open Democracy News Analysis - caucasus: regional fractures - Comments

Sossie Kasbarian on "The Armenia-Turkey process: don’t stop now "

Sossie Kasbarian — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:01:56 +0000

Thanks for a balanced and thoughtful article, Kerem.

Although many Armenian diasporans are positive about the protocols, in terms of opening the borders, improving relations, improving the economy etc, the real stumbling block is the idea of the 'historical commission' which most diasporans, regardless of political affiliation, scholars and non-scholars alike, find unacceptable, for many reasons, as eloquently expressed by some here:

http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/10/19/leave-it-to-the-historians-scholars-from-the-armenian-diaspora-reflect-on-sub-commission-on-the-historical-dimension/

For many diasporans this stipulation puts a dark cloud over the whole 'improving relations' discourse and makes them worry about the real agenda being pursued (aggressively by the US and others) and where a tiny developing state with no strategic importance or natural resources will fit in to that. The diaspora's reactions (and yes mobilised by the ARF but not confined to it) is also one of worry - if the Armenian state can agree to a 'historical commission' after more than 20 countries and credible genocide scholars attest to the genocide, then what else will it (be forced to) compromise?

The other sad aspect of this whole business is that it has contributed to an increasing chasm between state and diaspora. The fact that the diaspora was not made a part of this process in a meaningful way has been felt very deeply. In political terms perhaps they don't have a say but in terms of the (internal dynamics of the) Armenian 'nation(s)', this chasm has serious implications about the future of the relations between the diaspora and the state, the future of western Armenianness, issues of leadership and legitimacy etc. The AGBU and others are presenting themselves as the voices of 'reason' and ‘balance’ in a diasporan discourse which is being played out in nationalist terms by the ARF, but it is important to recognise that the leadership of a diasporan institution does not necessarily reflect the views of many of its ‘constituency’. The reactions to the protocols demonstrates yet again the complexities about legitimacy, authority and representation in the diaspora. The question of 'who speaks' for the diaspora is as ever, a highly pertinent one.

Not logged in on "The Russia-Georgia war: mission unaccomplished"

Not logged in — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:32:22 +0000

If somebody analizes in moral terms who is right or wrong in this conflict than one should look at the political systems teh breakaway regions have created. Semi fascist societies with single goal of expelling Georgians And if one closely analyzes the conflicts of 1990 the ultimate goal was to change the ethnic balance in the region . Those who criticise Georgian actions than should see in detail what were the reasons of the war.It is very well illustrated by MR Ghia when he speaks of Gorgian enclaves. The article simply analizes the winners and losers in the conflict.

Nareg Seferian on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

Nareg Seferian — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:50:44 +0000

Mr. Oktem's remarks were quite apt indeed. I would add that the emotional investment of all Armenians - whether in the Homeland or in the Diaspora - makes any sort of steps towards rapprochement difficult to deal with.

However, the real crux of this matter, in my opinion, is the illegitimacy of the government in Yerevan, again, both with the citizens of the Republic of Armenia and with Armenians of the Diaspora. There have never been truly free and fair elections in Armenia, and the current authorities came to power crushing a wave of protests after the last presidential elections, early in 2008. So, no matter what Serge Sarkisian and his cabinet move towards would be perceived as illegitimate by all Armenians.

keremoktem on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

keremoktem — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:53:40 +0000

I sympathize with Juan Gabriel Tokatlian in that I share his despise for the cynicism of power politics. There is no doubtthat the Turkish policy change towards Armenia is guided by the realpolitikgoals of appeasement and even, to an extent, the denial of genocide.

However, I also believe that Tokatlian'srevolt is above all the reflection of a feeling of catastrophe in parts of the Armenian Diaspora. And this feeling is not the default response of all Armenians in the Diaspora, but an emotional state that has been created deliberately by nationalist-leaning activists ever since the accords have become public. The explicit aim has been to obstruct any progress in Armenian-Turkish relations, as long as Turkey does not accept its responsibility for 1915.

But why all the anger now? Is the opening ofthe borders between the two countries going to take away anything from Armenia orthe Diaspora? I honestly do not think so. Turkey does not recognize the genocide now, and this situation will not change in the imminent future. Opening the borders, however, will create new channels between the two peoples. Already today, mostly politically interested Turks are travelling to Yerevan,and many of them do go to the Genocide Memorial Dzidzernakaberd, and face the dark side of their own history with very mixed feelings. Some of them have their individual ‘Warsaw Genuflections’ and write about it mostly in left-wing and liberal newspapers.

As for the historical commission: Yes, it is ridiculous to set up a forum for historians to establish what is a historical fact: That hundreds and thousands, probably in excess of a Million of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were killed deliberately with the aim to render historical Armenia and central Anatolia devoid of its Armenian population and of the material signs of their very existence. Establishing the commission, however, is not selling out on the genocide: It’s a strategy of playing safe by both sides. There are three possible outcomes of the Commission: Either, one side will walk out and the commission will lose its legitimacy and hence be disbanded, or, the commission will start meeting with big media fanfare and then eventually dissipate into oblivion once the sides lose their interest. The third possibility, that both sides agree that 1915 constituted a genocide would be wonderful, as it would create the space for Turkish political leaders, to sell it to their electorate. It would also help to make possible a sense of closure for those, whose suffering is multiplied by Turkey's official refusal of recognition. Yet, this is not a very likely scenario.

In conclusion, the protocols do not take anything away from Armenia and they are not a deal with which Armenia forfeits the historical claim to genocide. It does, however, explicitly accept the current borders between Turkey and Armenia, which by all means is a sensible and good thing.

Why I understand the feeling of dismay in parts of the Diaspora, I also sense a whiff of cynicism in Tokatlian’s piece: Armenians from the Republic have to live with the Turks, whether they like itor not, whether genocide recognition takes place or not. Members of the Diaspora have the luxury to visit the villages, from which their forefathers were evicted, and then return to the safety and comfort of their countries of residence and pontificate about the course Armenia should follow. Armenia is condemned to live with Turkey as a mighty and often overbearing neighbour. It is hence not surprising that its current government may have slightly different policy interests than Armenian nationalists in the Diaspora (and parts of the opposition in Armenia). Opening the borders with Turkey,without giving up on the genocide claim and establishing a non-descript commission with little real power is not such a bad deal. Whether this is a great progress is another story. But it will make eventual genocide recognition by Turkey, or at least the recognition of this troubled part of Turkish history by many citizens of Turkey more likely, not less likely.

Finally, there are two good reasons to reconsider, whether the protocols may in fact not be such a bad deal. Almost all opposition parties in Turkey, including the Social Democrats and the extreme Nationalists as well as the Azerbaijani government have condemned the protocols and negotiations as a sell out to Armenia. And they would probably know best!

Kerem Oktem, Oxford

Allen Breed on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

Allen Breed — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:47:48 +0000

It's disputed genocide(!) [Ref. ''The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, by Guenter Lewy''] and i don't think it's forgetting issue.

Genocide(!) of Azerbaijans in Hodjali by Armenians in 1992 also disputed. [Ref. ''Georgia Turkish American Advocacy Group - Hodjali Genocide''].

But Armenian should leave occupied territories. [Nagorno-Karabakh].

Losmira on "Zugdidi: Will I ever go back? "

Losmira — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:55:24 +0000

To talk about the war or to write about it especially when the authors of the articles have never seen it with their own eyes , and let God bless them , they are just lucky .
But when journalists show the tragedy of some , they must think that the war and its consequences were not a festival or a nice party for Abkhazians or South Ossetians , last August.
During the war in 1992-93 the Amnesty International published a letter to Shevarnadze accusing him in ethnical cleansing of Abkhazians and unfortunately , now I could not find it in the internet, the fact is also very interesting , by the way , why it has disappeared ?
Or one just can guess why and who is behind of such things which speaks itself that impartiality is just far away in the air , but not in the reality ?
Iam very sorry for all the innocent people who suffered during the war which Shevarnadze broke out on my land , Abkhazia , and people instead of living in peace were fighting with each other , killing as though life is endless.
It is easy for yu to judge Glenn , who was born from so far away from his own Motherland , and has never seen it , who will ever think about it ?
Which of the authors , like this one and you especially who think about some as victims and others as the happiest ones ?

Losmira on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

Losmira — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:31:36 +0000

ABKHAZIA HAS NEVER BEEN GEORGIA AND WILL NOT BE ,
and the proof is in these shameful your words and utterings written by you who lost all his concience and culture , or you were pretending to be civilized during years and centuries ?
Ask the representatives of your intelligentsia , who are so weak and poor today there that they have no voice to tell you the truth and open your blind eyes , as the English Professor did his best to show it to you.
But as I see in vain.
You are as you are and NOTHING CAN CHANGE YOU.
I am so sorry that the OD publish such ugly comments , of such a low cultural level and people have to read it!

Apsua on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

Apsua — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:49:26 +0000

Real Abkhaz are real Abkhazians. We are not speaking mingrelian dialect. We speak the Abkhazian Language!

Do not dupe people in open democracy.

I love Abkhazia on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

I love Abkhazia — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:28:14 +0000

Dear oppenets
You really surprise us by all your mad utterings and incredible fury.
What is wrong with you ?
Is not teh land of Georgia enough for you ?
The more you want to gain the more you lose.
I would like to dissapoint you :Georgia is under the ancient Abkhazian flag. It hepled Abkhazia to return back our native parts as Kodry Valley (Dal Tsabal) and recognize the independence of Abkhazia. I very much hope that Georgia will be happy to voluntary return back our Kutesh prinsdom with its ancient Abkhazian residence of king Leon the II.
I noticed that you prefer to name yourself as Abkhazians, is it because Abkhazians associated with a better fame?
In this case you should upgrade yourself to the level of being an Abkhazian.
So, we would not mind if you decide to rename your country of Georgia into the country of ABKHAZIA.
Justice will be restored.

Gio on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

Gio — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:16:22 +0000

real Abkhaz are Georgians both Abkhaz and Apsilae are speakign megrelian dialect
people that live there today are Russified mongolized Adigas or whoeveres they are not abkhaz they came from North
they kicked out 400 000 Abkhazians real Abkhazians from their home with the Russian help and now they say they are abkhaz wich is not true

the proof is that Strabo described colchis with relative but distinct tribes. again i repeat Relative tribes
Abkhaz lazi makroen apsilae moschi and others

Abkhazia was always in Georgia in history and will be so

everything is fault of our far relatives in North Caucasus :))
first they got .... by MOngols 400 years and then they accepted muslim religion destroying everything so they lost theirselves long time ago so their whole life will be suffering

Georgia steal has its strong sole and utnill we will have it we will win

now i do not care what Tatara-Mongolian small eyes small penis says

Mia on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

Mia — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:55:23 +0000

"I have in mind remarks of the kind that Abkhazia is a "Nazi pseudo-state". As it happens, I have spoken to three European visitors over recent weeks who arrived here in Abkhazia from Georgia (or who had previously spent time in Georgia). All of them had been warned about visiting an Abkhazia described in precisely these terms; and all three could not believe how what they saw and experienced here for themselves could possibly merit such derogatory dismissal."

Well if your three european friends could not belive it after their visit than it must not be true. You must be kidding, as your statement is completely ridiculous, it also makes me wonder if it's not just a sarcastic, cynical remark, but for most people there is nothing funny about the brutal abkhazeti de facto regime. Current Russian puppet regime in abkhazeti in fact is fasicst. It is built on ethnic cleansing and massacare of thousands of georgians, as many other people posting on here have pointed out. It is a regime that still does not allow georgian refugess to return to their homes! homes that they were forciefully kicked out of, homes to which they have every right to back to.

not only that, no georgian citizen is allowed to set foot on abkhazeti land. but george hewit's "three friends" wree in disbelief that anyone would suggest abkhazeti's de facto puppet government could be fasicst.

lastly, if anyone think that russia is ever going to let abkhazeti become independent has trully no idea of russian politics. it's goal from the very beginning has been to annex abkhazeti into russia, and still has not changed.

AbkhaziaisGeorgia on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

AbkhaziaisGeorgia — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:43:35 +0000

fact is abkhazeti is historical part of georgia. HISTORICAL evidence is Overwhelming in support of this. people who want to dispute this come out looking pathetic,as they have no historical evidence to support their claims. george hewitt article is patheic, desepratly trying to piece something together that could deny overwhelming evidence that abkhazeti has always been part of georgia.

- Orthodox Church in Abkhazia has been a part of the Georgian Patriarchy since the 9th century.

-most if not all ancient monuments and architechture in abkhazeti are of georgian origin, have georgian arthitechture style, and were built by georgians. this leads to a logical conclusion has historically been part of georgian kingdom.

Examples: Pitsunda, Bichvita, Pitiunt (4th and 5th centuries churches all georgian)
Gagra church (6th century) also a georgian church.
The domed church at Dranda (7th c) also georgian
Canaanite Church in Anacopia and the one in the village of Lykhni (both from the turn of the 9th to the 10th century), the cathedral at (the 60s of the 10th c.). also georgian.

-ALL classical sources referring to Cholchis describe linguisticly a GEORGIAN kingdom, which is also borne out by Archaeology.

-The Abkhazian kings culturally and politically were as Georgians as Tao-Klarjeti and Kakhet-Hereti kings and involved into the inter-fighting, ultimately aiming at unification of Georgia. Every inscription, without an exception, ordered by Abkhazian kings or made on their behalf is Georgian.
-Furthermore, the oldest Georgian inscriptions in west Georgia are survived in native land of Apsua-Abkhazia, particularly in Gudauta. All these indicates, what a deep was a degree of integration of Apsua-Abkhazians with Georgians. The fact, that already in early medieval period Abkhazians’ language of communication, as well as cultural, literary, pray language was Georgian, is proved by simple, smooth unification of Abkhazian church with Kartli Patriarchy in the 9th century, after being separated from Constantinople subordination

SUKHUM PALACE on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

SUKHUM PALACE — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:35:53 +0000

A harmful truth is better than a useful lie
-Thomas Mann

My answer for below absurd claims: :o)

mia on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

mia — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:38:20 +0000

Mr. Avaliani has written an excellen response to this this article. i encourage everyone to read it.

AbkhaziisGeorgia on "Abkhazia, Georgia, and history: a response "

AbkhaziisGeorgia — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:37:01 +0000

ABKHAZIANS are GEORGIANS. just as MEGRELi, GURULEBI, and IMERLEBI are Georgians.

The Abkhazian kings culturally and politically were as Georgians as Tao-Klarjeti and Kakhet-Hereti kings and involved into the inter-fighting, ultimately aiming at unification of Georgia. Every inscription, without an exception, ordered by Abkhazian kings or made on their behalf is Georgian. Furthermore, the oldest Georgian inscriptions in west Georgia are survived in native land of Apsua-Abkhazia, particularly in Gudauta. All these indicates, what a deep was a degree of integration of Apsua-Abkhazians with Georgians. The fact, that already in early medieval period Abkhazians’ language of communication, as well as cultural, literary, pray language was Georgian, is proved by simple, smooth unification of Abkhazian church with Kartli Patriarchy in the 10th century, after being separated from Constantinople subordination.

The Abkhazian kings seized an initiative of unification of Georgia. In 980 the son of Georgian king Bagrat Bagrationi, the heir of Abkhazian kings on mother’s side, was crowned as King of Abkhazians in Kutaisi. After the death of his father Gurgen Bagrat practically become the king of unified Georgia and Bagrat III was titled as king of Abkhazians and Kartvelians. Afterwards following the annexation of different Georgian or none-Georgian kingdoms or principalities the titles of Georgian Kings were respectively increased by new names (King of Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Rans, Kakhetians, Armenians, and Movakanians, Shahansha and Shirvansha), but until the king Tamar (1184-1210), including, Georgian kings was shortly were called as kings of Abkhazia and hence, Georgia was known for foreigners as Abkhazia. Great Persian poet of the 12th century Khaqani charmed by the beauty of one of the female resident of Tbilisi wrote in his verse: ,,The beauty of Abkhazian lady has made me to learn Georgian language‘‘.

Even in late medieval period, when Georgia was disintegrated, the unity of Abkhazians and Georgians has been preserved. In spite of the battles and rivalry, all political unities, built on the ruins of Georgia, among them Abkhazia too, considered itself as part of Georgia, but in the second half of the 19th century, Abkhazia undergone catastrophic stroke, which reminds still nowadays.

After Shamil’s imprisonment in 1859, numerous Russian army began conquering process of west Caucasia. Russian authorities decided to throw up local population from Black sea coastline. After anti-Russian rebellion of Abkhazians in 1866, Russians evicted population from Tsebelda, Dali and Bichvinta and totally 19 342 person were exiled to Turkey, among them were also Georgians. The second stage of Abkhazians forced eviction in Turkey was done in 1877. 31 964 Abkhazians were deported. Abkhazia’s coastline was almost devastated. Empty land was landed by Russians, Germans and Greeks.

Abkhazian nation was saved from total destruction by Georgian priests, as they were baptizing muslim Abkhazians massively, but forced migration process put irreparable stamp at Abkhazia and Abkhazians. It touched mostly to Abkhazia’s plain population, which was more civilized and integrated with Georgians relatively to highlanders. Thus, because of this eviction, thread of historical development was torn in Abkhazia. Past memories extirpation process among Abkhazians began by Tsarist Russia, successfully was completed by Soviet Russia, which exterminated Abkhazian nobles which preserved historical memory.

Abkhazia-Georgia’s future relationship issues were raised on 19-23 November 1917, at first national assembly, where Samurzakano’s representatives also were presented. They were against Abkhazia’s unification into Caucasian highlanders union. There was expressed an opinion, that Abkhazia together with Samurzakano should be part of Georgia and granted national-cultural autonomy. Abkhazians delegation also attended meeting in Tbilisi on 9th February, 1918.

Very soon, after Sokhumi Bolshevik criminal putsch on 18th February 1918, in Sokhumi was held local district peasants second assembly, which received historical decision, that Abkhazia’s future should be connected with democratic Georgia. Bolsheviks intruded in Sokhumi from Russian side in April, 1918 and Georgian army defeated them with the help of Abkhazians.

Georgia’s independence was declared on 26th May, 1918. Abkhazia became part of democratic Georgian republic and was granted autonomous status by the treaty of 11th June, 1918. Post of minister for Abkhazian affairs was established at the government of Georgia.

Russia always considered and considers Abkhazia as its property gained in the battle and that’s why can not concede this territory till now for others even for Abkhazians. That’s why Bolsheviks were fighting against democratic Georgia for Abkhazia.

Total occupation of Georgia and Abkhazia by Bolshevik Russia was over on March, 1921. Abkhazia was declared as socialist republic, but then entered into composition of Georgian state with autonomous republic status. Abkhazia was the only territorial unit in former Soviet union, where nation which gave the name to this unit, composed there ethnical minority (Abkhazians constituted there 17,2% of Abkhazia’s population, Georgians – 47,7%).