In recent years, Abkhaz society has increasingly been discussing the need for cooperation between Abkhazia and Georgia in various fields such as trade, energy, agriculture, and crime prevention. High-ranking officials, political analysts, civil society representatives, and members of the non-governmental sector propose starting small in order to eventually achieve full-fledged interaction in these areas.
Even before his presidency, Aslan Bzhania proposed changing the format of contacts and establishing direct bilateral dialogue with Georgia on a new negotiation platform, one that would not be as distant as Geneva.
“Georgians and the Georgian state are our neighbors. Whether we want it or not, we have a large number of contacts at the level of citizens of both Georgia and Abkhazia. These are people who live, cross the border, and travel there. Various problems arise for people—many of our citizens, unfortunately, are forced to go there to receive qualified medical care. You know that we jointly operate the Inguri HPP energy complex. This is also a certain level of contact,” Bzhania said in an interview with the Russian agency RIA Novosti.
According to the president, Abkhazia receives “signals from various public institutions in Georgia indicating that certain political forces in Georgia would like to establish a more intensive dialogue.”
But no matter how passionately part of Abkhaz society may wish to begin this process, there are still many in the republic who believe that before discussing concrete initiatives with Georgia, it is necessary to “exit the state of war.”
As is known, for 12 years the Geneva International Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus have remained the only international platform where Abkhazia conducts negotiations with Georgia in the presence of representatives of Russia, the UN, the EU, and the OSCE. Substantial results over these years—zero. Of course, humanitarian issues have been addressed, but on the main issue—the signing of a document on the non-use of force—no progress has been made.
“Of course, we hear various opinions regarding these negotiations. There are those who believe they should not be conducted. Many expect concrete results. But as you know, the main issue in the negotiations is the signing of a legally binding agreement on the non-use of force between Georgia and Abkhazia. And we must continue these negotiations until we achieve our goal,” believes Foreign Minister Daur Kove.
However, despite the assurances of the head of the republic’s foreign ministry, there is a public perception that the normalization of relations will depend not so much on the outcome of another round of the Geneva Discussions, but on how major global players—Russia, the European Union, and the United States—reach an understanding on Abkhazia and Georgia. Ultimately, it is they who will determine in which direction relations between Georgia and Abkhazia develop.
Yet part of Abkhaz society is convinced that the conflict with Georgia is long outdated. “We all understand that Georgia will not attack Abkhazia. And it’s not only because of the large number of Russian troops stationed here. As I see it, Georgia has already revised its policy toward the Abkhaz and instead of demonstrating force and aggression, wants to show us assistance and support,” says our interlocutor Georgy. According to him, the Georgians do not need to make any particular official declarations on this matter. “Well, think about it—do they treat and put back on their feet those they wish to kill?” the young man reasons.
“It is better to focus on the economy, internal problems, raising the standard of living of our citizens, rather than constantly referring to yet another deadlock in yet another round of negotiations. The time for resolving Abkhazia’s status will come later, at a more favorable moment. The main thing is that we live to see it,” believes Sukhumi resident Andrei.
“In the modern world there are quite a few post-conflict zones where unresolved contradictions in certain issues do not prevent cooperation in others. This is a modern and pragmatic approach. The issue of status is certainly important, but we should not forget that the world around us is moving forward, and constant focus only on this issue will be a restraining factor for the development of both countries,” says politician Tengiz Jopua. Nevertheless, he is convinced that before moving to active discussion of cooperation initiatives with Georgia, it is fundamentally important to move from a “state of war” to a “state of peace.”
In this context, the recent interview given to Radio Echo of the Caucasus by the Secretary of the Security Council of Abkhazia, well-known Abkhaz politician Sergey Shamba, sounded like a bombshell. The issue concerns the agreement on the non-use of force, which, according to Shamba, Georgia signed 23 years ago. “In 1997, when Vladislav Ardzinba visited Tbilisi at the initiative of (Yevgeny) Primakov, I was part of that delegation—then a memorandum was signed in Tbilisi stating that the parties renounce the use of force and even the threat of the use of force. So such a document, signed by two presidents—(Eduard) Shevardnadze and (Vladislav) Ardzinba—exists,” Shamba stated.
Abkhaz society did not rush to comment on his statement, trying to digest the enormity of what had been said. All these years since the end of the war, using various platforms and tribunes, our country—alongside South Ossetia and, of course, Russia—has stated that Georgia does not want to sign a “peace treaty” because it continues to harbor plans for a military takeover of Abkhazia. Moreover, to this day in Geneva, Abkhazia is trying to reach agreement on the necessity of signing a peace agreement, but this does not happen because, according to the Georgian side, such a document would be an interstate agreement and therefore to some extent recognition of Abkhazia as an equal partner in the negotiation process. Does it mean that we have been demanding the re-signing of a document that has already been signed?
In light of this new information, equally important—indeed, fundamental—questions arise: where is this document, and why has it been hidden for so many years not only from Abkhaz society but from the entire international community?
Perhaps we will eventually hear answers, but I would like to touch upon another important aspect. The information space frequently reports that yet another children’s dance ensemble or sports team from Abkhazia has been barred from participating in international events at Georgia’s request. Most often, the activities of our Chamber of Commerce and Industry have come under the scrutiny of Georgia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Not infrequently, its exhibitions have ended with the closure of pavilions, and meetings have been dispersed by the police of the host country—again, at the request of Georgian authorities. These arguments are still cited by people who do not wish to build any kind of relations with Georgia, believing that by blocking the republic’s access to the outside world, Georgia is effectively maintaining an economic blockade of Abkhazia.
According to politician Tengiz Jopua, this practice of relations cannot lead to anything positive. “The Russian Federation was the first to recognize the sovereignty and independence of Abkhazia and has partially opened the republic’s access to the outside world. But this is not sufficient for the country’s full development. Believe me, by illegally detaining sea vessels, demanding that foreign companies terminate contracts, blocking the participation of Abkhaz athletes, and prohibiting performances by children’s creative groups, Georgia will not build constructive relations with anyone,” Tengiz Jopua asserts.
And here it is time to consider a key question—is it possible to open access to the outside world for Abkhaz collectives, athletes, goods, and services by using a different form of relations with Georgia than the current one? After all, if only two years after the end of the war diplomats were able to sign an extremely important memorandum on the non-use of force, then finding today an acceptable form for Abkhazia and Georgia to enable our republic’s participation in major international events is not a difficult task. There only needs to be willingness! And as I understand it, Georgia has such willingness. The word is now with Abkhazia. And in order to make a decision, it is not at all necessary to renounce independence or love for the Motherland. If, of course, Abkhaz society no longer wishes to enter the world only under the Russian flag.
Kristina Avidzba
The text contains toponyms and terminology used in the self-proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia
