Monday, 14 September 2009

Window on Eurasia: Circassian Youth Seek ‘Radical’ Renewal of National Movement

Paul Goble

Vienna, September 14 -- Disappointed with the current state of the Circassian national movement in the North Caucasus, representatives of youth groups from the four nationalities into which the Soviet government forcibly divided the Circassians have called for a “radical” restructuring of the national movement to make it better able to advance the Circassian cause.

At a meeting in Cherkessk on Saturday, delegates adopted a resolution stating that “over the last nine years,” the Circassian organizations created to address “pressing national issues” have not worked in a satisfactory way” and as a result, “a generation of people has grown up who do not know or understand” the extent of the nation’s problems.

The forum said that “most of the large number of NGOs” involved in this process are failing either because they “have no real connection with the public” often “express their personal views” rather than those of the nation, and do not include a sufficient number of young people (www.justicefornorthcaucasus.com/jfnc_message_boards/russian.php?title=Резолюция-форума-черкесской-(адыгской)-молодежи&entry_id=1252947053&comments=comments).

Noting that their nation had been “the victim of genocide” in the 18th and 19th centuries” and of ethnic engineering in the 20th when Stalin divided the nation into four “supposedly different nationalities – the Adygeys, the Kabards, the Circassians and the Shapsugs” – the resolution said that resulting fragmentation had left the nation in a very precarious position.

If these divisions are not overcome and soon, the resolution said, they could lead to “the extinction of the Circassian language, the loss of identity, complete assimilation, and put at risk the existence of the entire ethnic group.” And it pointed out, that this process of the destruction of the Circassian nation is taking place “even faster” in the diaspora abroad.

Like any other ethnic community, the resolution said, the Circassians must work to promote “the consolidation, protection and development of their language and culture, their identity, interests and values,” and thus restore “the unity of the Circassian nation within a single federal subject in Russia.”

That nation would have “a single name, a single literary language, and common national symbols, something that the Circassian national movement had been organized around in the early 1990s but that the International Circassian Organization, which was “created to address them,” has failed to do.

A major reason for that, the youth forum declared, is that government officials sought to control the organization, thus “slowing down all the processes launched by the best minds of the nation in the 1990s.” To restart the national movement, the youth forum said, that group must be “radically reformed” and its leadership must include more young people.

To that end, the forum adopted an eight point program: First, it called for the establishment of a permanent body to be called the Circassian Youth Coordinating Council to help ensure that the values and ideas of Circassian young people have a means of influencing other Circassian groups and the Russian state.

Second, it demanded that Moscow recognize the four groups into which the Circassians were divided as members of a single nation with a single language and allow all of them to be counted as Circassians at the next census and to have Circassian listed as their native language in that enumeration.

Third, it called for the celebration of a World Day of the Circassian Flag. Fourth, it called for move toward “a single standard language for all Circassians” by developing common language textbooks. Fifth, it proposed holding a scientific conference in early 2010 in Nalchik to attract attention to the Circassian cause.

Sixth, it called for delegates at the next congress of the International Circassian Association (scheduled to take place in Maikop October 3-4) to press for the creation of a special youth wing of the Association and the inclusion of young people in the executive committee of the ICA.

Seventh, it suggested creating “a committee to counter the historical falsification” of the past of the Circassians. And eighth, it called on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to support legislation on the Circassians that would allow more of the diaspora to return to their North Caucasus homeland.

This resolution is important not because the organizers are likely to achieve all of their goals but rather because it is a reminder to their Circassian elders to take a more active stand lest the current leadership find itself swept away by the more numerous and more assertive young and to the Russian powers that be to be more forthcoming lest they face a larger challenge.

Sunday, 13 September 2009

“Circassian circle” dancing show takes place in Maykop


NatPress - Authors of the dancing show “Circassian circle” invite all the inhabitants and the visitors of Adygeya capital! Only one day in Maykop!

On September, 30th at 7-00 p.m. in the State philarmonic society of Adygeya Republic (Maykop, Pionerskaya street, 300) there will be the dancing show "Circassian circle" in which spectators could see created at the high-professional level and with love the image of Adygs and the peoples of the whole Caucasus in an original interpretation with using the modern technologies. Information by phones 53-12-77, 53-46-01.

The dancing show "Circassian circle" in Maykop! The show comes to its end, and it becomes close on the stage: tens spectators come to the actors to thank them personally. Inhabitants of the republic “Circassian circle” were touched in the part of their hearts which is given for ever to the small native land, to the ancestors and to what the ancestors bequeathed to new generations. That was the end of the short, but the triumphal tours which had marked the first anniversary of "Circassian circle”.

The unusual folk-show had been already seen in Adygeya, Karachaevo-Circassia, Moscow and St.-Petersburg. In Cherkessk the applause lasted nearby half an hour. And in the northern capital the youth, not having remained sitting in the hall, started storming the stage, wishing to participate in the incendiary dancing. Nalchik citizen Robert Saralp gave his compatriots a unique opportunity during the show to feel as an integral part of the one and huge world civilization. “ Not a people - neither numerous, nor small - can survive alone in the modern world. We are all a part of the world community, and only through the universal prism we should look at what was, what is and what will be to my people. My people is a part of the mankind”, - the author of "Circassian circle” explained the idea that has begun the project to which he been going long enough.

The graduate of well-known "Schuka" Robert Saralp, the actor of drama theatre and cinema, he played the leading roles in Shoghentsukov’s theatre. But he really found himself in the genre, apparently, alien to the Caucasian mentality - clowning, having organized in 1991 the legendary troupe "Butterfly". The main clown of the world Vyacheslav Polunin invited him to the well-known “Snow show” that blown up the theatre life and travelled triumphally around the world for more than 10 years.

Polunin entrusted the star role to Saralp, who also became the diplomaed director. It was already the second season “the yellow clown” in Robert's performance collects notices on the Broadway. “Snow show” is the sweetest ode to loneliness in the world without borders. And only true clown can talk to the world in the universal language - the language of love, beauty and pleasure, not demanding additional explanatories. That inspired Robert to creation of "Circassian circle”.

The name “Circassian circle” was thought up by no the project’s founders at all. The dance with such a name was popular in Europe in the XVIII century and was considered quite secular. In many countries it is remembered so far though in the course of time it lost similarity with the dances of Circassians and has another name.

In Scotland – “Irish jig”, in Italy – “tarantella”.

Costumes of Madina Saralp specially made for the show, remind of everything in the world - ballet clothes, theatrical requisite, fancy and ball dresses. But a Kabardian would not doubt that somebody from among his ancestors … could wear all of that.

The unusual footwear for the performers was made by Nalchik citizen Aslan Kerefov; the stylized Circassian hats for mountain men – by Svetlana Kholmanova, and the well-known master of the national ornaments Vyacheslav Mastafov incurred creation of the accessories.

Composer Anzor Uvizhev created a surprising music. It is the music of a mountaineer knowing both the folk melodies of the whole world and the classics, as well as jazz and blues. A mountaineer who understands how men of various people can talk to each other, not saying a word. Understands what feelings the mountains’ music causes in somebody’s soul, whether it were the tops of Scotland, Mexico, Caucasus …

Circassian Olympiad tamed Elbrus

NatPress - September 11 - In honour of the World Circassian games of 2012 on September, 8th an expedition from seven persons climbed onto Elbrus. One of the authors of the project Sufian Zhemuhov observed the climbing. The other author of the project Alexey Bekshokov, chairman of the Union of the Abkhazian volunteers, handled the climbers for fixing on Elbrus the Circassian flag which on September, 27th, 1993 was fixed above the building of the Government of Abkhazia at its clearing by the Kabardian reconnoiter-assault group.

“Our climbing, - Sufian Zhemuhov said, - had two purposes: on the one hand, the climbing to Elbrus will focus attention to our project which overall objective is let the world know Circassians better. On the other hand, we anticipate the opening the World Circassian games when in 2012 as the symbolical opening of Circassiad would be ignition at top of Elbrus of the Olympic fire which will be carried through the subjects of Russian Federation where Circassians live, as well as across the countries with Circassian Diaspora”.

Handing over to the participants of the climbing certificates of honour on behalf of the Union of Abkhazian volunteers, Alexey Bekshokov told: “This climbing is a historical moment. For the first time for the sixteen years after fixing of the Circassian flag on the building of the Government of Abkhazia now it is fixed on the highest top of Europe. I think the World Circassian games are the project, worthy such honour”.

Ahmed Psheunov, Abkhazian volunteer who had sponsored the climbing, accepting on behalf of the Union of Abkhazian volunteers the Diploma “Ambassador of Circssiad-2012”, assured that the organization would try to justify the mission it was entrusted and would devote to that its separate direction in the activities. His son Ali, a member of the expedition, expressed his pride to that he had taken part in the climbing.

Kazbek Shibzuhov, guide of the expedition, noted that for his memories it was the first Circassian ethnic project in honour of which climbing on top of Elbrus was organized. The other participant of the expedition a television cameraman Alim Eleev who was shooting the climbing, offered to include in the program of Circassiad- 2012 a high-speed climbing as a show kind of sports.

At the top of Elbrus the members of the expedition met two foreign groups of the climbers and together with them loudly proclaimed for several times in English: “Kindness begets kindness”, - the Circassian saying which became the slogan of Circassiad.

The head of the Belgian group of climbers led by the well-known climber Rudi Van Snaik, who had subdued the highest tops of all the continents, including three times climbing to Everest, expressed his interest in the project of Circassian Olympiad and supported the participants of the organized climbing.

One of the members of the other international group of the European climbers Rudolf Fekhbauer, an engineer from Germany, was interviewed by the Russian TV-channel "World" in which he expressed a pleasant surprise that Russia organizes Circassian Olympiad before the Sochi Olympiad. “By means of this Russia shows the world that it respects the peoples living in its territory as recently China during the Peking Olympiad had shown tolerance and humanity concerning to the problem questions of the internal policy”, - the German climber declared.

After returning of the expedition to Nalchik on Abkhazia square the ceremony of awarding of the diploma “Ambassador of Circassiad-2012” to the Union of Abkhazian volunteers took place. The text of the diploma says:

“The union of Abkhazian volunteers is the Ambassador of Circassiad-2012 - the World Circassian games. In honour of it on September, 8th, 2009 on the top of Elbrus the Circassian flag which for the first time had been fixed by volunteers Azamat Khagazheev and Aslan Abaev above the government building after the storm by the division of the armed forces of Abkhazia - Kabardian reconnoiter-assault group Muaed Shorov on September, 27th, 1993 during clearing of Abkhazian capital Sukhum by the Abkhazian army, is set up”.

Thursday, 10 September 2009

Venezuela to recognize S.Ossetia, Abkhazia as independent states - Chavez

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez announced that the country now recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations.

Venezuela joins the recognition of independence of the republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” the South American leader said during his visit to Russia.

He added that Caracas will soon take action to establish official diplomatic links with both countries.

Commenting on the news, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said: “We always said it was the sovereign right of every nation to either recognize them or not to, so this is a big commitment.”

He thanked Chavez for supporting Russia in taking heart in the fate of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Venezuela became the third member of the United Nations after Russia and Nicaragua to support the independence of the former Georgian republics.

Russia recognized them shortly after defending South Ossetia from at attack by Georgian forces in 2008.

The majority of other nations, including four other members of the UN Security Council opposed the move, saying that the principle of territorial integrity was more important in this case than the right of nations to self-determination.




Wednesday, 9 September 2009

North Caucasus: united we stand, divided we fall!


Sergei Markedonov, 8 - 09 - 2009 - openDemocracy

Responding to oD Russia's recent article by Denis Corboy et al the distinguished Russian commentator Sergei Markedonov disagrees profoundly. Better to pay attention to the threat political Islam poses to our common values and come up with a joint strategy.

The consequences of the ‘flaming August' (as we call the Georgian war) and the ensuing upheavals are still being hotly discussed by experts and politicians in Russia and the West. Unfortunately, though much has been written, this has not led to a significantly improved understanding of what happened in the South Caucasus a year ago.

The reason is obvious. The discussions amount to little more than two monologues. Russian experts and politicians still insist on talking about the ‘state which has risen from its knees', ‘Western double standards', ‘the genocide of the Ossetian people' and ‘defending our compatriots'. Their European and American colleagues inflame fears of a ‘new cold war' and ‘Russian imperialism'. The country is ‘rising from its knees' for them too, but this is has a minus sign next to it. They also talk of the complete transformation of the Russian Federation from status quo power to revisionist, which not even the global crisis can halt in its tracks. What is the outcome of these debates? There is no real debate (if we exclude name-calling and propaganda lynching of one another), which is why there is no understanding of either side's arguments and motives.

It was with these ideas in mind that I took up the article Beware Russia's Three Tinderboxes - a title that leaves no room for doubt. Readers are warned that the West must take account of Russia's aggressive behaviour. From the very first line the authors advise against trying to understand Russia's motives (no question of justifying them), or analysing possible scenarios for accommodating this important (for the West too), if inconvenient, partner. They tell us Russia should be feared. It would probably have been possible to avoid disagreement with the authors, if they had embarked on their article with a ready-made answer, rather than setting out the conditions. But the authorial trio are very influential people who form the Western community's public and expert opinion.

'Denis Corboy is director of the Caucasus Policy Institute at Kings College London and was European Commission ambassador to Georgia and Armenia. William Courtney was U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia. Kenneth Yalowitz is director of the Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College and was U.S. ambassador to Belarus and Georgia'.

The authors of this article have both profound knowledge and serious experience, so instead of an angry rebuke and ready answers 'from our side', it would be more constructive to begin a serious polemic around the arguments and facts they put forward. Especially as the arguments are not new. They are deftly grouped together and well described.

The authors' 'warning' came on the eve of the imminent EU and G20 summits, which had to respond to the 'three-dimensional' security threat emanating from Russia. What are the three areas to which the West must pay special attention? They are: increasing pressure on Georgia and Ukraine and terrorism and repressions in the Russian North Caucasus republics with predominantly Muslim populations. As Nikita Khrushchev, that well-known master of the aphorism, said 'the aims are obvious, the objectives defined - to work, comrades!'

Let us briefly examine the threats defined by the authors as the West's primary concern. The combination of words in the first two - pressure on Georgia and Ukraine - reflect an approach that I call 'the football philosophy'. The decision has already been taken which team we support and the complexities of a bilateral relationship are replaced by black and white analysis. The authors consider that 'the most serious Russian challenges in the near abroad are directed at Georgia and Ukraine, two countries which seek EU and NATO membership and have some form of democracy'. The reader is once more presented with a simple formula. It appears that Georgia and Ukraine's conflict with Russia is because they aspire to join NATO and want democracy. Democracy in these two post-Soviet republics could (and should) be the subject of a large monograph, rather than a small article. I should say immediately that I consider the Russian political regime authoritarian and archaic, but surely this is not a reason for handing out democratic indulgences to the Georgian and Ukrainian governments? I should like to see if an impartial reader could find even two differences between the closing of the Russian TV station NTV and the crackdown on Imedi in Georgia. Between the breaking up of the Georgian opposition in Tbilisi on 7 November 2007 and dispersing the 'Dissidents' March' in Moscow, or the 'United National Movement' in Georgia and 'United Russia'. Between the populism of Putin and that of Saakashvili, the storming of Grozny and of Tskhinvali.

We should also point out that the Georgian attack in August 2008 was not the first, but the fourth in the last 17 years. It's hard to believe that such knowledgeable authors have no idea of the realities of the 2006 local authority election campaign in Georgia, or the violations of the ceasefire in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The authors don't mention that Saakashvili was trying to 'unfreeze' the two conflicts by using force and provocations (the 'small war' in Tliakana in August 2004, deployment of subdivisions in Kodori in defiance of the 1994 Moscow Agreements). It was he who catapulted his country into the terrible catastrophe of August 2008. After all, until last year no one (including Georgia) had revoked either the 1992 Dagomys or the 1994 Moscow Agreements)!

It is difficult not to object to the authors' comments on Ukraine too. According to them, the country is seeking a way into NATO. But do the esteemed authors not know the results of the Ukrainian opinion polls? Or do President Yushchenko and his team (with their maximum 5% support) reflect the will of the Ukrainian people for them? And I mean the whole people: in the Crimea and the Donbass, who speak Russian and want cooperation and rapprochement with their Russian neighbour. They don't want to secede from Ukraine or set up pro-Russian separatist enclaves, I stress, they simply want to communicate in their mother tongue, which is unfortunately Russian, not English. Or should we label them 'misguided' and 'infected with communist phobias'? But can this approach be considered a Western value?

Leonid Kuchma, the second president of Ukraine, wrote a book called 'Ukraine is not Russia' several years ago. Today another book should be written specially for Viktor Yushchenko and his lawyers 'Ukraine is not Galicia'. This would help them to understand that preserving ethnic diversity and developing multilingualism is in Ukrainian national interest, rather than imperial Russia's. This is the best way of preserving the country's unity. Primitive ethnic nationalism and a stand-off between separate parts of the country will have a much more destructive effect on Ukraine than thousands of statements by Yury Luzhkov or Konstantin Zatulin, who are so often quoted in the EU and USA.

Yushchenko's democracy also needs more critical examination. He has violated procedures (the very foundations of democracy) more often than any other leader in the CIS.

But if democracy is not the issue, then what is? It would appear that many people in the USA and EU do not wish to understand a seemingly simple point. The formal legal act (the Belovezhsky Agreement) and the historical process of the disintegration of the USSR are two very different things. After 1991 the former Soviet republics went their own ways: the formation of these nation states was a very complicated process, so it would have been extremely naïve to even think that it could have been painless or fallen out exactly along the borders drawn up by party bosses of the various former Soviet administrative units with no thought for the views of any of the nationalities concerned.

After 1991 all the newly independent states had to prove that their appearance on the scene was not an accident of fate and that the new citizens recognised their borders. Each republic chose different ways of doing this. Some chose the ethnocentric model (Georgia and Armenia), others the model of a civic nation (Kazakhstan and that same Ukraine). Ernest Renan once described a nation as a 'daily plebiscite', so it it hardly surprising that the plebiscite with a slogan 'Georgia for the Georgians' was unwinnable in Abkhazia or South Ossetia. My esteemed opponents assert that no one recognises Abkhazia or South Ossetia even in the near abroad, but surely recognition is not the main point. For them to exist as they are today needs recognition only from their own citizens. This is what the Turks have been doing for more than 20 years in the Republic of Northern Cyprus, and the population in former Spanish Morocco. It is unfortunate, but true, that the interests of small nations play no part in 'great game' discussions.

Or if they do, then only from the practical point of view. From any point of view it would be wrong to extrapolate the situation in Georgia to Ukraine. The Crimea had no previous autonomous regions which were abolished (as South Ossetia did); even at the high point of pro-Russian irredentism in 1994 no troops were deployed and there were no de facto states or conflicts. Who said they were inevitable? We should not forget that almost immediately after the 'five-day war', Moscow extended the 'Great Agreement' with Kiev for another 10 years. An outstanding demonstration of 'revisionism' and nothing to do with democracy or NATO! All this is part of the complicated process of forming new nation states. Today the post-Soviet formations are repeating the Central and Eastern European experience (they are essentially similar processes) some 6 or 7 decades later and with all the excesses typical of those countries. This is not to justify Russian policies. Understanding the characteristics of the political processes is much more important than propaganda.

Our three esteemed authors regard the situation in the Russian North Caucasus as the third challenge. Here again we have the football philosophy, when responsibility is not shared, but focused on Russia alone.

'The brutal subjugation of Chechnya in two separatist wars since the early 1990s has caused widespread alienation. Human rights activists, journalists, and political opponents of Chechen leader Razman Kadyrov are murdered with shocking frequency. Attacks against police forces, known for corruption and torture of prisoners, are steadily mounting. Spreading violence in Dagestan is particularly worrisome. With two-and-one-half million residents from thirty-odd ethnic groups, it is much more populous than Chechnya and lies on Azerbaijan's northern border'.

But how are the two anti-separatist campaigns in Chechnya connected to the situation in Dagestan today? In Chechnya the separatists were fighting for the secular nationalist project outside Russia. In Dagestan today (as in Chechnya after 2004) the main challenge is not separatism, but radical Islam, so to see the current situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia as influencing the North Caucasus (as our esteemed authors do) is a big mistake. A separatist agenda is not relevant for the North Caucasus any more. Today's heroes are different. They condemned Akhmed Zakayev (one of the national-separatist leaders) to death and see themselves as part of the global jihad. This is not only the result of errors in Russian policy (although there were many and they also 'assisted' this result), but also of the complex reflex action which is moving through the Islamic world from Afghanistan to the Philippines.

The current Islamist activities in the North Caucasus have to be seen as part of the general evolution of social thought in the Islamic East from the European nationalist discourse to Islamic fundamentalism. But what is interesting is that Islamists in the North Caucasus today regard the West as their enemy, as well as Russia. The credo of the Islamist 'Caucasian Emirate' founder Dokka Umarov states that 'we are an inalienable part of the Islamic Umma. I am angered by the position of Muslims who see as enemies only the kuffar who have directly attacked them, though they seek support and sympathy from other kuffar, forgetting that all unbelievers are one nation. Our brothers are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Palestine. Anyone who has attacked Muslims, wherever they are, is our enemy and the enemy of one is the enemy of all' (my italics SM).

So perhaps, instead of using Russia as a threat and secretly rejoicing at her trouble spots, it would be better to work on a joint strategy against those who are opposed to the values of the Western world, values that Russians on the whole share. The founders of the 'Emirate' are for the moment only putting forward a minimal programme: 'our primary aim is to make the Caucasus Dar-as-Salam by establishing sharia law there and driving out the unbelievers. Our second aim is then to take back all the lands which historically belong to the Muslims. These borders lie beyond the frontiers of the Caucasus'. The Western world is just over the Black Sea from the Caucasus. Not such a great distance in today's globalised world!

Thursday, 3 September 2009

The international legal status of the Republic of Abkhazia in the light of international law



The international legal status of the Republic of Abkhazia in the light of international law. Paper read at the conference “Independence of Abkhazia and Prospects for the Caucasus” organized by the Friends of Abkhazia Civil Initiative. Istanbul, Bilgi University, 30 May 2009.

Dr. Viacheslav A. Chirikba
Foreign Policy Adviser to the President of the Republic of Abkhazia: Dept. of Geopolitics, Centre for Strategic Studies, Sukhum, Republic of Abkhazia: Chief negotiator, the Abkhaz delegation to the EU, UN & OSCE sponsored "Geneva Discussions" (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Georgia, Russia, US, EU, OSCE, UN). (2008)
PhD in 1996, Leiden University, The Netherlands.


HTML Version: http://www.abkhazworld.com/articles/analysis/285

Related issues

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

openDemocracy: Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response

openDemocracy, 25 August 2009

by George Hewitt

An anniversary article on the Georgia-Russia war of August 2008 from the perspective of Abkhazia has provoked a vigorous reaction focusing on questions of linguistics, settlement, and current politics. Its author, George Hewitt, responds to some of the points raised.

The article I was invited to contribute to openDemocracy to mark the anniversary of the events of August 2008 in South Ossetia and Abkhazia has occasioned an exchange of lengthy and sometimes heated comments (see "Abkhazia and South Ossetia, a year on", 11 August 2009). Some bear on substantive matters of history and linguistics as well as the interpretation of these recent political events; others include personal remarks directed at the author. This article responds to the former, though it begins with a few words on the latter.

When, as the first reactions came in, openDemocracy's deputy editor David Hayes (who commissioned the article) consulted me over possible responses to the more personal comments, I replied that it was best if everything was published exactly as submitted. This is in order that unbiased readers might see for themselves the sort of reaction (including attempts to discredit the author) that any questioning of the standard Georgian position on the Georgia-Abkhazia dispute always evokes and thus reach their own conclusions about (i) which side has the stronger arguments and (ii) whether there is any value in engaging in this kind of debate, when representatives of one side see in a text what they want to see rather than what is actually written there.

I had not intended myself to look at the comments attached to my article, as the content of the negative reactions was entirely predictable. A few individuals did, however, urge me to do so; and a reading of this material (forty-one postings at the time of writing) leads me to offer a few further observations, which gradually ascend from a response to the low currency of gratuitous insinuation to matters of scholarly record and relevance.

Since "Georgia" is a fluid concept, it is problematic to say definitively when I last set foot there. However, since the location of the capital, Tbilisi, is not in doubt, I can state that I have not visited there since the end of 1987 and have absolutely no intention of doing so again. But I was indeed lucky to be "in the right place at the right time": namely, two academic years spent in Soviet Georgia (1975-76; 1979-80) plus various stays there up to the mid-1980s. In these years, the atmosphere was that of a happy-go-lucky, hail-fellow-well-met, and (in Soviet terms) prosperous society, whose only (if privately expressed) rhetorical venom was directed against its northern overlord - a sentiment, however, never associated with Georgia's then communist party boss, Eduard Shevardnadze, for whom (notoriously) the sun rose from that direction.

Towards the end of the 1980s, Georgia's descent into the maelstrom of nationalism was alarmingly swift and depressing to watch. Sadly, it would appear that, far from learning the lessons and drawing the appropriate conclusions, this fundamental problem has not yet been recognised.

If my being married to an Abkhazian is irrelevant to the discussion, why mention it (though I normally do so myself in conversation in order not to be accused of withholding the fact)? But since it has been raised, a simple fact may be of interest to those who do so - including the poet Tariel Chanturia, who first cast the "aspersion" in his Georgian disquisition of 1989 on the importance of the boudoir in history. This is that my wife's advice in May 1989, when I first proposed contributing to the Georgian-Abkhazian debate, was that I should not become involved, as she accurately foresaw the nature of the reaction and predicted (contrary to my naïve belief) that reason and common sense would not prevail. >>Read more...