DOCSLIB.ORG

South Ossetia: the Burden of Recognition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Ossetia: the Burden of Recognition SOUTH OSSETIA: THE BURDEN OF RECOGNITION Europe Report N°205 – 7 June 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. POST-RECOGNITION DEVELOPMENTS ................................................................. 2 A. THE POPULATION.........................................................................................................................2 B. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION AND RECONSTRUCTION .........................................................4 1. Local conditions...........................................................................................................................4 2. Russian aid and corruption...........................................................................................................6 C. RUSSIA’S MILITARY PRESENCE – SOUTH OSSETIA’S STRATEGIC VALUE .....................................7 III. LOCAL POLITICS........................................................................................................... 9 A. COMPETITION FOR RUSSIAN RESOURCES .....................................................................................9 B. THE RULE OF LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS ...................................................................................12 C. FUTURE PROSPECTS ...................................................................................................................13 IV. GEORGIAN-OSSETIAN RELATIONS....................................................................... 15 A. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT ..........................................................................................................15 B. DETENTIONS ..............................................................................................................................16 C. DISPLACEMENT ISSUES ..............................................................................................................17 V. THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE ......................................................................... 19 A. THE GENEVA TALKS..................................................................................................................19 B. FIELD PRESENCE........................................................................................................................20 C. THE EU MONITORING MISSION .................................................................................................21 VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 23 APPENDICES A. MAP OF GEORGIA ............................................................................................................................24 B. MAP OF SOUTH OSSETIA..................................................................................................................25 C. MAP OF SOUTH OSSETIA SHOWING VILLAGES UNDER GEORGIAN AND OSSETIAN CONTROL PRIOR TO 7 AUGUST 2008................................................................................................................26 D. ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP ....................................................................................27 E. CRISIS GROUP REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS ON EUROPE SINCE 2007 ....................................................28 F. CRISIS GROUP BOARD OF TRUSTEES................................................................................................29 Program Report N°205 7 June 2010 SOUTH OSSETIA: THE BURDEN OF RECOGNITION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS South Ossetia is no closer to genuine independence now threats on its own North Caucasus territory, Moscow than in August 2008, when Russia went to war with has preferred to work with Kokoity and his entourage, Georgia and extended recognition. The small, rural terri- who have shown unshakeable loyalty, rather than try a tory lacks even true political, economic or military auton- different leadership. omy. Moscow staffs over half the government, donates 99 per cent of the budget and provides security. South Os- All but four countries, including Russia, continue to rec- setians themselves often urge integration into the Russian ognise South Ossetia as part of Georgia, and Ossetians Federation, and their entity’s situation closely mirrors that and Georgians cannot avoid addressing common prob- of Russia’s North Caucasus republics. Regardless of the lems much longer. Lack of freedom of movement and slow pace of post-conflict reconstruction, extensive high- detentions of people trying to cross the administrative level corruption and dire socio-economic indicators, there boundary line (ABL) spoil the lives of all, regardless of is little interest in closer ties with Georgia. Moscow has ethnicity and risk increasing tensions. The EU monitoring not kept important ceasefire commitments, and some mission (EUMM) in Georgia could play a vital role in 20,000 ethnic Georgians from the region remain forcibly promoting stability and acting as a deterrent to further displaced. At a minimum, Russians, Ossetians and Geor- military action, but with Russia and South Ossetia resist- gians need to begin addressing the local population’s ba- ing its access, its effectiveness and response capability is sic needs by focusing on creating freedom of movement limited. and economic and humanitarian links without status pre- conditions. Periodic talks in Geneva bring Russia, Georgia and repre- sentatives from South Ossetia and Abkhazia together The war dealt a heavy physical, economic, demographic but are bogged down over the inability to conclude an and political blow to South Ossetia. The permanent popu- agreement on the non-use of force. Much less effort has lation had been shrinking since the early 1990s and now been made to initiate incremental, practical measures that is unlikely to be much more than 30,000. The $840 mil- would address humanitarian needs. Positions on status are lion Russia has contributed in rehabilitation assistance irreconcilable for the present and should be set aside. The and budgetary support has not significantly improved immediate focus instead should be on securing freedom local conditions. With its traditional trading routes to the of movement for the local population and humanitarian rest of Georgia closed, the small Ossetian economy has and development organisations, which all parties are block- been reduced to little more than a service provider for the ing to various degrees. The South Ossetians should be Russian military and construction personnel. Other than pressed to respect the right to return of ethnic Georgians, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), no while Tbilisi should be more supportive of the few who international humanitarian, development or monitoring either stayed in South Ossetia or have been able to go organisation operates in the region; dependent on a single home. The Ossetians should lift their conditionality on unreliable road to Russia, the inhabitants are isolated. the work of the joint Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (IPRM) that has been created to deal with day- Claims and counterclaims about misappropriation of to-day issues along the ABL. reconstruction funds complicate the relationship between the de facto president, Eduard Kokoity, and his Russian It will take a long time to rebuild any trust between the prime minister and undermine internal cohesion. While South Ossetians and Georgians, but a start is needed on Russia controls decision-making in several key spheres, steps that can make the confrontation more bearable for such as the border, public order and external relations, it the people and less risky for regional stability. has allowed South Ossetian elites a degree of manoeuvre on such internal matters as rehabilitation, reconstruction, education and local justice. Preoccupied with security South Ossetia: The Burden of Recognition Crisis Group Europe Report N°205, 7 June 2010 Page ii RECOMMENDATIONS To the Authorities in South Ossetia: To All Sides: 8. Refrain from arbitrary detentions of Georgian citizens and violation of their freedom of movement; release 1. Agree urgently, without posing status or other politi- those detained since the August 2008 war; and coop- cal preconditions, on basic cooperation mechanisms erate with international mediators in investigating and implementation modalities to ensure: cases of missing and detained people. a) movement across the administrative boundary line 9. Recognise the rights of Georgian IDPs and facilitate (ABL) for local inhabitants and humanitarian and their step-by-step return. developmental organisations; 10. Allow the EUMM and other international officials b) rights to property and return; and and organisations full access to South Ossetia. c) economic freedom. 11. Discuss day-to-day issues and security with Georgia; facilitate small-scale economic and social activities To the Government of the Russian Federation: across the ABL; and resume participation in the joint IPRM. 2. Implement fully the ceasefire agreements, which oblige Russia to reduce troop levels to those mandated 12. Put priority on eradicating high-level corruption; pur- before 8 August 2008, withdraw from previously sue those who embezzle reconstruction assistance; unoccupied areas and allow access for international and allow greater freedom for civil society initiatives. monitoring and humanitarian
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Political Trends in Russia
    russian analytical russian analytical digest 60/09 digest analysis Fascist Tendencies in Russia’s Political Establishment: The Rise of the International Eurasian Movement By Andreas Umland, Eichstaett, Bavaria Abstract Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent advocate of fascist and anti-Western views, has risen from a fringe ideologue to deeply penetrate into Russian governmental offices, mass media, civil society and academia in ways that many in the West do not realize or understand. Prominent members of Russian society are affiliated with his International Eurasian Movement. Among Dugin’s most important collaborators are electronic and print media commentator Mikhail Leont’ev and the legendary TV producer and PR specialist Ivan Demidov. If Dugin’s views become more widely accepted, a new Cold War will be the least that the West should expect from Russia during the coming years. The Rise of Aleksandr Dugin course that must be taken seriously. Dugin’s numerous In recent years, various forms of nationalism have be- links to the political and academic establishments of a come a part of everyday Russian political and social life. number of post-Soviet countries, as well as institutions Since the end of the 1990s, an increasingly aggressive in Turkey, remain understudied or misrepresented. In racist sub-culture has been infecting sections of Russia’s other cases, Dugin and his followers receive more se- youth, and become the topic of numerous analyses by rious attention, yet are still portrayed as anachronis- Russian and non-Russian observers. Several new radi- tic, backward-looking imperialists – merely a partic- cal right-wing organizations, like the Movement Against ularly radical form of contemporary Russian anti-glo- Illegal Emigration, known by its Russian acronym balism.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia's New Strategic Approach to Conflict Resolution
    Russia and Eurasia Programme Roundtable Summary Georgia’s New Strategic Approach to Conflict Resolution Temuri Yakobashvili Minister for Reintegration and Deputy Prime Minister of Georgia 22 April 2010 The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of Chatham House, its staff, associates or Council. Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political body. It does not take institutional positions on policy issues. This document is issued on the understanding that if any extract is used, the author(s)/ speaker(s) and Chatham House should be credited, preferably with the date of the publication or details of the event. Where this document refers to or reports statements made by speakers at an event every effort has been made to provide a fair representation of their views and opinions, but the ultimate responsibility for accuracy lies with this document’s author(s). The published text of speeches and presentations may differ from delivery. REP Roundtable Summary: Georgia’s New Strategic Approach to Conflict Resolution Georgian State Minister for Reintegration, Temuri Yakobashvili, presented Georgia’s new strategy for engaging with the peoples of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region entitled State Strategy on Occupied Territories: Engagement through Cooperation . The following is a summary of his remarks and the subsequent question and answer session. The underlying premise of the document is that we must engage with the occupied territories. Isolation would effectively mean giving them to Russia for free. We also believe that Georgia, as the expelled sovereign, has an obligation to take care of its people.
    [Show full text]
  • Assemblée Générale Distr
    Nations Unies A/HRC/13/21/Add.3 Assemblée générale Distr. générale 14 janvier 2010 Français Original: anglais Conseil des droits de l’homme Treizième session Point 3 de l’ordre du jour Promotion et protection de tous les droits de l’homme, civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels, y compris le droit au développement Rapport soumis par le Représentant du Secrétaire général pour les droits de l’homme des personnes déplacées dans leur propre pays, Walter Kälin* Additif Suite donnée au rapport sur la mission en Géorgie (A/HRC/10/13/Add.2)** * Soumission tardive. ** Le résumé du présent rapport est distribué dans toutes les langues officielles. Le rapport, qui est joint en annexe au résumé, n’est distribué que dans la langue originale. GE.10-10252 (F) 250110 260110 A/HRC/13/21/Add.3 Résumé Le Représentant du Secrétaire général pour les droits de l’homme des personnes déplacées dans leur propre pays s’est rendu, les 5 et 6 novembre 2009, dans la région de Tskhinvali (Ossétie du Sud) afin de donner suite à la mission qu’il avait effectuée en Géorgie en octobre 2008. Il a pu avoir accès à toutes les zones qu’il avait demandé à voir, y compris à la région de Tskhinvali et aux districts d’Akhalgori et de Znauri, et il a tenu des consultations franches et ouvertes avec les autorités de facto d’Ossétie du Sud. En raison du conflit d’août 2008, 19 381 personnes ont été déplacées au-delà de la frontière de facto, tandis que, selon les estimations, entre 10 000 et 15 000 personnes ont été déplacées à l’intérieur de la région de Tskhinvali (Ossétie du Sud).
    [Show full text]
  • South Ossetia-Georgia Mission Notes
    Peacekeeping_4_v2final.qxd 1/28/08 10:07 AM Page 131 4.19 South Ossetia–Georgia While Georgia’s establishment of a parallel administration in South Ossetia at the CIS–South Ossetia Joint Peacekeeping Forces (JPKF) end of 2006 was designed to change the status quo and reduce support for the Tskhinvali ad- • Authorization Date 24 June 1992 ministration, negotiations remained frozen • Start Date July 1992 during 2007 and a missile incident in August • Head of Mission Major-General Marat Kulakhmetov kept tensions high. Continued statements link- (Russia) ing the outcome of the Kosovo status talks • Strength as of Troops: 1,500 with South Ossetia’s future contributed to un- 30 September 2007 ease in Tbilisi, while the lack of productive high-level talks by the Joint Control Commis- sion (JCC) left negotiations at a stalemate. Violent conflict erupted in Georgia’s OSCE Mission to Georgia South Ossetia region in January 1991 after the Georgian government denied a request by Ossetian officials for autonomous status within • Authorization Date 6 November 1992 Georgia. The war continued until June 1992, • Start Date December 1992 leaving some 1,000 dead, 100 missing, more • Head of Mission Ambassador Terhi Hakala (Finland) than 65,000 internally displaced, and the • Budget $14 million (October 2006–September 2007) South Ossetian administrative center, Tskhin- • Strength as of Civilian Staff: 29 vali, destroyed. The 1992 “Agreement on the 30 September 2007 Principles of Settlement of the Georgian- Ossetian Conflict Between Georgia and Rus- sia” (also known as the Sochi Accords) estab- lished both a cease-fire and the Joint Control Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia – Complex Emergency
    BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, CONFLICT, AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE (DCHA) OFFICE OF U.S. FOREIGN DISASTER ASSISTANCE (OFDA) Georgia – Complex Emergency Fact Sheet #15, Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 August 29, 2008 Note: The last fact sheet was dated August 27, 2008. KEY DEVELOPMENTS • New displacements of people from villages north of Gori along the border area of South Ossetia occurred on both August 26 and 27, although UNHCR reported that no newly displaced people arrived in Gori on August 28. Most internally displaced persons (IDPs) in western areas of Georgia remain with host families or in collective centers, according to UNHCR, although up to 20 percent of IDPs from Batumi and Lanchkhuti towns have returned. • On August 28, President George W. Bush authorized the U.S. Department of State's Bureau for Populations, Refugees, and Migration (State/PRM) to provide up to $5.75 million, including $3.75 million to the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and $2 million to International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to address the needs of IDPs and other Georgian conflict victims. NUMBERS AT A GLANCE SOURCE Newly* Displaced Persons in Georgia (total) 128,703 U.N. Georgia Flash Appeal - August 18, 2008 Newly* Displaced Persons in Russia (total) 30,000 U.N. Georgia Flash Appeal - August 18, 2008 Returnees from parts of Georgia to Gori 21,000 OCHA- August 27, 2008 Returnees from Russia to South Ossetia 23,609 EMERCOM1 / OCHA - August 27, 2008 * Since August 8, 2008 FY 2008 HUMANITARIAN FUNDING PROVIDED TO DATE USAID/OFDA Assistance
    [Show full text]
  • PRO GEORGIA JOURNAL of KARTVELOLOGICAL STUDIES N O 27 — 2017 2
    1 PRO GEORGIA JOURNAL OF KARTVELOLOGICAL STUDIES N o 27 — 2017 2 E DITOR- IN-CHIEF David KOLBAIA S ECRETARY Sophia J V A N I A EDITORIAL C OMMITTEE Jan M A L I C K I, Wojciech M A T E R S K I, Henryk P A P R O C K I I NTERNATIONAL A DVISORY B OARD Zaza A L E K S I D Z E, Professor, National Center of Manuscripts, Tbilisi Alejandro B A R R A L – I G L E S I A S, Professor Emeritus, Cathedral Museum Santiago de Compostela Jan B R A U N (†), Professor Emeritus, University of Warsaw Andrzej F U R I E R, Professor, Universitet of Szczecin Metropolitan A N D R E W (G V A Z A V A) of Gori and Ateni Eparchy Gocha J A P A R I D Z E, Professor, Tbilisi State University Stanis³aw L I S Z E W S K I, Professor, University of Lodz Mariam L O R T K I P A N I D Z E, Professor Emerita, Tbilisi State University Guram L O R T K I P A N I D Z E, Professor Emeritus, Tbilisi State University Marek M ¥ D Z I K (†), Professor, Maria Curie-Sk³odowska University, Lublin Tamila M G A L O B L I S H V I L I, Professor, National Centre of Manuscripts, Tbilisi Lech M R Ó Z, Professor, University of Warsaw Bernard OUTTIER, Professor, University of Geneve Andrzej P I S O W I C Z, Professor, Jagiellonian University, Cracow Annegret P L O N T K E - L U E N I N G, Professor, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena Tadeusz Ś W I Ę T O C H O W S K I (†), Professor, Columbia University, New York Sophia V A S H A L O M I D Z E, Professor, Martin-Luther-Univerity, Halle-Wittenberg Andrzej W O Ź N I A K, Professor, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw 3 PRO GEORGIA JOURNAL OF KARTVELOLOGICAL STUDIES No 27 — 2017 (Published since 1991) CENTRE FOR EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES FACULTY OF ORIENTAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW WARSAW 2017 4 Cover: St.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia
    Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Lionel Beehner A Contemporary Battlefield Assessment Liam Collins by the Modern War Institute Steve Ferenzi Robert Person Aaron Brantly March 20, 2018 Analyzing the Russian Way of War: Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter I – History of Bad Blood ................................................................................................................ 13 Rose-Colored Glasses .............................................................................................................................. 16 Chapter II – Russian Grand Strategy in Context of the 2008 Russia-Georgia War ................................... 21 Russia’s Ends ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Russia’s Means ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Russia’s Ways .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annex E.5.2 Public Page Lof9 ICC-01/15-4-Anxe.5.2 13-10-2015 2/10 EK PT Special Press Release of Human Rights Centre "Memorial" and Demos Centre
    ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.5.2 13-10-2015 1/10 EK PT Annex E.5.2 Public Page lof9 ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.5.2 13-10-2015 2/10 EK PT Special Press Release of Human Rights Centre "Memorial" and Demos Centre Humanitarian consequences of the armed conflict in the South Caucasus. The "buffer zone" after the withdrawal of the Russian troops. Over the period from October 12 till October 23, 2008 representatives of the HRC "Memorial" and the Demos Centre were on a fact-finding mission in Georgia. The goal of the mission was examination and analysis of the humanitarian consequences of the August armed hostilities. The focus of our attention was on the current situation in the former "buffer zone" immediately after the withdrawal of the Russian troops. In the course of their fact-finding mission representatives of the human rights organizations visited the cities of Tbilisi and Gori, 17 villages of the Gori district (Karalet'i, Tqviavi, Ergnet'i, Qits'nisi, Karbi, Meret'i, Koshki, Arb 0, Ditsi, Tirdznisi, Megvrekisi, P'khvenisi, Variani, Shindisi, Qvemo Niqozi, Zemo Niqozi, Zemo Khvit'i), two villages situated in the Kareli district (Goget'I, P'tsa) as well as the Akhalgori (Leningori) district currently under the control of the South Ossetian authorities. The members of the mission especially focused on the issue of current security for the civilian population of the most afflicted regions. The residents of the settlements on the territories of the former "buffer zone", which were exposed to shelling and bombing as well as plundering and arson attacks on private households, were interrogated.
    [Show full text]
  • Conferencia De Desarme
    CONFERENCIA DE DESARME CD/1850 9 de septiembre de 2008 ESPAÑOL Original: INGLÉS CARTA DE FECHA 26 DE AGOSTO DE 2008 DIRIGIDA AL SECRETARIO GENERAL DE LA CONFERENCIA DE DESARME POR EL REPRESENTANTE PERMANENTE DE GEORGIA POR LA QUE TRANSMITE EL TEXTO DE UNA DECLARACIÓN EN QUE ACTUALIZA LA INFORMACIÓN SOBRE LA SITUACIÓN REINANTE EN GEORGIA Tengo el honor de transmitir adjunto el texto de la declaración formulada por la delegación de Georgia en la 1115ª sesión plenaria* de la Conferencia de Desarme, celebrada el 26 de agosto de 2008, sobre la agresión militar de la Federación de Rusia contra el territorio de Georgia, junto con otros documentos conexos. Le agradecería que tuviera a bien hacer distribuir la presente carta, la declaración anexa y los documentos adjuntos como documento oficial de la Conferencia de Desarme. (Firmado): Giorgi Gorgiladze Embajador Representante Permanente de Georgia * El texto de la declaración, tal como fue pronunciada, figura en el documento CD/PV.1115. GE.08-63124 (S) 190908 220908 CD/1850 página 2 El Representante Permanente de Georgia, Embajador Giorgi Gorgiladze, aprovecha la oportunidad para actualizar la información de la Conferencia de Desarme sobre la situación actual en Georgia, que fue objeto de debate en la sesión de la semana pasada. En términos jurídicos, Georgia ha sido sometida a una agresión militar en gran escala por la Federación de Rusia, en violación de los principios y las normas de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, incluida la prohibición del uso de la fuerza entre los Estados y el respeto de la soberanía y la integridad territorial de Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex E.4.15
    ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.15-Corr 06-11-2015 1/35 EC PT Annex E.4.15 Public Corrected Version of ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.15 ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.15-Corr 06-11-2015 2/35 EC PT SOUTH OSSETIA: THE BURDEN OF RECOGNITION Europe Report N°205 - 7 June 2010 lnternationa Crisis Group WORKING TO PREVENT CONFLICT WORLDWIDE GEO-OTP-0001-1242 ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.15-Corr 06-11-2015 3/35 EC PT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS i I. IN.TRODUCTION 1 II. POST-RECOGNITION DEVELOPMENTS 2 A. THEPOPfilJ\TION 2 B. TIIE Soc10-EcoNOMIC SITUATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 4 l. Local conditions .4 2. Russian aid and corruption 6 C. RUSSI/\ '8 MILITARY PRR8F.NCE-SOOTH 0SSETIJ\ '8 STRJ\ TRGTC V /\LUE 7 Ill. LOCAL POLITICS 9 A. CoMPr:rnroN FOR RlJ8SIJ\N RRSOlJRCKS 9 B. Tl IE RULE OF LAW ANI) HUMAN RIOI ITS 12 C. FUTURE PROSPECTS 13 IV. GEORGTAN-OSSETTAN RELATIONS 15 A. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT 15 B. Dt-:TENTTONS 16 C. DISPLACEMENT ISSUES 17 V. THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE 19 A. THE GENEV J\ T /\LKS 19 B. FIELD PRESENCE 20 C. TIIE EU MONITORINGMI SSION 21 VI. CONCLUSION 23 APPENDICES A. MAP OF G.EOROlA 24 B. MAP OF Soun 1 OssHTIA 25 C. MAP OF sotrra 0SSETIA SHOWING VILLAGES UNDER GEORGIANAND 0SSETIAN CONTROL PRIOR TO 7 AUGUST 2008 26 D. AnOUTTIIEINTERNATIONALCRl SIS GROUP 27 E. CRISIS GROUP REPORTS AND BRll:FINGS ON ElJROPli SINCE 2007 28 F. CRJSlS GROUP BOAR!) OFTRUSTEES 29 GEO-OTP-0001-1243 ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.15-Corr 06-11-2015 4/35 EC PT lnternationa Crisis Group WORKING TO PREVENT CONFLICT WORLDWIDE Program Report N°205 7 June 2010 SOUTH OSSETIA: THE BURDEN OF RECOGNITION EXECUTIVE SUlVIMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS South Ossetia is no closer to genuine independence now threats on its own North Caucasus territory, Moscow than in August 2008, when Russia went to war with has preferred to work with Kokoity and his entourage, Georgia and extended recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Map Sub-Title
    Vegetable Seeds and FertilizersM Distributionap Sub-T init Shidale Kartli Region - May 2009 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GEORGIA - MAP TITLE - Emergency Rehabilitation Coordination Unit Da(OSRO/GEO/803/ITA)te (dd mmm yyyy) GEORGIA ! Tsia!ra ! !Klarsi Klarsi Andaisi Kintsia ! ! ! Zalda ! RUSSIAN FEDERATION Mipareti ! Maraleti ! Sveri ! ! ! Tskaltsminda Sheleuri !Saboloke !Gvria Marmazeti Eltura ! ! !Kemerti ! Didkhevi Black Sea ! Ortevi ! GEORGIA Tbilisi Kekhvi Tliakana ! ! \ ! Dzartsemi Guchmasta ! ! Marmazeti Khoshuri ! Satskheneti ! ! ! ! Beloti Jojiani Khaduriantkari ! Zemo Zoknari Rustavi ! ! Kurta Snekvi AZERBAIJAN ! Vaneti ! Chachinagi Dzari Zemo Monasteri ! TURKEY ! ! ! Kvemo Zoknari Mamita ! ARMENIA Brili ! ! Brili Zemo Kornisi ! Zemo Tsorbisi ! ! Mebrune ! !Zemo Achabeti ! ! Dmenisi Snekvi Kokhati ! ! Zemo Dodoti Dampaleti Zemo Sarabuk!i Tsorbisi ! ! ! ! Charebi Kvemo Achabeti ! Vakhtana ! Kheiti ! Kverneti ! Didi Tsitskhiata! Patara TsikhiataBekmeri Kvemo Dodoti ! ! ! ! Satakhari ! Legend Bekmari Zemo Ambreti Didi Tsikhiata ! ! !Dmenisi ! Kvasatal!i Naniauri ! ! Eredvi ! Lisa Zemo Ambreti SS OO UU TT HH OO SS SS EE TT II AA ! ! ! Ksuisi assisted Khodabula ! Number of Households !Mukhauri ! !Nagutni Zardiantkari ! Berula ! !Kusireti !Malda !Tibilaani !Argvitsi Teregvani !Galaunta ! !Khelchua Zem! o Prisi Zemo D!zagina Kvemo Nanadakevi ! Disevi ! ! Pichvigvina Zemo Dzagvina ! ! 01 - 250 ! ! Kroz! a Akhalsheni ! Tbeti Arbo ! 251 - 500 ! Arkneti ! Tamarasheni ! Mereti Kulbiti Sadjvare ! ! ! Koshka Beridjvari
    [Show full text]
  • ICC-01/15 13 October 2015 Original
    ICC-01/15-4 13-10-2015 1/160 EO PT Original: English No.: ICC-01/15 Date: 13 October 2015 PRE-TRIAL CHAMBER I Before: Judge Joyce Aluoch, Presiding Judge Judge Cuno Tarfusser Judge Péter Kovács SITUATION IN GEORGIA Public Document with Confidential, EX PARTE, Annexes A,B, C, D.2, E.3, E.7, E.9, F H and Public Annexes 1, D.1, E.1, E.2, E.4, E.5, E.6, E.8,G ,I, J Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to article 15 Source: Office of the Prosecutor ICC-01/15 1/160 13 October 2015 ICC-01/15-4 13-10-2015 2/160 EO PT Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Mrs Fatou Bensouda Mr James Stewart Legal Representatives of the Victims Legal Representatives of the Applicants Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants The Office of Public Counsel for The Office of Public Counsel for the Victims Defence States’ Representatives Amicus Curiae REGISTRY Registrar Defence Support Section Mr Herman von Hebel Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section No. ICC-01/15 2/160 13 October 2015 ICC-01/15-4 13-10-2015 3/160 EO PT Table of Contents with Confidential, EX PARTE, Annexes C, D,E.3, E.7,E.9 H and Public Annexes, A, B,D, E.1, E.2, E.4, E.5, E.6, E.8, F,G,I,J................................................................................................1 Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to article 15 ....................................1 I.
    [Show full text]