US blocks Abkhazia from UN talks on its own future

While the United Nations discusses Abkhazia, the country's representatives have had their entry visas denied

NEW YORK (Tiraspol Times) - Today, Tuesday 10 April 2007, the United Nations discusses the future of Abkhazia.

The Republic of Georgia - widely seen as the aggressor in Abkhazia's struggle for independence - will state its position. So will the United States, and a number of other countries. But the people whose future are at stake will not be heard: Their voice is silenced, and their elected representatives are prevented from being heard.

Despite being the key party to the conflict, the UN will not be able to hear from Abkhazia or find out how Abkhazia thinks its own future should be shaped.

This is because of a politically motivated decision by the United States to deny visas for an Abkhazian delegation wishing to take part in the session of the UN Security Council.

Vladislav Chernov, the Russian Foreign Ministry's envoy on the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, said last week that his country regarded the American move as "discrimination against one of the parties in the conflict."

" - Since the Abkhazian and the Georgian sides are officially recognized as two equal parties to this conflict, they must both have the right to report their point of view, on similar terms, directly to those who deal with passing resolutions. When this is not the case, and only one can speak, we consider this a clear discrimination," said Chernov.

Abkhazia's foreign minister Sergei Shamba wants a voice for his people at the UN.

In Abkhazia itself, the population is revolted by the way the US imposes effective censorship on the people whose future is at stake.

" - If they sit down to discuss our life and wellbeing, at least we should be allowed to have a voice and let them hear our opinion, too," says Revaz Anchabadze, 36, from Abkhazia's capital Sukhumi.

Criticism of bias and censorship

On Tuesday, the UN Security Council will consider the situation in the upper part of the Kodori Gorge and study the possibility of extending the mandate of the UN observer mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) for another six months next week. The UN Secretary General will deliver a report on the situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict zone.

Last week, Abkhazia's Sergei Shamba, Minister of Foreign Affairs of de facto independent country, accused the UN Security Council - and in particular the United States - of a biased attitude towards the Abkhazian side. As a result, he announced that the scheduled summit of the Community for Democracy and Human Rights, taking place this week, will discuss the expedience of continuation of settlement talks under the UN aegis.

" - The fact that the position of Abkhazia has not yet been heard in the UN demonstrates that the organization did not adequately participate in the resolution of the conflict," expressed the Abkhaz Foreign Minister on the government's official website, www.abkhaziagov.org. But times have changed, and no one should have illusions about a possible solution to the conflict without the participation of Abkhazia. The UN will have to listen to our position as well", said Sergei Shamba.

In 2006, the United States again refused to grant an entry visa to Shamba, who had officially been invited to speak about his unrecognized country's problems and settlement proposals at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Shamba was to have attended a UN Security Council meeting in New York to discuss the situation in his country.

The UN Security Council unanimously passed a Russia-sponsored resolution urging Georgia to desist from provocation in Abkhazia and extending the Russian peacekeeping mission in Abkhazia until April 15, 2007.

Russia retains a peacekeeping presence in Georgia's turbulent regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which gained de facto independence following bloody conflicts after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Abkhazia in particular is well on its way to full and internationally recognized independence.

EU and USA travel ban seen as "misplaced"

The US and EU has imposed a travel ban on the Trans-Dniester leadership since February 2003, in what Stuart Hensel from The Economist classified as a hardening position. As a result, says Hensel, "the two sides of the river are now further apart than ever."

" - We are kept locked here by the EU and the US, as if we are in some kind of a quarantine or reservation," says a former Minister whose name is blacklisted and who is prevented from going abroad.

This hardline stance from countries which are supposed to mediate and help the sides seek common ground has caused some awkward situations, especially as the new and emerging country tries to participate in international events about its own future. More often than not, representatives from Tiraspol are unable to take part since they are not allowed to travel.

On 24 May 2006 London-based Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, organized a seminar called "Transnistria: Views from both Sides." The organizers had invited opposition politicians from both sides of the Dniester. But only the Moldovan representatives could go. The leading representative from Pridnestrovie, Parliamentary Speaker Yevgeny Shevchuk, was barred from a EU visa. The young and charismatic pro-democracy politician's name was included in the list of leaders banned from traveling abroad by the European Union and the United States, despite the fact that he represents the most viable opposition to PMR's President Igor Smirnov.

Chatham House (Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs) held its conference nevertheless, but real dialogue and consensus seeking was impossible. Said a participant affiliated with the organization: "Instead of what was billed as Views from both Sides, EU's misplaced travel ban caused it to become a rather onesided affair."

Now, conflict resolution specialists say that it is time to scrap the useless travel ban and let politicians from Transdniester learn from their colleagues in the rest of the Europe. Open dialogue and an active exchange of views will always be better than preventing the elected representatives of the population from participating in the discussion.

" - Sure, those who won't want the Transnistrians to have a say in their own future are of course happy. Out of sight, out of mind. Just don't give them visas, and then their inconvenient opinions aren't heard at all," says Michael Garner, a commentator for The Tiraspol Times.

" - But history tells us what happens when the voiceless are left out. This can only gets worse, and any solution reached without the input of the Transnistrians will explode in violence. Perhaps now is the time for real diplomacy where you listen to all sides of the conflict and then reach a compromise that the most directly affected party can live with." (With information from Prime News, RIA Novosti)

See also:
» U.N. plea: "We are not a threat to anyone"
» United Nations petitioned by Pridnestrovie, two other unrecognized countries