A Refined Europe with Umbrella, by Nadezhda Venedictova

The other day a public meeting with a new EU Special Representative for South Caucasus Philippe Lefort was held in the Center of Zurab Achba. It was organized by the Sukhum Center for Humanitarian Programs and Paris Institute for Security. It was attended by the Security Council Secretary Stanislav Lakoba, Deputy of Foreign Minister Irakli Khintba and Director of Strategic Studies Center at the President of RA Oleg Damenia. Meetings with EU representatives have been already organized for several years. As a rule we try to explain to Europeans that the EU's desire to work with Abkhazia through Georgia is futile, that it is necessary to build direct relationships, even if not officially recognizing the independence of Abkhazia. Eventually, our persistence seems to have worked out, and the previous EU Special Representative Peter Semneby suggested a EU formula in Abkhazia - involvement without recognition." However, this formula is still in the air, as not only us move slowly from words to deeds.

It seemed important to me F. Lefort's assertion several times expressed that the European Union, despite its geopolitical weight (the number of its citizens is 720 million, its economy is three of Chinese and 16 of Russian, etc.), does not aspire to become a global hegemon and follows the principles of good neighborliness and while participating in conflict resolution excludes the use of military force. Of course, it was known before, but the new special representative is laying a special stress on it. Perhaps for the first time at these meetings a diplomat of such a rank said as well that in visible perspective the EU will unite with Russia to strengthen its power.

Perhaps this information imprinted in my soul, because I have been startled recently by George Friedman's political bestseller "The Next 100 Years," written before Barack Obama came to power. Friedman, an American political scientist and director of a private intelligence-analytical organization STRATFOR, is adamantly convinced that the twenty-first century will become the United States Age, that wars will occur and the United States should use everything, including armed force to maintain its leadership position. According to Friedman, the current apparent weakening of the US is an illusion, that America loses the war in other countries, not because of weakness, but because it tends to strengthen not an order there, but a chaos that prevents these countries to become strong and compete with the United States. Friedman is convinced that the Chinese "bubble" will burst soon, Russia will collapse after the 2020, and weak- willed and having lost the taste for battles Europe will forfeit its value.

For the first time I met an apologia of power and superiority, described on a such intellectual level. And this is terrifying. An intelligent and educated analyst at the beginning of the third millennium thinks mainly as a Neanderthal man - to hit a neighbor’s head with a truncheon and grasp a fresh piece of meat! Of course, not all of Americans are "hawks," Obama's victory in the last election speaks more to the contrary, but to write such a book in Europe is not considered comme il faut, but in the States, Friedman's book became a bestseller of the most influential American newspaper " New-York Times" - this says a lot!

Therefore, an old Europe, in spite of prolonged crisis of its union, seems to be as a prominent and refined lady who does not step on other’s feet and hit heads with umbrella in the rain to jump first into a taxi.

This article was published by ASARKIA  and is translated from Russian.

Violations of the Right to Freedom of Movement of the Citizens of Abkhazia, by Asida Lomia

OSCE/ODIHR - Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 7

NGO ”Sandidzan”

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in such an honorable meeting at the Session dedicated to one of the most important issues especially for the citizens of Abkhazia, regarding the right to freedom of movement.

Article 13 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (1948) (UDHR) states that "everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State”. Article 12 (1) of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1966) (ICCPR), provides for the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence for those ‘lawfully’ within the territory of a State. A number of national constitutions reflect this provision of international law and provide citizens with the right to freedom of movement within the State. However this right has not been fully extended to the citizens of Abkhazia who have been subjected to severe restrictions on travel outside Abkhazia since 1994. This fact without doubt contravened the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights for its paragraph 12(2) which states:  Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own." Ironically, at the end of the 20th century the people of Abkhazia effectively found themselves behind a new Iron Curtain and were not free to travel.

Since 1996 Abkhaz passports were no longer recognized as documents valid for travel outside the Russian Federation. This restricted not only Abkhaz citizens' right to free movement, but also made Russia the only 'outside world' with which Abkhazia could communicate. Requests of the Abkhaz officials and civil society activists to the UN to issue temporary international travel documents for Abkhaz citizens until the conflict was resolved were rejected. In recent years, thousands of Abkhaz citizens have adopted Russian citizenship, allowing them to travel in and beyond Russia. People living in Abkhazia also 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 international level and cannot be used for international travel, except those countries which recognised the independence of Abkhazia. The acquisition of Russian passports is considered as a pragmatic step that gives people the opportunity to travel freely for various reasons and issues.

It should be noted that after recognition of Abkhazia by the Russian Federation in 2008 obtaining of Russian passports has been restricted. Soon a generation of young people will appear being able to travel just to those several countries which have recognized Abkhazia and nowhere else. In that case, the question arises: For whom are so many human rights declarations, covenants, conventions and laws composed, if people are not equal in their movement freely within the States of the world?

It might be worth mentioning that In October 2008 the Georgian Parliament adopted a Law on Occupied Territories, defining a new legal basis to regulate and restrict contacts between the outside world and Abkhazia and South Ossetia and raised concerns within the international community with regard to humanitarian access to the conflict affected areas. All foreigners are allowed to enter the territory only from the Georgian side and are liable to criminal punishment for violations. Foreigners travelling from the Russian Federation who cross the Russian-Abkhazian border face serious problems in Georgia. This provision may be in contradiction with the Georgian international engagements, and it might deteriorate humanitarian situation and cause unnecessary hardship as it was mentioned in the OPINION ON THE LAW ON OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF GEORGIA OF THE VENICE COMMISSION. Strasbourg, 17 March 2009. I can't help mentioning that the phrase "occupied territories" in the law passed in the Georgian Parliament. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not occupied by the Russian Federation. Russian military bases located near the borders between Abkhazia and Georgia as well as South Ossetia and Georgia, are there according to the agreements signed between the said states and the Russian Federation. The presence of bases is connected to the most important right which no one may deny today to any people, and which is considered to be the right of the rights - it is the right to life which was several times violated by Georgian government over the last two decades.

Secondly, such a law isolates the people of Abkhazia from the whole world and violates the right to lead a dignified life in the very essence of this word.

Tbilisi opposes the resumption of the work of the Sukhum airport. It was closed for external flights and the railway functioned only within Abkhazia's borders or only to Russia. The seaports were 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 appears to be complicated and most of the time impossible.  For example visas have been denied even when people apply to travel outside Abkhazia on medical grounds, which seems utterly unjust and unheard of in our time.

Here I would like to mention some recent cases when obtaining of visas was denied to:

1. Children dancing company from Pitsunda intended to perform their culture in France.

2. NGO representatives to travel to Belgium and Lithuania.

3. Abkhaz representatives to attend the UN General Assembly.

4. Young Team of Intellectuals to participate in the contest in Latvia.

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

And this we face at the time when freer movement is considered crucial for the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Finally I would like to add that depriving and/or violating the rights of the people(s) of Abkhazia is absolutely incomprehensible in the light of the EU's stated strategy of Engagement without Recognition.

Liana Kvarchelia to Freedom House report on Abkhazia

Dear Sirs,

My name is Liana Kvarchelia and  I am a civil society activist in Abkhazia. I am following the Freedom House reports on Abkhazia and appreciate that in general your reports capture the key issues in the region. However there are certain inaccuracies, which I think are quite important and need to be addressed. I will touch upon only  one of them. The report of 2011 says that NGOs in Abkhazia are not permitted to monitor elections. This is not true. I am a member of the League of Voters for Fair Elections in Abkhazia. We have monitored presidential elections since 2004. Since last year a special amendment has been adopted by the  Parliament that officially allows NGOs to monitor elections. This has been the result of lobbying on the part of NGOs. Prior to that we monitored elections without any provisions in the legislation and had no problems with reagrd to access either to polling station and local election committees, or to the Central election committee.

If you need further information on the issue, I will be happy to provide it or send you the contacts of my colleagues from the  NGO community - members of the League.

Sincerely yours,

Liana Kvarchelia

Liana Kvarchelia Centre for Humanitarian Programmes

Sukhum, Republic of Abkhazia

e-mail: lkvarchelia@yahoo.com

Права человека бесценны

Комментарий на статью "Абхазия должна улучшить показатели по правам человека" Хью Уильямсона, директора    отделения  Human Rights Watch  по   Европе и Центральной Азии в The Guardian

Полная негатива и  оголтелого цинизма, одна из крайне необъективных об Абхазии статей,  которые появляются  в Интернете время от времени.    Но особое сожаление вызывает тот факт, что автором ее является  представитель   влиятельной международной организации как Human Rights Watch,   каковой совсем недавно она считалась.

Нескрываемая предубежденность автора  и  политизированность  подхода  к проблеме прав человека в стране,  которую  он совсем недавно посетил, вызывает глубокое разочарование .  

Мы  не  в  коей  мере   не собираемся представлять какие – либо аргументы к его высказываниям,  но  хотели  бы напомнить о  некоторых вещах, о которых г-н Уильямсон, осведомлен, но предпочитает не говорить, в виду того,  что  это не выгодно грузинским властям,   и  в то же время,  забывает о  ситуации с правами человека в самой Грузии  сегодня.

Права человека не являются  исключительной привилегией больших народов. Они  равны  для всех, как пишут  во всех известных конвенциях, декларациях, протоколах и резолюциях и других документах. Каждый  имеет право пользоваться  ими, но как оказывается  иногда  на деле, в наше время существует беспрецедентное  деление, когда одни народы в  силу  различных политических процессов  возвеличиваются и почитаются, в то время как другие  лишь  осуждаются,  или рассматриваются как  объекты, на которые можно  выплеснуть свою озлобленность  или   насмехаться.

Хотелось бы напомнить, что Абхазия пережила жестокую войну в 1992-93 гг., и что её начала Грузия. После войны Абхазия находилась в блокаде,  которую поддержало  международное сообщество ( включая  и РФ, участвовавшей долгие годы в этом процессе); более того, после довольно неожиданного признания Россией и несколькими другими странами, нас постоянно предупреждают о том, что наша республика  никогда не будет признана другими странами, но,  тем не менее,  требуют следовать международным стандартам  (презрительно именуя страну “территорией“ в статье)  каким и должно быть  высокоразвитое государство с настоящим  демократическим обществом - далеко не легкое дело  для государства,  ввергнутого в войну и  затем  оказавшуюся в   блокаде. По мнению г-на Уильямсона мы обязаны строго следовать всем международным конвенциям и документам, но исключительно в отношении жителей т.н. “грузинской“ национальности ( в данном случае  мегрельского населения  республики).

В Абхазии никто не отрицает уважение прав и  достоинства личности любой  национальности  проживающей в нашей стране и наше общество уделяет этой важной проблеме большое внимание. Однако  мы сталкиваемся с такими препятствиями  и обстоятельствами (политическими,  экономическими,   социальными и т. д.)     которые  трудно  преодолеть за короткий срок  в  состоянии изоляции, в которой  пребывала  страна в течение долгого времени и   особенно,  когда  мнение людей, проживающих в ней не только пренебрегается мировым сообществом, но даже дискриминируется в угоду Грузии,  которая как уже  упоминалось, 19 лет назад  начала войну против нас, нарушив самое священное  из человеческих прав  - право на Жизнь.

Кто  же должен понести  ответственность за  преступление против  народов  Абхазии, совершенное  14 августа 1992 года? Г-н Уильямсон даже не соблаговолил упомянуть об этом вопиющем событии в своей вызывающей  сильное удивление статье в The Guardian, он  с издевкой пишет о Чемпионате мира по домино, состоявшегося в Абхазии пару месяцев назад. На самом деле, трудно сказать, что более беспокоит Уильямсона, то что Чемпионат мира  по домино происходил именно в Абхазии или ситуация с правами человека, для улучшения которой он ничего не сделал. Или может быть он   рассказал   бы    как она была улучшена и как соблюдают  права человека в уважаемой  им Грузии?  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.

Мы не станем комментировать несправедливые законы, принятые парламентом Грузии в отношении иностранных граждан, переходящих абхазо-русскую  границу, по которым они должны  быть арестованы, в случае их приезда в Грузию.  Г-н Уильямсон  хранит молчание по этому поводу. Может быть, потому что он одобряет такие нарушения  и дискриминацию не только  против жителей Абхазии, известной своим гостеприимством, но также и её гостей?

English version: http://allsmediamonitoring.blogspot.com/2011/12/response-to-article-abkhazia-must-raise.html

The Cost of Human Rights Is Priceless

Commentary on the article “Abkhazia must raise its game on human rights” by Hugh Williamson, Director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe & Central Asia Division, in The Guardian

One of the most negatively biased, skewed, overwhelmingly and excessively cynical articles among the many others that have recently appeared on the Internet about Abkhazia. It is all the more regretful to read as it has been written by the person who represents such an influential international organisation as Human Rights Watch was once considered to be.

Deep disappointment is the only outcome of this perfect demonstration of the author’s prejudiced attitude and his politically motivated approach to the country to which he has recently paid a visit.  

We do not suppose to present counter-arguments to every passage in his piece - we would just like to mention a few points of which Mr. Williamson, Director of Human Rights Watch’s Europe & Central Asia Division, is surely well-aware but to which he prefers not to pay attention, since they are not on the agenda of Georgian authorities, whom he fully supports, forgetting the human rights’ situation today inside Georgia itself.

Human rights are not the exclusive preserve of larger nations — they are equal for all, as has been stated in all the famous 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 exalted and highly respected, whereas the others are deemed to be worthy only of blame, accusations, venom and jibes. Let us recall that Abkhazia suffered a bloody war in 1992-93 and that it was instigated by Georgia; thereafter, the country has suffered years of blockade imposed on all its peoples by the international community (including, for many years during this period, the Russian Federation); furthermore, even today, after Abkhazia’s unexpected recognition by Russia and some other countries, we Abkhazians are continually warned that our republic will be never recognised by other countries, which nevertheless lay upon our country (insultingly styled a “territory” in the said article) 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. In the words of Mr. Williamson, we  are expected strictly to follow all international conventions and documents but solely in regard to the residents of so-called ‘Georgian’ nationality (viz. the Mingrelian members of our population).
 No one in Abkhazia denies the respect due to the dignity of all human beings of any nationality living in our country and our society pays great attention to it.  But we face many barriers and circumstances (political, economic, social etc.) which are hard to overcome in the short term in the state of isolation that the country has been kept for so long, and especially when the opinion of the people living in the country is not merely utterly neglected by the international community but often discriminated against in favour of Georgia, which, as stated above, 19 years ago inflicted upon us a war for the base purpose of restoring its already fractured territorial integrity, violating in the process the most important human right of all – each individual Abkhazian’s sacred right to Life. Who, pray, will be held responsible for that crime, instigated on Abkhazia’s own day of infamy, the 14th August 1992? Mr. Williamson even does not even deign to make mention of this crucial event in his hard-hitting article in The Guardian, in which before the whole world he exposed the World Domino Championship, held in Abkhazia a couple of months ago, to his savage mockery. It is really hard to discern what concerned Williamson more, the Domino Championship or the human rights situation, which he has done nothing to improve. Should he not at least have told us how it has been improved or indeed respected in his beloved Georgia? 

The Georgian authorities lose no opportunity to complain at every possible conference or political event around the world about alleged violations on what they call their “occupied territories”, though they never mention that Abkhazia and South Ossetia were gifted to the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic by the  SSR’s Bolshevik leader Josef Stalin (coincidentally Georgian by nationality) and address appeals to the relevant states or their embassies when dance-groups or students from Abkhazia obtain visas to participate in international gatherings. For example, under pressure from the Georgian authorities, visas have been denied even when people are applying to travel outside Abkhazia on medical grounds, which is surely utterly unjust and unheard of in our time. We refrain from commenting on the unjust laws adopted by the Georgian Parliament relating to foreigners crossing the Abkhaz-Russian border, other than to note that these laws make them liable to arrest if ever they step on Georgian territory. Mr. Williamson keeps silent about this. Is this (just maybe) because he approves of such violations and rank discrimination when they affect not just the people of all nationalities resident in Abkhazia (famed for it hospitality) but their guests too?

Georgian Stance by Tom Trier

Tom Trier, senior research associate for the European Centre for Minority Issues and its regional director in the Caucasus was interviewed by Sergey Markedonov (Caucasus Times) on the subject of the publication: Under Siege: Inter-Ethnic Relations in Abkhazia Authors/Editors: Tom Trier, Hedvig Lohm and David Szakonyi (Publisher: London: Hurst & Co., 2010).

As a Regional Representative for the Caucasus with a background in social anthropology, Tom Trier specialises in ethno-national and migration issues in Eastern Europe and the CIS, particularly in the Caucasus region. Though Tom Trier was deployed in Tbilisi as Regional Representative for the Caucasus, it is hard to imagine a European expert living in Georgia who, under the guise of research, could express such a one-sided attitude to the Abkhazian question. One of his biased assertions (viz. the “privileged status of the Abkhazians”) can only be understood if we assume it to be of Georgian origin.

One cannot but accord Georgia’s propaganda machine due respect, for, as in so many other cases one could cite, Tier simply took its output on trust, not even bothering to seek any proof of the accuracy of his Georgian sources.

Even so, some information could have been found in Georgia, had the author made the effort to acquaint himself with the researches of some Georgian political experts in Tbilisi.

Paata Zakareishvili, the Chairman of the Georgian NGO Institute of Nationalism and Conflict Studies, describing Georgian reluctance both to admit past mistakes and to seal a dignified peace with the Abkhazian people as a dangerous symptom of Georgian malaise, has clearly stated that the bid for independence was triggered by Georgian xenophobia and intolerance. “Either through reluctance or incompetence, the government in Tbilisi proved incapable of driving a wedge between its separatist leaders and the population at large. It then proceeded to adopt short-sighted and even criminal policies towards the Abkhazian people, forging a new solidarity among the breakaway factions."                                                  
                                                                                           
Revaz Gachechiladze in his research entitled Geographical Background to a Settlement of the Conflict in Abkhazia described the growth of the ‘Georgian’ population in Abkhazia since the end of the 19th century as the rapid consolidation of the Georgian nation and an increase in its national consciousness. The area of Georgian settlement was constantly expanding, and they were becoming the direct competitors to the Russians in this sector along the Black Sea coast.

Georgian journalist and human rights activist, Sozar Subeliani, who served as Ombudsman of Georgia from 2004 to 2009, thinks that the rise and fall of the Georgian nationalist movement  were equally swift. Many political observers contend that this phenomenon was deliberately engineered by the Soviet regime in a bid to manipulate the independence-process. In his research entitled The rise and fall of Georgian nationalism, he quoted Ramaz Sakhvarelidze, a psychologist and former prime minister, as saying that "The Russian government plotted to give the nationalist movement an ethnic rather than a political flavour - an emotional, aggressive nationalism that was not conducive to forming solid state structures." He also refers to political commentator Nodar Dzhibladze, who thinks that Georgia needs a nationalist ideology to establish its identity and its position on the international map.
                                                                                                                                                 
Furthermore, Subeliani quoted ex-President Eduard Shevardnadze as saying that they were working to establish an independent and democratic Georgian state with geo-political and international integrity and that their opponents had to prove that they could improve on their policies or introduce a more acceptable political direction and that he knew no politicians capable of achieving this. Subeliani termed as paradoxical the fact that  Shevardnadze seemed to embody the nationalist ideology to a far greater extent than those who accuse him of betraying the national interests.
                                                                                                     
Gia Tarkhan-Mouravi, of the Institute for Policy Studies, considers that the demand for exclusive rights to a specific territory by one ethnic group or another is often linked to the demand for "autochthonous" status, while only "guest"-status is attributed to other groups. Such claims are generally based on an arbitrary use of historical facts. Some Georgian scholars have argued, for instance, that the Abkhazians came to Abkhazia from the North Caucasian mountains only relatively recently.

Worth recalling in this regard is the Report No 34. Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Uppsala University On Conditions for Durable Inter-State Boundary Agreements

Territory is equally important for social units, such as the "nation". Concepts such as "nation-state" and "state-nation" point to two types of relationship between the state as a political unit and the nation as a social unit. The territory "bridges" these two concepts, since the state as well as the nation include territory as a defining property. There is no non-territorial "state" and definitions of a "nation" usually include a reference to territory. The "nation" is an identity - shaping unit, as is "family". Both need a territory- a certain geographical area, or a home- in order to function as identity-giving. Here, focus is on the situation where a certain disputed area contains values, for one or both parties, that relate to the identity of the party or of a group within each party.

Commentary on the Resolution of the European Parliament for Georgia, 17 November 2011

SPECIALLY FOR ALLS by Iraklii Khintba

On 17 November 2011, the European Parliament by a majority vote adopted a resolution on Georgia, which the government of Saakashvili has already christened "historic". The resolution’s text comprises exceptionally strong language, unusual in the rhetoric of European representatives: “to recognise the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as occupied territories”, “to call upon Russia to withdraw the recognition of Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and stop the occupation”, “to welcome Georgia’s Strategy on [the] Occupied Territories and Action Plan as an effective instrument to promote reconciliation”, etc...

This resolution, from a purely formal viewpoint, may be deemed a definite achievement for Georgian  diplomacy. However, in essence it is another example of the advancing of a fallacious and ineffective strategy regarding the post-August reality vis-à-vis the South Caucasus. To ignore the existence of the ethno-political Georgian-Abkhazian conflict and the problems surrounding the ethnic compatibility between Georgians and Abkhazians after the bloody war of 1992-93, concealing all this under the guise of confrontation between Georgia and Russia and a purely mythical occupation, is utterly useless from the point of view of the actual situation on the ground in the region and the still unresolved conflicts.

It should be underlined that this resolution has a recommendatory character, and yet it is hardly able to achieve any cardinal changes in the region. Furthermore, it is unlikely that it will have any influence whatsoever on the official rhetoric of those European officials who participate directly in what is going on with regard to the unsolved Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. And there is absolutely no doubt that even such toughly worded formulations will not make Russia abandon its own national interests and obligations.

Another matter is that the adopted resolution strikes yet another blow on the negative image of Europe and the West as a whole that has already formed in the consciousness of the people of Abkhazia. The majority, who do not scrutinise the refinements and nuances of European politics with regard to the Southern Caucasus, are more and more disposed against Western influence in their country. As a result, the legitimacy of any possible joint-action in the sphere of culture, education and democratic development might be lost. Who will be the winner here? I do not think that it will be Europe.

If one speaks of specifics, the peremptory nature of the formulations contained in the resolution is surprising. And the resolution itself looks extremely partial and unjust. Attention can be drawn to the fact that in the preamble there is no reference to any document or evidence that takes into account the position of the authorities of Abkhazia, whereas there is mention of Mikheil Saakashvili’s speech in the European Parliament is indicated. It is clear that no groundwork had been done for the collection of facts, just as the position of the Abkhazian side was not listened to and its opinion was simply ignored.

Conclusions are drawn in the resolution regarding the “occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia” without any definition of clear criteria for “occupation” or the application of appropriate argumentation and facts. Not one of those who voted for the resolution bothered to find the time to visit Abkhazia and see everything with their own eyes. For example, where did information about “ethnic cleansings” come from? Nothing of the kind has appeared in any document, even the most critical, regarding Abkhazia since 2008. Why has it become possible to adopt such an unprecedentedly biased document?

In our opinion, quite apart from other reasons, there is a prosaic political logic at work here: after the “bitter pill” it is necessary to offer a “sweet bon-bon”. Georgia had to abandon its basic negotiating position on Russia's WTO accession under pressure from the West. Having withdrawn its demand for Georgian custom officials to be present at the Russian-Abkhazian border on the River Psou, Tbilisi, one can say, has recognised these borders as not its own. A private audit at the border will quickly in time become a mere formality, and, after three years can be done away with altogether. Moreover, in Georgia irritation has long been brewing over the unwillingness of European officials to identify for Tbilisi at least some prospects of EU membership. We recall how the bitterness of another failure in fixing the time-frame for membership of NATO was similarly sweetened for Tbilisi by means of the odious Resolution of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly, adopted a few days before the Lisbon Summit.

In general, the said resolution once again marks out a problem that prevents the effective participation of the EU in resolving the conflicts and promoting development in the Southern Caucasus. In particular, it undermines the efforts of the EU Southern Caucasus office regarding cooperation with Abkhazia. If the Abkhazian authorities are just puppets who decide nothing, as follows from the resolution, then why do European officials visit Sukhum and meet with Abkhazian officials? However, just recently, the new EU Special Representative for the Southern Caucasus, F. Lefort, visited Sukhum and noted the importance of contacts with the authorities of the republic.

Consequently, the main problem is the total lack of coordination in Europe’s involvement in the region. Firstly, there is lack of agreement at the level of EU policy-formulation, comprising rivalry between the branches of European power, and within certain structures (opposition between K. Ashton and P. Semneby). Secondly, there is a dramatic gap in the real understanding of the situation existing between a small number of EU officials and the expert-groups supporting them, on the one hand, and the bulk of not only European officials and MEPs, but Europeans in general, on the other hand. The crises that are shaking the European Union at the present time have an impact on this situation.

As a result, we have a resolution that has little impact on the rhetoric and political tactics of Europeans who interact directly with Abkhazia, and which, naturally, will have no bearing on Russian politics but will clearly worsen the overall perception of the West in the eyes of the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If the adoption of such a one-sided resolution is also able to encourage the morale of the Georgian leadership, then it is doubtful that it can play a positive role in strengthening stability in the Southern Caucasus.

- Русская версия: Комментарий на Резолюцию Европарламента по Грузии от 17 ноября 2011 г.