Let's not forget that both Georgia and Kosovo Liberation Army both have done more than a few dubious things themselves, though the point about Abkhazia still stands. Personally I consider a far better argument against recognition is the dangers of carelessly recognizing new states. Autonomy is one thing, independence is far more dangerous.

I would like to point out that in kosovo afther military intervention by nato,kosovo serbs where butchered by albanians and many of them are now living as refugees in central Serbia.Besides when you look at the kosovo leadership you only see ex criminals and gansters.Kosovo is completly dependent on nato and washington,and thus very similar to Abkhazia.

well, nice brief snapshot, though not an analysis. still fair enough on the topic "The push for Abkhaz statehood makes a mockery of international law -- and recognition would represent a chilling validation of ethnic cleansing"!

could i ask if the same could be written on the Nagorno-Karabakh/Armenia's occupation and aggression of the Azerbaijani lands?

i wonder why and how come the US and the EU keep silence and double standards unwilling to build the same attitude when it comes to this conflict, while clearly demonstrating the critical political token to the Abkhaz-Georgia conflict. It is just sad and diminishing the true intentions of the players outside the region. This dubious attitude has to stop.

The article is so much deeply biased and prejidused.

http://www.iiss.org/programmes/russia-and-eurasia/about/georgian-russian-dialogue/caucasus-security-insight/samuel-charrap-cory-welt/easing-the-crossing/

very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.plzzshop.com

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com

Opportunity knocks but once

very good web: === http://www.yahoofashion.net

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.yahoofashion.net

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.yahoofashion.net

Opportunity knocks but once

very good web: === http://www.yahoofashion.net

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.yahoofashion.net

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.yahoofashion.net

Opportunity knocks but once

The author is amazingly biased. The war in 1992 by Georgians and it was as is usually the case in an inter-ethnic war, full of atrocity from both sides.

But in any case, the present status is such that if Russia leaves, an extremely bloody war will start anew. The only solution is a graduate lowering of the tension between the parties (Abkhasians and Georgians) and also a graduate solving of the problems of the removed population.

An important point at the negotiations with Abkhasians, as I see it, is to insist on the right to return to those Georgian people, who didn't participate in the 1992 war. While for those who did take part in the war, I am afraid, there is no way to return back. The level of hatred is too high at the moment.

Wonderful.

Share a website with you ,

(======= http://www.lovetoshopping.org =======)

Believe you will love it.

accept paypal free shipping
Cheapest DG Shoes,Discount Brand Purses,Baby Phat Clothing
p[op[

I vacationed in Sukhumi in 1992, when there entered the Georgian army. Peaceful resort with thousands of tourists, when there came the soldiers, blocked roads, on every street corner there was a patrol with weapons. At night, began looting and killing. We were evacuated three days, and the Abkhazians were in this hell. Then I saw a TV report that they have done: Abkhaz villages and houses were burned, people have disappeared. No people then do not submit to such authority.

Andrei, your argument is seriously flawed, namely the following:

"First, the most heinous crimes in Kosovo were committed by Serbians, the adversaries of secession; in Abkhazia, they were committed by the secessionists and their Russian allies."

First, the worst atrocities in civil conflicts are committed by the stronger side, unless of course you believe in the inherent morality of belligerents in such modern conflicts - which with your background I doubt you do. The Abkhaz were at risk of annihilation and deportation by the ultra-nationalist government of Gamsakhurdia who expressly announced what would happen to non-Georgians when he had his way.

Secondly, it is perverse and dishonest to compare the Abkhaz to the Serbs. It is obscene to suggest that a small nation of 160,000 people did anything other than act in self-defence against a nation of 4,500,000 people during that war. Did Chechnya commit ethnic cleansing against Russia during the two wars? Following your argument above, it did.

Thirdly, on displaced people, what about the Serbs of Mitrovica who are forced to live in constant fear of murder and pogroms, under UN protection?

Your argument is forced and inconsistent on the face of it.

As a philosophical starting point, I go with Woodrow Wilson's fifth point:

"A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined."

I take this point to mean that the self-determination of the Abkhaz people is as important as any claims made by Georgia. In general, that self-determination is always the best course, and that the best states are (at the stage of development in these areas) necessarily nation-states. Each nation -- a group with the same language and religion -- should have its own state.

I know that the this is an immensely idealistic statement, with as much chance of becoming true as it did at the end of WW I. But it is good starting point.

I will point out that Abkhaz is in a completely different language group as Georgian -- as far apart as English and Turkish.

I have no doubt that there was substantial brutality in the establishment and continuance of this nation-state; revolutions are bloody. If the Abkhaz nation-state chooses to ally with Russia, against a Georgian state that does not recognize its existence, i think that is pretty reasonable.

I found the article wildly slanted, and actually the best argument for my case; clearly there isn't much rational thinking going on in this issue.

As a philosophical starting point, I go with Woodrow Wilson's fifth point:

"A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined."

I take this point to mean that the self-determination of the Abkhaz people is as important as any claims made by Georgia. In general, that self-determination is always the best course, and that the best states are (at the stage of development in these areas) necessarily nation-states. Each nation -- a group with the same language and religion -- should have its own state.

I know that the this is an immensely idealistic statement, with as much chance of becoming true as it did at the end of WW I. But it is good starting point.

I will point out that Abkhaz is in a completely different language group as Georgian -- as far apart as English and Turkish.

I have no doubt that there was substantial brutality in the establishment and continuance of this nation-state; revolutions are bloody. If the Abkhaz nation-state chooses to ally with Russia, against a Georgian state that does not recognize its existence, i think that is pretty reasonable.

I found the article wildly slanted, and actually the best argument for my case; clearly there isn't much rational thinking going on in this issue.

the negotiations with Abkhasians, as I see it, is to insist on the right to return to those Georgian people, who didn't participate in the 1992 war. While for those who did take part in the war, I am afraid, there is no way to return back.
Ar Condicionado Imoveis Acompanhantes Massagistas

Russian militia might aid Abkhazia in ethnic cleansing but it cannot fetch the status of statehood to it internationally by any means. Abkhazia shares zero percent similarity with the political situation of Kosovo; for, it’s the perpetrator of massacre not the victim like Kosovo. As Kosovo has been the victim of the atrocities of Serbia, it was gifted with statehood so that it will give protection to the displaced people just like the anti inflammatory protect your body from inflammation. On contrary, Abkhazia itself has conducted ethnic cleansing on a grand scale making it unfit for claiming the elusive internationally-recognized statehood.

Andrei Illarionov at his best as a “great” expert.

In his article Abkhazia's Independence Farce Illarionov asserts: “The Abkhaz regime exists only because Russia backs it with military might and financial support”. The author called the international recognition of Abkhazia a mockery of international law and a chilling validation of ethnic cleansing. He expressed bewilderment at Abkhazia’s strive to continue achieving recognition as an independent state and expressed his satisfaction with the European Union and the United States reject of recent Abkhaz presidential elections as totally illegitimate.

From the Abkhazian perspective, after what Georgia did to Abkhazia during the Soviet regime (especially at the time carefully orchestrated by Stalin), actual pure mockery is rather to be found in the attitude of the European Union and the United States, now coinciding with the opinion of their vassal Illarionov, the dependent opinion which surely have been derived out of Georgian brainwashing. Any sober-minded reader will question several of the author’s assertions, lacking (as they do) simple logic, or citations from doubtful sources.

His desecration of Abkhazia as totally subordinated to Russia immediately raises the question whether the expert Illarionov is aware of the following: “The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,580,255 active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories. Most of these overseas personnel are deployed in combat zones in the Middle East, as part of the ‘War on Terror’. Many of the remainder are located at installations activated during the Cold War, by which the US government sought to counter the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II. U.S. personnel are seeing active combat in several countries, most notably Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.”

Illarionov speaks of “international recognition conveniently overlooking how it was established: through the killing of around 10,000 civilians in the 1990s”. Such an allegation cannot be ignored. Perhaps this information was lifted from some source without due consideration, for Illarionov seems to have no clue as to the identity of the victims. Abkhazia was invaded by Georgian tanks headed by Georgian commanders who in a televised address to the Abkhaz population declared their intention to cleanse all Abkhazians even at the expense of sacrificing thousands of Georgians to attain their goals. Preconceived Georgian sources hide facts how Georgian soldiers were searching for Abkhazians holding the lists of Abkhaz names and their addresses to torture, humiliate or kill. Abkhazians want to live on their Abkhazian land, as there is no place designated for them. That is why they defended their motherland, families and their children and Georgian army had to retreat.

It is not quite clear what Illarionov was trying to say. One may conclude:
1) Georgians cleansed Abkhazian civilians when they invaded Abkhazia in 1992.
2) Shame Georgians for being incompetent and disorganized.
3) Point out the lack of ability of a mere 100,000 Abkhazians to inflict a humiliating defeat on a five million Georgian nation.
4) Unmask Georgian trick to delude international community presenting the Abkhaz - Georgian conflict as Russian - Georgian.

Illarionov’s use of Soviet census data, where ethnic Abkhazians comprised 17.8% of the 525,000 residents of Abkhazia in 1989, whilst ethnic Georgians accounted for 45.7% (numbering roughly 240,000) is tricky. The point is that the term ‘Georgians’ (or ‘kartvelebi’, as they call themselves in Georgian) actually covers Georgians properly so-called, Mingrelians, Svans and the Laz. Mingrelians, Svans and the Laz have their own languages, but, since the 1930s they have been deprived of the right officially to state their ethnic identity, being compelled to register themselves as ‘Georgians’.

Illarionov’s suggestion that international courts should define the legal nature of the atrocities gives hope that truth might finally be revealed. Last and for all.

Posted by ALLS Media Monitoring at 03:48 1 comments

There is no limit to cynicism

From the 19th century to the end of the 20th many new states were founded, destroyed and remade in bloody toro snow blowers wars (and the collapse of the Soviet Union). I'm not opposed to independence in theory, but I'd prefer the world be a bit more peaceful beforehand.

Most of the claims Illarionov makes do no hold water. He exagerates the number of displaced people from Abkhazia (its currently closer to 190 000 not 300 000), he ignores the losses of the Abkhazians during the war, which were around 4000, or about 4% of their population (not even counting losses from other ethnic groups). Of the displaced Georgians, between 40-60 000 have already returned to the Gali region of southern Abkhazia.

Most of the non-Georgian ethnic groups in Abkhazia were not ethnically cleansed, but have left since because of the effects of the 1992-1993 war and post-war blockade on the society and economy of Abkhazia, which the international community has been partially responsible for. This also includes many ethnic Abkhazians. The Greek community in its entirety was actually evacuated early in the war by the Greek navy, partly in response to attrocities committed by Georgian militias.

No Georgian has ever stood trial for crimes committed in Abkhazia. Eduard Shevardnadze, the former Georgian president who started the war in Abkhazia lives freely today in the capital Tbilisi, and the Georgian military commander Tengiz Kitovani who led the invasion and threatened Abkhazians with genocide has never even been indicted on any charges. Georgian society as a whole has never accepted any responsibilty for the conflict, and continues to play the "victim" card and accuses Russia of orchestrating it.

Contrary to what Illarionov writes, Georgians in Abkhazia ARE allowed to vote and about 8000 did so during the last presidential election (which was declared free and fair by observers on the ground, including from the US and western Europe). Abkhazia is not an "apartheid" society and other ethnic groups, in particular the Armenians, play an important role in Abkhazian society and politics. The vice speaker of the Abkhazian parliament is an Armenian for example. There are also Russians and Georgians present in the government.

Most non-Georgians - or a majority of the population in Abkhazia - actually support the Abkhaz bid for independence, according to recent polls carried out by the Woodrow Wilson Internation Center for Scholars in 2010.

Illarionov's claims that Abkhazia is "occupied" and "annexed" by Russia are disputed and not regarded as true by most serious scholars on the Caucasus region.

I'd advice anyone serious about studying the Caucasus conflicts to look elsewhere than Illarionov for facts and analysis.

It was Gia Karkarashvili who was the Georgian military commander who threatened the Abkhazians with genocide. Tengiz Kitovani was Georgian defence minister. Neither of these individuals have ever been indicted for any crimes.

The reduction in Georgian numbers is pretty much a given. The reductions in most other ethnic groups isn't a surprise either, if the Abkhaz leadership is given to obsessing over ethnic purity. But why would the numbers of Russians, their allies, decrease as well?

The reduction in the number of non-Georgians in Abkhazia has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing, but has to do with the difficult economic and social conditions after the war, with a ruined economy and infrastructure and recurring political instability including a blockade enforced by the international community, which compelled many to leave. Especially many Russians left because they could easily find better opportunities in neighboring Russia where they often also had friends and relatives. Although most ethnic Abkhazians chose to stay (they considered it their land after all), but many also left, which means that the population of ethnic Abkhazians is also lower now than it was in Soviet times.

In short, Mr. Illarionov is abusing statistics to make it seem like the minority Abkhazians got rid of the majority of non-Abkhazians by force, but this is simply not true.

what is to be said of those Abkhazian descendants forced to leave Abkhazia in 1864 - 1877-78? According to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, those who use arms in an armed struggle and then flee do not fall under the international definition of refugees. The responsibility for these people falls fully on the Georgian side. It is important to note here that a great many of those who fled from Abkhazia were recent immigrants. They were forcely resettled by Stalin and his cruel assistant Beria from Megrelia to Abkhazia. See Demographic change in Abkhazia 1897–1989, http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/georgia-abkhazia/graph2.php.

First, the worst atrocities in civil conflicts are committed by the stronger side, unless of course you believe in the inherent morality of belligerents in such modern conflicts -snowblowers which with your background I doubt you do. The Abkhaz were at risk of annihilation and deportation by the ultra-nationalist government of Gamsakhurdia who expressly announced what would happen to non-Georgians when he had his way.

Simply put, Kosovo's liberty was a means of punishing ethnic cleansing. In Abkhazia, such recognition might represent a harrowing validation of ethnic cleansing, along with a reward to its authors.

Kosovo is an independent country and a constitutional democracy. Full stop. The International Court of Justice recognized the legality of its declaration of independence. Full stop. seslichat The Serbian society needs to go through a long process of de-nazification and to accept the realities on the ground. Living in the La La Land won't do the Serbian people any good

From the 19th century to the end of the 20th many new states were founded, destroyed and remade best exercise bike in bloody wars (and the collapse of the Soviet Union). I'm not opposed to independence in theory, but I'd prefer the world be a bit more peaceful beforehand. There are reasons why there have been only a few new states with general recognition since the early 90s