The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Don´t blame Georgia for all wrong-doings. Funny enough, people usually begin blaming Russia, then blaming Abkhazia, and they reserve a little bit of blame to Georgia... You reasoned all the way round :) It´s the first time I see someone not blaming Russia first in whatever issue on the region you talk about!!! (I believe, by the way, in Russian faulty attitude in the area, but also think that blaming only Russia is an easy excuse for local elites, also -the same with US. I suppose-, and that people forget on the 15 million ethnic Russian living outside Russia, the economic relations built in 80 years of Soviet Union, and the geostrategic loses -military bases, seaports, resources- that I think very few countries, if any, would have accept easily)
Back to Abkazia: methodology :)
I didn´t travel to Abkhazia, I had no funding, that´s why I worked on the geopolitical perspective (mainly power relations and peacekeeping strategies), which could be approached from the distance.
Back to Abkhazia: context
b) During 1992-93 war, 300.000 persons fled, most of them haven´t returned, not only because of ethnic and political problems, but because of economic situation. Who the hell would want to go back? Now, although the proAbkhaz part denies ethnic cleansing, "dancing figures" shows that currently the Abkhaz population is more than 40% of the overall population in Abkhazia... 200.000 displaced were Georgians (remember, there was 240.000 in the first place).
c) Most lived either in the capital or in Gali Valley. As usually happens, Gali valley (part of Abkhazia republic) has an important historical meaning for Georgia. By the way, blame Soviet Union (and particularly Stalin, who was Georgian but was very much against Georgian nationalism based on identity) on that. When defining boundaries, one thing that Soviet Union did was to lower the importance of historically strong nationalities by creating boundaries that didn´t respect demographic or historical boundaries. So they fucked up on purpose an already complicated area like the Caucasus, giving, in this case, parts of north Georgia to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This territories belonged to Georgia but had semiauthonomy justified on nationality, providing their "name nationality" (the one that gave the name to the subrepublic) a greater political representation than the one that would have had by its demographic or economic power. This Abkhaz political class felt menaced when Georgia proclaimed independence.
P.D. I don´t blame on Abkhazians of everything, either; maybe it seems so in this post, but it´s just that I´m giving mainly the Georgia-supporting arguments here....
P.D. I´m crap with html, so here is a link to a map of Georgia for you to download, as I don´t know how to nest it. (The UN officially accepted map)
http://www.un.org/depts/Cartographic/map/profile/georgia.pdf "If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." (Fahrenheit 451)
<a href="http://www.un.org/depts/Cartographic/map/profile/georgia.pdf">The UN officially accepted map</a> [PDF]
gives
The UN officially accepted map [PDF] When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by gmoke - Nov 30
by gmoke - Nov 24
by gmoke - Nov 7
by gmoke - Nov 11
by Oui - Jan 14
by Oui - Jan 13
by gmoke - Jan 137 comments
by Oui - Jan 12
by Oui - Jan 121 comment
by Oui - Jan 11
by Oui - Jan 112 comments
by Oui - Jan 10
by Oui - Jan 101 comment
by Oui - Jan 9
by Oui - Jan 8
by Oui - Jan 83 comments
by Oui - Jan 78 comments
by Oui - Jan 69 comments
by Oui - Jan 61 comment
by Oui - Jan 6
by Oui - Jan 5