Dividing Divided States. Gregory F. Treverton

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of the Dispute

      Abkhazia is small region in the northwest corner of Georgia, bordering the Black Sea and Russia. Its primary economic activities are agriculture and tourism. Of strategic importance, the BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) oil pipeline traverses Abkhazia en route to Turkey. For decades Abkhazia has been a multiethnic society composed of people of Abkhaz, Georgian, Armenian, Jewish, and Greek descent, among others. During the Soviet era, Abkhazia was an autonomous republic within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Georgia declared its independence and included in its international borders the region of Abkhazia.

      Abkhazia declared its own independence from Georgia in the following year, sparking armed conflict between Abkhazia and Georgia, and “ethnic cleansing” between the Abkhaz and Georgian populations in Abkhazia.⁴³ Ethnic Georgians in particular were targeted because over the previous several decades the demographics of the Abkhazia region had shifted, leaving ethnic Georgians constituting 46 percent of the population, up from 39 percent in 1959.⁴⁴ The Abkhaz claim this was the result of deliberate demographic policy by Georgia in an effort to quell the ethnically driven call for Abkhaz independence. As a result of the fighting and persecution, most ethnic Georgians (approximately 250,000 to 280,000 people) fled Abkhazia as refugees.⁴⁵ Little is known about those who were internally displaced within Abkhazia.

      In 1994 Abkhazia and Georgia reached an agreement to end the armed conflict and repatriate those who had been displaced. The four-way agreement was negotiated; it is formally the Quadripartite Agreement on Voluntary Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons. According to the agreement, the parties “agree to cooperate and to interact in planning and conducting the activities aimed to safeguard and guarantee the safe, secure and dignified return of people who have fled from areas of the conflict zone to the areas of their previous permanent residence.”⁴⁶ The four parties met periodically to address ongoing issues, but negotiations were often driven by other political issues among them.

      In addition to the UNHCR, other international organizations—for instance, the Group of Friends, the OSCE, and the Commonwealth of Independent States Peace Keeping Force—became involved in efforts to restore peace and resettle returning IDPs in Abkhazia. In particular, UNOMIG sent a long-term peacekeeping force whose mission began in 1994. UNOMIG has helped to maintain the formal ceasefire for more than ten years but has not yet established a safe and secure environment to which IDPs might return. This stems largely from the fact that the fundamental disagreement between Abkhazia and Georgia regarding Abkhaz independence has not been resolved.

      Demographics have played an important role in the conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia. Since expelling the near-majority ethnic Georgians, the Abkhaz have become the largest ethnic group in Abkhazia. By blocking the return of ethnic Georgians, the Abkhaz hope to hold onto their ethnic majority, thereby solidifying a consensus vote for independence. Demographics have played a part on the Georgian side, too, albeit in a less extreme manner. From 1990 to the mid-2000s, Georgia lost nearly 20 percent of its population to emigration.⁴⁷ Thus the loss of Abkhazia would represent a further reduction of the Georgian population, as well as a substantial economic loss.

      Given the circumstances, it is unsurprising that very few IDPs have returned to Abkhazia in the fifteen years since the ceasefire. The only notable exception is the Gali region, to which an estimated 45,000 ethnic Georgians have returned. However, those returnees were met by the Abkhaz militias’ attacks and efforts to intimidate, despite the presence of monitors from the UNHCR.⁴⁸ In contrast, the formal repatriation process to which all parties agreed has resulted in only 311 returnees. Moreover, most settlers fled a second time in 1998 due to recurrent ethnic cleansing.⁴⁹

      Nor is it clear that the returnees to Gali are permanent since many ethnic Georgians return there temporarily during the hazelnut harvest out of economic necessity. In fact, what looks like a “success” from the perspective of the government’s repatriation agenda may in fact serve as a cautionary tale for ethnic Georgian who fled areas where Georgians were not in the majority. Given the extent to which returnees were terrorized in Gali, where they outnumbered the Abkhaz, there is little hope that smaller groups of returnees would fare better in areas where they were in the minority.

      The inability of IDPs to return to Abkhazia means that Georgia has been faced with accommodating more than a quarter of a million IDPs. This represents more than an eighth of the nation’s population in a country already struggling with economic hardship. Of the refugees who fled to Georgia, 70 percent settled in urban areas. The region bordering Abkhazia, just across the Induri River, absorbed 38 percent of refugees, especially those who fled from the neighboring Gali region. Tbilisi drew roughly a third of the refugees. The displaced primarily live in private accommodations (typically with family members) or makeshift collective centers (e.g., hotels, schools, and factories that have been taken over by refugee families).

      Most IDPs live in extremely precarious circumstances, suffering from poverty, poor health, unemployment, psychological stress, and social alienation. Most of the communal centers lack adequate basic accommodations and are in urgent need of repair.⁵⁰ IDPs are entitled to social support benefits similar to those provided to vulnerable Georgian residents, conditional on being registered with the Georgian Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation (MRA), which was established in 1996 to address the specific needs of IDPs in Georgia. Registered IDPs who live in private residences are entitled to US$8.00 per month, while those in collective centers receive US$6.50 plus free public utilities (e.g., water, electricity). The registry was updated in 2004, and the status of 210,000 IDPs from Abkhazia was verified ten years after the end of armed conflict.⁵¹ In 2006 the MRA launched a program that allows IDPs to register the titles to their land in Abkhazia in a state inventory to protect property and inheritance rights of ethnic Georgians.⁵² This could become a bargaining chip with Abkhazia should the parties restart negotiations over the rights of refugee to their property (as protected by international law).

      In 2007 the Georgian government developed a new national strategy on IDPs. It again emphasized their right to return but made more explicit that integration into Georgian society need not hinder future return to their place of origin (including Abkhazia).⁵³ The reemergence of armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia (another breakaway region) highlights the need for the swift implementation of measures to address IDPs’ short- and long-term needs, whether through repatriation or resettlement and integration in Georgia proper.

      Assessment and Possible Lessons

      Abkhazia, while formally agreeing to repatriation, has hindered the return of refugees both officially and unofficially for more than fifteen years. In 1995 the de facto authorities of Abkhazia offered to accept two hundred returnees per week, which observers argued was too few given the number of IDPs in Georgia.⁵⁴ More recently Abkhaz officials claimed that resettlement to areas outside of Gali was “impossible now.”⁵⁵ Unofficially, Abkhaz militias continue to terrorize ethnic Georgians who do return, while others expropriate the property of those who do not. Their actions continue to deter any substantial resettlement of IDPs in their homeland. The authorities have little incentive to combat these activities since the longer Abkhazia can keep returnees at bay, the greater the opportunity to cultivate an Abkhaz-centric society to which Georgian refugees would not wish to return if permitted.

      For its part, Georgia has single-mindedly pursued the goal of resettling IDPs in Abkhazia. Critics claim that the needs of IDPs have been secondary to the issue of territorial control.⁵⁶ Georgia has drawn criticism for being so committed to the right of IDPs to return to their homes in Abkhazia that it effectively denied IDPs other rights, such as legal rights to vote, own property, or work. Georgia has also failed to provide adequate humanitarian assistance to those who return of their own accord and denied displaced persons the full rights of citizens in Georgia.

      In more recent years Georgia has taken steps to integrate IDPs into political and economic life, while taking precautions that СКАЧАТЬ