PATRIARCHAL ENCYCLICAL FOR CHRISTMAS

Patriarchal Proclamation of Christmas 2012.

Ἐπιστροφή

PATRIARCHAL ENCYCLICAL
FOR CHRISTMAS

+ BARTHOLOMEW
By the Mercy of God Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome
And Ecumenical Patriarch
To the Plenitude of the Church
Grace, Mercy and Peace
From the Savior Christ Born in Bethlehem

*  *  *

“Christ is born, glorify Him; Christ is on earth, exalt Him.”

Let us rejoice in gladness for the ineffable condescension of God.The angels precede us singing: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will among all people.”

Yet, on earth we behold and experience wars and threats of wars. Still, the joyful announcement is in no way annulled. Peace has truly come to earth through reconciliation between God and people in the person of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, however, we human beings have not been reconciled, despite God’s sacred will. We retain a hateful disposition for one another. We discriminate against one another by means of fanaticism with regard to religious and political convictions, by means of greed in the acquisition of material goods, and through expansionism in the exercise of political power. These are the reasons why we come into conflict with one another.

With his Decree of Milan issued in 313AD, the enlightened Roman emperor, St. Constantine the Great, instituted freedom in the practice of the Christian faith, alongside freedom in the practice of every other religion. Sadly, with the passing since then of precisely 1700 years, we continue to see religious persecution against Christians and other Christian minorities in various places.

Moreover, economic competition is spreading globally, as is the pursuit of ephemeral profit, which is promoted as a principal target. The gloomy consequences of the overconcentration of wealth in the hands of the few and the financial desolation of the vast human masses are ignored. This disproportion, which is described worldwide as a financial crisis, is essentially the product of a moral crisis. Nevertheless, humankind is regrettably not attributing the proper significance to this moral crisis. In order to justify this indifference, people invoke the notion of free trade. But free trade is not a license for crime. And criminal conduct is far more than what is recorded in penal codes. It includes what cannot be foreseen by the prescription of statutory laws, such as the confiscation of people’s wealth by supposedly legitimate means. Inasmuch, therefore, as the law cannot be formally imposed, the actions of a minority of citizens are often expressed in an unrestrained manner, provoking disruption in social justice and peace.

From the Ecumenical Patriarchate, then, we have been closely following the “signs of the times,” which everywhere echo the “sounds” of “war and turmoil” – with “nation rising against nation, dominion against dominion, great earthquakes, and in various places famines and plagues, alongside dreadful phenomena and heavenly portents.” (Luke 21.10-12) In many ways, we are experiencing what St. Basil wrote about “the two types of love: one is feeling sorrow and concern upon seeing one’s beloved harmed; the other is rejoicing and striving to benefit one’s beloved. Anyone who demonstrates neither of these categories clearly does not love one’s brother or sister. (Basil the Great, Shorter Rules, PG31.1200A) This is why, from this sacred See and Center of Orthodoxy, we proclaim the impending new year as the Year of Global Solidarity.

It is our hope that in this way we may be able to sensitize sufficient hearts among
humankind regarding the immense and extensive problem of poverty and the need to assume the necessary measures to comfort the hungry and misfortunate.

As your spiritual father and church leader, we ask for the support of all persons and governments of good will in order that we may realize the Lord’s peace on earth – the peace announced by the angels and granted by the infant Jesus. If we truly desire this peace, which transcends all understanding, we are obliged to pursue it palpably instead of being indifferent to the spiritual and material vulnerability of our brothers and sisters, for whom Christ was born.

Love and peace are the essential features of the Lord’s disciples and of every Christian. So let us encourage one another during this Year of Global Solidarity to make every conscious effort – as individuals and nations – for the reduction of the inhumane consequences created by the vast inequalities as well as the recognition by all people of the rights of the weakest among us in order that everyone may enjoy the essential goods necessary for human life. Thus, we shall indeed witness – at least to the degree that it is humanly possible – the realization of peace on earth.

Together with all of material and spiritual creation, we venerate the nativity of the Son and Word of God from the Virgin Mary, bowing down before the newborn Jesus – our illumination and salvation, our advocate in life – and wondering like the Psalmist “Whom shall we fear? Of whom shall we be afraid?” (Ps. 26.1) as Christians, since “to us is born today a savior” (Luke 2.11), “the Lord of hosts, the king of glory.” (Ps. 23.10)

We hope earnestly and pray fervently that the dawning 2013 will be for everyone a year of global solidarity, freedom, reconciliation, good will, peace and joy. May the pre-eternal Word of the Father, who was born in a manger, who united angels and human beings into one order, establishing peace on earth, grant to all people patience, hope and strength, while blessing the world with the divine gifts of His love. Amen.

At the Phanar, Christmas 2012
Your fervent supplicant before God
+ Bartholomew of Constantinople

 http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=gr&id=1598&tla=en

«Нет безопасности без уважения прав человека и демократии», – считают докладчики, выступившие на совещании ОБСЕ

Каждый год в Варшаве Бюро ОБСЕ по демократическим институтам и правам человека (БДИПЧ) организует двухнедельную конференцию - совещание, посвященную человеческому измерению. Это самая большая ежегодная конференция в Европе по вопросам прав человека и демократии. Она служит площадкой для государств - участников ОБСЕ, партнеров по сотрудничеству, гражданского общества, международных организаций и структур ОБСЕ с целью подведения результатов в выполнении обязательств по человеческому измерению, обсуждения трудностей и передовой практики, а также представления рекомендаций для дальнейшего прогресса. Термин «человеческое измерение» охватывает целый комплекс действий и норм, связанных с правами человека, верховенством закона и демократии, которые рассматриваются ОБСЕ в качестве одного из трех столпов всесторонней концепции безопасности, наряду с военно-политическим и экономико-экологическим измерениями.

Около  тысячи представителей правительств, экспертов и правозащитников собрались на двухнедельное совещание, в ходе которого будут рассмотрены успехи, достигнутые государствами в сфере претворения в жизнь своих международных обязательств.

Наряду с обычными рабочими заседаниями, более 50 дополнительных мероприятий были посвящены конкретным, вызывающим обеспокоенность вопросам в области прав человека и положению в отдельных странах. На специальных заседаниях в ходе совещания были рассмотрены: расширение прав женщин-рома, свобода мысли, вероисповедания, религии или убеждений и права лиц, принадлежащих к национальным меньшинствам.

Представители гражданского общества играют существенную роль в ежегодном Совещании по рассмотрению выполнения, посвященного человеческому измерению. Совещание дает возможность НПО напрямую представить свои рекомендации государствам-участникам ОБСЕ. В Хельсинском документе от 1992 года, государства-участники ОБСЕ призвали к усилению открытости действий ОБСЕ и расширению роли неправительственных организаций. В связи с этим поощряется присутствие и участие неправительственных организаций в рабочих совещаниях так же, как и организация дополнительных мероприятий по смежным темам.

Не все страны евро-атлантического региона разделяют всеобщие ценности политического плюрализма, свободного рынка, верховенства закона, свободы СМИ и уважения прав человека. Даже будучи признанными в декларативном порядке, эти ценности отрицаются политической практикой говорилось в основном докладе.

 В конференции приняли участие представители неправительственных организации Абхазии и Южной Осетии, которые имели возможность выступать  на сессиях и рассказать    о состоянии в области прав человека и демократических процессах, которые происходят в их странах, и о тех препятствиях, с которыми  обществам приходиться  сталкиваться   при построении демократического государства.

Участники из Абхазии, (Зураб Аргун, Людмила Сагария и Асида Ломия), и Южной Осетии выступили с  сообщениями  на всех сессиях, которые представляли наибольший интерес. Это сессии, посвященные обсуждению верховенства закона, борьбе с терроризмом, праве на свободу  передвижения, тендерному равноправию,  свободе мысли и  вероисповедания, правам  национальных меньшинств, праву на язык, а также, демократическим выборам, гражданству и политическим правам. Отмечалось,  что  абхазо -грузинская война, жестокая послевоенная блокада, международная  изоляция, частичная признанность Абхазии и ЮО, игнорирование международного сообщества, сложная  экономическая  ситуация,( несмотря на ту огромную помощь, которая оказывается только  РФ), наносят большой ущерб развитию полноценных демократических институтов и гражданского общества.

Особое внимание уделялось дискриминационному закону, принятому грузинским парламентом осенью 2008, т. н. закон об оккупированных территориях, по которому лица, приезжающие в Абхазию через абхазо-российскую или российско- осетинскую  границы, подвергаются  большому штрафу или аресту. Целью закона является максимальная изоляция Абхазии и ЮО, что абсолютно противоречит нормам и правилам, о которых говорят  представители стран ОБСЕ. 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.

Отказ в учебе  в  европейских или американских университетах,  участии в международных  научных конференциях, непризнание абхазских иностранных паспортов, говорит далеко не о демократических ценностях, которыми руководствуется грузинское правительство, как только это касается граждан Абхазии и Южной Осетии.

"Чегемская правда"

 30 октября 2012

The Georgian parliamentary elections – what next? By Liana Kvarchelia

Surprising times
Given the, perhaps inflated, public expectations of change in a country that has positioned itself as a successful reformer, the recent parliamentary elections in Georgia came as a surprise. The result was not just surprising to the Georgian public, but to outside observers as well.
In a country that has undergone a number of coups in its short history as an independent state, this is the first time that there has been a peaceful change of government through elections. Prior to the “prison scandal” [1], the general expectation was that the opposition stood little chance of winning. This certainty was attributed both to the use of administrative resources by the ruling party and to ideological splits within the opposition bloc headed by Bidzina Ivanishvili. The expectation was that the “Georgian Dream” would secure sufficient votes to avoid yet another revolution but insufficient votes to give it a defining role in the formation of a government.
However, the electoral scene was transformed by the prison scandal and the protests that spilled out onto the streets of Tbilisi against the Georgian administration’s repressive methods. By the eve of the elections, it was already hard to imagine that the Georgian Dream coalition would fail to gain at least a simple majority in parliament. Only the total falsification of the election results could have prevented Ivanishvili from winning, but this might also fuel further protest among the Georgian people. In what might have been a last-ditch attempt to keep parliament in the hands of the United National Movement (UNM), Mikheil Saakashvili issued a statement on the evening of the election that the ruling party had won the vote in the single mandate constituencies but lost in the party lists.[2] Such a hasty acknowledgement of the Georgian Dream’s victory, even before the results had been officially announced, suggests that Saakashvili had received a stern warning from his external allies and the United States in particular. Even public statements by Western spokespersons that the elections should reflect the will of the Georgian people were unmistakeably clear-cut as never before. One more revolution would have destroyed the image of Georgia as a “beacon of democracy” and would have led to a destabilisation which would be highly undesirable both for Georgia itself and for the interests of its allies and patrons.
The authorities’ claims about its achievements in reforming law enforcement, education and health could not offset public dissatisfaction with the authoritarian style of governance, the corrupt legal system, unemployment and poverty.
It was no surprise that Saakashvili tried to trump the elections using the “enemy image” of Russia to mobilise his supporters in favour of Georgia’s “civilised” choice of NATO membership.[3] However, the public’s reaction came as a surprise to many observers: first the applause by thousands of demonstrators in response to Ivanishvili’s promise to restore normal relations with Russia; and later the votes in support of the Georgian Dreamcoalition. It was clear that Georgian society was no longer willing to live in a state of constant tension. The electorate was not only protesting against the arbitrary actions of the president and his entourage; it was also expressing its weariness regarding Saakashvili’s constant attempts to use the “Russian threat” to divert attention from domestic problems.
“Dual power”
Despite the president’s paradoxical statement that he would go into opposition – with his term continuing for another year into 2013 – it cannot be said that there has been a complete paradigm shift in Georgia’s domestic politics. With the Georgian Dream’s failure to gain a constitutional majority and questions over the ideological “compatibility” of the coalition – along with the fact that the UNM still has the greatest representation in parliament relative to the other parties – Saakashvili and his supporters still have substantial political leverage.
Opinions vary as to whether the farsighted amendments made to the Georgian constitution in 2010 on the initiative of the UNM were a genuine attempt to improve the country’s system of governance or rather an effort by the incumbent president to cling to power.[4] The adoption of the amendments and the timing of their entry into force strongly suggest the latter. Meanwhile, as a result of the changes to the Georgian constitution, a system of dual power is now in place and this has given the losing team some room for manoeuvre. These and other factors suggest that Georgia’s political landscape is set to become more predictable. The current configuration of political forces will allow a system of checks and balances to operate. On the other hand, decision making will become more difficult and unwieldy, although certainly less open to adventurism. Many are counting on the new political dispensation to lead to a relaxation of civil liberties and to an end to repressive government methods and the suppression of dissent, as well as the cessation of police control over the political and economic lives of citizens. Already, many in Tbilisi are saying that for the first time in several years, they are not worried that their phone calls are being monitored by the Georgian security services.
Relations with Abkhazia
Many observers are currently asking what effect the recent events in Georgia might have on Tbilisi’s relations with Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Initial statements by Georgian Dream representatives have met with a variety of responses in Abkhazia. Some say with cautious optimism that Georgia might adopt a more constructive approach, particularly on the issue of a bilateral agreement on the non-use of force. This was the thrust of a statement by Stanislav Lakoba, the Chairman of Abkhazia’s Security Council.[5] Others would have preferred the UNM to win, out of concern for a warming in relations between Russia and Georgia, and particularly the potential consequences for Abkhazia.[6] However, the Georgian Dream’s victory is unlikely to mean that Georgia will swap its pro-Western vector for a pro-Russian one. Most likely, relations with Russia will improve, mainly in terms of economic links, while the strategic partnership with the US and the EU will be maintained. Ivanishvili cited the Baltic states as the example to follow, and some analysts are talking about the potential “Finlandisation” of Georgia.
Although Abkhaz society was not particularly expecting any sudden change in policy towards Abkhazia, the new leaders’ reference to “occupation” somewhat dashed whatever expectations there might have been. Their promises to end the policy of restricting access to Abkhazia for foreign citizens and organisations, as well as ending restrictions to the freedom of movement of Abkhaz citizens, were offset by their recognition of Abkhazia’s “occupation”.[7] In this context, statements about ending sanctions are perceived merely as a more refined expression of the old idea of “de-occupation” and “reintegration”. The Abkhaz public is not interested in the new Georgian leaders’ need to reinforce their own legitimacy with their own public. Nor is it interested in their limitations in relation to “dual power” and the instability of the coalition itself, or in the differing notions within the coalition regarding the right approach to the conflict with Abkhazia. Recognising its “occupation” is not the right starting point for any dialogue in which Abkhazia can be expected to engage enthusiastically.
For the Abkhaz, independence is a fundamental defining issue that is not up for review under any circumstances. As a result, their only political interest in relations with Tbilisi is that Georgia recognises Abkhazia’s right to its own independent statehood. This is the only basis for developing good neighbourly relations between the two states. In this sense, the new Georgian leaders have nothing to offer their Abkhaz counterparts today. If any Georgian political force ever does decide on recognition, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if at all. Until then, the new authorities are likely to leave the question of Abkhazia’s “status” in the long grass and to restore relations through the gradual removal of restrictions in relation to Sukhum. Rescinding many restrictive provisions – such as requiring Abkhaz citizens to travel on Georgian “neutral” passports, the “modalities” restricting the activities of international organisations in Abkhazia, and the law making it a criminal offence for persons to visit Abkhazia via the Russian-Abkhaz border – will all certainly create a more open international environment, affording opportunities that will be important for Sukhum to take advantage of.
Statements already issued indicate that Georgia will also make some symbolic acts, such as the renaming of the Ministry for Reintegration. ‘Everything apart from recognition’, says Georgia’s new leader. Now that they have drawn their initial “red lines”, the new leaders may start to tone down their rhetoric and remove such terms as “occupation” and “reintegration” from their political discourse. However, the possibility that the bitter struggles within parliament may repeatedly lead to the resurrection of the “enemy image” of Russia cannot be ruled out, allowing the subject of “occupation” to continue to hinder the formation of new approaches to conflict resolution.
The signing of an agreement on the non-use of force will be a litmus test. If the Georgian and Abkhaz sides manage to come to this agreement, it will be an important confirmation not just of Georgia’s peaceful intentions. It will also confirm Georgia’s acknowledgement of Abkhazia as a fully authorised negotiating partner rather than an “occupied territory” ruled from outside. Such an agreement would certainly create a more favourable and constructive environment for relations between the two states, which have essentially been in a state of war for the last 20 years.
*Liana Kvarchelia is Deputy Director of the Center for Humanitarian Programs in Abkhazia.

 http://www.international-alert.org/content/georgian-parliamentary-elections-and-prospects-georgian-abkhaz-relations-english-lk?utm_source=International+Alert+Signup&utm_campaign=aee1cef74a-Caucasus+Dialogue+7&utm_medium=email

Citizenship and Political Rights from the Abkhazian Perspective.

 OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights   
 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2012   
 Session 16  Citizenship and Political Rights

I would like to draw your attention and start with the October 3 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) resolution. It requested Russia to reverse the diplomatic recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.With such a non recognition of the Abkhaz people by the European Union means receive no official voice or diplomatic relations among the international community. As a result, the people of Abkhazia have no international voice.While the Georgian government and people have a right to promote and uphold their case and claims the peoples of Abkhazia have been denied to have such a right.The international media disseminate only a Georgian version of events and ignore the rights of the ethnic Abkhaz to self-govern independently.
As a result of the Western pro-Georgian stance, citizens of Abkhazia are unable to travel freely throughout the world. International embassies do not recognize them.The list of the Abkhaz citizens refused to receive visas continues to grow. I will mention just the latest 2 cases. 
The Embassy of the Republic of Latvia in the Russian Federation refused to issue visa for Mr. R. Bganba saying in the letter dated Sept.6, 2011 that it had taken into account the Article 17 Section 3 of Immigration Law of the Republic of Latvia and the Consular Department. Another resident of Abkhazia Ms. Aida Torchua was invited to the FLS Boston Commons Centre for the Intensive English Programs in the capacity of a student scheduled from July 16, 2012 to August 10, 2012, however the Consular Department of the Nonimmigrant Visa Section found that “she had not been eligible under the U.S. Immigration Law” and “was not able to demonstrate that her intended activities in the U.S. would be consistent with one of the nonimmigrant visa categories established in the U.S. Immigration law or more commonly, was unable to satisfy the requirements of the particular nonimmigrant visa categories for which she had applied”.The Embassies recommend the applicants to readdress the issuance of visas to the Embassies in Georgia realizing that the citizens of Abkhazia cannot do it due to the results of the conflict which is yet unresolved as Georgia refuses to sign peace agreement.

The Georgian parliament on its turn passed legislative amendments for the issuance of travel documents and identification cards for people residing in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgians continue to accuse Abkhazia of forcible issuance of passports to the Georgian residents in Gal district of Abkhazia while Georgia itself imposes Georgian citizenship to the entire Abkhaz population against their will.
In 2005 the parliament in Abkhazia adopted the Law of the Republic of Abkhazia on Citizenship of the Republic of Abkhazia. It defines who is eligible for Abkhaz citizenship, the procedures to obtain it and the grounds for refusal. It allows ethnic Abkhaz to become citizens automatically regardless of their residence, but non-ethnic Abkhaz may receive Abkhaz citizenship only if they were resident in Abkhazia for at least five years at the time of Abkhazia’s declaration of independence in 1999.Procedures for obtaining Abkhaz passports are time consuming. Even when Gal residents voluntarily apply for citizenship and a passport, they often face difficulties gathering the necessary documentation. 
 About 55,000 Georgians currently registered as living in Gal, only 9,000 have formally applied for Abkhaz citizenship. Many of them are willing to restore their Abkhazian identity those who during the Stalin regime were forced to change their Abkhaz nationality into Georgian followed by changing of their family names into the Georgian script.
Although the Abkhaz authorities claim that they do not compel anyone to obtain an Abkhaz passport, however the possession of such a passport is a prerequisite to enjoy civil and political, as well as social, cultural and economic rights. It is understandable that the Georgian residents of Abkhazia in Gal fear it may impede to get higher education in Georgia proper, or that they may be considered a traitor. The vast majority of people receiving Abkhaz identification continue to hold a Georgian passport and receive benefits from both the Abkhaz authorities and the Georgian government.
The acquisition of Abkhaz citizenship as well as the consolidation of relations between the Gal District and the rest of Abkhazia also stands amongst the most urgent issues in the process of providing security guarantees to the Gal residents.

Liudmila Sagariya

 “VERESK” Foundation for Disabled and Amputees

 http://www.osce.org/odihr/94915

Violations and Discrimination Against the Citizens of Abkhazia

 OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights  
 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2012

3 October Working  Session 14 Tolerance and Non- Discrimination II

We do appreciate that today we have an opportunity to tell the Participating States’ representatives about discrimination against the citizens of Abkhazia. Because of the shortage of time it is not that easy to express many things but I would like to bring to your attention the Georgian so – called”Law on occupied territories” adopted by the Georgian parliament in October 2008 as a true example of discrimination against the peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and those who would like to visit our countries too.

The law regulates and restricts contacts between the outside community and Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Foreigners are allowed to enter our states only from the Georgian side and are liable to criminal punishment for violations. Such a discriminatory law isolates the people of Abkhazia from the whole world and violates the right to a dignified life and development. The Law contradicts the Georgian international engagements, and deteriorates humanitarian situation and causes unnecessary hardship as it was mentioned in the ‘Opinion on the Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia of the Venice Commission” adopted in  Strasbourg, 2009. But yet no one in Georgia pays special attention to the respective Opinion of the Venice Commission.  I can't help emphasizing that the impertinent expression "occupied territories”. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not occupied by the Russian Federation. Russian military bases have been located in the borders between Abkhazia and Georgia as well as South Ossetia and Georgia, according to the agreements signed between the countries. Calling “occupied territories”, Georgian officials never mention that Abkhazia and South Ossetia were gifted to the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic by the USSR’s Communist leader Josef Stalin, Georgian national by his origin.

Tbilisi opposes the resumption of the work of the Sukhum airport. The railway functions only within Abkhazia's borders or only to Russia. The seaports are closed for passenger boats, and Abkhaz boats could not leave the port to bring goods from Turkey.

Obtaining of visas for the citizens of Abkhazia is complicated and mostly impossible. For example visas have been denied even when people apply on medical grounds, which seem utterly unjust and unheard of in our time. And this we face at the time when freer movement is considered crucial for the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Abkhaz students are denied the possibility to get education in Europe or the USA. It is also impossible for them as for the  scholars to participate in the conferences and international forums in which they could get a chance to tell the international community about  their views and opinions on a wide range of issues that maybe interesting for others. Then I would like to ask you about what kind of pluralism we are speaking here then, if such thing happens and as I see not just in regard of the citizens of Abkhazia

Finally I would like to add also that depriving and/or violating the rights of the people(s) of Abkhazia is absolutely incomprehensible and entirely discriminative in the light of the principles declared in the international law.

Human rights are not the exclusive protect of larger nations - they are equal for all, as has been stated in all international 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 exalt highly respected, whereas the others are deemed to be worthy only of blame, accusations and discrimination. Let us recall that Abkhazia suffered a bloody war in 1992-93 and that it was instigated by Georgia; afterward the country has suffered years of blockade imposed on its peoples by the international community; furthermore, even today, after Abkhazia’s  recognition by Russia and some other countries, we are continually warned that our republic will be never recognized by other countries,  which nevertheless lay upon our country (insultingly styled a “territory” ) 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.

Just a pair of days ago, regretfully, PACE roughly recommended Russia to reverse the decision of recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.

  Asida Lomiya

“Veresk” Charity Foundation for Disabled and Amputees, Abkhazia

 http://www.osce.org/odihr/94916

Gender Equality in Abkhazia

\

 Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights  
Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2012

 Working Session 9: Tolerance and Discrimination I

   Thank you for giving an opportunity to speak  at such honorable meeting.

  I would like to bring to your attention this very important issue of women’s participation in the political life in my country from the point of view of civil society activist and a member of the Association of Women of Abkhazia.

    Women in Abkhazia play very active role in the civil society, though they are not widely presented in governmental structures. The traditional roles of women as mothers and housewives, as well as supporters rather than leaders put obstacles to women’s participation in the political life. Their access to mainstream politics, information and resources is rather restricted, partly due to their socio-economic burdens and responsibilities for supporting their families and communities, but also due to assumptions about their inefficiency in politics, the personality -based and privileged nature of the political environment.

       As it often occurs in other conflict contexts, Abkhazian women faced a variety of insecurities during the violent Abkhaz-Georgian war  in 1992-93 and were primary actors in responding to the conflict, providing family income during the war and especially after when Abkhazia suffered nasty economical sanctions imposed  by the entire world on behalf of Georgia, women actively tried to build  social life and even  set up small enterprises. Nobody then in the government of Tbilisi even took to mind the protection of civilian population and the rights of women and children.

Women also fought as combatants, worked in military hospitals as nurses and doctors, were correspondents on the front and helped refugees to survive. definitely, there were women among those awarded honors and medals. Despite their important roles during and after the war, women find themselves not represented in leadership and decision-making roles in the current political sphere.

Abkhazia has declared itself to be a ‘sovereign, democratic state, which recognizes and guarantees the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights and other universally recognized international legal acts’.

Being partially recognized Abkhazia is unable to establish foreign relations as a state and the  laws passed by the Abkhaz authorities are yet not recognized by international law and Abkhazia cannot become a party to international agreements. Also Abkhazia received relatively little development or post-conflict rehabilitation assistance, though, after Russia recognized Abkhazia’s independence, it provided considerable economic and financial support. Non-recognition of Abkhazia as an independent state should not be an obstruction in promoting gender equality and the development of a rightful, inclusive, tolerant society, and certainly should not be used to limit opportunities for any section of the population.

Local NGOs effectively lobbied for a law ‘On ensuring equal rights and opportunities for men and women in the Republic of Abkhazia’, which came into force in 2009. It is still too early to anticipate full implementation of such a law, especially  the one which requires a fundamental change in attitudes, behaviors and political culture. Gender equality within Abkhazia’s political framework needs to be addressed through the population and its expectations of women’s roles in public life. NGOs also contributed to the preparation and lobbying for the Law on Access to Information, adopted in 2008, and have been particularly active in lobbying for transparent, free and fair elections and their monitoring, participating in the public organization “League for Honest Elections” with the aim of promoting a more comprising political culture.

Abkhaz women founded civil society organizations to tackle a variety of needs and problems, including the provision of humanitarian assistance, creating livelihoods and advocating for democratic and political reforms. Association of Women of Abkhazia was established by a group of Abkhaz women in Sukhum in March 1999 with a mission to protect the rights of women and strengthen women’s social and political position within society as well as  to improve women’s status and eventually increase the access and representation of women in leadership positions in the broader political field. To this purpose, AWA carries out research programs, raise public awareness and trainings.

However, so far the development of appearance for strong, educated and independent women has occurred in parallel to a decreasing female presence in the Abkhaz decision-making structures. Furthermore, their prevalence in this field has led to compartmentalizing women in this sector, creating hypothesis that “the place” for women’s public voice is in civil society rather than in political leadership.

Women are occupying some prominent positions and are present across the judiciary and parliament. However, Abkhaz experts noted that they are few and that women in power do not always represent women’s interests.

In the early 1990s the Soviet tradition continued and women were still able to enter parliament, but over time this has decreased. Women themselves are not particularly influential or active in political parties and do not look for high level positions. There is just one woman among the current parliamentarians. She yas been  elected as deputy speaker. This is a downturn from the parliament of 1996–2002 when 5 and 3 in 2007 out of 35 deputies were women. In the Sukhum town Assembly, 6 out of 25 members were female but nowadays no female has been elected.  No women have ever been nominated for president in the three presidential elections, although in 2004 and 2011 women stood as candidates for vice-president.

Within government, one of the deputies of a prime - minister is a woman, two out of twelve ministries are headed by women (Labor & Social Development and Justice). Just one woman heading up one of the six state committees, and only two out of nine departments under the Cabinet of Ministers are headed by women (Department for Statistics and the Department for Building & Architecture). Of eight state funds, two are headed by women (fund for the development of Abkhaz language, and the medical insurance fund). The official information agency, Apsnypress, is also headed by a woman.  It is important to bear in mind that statistics do not significantly reflect the realities and complications of women’s political participation. Women do not naturally represent women’s interests and even where women were present, they were usually not in leadership positions and they do not have such a significant influence.

Sorry to say, Abkhazia is a bit far from reaching a lot of women in public structures and, moreover, the sense of their political participation cannot be measured by statistics. There are significant factors which block women’s number in public office, as traditional roles, stereotypes and women’s status attributing the lack of women decision-makers and political leaders to stereotypes about women’s responsibility as mothers and housewives. The society is accustomed to giving decision-making responsibilities to men and there is a slight tendency for women to be taken less seriously as actors in public life.

      The partially recognized status of Abkhazia means it is problematic for the international community to engage officially on issues relating to women’s political participation in governance of the country. However, this should not discourage the international community from supporting the aim of gender equality in Abkhazia.

Asida Lomiya
 

"Veresk” Charity Foundation for Disabled and Amputees, Abkhazia
 http://www.osce.org/odihr/94677

Language Aspect and National Minorities in Abkhazia.

OSCE  Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights  
 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2012 
2 October 2012, Working Session 12
 Rights of persons belonging to national minorities

As I mentioned in the previous presentations Abkhazia is building  a  democratic state although the circumstances, economic and social conditions, a bitter Abkhaz-Georgian war of 1992-93 and the humanitarian blockade  after it,  the international isolation  made their negative impact on the development of truly democratic processes in the country.

In spite  of the world community's neglect  (except the Russian Federation) the Abkhaz state holds the policy of integration of minorities into the Abkhaz society, and it is actively supported by the civil society which is deeply concerned  with  this very important  and hard matter.

One of the main problems of national minorities if not the most  problematic, is the promotion and respect to their language rights. No one denies that the problem of the language in the state is deeply political and trigger. The Abkhaz authorities fully understand the importance of providing equal opportunities for all ethnicities living today in Abkhazia and feel responsibility to take right measures in this direction in order not to increase any tensions which can be easily achieved by partial and wrong language policy.

People in Abkhazia remember yet the violent policy and terrible methods they  had experienced during  of the worst period of the Soviet time  of the Black Terror implemented  by Josef Stalin and his executioner Beria, both Georgian nationals when all the Abkhaz schools were closed for almost 15 years till Stalin’s death and the Abkhaz children were forced to study in Georgian, which was not their mother’s tongue.  The majority of intelligentsia were killed or repressed and the main state task performed was to georginize Abkhazians through  severe violation  and deprivation of language rights. Moreover the  Abkhaz identity was at threat of  total disappearance. Abkhazians only represented approximately 18% of the population at that time, mainly due to Georgia’s policy of resettling Georgian nationals in ethnic minority areas. The aggressive pursuit of Georgian nationalism after the collapse of Communism further alienated ethnic minorities and strengthened their fight for freedom from Georgia. The consequences of that policy echoes even nowadays as today the Abkhaz children are able to get just a primary education in native language and the Abkhaz.  Though today it is free from Georgian oppression there is a room for concern that it could yield to increasing spread of the Russian because of different reasons. Regretfully Abkhaz language is officially added to the list of endangered languages of UNESCO as it is at risk of falling out of use. Much is to be done to preserve it and prevent from disappearance and maintain as a functioning language, but one must have enough resources for it. The same can be said about South Ossetians.

  As for the other ethnicities and their language rights one should take into consideration that there are various schools of national minorities as Russian, Armenian and Georgian (in Gal region where mostly Georgians/Migrelians  live). No one forbids anyone in Abkhazia freely to use his mother tongue both in private and in public.

As for the language rights violations of Gal residents about which the  Georgian officials like to complain we should emphasize that no one has restricted the education at schools in Gal region in Georgian except the problem of textbooks especially on Geography and History, the content of which is conflict sensitive  and  the Abkhaz authorities suppose  to create new ones. It would be more then nice if the international organizations could  provide assistance in resolving this  complex problem.

Asida Lomiya

 .

“Veresk” Charity Foundation for Disabled and Amputees, Abkhazia

 http://www.osce.org/odihr/94679

National Minorities in Abkhazia

OSCE   Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights  
 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2012
 2 October 2012, Working Session 13:   
 Rights of persons belonging to national minorities

It is clear that effective participation of minorities requires the promotion and implementation of international human rights standards.

In Abkhazia, there is understanding that the attitude to ethnic groups is among basic parameters of the country's development level as a democratic state.

Abkhazia is a multinational country inhabited by Abkhazians, the natives, Georgians, Russians, Armenians, Greeks and other nationalities, however the concern is focused only over Georgian population in Gal.

Armenians and Russians are concentrated in central and northern Abkhazia, the Georgian population is overwhelmingly concentrated in southern district of Gal, bordering Georgia. The vast majority of this population belongs to the Mingrelian subgroup closely related to Georgian. The Gal population consider their mother tongue rather Mingrelian than Georgian, but view themselves both Georgian and Mingrelian identities as compatible. 

The Abkhaz Constitution contains non-discriminatory clauses and grants ethnic groups the right to native-language primary and secondary education. There are 16 Georgian schools in Abkhazia all located in Gal. Unlike Abkhaz schools curriculum, these schools operate according to the Georgian curriculum in terms of the hours allotted to specific subjects.

Russian, Armenian, Greek and Polish communities are registered in Abkhazia. They lead an active life so that there is a possibility for other people to engage in their culture. The government arranges folk festivals with the participation of folk groups representing other ethnic groups residing in Abkhazia.

Armenian, Russian, Georgian nationalities are represented both in the Government structures and the Parliament of Abkhazia.

The Abkhazian NGOs together with the Youth Centre organize peace camps with the participation of teenagers from the Gal region. Another NGO National Resources hold meetings of old people from all the regions of Abkhazia including the Gal region. Women organizations are the most active, they regularly meet the Gal women to discuss gender issues.

It is worth to mention that on 16 July, Abkhaz President Ankvab met with OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Mr. Vollebaek to discuss the issue of minority languages.

The OSCE official expressed hope for fruitful cooperation with the Abkhaz authorities. He noted interest in the problem of studies of Abkhazian and Georgian languages at the Gal District and said that Abkhazia had no problems in studies of languages.

  In addition it is also important to note that the Institute for Democracy and Saferworld conducted a survey in Eastern Abkhazia in December 2011 and January 2012.

The results of both surveys show that, almost twenty years after the initial outbreak of war, communities in Eastern Abkhazia still suffer from the consequences of the conflict.

At the same time, feelings of stability are increasing across the region. Indeed, the most recent survey suggests that a significant number of residents are looking to the future with some optimism, waiting for further improvements to infrastructure, the economy and the security situation. Such optimism provides an opportunity to engage local people in processes to manage the problems facing them, with a view to developing sustainable mechanisms for protecting the rights of people living in Eastern Abkhazia.

We hope that Georgia will refrain from its policy of intimidation towards the Georgian population of Abkhazia and resort to preservation of fragile peace and security in that region. It is easy to damage relations, but it is not that easy to win back confidence.

Liudmila Sagariya

“VERESK” Foundation for Disabled and Amputees 

 http://www.osce.org/odihr/94914

Democratic Lawmaking and the Rule Law in the Republic of Abkhazia

OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights

 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2012

  26 September 2012,  Working Session 4: Rule of Law I

I kindly thank you for offering such an opportunity to speak at this  honorable  and important meeting today and would like to turn your attention to  some aspects regarding  the  main topic of this session  connected to human rights promotion and respect.

There are various barriers on the path to democracy building in Abkhazia. A real protection of human rights is possible only with the development of truly democratic institutions, modernization of legislation, provision of judicial protection of the rights and fundamental freedoms.

A continuing isolation of Abkhazia from the West,  consequences of the Abkhaz - Georgian war in 1992-93,  severe economic sanctions  imposed by the entire international community Abkhazia faced  after the war, partial international recognition  made a negative effect on the development  of democracy in the Abkhaz society. The fragile process of democratic transformation, compromised by the difficult post-war realities, did not receive a support it needed from the outside world. The absence of a full international recognition of Abkhazia put obstacles to the implementation of international law standards in the human rights field and did not allow cooperating as a partner with foreign countries and their state structures and international organizations which leads to lagging in the development of democratic institutions. All this adversely effects reformations implemented in the judicial system.

    

The situation with judiciary is not ideal; it is not independent as it is expected by the society. We fully understand that a judicial independence is essential to the rule of law and is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. Judges are charged with the ultimate decision over life, freedoms, rights, duties and property of citizens (as it is written in UN basic principles, echoed in Beijing declaration; and Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Their independence is in the interests of the rule of law and of those seeking and expecting justice.  There is room for concern that the work of the judiciary institutions is not highly effective due to insufficient resources working in a very complex and often turbulent political, social and economic situation. The real problem of the lack of independence partly derives from the Soviet time, and also from the violation of the principle of irremovability of judges which exists in the legislations of many European states. Since October 1999 national referendum introduced an amendment to article 71 of the Constitution. According to the amendment judges have been appointed by a Parliament for a term of five years based on President’s nominations. This occurred mainly because of low legal culture of people and the majority  of the population voted for decreasing of  independence of judges. This speaks about the importance of raising legal awareness in order to avoid such things. The judicial society and independent Abkhaz experts as well as the representatives of civil society perceived negatively this infringement   regarding this principle and strictly criticized it. There is a threat that an uncertain tenure of judges may encourage corruption and bribery. These factors unfortunately undermine the independence of  judiciary and are among matters of concern of Abkhaz civil society.

 A considerable impact into the reform of a judicial system was made by the adoption of a new procedural legislation, since 1 of June 2008 a new Criminal Procedural Code  came into force and since 1 November 2008 a new Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Abkhazia. New procedural legislation gives a new interpretation of the tasks of criminal and civil legislation in the centre of which  are human rights.          

There is no Constitutional Court in Abkhazia yet. The Parliament has not adopted the law on the Constitutional Court. The creation of such a body is necessary for a constitutional lawfulness in the Republic of Abkhazia. A legal state  can not exist without such a  body, which provides balance and restrictions of  authorities in the constitutional frames, protection of constitutional rights and freedoms of  citizens, interpretation of constitutional laws and the estimation of the  constitutionality of the legislation of the  Republic of Abkhazia. The Supreme Court investigates all cases regarding the compliance to the Constitution of any of President’s decisions, as well as the Parliament’s and other state bodies including local self-government.  But the Supreme Court functioning as a Constitutional, must have the right to interpret the Constitution, while currently this function is performed by the Parliament. 

One of the democratic achievements is to be considered in the creation of the position of a Commissioner for Human Rights in 2008 though not fully independent as the position is under the President.   It is a completely new kind of state institution throughout post-Soviet countries, not only in Abkhazia, and  has no historical, political or cultural roots. It was modeled on existing institutions in Western Europe. The main function of the Commissioner for Human Rights  is to defend and promote human rights  and freedoms  as well as to promote government activity in protecting human rights. The legal framework of the Commissioner for human rights is to be in line with international standards as given in the project of the Law on the Commissioner for Human Rights  presented to  the Abkhaz Parliament. The adoption of this law will be a serious stride on the way towards achieving a true and just situation in the human rights field.

Today the office of the Human Rights Commissioner in Abkhazia accepts and investigates complaints of human rights violations or abuses of authority by any public authority in Abkhazia.  Citizens may submit complaints against actions or omissions by public authorities to the Commissioner for human rights, who shall assess them without the power to take decisions and shall send the competent bodies such recommendations as may be necessary in order to prevent or make good any injustices.

Civil organizations in Abkhazia play a vital role in defending basic and democratic values and are a considerable and visible force in the society actively supporting the creation of independent national human rights structures.  For instance, certain NGOs involved in the drafting of legislation; civic oversight over fundamental freedoms, human rights, and civil society policy; and civil society participation in the debates over the changes to the Constitution. Prominent and widely known NGO have public consultations which provides legal advice free of payment and are accessible for the most vulnerable groups and dedicated to the realization of equal access to justice for all. A very useful analytical report was produced in 2008 by the Abkhaz NGO the Centre for Humanitarian Programmes. The report gives a characteristics   of the state of a judicial system of the Republic of Abkhazia, based on a thorough monitoring of courts and revealed problems in the legislation and practical activities of legal bodies which influences on the administration of justice and provided recommendations to raise effectiveness  of  a legal  protection of  human rights and freedoms in the Republic of Abkhazia.

Eventually I’d like to bring to your attention that just a few days ago the Council of Judges of Abkhazia adopted a statement to  make reformations  in the judicial system.

Asida Lomiya

“Veresk” Charity Foundation for Disabled and Amputees, Abkhazia

 http://www.osce.org/odihr/94576