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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment