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.