A Response to Alexandros Peterson on his so-called Peaceful Solution to Georgia’s Conflicts.

One of the most biased, excessively abusive and cynical reports ever to have appeared on the Internet about Abkhazia and South Ossetia! It is all the more deploring to read as it has been written by a person who represents such an organisation as The Henry Jackson Society, though the views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its directors, as its readers have been warned.

Deep regret is the only possible reaction to this perfect  demonstration of the author’s opinionated attitude and his offensive approach to the history of the wars instigated by Georgia towards first South Ossetia and then Abkhazia. Has he ever paid a visit to these republics and, if so, how could he perceive that the countries are ‘occupied’, as he repeatedly asserts from beginning to end? And he did not even deign to mention anywhere that, before the invasion of Abkhazia, the Tbilisi State Council’s “Mkhedrioni”-forces drowned Mingrelia in blood because of Mingrelians’ preference for Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first President of Georgia and a former dissident, who was repressed but then managed to alienate all of his supporters (outside his family’s Mingrelian home-province).

We are not supposing to present counter-arguments to every bizarre part of Peterson’s piece — we would just like to mention a few points of which the author is without doubt well-aware but which he prefers not to avoid mentioning, since they do not comply with the Georgian authorities’ intentions, which he fully supports, as is plainly seen in this opus.

We consider that it is quite important to correct certain of the said inaccuracies in order not to present the actual situation in such a preconceived and even phony manner.

An intelligent and educated analyst should know that he must explore and study a conflict carefully and then with utmost objectivity and impartiality report the results without playing into either side’s hands.

The fictitious lie that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are under the ‘occupation’ of the Russian Federation enjoys a predominant place in the report and should be subjected to careful scrutiny. It presents the international community with a quite false and unfavourable picture of the nature of the real life in Abkhazia (as well as of that in South Ossetia too), but in this response we shall express Abkhazia’s point of view, and we are sure that such a report will not be left unanswered by experts in South Ossetia.

First of all, regarding this notorious ‘occupation’, it is worth mentioning that a Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army. An occupation extends only to the territory where such an authority has been established and can be exercised. This is internationally recognised and stated in the "Laws and Customs of War on Land" of The Hague Conventions of 1907 (Hague IV of October 18, 1907), "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State" (Article 42).

Russia and Abkhazia, two independent states have recognised each other and have signed a mutually beneficial agreement that satisfies the interest of both sides. The Russian military presence, about which Mr. Peterson is so perturbed, is considered by the citizens of Abkhazia as the only real guarantee of security. The continuing unwillingness of Georgia to sign a non-use-of-force document with Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a worrying sign for our citizens of the revanchist dreams of Georgia’s authorities. Instead of reviewing policies towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the author insists on yet more isolation of the countries, which is one of the aims of the Georgian ‘Strategy on [the] Occupied Territories’ and which can bring no resolution of the conflict. The presentation of the list of Russian military equipment located in the bases suggests that Mr. Peterson expects them to stay without any weaponry, which is quite extraordinary, especially at at time when Georgia is expanding its military budget (410 million dollars), which is far too high for a country in which the living-standards of its citizens is in such a sorry plight (not to say despair).

Abkhazia is ready to cooperate with those European and international political bodies which have at least an unbiased position on the political and legal status of Abkhazia. Unfortunately, European politicians and some researchers (including the author of this opus) are absorbed by an obstinate commitment to the non-existant and mythical “territorial integrity of Georgia”.

The most stunning thing is that Mr. Peterson superciliously deigns to pronounce negatively on the elections in Abkhazia without ever having visited the country to witness the process for himself. How can he be trusted when he writes that the elections in Abkhazia in 2011 were manipulated by Moscow to achieve Russia’s desired result? Abkhazia elected the candidate to whom the people legitimately, honestly and independently gave the majority of their voices. Unlike Mr. Peterson, representatives from across the globe observed the election-process in Abkhazia, and it passed off smoothly without the slightest hint of trouble, thereby discomfiting the hopes of those who eagerly expected a bad scenario. We would like to wish the same prudence and intelligence displayed by the citizens of Abkhazia that day to all others about to hold elections and to whom civilised analysts give their support .

Regarding the number of refugees stated in the article, Mr. Peterson perhaps is not aware of the fact that the refugees from Abkhazia are now actually residing in their native lands, which they (or their forebears) were forced to leave during Stalin’s Black Terror (1937-1953). No-one denies the fact that refugees deserve compassion and proper attention, but those who started the war should have considered the consequences for their people in Abkhazia before taking the decision to begin hostilities. Mr. Peterson has not said a single word about the fact that 60,000 refugees have returned to Gal region, but yet these people are not registered as returnees, as Tbilisi plays games with the international community by utilising this problem to its own advantage.

The author has said nothing about the informal armed groups formed in the Zugdidi district, unlike Georgia’s one-time UN Ambassador and now an opposition-leader, Irakli Alasania, who HAS spoken about the embarrassing matter and was ferociously criticised by the authorities in Tbilisi this spring for so doing. Instead he mocks the decision of the Abkhazian authorities to declare General Andrzej Tyszkiewicz persona non grata in Abkhazia, whose direct responsibility was to prevent the formation of such groups according to the policy of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms created by the EUMM. Mr. Peterson is under the impression that Russia instructed the Abkhazians not to accept the actions of Tyszkiewicz — perhaps a more pertinent question would be to ask whether Mr. Peterson has taken instruction from, and written under the conductor’s baton of, the Tbilisi authorities and its patrons.

Another point about which the author speaks feverishly concerns the violations perpetrated against the residents of Abkhazia’s Gal District and denial of monitoring. This part of the opus is completely prejudiced, false, narrow-minded and so incompetent that the one who reads it will really think that the Abkhazian people are bandits and should be expelled off the face of this planet! Where are the facts that have led Mr. Peterson to write all this absurdity?

Should he not rather learn the truth rather than create falsifications about the important events regarding many aspects of which he is trying to portray in ways that simply benefit the Tbilisi authorities with his misinformation about OSCE’s and the UN’s former monitoring presence in the area, when he falsely claims: “Both of these missions have been disbanded after being effectively expelled by Russian forces”?

Instead of stirring up hatred and misunderstanding, would it not have been better for Mr. Peterson to make recommendations direct to the Tbilisi authorities to think seriously about signing an agreement not to resume hostilities, an issue which will soon become the most unsettled issue in all the negogations held between the parties over the course of more than 19 years following the devastating war which, as is well-known, was instigated by Georgia in Abkhazia in 1992-93?

___________________

Further readings

- International law and the Russian “occupation” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, by Richard Berge
- Protesting General Tyszkiewicz
- Abkhazia, from conflict to statehood, by George Hewitt
- The dynamics of electoral politics in Abkhazia, by Donnacha Ó Beacháin