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?
0 comments:
Post a Comment