Sunday, May 25, 2008

Dark skinneds can not enter!

Hakan Aksay, May 24th, 2008, TARAF, Turkish Newspaper


The man was drunk. He approached to the girls and offered to drink beer together. Most of the girls turned their heads with disgust, but the oldest one accepted the offer. While the younger ones were looking at her surprised the man had already got the beers. As the girl was giving beers to her friends she had convinced the man to go to a silent spot and have fun.

The man in front and seven girls following him, they went into the woods. After a while the oldest girl whispered with her friends. Before the man could notice what was going on the beer bottles went down on his head.

Blood flew down from the line between his grizzled hair and dark skin. Bottles, rocks and kicks fell on the man's body lying on the ground.

After a while seven girls left the corpse quietly. Their eyes sparkling with hatred, they said "these black asses should be taught their lessons just like this".

This murder was in a town near Moscow. Only one of the girls were over 18 who killed the 54 years old Azerbaijani worker. By this for the first time a murder commited by children was added to the serial racist assaults.

Then there were more "racist children". In an organized structure like "Skinheads" and similar groups about 150 racist, chauvinist and faschist organizations were formed in the next few years in Russia. They gathered about 70.000 people in their lines.

Most of these were between the ages 14-20. In streets and metro they were screaming "Russia belongs to Russians" to the black haired, slant eyed, dark or yellow skinned people; attacking them, beating, wounding and sometimes killing them.

Azerbaijanis, Tajiks and Africans were the most in numbers among the murdered and wounded ones. Turks had also got their share.

Since the beginning of this year 70 people were killed by racists. This number was 67 all last year.

It is hard to say that the government took serious measures against racism. Moreover it is most likely , the government benefit from this sitaution by using these organisations as negative examples while claiming that themselves are the real representatives of the nationalism.

Most people began to support the request ‘‘Deporting the dark skinned people who comes from other places and subvert the order&peace in big cities" .

The police first and foremost stops the dark skinned people for id verification. Landlords add notices to their ads like "Only to Russians" or "Caucasians not accepted". Such prohibitions are even seen on some restaurants and night clubs.

Yet once upon a time Soviets' most used criticism against USA was discrimination against black people.

From where to where!...

Friday, May 23, 2008

Situation in Abkhazia, ''Sergei Bagapsh, President of Abkhazia''

Below is a speech by President Sergei Bagapsh published by Eurasian Home Analytical Resource:

Now the situation in Abkhazia is calm and under control. Several meetings with the Western policy-makers have been recently held in the city of Sukhumi. The US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza and the U.S. Ambassador to Georgia John Tefft have arrived in Abkhazia. Besides, we maintain contacts and negotiate with some Georgian politicians.

We are discussing two things with the Georgian party. Firstly, it is the withdrawal of the Georgian troops from the Kodor gorge. Secondly – the signing of the peace and non-recommencement of hostilities treaty. The Georgian party says that if it withdraws the troops from the Kodor gorge, Russia will have to withdraw its peacemakers from Abkhazia. But we can't accept that.

We are ready to withdraw our troops that surround the Kodor gorge in order to relieve the tension there. If Georgia is ready to consider those offers, we will negotiate about two aspects and, probably, we will be willing to accept them in the same package. It is necessary to remedy the situation since the base Moscow agreements concluded in 1994 and the UN resolutions were violated. We will do our utmost to keep the Kodor gorge within Abkhazia.

But in the Georgian political establishment there are the "hawks" who prefer to act coercively, and the politicians realizing that there will be no progress in the conflict settlement without the negotiations and contacts. We told our Georgian colleagues and the U.S. representatives that Russia should not be implicated in the negotiations process and the Georgia-Abkhazian relations. There is a need to work with the two conflict parties – Georgia and Abkhazia. But it looks like Georgia has nothing to talk with Abkhazia about. Tbilisi decided to shift everything onto Russia and to show that to the world community.

As regards the information that the Gali district inhabitants are forbidden from turning out to vote in the parliamentary elections in Georgia, those people live in Abkhazia. They elected the Abkhazian President and Parliament. When they live in Georgia, they will participate in the Georgian elections.

Abkhazia takes the current parliamentary elections in Georgia in the same way as those in Moldova, France, etc. The elections should be democratic and the Georgian people should make their choice. But this will be the choice of the Georgians. The Abkhazian people have already made their choice.

If we are talking about Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's proposals to grant Abkhazia broad autonomy, there was a very broad autonomy in 1990s. As a result, the Abkhazian population decreased up to 17% in its territory and the Abkhazians were being assimilated.

On August 14, 1992 we examined the proposal of making Georgia with Abkhazia a federal state.

After the war between Georgia and Abkhazia there was proposed a confederation form with granting wide powers to Abkhazia. Then there was proposed a form of a union state. Georgia turned down both those proposals.

In 1999 the independence referendum was held in Abkhazia. Now we are creating our independent state. The Georgian authorities should understand that Abkhazians are not interested in holding positions in the Georgian government. We are interested in our own independence, we want to preserve our state and our identity.

What will Abkhazia do, if Georgia joins NATO? Abkhazia will do nothing. Let Georgia join NATO even tomorrow. We do not care about that. This will estrange Abkhazia from Georgia for good and all.

The material is based on Sergei BAGAPSH's speech at Interfax Information Agency.

May 22, 2008

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Circassians in Turkey give support to Abkhazia calling Georgia to peace

Circassian World, May 21, 2008, Ankara


As Georgian government raised her threats for war against Abkhazia and dispatched military troops to the border line, “The Friends of Abkhazia” assembled front of the Consulate General of Georgia in Istanbul and Embassy of Georgia in Ankara to warn Georgia “not to provoke war”.

Recently, Georgian Government’s raising her threats of military intervention against Abkhazia and dispatching military troops to the border line, generated war risk in the region again and also concerned the Abkhazian, Adyghean and other Circassian communities living in Turkey. After the first protest on May15th in front of Istanbul Consulate of Georgia, a second protest has been placed in Ankara.

“The Friends of Abkhazia” initiative issued a press statement and called for peace on 21th May 2008 in front of Embassy of Georgia in Ankara. The crowd, gathering around 12:00 am, urged Georgian Government to recognize Abkhazia’s independence and maintain good neighborhood with Abkhazia. In the press release, it was stated that:

“Georgia carried out an armed intervention to Abkhazia with the purpose of occupation on 14th August 1994. After severe battles, which started with Abkhazian people’s resistance and lasted for more than a year, this occupation attempt was repulsed and defeated. This war caused great suffering for both Abkhazian and Georgian people. Abkhazia is an independent country since 30th September 1993, which marks the end of this war. This independence is and will be protected and defended by Abkhazian people, sister Northern Caucasian people and millions of Abkhazian, Adyghean and other Circassian people living in the diaspora.”

In the statement, it was emphasized that a new military intervention from Georgia to Abkhazia will lead the region into a bigger war and a greater fire and it was pointed out that “Georgia must give up her ambitions to usurp Abkhazia’s historical, political and legal rights and abstain from adventures which will draw the region into conflict again. Georgian government must respect Abkhazia’s independence and acknowledge that this independence will be defended at all costs”.

Approximately 200 participants and leaders of Circassian associations and civilian initiative groups in Ankara and surrounding provinces accompanied the statement with Abkhazian flags, banners and slogans. It was remarked that Abkhazia is the legacy and sequel of a 5.000 year-old culture, a 1.500 year-old state and a 90 year-old republic. It was declared that:

“No one should doubt that we will protect this legacy to the end. Abkhazia is not alone today as it was not alone yesterday. Northern Caucasus, who witnessed wars, genocide and exile throughout her history, should now be a region of peace and stability. Georgian government should use her power and resources for her people’s welfare and improvement, instead of provoking war. It must be remembered that the political and military leaders of Georgia, who started the war with Abkhazia, were discharged because of the high prices that the Georgian people had to pay as a result of their wrong policies. We believe that Georgian people want peace and welfare and live alongside Abkhazian people and state as two allies and neighboring countries. With this firm belief, we are calling to the Georgian government: Learn from the past; turn your face to peace, not to war.

”The crowd dispersed with applause and slogans.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Circassians Remember Russia's Destruction of their Homeland, People

Window on Eurasia, by Paul Goble
Baku, May 21 – Today, in more than 50 countries around the world, the five-million-strong Circassian community is remembering that nation's more than 100-year-long resistance to Russia's southward advance, the destruction of their historical homeland, and their expulsion from it which led to the death of almost half of their population.

On May 21, 1864, Aleksandr II declared victory over Circassia and the Circassians after more than 100 years of fighting and approved plans to deport the entire Circassian nation through the port of Sochi to the Ottoman Empire, thus beginning what some have called the first modern genocide and creating the model for ethnic cleansing elsewhere.Despite being vastly outnumbered by the Russian army, the Circassians resisted for more than 100 years, inflicting nearly a million casualties on their enemies. But by 1864, five years after the surrender of Imam Shamil, whose struggle with Imperial Russia is far better known, the Circassians were defeated.

The tsarist authorities expelled nearly 90 percent of all Circassians, restricted the remainder to approximately 10 percent of the territory on which Circassia had been, and instituted Russian rule throughout. Of the 1.5 million expelled, more than half died, with the remainder scattered throughout the Ottoman Empire.

In Soviet times, Stalin subdivided the remaining Circassians in the North Caucasus into a series of ethnic groups – the Adygei (the self-designation of most Circassians), the Cherkess, the Kabards, the Shapsugs, and several others – as extension of the classic divide-and-rule policy of nearly all empires.

Today, there are only about 600,000 Circassians in the North Caucasus, compared to more than 4.5 million abroad. And according to some studies, 88 percent of the Circassians now live outside of the borders of their historic lands, the largest percentage of any nation living outside their homeland in the world.

In 1914, Nicholas II celebrated the 50th anniversary of the defeat of the Circassians as one of the empire's greatest victories. And except for Boris Yeltsin who acknowledged in 1996 that the war in the North Caucasus had lasted 400 years and was a tragedy, most Russians before and since have preferred either to ignore this date or present it in an upbeat manner.

Until near the end of the Soviet period, Circassians living in the Russian Federation did not have the opportunity to mark in any public way the tragedy their people and country had experienced, although many in the emigration did so, and none in either group ever forgot either the resistance they had offered or the way the Russian state had sought to end it.

But in 1990, Circassians across the North Caucasus declared May 21st a national day of mourning, an event they have marked every year since. But this year, not only are more and more Circassians there and across the world celebrating this date, they are stressing different aspects of its meaning (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/news/id/1217152.html). Most officials in the region are talking about it simply in terms of a long-ago tragedy, something that should be marked by a Day of Memory. Circassian activists in contrast insist that it should be a Day of Memory of the Fallen in the struggle against Russia. And still others are focusing on this day as the beginning of the Russian genocide directed against them.

As Circassian activism has increased and as Circassians around the world have sought to exploit increased attention on their region given Moscow's plans to organize an Olympic Games in Sochi, the site of the beginning of the genocide conducted against them, the Circassians have expanded their efforts to call attention to what happened.

This year, some are urging that resistance to Russian plans to offer celebrations rather than commemorations of May 21st
(www.caucasustimes.com/article.asp?id=14207). Others are suggesting that the event be classified no longer just as a Day of Mourning but now also be declared a Day of Hope (www.circassianworld.com/Mourning.html).

And Circassians both in their historical homeland and abroad have demanded and secured official approval for this date to be a day off from work. (For the status of this day in the North Caucasus, see www.caucasustimes.com/article.asp?id=14132. For arrangements elsewhere, including in Israel, see www.natpress.net/stat.php?id=3448.)

Beyond any doubt, today will feature many wise observations by Circassians and their friends and supporters around the world, but they will have to go a long way to surpass the eloquence of one offered already last week by an unknown Circassian in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria (www.runewsweek.ru/rubrics/?rubric=country&rid=2536).

Since last year, pro-Moscow officials there have been putting up posters with the legend "450 Years of the Voluntary Joining Together of Kabardino-Balkaria to Russia. Together Forever!" But someone has been periodically crossing out the words "voluntary joining together" and writing instead "1785 – 1864."

Those were the years when the Circassians struggled against the Russian empire's advance, and the latter, of course, is the date, commemorated today, when the imperial government began to expel the Circassians, a crime against humanity whose echoes grow louder with each passing year.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Turning Abkhazia into a War

by Brooke Leonard
05.08.2008

Anne Applebaum, recently named one of "the world's most sophisticated thinkers" by Foreign Policy, raised an important point in her Washington Post column on Tuesday—and an important concern. Applebaum, who is also an adjunct fellow at the neoconservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute, is right on target in her argument that the oft-forgotten de-facto- independent republic of Abkhazia could trigger war between Russia and Georgia. There is a very real possibility that tension over Abkhazia will escalate, so understanding the nature of the conflict is key. Unfortunately, Applebaum’s analysis sheds no light on the situation, but rather points to a disturbing trend in American mainstream media: presenting simplistic and therefore misleading analysis of foreign-policy issues. So what are the facts?

Abkhazia is not exactly “a province of Georgia that declared its independence in 1992” and proceeded to engage in the ethnic cleansing of Georgians, as Applebaum states. Reality is far more complex. Abkhazia and Georgia shared equal status as Socialist Soviet Republics in the Soviet Union for a decade until Stalin demoted Abkhazia against its will to an Autonomous SSR within Georgia, but under Moscow’s overall rule. Both ethnic groups suffered periods of repression in the Soviet period, and when Georgia broke away from the USSR in 1991 under the leadership of extreme-nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia, Abkhazia, fearful of losing all autonomy, declared itself a sovereign republic. A brief civil war broke out in which atrocities were committed on both sides, albeit far more so by the Abkhaz. A massive flight by ethnic Georgians ensued—not dissimilar to that of the Hindus and Muslims following the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 or of the Palestinians from Israel in 1948—and Abkhazia has enjoyed de facto independence from Georgia ever since.

Applebaum goes on to allege that Russia “has a long-term interest in the destabilization of pro-American, pro-Western, pro-NATO Georgia.” If destabilizing Georgia has long been Russia’s intent, it is odd then that Moscow took on the role of mediator during two major crises in the country in recent years. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in essence helped Western-leaning Mikhail Saakashvili come to power by negotiating the resignation of President Eduard Svevardnadze and aided Georgia in regaining control over another secessionist region, Adjaria, by encouraging its leader to back down. Relations between the two countries soured when Saakashvili adopted anti-Russian positions and began to portray himself to the West as a leader who could stand up to Moscow. The Kremlin’s subsequent lack of eagerness to help Georgia reconquer Abzkhazia and South Ossetia should come as no surprise. What nation would want to help an openly hostile leader expand his rule?

Furthermore, Russia has been heavily criticized for allegedly shooting down Georgian military planes in what Applebaum describes as “a pretty obvious attempt to create a casus belli.” These planes, however, were actually spy drones flying over Abkhazia. So why has no one bothered to question why Georgia was violating peace agreements it signed in 1994 by flying the planes in the first place? It seems that when the United States or its allies are involved, different questions are asked and different stories are told. If Syria began flying planes over the Golan Heights, its internationally-recognized territory, wouldn’t the United States view that as an act of aggression against Israel? And wouldn’t it rightfully support its ally? Russia, however, is portrayed as intentionally provoking and even bullying “an emerging democracy, an aspiring NATO ally.”

Applebaum too refers to a possible Russian invasion of Georgia and of Abkhazia. These are two very different things. If Russia invades Georgia within the borders it currently controls, this kind of aggression would indeed deserve a strong response from the international community. But if Applebaum is in fact referring to Abkhazia, then is she arguing that the U.S. should support Tbilisi in an attempt to use military action in the autonomous republic—clearly violating UN Security Council resolutions? And can Russia actually be accused of invading Abkhazia when it already has a friendly government in the republic and maintains a military base and UN sanctioned peacekeeping troops there? Following this logic, would Applebaum also argue that NATO invaded Kosovo when it ignored Serbia’s objection to its independence?

What is troubling is the fact that the simplistic arguments that appear in our newspapers are all too often reflected in U.S. foreign policy. We readily adopt these comfortable narratives, use them in dialogues with other major powers and are then surprised when we don’t get what we want from others who have different views.

Consider the consequences of our pundits’ outcry of support for Georgia and accusations of Russian aggression. We are in essence encouraging an ally to move toward confrontation with Moscow, while we have no intention, as Applebaum rightly implies, of providing them with military assistance to accomplish their objectives. Were Tbilisi to follow through, Georgia would most certainly lose Abkhazia and face an even more hostile neighbor in Russia, an outcome that undermines Georgia’s sovereignty and damages America’s credibility.

It would also, of course, further stress our shaky relations with Moscow. By accusing Russia of attempting to goad Georgia into war, we are really just forcing Dmitry Medvedev to choose between remaining silent—which could lead the Russian public to question his patriotic credentials before he has even truly begun his presidency—and responding forcefully in his country’s defense. If we have any interest in cooperating with Moscow over issues critical to our national interest, perhaps presenting Medvedev with this kind of challenge over Abkhazia at the very beginning of his presidency is unwise.

Brooke Leonard is a staff member at The Nixon Center.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

''RAD - Russia and the "Frozen Conflicts" of Georgia''

Russian Analytical Digest

No. 40: Russia and the "Frozen Conflicts" of Georgia, 8 May 2008

This issue of the Russian Analytical Digest examines relations between Russia and Georgia with a focus on Georgia's secessionist regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It gives an overview of the conflict including political and economic aspects of its escalation. Additionally, the authors analyze the process of conflict settlement from both Georgian and Russian perspectives and examine the case for Abkhazian statehood based on Kosovo. This issue also includes a Russian popular opinion poll concerning the frozen conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union.

No. 40: Russia and the "Frozen Conflicts" of Georgia

Author(s): Stacy Closson, Sergei Markedonov, Archil Gegeshidze, Viacheslav Chirikba Editor(s): Jeronim Perovic, Robert Orttung, Matthias Neumann, Heiko Pleines, Hans-Henning Schröder
Publisher(s): Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich, Forschungsstelle Osteuropa (FSOE)
Date of publication: 8 May 2008
Issue number: 40
Format: PDF
Pages: 17

Download:

English - Download the full-text document (287 KB)

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Georgian Apologists (at home and abroad)


CircassianWorld.com May 14, 2008

George Hewitt (Professor of Caucasian Languages, SOAS, London University)




Close observers of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict over the years will be all too familiar with cases where a Georgian spokesman produces a charge which has little (if any) relationship with reality — evidence/statements to the contrary are airily dismissed, and the charges are reiterated. Take the interchange that took place in London on 23rd November 1992 at an open meeting at Chatham House between Georgia's then Foreign Minister, Aleksandre Chik'vaidze, and (the late) Lord David Ennals, one-time UK Minister of Health. This illustrative citation, relating to the situation in the northern Abkhazian town of Gagra after its recapture by the Abkhazians in October 1992, is taken from Appendix 6 of my 1993 article 'Abkhazia: a problem of identity and ownership' (Central Asian Survey 12.3):

Chik'vaidze: [...] the Abkhazians treacherously attacked and captured Gagra. Today the Abkhazian separatists and their so-called volunteers are treating the Georgians so badly that one could accuse them of genocide. In Abkhazia today we see the same mixture of home-grown fascists and external reactionary forces that exist in other parts also of the ex-USSR...
Questions
(1) Lord David Ennals: I was in Abkhazia only 2 weeks ago as part of a UN mission, and I can tell you that I have proof that your Georgian troops have been treating the Abkhazians atrociously. What do you say about this, and why do you not issue an invitation for the newly appointed CSCE commissioner for ethnic minorities (a former Foreign Minister of Holland) to involve himself immediately in this war?
Chik'vaidze: I can tell you that the North Caucasian forces are mistreating local Georgians — indeed, there is not a single Georgian house between the Russian border and Sukhum that the Abkhazians have not burned.
Ennals: Excuse me, but I was in Gagra, where I spoke to many Georgians who were living in their own houses.
Chik\vaidze: No, you do not understand, I am telling you that there is not a single Georgian property left unburnt between the Russian border and Sukhum. Half a million [sic!] Georgians have already fled from Abkhazia [N.B. according to the 1989 census there were only 239,872 "Georgians" living in Abkhazia! — BGH]. As for the CSCE commissioner, I have to tell you that we Georgians are a special people with our own customs that are poorly understood by outsiders, and so we have to sort out our own problems without any external assistance.


Giorgi Baramidze, Deputy-Premier of Georgia, on a tour to Europe and the USA in April 2008 made the charge (as on his BBC News 24 interview for the programme Hard Talk with Stephen Sackur) that the Georgian population living today in Abkhazia (primarily in the south-easternmost province of Gal) is 'subjected to daily killings and rapes', something which simply has no basis in fact.

Another common trope in Georgians' assertions about the Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1992-93 is that it was a war not between Georgians and Abkhazians, but rather between Georgians and Russians. As regards one crucial action in that war, the already mentioned retaking of the northern town of Gagra by the Abkhazians and their allies, here is what the independent American observer Dodge Billingsley wrote about it in 1998:


Excerpt from Dodge Billingsley's 'Military Aspects of the War. The Battle for Gagra
(The Turning-point)'
Chapter 9 of The Abkhazians: a Handbook, (edited by George Hewitt, Curzon Press 1998)

Many in Georgia and elsewhere feel that the war was really a Russian-Georgian conflict. This is a complicated issue. Technically, all volunteers from the North Caucasus were Russian citizens. The real question, however, centres on motivation and how the volunteers saw themselves. There were many indications that Chechen assistance to Abkhazia was stimulated by independent aspirations related to a pan-Caucasian federation rather than any Russian plot. The best known Chechen to fight against Georgia, Shamil Basaev (now deputy to Chechen's President Maskhadov), stated that 'as long as the small Abkhazian people suffered in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, his units would help them, but in the event of hostilities between Russia and Georgia, the volunteers would fight on the Georgian side'
[1].
There were, however, verified cases of Russian assistance. Russian pilots were actually shot down by Kartvelian units, but the incidents were isolated and more likely reflected free-lancing by rogue elements of the Russian military, a fact which has precedence elsewhere in the Caucasus, including the earlier Georgian conflict in South Ossetia
[2]. Moreover, there were other indications that Russia (Yeltsin) knew of Shevardnadze's plan and was prepared to look the other way. Commenting on the unruly nature of the Kartvelian forces, Shevardnadze remarked that he was against sending his troops into Sukhum: 'I wanted our military units to go around Sukhumi and move to Gagra... When I spoke to Yeltsin on the next day [after the beginning of hostilities], he told me: "The generals can get out of control and you, as a smart man, should know it".'[3] Russia did meddle in the conflict, but the factor that made the difference were the hundreds and hundreds of volunteers that made their way to the region to engage Kartvelian forces throughout the war. This is not to say that the volunteers might not incidentally have served the strategy of some circles in the Russian military-political arena. However, the volunteers, many of whom were Chechen, had their own reasons for helping Abkhazia, as the more recent war in Chechenia has demonstrated.
There is no doubt that volunteers from abroad did add to the quantity and quality of the Abkhazian military effort, but their numbers were still small. Although Abkhazian veterans claim that there were only 300 combatants on their side, it is more realistic that their numbers exceeded 500. However, Abkhazians never held an overall numerical advantage. Locally-based UN military observers substantiate these Abkhazian claims, suggesting that Kartvelian troops did indeed outnumber Abkhazian personnel but were so ill-disciplined that the Abkhazian victory at Gagra should have come as no surprise
[4].
What was a surprise was the ability of the Abkhazian movement successfully to incorporate volunteers from the North Caucasus and elsewhere, primarily Turkey, arriving to fight for Abkhazia. Abkhazia would prove most adept at this throughout the course of the war. Military cohesion on an individual- and group-level was always better on the Abkhazian side. The reasons for this need to be explored in depth. However, it must suffice to say that this factor, illustrated so clearly at Gagra, was one of the most crucial determining factors in Abkhazia's success and Georgia's failure.
In many ways the battle for Gagra was the battle for Abkhazia itself. Once in control of the border and port-facilities in the northern corner of Abkhazia, the Abkhazian leadership was assured that supplies and manpower would get through. On the other hand, after the loss of Gagra, Georgia could only hope for a break-out on the Sukhum front. Reeling from the loss of Gagra, Kartvelian forces proved incapable of further large-scale offensive operations. There were only four more meaningful offensives undertaken that are worthy of note (January 1993, March 1993, July 1993 and the final offensive of September 1993), and all were conducted by the Abkhazian side.
It is perhaps understandable (if not pardonable) if utterances that come tripping from the mouths of representatives of the side which started the war and suffered a humiliating defeat often play fast and loose with reality in order to mislead a world largely ignorant of the region into believing that the West's chief bogey-nation, Russia, was responsible for dashing Georgianss bright hopes in the early years of post-communist independence — sadly, the West all too readily allowed itself to be duped into falling for this deception. But it is more perplexing to find a host of non-Georgians playing the same game and serving up assertions straight out of the pages of the Georgian propaganda-manual. One such is Svetlana Chervonnaja, whose main publications over the years have been concerned with Tatar art. In 1993 she published in Russian Abxazija 1992: Post-kommunisticheskaja vandeja, which appeared in English translation in 1994 under the title Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow. Here is a quotation from a short review I wrote of it at the time:

Anyone unwise enough to believe the purpose of this book is to shed light should ponder the following. Much is made of the distribution of seats in the Abkhazian parliament of 1991, whereby the 17% Abkhazians held 28 of the 65. This fact was stressed at the book's London launch by Levan Alexidze, human rights' officer at the UN Secretariat (1970-77) and now chief advisor to Shevardnadze, who also contributed a Postscript to the work, as an example of anti-Georgian machinations in Abkhazia. This electoral law was also the sole document shewn to the second mission to Abkhazia/Georgia from the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples' Organisation (The Hague) when visiting Tbilisi in November 1993 in support of allegations of genocide against the Georgian population. As UNPO's report tersely notes, the personal advisor to the Georgian President, Levan Alexidze, was co-author of this law...[5].

Of late, however, the most consistently egregious example of a non-Georgian propagandist for the Georgian cause is Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation. His latest 'contribution', if that is the appropriate word to describe what flows from his pen/computer-keyboard, namely 'The West can respond more effectively to Russia's assault on Georgia: part III', appeared on 9th May. In it we read the following:

The Russian military, not the Abkhaz (17 percent of the region's pre-conflict population) evicted the Georgian population (45 percent of the pre-conflict population) from Abkhazia by force[6].

This, of course, is completely consistent with the charge discussed above with particular reference to the retaking of Gagra. But is Socor's description of events actually what happened?

As noted above, in November-December of 1993 the Unrepresentated Nations and Peoples' Organisation (UNPO) organised a visit to (now post-war) Abkhazia. Their report was published in 1995 in Central Asian Survey 14.1 (pp. 127-154). Regrettably (if perfectly understandably, given human nature) after a bitterly contested civil war, there were cases of retribution by the victorious side for the atrocities committed by the occupiers[7], and this has to be openly acknowledged, as indeed the UNPO report did. However, due attention should be paid to the closing sentence of the following remarks from p. 138:

In the final stages of the war, when Abkhazian forces, supported by military units from the Northern Caucasus, took back Sukhum and the remaining Abkhazian territory to the Ingur river, there is evidence of serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed by members of the Abkhazian forces, Northern Caucasus troops and by armed civilians. When Abkhazian troops entered Sukhum many civilians were killed. Similar incidents also occurred in other parts of Abkhazia. THE MAJORITY OF GEORGIANS, HOWEVER, FLED BEFORE ABKHAZIAN AND NORTHERN CAUCASUS TROOPS ARRIVED (stresses added).

The Kartvelian inhabitants of the occupied areas might well have had good reasons to fear what would happen to them, especially if they had given active support to the occupation, but, if the majority abandoned Abkhazia before the arrival of the Abkhazians and their north Caucasian allies, how can that flight be accurately described as 'ethnic cleansing', as it usually is, or to have been occasioned by military force (let alone RUSSIAN military force)? It was a case of 'self-cleansing', carried out in the desperate chaos of the hour despite the distribution by the Abkhazian authorities throughout the relevant parts of Abkhazia of a leaflet (appended below) reminding everyone of their moral obligation to treat with respect anyone laying down weapons as well as members of the civilian population.

Lest anyone be tempted to see in the phrase 'military units from the Northern Caucasus' a reference to the Red Army, the explanation comes from the previous page of the Report, where we read (p. 137-8):

A group of approximately 300 soldiers from the Northern Caucasus served in the Abkhazian army. According to official representatives of the Northern Caucasus Federation these men came voluntarily 'to the rescue of their neighbouring people'...A number of Chechen soldiers were incorporated into the Abkhazian army, while others served in a Chechen battalion under Chechen command.

So much, then, for the latest example of Socor's fanciful rewriting of history.

_________________

[1]'The Georgian Chronicle', Monthly Bulletin, Center for Peace, Development and Democracy, March-April 1993, p.5.
[2]During the war between Georgia and South Ossetia, V. Adamia (leader of the Georgian military), claimed that both his forces and South Ossetian units rented Russian heavy weapons and personnel for military operations.
[3]'The Georgian Chronicle', Monthly Bulletin, January-February 1993, p.7.
[4]Interview with UNOMIG commander J. Hvidegaard, Sukhum, June 1995.
[5]It should be stressed that the Abkhazians never wanted such a parliament; their preference was for a bi-cameral arrangement, but the single chamber-parliament with an ethnically determined division of seats was forced upon them by Tbilisi.
[6]I personally never refer to the 'Georgian' population of Abkhazia, since most of them were Mingrelians. As there were also Georgian and Svan (concentrated in the Upper K'odor Valley) contingents, I prefer to refer to this section of Abkhazian society holistically/generically as 'Kartvelian'.
[7]The Report gives details; for example (p. 137): 'During the Georgian occupation, Abkhaz, Armenians, Greeks and Russians were harassed, imprisoned, subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment for the sole reason of belonging to those ethnic groups...A number of mass-graves have reportedly been discovered in Abkhazia since the end of the war. In one of the graves, located in Sukhum near the municipal hospital, 128 bodies were discovered. All bodies had bullet woulds and traces indicating that the hands had been bound with barbed wire behind the victims' backs.' And, of course, no-one forgets (even today) the chilling threat from the autumn of 1992 by the general in charge of the Georgian troops in Abkhazia, Gia Q'arq'arashvili, when he said on TV that he was perfectly prepared to sacrifice 100,000 Georgians to liquidate all 93,000 Abkhazians, if that is what it took to keep Georgia's borders inviolate...
Related Issues