Abkhazia-REAL Politics or Populist Rhetoric

Eka Kevanishvili, Tbilisi

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs of de-facto Abkhazia first appeared in Tbilisi in front of media back in 2006 he was positive. Sergey Shamba even took a stroll down the upbeat Shardeni Street. At the time Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was making statements from Senaki military base along with the Minister of Defense. Experts who are the closest to the problem and who have been working on how to resolve the Abkhazian-Georgian conflict recount the rhetoric, and they consider it to be a typical example of populism … and not the kind of carefully considered statements that moves the politics towards Abkhazia in a proper direction..

The discussion under the title “Abkhazia- Politics or Populism” has been held recently in the Heinrich Boell Foundation. The foundation is the place of discussing very sensitive issues by a part of the society on Wednesdays. The problem of these discussions is that the society in general does not know about the ideas and sometimes bitter argues that take place during the discussions. We decided to bring the news revealed during one of these discussions to the internet space.

Here in Tbilisi

Paata Zakareishvili, an expert dealing with matter of conflict resolution, often participates in this kind of discussions. He considers that Tbilisi is the place where the Abkhazian conflict is to be resolved. Consequently, much depends on how the government will act in terms of negotiations. Furthermore, he thinks that neither Russia nor the precedent of Kosovo will influence Georgian-Abkhazian relations. Now comes the core question to this discussion, which is very pressing – is there any kind of politics towards Abkhazia and if so, is it REAL politics or just populism.
As an expert Paata Zakareishvili answers this question in short and simple terms – it is populism. It is a kind of populism that is totally deprived of politics, whatsoever. We can learn from political texts and textbooks that politics itself implies populism at some point, as it is clearly indicated in the vast majority of political reference books. A short term populist perspective brings short term success, for example, during a period in the run-up to an election. The Georgian President cries, people respond with their giddy and uninformed reactions. However, the real result when it comes to the issue of Abkhazian should be based on solid suggestions as to how to go about solving the conflict. Under such circumstances, however, becomes even vaguer. Zakareishvili considers that 2006 was the most active and effective year in trying to solve the problem of Abkhazia, However, the past is prologue and there has been no progress since then.

“We can say without hesitation that during the last 15 years 2006 was categorically the most successful year for influencing on the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. It was the time when Goga Khaindrava was the Minister for Conflict Regulations and Irakli Alasania was the head of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia. In the span of six months many steps were taken that had not been taken in the previous 15 years. It was obvious that government that was new at that time was ready to take into consideration the interests of the other side (Abkhazia). The Abkhazians were interested as well. They were saying that in Georgian politics that a person had at last appeared, meaning Alasania and that he was putting forth real questions about the problems that they faced. Though one might think that Alasania had the post that was very unfavorable for Abkhazians, Abkhazians, including leading figures from the opposite side, were all trying to meet with him? Such meetings were held several times. Collaboration and cooperation started in several directions: reconstructing of the railway, protecting the rights of the IDPs who had returned to Abkhazia and enhancing and speeding up the process of returning IDPs to their homes.

It was unprecedented when Sergei Shamba came from Abkhazia. He even walked on Shardeni Street in Tbilisi.  Before that the Abkhazians used to come to Tbilisi on UN helicopters, after the negotiations in the UN office they used to live the office on UN cars and immediately leave for Abkhazia. They used to say in Sokhumi that they went to the UN and not to Tbilisi. Some might say that it a detail it must be mentioned that at the same day when Shamba was walking on Shardeni Street the president of Georgia together with the Minister of Defense was on Senaki military base dressed in military uniform and was saying something completely different. It was the typical message: “I don’t care what is going on in Tbilisi. I am on the military base and have my own affairs.” There were informal negotiations on arranging, at least accidental on-the-sput meeting between Shamba and Saakashvili. It is one of the diplomatic forms of meeting but it did never happen. Unfortunately, the work of the government was not coordinated. Khaindrava and Alasania were saying one thing and Vano Merabishvili, Minister of Internal Affairs and Irakli Okruashvili, former Minister of defense, another.”

The fall from politics to populism was hastened by the resignation of Alasania. He continued his career in New York. All the activities regarding Abkhazia went to different direction: the events developed in Kodori, patriotic camps in Ganmukhuri… These activities were publicly promoted. Zakareishvili evaluates them as the examples of populism and states that they aimed at attracting attention and making much to do out of practically nothing.

“There are young people in Sokhumi that want to come to Tbilisi to study here, but they have one question, will their visit be publicized and promoted, will they appear on TV channels or not. They do not want anyone to hear about it in Abkhazia. They fear that their conduct will be evaluated as treason there.

It will be very important how the pre election campaign will be held in the Gali district of Abkhazia, as it will be a reflective of the policy of the central government. If we manage to take into account of the will of these people and we do not involve them in politics, then  I will consider that the Georgian government has changed its position,” noted Zakareishvili on the meeting.

No War!

Temur Iakobashvili, State Minister in Reintegration who was invited to this meeting as the speaker stated that the basis for the present government’s politics is the words: “No to War”. “The ones who wish war can talk to Kezerashvili, the Minister of Defense. I am not planning to unleash war. I think we must say no to everything that is not functioning…. My words are related to how things are with Russian peace keepers, joint control commission, UN, OSCE and other organizations that are involved in this process. 

We consider that if the situation improves to the better, which means that that we are getting closer to resolving the conflict and the opportunity for IDPs to go home. Otherwise we travel to Geneva, Moscow, Sochi, talk and talk, and tell you that we have ratified the agreement but in the end it does not workout….

And when the IDPs go home it must be dignified return to save face. There must be some kind of document issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that explains what does it actually mean toallow refugees IDPs to their homes. I can say with full responsibility that according to this document no IDPs have returned to Gali district. Though, there are some people who cross Enguri Bridge regularly, go to their homes but we can’t say that it is the real return.”
Iakobashvili considers that in Tskhinvali Region (South Ossetia) the Georgian side refused to participate in the peace negotiations within the frameworks of joint control commission is an example of political act and not one of populism. Another example is the fact that Georgia raised the issue of reviewing the UN format: “We did not ask when the UN would start discussing the issue of reviewing the UN format as it used to be earlier. We asked them when they would finish it. We asked them the deadline. The study of this issue has been started. We were told that we shall have the document on reviewing the format by the end of May. Our active work is connected neither with the hunger strikes nor with the elections. We consider that it should be the concern of everyone and not of one or two political parties to solve problems.”

Temur Iakobishvili makes the statements that are not characteristic for the Saakashvili’s government. It is difficult to make out what is populism and what is real in these statements. These are his words:

“We can’t start solving the conflict in Abkhazia without directly asking Abkhazians.  We must think of what we can do for these people. It does not matter where they are: in the conflict zone or away from it. It is insignificant who their government is. We have some educational and economic projects that are designed to raise economic standard of living for these people. It happens when the politicians are busy in clearing up matters between themselves. 

We have some links, for example, in the sphere of healthcare. All the medicines are provided from here, the Abkhazians come here for treatment and we do not publicize this as we know they might have problems. But at the same time they say to the foreigners that they have no contacts with the Georgians. Then come the foreigners and we fly off to Cyprus to negotiate with Abkhazians… We can actually communicate with Abkhazians without such meetings. When ordinary people are close to each other it helps to restore the confidence more than the negotiations that are conducted between politicians. I think it is not a problem if we make subsequent economical conditions for the Abkhazian people and that they will have the opportunity to prosper and get rich.

Iakobashvili stresses the importance of joining NATO within a global context and he goes to further point out that it would be enough for Georgia to enter the alliance, e at least with one foot and the separatism will end.

”Russian officials directly stated to Abkhazian and Ossetian people that they do not care about their position about the matter; the main point is that Georgia should not join the NATO. We know that Abkhazian and Ossetian people were very offended with the statement. Everybody thinks that such time that we are able to enter NATO we will then lose Abkhazia. However, it really means the end of separatism as a matter of fact. Today, nobody should persuade you that peace-talks are deadlocked. Peacekeeping process is not going on at all, and it will not start either if we will not personally, then go and speak with the people of conflict zones. We should say to them, “Your place is within the Georgian State, and as such, you should consider it.” We must start persuading ourselves that we do not need war in our breakaway regions; we must not start killing each other there. However, unfortunately, most Georgians think that we must “punish” the Abkhazians. It is necessary on the side of the Georgians to work very hard to stop and to eliminate such rhetoric.”

Irakli Tabliashvili, former journalist, who also took part in the discussion, considers that our society requests similar populism. It is ordered by the population and the government satisfies their requests mostly if the soil is rich for making similar speeches. In addition to that media supports similar rhetoric while broadcasting their statements. Unfortunately, media sources often have negative influence on the issue.

“A journalist for one of media sources applies to Shamba, de-facto Foreign Minister of Abkhazia with the following title: blood-sucker Shamba….and than he asks the question. I think this fact does not need additional comments. Another example took place in the village of Zemo Etsera: during presidential elections TV Companies broadcasted the video records where supporters of the president were not allowed into Gali district; where Russian soldier tore down a poster…in fact these incidents were shot in the village of Zemo Etsera in Zugdidi district. Is not it populism? The third fact: when arrested Georgian journalists were released (approximately two months ago journalists for the Georgian TV Company “Mze” were arrested by Abkhazian militiamen and the journalists spent several days in Abkhazian custody). News programs showed how the mother of one of the detainees thanked to Saakashvili and Bagapsh. This situation was broadcast on live but in all main News Programs the part about Bagapsh was cut out.”

“Is not it populism when recently Georgian songs contain similar phrases like “Psoudaleuli” (literary epithet for the people who have drank/crossed the Psou River)?  A real patriot should not need to drink the water of the Psou River in order raise his level of bravery. I think that they are deceiving themselves and nothing more.”

Gulbaat Rtskhiladze, political scientist, recalls a infamous events that occurred in Ganmukhuri  (Georgian and Russian soldiers had some incident that almost got totally out of control last year. Allegedly, in order to calm down the situation Georgian President Saakashvili personally arrived on the scene and declared the commander of Russian Unit persona non-grata in Georgia.

“The well-directed performance in Ganmukhuri does much to show what the real situation on the ground is. Everybody can understand without guessing just how much our government is preoccupied with populism when it comes to Abkhazia (like the total sum of the political direction of the Georgian government, which is best described as just one big performance). Occasionally Abkhazian people arrest either Georgian journalists, or under-age “patriots” and Georgian TV Stations unleash terrible onslaught about similar facts.

Later, Abkhazian side releases the hostages and those people become topics for our president’s continued boasting, which is always accompanied with his cheap and unconvincing patriotic rhetoric. 

If not mention separate populist-theatrical episodes, the attitude towards the issue can be perceived as being totally misleading. The government and the journalists are controlled by governmental officials as effort is made to persuade people how negotiations with Abkhaz people based is based on the territorial integrity of Georgia, and is not a problem to meet with them without the involvement of the Russians. In the past, during President Shevardnadze’s term of governance, the problem was completely different. It was understood at the time that the problems could only be resolve with the support of Russian side. In short, the “key” to the problem was to be found in Moscow.”

“I think we should look for the truth in the middle ground between these two extremes. We cannot neglect Russian influence on Abkhazia. Russia must express his kind temperament towards working to solve the problem, and in its absence, it is impossible to solve the Abkhazian and Samachablo (South Ossetia) problems.  Even if Georgia becomes the member of NATO, it does not mean Georgian will be able to regain territorial integrity. Actually it may just be the opposite, as membership can result in diverse process being started and de-fact separation of Georgia might be legally confirmed (at least indirectly). NATO will never start a war with Russia over Abkhazia. As for Russia it will not leave the region particularly after we become the member of NATO. On the other hand, we should not be hopeful that that Russia remains capable giving Abkhazia back to us when it suits their interests. We should remember that small Abkhazian ethnic group is responsible for creating the negative attitude towards the Georgian nation, which goes back to an early period in the Soviet Union. Moreover, the negative feelings increased as a result of the hostilities in the 1990s. Thus, Moscow will fail to make Abkhazian people to love Georgia and want to join us open-heartily.  However, Moscow can have serious impact on Abkhaz people and keep more constructive position during the negotiations with Tbilisi and to be in the position to bring about real compromises.”

“Now you can judge how the politics of the Georgian authority (if it can be called politics at all), matches such a similar rationalist attitude,” asked Gulbaat Rtskhiladze.

There is another topic that is in the limelight in recent weeks. More precisely, Lado Gurgenidze, Georgian Prime-Minister, made a statement in his interview with an Estonian newspaper. He said that actually Georgia is ready to recognize the independence of Kosovo because “Georgia’s friends” did so. Although, later Governmental official tried to persuade us he had not made similar statement and the journalist had made a mistake, nobody believed their claims and considered him to be a lair.

“It is not populism. It is direct provocation that can have extremely negative effect on Georgia and its territorial integrity.  It might even become the basis to provoke the Russian Federation to recognize the independence of Abkhazia. There are forces in the United States who are making every effort to get Georgia to recognize separatist regions. In doing so these forces will gain some short-term dividends, as it is possible to separate North Caucasian Republics from the rest of the Russia Federation - however, if Russia does recognize Abkhazia, it will then become an eternal enemy for Georgia. Washington is interested in creating similar situation-Georgia as an enemy of Russia will have no other way but to follow the orders of the United States. Nonetheless, the point to emphasis is whether the situation will suit Georgia or not? The current Georgian governments will never you a correct and straightforward answer that matches the truth.