Conclusion.

Our last pages have been written, and we would like to hope that we ­ have coped with the task which we set ourselves - through a prism of the history of the Abkhazian people, ­ having emphasised the legal side of the problem, to consider a method of formation and development of the statehood of Abkhazia, the Republic of Abkhazia’s affirmation that it is an independent and sovereign subject of international law. The materials given by us testify that Abkhazia under the basic requirements ­(principles) is in the full sense de facto and de jure a state having its own structure, form of government and method of functioning, ­ which are fixed by constitution; there is absolutely no ­ necessity to prove to anyone that Abkhazia really exists as ­ a state within protected frontiers. The country possesses the characteristic features belonging to any sovereign state­: territory, government, priority of the law,­ machinery of state and other features. The Republic of Abkhazia territory ­ is occupied by the indigenous Abkhazian ethnos, the republic is multinational, representatives of more than 60 ethnic groups live there, and all them have the complete spectrum of civil rights. The government in Abkhazia is legalised and legitimate, and acts as the official representative of all the population of the republic. The government possesses leadership in relation to ­ other institutes in society, and it has state sovereignty. Abkhazia approached sovereignty for centuries, and it is now proved to be true by a numerous set of legal documents.

The terrible picture of a genocide of the Abkhazian people and an encroachment upon the sovereignty of the Abkhazian state, observed in the XX century, fell upon Abkhazia with the formation of the so-called Georgian democratic state. The fate of the Abkhazian people during Soviet time was even more terrible. The more I.Stalin and L.Beria (Georgians by nationality) usurped power in Georgia, Russia, and the USSR, the  worse the fate of Abkhazians. And only Stalin's death, and Beria’s execution for numerous crimes against humanity, rescued the Abkhazian people from the full catastrophe of ­ destruction as an ethnos and a  nation. At the heart of the conflict is the colonial policy ­ of Georgia, the aggressor which has embraced chauvinism and fascism and, strangely enough, is supported in this criminal activity by the world community. Stalin - Beria policy was inherited by the president of Georgia, E.Shevardnadze. Today we observe a similar situation with the "hawk" fostered by the United States of America - Michael Saakashvili, supported by NATO countries, demanding a revenge in Abkhazia and ­ South Ossetia, undertaking all conceivable and inconceivable actions, and infringing international laws or bypassing them (contra legem facit qui id facid quod lex prohibet, in frandem vero qui salvis verbis sententiam enis cirkunventi).

However their aggressive nationalist paranoid aim “to finish Abkhazia now and forever” was not carried out, in spite of the fact that the leaders of four-million Georgians, at the end of XX century, threw all the armoured power of the Georgian army into Abkhazia, rushing to gain ­ one of its most “brilliant victories” over the hundred thousand Abkhazian people­. But this crazy idea could not be carried out and will never be carried out­. Leaders of Georgia and ideologists of imperialist national socialism have not considered the following circumstance: history does not remember that Abkhazia, i.e. the Abkhazian people, ever attacked anybody. These people, who are used to protecting themselves and  defending their native land and homes, are impossible to defeat. They have on their side all of the North Caucasus, all progressive mankind, and all people of good will,­  who  express sympathy and render all feasible help to the Abkhazian ­ people because they are protecting their land.

Naturally, the aggression of the Georgian soldiery in this undeclared war ended with utter defeat for Georgia. Probably Abkhazia, as the favourite child of the people of the Caucasus, was rescued by the Almighty, given the aspiration of the Abkhazian ­ people to find and keep a worthy place in the constellation of the people of the Caucasus,­  Russia and the world – a desire quite favourable to God. The centuries-old dream ­ of the Abkhazian people, of all the population of the Republic of Abkhazia, came true. Abkhazia ­ definitively released itself from annexation by Georgia and has restored its status as a sovereign state, the subject of international law. What further?

The modern world community tends towards developments in two ­ basic directions: globalisation and separatism. As T.Roosevelt said,­  “the twentieth century appears to us as a century in which ­ destinies of many nations  will be defined”­. Thus on the one hand, centuries-old ­ borders of traditionally independent states (uniform Europe) are falling,­ and on the other, empires are collapsing, giving independence to ethnoses and peoples, i.e.  the priority of self-determination prevails over the indestructibility ­ of states and their borders. This real situation enters into confrontation with regulations in the Helsinki Final Agreement, formulated and ­ accepted in the years of the “cold war” opposition of two nuclear empires. In the above-named regulations, the illusion is presented that the world ­ consists of states, whereas it really consists of the people. As these ­ideas have become outdated and ethno-destroying today, the struggles of peoples for national sovereignty, including their right to self-determination and hence to independence and freedom, leads, as in the case of Abkhazia, to never-ending international military conflicts. The Abkhazian people have no choice but to take all necessary measures for the protection of their statehood and sovereignty against any new military escalation (si vis pacem, para bellum), i.e. look for peace,­ but prepare for war. And this is correct, as wrongful violence is authorised to be overcome by force (vim vi repellere licet).

In our case, the right of the people to sovereignty and self-determination is much more serious than a simple infringement of the integrity of frontiers, because in Abkhazia there is a question about the existence of the whole population: is it really lawful to destroy Abkhazians for the sake of out-of-date principles of the OSCE or the United Nations? Also there is another question: what ­is more important, the existence of people or the integrity of the state oppressing those people? What is more important for the world community – the peaceful development of countries and ­ regions or never-ending wars and armed oppositions? After all, Cicero said that when the weapons rattle, laws are silent (inter arma leges silent). It would be desirable to hope that in the United Nations and OSCE, among representatives from ­the nations of the world who are called to solve questions of international safety and the rights of the people, the majority are capable of empathizing with the people they represent, sympathizing with their troubles, and helping to secure ­ these people and ethnoses against any encroachment by new imperialists, colonizers and ­ pseudo-democrats, under whatever slogans they mask themselves.

At the beginning of "perestroika" on the Russian "Montmartre" (Old Arbat), ­ a painting by a young artist which had the name (then new to the Russian lexicon) of "Consensus" was displayed­. In it was a camel on whose head magnificent deer horns, attached by ideologists of perestroika, had been represented. Now, the same ideologists from the CIS countries, and officials from the United Nations, OSCE and NATO try to attach on the head of Abkhazia the same horns in the form of Georgia. This will not happen! Think again, gentlemen, after all for such an action the head  must  be operated on,­ and it is also possible for many heads to be treated in the same way as  one head (to which Georgia aspires),  but ­ on the other hand, this means blood, a lot of blood!

The legal documents presented by us which define the status of the statehood of Abkhazia de jure and the imperative norms of international law­ confirming the legitimacy of this status, are, in our ­ opinion, the necessary key which will allow the Republic of Abkhazia (in the presence of the good will of the international commonwealth of  nations) to open a door and join the number of states in the world community possessing their sovereignty de jure and de facto in full.

We believe that comments on a statement of historical data can cause irritation or even aversion for some historians (let alone politicians) having a different view of questions or events ­ in the evolution of the states considered by us. Well, the information­ concerning this problem is ambiguous, therefore its interpretation, especially concerning the period until VII century, can appear disputable. We see the evolution ­ of the people of Transcaucasia as having been in the manner stated by us, but nevertheless, considering the almost century-long experience of mutual relations between  Georgia and Abkhazia, we know that a stream of unfair reproaches will take place, and even lies, etc. are also possible.  We are ready to accept these blows, as an adversary has the right to such arguments (audiatur et altera pars). At the same time, we ask any adversary to give a convincing reason for critical remarks, with references to the official legal certificates confirming such remarks, for the right of proof­ in this case should be given to the Georgian side (ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat). As the problem considered in this work is in the process of being solved, any constructive criticism will undoubtedly be useful, and we will accept it with gratitude. Along with this, we consider that it is necessary to pay the most basic attention not to words, but to the will and actions of the parties in this conflict (voluntatem potius quam verba considerari oported).