| |
Georgian
Apologists (at home and abroad)
George Hewitt (Professor of Caucasian Languages, SOAS, London
University)
Close observers of the Georgian-Abkhazian
conflict over the years will be all too familiar with cases where a Georgian
spokesman produces a charge which has little (if any) relationship with
reality — evidence/statements to the contrary are airily dismissed, and the
charges are reiterated. Take the interchange that took place in London on
23rd November 1992 at an open meeting at Chatham House between Georgia's
then Foreign Minister, Aleksandre Chik'vaidze, and (the late) Lord David
Ennals, one-time UK Minister of Health. This illustrative citation, relating
to the situation in the northern Abkhazian town of Gagra after its recapture
by the Abkhazians in October 1992, is taken from Appendix 6 of my 1993
article 'Abkhazia: a problem of identity and ownership' (Central Asian
Survey 12.3):
Chik'vaidze:
[...] the Abkhazians treacherously attacked and captured Gagra. Today the
Abkhazian separatists and their so-called volunteers are treating the
Georgians so badly that one could accuse them of genocide. In Abkhazia today
we see the same mixture of home-grown fascists and external reactionary
forces that exist in other parts also of the ex-USSR...
Questions
(1) Lord David Ennals:
I was in Abkhazia only 2 weeks ago as part of a UN mission, and I can tell
you that I have proof that your Georgian troops have been treating the
Abkhazians atrociously. What do you say about this, and why do you not issue
an invitation for the newly appointed CSCE commissioner for ethnic
minorities (a former Foreign Minister of Holland) to involve himself
immediately in this war?
Chik'vaidze:
I can tell you that the North Caucasian forces are mistreating local
Georgians — indeed, there is not a single Georgian house between the Russian
border and Sukhum that the Abkhazians have not burned.
Ennals:
Excuse me, but I was in Gagra, where I spoke to many Georgians who were
living in their own houses.
Chik\vaidze:
No, you do not understand, I am telling you that there is not a single
Georgian property left unburnt between the Russian border and Sukhum. Half a
million [sic!] Georgians have already fled from Abkhazia [N.B. according to
the 1989 census there were only 239,872 "Georgians" living in Abkhazia! —
BGH]. As for the CSCE commissioner, I have to tell you that we Georgians are
a special people with our own customs that are poorly understood by
outsiders, and so we have to sort out our own problems without any external
assistance.
Giorgi Baramidze, Deputy-Premier of
Georgia, on a tour to Europe and the USA in April 2008 made the charge (as
on his BBC News 24 interview for the programme Hard Talk with Stephen
Sackur) that the Georgian population living today in Abkhazia (primarily in
the south-easternmost province of Gal) is 'subjected to daily killings and
rapes', something which simply has no basis in fact.
Another common trope in Georgians'
assertions about the Georgian-Abkhazian war of 1992-93 is that it was a war
not between Georgians and Abkhazians, but rather between Georgians and
Russians. As regards one crucial action in that war, the already mentioned
retaking of the northern town of Gagra by the Abkhazians and their allies,
here is what the independent American observer Dodge Billingsley wrote about
it in 1998:
Excerpt from Dodge
Billingsley's 'Military Aspects of the War.
The Battle for Gagra
(The Turning-point)'
Chapter 9 of The
Abkhazians: a Handbook
(edited by George Hewitt,
Curzon Press 1998)
Many in Georgia and elsewhere
feel that the war was really a Russian-Georgian conflict. This is a
complicated issue. Technically, all volunteers from the North Caucasus were
Russian citizens. The real question, however, centres on motivation and how
the volunteers saw themselves. There were many indications that Chechen
assistance to Abkhazia was stimulated by independent aspirations related to
a pan-Caucasian federation rather than any Russian plot. The best known
Chechen to fight against Georgia, Shamil Basaev (now deputy to Chechen's
President Maskhadov), stated that 'as long as the small Abkhazian people
suffered in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, his units would help them, but
in the event of hostilities between Russia and Georgia, the volunteers would
fight on the Georgian side'.
There were, however, verified
cases of Russian assistance. Russian pilots were actually shot down by
Kartvelian units, but the incidents were isolated and more likely reflected
free-lancing by rogue elements of the Russian military, a fact which has
precedence elsewhere in the Caucasus, including the earlier Georgian
conflict in South Ossetia.
Moreover, there were other indications that Russia (Yeltsin) knew of
Shevardnadze's plan and was prepared to look the other way. Commenting on
the unruly nature of the Kartvelian forces, Shevardnadze remarked that he
was against sending his troops into Sukhum: 'I wanted our military units to
go around Sukhumi and move to Gagra... When I spoke to Yeltsin on the next
day [after the beginning of hostilities], he told me: "The generals can get
out of control and you, as a smart man, should know it".'
Russia did meddle in the conflict, but the factor that made the difference
were the hundreds and hundreds of volunteers that made their way to the
region to engage Kartvelian forces throughout the war. This is not to say
that the volunteers might not incidentally have served the strategy of some
circles in the Russian military-political arena. However, the volunteers,
many of whom were Chechen, had their own reasons for helping Abkhazia, as
the more recent war in Chechenia has demonstrated.
There is no doubt that
volunteers from abroad did add to the quantity and quality of the Abkhazian
military effort, but their numbers were still small. Although Abkhazian
veterans claim that there were only 300 combatants on their side, it is more
realistic that their numbers exceeded 500. However, Abkhazians never held an
overall numerical advantage. Locally-based UN military observers
substantiate these Abkhazian claims, suggesting that Kartvelian troops did
indeed outnumber Abkhazian personnel but were so ill-disciplined that the
Abkhazian victory at Gagra should have come as no surprise.
What was a surprise was the
ability of the Abkhazian movement successfully to incorporate volunteers
from the North Caucasus and elsewhere, primarily Turkey, arriving to fight
for Abkhazia. Abkhazia would prove most adept at this throughout the course
of the war. Military cohesion on an individual- and group-level was always
better on the Abkhazian side. The reasons for this need to be explored in
depth. However, it must suffice to say that this factor, illustrated so
clearly at Gagra, was one of the most crucial determining factors in
Abkhazia's success and Georgia's failure.
In many ways the battle for
Gagra was the battle for Abkhazia itself. Once in control of the border and
port-facilities in the northern corner of Abkhazia, the Abkhazian leadership
was assured that supplies and manpower would get through. On the other hand,
after the loss of Gagra, Georgia could only hope for a break-out on the
Sukhum front. Reeling from the loss of Gagra, Kartvelian forces proved
incapable of further large-scale offensive operations. There were only four
more meaningful offensives undertaken that are worthy of note (January 1993,
March 1993, July 1993 and the final offensive of September 1993), and all
were conducted by the Abkhazian side.
It is perhaps understandable (if not
pardonable) if utterances that come tripping from the mouths of
representatives of the side which started the war and suffered a humiliating
defeat often play fast and loose with reality in order to mislead a world
largely ignorant of the region into believing that the West's chief bogey-nation,
Russia, was responsible for dashing Georgianss bright hopes in the early
years of post-communist independence — sadly, the West all too readily
allowed itself to be duped into falling for this deception. But it is more
perplexing to find a host of non-Georgians playing the same game and serving
up assertions straight out of the pages of the Georgian propaganda-manual.
One such is Svetlana Chervonnaja, whose main publications over the years
have been concerned with Tatar art. In 1993 she published in Russian
Abxazija 1992: Post-kommunisticheskaja vandeja, which appeared in
English translation in 1994 under the title Conflict in the Caucasus:
Georgia, Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow. Here is a quotation from a
short review I wrote of it at the time:
Anyone unwise enough to
believe the purpose of this book is to shed light should ponder the
following. Much is made of the distribution of seats in the Abkhazian
parliament of 1991, whereby the 17% Abkhazians held 28 of the 65. This fact
was stressed at the book's London launch by Levan Alexidze, human rights'
officer at the UN Secretariat (1970-77) and now chief advisor to
Shevardnadze, who also contributed a Postscript to the work, as an example
of anti-Georgian machinations in Abkhazia. This electoral law was also the
sole document shewn to the second mission to Abkhazia/Georgia from the
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples' Organisation (The Hague) when visiting
Tbilisi in November 1993 in support of allegations of genocide against the
Georgian population. As UNPO's report tersely notes, the personal advisor to
the Georgian President, Levan Alexidze, was co-author of this law....
Of late, however, the most consistently
egregious example of a non-Georgian propagandist for the Georgian cause is
Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation. His latest 'contribution', if
that is the appropriate word to describe what flows from his pen/computer-keyboard,
namely 'The
West can respond more effectively to Russia's assault on Georgia: part III',
appeared on 9th May. In it we read the following:
The Russian military, not the
Abkhaz (17 percent of the region's pre-conflict population) evicted the
Georgian population (45 percent of the pre-conflict population) from
Abkhazia by force.
This, of course, is completely consistent with the charge
discussed above with particular reference to the retaking of Gagra. But is
Socor's description of events actually what happened?
As noted above, in November-December of
1993 the Unrepresentated Nations and Peoples' Organisation (UNPO) organised
a visit to (now post-war) Abkhazia.
Their report was published in 1995 in
Central Asian Survey 14.1 (pp. 127-154). Regrettably (if perfectly
understandably, given human nature) after a bitterly contested civil war,
there were cases of retribution by the victorious side for the atrocities
committed by the occupiers,
and this has to be openly acknowledged, as indeed the UNPO report did.
However, due attention should be paid to the closing sentence of the
following remarks from p. 138:
In the final stages of the
war, when Abkhazian forces, supported by military units from the Northern
Caucasus, took back Sukhum and the remaining Abkhazian territory to the
Ingur river, there is evidence of serious violations of human rights and
humanitarian law committed by members of the Abkhazian forces, Northern
Caucasus troops and by armed civilians. When Abkhazian troops entered Sukhum
many civilians were killed. Similar incidents also occurred in other parts
of Abkhazia. THE MAJORITY OF GEORGIANS, HOWEVER, FLED BEFORE ABKHAZIAN AND
NORTHERN CAUCASUS TROOPS ARRIVED (stresses added).
The Kartvelian inhabitants of the occupied areas might well
have had good reasons to fear what would happen to them, especially if they
had given active support to the occupation, but, if the majority
abandoned Abkhazia before the arrival of the Abkhazians and their north
Caucasian allies, how can that flight be accurately described as 'ethnic
cleansing', as it usually is, or to have been occasioned by military force (let
alone RUSSIAN military force)? It was a case of 'self-cleansing', carried
out in the desperate chaos of the hour despite the distribution by the
Abkhazian authorities throughout the relevant parts of Abkhazia of a leaflet
(appended below) reminding everyone of their moral obligation to treat with
respect anyone laying down weapons as well as members of the civilian
population.
Lest anyone be tempted to see in the
phrase 'military units from the Northern Caucasus' a reference to the Red
Army, the explanation comes from the previous page of the Report, where we
read (p. 137-8):
A group of approximately 300
soldiers from the Northern Caucasus served in the Abkhazian army. According
to official representatives of the Northern Caucasus Federation these men
came voluntarily 'to the rescue of their neighbouring people'...A number of
Chechen soldiers were incorporated into the Abkhazian army, while others
served in a Chechen battalion under Chechen command.
So much, then, for the latest example of
Socor's fanciful rewriting of history.
Related Issues
-
The
West Can Respond More Effectively to Russia's Assault on Georgia: Part III,
By Vladimir Socor, Eurasia Daily Monitor, Jamestown Foundation
-
Vladimir Socor - Hound for Hire, The Tiraspol Times
-
UNPO Abkhazia Reports - UNPO
-
Dodge Billingsley -
Directors, Combat Films
-
Episode 9 - Battle for Gagra, Combat Films
-
Testimonies about
Georgian-Abkhazian War, Asarkial
Human Rights Group
-
“Public appeal to the Abkhaz people” from the Campaign “Sorry”/ “Hatamzait”,
Human Rights in Georgia, March
14, 2007
-
Some
Thoughts on 'Abkhazia is not Kosovo' by David L. Phillips (Transitions
Online, 7 Feb.08),
by George Hewitt, February 11, 2008
-
A Way to Let Abkhazia Live A Normal Life -
By Yulia Latynina, The Moscow Times
-
Abkhazia's Liberation and International Law,
By
E. K. Adzhindzhal
-
Abkhazia
is Abkhazia, By Stanislav Lakoba,
Central Asian Survey, vol. 14, no. 1
-
Republic of Abkhazia
|
|