|
|
Abkhazia
Legal basis of statehood and sovereignty
Chapter 3. Legal basis of statehood
3.7. The role of international organisations in the Georgian-Abkhazian
conflict
In the politics of the United Nations, which is formed by states which are
called democratic but are not always so, an approach based upon double
standards is defined as a choice of priorities otherwise dependent upon
necessity. Declaring to the whole world that the basis of their principles is
“care of human rights”, in real life the principle of “integrity of the states”
is paramount, thus the interests of individual nations and all mankind are
sacrificed to the ambitions of leaders of the major countries or the politicians
necessary to those leaders. As for “care of human rights” concerning Abkhazia,
it is reduced to one thing - the world community has been anxious only to
preserve the “right” of Mr. E. Shevardnadze to conduct a genocide and utter
annihilation of the Abkhazian people as an ethnos within territory which has
been the property of Abkhazia for a period of more than two millenia. It is
becoming the same concerning the new president of Georgia. Universal justice
does not define approaches to the question of granting self-determination to
nations, but a group of international officials decides how separate
people, nations or ethnoses should live and develop. As a rule, the wishes of
these people are completely ignored, and in most cases, as for example with
Abkhazia, its opinion is not asked for at all, though its will has already been
expressed over a long period quite lawfully and democratically through a
referendum.
The question is to whom is this favourably important? (cui prodest).
Analyzing the policy of the United Nations in the conflict in the territory of
Transcaucasia, one is convinced that basically the corporate interests of
countries entering in one way or another into the blocks representing the
political, economic and regional interests of these countries sponsor the
United Nations, or, to put it clearly, pay officials servicing this
organization. The more such money for the United Nations machine a country
allocates, the more it is guaranteed that its suggestions, even the most
ridiculous and anti-human, will be accepted. We observe this in the examples
of Afghanistan, Iraq... It appears that the USA can act for the protection (i.e.
the interests) of itself in the territory of a distant, not neighbouring,
independent sovereign state. Abkhazia has no right of protection of its people,
independence and statehood even in its own territory. Where is the logic, where
is the declared justice? Or is it only because the USA puts huge sums into
this black hole called Georgia, because America arms the Georgian bandits and
prepares special troops for the punishment of civilians in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, that Georgia is given the right to destroy the people of
Transcaucasia - the most ancient ethnoses – with impunity? All that matters is
that Georgia has intended to clear a region for the further installation of
USA military bases in the proximity of Russia.
In these plans the United Nations does not take a neutral stand. Its attitude
has degenerated into that of the League of Nations, which tolerated fascism,
leading to the start of the Second World War. During that period, as well as
now, all injust actions of the relevant organisation were made through double
standards. The League of Nations justified Hitler's actions in the same way as
the United Nations judges the actions of E.Shevardnadze, and nowadays of M.Saakashvili.
Finally came the inevitable court of history, and the instigators appeared
behind bars or on the gallows. In that instance those officials of the League of
Nations who promoted the development of the anti-human scenario evaded
judgement, as on their hands no blood was visible - they worked only with
papers. Officials of the United Nations also hope for the same.
As an example, we will pay attention to the following: at the moment of
acceptance of Georgia as a member of the United Nations (July, 1992), the
country was ruled by the State Council of Georgia, an illegitimate body which
came to power unconstitutionally. Georgia at that time did not represent a
uniform political formation, its jurisdiction did not extend to Abkhazia,
South Ossetia, or (partially) to Adjaria, and in Mingrelia during this period
there was a civil war between supporters and opponents of the ex-president.
World practice does not recognise states if their power does not extend to those
territories or state organisations which they declare as being within the
structure of the state. But, as we see, Georgia, together with all of its
infringements of international law, military expansion, genocide and war crimes,
was included by the United Nations within its number. European states entered it
with pleasure and honour into the structure of the Council of Europe, which was
a nonsense in itself, and calls into question European and world law.
The deceit of the international community undertaken by Georgia consisted and
consists of Georgia’s presentation to it of the information that Abkhazians are
really Georgians, and that all of their lives (and earlier) they have dreamt
only to be in the bosom of Georgia, but that turncoats, to Russia’s advantage,
in every possible way pursue a policy of tearing Abkhazia away from its native
mother country. The will of the people of Abkhazia, stated in the most
democratic way by means of a referendum, is thus ignored, and the Georgian
government expresses friendship and love to the Abkhazian people by means of
military aggression, tanks and machine guns, terror and sabotage.
The view of the problem of mutual relations between Abkhazia and Georgia
was formed in the world and in international organisations on the basis of its
deceitful representation in a false and deformed way. As an example, we
will give one small detail completely characterising the position of PACE and
its view of the mutual relations of Abkhazia and Georgia. The lecturer T.Davis,
concerning the draft of Georgia’s demand to join the Council of Europe, in item
7 states: “Georgia has gone through two confrontations in Abkhazia (1992-1994)
and in South Ossetia (1990-1993)”. In other words, Georgia did not attack the
sovereign state Abkhazia, not did it start the military conflict, but went
through it as a victim of aggression from Abkhazia.
The leaders of Abkhazia know that the physical existence of the people of the
country, and primarily its native ethnos (the host nationality), depends upon
their every step at negotiations on conflict settlement between Georgia and
Abkhazia. They learnt about “friendship to the grave” with Georgians, but
understand that the primary goal of the Georgian government is “to drive all
Abkhazians into this grave”. The World community should have understood a long
time ago that the form of coexistence imposed upon these peoples is absolutely
unacceptable by definition. This proves to be true in various ways (e.g. ethnic
structure, national culture), and is simply because these people were never
represented by one statehood, and Abkhazia was always an independent
state whose people had only Russian and Abkhazian citizenship. Also, it would
be desirable to know for what reason, and on what legal basis, the people of
Abkhazia, actually living independently, should agree to domination in their
own country by an alien ethnos, with a change of their own citizenship to
Georgian.
The international community, and in particular the United Nations, OSCE and
other organizations, should remember that Abkhazia, annexed by Georgia in 1918,
left its structure, as well as that of the USSR, following the disintegration
of the latter. Then as a result of its military victory in 1993, it was released
from its annexation and declared this to the international community. From then
on Abkhazia became a completely sovereign, independent state, the subject of
international law, without dependence upon its recognition by the international
community. Besides, sovereign Abkhazia is a part of the Confederation of the
Mountain Peoples representing the ethno-social political Union of the states
of the North Caucasus, whose tasks include the protection of the statehood and
independence of its members.
Shamba T., Neproshin А. Abkhazia: Legal basis of statehood and sovereignty. М: Open Company "In-Oktavo", 2005, 240 pages.
Далее читайте:
Абхазы -
(самоназвание апсуа) автохтонное население Кавказа.
Абхазия
(краткая историческая справка).
Исторические лица Абхазии (биографический справочник).
|
