Abkhazian April of Maurizia Jenkins by Nadezhda Venediktova

April in Abkhazia is a month of the most gentle greens and intense odors: wisteria is blooming,  fragrans lour, jasmine, lilac, acacia, azaleas and other favorites of the gods. Choosing April for a visit to Abkhazia, Maurizia Jenkins was fully right - for an Italian lady, who does not imagine her life without flowers, one could not choose more fortunate time. 

Although not only natural beauty drew her to come here - at the turn of the century her husband, a British Ambassador, Richard Jenkins and she were keenly interested in our country. They often came and did a lot for a progress of a free press, NGOs and small business. A little later, Maurizia worked for several years as a senior political adviser to the UN mission and continued to stick to her line – she got international funding for a variety of projects, like a publication of books on the Abkhazian Folklore and  opening of a hairdresser in  Gal district. 

An indefatigable temperament let her meet lots of people and travel all over Abkhazia, going to the remotest places. One winter in a nasty cold, we went to Odish to see some church. She was driving a UN jeep, I was lying in the back seat, as it was forbidden to take strangers, so I moved to the front seat when we went out of town and no one from the UN could see me.

On a deserted way she picked up two young soldiers walking to their frontier post, shivering from cold with automatic guns over their shoulders. Twenty minutes later we dropped them at the bar, where   also young, a soldier waited for them being hungry for two days. When we drove further, I asked if she was not afraid to take into the car unknown armed men in an absolutely lonely place. She shrugged her shoulders, "Well, nothing happened" (as many foreigners, she omits another, not necessary in her opinion "not").

This time, Maurizia came to see how projects are developing, for which she had once found funding. To my surprise, there were projects  much more than I thought. People greeted her with warmth and love, even strangers came up in the streets, domino players at the seaside asked her to sit with them, in the bookstore the shop assistant  did not take money for  Daur Nachkebia’s novel "Seaside of a Night",  in the market Rosa Piliya gave  her bananas and grapes for  the interest to Abkhazia.

Maurizia again rushed across the country - to   the Chkhuartal and Okum villages with  a Vice Speaker of the  Parliament Emma Gamisonia to see how our deputies  work with their  people; to  Kodor Gorge with  Roman Dbar, where they found and cleared the place in which  the UN helicopter was shot down - Maurice planted poppies there; to  Gal region, where the  same hairdresser  is still running; to Pitsunda  to Lyudmyla Lolua with whom  she keeps long-term friendship; and to the church  of Lykhny at Easter with Batal Kobakhia and so on.

We spent unforgettable hours in a trout farm of  Razhden Agrba. Once in tough times Mauricia could find money for developing the farm and Razhden did not forget it. We feasted in his house, the toastmaster was Roman Dbar, the air was shining of  such refined compliments  of the  toasts - we  said to each other so many   high words, that the excess of love certainly dripped to the trout lapping  in the waters.

For more than three weeks time Maurizia managed to do so much that her energy surprises. Before leaving, she acknowledged that much of the country changed for the better, but not all has been  done yet. "You have to build an independent state, it is not as simple as you think" - she said, with her own unique accent.

Six days after her departure some gentlemen from Chkuartal village came to Emma Gamisonia in Sukhum, they found the London phone of  Mauricia Jenkins and called her  to express their warm feelings. Many years ago, Maurizia said: "I understand that when I come here being no longer as the wife of the Ambassador, people will not pay so much attention to me". - "Well, that's normal" - I replied.

Both of us were mistaken.

http://asarkia.info/en/society/index29.php?ELEMENT_ID=394

Don't call us 'occupied' - Arda Inal-Ipa

One thing that cannot go without recognition is the view from Abkhazia and South Ossetia

In December 2009, the European Union's Political and Security Committee (PSC) agreed a 'non-paper on the parameters for [the] EU's non-recognition and engagement policy for Abkhazia and South Ossetia'. This reflected the EU's intention to carve out a political and legal space within which the EU could interact with them, thus emphasizing its strategic interest in facilitating a resolution of the conflict with Georgia.

The initiative amounted to an acknowledgement that, after the war in the South Caucasus in 2008 and Russia's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the West needed to review its policies towards the breakaway territories. Previously, in the wake of the Georgian–Abkhaz war of 1992-93, the international community had expressed an almost unanimous show of support for the policy of isolating Abkhazia. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Russia had implemented this by imposing a tough border-control regime. But years of sanctions had brought resolution of the conflict no closer.

The engagement strategy that Europe has now proposed does not constitute a new approach. Such policies have been implemented before, usually in relation to weak countries, in order to prevent emergencies that threaten security and stability. Back in 2004, European observers, in analysing possible approaches to unrecognized states, made the case for more effective policies of engagement and cooperation – as opposed to isolation – in order to increase leverage in moving conflict resolution forward.

Although the policy of engagement is not tantamount to recognition, the Abkhaz side has welcomed Europe's intention to find areas of potential engagement with Abkhazia. If, for Europe, such cooperation means disseminating European norms and practices, as well as having an impact on the long-term conflict-transformation process, for Abkhazia, 'engagement without recognition' means overcoming its isolation, a diversification of contacts and an end to its uneven development. 

From the Abkhazian viewpoint, such an approach would compensate, at least in part, for the many years of Abkhaz isolation from European programmes of consultation, education and other types of aid designed to help post-socialist states through the transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. Against the background of Abkhazia's unambiguous choice of Russia as its strategic partner and its total dependence on Russian economic and security aid, there are areas in which Europe could play a significant role. These include development of the judicial system, promoting good governance and strengthening democratic institutions. Cooperation with Europe along these lines would be of significant importance to Abkhazia. 

In reality, however, cooperation with Europe is still a very long way off. For one thing, Abkhazia finds Brussels' reported plan to abolish the Office of the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus, which serves as an acceptable channel of communication with the European institutions, a cause for concern. Contacts, instead of becoming easier, are growing more problematic every day because of tighter visa restrictions for South Ossetian and Abkhazian citizens who hold Russian passports. 

Back-pedaling of this nature is no coincidence – it is the result of initiatives by Tbilisi. 

Europe's call for 'engagement without recognition' with Abkhazia and South Ossetia alarmed the Georgian authorities, which have tended to react with hostility to quite harmless initiatives aimed at Abkhazia, even when these involved businesses or civil society. Georgia fears that the implementation of the declared European approach would strengthen Abkhazia's independent position. This is why, shortly after Europe had made public its modest intentions in relation to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Georgian government adopted its 'State Strategy on Occupied Territories: Engagement through Cooperation' in 2010. The document contains a clearly stated political goal: to resolve the territorial issue.

The Abkhaz have no doubts that this initiative is aimed at Western audiences, rather than at an Abkhazian or South Ossetian one. The very language of the document is a case in point, for it is totally unacceptable to Abkhazians and South Ossetians, with its inclusion of terms such as 'occupied territories', and 'puppet regimes' set up and maintained by the 'occupying force in the occupied territories of Georgia'. 

The Georgian strategy is in fact an attempt to seize the European initiative and place it under Georgian control. It is no accident that the Georgian strategy reiterates the European formula of engagement but imbues it with a totally different meaning: the policy of de-isolation is seen in the context of reintegrating Abkhazia and South Ossetia into Georgia. The Abkhaz perception of this document is reinforced by the fact that, in order to implement its strategy, Georgia plans to introduce strict rules regulating the work of international organisations, which would spell the end of their operations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In proposing to control every link Abkhazia has with the outside world, Georgia hopes that Abkhazia will abandon all such contacts because the requirements would only reaffirm its subordinate status.

The European strategy of engagement is motivated by focusing on conflict transformation, improving security conditions on both sides of the conflict divide, and overcoming Abkhazia and South Ossetia's dependence upon Russia. The Georgian strategy, on the other hand, is aimed at regaining control over the 'occupied' republics. It was surprising, therefore, that European politicians were quick to welcome the unveiling of the Georgian strategy and the Action Plan that followed it. 

This begs the question, why is Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's reaction to the strategy ignored? Why does Europe support proposals that do not take into account the acuteness of the ethno-political conflict and the real state of relations between the conflicting sides, which does not even allow for signing an agreement on the non-use of force?

Russia, for its part, has given a lukewarm response to the Western strategy of 'engagement without recognition', despite the fact that one of its recently proclaimed foreign-policy goals is to strengthen relations with leading world powers, primarily the EU and the US, as well as to develop joint global projects. It is arguable whether this stance is reasonable, especially in the light of the West's willingness to cooperate with the republics recognised by Russia – which, if not a sign of real support, is at least an indication that the new situation created by Russia's decisive steps in 2008 has been accepted. 

Russian politicians' wariness, more openly expressed by some experts, presents a problem for Abkhazia. Nevertheless, in terms of economic cooperation, a solution could emerge that would see working relations established between Abkhaz businesses and official bodies and Western companies that have offices in Russia. If the doors remain open for Russia to participate in implementing the European approach to engagement with Abkhazia, favourable conditions could be created for putting the policy of cooperation into practice. 

If, however, the elaboration and implementation of the European strategy continues to be closely intertwined with the Georgian state strategy, there can be no progress towards a real de-isolation of Abkhazia. Such an approach would only preserve Abkhazia's isolation and its uneven development. 

A collision of these two strategies could be avoided if Abkhazia were no longer treated as a passive object of influence, and instead included in the process of developing mechanisms of engaging with Europe that are mutually acceptable. 

Arda Inal-Ipa is Deputy Director at the Centre for Humanitarian Programmes, Sukhum, Abkhazia.

 http://www.iiss.org/programmes/russia-and-eurasia/about/georgian-russian-dialogue/caucasus-security-insight/arda-inal-ipa/dont-call-us-occupied/

Chatham House 

Meeting Summary: Russia and Eurasia Programme
Georgian-Abkhazian Relations:
An Inside Perspective

Some Points of the Speech


Arda Inal-Ipa

Center for Humanitarian Programs,
Sukhum, Abkhazia

There is a shortage of objective information about Abkhazia in the EU as the western community uses Georgian sources, which are part of the country’s effective PR machine. Unlike other unrecognized regions, Abkhazia has never had an opportunity to speak in front of an international audience; Abkhazian leaders have repeatedly been refused visas and thus have not been able to put forward their visions and ideas at international fora. Abkhaziahas been sentenced to isolation and sanctions without an opportunity to defend itself. In 1996 sanctions were imposed and only finally lifted by Russia in 2008, yet Russia was also helping Abkhazia financially before then. Since 2008 contact with Europe is more difficult. Western input would be appreciated as Abkhazia is trying to build a democratic society. 

The news of the European policy of engagement without recognition was met initially with hope. Our Georgian colleagues from civil society have also considered this policy important for conflict transformation. However, various fora and cultural exchanges have been undermined because of visa issues. The policy has been put aside by the EU countries and has become a part of the Georgian policy of engagement with the so called ‘occupied territories’ The Georgian idea that there is no conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia has started taking root in the EU. The vision of Abkhazia as “an occupied territory” does not correspond to reality. The Russian troops are seen in Abkhazia as guarantors of security. The government of Abkhazia is not a puppet regime; several Abkhazian-Russian commissions were established to discuss bilateral issues. There is an Abkhazian point of view which often diverges from that of Russia. Nevertheless, Russia remains an important and useful neighbour. The EU’s misleading signals are making Abkhazians suspicious of European intentions. Abkhazians would like to think that the EU's goal is not replicating the Georgian political agenda but is focused on the restoration of peace and stability in the Caucasus. De-isolation would help this goal. Abkhazia does not want to be a phantom Cold War frontier between the West and Russia.

http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Russia%20and%20Eurasia/161211summary.pdf

Irakli Khintba: ‘No country will tolerate to be treated disparagingly and even at times offensively. We demand to respect Abkhazia.’

Republic of Abkhazia Deputy Foreign Minister I.R. Khintba’s interview to the news agency ApsnyPress.

Apsnypress: Irakli Revazovich, I would like to clarify once more, what has caused the Abkhaz side to declare the head of the EU Mission in Georgia, Andrzej Tyszkiewicz, persona non grata on  the Abkhaz territory?

Irakli Khintba: The Abkhaz side considers it important to continue a constructive dialogue in the format of the Geneva Discussions and the Mechanism for Prevention and Response to Incidents. We have always been prepared even for  an uncompromising character of the talk that at times  the Georgian participants  imposed.  But when this process is being frankly sabotaged, however, a proper reaction is needed. Unfortunately Mr. Tyszkiewicz was clearly not disposed towards a constructive communication with us. He is an experienced army officer, but one needs quite different qualities for   settling dialogue at the Caucasus. No country will tolerate to be treated disparagingly and even at times offensively. We demand to respect Abkhazia.

AP:  Georgian authorities are trying to present the Abkhaz statement as an attack against the European Union...

Irakli Khintba: I am stressing that our statement has been directed not against the EU Monitoring Mission as an institution, but against the concrete person who heads it. I would advise those people who very much want to give a wrong interpretation of the Abkhaz Foreign Ministry statement, to read it carefully. But you agree that if Mr. Tyszkiewicz is displaced from his present position it does not mean that the EUMM will cease activities. We remember his predecessor Mr. Haber, who did not share our political position, but all the same was a discerning diplomat who understood perfectly the extent of responsibility for every incautious word or action in the context of an unresolved conflict. For that reason we have nothing against the EUMM continuing its activities on the territories bordering Abkhazia and South Ossetia as envisaged in the Medvedev-Sarkozy Plan. The main thing is that the EUMM’s activities should in practice promote strengthening security and stability in the region. It is obvious that it will not happen if the EUMM leadership serves the interests of Tbilisi authorities instead of acting strictly in accordance with the Mission’s mandate.

AP: Does it mean that without Tyszkiewicz it is impossible to continue meetings in the Incident Prevention format?

Irakli Khintba: We would not like the mechanism to stop working because of this reason. If for Georgia and the EU is on principle the participation of just Tyszkiewicz personally, rather than another EUMM representative, we can only lift our hands. Our position with regard to Tyszkiewicz is definitive and final. I think that personnel changes within the leadership of the EUMM could have a positive effect on resolving the current situation.

AP: In Tbilisi they immediately saw “Moscow’s hand” behind the Abkhaz Foreign Ministry statement. The Georgian Foreign Ministry issued a special statement about “Moscow’s responsibility.” How would you comment on that statement?

Irakli Khintba: I would call such interpretations a demonstration of political vulgarity. I think it is time for our Georgian colleagues to abandon such outdated and boring clichés and at last to face up to reality. It was not the Russians who were the first to learn about the impending Abkhaz decision, but the co-chairmen of the Geneva discussions. As for the Georgian Foreign Ministry statement, there is no point commenting on it because it is addressed to Russia. I would like again to express my sincere amazement at the persistence with which the Tbilisi authorities keep trying to convince the world and themselves in the first instance, that Abkhazia is incapable of taking either internal or foreign policy decisions independently. 

I think that if the Georgian side continues to adhere to this line we shall have to act the same way:  to ignore the Georgian authorities and address directly to Washington on issues concerning Georgia. After all, it is perfectly clear that if we are talking about the external dependence, Georgia, compared with Abkhazia is in an absolutely losing position.

AP: Georgian Security Council Secretary G. Bokeria particularly distinguished himself by describing the step of the MFA of Abkhazia as “an open, insolent attempt on the part of the Russian Federation and its puppets…”

Irakli Khintba: In fact, we have got used to  coarse and boorish outbursts of Tbilisi government representative Mr. Bokeria and we pay no attention to them. But since you ask, I will tell you my personal opinion. Mr. Bokeria is a well-known and influential figure in Georgia. I have the impression that in order to preserve the image of his country to some extent intelligent and in the interests of strengthening peace and stability in the region he should less speak on foreign policy issues. Trying to resolve complex and delicate issues of relations with Abkhazia and other neighboring countries by using an axe and a sledge-hammer evidently is not the best approach.

AP: The authorities in Tbilisi have viciously criticized the opposition leader Irakli Alasania for stating that informal armed groups have been formed in Zugdidi district, as the MFA of Abkhazia mentioned in its statement…

Irakli Khintba: Yes, I have to admit that the Tbilisi authorities used our statement in order to inflict a further blow on the opposition. They always blame either Russia or the "treacherous opposition". The only thing I can say in this regard - is that neither Western backers of Saakashvili, nor the people of Georgia today, do not benefit from the consolidation of authoritarian police regime in this country, as well as what kind of policy Saakashvili's government holds today in respect of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

AP: Do you plan to continue engagement with Europe?

Irakli Khintba: The relevant position was clearly stated by the President of Abkhazia Alexander Ankvab. We are disappointed by the absence of visible progress in relations with the European structures, but in the case of obvious profit from this communication, we are ready to continue, but with an important condition: the interaction with the EU should not go through Tbilisi.

AP: Are there any political reserves for developing  a more productive inter-action with the European Union?

Irakli Khintba: I will point out  that we have established a positive diplomatic engagement with the regional office of the EU in South Caucasus and its head, Mr. Lefort, while the Abkhaz civil society - with a number of European non-governmental organizations. I consider on the whole recent statements of the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Katherine Ashton and co-chairmen of the Geneva discussions are quite balanced. I am sure that in any situation there is always a way out. However, I strongly disagree with some headlines in the media - for example, "Abkhazia has driven on Europe." Is Mr. Tyszkiewicz  really  a personification  of  the EU and all the more  with the whole Europe? If somebody in Georgia is irresponsibly trying to present our actions as an attack against the European Union, then we put the full responsibility on Tbilisi government for a possible reduction of the participation of European organizations in the settlement of the conflict.

That, by the way, is completely in line with Georgia’s isolationist policy which just by the word of mouth stands for the idea of strengthening the EU position in Abkhazia while in fact does everything to isolate Abkhazia from the outside world.It is strange that for Georgia's Western patrons it does not yet become apparent. I think  the EU and the U.S. should seriously think about the level of competence and loyalty of its representatives in Georgia, which apparently being under the influence of the authorities in Tbilisi,  sent  to their  capitals  wrong information about what is happening in the region.

Ираклий Хинтба: «Ни одна страна не потерпит пренебрежительного, а порой - оскорбительного, отношения к себе. Мы требуем, чтобы Абхазию уважали».

Интервью заместителя министра иностранных дел РА И. Р. Хинтба Государственному информационному агентству «Апсныпресс».

Апсныпресс: Ираклий Ревазович, хотелось бы еще раз уточнить, чем было вызвано решение абхазской стороны объявить главу Миссии наблюдателей ЕС в Грузии Анджея Тышкевича «нежелательным лицом» на территории Абхазии?

Ираклий Хинтба: Абхазская сторона считает важным продолжение конструктивного диалога в формате Женевских дискуссий и Механизма по предупреждению и реагированию на инциденты. Мы всегда были готовы даже к острому характеру разговора, который навязывался порой грузинскими участниками. Однако когда этот процесс откровенно подрывается, необходима должная реакция. Г-н Тышкевич, к сожалению, был явно не расположен к конструктивному общению с нами. Он опытный военный, но в деле налаживания диалога на Кавказе нужны определенно другие качества. Ни одна страна не потерпит пренебрежительного, а порой - оскорбительного, отношения к себе. Мы требуем, чтобы Абхазию уважали.

АП: Грузинские власти пытаются представить заявление МИД Абхазии как выпад против Европейского Союза...

И. Хинтба: Подчеркиваю: наше заявление было направлено не против Миссии наблюдателей ЕС (МНЕС) как института, а в адрес конкретной персоны, ее возглавляющей. Тем, кому очень хочется дать неправильную интерпретацию заявлению МИД Абхазии, советую внимательно его прочитать. Ведь согласитесь, если г-на Тышкевича снимут с занимаемой должности, это совсем не будет означать, что перестанет работать МНЕС. Мы помним его предшественника, г-на Хабера, который не разделял нашу политическую позицию, но при этом был тонким дипломатом, хорошо понимающим меру ответственности за каждое неосторожное слово или поступок в условиях неразрешенного конфликта. Поэтому мы не против того, чтобы МНЕС продолжала работать на территориях, прилегающих к Абхазии и Южной Осетии, как это обозначено в Плане Медведева-Саркози. Главное, чтобы деятельность МНЕС на деле способствовала укреплению безопасности и стабильности в регионе. Очевидно, что этого не произойдет, если руководство МНЕС будет обслуживать интересы тбилисских властей, вместо того чтобы содействовать строгому выполнению мандата миссии.

АП: Означает ли неучастие Тышкевича невозможность продолжения встреч в формате Механизма по предотвращению и реагированию на инциденты?

И.Хинтба: Нам очень не хотелось бы, чтобы этот механизм прекратил свое существование по этой причине. Если для Грузии и ЕС принципиально участие именно Тышкевича, а не другого представителя МНЕС, то мне остается лишь развести руками. Наша позиция по Тышкевичу окончательна и неизменна. Думаю, что кадровые изменения в руководстве МНЕС могли бы положительно повлиять на разрешение сложившейся ситуации.

АП: В Тбилиси сразу увидели в инициативе МИД Абхазии «руку Москвы». Именно об «ответственности Москвы» говорится в специальном заявлении МИД Грузии. Как Вы прокомментируете это?

И. Хинтба: Я бы назвал подобные интерпретации проявлением политической пошлости. Думаю, грузинским коллегам пора отказаться от устаревших и набивших оскомину штампов и, наконец, посмотреть реальности в лицо. Первыми о готовящемся абхазской стороной решении узнали отнюдь не российские дипломаты, а сопредседатели Женевских дискуссий. Что же касается заявления МИД Грузии, то комментировать его нет смысла, ибо его адресат – российская сторона. Вновь выражу искреннее удивление тем, с каким упорством, достойным лучшего применения, тбилисское руководство пытается убедить мир и, в первую очередь, самих себя, что Абхазия якобы не самостоятельна в принятии внутри- и внешнеполитических решений. Мне кажется, что если грузинская сторона будет и далее придерживаться этой же линии, то нам придется аналогичным образом игнорировать грузинские власти и обращаться по вопросам Грузии напрямую в Вашингтон. Ведь вполне очевидно, что если говорить о внешней зависимости, то на фоне Абхазии Грузия окажется в абсолютно проигрышном положении.

АП: Особенно отличился Секретарь Совбеза Грузии Г. Бокерия, охарактеризовавший шаг МИД Абхазии как «открытую, наглую попытку со стороны Российской Федерации и ее марионеток»...

И. Хинтба: На самом деле, мы привыкли к грубым и хамским выпадам представителя тбилисских властей г-на Бокерия, и не обращаем на них внимания. Но раз Вы спросили, выскажу по этому поводу свое личное мнение. Г-н Бокерия - лицо известное и влиятельное в Грузии. Мне представляется, что ради сохранения мало-мальски интеллигентного имиджа своей страны, а также для укрепления мира и стабильности в регионе, ему надо меньше высказываться на внешнеполитические темы. Решать сложные и тонкие вопросы отношений с Абхазией и другими соседними странами с помощью топора и кувалды - явно не лучший способ.

АП: В Тбилиси обрушились на одного из лидеров оппозиции Ираклия Аласания, заявившего о формировании неформальных вооруженных групп в Зугдидском районе, о чем МИД Абхазии упомянул в своем заявлении...

И. Хинтба: Да, вынужден отметить, что тбилисские власти воспользовались нашим заявлением, чтобы нанести очередной удар по оппозиции. У них всегда и во всем виноваты либо Россия, либо «предательская оппозиция». Единственное, что я могу сказать в этой связи – это то, что ни западным покровителям Саакашвили, ни народу Грузии сегодня совершенно не выгодна консолидация авторитарно-полицейского режима в этой стране, а также то, какую политику проводит сегодня правительство Саакашвили в отношении Абхазии и Южной Осетии.

АП: Намерены ли мы продолжать общение с Европой?

И.Хинтба: Соответствующая позиция была четко сформулирована Президентом Абхазии Александром Анквабом. Мы разочарованы отсутствием видимого прогресса во взаимоотношениях с европейскими структурами, однако в случае наличия явной пользы от такого общения, мы готовы его продолжать, но при важном условии: взаимодействие с ЕС не должно осуществляться через Тбилиси.

АП: Есть ли политические резервы для развития более продуктивного взаимодействия с Европейским Союзом?

И.Хинтба: Отмечу, что у нас налажено положительное дипломатическое взаимодействие с региональным офисом ЕС на Южном Кавказе и его главой г-ном Лефором, а у гражданского общества Абхазии – с рядом европейских неправительственных организаций. Считаю в целом вполне сбалансированными недавние заявления Верховного представителя ЕС по иностранным делам и политике безопасности К. Эштон и сопредседателей Женевских дискуссий. Уверен, что из любой ситуации всегда есть выход. При этом я категорически не согласен с некоторыми заголовками в прессе – например, «Абхазия наехала на Европу». Неужели г-н Тышкевич является олицетворением ЕС и тем более всей Европы? Если в Грузии кто-то пытается безответственно представить наши действия как выпад против Европейского Союза, то мы возлагаем полную ответственность именно на тбилисские власти за возможное снижение участия европейских структур в деле урегулирования конфликта. Это, кстати, вполне укладывается в русло изоляторской политики Грузии, которая лишь на словах выступает за укрепление позиций ЕС в Абхазии, а в реальности делает все, чтобы Абхазия была максимально закрытой от общения с миром. Странно, что западным патронам Грузии это до сих пор не стало очевидным. Думаю, что ЕС и США надо серьезно задуматься над уровнем компетентности и лояльности ее представителей в Грузии, которые, видимо, под влиянием тбилисских властей, посылают в свои столицы неверную информацию о происходящем в регионе.

Archimandrite Dorotheus: "We were able to convey to the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the problem does exist"

Here we offer  readers some of the  important  interviews which surely  clarify some details and situation occurred in the Abkhaz  Church particularly in regard with  the article "Another Abkhaz Debate" by Brittany Pheiffer recently  published  in http://www.evolutsia.net/another-abkhaz-independence-debate/. 

Archimandrite Dorotheus: "We were able to convey to the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the problem does exist"

Demis Polandov

PRAGUE—Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople gave an audience to the Head and members of the Council of the Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia yesterday evening. The delegation received a promise from the Patriarch to consider the Abkhazian issue at the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, said the Head of the Council of the Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia Archimandrite Dorotheus (Dbar) in the interview.

Demis Polandov: Father Dorotheus, the Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople granted audience to a delegation of the Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia. Could you tell us how the meeting went and what are the results?

Archimandrite Dorotheus: We arrived there by the invitation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the delegation consisted of five people: me, father Andrew, father David (Sarsania), Secretary of the Metropolitan Council Herman Marshania, and Timur Dzidzaria, member of the Council. His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople said  that all the material relating to the issue of the church problem in Abkhazia  was received, including an appeal from the Church and National Assembly. All these materials have already been considered. For our part, we have told what is happening here now, what occurred in the history and what we would like to see in the future - what is the settlement of the Abkhazian Church issue. That is the definition of the status of the Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia, ordaining of the Abkhazian bishop, the further development of  the  Abkhazian Church and its full revival. Patriarch said that we could inform the people of Abkhazia, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople as the mother church will make every effort to resolve the issue. The first thing to happen is that our issue is to be considered at a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople.

Demis Polandov: Father Dorotheus, what exactly would be considered at a meeting of the Synod, how will the question be formulated?

Archimandrite Dorotheus: I can not tell you anything, it's not in my competence. But the Synod will probably consider our appeal on behalf of the Church and National  Assembly, in which we have described the situation, what we  would like to have, etc. Then, apparently, consultations, issues, etc. will start. But this is a very important question, because the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as you know, is the only church in whose   competence lies the solution of the Abkhazian issue. Without the participation of Patriarchate of Constantinople we could have long years to go and discuss various topics on the Abkhazian issue, but not coming to some significant and concrete solutions. Therefore, the most important what we have achieved after the National Assembly of the Church, after all these last few months of active work both inside and outside Abkhazia, is that we have been able to convey to the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the problem does exist. This was deliberately held back by the people who did not want to solve the Abkhazian Church problem. And most of  the representatives of the Georgian Church  have never spoken about  this problem anywhere. This meeting was attended by the Chairman of the inter-Orthodox Commission too. And at the session of the inter-Orthodox Commission, in which the representatives of all   churches take part, nobody ever spoke about the problem in Abkhazia. Therefore, today the church problem existing in Abkhazia became evident and clear for all and the inadmissibility of what is happening here, that for eighteen years we have had no bishop, and that part of the Abkhaz people, which is Orthodox Christian, needs assistance to solve the problem of the church. This is the most important thing.

Demis Polandov: Father Dorotheus, the last question. Do you know when the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople at which your question will  be considered will take place?

Archimandrite Dorotheus: Now I can not say which program our problem will be included for consideration, but the Synod will be held soon. Yet I am not aware of any concrete dates, but judging by what we were talking and discussing, I think,  the problem resolving  will not be postponed for a very long time. I think concrete proposals will be forthcoming probably soon.

__________________

Hierodeacon David (Sarsania): “The Ecumenical Patriarchate will find the opportunity to help the restoration of church life in Abkhazia” 

Demis Polandov

PRAGUE—January 13 at the official website of the Constantinople Patriarchate was published the news about the meeting of Patriarch Bartholomew I with Archimandrite Dorotheos (Dbar) and other members of the Abkhazian delegation. First information about the meeting earlier caused a cautious and rather restrained reaction of the Georgian Patriarchate. At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church representatives were far harsher in the assessments of this visit. Thus, the deputy of the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations Archpriest Nikolay Balashov called the priests of the Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia dissenters and said that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is not authorised to solve the Abkhaz issue. We decided to discuss this situation with a member of the Council of the Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia Hierodeacon David (Sarsania).

Demis Polandov: Father David, the Abkhaz delegation's visit to the Patriarch of Constantinople has caused quite a strong reaction in the Russian expert community, the number of official representatives of Russian Church in some media rather sharply reacted to the visit. Could you comment on this reaction?

Hierodeacon David: Yes, of course. I know that the Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, who is a deputy of the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, yesterday stated the position of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding the  meeting of the clergy of the Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia with His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Moreover, this statement was translated into Greek, and appeared in the site Romfea. I can tell you that Father Nikolai Balashov and those who closely follow the events  developing in the life of the Church of Abkhazia,  are very interested in the highlighting  mainly their position everywhere. As for our Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia the Russian media is working unilaterally. We have been quoted only by portal Credo.ru, that's all, and other Russian Church websites, highlighting the religious life, do not wish to publish our point of view. I can say that the position of Father Nikolai Balashov, stated yesterday, is understandable. You see, in general, what is happening in Abkhazia today is the result of a general policy of the Department for External Church Relations of Moscow Patriarchate.

Demis Polandov: Father David, and what, in fact, this policy is? What does Moscow want?

Hierodeacon David: I want to say that we respect the piety of the Russian Orthodox people, but the policy of the Department of External Church Relations is not the one that would  promote strengthening of  Christianity at the Caucasus. The attitude of Father Nikolai Balashov, and of the Secretariat for inter-church relations in the time of his rule has always been biased to the problems of Abkhazia:  it was very unpleasant for them if the situation became active or an attempt appeared to go out of the critical situation occurring in Abkhazia.  They need to preserve this situation frozen, keeping it in a vacuum and without any way out. That is how I understand their position. And today when some activity starts, they are not ready for the initiatives coming from our side.

Demis Poland: You should have read an interview with Father Vissarion, in which he comments on your visit to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Could you respond to his statement?

Hierodeacon David: Father Vissarion goes wrong now, making such statements. First of all, he forgets that his canonical status is still not resolved; he remains the official cleric of the Georgian Orthodox Church. And neither the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, nor the Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church did not raise the question of his  moving to the Russian Orthodox Church. When he says that twenty clergymen in Abkhazia with him are the Abkhaz Orthodox Church - it is a perfect  lie, because in Abkhazia these clerics are in violation of the canons. They have no documents that give them the right to stay on the territory of this diocese. When he says that the universal Orthodox Church allegedly leads the  church life of Abkhazia, and then he says  that His Holiness Kirill personally for him is a  ruling bishop, everything is a lie. When we now referred to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and had a conversation with His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I, we explained to him the difficulty of our situation. What we are doing today is in accordance with the sacred canons of the Church. Our people support us, we had the opportunity to speak with them at the  Church  and National Assembly in May 15, 2011. We promised the people who gathered there to bring this matter  up to the end. His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew received  us and he listened to us. We do everything in accordance with  holy  canons of the church to resolve this situation. The outrageous behavior of Father Vissarion (Aplia), unfortunately, make happy some people in the Russian Orthodox Church. I think, if father Nikolai Balashov finally finished his career as a bureaucrat and retire, his place will be taken by a decent man who will not just be engaged in ecclesiastical diplomacy, and will look for an opportunity to unite the Orthodox nations, but not to look for the rivalry between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, not to look for possible ways to control the Georgian Orthodox Church, using the conflict in Abkhazia and the unresolved problem of the Abkhaz Church ... If a person will appear to be guided, by the Gospel, above all, desiring the good for the Russian Orthodox people, the Abkhazian Orthodox people, and  the Georgian Orthodox people, but not to play in the so-called ecclesiastical politics, it would be easier to live for all of us, and then we could solve all our problems, which, unfortunately, involved nationalism and even some bad manifestations of human weaknesses. 

Demis Polandov: Father David, both Russian and Georgian experts say that most likely the Patriarch of Constantinople can not solve the Abkhaz issue without the consent of the Georgian church. Do you think that the Georgian Church will agree with any suggestion of the Patriarch of Constantinople? And if not, what exactly are you going to do?

Hierodeacon David: We have been invited by His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew to the Patriarchate, we have already talked with His Holiness, and we expect what the Ecumenical Patriarchate will tell us. We referred to the first Orthodox Church in diptych, which historically has a direct relevance in the area. And I do not want to say that I don't know what would happen next. I tell you with certainty that the Ecumenical Patriarchate will find the opportunity to help the restoration of the church life in Abkhazia. And it will be done following the Holy Church canons. The Ecumenical Patriarchate by the canon law is in power to solve the problem of  the Abkhazian Church. And we are satisfied with it today.

http://www.ekhokavkaza.com/content/article/24447803.html

__________________ 

Pilgrim Business Can Be Conducted Without a Bishop

Demis Polandov 

PRAGUE -  What did the young clergy of the Holy Metropolis of Abkhazia rise against? In fact - against the seizure of the Abkhaz churches and monasteries by the  Russian Orthodox Church with the active approval of  father Vissarion (Apliaa). It may seem strange, since the Orthodox of  Abkhazia themselves not once  appealed to the ROC to take them into their fold. But the point is that the Moscow Patriarchate is ready to take temples and monasteries, but obviously it is not going to build a full-fledged church life for the local Orthodox people.

In general, the history of the invitation of the Russian hegumen Ephraim (Vinogradov), as  Father Superior of the  Athos monastery, which started  the church opposition  in Abkhazia, strangely well  is described by the  the language of economic journalism,  but not religious. Here's how the plan of  the ROC in regard with  Abkhazia is seen to one of the young clergy, Hierodeacon David (Sarsania):

"The Russian Orthodox Church can not canonically interfere in the church life of Abkhazia, that is, to appoint a bishop. Father Vissarion intends to use holy places of Abkhazia for pilgrimage from Russia. But this requires material resources. In my opinion, Father Vissarion has attracted some charitable funds, he promised them to start  the construction of pilgrimage centers, or to bring in order  what has already been handed over  to Father Vissarion.

At the same time, in spring, the government of Abkhazia handed over to Father Vissarion  a tourist base "Kiaraz" in New Athos. In this connection, I have  also a suspicion that  there is something behind the fact  that Father Efraim (Vinogradov), who was handed  the abbot's staff, was sent to New Athos to organize a religious life in the  monastery. And together with this to develop and bring into order a tourist or pilgrim facility, which in summer season or further  years would have to host thousands of pilgrims from Russia. "

Father Vissarion (Apliaa), who is heading a non-canonical Abkhaz Orthodox Church, tried to answer the claims of young clerics at press - conferences, but  for the main problem of  absence of the Abkhazian Church bishop - he had nothing to say. The ROC not just can not ordain a bishop, but also clearly showed that it would do its best for all other Orthodox churches not to do it. Otherwise, how one can explain a recent  severe punishment of  young clergy Archimandrite Dorotheus and Hieromonk Andrew, prohibiting them  from serving? Even the Georgian Church has never prohibited the Abkhazian priests ordained by it, as the same Father Vissarion.

A sensation arises that the main task of the Moscow Patriarchate today is the maximal marginalization of young priests. Just pushing them out of the canonical field, for example, into the arms of the Greek for "opposing the Synod," the so-called Old Calendarists, the Russian Church can win. However, the young priests are clearly not going to follow the example of South Ossetian believers, at least, not having received an answer to a request to resolve the Abkhaz church question from  all  Orthodox churches. Says Father, David Sarsania:

"Prohibition from  serving of Father Andrew and Father Dorotheus made by the Russian Orthodox Church can be perceived as an official response to the appeal for more than a thousand members of the Church of the People's Assembly of the Russian Orthodox Church with the request to participate in resolving church problems in Abkhazia. If the Russian Orthodox Church will block the possibility of organizing the commission on religious issues in Abkhazia, of course, for us it will be a very important signal. But I hope that the local Orthodox churches will find strength to help Abkhazian people to find a canonical solution to their religious problems."

While the ROC sends Father superiors to Abkhazia and prohibits local priests to serve, the position of the Georgian Orthodox Church is surprisingly cautious. Relying on the canon, the Georgian Patriarch could prohibit all priests on the territory of Abkhazia, including those ordained by the Russian Church. However, then the Abkhazian believers would receive the strongest argument for special appeal to the Orthodox world community. Today, the Georgian Patriarch can say that the Abkhaz clergy did not appeal to him as to the legal hierarchy. Therefore, Father David thinks that the Abkhazian faithful should consider negotiations with the Georgian Church:

"I can express my personal opinion. I believe that a possible dialogue with the Georgian Orthodox Church, perhaps, in the future will be required. Thanks to the Father Vissarion and his clumsy attempts at negotiations with the Georgian hierarchy, we are having a crisis situation now. Father Vissarion personally talked with representatives of the Georgian Patriarchate and made it quite hypocritical. He said one thing to Georgian bishops, and in Abkhazia another - both to politicians, the government and the people ", - said David Hierodeacon (Sarsania).

http://www.ekhokavkaza.com/content/article/24237562.html

Комментарий Министерства иностранных дел Республики Абхазия в связи с постановлением Совета Министров иностранных дел Европейского Союза по странам Южного Кавказа

Министерство иностранных дел Республики Абхазия внимательно ознакомилось с Постановлением Совета министров иностранных дел ЕС по странам Южного Кавказа, в котором подтверждена приверженность ЕС участию в урегулировании конфликтов и обеспечении стабилизации обстановки в регионе, а также стремление ЕС к усилению взаимодействия с абхазским и югоосетинским обществами.

Следует, в первую очередь, отметить, что невозможно стремиться к обеспечению «большей видимости» ЕС в Абхазии и Южной Осетии, а также «приступать к трансформационной работе», не проявляя уважения к политическому выбору, сделанному народами этих независимых государств. Вопреки декларируемой цели «приблизить» к себе граждан Абхазии и Южной Осетии, ЕС лишь отдаляет их от себя посредством дискриминационной визовой политики. Приходится констатировать, что за последние годы Европа стала как никогда закрытой для граждан Абхазии.

Вызывает сожаление, что министры иностранных дел стран ЕС приветствуют неэффективную и политизированную грузинскую стратегию по т.н. «вовлечению» Абхазии и Южной Осетии. Такие заявления лишь дискредитируют собственно европейские планы по взаимодействию с Абхазией. Становится все сложнее отличать европейские интересы в отношении Абхазии от интересов тбилисских властей. Отсутствие явной разницы в европейских и грузинских подходах – препятствие на пути к улучшению отношений между ЕС и Абхазии.

Пока европейская стратегия «взаимодействия без признания» на деле будет означать «максимум непризнания и минимум взаимодействия», уровень поддержки в абхазском обществе любых европейских инициатив в отношении Абхазии будет оставаться крайне низким. Все более сложной задачей становится укрепление доверия между Абхазией и Европейским Союзом, зачастую занимающим однозначно прогрузинскую позицию.

Военное присутствие России, по поводу которого министры ЕС выражают озабоченность, воспринимается гражданами Абхазии в качестве единственной реальной гарантии их безопасности. Упорное нежелание Грузии подписывать с Абхазией и Южной Осетией юридический документ о неприменении силы убеждает граждан Абхазии и Южной Осетии в наличии реваншистских намерений у тбилисских властей. Любые «прочные гарантии безопасности», предлагаемые к обсуждению на Женевских дискуссиях, должны базироваться на учете мнения Абхазии и Южной Осетии как сторон в конфликте и легитимных субъектов переговорного процесса.

Мы положительно оцениваем роль Женевских дискуссий по безопасности и стабильности. Для нас очевидно позитивное значение регионального формата европейского присутствия, выраженного в мандате Спецпредставителя ЕС по Южному Кавказу. Однако несомненно и то, что существенный прогресс невозможен, если во главу угла переговоров и любого иного политического взаимодействия ставится восстановление «территориальной целостности» Грузии. Подобная политико-правовая заданность переговорной стратегии со стороны западных коллег является главным тормозом в деле урегулирования конфликтов.

Тем не менее, несмотря на различие позиций, все еще существует некоторое пространство возможностей, способное вывести отношения между Абхазией и ЕС на более конструктивный уровень. Мы с удовлетворением констатируем, что исполнительная власть Европейского Союза не использует навязываемый Грузией термин «оккупированная территория» в отношении Абхазии и Южной Осетии. Мы также приветствуем содержащийся в Постановлении призыв к властям Грузии способствовать интеграции беженцев в местах их нынешнего проживания на территории этой страны.

Абхазия является частью Европы. Мы готовы к взаимодействию с теми субъектами европейской и мировой политики, которые занимают, по меньшей мере, нейтральную позицию относительно политико-правового статуса Абхазии. К сожалению, судя по общему пафосу Постановления Совета министров иностранных дел ЕС, упорная приверженность мифической, не существующей в природе «территориальной целостности Грузии» все еще довлеет над умами европейских политиков. Лишь избавление от этих ненужных комплексов прошлого может на деле способствовать позитивной роли ЕС как в Абхазии и Южной Осетии, так и в регионе в целом.

English Version (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Abkhazia comments on the conclusions of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on the South Caucasus) http://www.abkhazworld.com/news/statements/817-the-mfa-abkhazia-comments-eu-foreign-affairs.html