history (propounded in Georgia since the 1880s but mostly associated with a notorious publication from the time of Stalin’s and Beria’s repression of the Abkhazians by the Georgian literary specialist Pavle Ingoroqva) is to insinuate that the ‘true’ Abkhazians of history were a Georgian-speaking tribe, whilst the nation to which we are proud to belong came relatively late to the territory of Abkhazia, dominating and taking over the name of the territory’s ‘true’ autochthons. The determined revival of the ‘Ingoroqvan Hypothesis’ in the late 1980s was a factor that led inevitably to the Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1992-3. 

That war broke out when the Georgian authorities of the day, which, by the way, totally lacked any democratic mandate but which was led by the West’s darling Eduard Shevardnadze, invaded Abkhazia and occupied most of the towns and villages, including the capital our Sukhum, on 14 August 1992.  During the first months of the conflict, when the West preferred to look the other way, it was the non-‘Georgian’ [ non-Kartvelian] civilians who were attacked and had to flee as they were beaten, robbed and killed, their houses and apartments looted. 

The Commander-in-chief of Georgian troops in Abkhazia, General Giorgi Karkarashvili, issued the following chilling threat in a formal televised address to the Abkhazian and Georgian people in Sukhum on 24 August: “No prisoners of war will be taken...If 100,000 Georgians lose their lives, then [on the Abkhazian side] all 97,000 will be killed...The Abkhazian nation will be left without descendants.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvtaZIMy98

Regretfully, when discussing the problem of Kartvelian refugees, no-one bothers to remember the above-mentioned facts and that the Kartvelian population of Abkhazia mostly greeted Shevardnadze’s tanks and soldiers with joy.

Specific attacks were directed against Abkhazian political, cultural, intellectual and community leaders. In addition to the disappearance or killing of Abkhazians, removal or destruction of the principal materials and buildings of important historical and cultural importance to Abkhazians took place in what appears to have been an organised attempt to destroy the very cultural and national identity of the Abkhazians.

The Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), 27 May 1994 (S/1994/674), English page33, Paragraph 129 states with regard to ethnic cleansing that it is: 

"the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous. Those practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention"...

Medical authorities in Gudauta (northern Abkhazia) reported that virtually all men who had passed through the Gudauta hospital, after having been held prisoner by Georgian authorities, appeared to have been severely tortured. Many had sustained multiple broken bones and burns from cigarettes or other objects on various parts of their bodies. Some had their ears partially or completely torn off. See UNPO's Abkhazia Report, November 1992, b. Human Rights and Cultural Destruction  at
http//www.unpo.org/downloads/AbkGeo1992Report.pdf 

Tamar Vashakidze, Head of Advocacy and Communications in Georgia, stated in the article that the Apswaa are a small ethnic group which formed less than 20% of Abkhazia’s pre-war population and which carried out severe ethnic cleansing, wiping out or deporting some 75% of the ‘Georgian’ [recte Kartvelian] population of Abkhazia. For whom is this kind of brainwashing intended? Is it credible that 20% Abkhazians could pose such a threat to 75% Kartvelians?  The demographic threat in Abkhazia came rather from the artificial increase of the territory’s Kartvelian population, largely as a result of population-transfers during the Stalin-Beria period, in order to swamp us Abkhazians in our homeland.

The readers of the Vanuatu Independent should know that Abkhazia’s status was downgraded to that of a mere ‘autonomous republic’ in 1931 within Stalin’s home-republic, the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic.  In those days all problems were solved by central diktat, in which the former republics of the USSR dragged out their existence in an atmosphere of total fear and in which violations of human rights were the norm. The geographical borders of the Soviet socialist republics were redrawn, and, in the case of Abkhazia, this was done in favour of Georgia. Although for most of the Soviet period Abkhazia had the status of an autonomous republic, it has NEVER been a Georgian region and no one is supposed to incorporate it into the  Russian Federation.

The Russian Federation, followed by Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Nauru have recognised Abkhazia as an independent state; the same applies in the case of South Ossetia. Any country is free to do the same (or not), but their decision should be based on proper appreciation of the facts and not on self-serving propaganda emanating from Tbilisi, the capital of the aggressor state. 

Response to Connor Schratz

Response to Connor Schratz

In his article “GEORGIAN REFUGEES SEEK HELP AT GENERAL ASSEMBLY”

CONNOR SCHRATZ commits some factual errors. Anyone familiar with the problem will deem them completely outlandish (not to say provocative).

The number of refugees — presumably the author means ‘Georgians’ [recte Kartvelians, the cover-term for Georgians, Mingrelians, Laz and Svans] —  mentioned in the article cannot be correct. Let us carry out an analysis.

According to the article, ‘400,000 citizens, either internally displaced or foreign refugees, have demanded a right of return’. But were there ever 400,000 Kartvelian residents of Abkhazia? Consider the picture from the last Soviet census of 1989:

Year		'Georgians'		Abkhaz		Armenians		Russians		Greeks		Total
1989 Census		45.7% (239,872)		17.8% (93,267)		14.6% (76,541)		14.3% (74,913)		2.8% (14,664)		525,061

(Ethno-demographic history of Abkhazia, 1886 - 1989, by Daniel Müller)

[N.B. the vast majority of the so-called ‘Georgian’ population of Abkhazia in 1989 were actually Mingrelians]

In his next paragraph, the author asserts that “the Abkhaz quickly began persecuting Georgians within their borders, a large number of whom supported Georgia during the 1992-1993 war.”  In truth, however, it was the ‘Georgians’ who were persecuting the Abkhazians. This is a fact established in 1993 by none other than Amnesty International.

The author goes on to ‘inform’ his readers: “Thousands of Georgians were killed or expelled into other regions, like Tskhinvali and South Ossetia. In the end, about 75% of the Georgians in Abkhazia were killed or displaced”.

Our author is perhaps confused about local geography if he thinks that ‘thousands of Georgians were killed or expelled into other regions like Tskhinvali and South Ossetia’. He should consult a map to realise that South Ossetia, with its capital Tskhinval, is a region far too far removed from Abkhazia for anyone seriously to believe that Georgians could flee there from Abkhazia. Now, let’s do some calculations. If 400,000 Kartvelians is accurate, then 75 percent of that figure produces 300,000 killed or displaced. And if 300,000 (75%) were killed, then we get 100,000 left to become refugees seeking a return. But, if 300,000 (75%) left, then the figure of 400,000 cannot be correct for the original total of Kartvelians. Bearing in mind the factual data from the 1989 Soviet census, these figures simply do not add up...

Consider now: “Abkhazia, a region in Western Georgia, comprised [recte populated] primarily by ethnic Abkhaz and Russians”.  But Abkhazia also incorporated Armenians,  and it can be easily seen in the above census that they outnumbered the Russian population.

In addition, in the Gal District of Abkhazia, approximately 60,000 refugees have spontaneously returned to farm their lands. This fact has been mentioned in official sources, e.g. 25 April 2005 http://reliefweb.int/node/172118

The survey was carried out by the Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC) in conjunction with Conciliation Resources, with the financial support of the European Union’s Instrument for Stability. This policy-brief is based on the findings of a survey conducted in June 2010 among one thousand refugees from Abkhazia, displaced as a result of the 1992-93 war. The survey provides insight into so-called IDPs’ attitudes to displacement, return, conflict resolution and justice.

A quarter of refugees have been back to Abkhazia since first suffering displacement. The largely Mingrelian-inhabited Gal Region naturally accounts for a majority of these visits: 64% of displacees from Gal have been back. The ability regularly to visit Abkhazia is an important consideration for 85% of respondents. A majority cited maintaining a dwelling (58%) and visiting graves and cemeteries (55%) as the most pressing reasons to visit in case they could not return permanently. Refugees tend to focus on the right of return, often without realizing the extent to which Abkhazia has changed in the intervening years, or analyzing what conditions would have to be fulfilled for them to be able to exercise that right. The survey attempted to tease out what proportion would consider return to Abkhazia and under what conditions. 85% are only ready to consider returning if Georgia reestablishes control over Abkhazia. 87% say they would consider returning to Abkhazia permanently if Abkhazia reintegrates with Georgia; only 9% would consider return if Abkhazia remains outside of Georgia’s jurisdiction. Given these figures, refugee projections for whether and in what time-frames Abkhazia might reintegrate are an important indicator of their own understanding of how probable return might or might not be. 26% believe that Abkhazia will be reintegrated in the next 10 years; 11% expect significantly longer time-frames; 14% say never. 49% say they do not know. Nearly two thirds think the chances of Abkhazia becoming an integral part of Georgia have decreased since the 2008 conflict (as compared to 39% of the general population of Georgia).

http://www.c-r.org/our-work/caucasus/documents/2011/CR%20IDP%20in%20Georgia%20Brief%20Policy%20Brief%20web.pdf

ALLS Media Monitoring Team,

Sukhum, Abkhazia