MP: A country is not "unrecognized" if someone recognizes it

Today we have a debate on the key issue for the Caucasus and not only for the Caucasus – on attitude towards independence of the ex-Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia that gained a de-facto independence from the Republic of Georgia as a result of the conflict and even prior to it. It raised an issue on recognition of its independence with Russia and establishment of associated relations with it.

First of all, I want to reaffirm my viewpoint: Abkhazia is a state and non-recognition of the fact is contrary to reality and principles of the international law and international relations.

When speaking on statehood, the lawyers, as far as I know, refer to a number of fundamental international treaties starting with the Peace of Westphalia Treaty of 1648.
I’d like to mention some of them: the Resolution on Aaland Islands by the League of Nations of 1921, as well as the Montevideo Convention of 1934 ratified by a group of American states including the USA.

And resolutions relating to emerging states, for instance, the United Nations Declaration of December 14, 1960 on granting independence to colonial states and nations. I do not consider Abkhazia or Georgia to be colonial states, but the Declaration sets out key reasons for recognition of a state emerged as a result of struggle for independence and self-determination.

Finally, there is a package of documents approved by the European and international community after the break-up of Yugoslavia. I mean resolutions by Badinter’s Arbitration Commission of 1991-1992, named after a French lawyer who produced a report for the European Union. The Commission was set up by EU after the collapse of Yugoslavia to outline the Union’s policy towards former Yugoslavian states.

In brief, for instance, under the Montevideo Convention, the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

It’s obvious that the Republic of Abkhazia as well as the Republic of South Ossetia, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh meet at least three of four requirements.

As for capacity to enter into relations with the other states, the issue may be looked at from a different angle, but the fact is that each of these states is involved in a peacekeeping process, the process of settlement of the conflicts. Nobody doubts that these states are parties to the conflict that is, in fact, their capacity to enter into relations with other states is beyond any doubt.

I’d like to dwell on another core article of this far-away Montevideo Convention. The reference to the Convention is of importance as the USA is a Contracting Party to it. At present lots of states including Georgia appeals to the USA trying to defend their claim for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention reads as follows: “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states”.

At present Taiwan is recognized by 30 states. Diplomatic missions are established in Taiwan. Nobody rejects the fact that Taiwan is a de-facto independent state.

The issue on recognition of a state is certainly of utmost importance. But it is not the key issue in recognizing the right of a nation and a state created by this nation to self-determination.

I won’t dwell on well-known historic events as to Abkhazia and Georgia as equal parts of the Soviet Union, the events following the break-up of the USSR when 98 % of the people of Abkhazia voted for the Soviet Union at the national referendum whereas Georgian SSR under Gamsakhurdia didn’t even initiate a referendum, etc.

Independent Abkhazia has never been under Georgian rule since the collapse of the USSR, and de-facto prior to the breakup under unilateral acts.
It’s worth noting Georgia’s extremely negative attitude to its Soviet past and the opening of “the museum of the Soviet occupation” in Tbilisi noticed by our President who expressed his views on it…

Though denying the USSR Georgia’s efforts to preserve its borders as they were under the USSR are touching. Georgians believe that the Soviet-era borders of the Georgian SSR are inviolable.

Where do such ambitions and self-assurance originate from? Georgia and Abkhazia were equal constituent parts of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, but before this they were sovereign formations, feudal kingdoms and princedoms whose borders and constituent parts changed from time to time. Shall the delegation of powers from the centre to local Communist Party Secretaries in the Soviet times be the ground to consider the lands of the Georgian SSR to be Georgian by origin, to which it may claim its rights?

And now let’s take a political look at the matter. Relations between Russia and Abkhazia are at the top of the agenda of our round-table meeting. There are several stages.

At first the Russian Federation recognized the integrity of the Republic of Georgia as well as other Soviet republic under an alleged threat to its own integrity due to the efforts of the leaders of Russia in office at that time and their contribution to the breakup of the Soviet Union. In fact only inefficient home and foreign policy constituted a threat to integrity of the Russian Federation then. Due to it we’ve experienced a tragedy, I mean, a war and a conflict in Chechnya. There was an official position on recognition of the territorial integrity of foreign states. Though Georgia still believe that at that moment the Russian government was plotting against Georgia making attempts at annexation of its territories and putting obstacles to the relations between Georgia and Abkhazia.

I want to remind, to my shame, about Russia’s involvement in the blockade against Abkhazian territory by request of the Georgian authorities. RF foreign minister lobbied blockade, there are documents proving Mister Kozyrev’s plans to annex Abkhazia back to Georgia by force through an economic blockade. At the same time there was another tendency in Russian society aimed at mediating the settlement of the Georgian-Abkhazian settlement, encouraging negotiations between the parties to the conflict during military operations and after the cessation of fire. Due to those efforts the agreements of 1994 was signed.

What happened in Georgia then? After its defeat in Abkhazia and de-facto breakup of the state its constituent parts Mengrelia, Guria started campaign for independence. Only intervention of the Black Sea navy by order of the President of the Russian Federation Boris Eltsin put an end to an absolute breakup of Georgia…

Then Georgia restored its military force a little bit, it initiated repeated provocations towards Abkhazia and Russian peacekeepers who entered the conflict zone by invitation of Georgia and Abkhazia…

Today ten years later militant leaders of Georgia didn’t recall the events of 1994-1995… For 15 years through Georgia’s fault we have not settled the conflict though we prevented new bloodshed. The dynamics of the conflict settlement process is negative. When new leaders come to office the problems that seemed to have been frozen arise again and attract attention. Russia as well as other concerned parties suffers losses due to Georgia’s strong desire to implement a plan for restoration of a mythical territorial integrity of Georgia.

In my opinion, the Russian Federation should re-consider its standpoint and take steps to recognize the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia as sovereign states. The people living in these states had no choice but to protect their rights through creation of their own statehood.

I think it’s too early to discuss associated relations of Abkhazia with the Russian Federation or reintegration of the peoples of Ossetia. We should recognize a fact – recognition of existing states. Non-recognition of their independence is the worst scenario. The practice proves that if the right of a nation to self-determination is not recognized, its territory flees from control under international law and it constitutes a potential threat to international community.

Finally, there is a principle of Roman law – “what you possess”. The Republic of Georgia have never possessed Abkhazia and South Ossetia, have never had full jurisdiction over these territories. It must be taken into account.

The world community often speaks about sanctions that could be imposed on Russia. I made numerous attempts to learn what they are speaking about. They also say that the Russian Federation has constituent parts that could lay a claim to independence after recognition of Abkhazia.

This is contrary to the common sense.

I believe we should make a pause as not all Russian people are ready for recognition of Abkhazia and should wait a solution for Kosovo. There’s no need to withdraw our peacekeepers from these states as the peacekeeping role is of paramount importance.

The recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia does not mean our refusal from our conciliating role in Georgian-Abkhazian, Georgian Ossetian conflict settlement, the negotiations with Abkhazia and Georgia on any issues, even on the revival of the Declaration of 1994 on creation of the Union. If the parties are ready for it, they may agree on it, though recognition must be prior to it. Unfortunately, there’s a delay in settlement of the conflict, there’s no prospects for solution without recognition of independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and equality of the parties to negotiations.

Russian MP and foreign policy specialist Konstantin Zatulin is director of the Institute of the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS. He delivered this opinion as part of a round-table discussion on “Relations of Russia and Abkhazia: theory and practice” which took place in December in the State Duma, Russia's lower house.