Мифическая оккупация Абхазии и Южной Осетии

Совещание  по человеческому измерению 
ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ, 
Варшава.2013

Ввиду того, что на этой сессии много выступающих, и на выступления отводится  не так уж много времени, и потому, к сожалению, сложно  кратко  говорить о таком важном вопросе, как тот,  который   был затронут вчера в заявлении  представителя  Грузии по поводу присутствия  военных баз Российской  Федерации как в Абхазии, так  и в  Южной Осетии .Мы  должны заявить, что оно представляется  крайне односторонним, несправедливым и не имеет под собой каких-либо оснований и фактов для оправдания  употребления   термина "оккупация " применительно к Абхазии.

Российские  военные базы в Южной Осетии и Абхазии были размещены на основе двусторонних соглашений России с этими республиками на взаимовыгодных условиях. Называть присутствие российских  баз "оккупацией" безусловно  неверно и не соответствует действительности. 

В соответствии с Гаагской конвенцией 1907 года, в частности ее  статьи   " О законах и обычаях ведения сухопутной войны" (Гаага IV) от 18 октября 1907 года, в "Разделе III. Военная власть на территории враждебного государства", в статье 42 говорится: Территория признается оккупированной, когда она действительно находится во власти неприятельской армии. Оккупация распространяется лишь на ту территорию, где эта власть установлена и осуществляет свою деятельность.

Ничего подобного нет ни в Абхазии, ни в  Южной Осетии, и  мы заявляем об этом, как граждане этих республик.

Отрицать  наличие грузино-абхазского этнополитического конфликта и проблемы этнической совместимости  грузин и абхазов  после кровопролитной  войны 1992-93 гг.,  и скрывать эти факторы  под  воображаемой завесой противостояния между Грузией и Россией, помноженной  на мифическую оккупацию,  абсолютно бесполезно при понимании реальной ситуации в  этом регионе.

В отсутствие соглашения о невозобновлении военных действий между Грузией и Абхазией / Южной Осетией и международных гарантий, люди попросту не видят альтернативы российскому  присутствию в регионе. Более того, тот факт, что европейские государства продолжают поддерживать «территориальную целостность» Грузии в пределах границ бывшей Грузинской ССР, не способствует изменению  грузинской позиции и приближению ее к реальной действительности. Когда Сенат США ( 29 июля 2011) и Европейский парламент ( 17 ноября 2011 года ) приняли резолюции, в которых используют этот термин (оккупированная территория) по отношению к Абхазии и Южной Осетии, Саакашвили назвал их "историческими документами",  обеспечивающими основу для  возврата этих республик под  грузинский контроль, хотя очевидно, насколько далеки подобные заявления от осуществления на практике. 

Грузия начала войну против Абхазии после распада СССР, как следствие отказа уважать желание абхазов сохранить свой народ через обретение независимости от Грузии. Грузинская идея создания "Грузии для грузин" превратилась на деле в: (а) массовое преследование и физическое уничтожение абхазов во время войны; (б) разрушение абхазских памятников культуры; (с) умышленный поджог двух государственных архивов Абхазии, где хранились исторические рукописи и многие другие документы.

Безусловно,   что тщательный анализ ситуации с целью выяснения причин и миссии пребывания  российских военных баз на абхазской земле не окажется в пользу  Грузии. Если Грузия делает политические ошибки, то им должна быть дана соответствующая оценка. Грузия должна признать, что историю нельзя повернуть вспять, и  соответственно,  прекратить навязывать всему мировому сообществу ложную интерпретацию ее тенденциозных имперских замыслов.

Мы  рекомендуем правительству Грузии признать Абхазию и  Южную Осетию полноценными  партнерами в переговорах, а не  «оккупированными территориями», управляемыми извне. Такое соглашение, безусловно, создаст более благоприятную и конструктивную атмосферу  во взаимоотношениях трех государств, находящихся, последние десятилетия по сути, в состоянии войны, что соответственно отражается и на соблюдении  прав человека. 

 Асида Ломия

 24.09.2013 

 English version:

 http://allsmediamonitoring.blogspot.com/2013/10/mythical-occupation-of-abkhazia-and.html

Абхазия против национализма, расизма и шовинизма.

Как активист гражданского общества Абхазии, хотела бы обратить внимание участников на такой важный вопрос, как предупреждение агрессивного национализма, расизма и шовинизма, так как они являются основными факторами возникновения вооруженных конфликтов и ввергают народы  в разрушительные войны.

Ввиду многонационального статуса Абхазии, предупреждение всякого рода агрессивного национализма, проявлений расизма и шовинизма являются приоритетными для абхазского общества, которое, несмотря на частичное признание  независимости  своего  государства, и изоляции со стороны Европы,  прилагает  усилия  для  создания  условий для полноценного развития   представителей всех нации, проживающих в  Абхазии и  достижению согласия в обществе.

Затяжная и жестокая грузино - абхазская война, последовавшая за ней экономическая блокада и изоляция  нанесли урон не только экономического, но также и психологического характера. Последствия оказались настолько тяжелыми, что для  преодоления   психологической травмы  нужно время и условия для того, чтобы люди могли  научиться жить без опасений и страха за свое будущее.

Для того,  чтобы в столь травмированном обществе не развивались бы такие негативные явления, как национализм,  расизм или шовинизм, прежде всего надо понимать всю сложность жизни самого абхазского общества, которое не имело никакой поддержки для  полноценной реабилитации долгие послевоенные годы, находясь в  постоянном стрессе  и не имея каких- либо  серьезных гарантий мирного разрешения конфликта с Грузией. Люди  оставались со своими проблемами фактически один на один.

 Упорный отказ  правительства Грузии подписать мирное соглашение, начиная с 1993 года, вместе с агрессивными выступлениями грузинских политиков в отношении как Абхазии, так  и Южной Осетии, могут  оказать только отрицательное влияние на общество, и это, в свою очередь, может вызвать негативное отношение  к жителям Галского района Абхазии, который компактно населен этническими мегрелами (обычно  их идентифицируют как грузин), и  тем самым, способствовать созданию образа “врага внутри”.

В 1999 году Первым Президентом Абхазии, Владиславом Ардзинба в одностороннем порядке было подписано заявление о возвращении беженцев в Галский район Абхазии. Несмотря на частое ухудшение обстановки, как отмечали политологи, абхазское общество начало  более трезво относиться к самой проблеме, и уровень нетерпимости и  радикализма понемногу стал снижаться.  Следует также упомянуть и тот немаловажный факт, что  речь шла о возвращении  только той части беженцев, которые были непричастны к военным действиям против абхазов.

Необходимо отметить, что очень многие проблемы в Абхазии связаны с неурегулированностью конфликта с Грузией и все еще существующей угрозой возобновления военных действий, которую ощущают жители Абхазии, даже несмотря на присутствие российских баз. С этим связаны  вызывающие опасение тенденции, которые мы наблюдаем сегодня, особенно среди оппозиции,  требующей сохранять бдительность в связи с этнической принадлежностью жителей Галского района, и даже считать  их потенциальной угрозой для  абхазского государства. В результате, может легко сформироваться отрицательное общественное мнение по отношению к этим людям, и привести к нарушению их прав. Таким образом, упорное нежелание Грузии подписать соглашение о невозобновлении военных действий, что явилось бы важным шагом в урегулировании конфликта,  оказывает самое негативное влияние на межэтнические отношения в Абхазии. На самом  деле, при  отсутствии мирного соглашения  крайне сложно избавить людей от страха, который в свою очередь вызывает недоверие по отношению к населению Галского района. Нам крайне необходимо  глубоко  продумать, как выработать демократические механизмы внутреннего устройства Абхазии, которые должны включать в себя все категории населения, и также и жителей Галского района.

Представители гражданского общества понимают, что все формы национализма, расизма, шовинизма и дискриминации могут привести  к глубокому кризису в обществе с долгосрочными и неблагоприятными последствиями, которые  никак не будут способствовать построению демократического государства. Наиболее важные составляющие национального проекта       (обеспечение национальной безопасности, этническое и гражданское равенство) должны быть принципами, на которых должно основываться строительство нации. Для этого Абхазии нужна  поддержка и помощь международного сообщества, которую, к сожалению, она не получала и вынуждена была самостоятельно, в нелегких условиях, строить демократическое государство, формируя государственные структуры и гражданские институты.

 Следует особо отметить,  что международное сообщество не только постоянно игнорировало мнение живущих в Абхазии людей, но  и систематически  нарушало их право на достойную жизнь в угоду Грузии, которая  21 год назад развязала  против нас войну,  главной целью которой было восстановление уже несуществующей территориальной  целостности Грузии. 

Асида Ломия

 Варшава, ОБСЕ/БДИПЧ

 23.09.2013 

English version: 

http://allsmediamonitoring.blogspot.com/2013/10/abkhazia-is-against-nationalism-racism.html

Abkhazia: Citizenship and Political Rights.

Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2013

30 September 2013, Working Session 11

I would like to thank the organizers of the conference for giving us, representatives of Abkhazia a voice and the opportunity to bring toyour kindattention our concerns at such high level. Non recognition of our country by Georgia encounters certain difficulties and infringements for people inhabiting Abkhazia.

Abkhazia has a long- aged history of its existence as a state since the antiquity enjoying its defined territory, population, government and capacity to enter into relations with other states. It even took part in the ancient Greek Olympic Games as mentioned by ancient Greek historians.The follow up formation in the 8thcentury of the independent Abkhaz Kingdom proclaimed with its autocephalous church, markedthe beginning of new ecclesiastical chronology of Abkhazia. Today, in the 21st century it strives to retain its status,political rights and right to retain Abkhazian citizenship.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union,despite the fact that according to the USSR 1977 Constitution  Chapter  10 on the Autonomous Republics where the Article 84 says that “The territory of an Autonomous Republic may not be altered without its consent”Georgia’s territorial integrity wasrecognizedwithout the concern of the Abkhazian Autonomous SSR.Moreover,Georgia was admitted tothe UN on the 31st July 1992 and on 14 August two week later it invaded Abkhazia.

After the end of the armed conflict, a significant proportion of the Georgian population left Abkhazia. However, in the late 1990s –around 50,000 ethnic Georgians returned to the Gal district and a number of villages in Abkhaziabut had never been registered by the UNCHR as the Georgian government made hindrance to this process to speculate on this issue. Though the International Convention on the Status of Refugees of July 28, 1951, in particular Article 1 of Section C, does not apply to a one –third of Georgians that fled Abkhazia as they voluntarily acquired a new nationality, and are protected by the country of their nationality and Georgian Legislation does not provide dual citizenship. According to 2011 official Abkhaz censusover 46,000 Georgians live in Abkhazia.  Majority of them reside in Gal district. More than 26,000passports were issued to Georgians residing in the Gal, Tkwarchal and Ochamchira regions in Abkhazia. Before obtaining Abkhazian passports Georgian citizens first have to renounce their Georgian citizenship. Abkhazian citizenship sтstarted to become preferable for 707 citizens of Georgia despite the fact that Georgian Legislation does not provide dual citizenship as mentioned above.

People living in Abkhazia possess Abkhaz passports issued by the Republic of Abkhazia that identify the holder as an Abkhaz citizen. Unfortunately, the Abkhaz passport is not recognised at the international level and cannot be used for international travel, except those countries which recognised the independence of Abkhazia. The obtaining of Russian passports is considered as a step that gives people the opportunity to travel freely for various reasons and issues. The Abkhaz Legislation envisages dual citizenship with the Russian Federation.

Speaking in his televised meeting with a group of Georgian political analysts on September 25Georgian Prime Minister IVANISHVILI suggested launching a war again to break the fences as he termed administrative border along Abkhazia and S. Ossetia built by the Russian Troops”. Further he suggested that “placement of barbwires was related to the Olympics” and that “Georgia would create conditions to maximally help Russia and that his government was criticized for its policy of appeasement with Russia”.  

Within 20 years Georgia keeps refraining from signing peace agreement with Abkhazia and S.Ossetia.Georgian Prime Ministerpromises “to create conditions that would convince them to live with us”.At the same timeArticle 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says :  All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. These commonly accepted principle should not be violated.

 Lidmila Sagariya

http://www.osce.org/odihr/106766

Violations and Discrimination by Georgia.

Session 2

“Recognition is a unilateral voluntary act of states, according to which these state consider the other state as a subject of international law and have intend to maintain official relation”. In general, recognition is not an obligation, but it is a right of the state. Criteria of Recognition defined by the Montevideo Convention stipulates that the states as subjects of international law should possess the following qualifications:

• Defined territory

• Permanent population

• Government

• Capacity of to enter into relations with other states

Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia in 2008 was encountered by Georgia with the adoption of a discriminatory “Law on occupied territories” by the Georgian parliament on 23 October 2008.

The Article 4 on Limitation on Free Migration in the Occupied Territories says that “Citizens of foreign countries and persons without citizenship shall be prohibited to enter the Occupied Territories from any other directions except the ones specified in

Paragraph 1 of this Article:1. Citizens of foreign countries and persons without citizenship shall be allowed to enter the Occupied Territories only under the following circumstances:

a) The territory of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia shall be entered from the

territory of the Zugdidi Municipality;

b) The territory of the Tskhinvali Region (territory of the former South Ossetia

Autonomous Region) shall be entered from the territory of the Gori Municipality.

Violation of this requirement shall lead to punishment underthe Criminal Law of Georgia”.

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.

 Georgian itself passes over in silence its own occupation of Abkhazia in 1992-1993when the national heritage that bared Abkhaz names was ruined, moreover two archives had been burnt out completely by the Georgian State Council Troops. Such heritage is a world heritage as well for whose protection is the duty of the international community also.

In accordance with the provisions of the “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” the cultural and natural should be protected, preserved and transmitted to future generations.

Georgia now opposes the resumption of the work of the Sukhum airport one the most convenient airports of the former USSR. The railway functions only within Abkhazia's borders or only to Russia. The seaports are closed for passenger vessels, and Abkhaz cargo vessels are under the constant threat of attacks from the Georgian one with the follow up seizure of the crew and confiscation of goods.

Such deprivation and violation of the rights of the peoples 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 stated in all international covenants, declarations, protocols and resolutions.

Liudmila Sagariya

 http://www.osce.org/odihr/106762

National Minorities issues in Abkhazia

Abkhazia had already experienced the status of minorities in the Soviet past. At that time Abkhazia enjoyed political autonomy within Georgia. It was the Stalin period when the Abkhazian language was abolished, Abkhazian toponymy changed and Abkhazian schools closed.Within the Soviet period in 1937-1952Georgians were forcibly resettled into Abkhazia to make the Georgian population in Abkhazia the majority.

That is why the concern of the Abkhazian civil society towards the treatment of representatives of other nationalities in Abkhazia is understandable. We have communities representing Russians, Armenians, Georgians, Estonians, Greeks, Jews, Poles and other nationalities. Many of them enjoy education in their own languages, have their editorial offices and cultural institutions. Some are represented in the Government structures and the Parliament of Abkhazia.

The Abkhaz Constitution contains clauses granting ethnic groups the right to native-language primary and secondary education.

I would like to focus special attention to the majority of the population of the Gal region  bordering Georgia who belong to the Migrelian subgroup closely related to Georgian. In 16 Georgian schools located in Gal, school curriculum unlike Abkhaz  schools operate according to the Georgian curriculum in terms of the hours allotted to specific  subject.          

Most of the Gal residents that had been forcibly resettled from their birthplace in the Western part of Georgia into Abkhazia during the Stalin times speak their native Mшgrelian language. They consider their mother tongue rather Migrelian than Georgian, and view themselves both Georgian and Migrelian identities as compatible.

Residents of Gal region of Abkhazia had been offered the opportunity to restore their alphabet. They have their editorial office and their regional paper.

Despite the fact that nearly 43 thousand of Gal residents have the Abkhaz citizenship the free movement of the Georgian population is practiced. The  New York based human rights organization Human Rights Watch published a report on the situation in Gal where among the main issues discussed are the alleged violations of the rights of the Georgian population by the de facto Abkhazian authorities, including violations of the right to free movement, right to citizenship and Georgian-language schooling .

Richard Berge,a scholar on Politics and Georgian language from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London considers thatthe report made by the NY based human rights watch on the situation in Gal does not differ from previous reports written by various human rights organizations about the Gal region which in his view had received disproportionate attention compared to other conflict areas and minority populated areas (such as the Armenian populated Javakheti or the Azerbaijani populated Kvemo-Kartli region) within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia. He says the report in general is also symptomatic of the skewed viewpoint of the international community on this and a multitude of other minority related issues in Georgia.

He considers that the HRW report fails to mention that most of the Georgian inhabitants of the Gal region are actually ethnic Migrelians, who belong to a distinct ethnic group with their own language and culture. The Migrelian language, despite having up to 500 000 speakers concentrated mostly in western Georgia, has no official status, and is not taught in schools in Georgia. In fact, the official Georgian government position is that the Migrelians are an ethnic sub-group of Georgians speaking a Georgian dialect, and has therefore declined to grant Migrelian status as a regional or minority language.

He noted that Georgia even refuses to sign the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, which is part of it commitments as a member of the Council of Europe. It is quite peculiar that HRW considers Georgian-language instruction to Mingrelians in Abkhazia to merit more attention than the status of Migrelian in Georgia, a language which is under pressure, and which without some form of official recognition and support would probably become extinct in the course of a few generations, along with much of the Migrelian cultural heritage.

In Abkhazia there is an understanding that the attitude to ethnic groups is among basic parameters of country's development level as a democratic state. It adheres to the implementation of international human rights standards. Abkhazia expects same treatment towards Abkhazia. It is a smallest nation in number that suffered Stalin oppression and under threat of disappearance.

 Liudmila Sagariya

http://www.osce.org/odihr/106906

Канонический статус православной общины Абхазии и восстановление независимой церкви Абхазии.

Ввиду того, что на выступление отведено очень мало времени, я постараюсь коротко рассказать о проблеме канонического  статуса православной церкви Абхазии, которая очень волнует абхазское общество в настоящее время. Ситуация  с православной церковью остается критической в течении  20  последних лет, несмотря на то,  Русская православная  церковь оказывала помощь нашей церкви в послевоенные  годы. Сложность и деликатность этого вопроса очевидны и вызывают тревогу: Абхазская православная церковь после грузино - абхазской войны продолжает оставаться в правовом вакууме. В этих условиях трудно говорить о каноническом функционировании института церкви, так,  епархия  не  имеет епископа, который может полагать священников, и очевидно, что большая часть абхазского народа, которая является православной, нуждается в помощи для решения данной проблемы.

В мае 2011 года  народно - церковное собрание высказалось за создание Священной Митрополии в Новом Афоне. Собрание было созвано молодыми абхазскими священниками в соборе  Ново - Афонского монастыря. Впервые  в постсоветское время  произошло неординарное  событие в новейшей истории православия в Абхазии, на котором был поставлен  вопрос о воссоздании Абхазской церкви.

Восстановление независимости Абхазской церкви необходимо для полноценной жизни этого важного  института, а также  всемерного возрождения православия и духовности нашего народа, и это  в интересах развития  нравственных и духовных ценностей  нашего общества. Следует сказать и о том, восстановление независимости абхазской церкви создаст такие условия, при которых  никакие  религиозные  секты  и экстремистские религиозные группы не смогут обосноваться в Абхазии.

Абхазия приняла христианство в 4 веке  н. э. Оно имеет глубокие корни, начиная со времен строительства абхазской государственности в древние времена. Я не буду вдаваться в описание  исторических фактов в деталях, но не могу не сказать о  том, что в 1943 году  Синод Русской Православной Церкви, при советской власти,  под давлением тирана      И.Сталина, признал автокефалию грузинской церкви. В 1990 году Вселенский Патриархат не принял  во внимание все политические обстоятельства прошлого и настоящего,  и  даровал автокефалию и патриарший статус Грузинской Православной Церкви в  канонических  границах, определенных в 1943 году между  Грузинской и Русской Православными Церквями, то есть,  в  границах Грузинской Советской Социалистической Республики.

Отношения между народами Абхазии и Грузинской Церковью нельзя назвать дружелюбными и братскими. Это подтверждается тем, что в период с 1918 года по настоящее время, грузинская церковь всегда поддерживала националистическую политику правительства Грузии в отношении абхазов и других народов. Патриархия Грузии никогда не выступала  за прекращение кровопролитных войн, которые произошли  в 1992-1993 годах, и в 2008 году. Православный многонациональный народ Абхазии никогда не испытывал  пастырскую поддержку Грузии и грузинской православных иерархов. Вместо осуждения военной агрессии, грузинская церковь всегда подчеркивала важность восстановления политических границ Грузии, тем самым оправдывая шовинистическую политику своего государства. Патриарх Грузии Илья II действует как политик, только в интересах Грузии. Например, во время недавних межэтнических конфликтов, грузинский Патриарх не сказал ни слова, чтобы остановить кровопролитие и войну. В 2008 году, когда грузинские войска расстреляли мирных жителей и российских миротворцев в Южной Осетии, Патриарх Илия II не выступил за то, чтобы остановить это беспощадное вероломство. Все помнят, как в Абхазии, так  и в Южной Осетии о « Чрезвычайном приказе Католикоса-Патриарха всея Грузии Илии II, опубликованном в газете  " Заря Востока " , в Тбилиси, 30 октября 1990 года, а двумя днями ранее зачитанным в Сионском соборе после церковной службы :

"Во имя Отца и Сына и Святого духа приказываю, - писал Илия II, - отныне убийцу каждого грузина, несмотря на вину или невиновность жертвы (убитого), объявить врагом грузинского народа. Занести фамилию и имя убийцы в специальную книгу патриаршества и передавать из поколения в поколение как постыдное и подлежащее осуждению.”

 После появления указа католикоса Грузии с такой ксенофобской направленностью, прокатилась волна убийств  среди осетинского населения. Несколько тысяч осетин в начале 90-х были зверски убиты и пропали без вести. Эти преступления не только не удостоились внимания грузинским  духовным лидером , они всячески поощрялись его молчаливым "благословением".

Естественной реакцией  православной общины и народа Абхазии явилось  непризнание власти Грузинской православной церкви и  соответственно, обращение к поместным православным церквам в связи  с  неприемлемостью юрисдикции грузинской православной церкви на территории Республики Абхазия. По этому поводу  был проведен опрос населения Абхазии, в котором более 70 000 человек  подписались за выход  из под  канонической юрисдикции грузинской православной церкви и восстановление Церкви Абхазии.

  English version: http://www.osce.org/odihr/106640

Abkhazia Is Against Nationalism, Racism and Chauvinism

Monday, 23 September 2013, Working Session 1

As an Abkhazian civil society activist, I would like to bring to your attention the important issue of preventing aggressive nationalism, racism and chauvinism as they are among the root causes of armed conflict and plunge peoples into devastating  wars.

Given Abkhazia’s multinational status, preventing any kind of manifestation of  aggressive nationalism, racism and chauvinism is a priority for Abkhazian society, which, despite only partial recognition of the state’s independence and isolation by Europe, is making efforts to create conditions for the full development of all the nations living in Abkhazia and to foster a consensus across society. The rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, On Civil and Political Rights and other universally recognized international legal acts are among the fundamental principles of the Constitution of the Republic of Abkhazia.

The protracted and bloody Georgian-Abkhazian war, the subsequent economic blockade and the isolation (alluded to above) have caused damage not only on the economic but also the psychological level. The consequences have been so severe that time is still needed to overcome the psychological trauma, and conditions must be created to ensure that people can learn to live free from threats and fear for their future.

To create conditions for such a traumatised community in which there will be no ground for such negative phenomena as nationalism, racism and chauvinism, one must first realise the complexity of the life of Abkhazian society that has had no support for full rehabilitation during the long post-war years, under constant stress, without any serious guarantees for a peaceful resolution tp the conflict with Georgia, and faced by its problems on a daily basis. The stubborn refusal of Georgia since 1993 to sign a peace-agreement, coupled with rhetorical speeches from Georgian politicians in relation to both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, can only exert a negative influence on society; this is then extrapolated onto the population of the Gal district of Abkhazia, densely populated by ethnic Mingrelians (regularly  categorised as ‘Georgians’) and contributes to the creation of an image of an ‘enemy within’.

The first President of Abkhazia, Vladislav Ardzinba, once (in 1999) signed a statement on the return of refugees to the Gal district, and, despite frequent aggravation of the situation, as noted by political scientists, Abkhazian society began to develop a more sober attitude to the problem — intolerance and radicalism gradually declined. Regarding the important question of the return of the refugees, the returnees were those not involved in military operations against Abkhazians.

But we should stress that the problem lies essentially on the unsettled relations with Georgia and the still existing threat of a resumption of hostilities, even in spite of the presence of Russian bases. All the worrying trends we see today, especially among the opposition, with calls to remain vigilant, not to forget the ethnicity of the Gal inhabitants , and even to consider them as a potential threat to the Abkhazian state are linked to this issue. Such can easily result in the formation of a negative public opinion towards these people and might lead to the violation of their rights. Thus, one can see that the obstinacy of Georgia in refusing to resolve the conflict is having the most negative impact on inter-ethnic relations within Abkhazia. Indeed, in the absence of a peace-agreement, it is very difficult to calm the fears of ordinary citizens, which in turn ultimately generate distrust toward the Gal population. It is absolutely necessary to give careful thought to working out democratic mechanisms for Abkhazia’s internal structure to include all categories of the population, including the residents of the Gal district.

Representatives of civil society understand that all forms of nationalism, racism, chauvinism, and discrimination can lead to a profound crisis in the society, with long-term adverse consequences that do not contribute to the building of a democratic state. Significant issues of acute importance for the national project (e.g., ensuring national security, issues of ethnic and civic equality) must be taken into consideration and enshrined in the principles underpinning the creation of the nation. In this regard, Abkhazia needs support and assistance, which, regrettably, it has not received in the daunting task of building democratic institutions and establishing solid state-structures in the harsh circumstances it has had to survive.  Especially in this regard one has to mention that the opinion of the people living in the country has not merely been utterly ignored by the international community but is regularly discriminated against in favour of Georgia, which, as stated above, 21 years ago inflicted upon us a war for the base purpose of attempting to restore its already fractured territorial integrity.

 http://www.osce.org/odihr/106641

Stop the Policy of Isolation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia From the Global Community

Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2013

Wednesday, 25 September 2013, 15:00 Working Session 5

To have to speak in the 21st century about the violation of the basic human right to free movement must be considered hugely shaming for mankind with its long history.

At this session I would like to attract the attention of the Participating States to the gross and severe violation that is the restriction of movement placed on the people of Abkhazia with regard to their travelling to the countries of Europe, the USA and elsewhere. I have to stress that, given its application to “the people of Abkhazia”, these disrespectful ruling acts against all the representatives of the various nations living in Abkhazia and obtaining Abkhazian citizenship. No matter if the person is Abkhazian, Russian, Armenian, Georgian, Jewish, Estonian or Polish, and no matter how long they have been settled in Abkhazia. They should have the right to move freely across the borders, even if Abkhazia is not yet fully internationally recognised; the people of the republic are, after all, no different from those who live in Europe or the USA. It seems the citizens of Abkhazia have been subjected to isolation (the airport and the seaport have been closed since the Georgian-Abkhazian war ended) and have had no right to lead a dignified life or to have contacts outside Abkhazia since 1994. Depriving the people(s) of Abkhazia of their rights is absolutely incomprehensible in the light of all human rights declarations and international covenants, or should one rather suppose that the right to travel freely is the right only of some privileged nations?

It is complicated to obtain visas for the citizens of Abkhazia, and most of the time impossible, even though the application is made in Moscow on the basis of the person's dual Russian citizenship. For example, especially since 2008, citizens of Abkhazia have had greater difficulty receiving visas to travel abroad, including to the United States and European Union countries, even when people apply to travel outside Abkhazia for medical or educational purposes,  which seems utterly unjust and unheard of in our time. About 90 percent of Abkhazia’s residents hold Russian passports, since Abkhazian travel documents are not internationally recognised. Here I would like to mention some cases when obtaining visas was denied to:

1. Children’s dance-ensemble seeking permission to travel to France, Turkey and Poland;

2. NGO-members for travel to Belgium, Lithuania and Franc;

3. Abkhazian leaders have repeatedly been refused visas and thus have not been able to put forward their visions and ideas at international fora;

4. Young Intellectuals hoping to participate in an event in Latvia;

5. Teenagers invited to the German International Peace Youth-Camp.

The USA and European states express support of the so-called “territorial integrity” of Georgia within the Stalinist borders of the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, and this does not promote any change in the Georgian position regarding recognition of the reality on the ground and improving the situation respecting the violation of the right to free movement for the citizens of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Why not think of human security and the protection of human rights rather than geopolitical implications?

Perhaps an in-depth analysis  done to discover the reasons behind the Georgian Parliament’s adoption of the Law on [the] Occupied Territories, which envisages a legal basis for restrictions on free movement and economic activities in these countries, would prove to be unfavourable for Georgia. In particular, according to the relevant law, foreign citizens should enter Abkhazia and South Ossetia only through Georgia. This is a pure violation of not just the rights of the people of our republics but also those rights of all others who should be free to visit Abkhazia/South Ossetia and communicate with us. Most cynical of all is the assertion that this document “was created to support” the peaceful resolution of the conflict, de-occupation and for humanitarian purposes, but at the same time it bans air-, sea- and railway-communications as well as international transit via Abkhazia/ South Ossetia,  mineral exploration and money-transfers. We consider that this should be appropriately evaluated and a way found to stop the policy of isolation of Abkhazia/South Ossetia from the global community and to assist in the building of real democratic states not the kind of pseudo-democracy as happened in Georgia,  where the government stands for the promotion of human rights and privileges for just one nation (viz., the Georgians).

Asida Lomiya
 
http://www.osce.org/odihr/106945

Mythical Occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2013

Tuesday, 24 September 2013, 10:00 Working Session 2

Having a very short time it is so hard to speak on such an important issue as that which regrettably was touched upon yesterday in the statement of the Georgian representative concerning the presence of military bases of the Russian Federation both in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We found it extremely one-sided, unjust and without any attempt either to offer unambiguous criteria for defining the term “occupation” or to apply appropriate argumentation and facts.

 Russian military bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were deployed on the basis of Russia's bilateral agreements with these republics and are mutually beneficial. To call the presence of the Russian bases “occupation” is utterly incorrect and does not correspond to reality. According to the Hague Conventions of 1907, specifically its "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV) of 18 October 1907, "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State" states in Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. So nothing similar exists either in Abkhazia or South Ossetia today, and we can state this as citizens of these republics. To ignore the existence of the ethno-political Georgian-Abkhazian conflict and the problems surrounding ethnic compatibility between Georgians and Abkhazians after the bloody war of 1992-93 while muddying the waters by seeking to conceal all this under the imagined cloak of a confrontation between Georgia and Russia coupled with this purely mythical occupation is utterly useless from the point of view of understanding the actual situation on the ground in the region.

In the absence of an agreement on non-resumption of military activities between Georgia and Abkhazia/South Ossetia with international guarantees, the people simply see no alternative to the Russian presence in the region. Moreover, the fact that the European states continue to express support for the “territorial integrity” of Georgia within the borders of the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic does not promote any change in the Georgian position vis-a-vis recognition of actual reality. When the US Senate (on 29 July 2011) and the European parliament (on 17 November 2011) passed resolutions defining Abkhazia and South Ossetia in these very terms, they were proclaimed by Saakashvili to be "historic documents" laying the foundation for the (re)-establishment of Georgian control, although what their practical relevance will prove to have been remains an open question.

Georgia launched wars against our republics after the disintegration of the USSR as a consequence of its refusal to respect peoples’ desire to preserve their nation through obtaining  independence. Georgia’s belief in a “Georgia for the Georgians”  in Abkhazia turned to: (a) mass-persecution  and killing of Abkhazians during the war; (b) destruction of monuments of  Abkhaz culture; (c) and the deliberate torching of Abkhazia’s two state-archives, where historical manuscripts were kept.

Perhaps a thorough analysis carried out to discover the reasons and consequences for the presence of Russian military bases on Abkhazian soil will not turn out to be favourable to Georgia. If Georgia makes political mistakes, these should be appropriately evaluated. Georgia should admit that the pages of history cannot be turned back and stop trying to impose on the whole world a false interpretation of its biased imperial designs. We fully recommend Georgia to acknowledge Abkhazia/South Ossetia as fully authorised negotiating partners rather than  “occupied territories” ruled from outside. Such an agreement would definitely create a more favourable and useful atmosphere between the three states, which have essentially been in a state of war for the last 20 years and have at times, suffered severe violations of human rights.

  
Asida Lomiya

  http://www.osce.org/odihr/106944

Canonical Status of the Orthodox Community of Abkhazia and Restoration of an Independent Church of Abkhazia.

As we have so little time, I will try to do my best to describe shortly what the Abkhaz society is facing in regard with the canonical status of the Orthodox Church of Abkhazia. The situation is critic and remains thus 20 years despite  all this time  only the Russian church has delivered assistance.  The complexity and sensitivity of the issue is certain and worrying: the Abkhaz Orthodox church   after the Abkhaz- Georgian war continues to be in a legal vacuum. In these circumstances it is difficult to speak of a canonically - functioning institution of the church,  thus is  the diocese without the bishop, and it is evident that  major part of the Abkhaz people, which is Orthodox Christian, needs assistance to solve the problem of the church. In May 2011 the ecclesiastical essembly created  the Abkhaz Holy Metropolia in New Athos in Abkhazia. The essembly was convened by young Abkhaz priests at the New Athos Monastery cathedral. This is the first time since the years of Soviet era that such an event took place in the modern history of the Orthodoxy in Abkhazia in which the question of  the restoration of the Abkhaz church was raised.

The truth is that the restoration of the independence of the Abkhaz Church is necessary for a full-fledged life of this important institution, as well as the revival of Orthodoxy and enhancing spirituality of our people, is in the interests of our society.  Restoring of the independence of the Abkhaz Church will create such conditions that no one will be able to settle down any sect and extremist religious groups. Great importance lies in the restoration of the   Abkhaz Orthodox Church for recovery of moral and spiritual state of our society.

Abkhazia adopted Christianity in the 4th century and it had deep roots starting from the construction of the Abkhaz statehood in ancient times.  I will not go in describing all historic facts in details, but I have to mention the fact that in 1943 the Russian Orthodox Church, with the intrusion of Soviet power and a dictator Stalin personally, the first among the Orthodox Churches recognized the independence of the Georgian Church. In 1990 the Ecumenical Patriarchate  did not take into account all political circumstances of the past and present and granted autocephaly  and patriarchal status to  the Georgian Orthodox Church in the canonical borders  identified in 1943 between the Georgian and Russian Orthodox Churches within the  Soviet borders of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. The relationship between the people of Abkhazia and the Georgian Church cannot be called friendly and fraternal. This is confirmed by the fact that during the period from 1918 to the present time, the Georgian Church has always supported nationalistic policy of Georgian authorities in regard of Abkhazians and other nations. The Georgian Patriarchate has never stood for ending bloody wars that took place in 1992-1993 and in 2008.  Orthodox multiethnic people of Abkhazia have never felt the pastoral support of Georgia and of the Georgian Orthodox Church hierarchs. Rather than condemnation of military action, the Georgian Church has always stressed the importance of restoring political borders of Georgia, thus justifying the chauvinistic policy of their state. Georgian Patriarch Iliya the 2^nd is acting like a politician, only in the interests of Georgia. For example, during the recent inter-ethnic conflict, the Georgian Patriarch said   not a word to stop the bloodshed and the war. In 2008, when Georgian troops shot civilians and Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, Patriarch Ilia 2nd did not utter anything to stop this inhuman perfidy. Everybody remembers both in Abkhazia and South Ossetia about the «Extraordinary order of the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II", published in the Tbilisi newspaper "Zaria Vostoka ", 30 October 1990, and two days earlier read out at Zion Cathedral after the church service:

"In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit command - wrote Ilia II, - now everyone who kills a  Georgian, is  declared an enemy of the Georgian people. Bring the name and the name of the killer in a special book of the Patriarchate and pass on from generation to generation as shameful and subject to condemnation. "

 After this xenophobic decree of the Georgian Catholicos of  Georgia, a wave of murders of the Ossetian population took place. Several thousand Ossetians in the early 90s were brutally murdered and missing. These crimes are not only not gone unnoticed by the Georgian spiritual leader, they are greatly encouraged his taciturn "blessing."

Natural reaction to such an attitude is that, the Orthodox community and the people of Abkhazia do not recognize the authority of the Georgian Orthodox Church and appealed to  the autocephalous Orthodox Churches against the jurisdiction of the Georgian Orthodox Church on the territory of the Republic of Abkhazia.  On this occasion, a poll of the population of Abkhazia was conducted, in which more than 70,000 people signed up to the issue of parting from the canonical jurisdiction of the Georgian Orthodox Church and Restoration of the Church of Abkhazia.

 Asida Lomiya

 http://www.osce.org/odihr/106640