ABKHAZIA AT THE CROSSROADS

By Maurice Bonnot*

I    THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

On 18 June 2009, a group of rapporteurs for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe predicted that “without the presence of the UN mission, Abkhazia is in great danger of slipping into a human rights black hole”

Far more perceptive was the remark by the Abkhaz Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Sergey Shamba, who said in an interview with the RIA Novosti press agency on 12 November that “elections always show the internal political development of a country”..  In Abkhazia, he said, “civil society is developed and ready for the next presidential election.”  He said he expected the elections to take place in an atmosphere of honest competition.

The Abkhaz model of democracy - in a region where transfers of power tend to take place by means of coloured revolution (with doubtful financing), insurrections (in Georgia, a military triumvirate re-baptised “State council” offered power to Edward Shevardnadze in 1992) or by means of inheritance (as in Azerbaijan) – may not be flawless but is characterised by the following elements, at least as far as the presidential elections of 12 December 2009 are concerned:

Multiple and varied candidates

Five teams stood for the posts of President and Vice-President:

-               the incumbent president, Sergey Bagapsh and the incumbent Prime Minister, Alexander Ankvab;

-               The former Vice-President, who resigned in May 2009, Raul Khadjimba, and the Director of the Institute of Humanitarian Research, Vassili Avidzba;

-               The leader of the Part of Economic Development, Beslan Butba, and the former Minister of the Interior, Almasbei Klatch;

-               The president of the National Navigation Company, Zaur Ardzinba, and the former head of the region of Ochamchira, Xrups Djoypa;

-               An academic, Vitali Bganba and a historian, David Dasania.

Differences in electoral manifestos (even if these were not always obvious)

In foreign policy, all the candidates were unanimously in favour of independence.  Georgia is not even mentioned.  By contrast, the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Russian Federation is the subject of differences, some candidates (especially Mr Khadjimba) fearing that Abkhazia will become subject to its Northern neighbour especially in security matters and economically.

The incumbent president is criticised essentially for insufficiencies in economic development, the result of structures inherited from the Soviet period.  Some have insisted that it is urgent to appeal to foreign expertise (Mr Butba), others on the need to fight against corruption (Mr Khadjimba, who also attacked the procedures for delivering Abkhaz passports).  Mr Arzindba laid stress on the need to develop the country’s ports and its agriculture and campaigned against the cheap sell-off of land.

During the summer of 2009, the opposition failed to unite behind a single candidate.  Mr Khadjimba first failed to reach an agreement with Mr Butba then with Mr Ardzinba, a member of the same Party for Economic Development who finally decided to launch his own campaign.  The three candidates did, however, decide to support one another in the event of one of them making it through to a second round.  (In the event, the election was decided in the first round.)

President Bagapsh’s record certainly played a role in his re-election: his success in regaining control over the whole of Abkhazia’s territory when he recovered the upper Kodori valley in August 2008 without encountering any opposition.  His success in achieving international recognition for Abkhazia’s independence was also appreciated, as has been the slow improvement in the economy and the standard of living. 

A varied press

Even if such disagreements represent an improvement on the situation of a decade ago, it seems regrettable that commentaries in the press were not more objective.  None of the media outlets can be considered neutral.  The use of “specialists” from the Russian media, which caused the resignation of several journalists from the newspaper, “The Abkazia Echo”, did not serve the interests of its proprietor, Mr Butba.  The person in charge of the publication of “Chekemenskaya Pravda”, for his part, has referred to pressure exerted on publishing houses and to a certain degree of venality on the part of the competent tribunals.

However, the principle of equality of treatment of the candidates was respected in terms of information and presentation.  Question and answer sessions with TV viewers only satisfied very partially the electorate’s desire for a proper debate between the protagonists about their respective manifestos.  Candidate Butba regretted that the TV station which he owns, Abaza, did not get government permission to broadcast across the whole territory of the republic: it can be received only in the area around Sukhumi.

Establishing the document used for voting and the policy on passport issue

The question of which document to use for voting was the subject of numerous controversies throughout the electoral campaign.  In the 2004 elections, voters could use an Abkhaz passport, their old Soviet passport, or any other form of identification.  This led to numerous abuses, denounced at the time, to trouble and to the cancellation of the vote.

Last summer, vigorous debates took place in the parliament about the issue of passports which were to be the only document one could use for voting.  This question was especially controversial in the Gali region, where there is a Georgian majority.  The controversy led to the resignation in September of the Secretary of the Security Council, the historian Stanislas Lakoba, and to President Bagapsh’s decision to suspend the issue of new passports from 1 October.

Whereas around 14,000 voters had been registered in Gali in 2004, there were only 3,523 on 4 December 2009.  To apply for an Abkhaz passport implies recognition of Abkhaz citizenship, which is incompatible with any link to Georgia (double citizenship is accepted only with the Russian Federation).  This dissuaded a certain number of people from registering.  The controversy was launched essentially by Mr Khadjimba for electoral reasons.  Gali had voted strongly for Sergey Bagapsh in 2004, doubtless because of his reputation as someone who adopts a conciliatory attitude towards the region’s Mingrelian population as his own wife is a Mingrelian from Gali.

Abkhazia’s population can be broken down as follows:

Abkhaz 73,893

Abazins 2,139

Russians 17,814

Armenians 32,288

Georgians 12,156

Other nationalities 7,731

It should be noted that in an attempt to resolve this question, the Electoral Commission, which wanted above all to listen to voters’ concerns and to act coherently, benefited from the recommendations of the League of Voters and other NGOs like the Centre for Humanitarian Progress.  The Commission decided to make the passport the necessary document and for a stamp to be put on page 17 of each voter’s passport when they cast his ballot.

It is regrettable that the initiative launched by the president of the Party for Economic Development, Mr Butba, to elaborate a “code of good conduct” drafted for the candidates by the Social Chamber, NGOs, political movements and journalists from the written and electronic media, and which recognised the “supremacy of the law and of democratic, collective and personnel principles” fell on deaf ears as the other candidates let it ne known that they were reluctant to sign it.  The fact that a vehicle belonging to a regional representative of Mr Butba’s party, and a warehouse belonging to the candidate’s company Aradu, were set on fire in Gagra, were the only occasions when the campaign got seriously out of hand.

During a tour of polling stations by this author in the region of Chamchira, no violations were observed in the operation of the vote.  88 observers from 20 countries recognised that the elections were conducted transparently and democratically.  The League of Voters declared that the presidential elections in Abkhazia had taken place according to the rules and that the few irregularities which had occurred did not in any way compromise the final result.

The results of the election proclaimed by the President of the Central Electoral Commission at a press conference on 14 December, Mr Batal Tabagua, were as follows:

Number of voters registered: 138,447

Number of voters who voted: 101, 756

Turnout 73%

Votes against all candidates: 1,893

Invalid ballots: 3,031

Votes for Zaur Ardzinba 9,296 (9.14%)

Sergey Bagapsh 62,231 (61.16%)

Vitali Bganba 1,326 (1.30%)

Beslan Butba 8,395 (8.25%)

Raul Khadjimba 15,584 (15.32%)

There were few complaints against these results, doubtless because of the significant gap between the leading candidate and the others.  The only significant complaints came from Mr Khadjimba who claimed there had been “massive violations” by which he meant the abuse of government resources by the candidate president.  The use of a stamp in the passport was also criticised for encouraging voters who might have been inclined to abstain to vote for the president in order not to lose their pensions.  Another series of complaints came from the Veterans’ Association AARUA which claims a thousand members whose demonstrations brought about the cancellation of the vote in 2004.  These complaints were probably a means by which this part of the opposition is preparing the parliamentary elections planned for the spring of 2012.

Two candidates quickly congratulated the re-elected president, thereby recognising the legitimacy of the electoral process – Mr Bganba on 13 December and Mr Butba on behalf of the Party for Economic Development on 14 December.

II    “ABKHAZIA WILL SUCCEED” (SERGEY BAGAPSH)

In an article published on 16 October 2009 in the Washington Times, President Bagapsh said that he had full confidence in the future of his country for the following reasons:

-               our independence is rooted in a desire for justice, freedom and democracy for the Abkhazian people;

-               despite war and blockade, we already have survived as an independent state for 16 years, an accomplishment conveniently disregarded by Georgia's Western friends;

-               we have ample potential as a nation, with a strong ethnic identity and formidable economic potential;

-               our people are smiling again. They believe in a future for themselves and for their families;

-               we are confident because we are no longer desperate. We can wait as long it takes for the world to come to its senses. 

Elected for five years from the date he takes office, 4 February, President Bagapsh will have to tackle particularly difficult tasks.  He will have a comfortable parliamentary majority of 28 deputies out of 35 until the spring of 2012, the date of the next parliamentary elections.

First priority – strengthening the economy

At his first press conference, held on the day the elections were announced, President Bagapsh announced an improvement in the state’s finances with a balanced budget in 2010 (3.8 billion roubles) and with tax revenues up 25% since 2009.  He said that investment and spending on social services had risen.

There are numerous infrastructure projects: the re-establishment of railway and air links with Russia, the beginning of the construction of a new road towards the North Caucasus, the construction of a gas pipeline between Tuapse and Sukhumi, contribution to the construction of sport infrastructure at Krasnaya Polyana for the 2014 Winter Olympics.

The franchise for prospecting for gas and oil on the continental shelf off the coast of Ochamchira has been given to the Russian company, Rosneft.  An effort will be made to improve tourist infrastructure.  Parliament is to decide what property rights to give to foreign purchasers.

Demographic and linguistic challenges.

Economic improvement and a rise in salaries should enable the Abkhaz people to improve their birth rate.

The Abkhaz language, which the writer Alexei Gogua calls “the song of the soul”, is under strong pressure from Russian.  President Bagapsh thinks that protecting the language is as big a challenge as the economy.  The Abkhaz language is very ancient and it belongs to the linguistic family of the North-West Caucasus with no links to those of the South.  There are two main dialects, Bzâp in the North and Abzâura in the South.

The Abkhaz also remain very attached to their code of honour, Apswara, which was preserved even among those Abkhaz communities which emigrated to Turkey at the end of the 19^th century.  (Many Abkhaz went on to occupy senior positions within Atatürk’s team, including one Prime Minister, Rauf Orbay.)  Abkhaz are still present today in influential circles in Syria and Jordan.

The search for a solution to the problem of refugees

Throughout the sixteen years which followed the “Patriotic War” of 1992 – 1993, 60,000 persons have been able to return to the region of Gali.  On 1 January 2009, statistics show that 1,210 Georgians live in Gagra district, 617 in Guauta in the North; 786 in Gulripsh; 2,271 in Ochamchira, 8,033 in Tqarchal in the South, and in Sukhumi and its surroundings more than 15,000.  The pursuit of refugee returns depends above all on the degree of confidence which exists between the populations, and some people find it difficult to forget the three military operations launched from Georgia in May 1998, October 2001 and July 2006, not to mention the perils which remain under the surface after the conflict of August 2008 in South Ossetia.

21 schools are open in Gali of which 11 are Georgian language.  Article 6 of the Abkhaz constitution provides that “the state guarantees to all ethnic groups in Abkhazia the right to use their mother tongue freely”.  The Abkhaz authorities insists that the Georgian population was never expelled from Abkhazia but that some people left the territory accompanying the Georgian army as it left.  Refugee return is supposed to continue even if it is a very difficult issue.  The conclusions of a recent report by the Social Chamber into the views of the Abkhaz population about the problem of Georgian refugees are very illustrative.  It found the following elements:

-               Abkhaz society is suspicious in the fact of the need to preserve national and regional security;

-               People are afraid that the authorities in Tbilisi will use refugee return as a negotiating tool to put pressure on Abkhazia;

-               The lack of reliable statistics will encourage Tbilisi to make unreasonable demands;

-               The difficulty of designating those who fought on the Georgian side in the war of 1992 – 93;

-               The need to overcome latent resentment, double standards and inequality of treatment;

-               Expectations (usually not met) that the international organisations (UN, EU, Council of Europe, OSCE) will play a more effective role.

III    IN FAVOUR OF A MULTILATERAL FOREIGN POLICY

At the inauguration of part of a new road which crosses Georgia from East to West, President Saakashvili said on 23 November 2009, “This road will take us to Sukhumi.  We will get to Sukhumi in the end and we will throw out the occupants from the territory of Georgia.  I am absolutely convinced of it.  We will achieve our goal whatever resistance we encounter.”

In the light of such statements, the first objective of Abkhaz foreign policy should be to reach an agreement with Georgia on the non-use of force, and on mutual security guarantees.  The ceasefire agreement reached in 1994 under the auspices of the UN and Russia provided already for the obligation not to have recourse to new hostilities.  This mechanism proved incapable of preventing repeated incursions and numerous violations, especially in Gali in 1998 and in the upper Kodori valley in 2001 and 2006.

By presenting Abkhazia as “an occupied territory, in which all autonomy has disappeared in favour of the Kremlin” (according to a statement by the spokesman for the Georgian presidency on 10 December 2009), the authorities in Tbilisi try to obscure the fact that Abkhazia’s relations with Russia have often been tumultuous in the past.  Numerous Abkhaz interviewed by this author often recalled the resentment still felt at the fact that Imperial Russia had decreed the Abkhaz to be a “guilty people” in the 19^th century, and at the blockade imposed by Russia under Yeltsin in 1996 when Moscow fully supported the territorial integrity of Georgia.  At that time, Abkhaz men between the ages of 18 and 50 were not allowed to cross the Russian border and this situation lasted until 2000.  The CIS blockade was not lifted until March 2008.

The signature of a Treaty on Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, signed with the Russian Federation on 17 September 2008, and which the Abkhaz Foreign Minister, Sergey Shamba, said reflected a “strategic alliance” and “a chance of which Abkhazia should be proud and from which she should profit” has changed the situation and resolved, to a very large extent, the question of Abkhazia’s security.  Article 3 of the Treaty provides that “The contracting Parties engage in deep cooperation in questions pertaining to sovereignty, territorial integrity and security.  They will consult one another urgently whenever either Party considers its useful to do so, especially when there is any threat of an attack.”  Russia had been a participant in peacekeeping in Abkhazia since 1994 and it was alone among the CIS states to do so.  More than 100 Russian soldiers have died in Abkhazia.

President Bagapsh now puts security third in his list of priorities, after the economy and international recognition, and he says that he is in favour of a multilateral foreign policy.  The move towards recognition should continue.  Diplomacy towards the Middle East (Libya, Iran and Turkey especially), Latin America (Ecuador, Peru) and the Pacific is continuing.  This should not cause anyone to forget that the conflict with Georgia is ongoing and that President Saakashvili’s recent remarks lead one to fear that there might be new provocations at the end of 2010 or at the beginning of 2011, following a period of strenuous rearmament.

The signature of an agreement on the non-use of force would constitute the first step towards creating security in the region and it would be the necessary precondition for a new start to negotiations about the roots of the conflict.  The Geneva negotiations are currently the only forum for such discussions and their role is therefore key in going beyond mere conflict prevention and conflict management.  However, both sides remain far apart concerning how any such agreement could be guaranteed.

The European Union, which Georgia considers to be the most suitable body, could play this role since numerous Abkhaz say they look to and belong to Europe.  However, the presence of EU observers in Abkhazia is currently unacceptable given the frank rejection of Abkaz independence by EU member states and given the fact that the EU blindly follows Tbilisi’s line.  The reference to “de facto entities” is not greatly appreciated in Abkhazia and nor is the satellite surveillance operated by the European Union Monitoring Mission.  On the other hand, the publication of a recent report on the fact finding mission by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe in April and May 2009 was hailed as a “significant political step forward” by the adviser to the presidency on human rights.

Brussels would be quite capable of reducing the possibility of violence which remain always latent on the Georgian side.  The Eastern Partnership could help towards reconstruction of those regions damaged in the 1993 war and this would create better conditions for refugee return.

The best way to prevent a new outbreak of hostilities remains the guarantee provided by Russian military assistance, the existence of a United Nations mission (which would need a new name and a new mandate) on both sides of the border, and an EU mission in Georgia.  There could be three levels of guarantee within the framework of an agreement on the non-use of force:  mutual agreements between Abkhazia and Georgia; a regional agreement with the involvement of Russia, Turkey and Iran; and inter- or supranational agreement at the level of the EU and the UN.  Arrangements could also be discussed in more specific areas like the policing of the border in Gali, the use of the hydroelectric station at Inguri (which has continued to operate throughout the whole period of the conflict and which has even received foreign credit), the reopening of rail and air links between Abkhazia and Georgia, and so on.

Any such programme would require great political courage on the part of all involved; a sense of impartiality in the understanding of the situations on the part of internationals, who would have to look at it from a position other than only that of Tbilisi; the abandonment of the policy of double standards; and a return of confidence and a lack of competition between the future guarantors.  New formulae would have to be sought to find mutually acceptable mechanisms.  Such work could be carried out by anyone of good will, whether NGOs or research institutes who are keen to put an end to the isolation of Abkhazia which has already lasted for nearly two decades and which is resented in the country albeit without acrimony or intemperate statements.  The orderly way in which the elections were conducted on 12 December 2009, which is an undeniable fact now, should be taken into consideration as a starting point for the above programme.

Persons met

-       President of the Central Electoral Commission, Mr Batal Tabagua;

-       League of Voters:  Mr Alkas Tkhagushev;

-       President of the Social Chamber, Mrs Natella Akaba;

-       Foreign Minister, Mr Sergey Shamba;

-       Candidates for the presidency

·      M. Sergey Bagapsh

·      M. Vitali Bganba

·      M. Beslan Butba

·      M. Raul Khadjimba

-       Adviser to the presidency for foreign policy, Dr Viacheslav Chirikba;

-      Adviser to the presidency for the media, Mr Nadir Bitiyen;

-      Director of the Centre for Strategic Research, Mr Oleg Damenia;

-      Centre for Humanitarian Progress:

·      Executive Director, Mrs Arda Inal-Ipa;

·      Deputy Director:  Mrs Liana Kvarchelia;

·      Member: Mrs Diana Kereselian.

-       Russian Ambassador: Mr Semyon Grigoriev;

-       The President of the Committee for Repatriation, Mr Anzor Mukba;

-       Media:

·      Director of the newspaper “Chekemenskaya Pravda”, Mr Inal Khasiq;

·      former journalist from the newspaper “Abkhazia Echo”, Mrs Nadezhda Benediktova;

-               Writer (the patriarch of Abkhaz literature), Mr Alexis Gogua;

-               Historian and former head of the Security Council, Mr Stanislas Lakoba;

-               President of the Veterans’ Association ARUAA, Mr Vadim Smyr;

-               Head of mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mme Ariane de Robien.

 * Maurice BONNOT is a retired French diplomat and a former member of the EU Border Monitoring Mission in Georgia.  He visited Abkhazia for IDC in December 2009.