THE GENEVA DISCUSSIONS - THE SECOND WORKING GROUPTHE GENEVA DISCUSSIONS - THE SECOND WORKING GROUP Proposals of the Abkhazian side concerning issues of a humanitarian nature As a result of the Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1992, and the difficult situation caused by economic sanctions imposed upon Abkhazia by member states of the CIS due to the initiative of Georgia, tens of thousands of people became refugees and forcibly displaced persons who fled the Republic of Abkhazia. Having unleashed an armed conflict in Abkhazia, the Georgian leadership had undermined the national economy, creating intolerable conditions for a dignified life for the local population affected by the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. Tens of thousands of people were subjected to various indignities, insults, torture and execution without trial. During the fighting, and because of punitive actions against the peaceful population of Abkhazia, more than five thousand innocent people perished. More than 20 thousand houses and apartments were destroyed, as well as many cultural values; the ecological balance in the region was disrupted. More than 500 villages and settlements were deliberately destroyed. In territory occupied by Georgian forces indiscriminate robbery was carried out, followed by eviction of the non-Georgian population of Abkhazia. Residents of 23 villages were forced en masse to flee from their homes and escape to territories controlled by the Abkhazian military. Artillery units of Georgian troops were randomly bombarding peaceful villages and towns, using weapons prohibited by the Geneva Convention, which led to civilian casualties and damage to public property. In fact, the actions of Georgia led to several streams of refugees. Georgia purposefully created unacceptable conditions for the social and economic development of Abkhazia, and also launched three large-scale military operations, forcing those who had returned to become refugees again, in May 1998, October 2001 and August 2006. The Abkhazian side provides full support to the international humanitarian organizations carrying out projects in Abkhazia, particularly those from the European Commission. Considering reports provided annually to the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Abkhazia by various international organizations and monitoring missions regularly engaged in their activities in the territory of Abkhazia, the Abkhazian side, as well as international partners, notes the high level of cooperation with these organizations. However, the fact that the provision of humanitarian assistance is often tied to the views and interests of the Georgian side causes some concern. Dependence of international organizations on the decisions taken in Tbilisi leads to the fact that humanitarian activities, designed to provide assistance in reducing and eliminating the effects of the war unleashed against Abkhazia, have been linked with prospects of settling the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict in favour of Georgia. In addition, the Law on occupied territories adopted by Georgia in October 2008, according to which the Georgian Government imposes non-legitimate restrictions on the free movement of foreign nationals, directly impedes implementation of humanitarian programs conducted by representatives of international organizations. This fact is also confirmed in the report prepared by the Venice Commission, which says: “Entrance to the country is prohibited, regardless of the reasons for entering; it extends to those providing necessary humanitarian assistance. In this regard, the provision may contravene the international obligations of Georgia”. Political constraints and the continued isolation of Abkhazia from the western community complicate the process of solving humanitarian problems. Some international donors often use Abkhazia as a platform for the implementation of unnecessary projects, with the aim of including them in the reports of an organization that allegedly covered Georgia and Abkhazia in their project work, although the amount of assistance is significantly disproportionate. Restrictions on the activities of international humanitarian organizations operating on the territory of the Republic of Abkhazia, in connection with the law on occupied territories adopted by the Parliament of Georgia, have a negative impact on the implementation of rehabilitation programs in Abkhazia. The threat itself, to close humanitarian projects for political reasons, is also unacceptable. A disproportionate approach to the problems of refugees and internally displaced persons is not conducive to the integration of Georgians returning into Abkhazian society. A concentration of international aid only on the problems of returning Georgian refugees creates a negative attitude towards the process of their returning among those who all these years have lived in villages destroyed by the Georgian army, and this does not contribute to the reduction of inter-ethnic tensions. In speaking about the importance of establishing inter-ethnic relations by improving the living conditions of people, Tbilisi has attempted to shift the focus towards the Georgian returnees. It should be noted that displaced persons within Abkhazia are not embraced by the attention of international donors and humanitarian organizations. Throughout the postwar years, in an attempt to assist in the return of Georgian refugees to their places of origin, international organizations haven’t provided proportional support to the non-Georgian population. This is especially important, as other regions of Abkhazia were affected more seriously than the Gal district. The international community, addressing the negative consequences of the war through humanitarian projects, does not consider equally the interests of all residents of Abkhazia and does not meet the needs of people in proportion. After the events of August 2008, the imbalance in the allocation of financial assistance for refugees in Abkhazia and Georgia has led to the outflow of people who returned to the Gal district back to Zugdidi. This fact has also been noted by many international organizations working in Abkhazia. To resolve this problem, the European Commission hastily allocated 2.5 million euros for Abkhazia. Nevertheless, the main problem in addressing the humanitarian situation related to the rehabilitation of an infrastructure and assistance to returnees is the lack of accurate information on the exact number of refugees and those who want and have the right to return, as well as those who are no longer refugees. An absence of clear, factual data is the main reason for the issue of refugees and internally displaced persons becoming a political matter, and it also influences the effectiveness of humanitarian aid. Quite often the same people receive humanitarian assistance on both sides of the Georgian-Abkhazian border, while there are other potential beneficiaries who remain without support. The Abkhazian side once again stresses the need for a balanced strategy for humanitarian assistance to returnees and IDPs. The focus of implementation of humanitarian projects is still directed towards the rehabilitation of refugees from the Gal district and improvement of their social conditions. In this way, the provision of selective assistance is discriminatory in relation to the rest of the inhabitants of Abkhazia. Against the backdrop of the continuing economic isolation of Abkhazia by Georgia, the international community insists that the Abkhazian side should continue to unilaterally arrange for the return of refugees, whilst economic sanctions undermine the economy of the country receiving those refugees. The main burden of addressing the social problems of the returning population falls on Abkhazia, and at the same time the country's leadership is denied not only the possibility of gaining any direct means of improving the lives of the population which has returned, but also of developing the country’s economy, on which the welfare of that returned population depends. The lack of an adequate assessment by the international community regarding Georgian economic sanctions against Abkhazia demonstrates that international humanitarian aid is not aimed at a sustainable development of an infrastructure and an improvement of living standards. Moreover, Tbilisi claims that refugees from Georgia have more rights to return than ethnic Abkhazians living abroad, or Greek, Estonian and other refugees deported from Abkhazia by the Georgian army during the Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1992-93. Considering the above-mentioned points, the Abkhazian side, seeking to facilitate the solving of humanitarian problems linked with refugees and internally displaced persons, calls on the international community to support the lifting of Georgian economic sanctions and in the near future to launch a means of verification of all categories of affected people, including refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as those who want or have the right to return. The Abkhazian side also reserves the right to review recommendations from the international community concerning the return of refugees and internally displaced persons through the perspective of the lifting of Georgian economic sanctions against Abkhazia. (Appendix: Document on justification of economic sanctions against Abkhazia) Clearly distinguishing between the concepts of “refugees” and “internally displaced persons”, the Abkhazian side under the term “refugees” recognizes the Georgian population which left the territory of Abkhazia during the fighting of 1992-1993 and after. This category of persons is in territory adjacent to Abkhazia, within the separate state of Georgia. The category of IDPs means people who were forced to leave their place of habitual residence due to war and the destruction of their homes within Abkhazia. The mass migration of Georgians to the territory of Abkhazia was undertaken during the reign of Stalin, namely from 1937 to 1954, by settling them in Abkhazian villages, as well as in Greek villages which became empty after the deportation of Greeks from Abkhazia in 1949. Following Beria’s initiative in 1937, practical implementation of the program of resettlement launched during the Menshevik occupation began. A Resettlement Department was created in 1939 at SNK GSSR, headed by V. Rapava. In his explanatory note V. Rapava said: “Resettlement of farmers and peasants in the Abkhazian ASSR was organised to use large quantities of vacant land that could not be exploited by the local population due to insufficient manpower” (CSAA, f. 214, sect. 1, doc. 8, p. 88). It was then that the systematic settlement in Abkhazia by persons of Georgian nationality began. The Georgianisation of Abkhazia took place against a background of a long-term ban on teaching in the Abkhazian language (which until 1950 was expelled from secondary schools and replaced with compulsory study of the Georgian language), instances of mass violations of the rights of Abkhazians, who were not allowed to register in towns; they were fired from their jobs, imprisoned, etc. “Abkhazpereselenstroy” (Abkhazian organization of resettlement) was a well-known project by Beria, which radically changed the demographic situation in Abkhazia. Georgians, Mingrelians, Svans and other sub-ethnic groups of Kartvelians with the lapse of time began to form the majority of the population in Abkhazia. Stalin's policy was aimed at depriving the Abkhazian people of their identity. The international community, whilst condemning the totalitarian regime of Stalin's era, continues to insist on preserving the boundaries of Georgia as amended by Stalin. Ethnic Georgians occupy responsible positions in higher bodies of legislative, executive and judicial branches of Abkhaz management; they work not only in public institutions, but also in hospitals, schools, banks, and the militia, and also study in higher educational institutions. Equality of people regardless of race, nationality, sex, language, origin, employment status, residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, ideologies and other factors is defined at legislative level in the Republic of Abkhazia. Registration and employment of staff is fulfilled on the basis of identity documents - USSR passport, passport of a citizen of the Republic of Abkhazia, or identity form 9. Persons who do not have citizenship of the Republic of Abkhazia, but are holders of passports of the USSR or identity form 9 have the same rights and privileges as other citizens of Abkhazia. Abkhazia, as an independent, legal and democratic state, has the right to grant inhabitants of the Republic Abkhazian passports if they wish to become citizens of the RA. It should be noted that the issue of Abkhazian passports facilitates the integration process of returning refugees, as evidenced by the data of international organizations stationed in Gal district. To date, the Abkhazian side does not have any evidence of the forcible issuing of Abkhazian passports. There has been no evidence of any coercion to obtain Abkhazian passports. It will be recalled that a permanent Human Rights office operates in Gal, as well as the offices of such organizations as UNHCR, NRC, DRC, and others who continuously provide expertise and assistance to Gal residents. Since August 2008, as a result of terrorist acts by the Georgian side, 5 people have been killed and more than 10 injured. . This was the result of an amnesty in Georgia, where members of subversive and terrorist groups were released from prison in September 2008 to resume terrorist activities against Abkhazia. If we trace the dynamics of the situation in the Gal region, we can see that a period of stability and security occurred in August 2008 at the time of conducting the operation of forcing Georgia to peace. During this period, more than 20 Russian families living in Georgia were forced to leave the territory of Georgia through Abkhazia, having been subjected to constant harassment and attacks. Several citizens of Georgia appealed to the Abkhazian leadership requesting political asylum, because in Georgia their lives were in danger. Until now, there has been no information about the fate of David Sigua, the Chairman of the Election Commission of Gal district, who was abducted by Georgian special services. He was kidnapped on February 3rd, 2007 from his home in Gal, after his public statements calling on the authorities of Georgia not to speculate on the issue of refugees.The Abkhazian side has once again asked for assistance in the investigation of the Sigua case and to make those who are responsible for his disappearance answerable. The Georgian side also has still not answered for the provocation aimed against the peaceful citizens of Abkhazia and Russian peacekeepers, as well as UN mission staff, who died in the Kodori Gorge in October 2001 as a result of Georgian military provocation. Despite incessant provocations by Georgia, the Abkhazian side continues to monitor the security situation of ethnic Georgians, and to consider the interests of the other ethnic groups living in Abkhazia, because all citizens of Abkhazia, regardless of ethnic, religious and other attributes, indirectly or directly have been affected by Georgian actions aimed at an escalation of the conflict throughout the region. Acknowledging the right of refugees to an adequate and safe return, and supporting the basic principles of international humanitarian law, the Abkhazian side continues to insist on the necessity of its participation in international treaties and conventions. The participation of Abkhazia in ‘Convention of 1951’ would allow Abkhazia to fully respond to recommendations of the international community on issues related to refugees and internally displaced persons. In order to avoid inaccuracies and registration misunderstandings it is necessary to work in close collaboration with UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations. The Abkhazian side once again expresses its readiness to work together on the introduction of complex procedures and the registration of persons who left the territory of Abkhazia during the war in 1992-93. At least one third of the refugees from Abkhazia left their historic homeland of Georgia, which is experiencing an economic crisis, in search of a better life. These people joined a Georgian diaspora of ex-citizens of Georgia, which numbers more than one million people who have left Georgia in search of work during the past decade. Many refugees have become citizens of other countries. Obtaining dual citizenship is not permitted under Georgian legislation, therefore refugees from Abkhazia who left for somewhere outside Georgia are now actually citizens of another state according to Georgian law. Under Article 10 of the Georgian Law on Refugees, refugee status ceases if: a) a person acquires citizenship of Georgia or of any other country; However, as a result of the Georgian-Abkhazian war, in Abkhazia there were massive migrations of the population (mostly ethnic Abkhazians) from eastern areas of the Republic. As a result of fighting and ethnic cleansing, the Abkhazian population fled to western districts of Abkhazia. Entire villages and towns in a literal sense became empty or were burnt to ashes by Georgian forces. Migration imbalance which occurred in the aftermath of war has had a negative impact for the Republic on the demographic distribution of the population in general. To resolve this problem, a complex resolution of socio-economic problems in eastern Abkhazia is necessary. Restoration of the infrastructure in the Gal, Ochamchira and Tquarchal areas is seen as an opportunity to facilitate the return of internally displaced persons in Abkhazia. The process of verification and profiling of refugees will also help to obtain more reliable information about the possible return of refugees to eastern Abkhazia. One must have a clear picture about the financial costs necessary to restore the damaged infrastructure, and subsequent reintegration activities, such as job creation, etc. Abkhazia does not possess the necessary infrastructure to receive tens of thousands of people, as proposed by the Georgian side. To implement a plan of return of refugees proposed by the Abkhazian side to the UNHCR, it is necessary to develop a program of social rehabilitation and integration of refugees, to prepare the necessary ground for the dignified return of refugees, to develop the economy, to create an infrastructure and jobs, to address the issue of demographic imbalance, and to return Jews, Greeks, Armenians and Russians who left Abkhazia, and representatives of the Abkhazian diaspora living abroad, who wish to return to their homeland. To speak about the return of refugees against the background of persistent attempts by Georgia to commit military revenge against Abkhazia is more than irresponsible. It is necessary to take into account the mood of the local population and their willingness to accept Georgian refugees. The level of ethnic hatred is still high on both sides of the Georgian-Abkhazian border. The possibility of implementing projects aimed at confidence building is precarious, unless based on a firm agreement on non-resumption of military actions, signed by both sides. 16 years of the aggressive policy of Georgia is an obstacle to the emergence of trust in both Abkhazian and Georgian society. The genocide conducted by Georgia against the people of Abkhazia is a compelling reason to break any relations with Georgia, especially on the issue of the return of refugees. The slogan repeatedly declared by the Georgian political elite, namely “when we bring Abkhazia back, then former refugees will live well there”, is clear proof that Georgia is considering the issue of the return of refugees in the context of a military operation against Abkhazia. (A short promotional video for the Georgian army shows Georgian young men, signing up as volunteers for the army, marching to the barracks. A sub-title under this sequence says: “We must realize once and for all that we will never be able to regain lost territory by prayers or hope for the League of Nations, only by force of arms. Adolf Hitler, 1932”.) Armaments consisted of: The aggregate number of troops during different periods varied from 1500 to 3000 persons. The reinforcement and maintenance division included special purpose divisions, intelligence, engineering, communications, howitzer and mortar artilleries, and support divisions. The Abkhazian side expresses deep concern over the regular instability in Georgia, which hinders the full development of the region. Also puzzling is the position of the international community, which does not give an objective evaluation of Georgia, but instead heavily arms it, turning a blind eye to obvious violations of human rights and a policy of terror against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thereby calling into question the impartiality of international mediators seeking to participate in the process of a political settlement of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. In order to prevent possible provocations by Georgia, Abkhazia is currently negotiating to strengthen the border with Georgia. Strengthening the border will put an end to smuggling, kidnapping, terrorist acts and attacks by insurgents and criminal elements who regularly destabilize the situation in border areas, and the opening of checkpoints would help to reach a new level of civilized interaction with neighbouring Georgia. With regard to ordinary citizens who daily cross the Georgian-Abkhazian border, they are not deprived of their freedom of movement. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg, on the basis of his visit to Abkhazia on February 9th, 2009, said: “Closed by de facto authorities, the border is now actually open, and people can cross it. This is a positive and extremely important factor.” The Abkhazian side, aware of the complexity and ambiguity of the question of restitution in this particular case, is nevertheless ready to start negotiations on compensatory restitution in the spirit of international law and in accordance with acknowledged worldwide practice, in order to conclude an agreement on restitution, which would settle mutual claims by the parties. The process of negotiations could include professionals and international mediators who could provide guidance and other support in the settlement of claims for restitution and return of cultural property to the countries of origin. The Abkhazian side is ready for technical cooperation with all interested parties. For the implementation of restitution / rehabilitation measures there are steps necessary to change law enforcement practices in Georgia. It is to be noted that so far no forms of responsibility of Georgia to citizens of Abkhazia who have suffered all post-war hardships, as well as to refugees, Greeks, Jews, Russians who were compelled to leave the country in 1992-1993 - neither financial, legal nor political - have been admitted. One has to note that massive violations of the rights of Abkhazians started even before the escalation of armed conflict on the territory of Abkhazia. Georgian authorities have never responded to anyone for their illegal actions based on ethnic differences. There is still a continuing lack of clarity about responsibility for beginning an anti-Abkhazian campaign in Georgia, as a result of which the war started, and there has also been no clear political and legal assessment of the events of 1992-93. This may have a direct impact on the practical implementation of restitution, which is of concern to the authorities of Abkhazia. The Abkhazian side is ready to offer to the Georgian side, for consideration, a number of reciprocal measures for compensation to forced migrants - on the grounds that a right to restitution would enable the forced migrants to sell property, and so obtain some form of monetary compensation, thereby observing international legal norms, and “to ensure the availability of an effective right of sale of property at the market price and the lack of obstacles to such a sale”. Thus, the right to choose between various forms of restitution / rehabilitation will be respected. The right to receive compensation for the loss of (alienated) property can be guaranteed for that category of citizens who do not intend to return to Abkhazia. For the implementation of the restitution process is necessary to have clear data on the number of persons having the right to restitution, and this will help to determine the ratio of those actually wanting to return to Abkhazia to those wishing to stay in Georgia, Russia or any other country and applying to receive compensation for lost property. The implementation of the same compensatory measures by Georgia, and the performance of its direct obligations, may not only positively affect the image of the state, but also rehabilitate the Georgian state for its massive violations of the rights of citizens of the Republic of Abkhazia, committed during the 1992-1993 war. In addition, the authorities of Georgia will be given a real opportunity to resolve the question of their own responsibility before tens of thousands of their own citizens. This initiative could become a basis for effective assistance from the Georgian side to tens of thousands of people who are victims of war, which will help to improve the overall atmosphere and build confidence between the sides. Numerous international discussions on the question of refugees also include the aspect of insecurity or lack of integration mechanisms in the return process. The forcible return of refugees to the territory they left is inhuman, because on their return to places of their former residence, unfortunately they do not always have an easy life. In fact, to help refugee migration policies in many countries, special efforts of international organizations for refugees become the practice of deportations and forcible displacement. As a result, refugees become victims of thoughtless policy and fall into the trap of political games. This is especially true for post-war territories and zones of ethnic conflicts. As is known, it was decided to end projects for the return of refugees to Kosovo, because of the impracticality of further investment in the return process. Trying in all ways to return refugees to their own territory, well-wishers harm those refugees. Refugees have become an effective instrument of blackmail to solve political issues. But the most important issue for Europe is to prevent refugees from leaving conflict zones and entering Europe. European and American organizations working with refugees are making all sorts of attempts to smooth the influx of migrants, in particular by conducting a “policy of development” in the so-called poor countries in post-conflict regions and zones of ethnic conflict. However, the efforts of donor countries often do not bring the expected success. Georgia is a partner of the European Neighborhood Policy. The issue of return and protection of the rights of refugees and internally displaced persons is the subject of ongoing discussions, and it is actively used as an accusation against the Abkhazian side. At the same time in Georgia there is the still unresolved question of the Meskhetian Turks. Recall that when joining the Council of Europe in 1999, one of the conditions set out in front of Georgia was the repatriation of Meskhetian Turks to their homeland in Georgia. Even the timing of their return had been determined, but the process has not even begun. Advertising itself as a democratic country, a follower of basic democratic values and principles, the policy of Georgia is far from international principles with regard to ethnic minorities. Georgia has systematically violated the rights of national minorities, while continuing to receive the full support of the international community. International human rights and public organizations of Georgia do not cease to express concern about the exclusion of and discrimination against national minorities, as well as the xenophobic sentiments that prevail in Georgian society and are stirred up by Georgian mass media. Georgian authorities deny the existence of problems of national minorities, pursuing a policy of silence and hiding the obvious. The entrance of Georgia into the Council of Europe in 1999 imposed upon it a direct obligation to establish a legal framework that meets international standards for the protection of human rights and minorities, in particular through the adoption of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) and the European Language Charter (ELC). By ratifying FCNM in 2005, the Georgian parliament adopted a special resolution which made some refinements to its implementation of the Convention. In particular, the Parliament stressed that it could not guarantee full implementation of the Convention until restoration of the territorial integrity of Georgia, and asked the Council of Europe to assist in resolving conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. With regard to support for the use and development of minority languages (under terms of the Convention), the Parliament of Georgia noted that the state must grant national minorities the opportunity to study the state language, but did not recognize the State's obligation to maintain and promote the development of national minority languages. The right of minorities to receive education in their native language has not been abolished, but the non-Georgian schools (of which Georgia has more than 100) must now comply with the national program, according to which the teaching of history, geography and social studies should be conducted only in the Georgian language. Georgian citizens of Armenian origin are not able to get a full higher education in the Armenian language, and in their residential regions they do not have the right to contact the local executive and judicial authorities in their mother tongue. The Armenian Church in Georgia has no officially recognized status. Accepted Georgian Parliament educational and language laws are a striking example of a violation of international norms against ethnic minorities, which Georgia is obliged to observe under international commitments taken by Georgia. Civil society organizations have repeatedly made statements accusing the authorities of Georgia of conducting politics of “demographic terror”, and repression against members of national minorities. It should be noted that representatives of international organizations have repeatedly pointed out Georgia’s failure to comply with its assumed obligations (as Georgia signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities) and the clear violation of the rights of national minorities on its territory. |
Полезная информация
