1043589.En Pe 545.275

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Question for written answer E-010581/2014 to the Commission Rule 130 Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz (PPE) Subject: Annexation of Abkhazia In Sochi on 24 November 2014 Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Raul Khajimba, the leader of unrecognised Abkhazia, concluded an alliance and strategic partnership agreement linking Abkhazia (which is not internationally recognised as a state) with the Russian Federation. The agreement is valid for ten years, and may be extended for periods of five years. Under the agreement, Abkhazia, which is an integral part of Georgia (a country that has signed an association agreement with the EU), is to be incorporated into Russia in the areas of defence, border controls, customs, social issues and public order. The agreement includes a clause requiring Abkhazia to bring its customs legislation into line with legal acts stemming from the Eurasian Economic Union, and, in areas not covered by those acts, with Russian law. For its part, Russia has promised to finance pay increases in Abkhazia for ‘high-level workers in state institutions’ in the areas of health protection, education, science and research, culture, sport and social care, bringing wages up to the same level as in the Southern Federal District of the Russian Federation. The same will apply for the pensions of residents of Abkhazia who have Russian citizenship. Under the terms of the agreement, the two countries will support each other militarily via the setting-up of a joint military group. The document states that in the three years following the entry into force of the agreement, Abkhazia’s armed forces will be modernised, with the costs being met by Russia. How will the Commission react to this blatant annexation of a part of Georgia by the Russian Federation, and what action does the Commission intend to take? 1043589.EN PE 545.275 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

An Ambivalent 'Independence'
OswcOMMentary issue 34 | 20.01.2010 | ceNTRe fOR eAsTeRN sTudies An ambivalent ‘independence’ Abkhazia, an unrecognised democracy under Russian protection NTARy Wojciech Górecki Me ces cOM Abkhazia – a state unrecognised by the international community and depen- dent on Russia – has features of a democracy, including political pluralism. This is manifested through regularly held elections, which are a time of ge- tudies nuine competition between candidates, and through a wide range of media, s including the pro-opposition private TV station Abaza. astern e The competing political forces have different visions for the republic’s deve- lopment. President Sergei Bagapsh’s team would like to build up multilateral foreign relations (although the highest priority would be given to relations 1 Despite the lack of with Russia), while the group led by Raul Khajimba, a former vice-president international recognition, entre for it seems unreasonable c and present leader of the opposition, would rather adopt a clear pro-Moscow to use the form ‘self- orientation. It is worth noting that neither of the significant political forces appointed’ or ‘so-called’ president, or to append wants Abkhazia to become part of Russia (while such proposals have been inverted commas to the term (which also con- made in South Ossetia), and a majority of the Abkhazian elite sees Russia’s NTARy cerns other Abkhazian recognition of the country’s independence as a Pyrrhic victory because Me officials and institutions) it has limited their country’s room for manoeuvre. However, all parties are because Bagapsh in fact performs this agreed in ruling out any future dependence on Georgia.
[Show full text]
Enges to Georgia’S Sovereign Interests
ÓÀØÀÒÈÅÄËÏÓ ÓÔÒÀÔÄÂÉÉÓÀ ÃÀ ÓÀÄÒÈÀÛÏÒÉÓÏ ÖÒÈÉÄÒÈÏÁÀÈÀ ÊÅËÄÅÉÓ ×ÏÍÃÉ GEORGIAN FOUNDATION FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES EXPERT OPINION JOHANNA POPJANEVSKI TOWARD A CRIMEA SCENARIO? RUSSIA’S ANNEXATION POLICIES IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS 40 2015 The publication is made possible with the support of the US Embassy in Georgia. Editor: Jeffrey Morski Technical Editor: Artem Melik-Nubarov All rights reserved and belong to Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, including electronic and mechanical, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Copyright © 2015 Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies ISSN 1512-4835 ISBN 978-9941-0-7724-1 Introduction Since independence, the conflicts over the secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have constituted troublesome challenges to Georgia’s sovereign interests. Tbilisi’s lack of control of 20 percent of its territory has not only compromised Georgia’s national identity, it has also delayed im- portant state-building processes. Moreover, Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and its subsequent recognition of the two regions as independent states led to the belated realization that the secessionist conflicts are not merely domestic issues but belong to a larger conflict between Russia and Georgia. Over the last year, a series of events have again put Georgia’s relations with Russia and its breakaway regions at stake. Following the coming to power of Moscow-loyal Raul Khajimba in Abkhazia in August 2014, Mos- cow has initiated strategic alliance agreements with Sukhumi and Tskhin- vali, making the regions further dependent on Russia’s military support and increasing Russia’s political influence over the secessionist authorities.
[Show full text]
News Digest on Georgia
NEWS DIGEST ON GEORGIA August 26-28 Compiled by: Aleksandre Davitashvili Date: August 29, 2019 Occupied Regions Abkhazia Region 1. Salome Zurabishvili - 11 years ago on 26 August Russia violated international law by recognizing "independence" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia „11 years ago on 26 August 2008 Russia recognized the independence of the two integral parts of Georgia – Abkhazia and South Ossetia and violated principles and norms of international law“, – the president of Georgia Salome Zurabishvili said in her statement. „Today, because of the Russification policy, Abkhazian and Ossetian culture, language, and identity, in general, are on the edge of disappearance. The social and economic situation of our Abkhazian and Ossetian citizens is difficult too. Despite the problems created by the Russian occupation, our government doing its best to solve their humanitarian, medical, educational and business interest problems. I believe that the time will come when Abkhazia and South Ossetia will return peacefully in the united space of Georgia“,- the official statement reads (1TV, August 26, 2019). 2. Sergey Lavrov: Process of international recognition of Abkhazia's independence irreversible The process of international recognition of Abkhazia as an independent state is irreversible, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a documentary about former so-called Abkhazian “president” Sergey Bagapsh. Lavrov said that this process started during Bagapsh‟s presidency. “The first country to recognize Abkhazia was Nicaragua, followed by Venezuela, Nauru, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. Now Syria has also joined the group of countries that recognized Abkhazia,” the Russian foreign minister said. “I am confident that this process is irreversible,” he added.
[Show full text]
General Assembly Security Council
United Nations A/70/1021–S/2016/725 General Assembly Distr.: General 22 August 2016 Security Council Original: English General Assembly Security Council Seventieth session Seventy-first year Agenda item 35 Protracted conflicts in the GUAM area and their implications for international peace, security and development Identical letters dated 17 August 2016 from the Permanent Representative of Georgia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council I have the honour to transmit herewith the second quarterly report (for the period April-June 2016) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia on the human rights situation in the occupied regions of Georgia. I should be grateful if you would have the present letter and its annex circulated as an official document of the seventieth session of the General Assembly, under agenda item 35, and of the Security Council. (Signed) Kaha Imnadze Ambassador Permanent Representative 16-14571 (E) 290816 *1614571* A/70/1021 S/2016/725 Annex to the identical letters dated 17 August 2016 from the Permanent Representative of Georgia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council Second quarterly report (for the period April-June 2016) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia on the human rights situation in the occupied regions of Georgia Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 3 II. Right to Life..................................................................
[Show full text]
News Digest on Georgia
NEWS DIGEST ON GEORGIA September 7-9 Compiled by: Aleksandre Davitashvili Date: October 10, 2019 Occupied Regions Abkhazia Region 1. So-called opposition of occupied Abkhazia says that Raul Khajimba‟s inauguration has no legal force The so-called opposition of Georgia’s one of two occupied regions of Abkhazia says that the inauguration of Raul Khajimba, de-facto Abkhazian President, has no legal force – reads the statement adopted during the sitting of Amtsakhara, the main opposition party in Abkhazia. The party members decided not to recognize the results of the so-called elections. However, the opposition claims that it is ready for a constructive dialog with the so-called government. The inauguration of the so-called President of Abkhazia was held today. The second round of so-called presidential elections was held in occupied Abkhazia on September 8. The central election administration declared that Raul Khajimba won in the elections of the non-recognized republic (1TV, October 9, 2019). 2. Andrei Rudenko – There is no conflict, it was closed for Russia after recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia There is no conflict for us. It was closed for Russia after recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia — Andrei Rudenko, new Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and head of the Russian delegation at Geneva International Discussions told journalists in Geneva. Rudenko underlined that all sides represented at Geneva discussions expressed readiness for de-escalation of the situation at the border line of Georgia with South Ossetia. He said that nobody was interested in creation of new flames of tension in the region.
[Show full text]
Georgia-Abkhazia: the Predominance of Irreconcilable Positions *
THE WAR REPORT 2018 GEORGIA-ABKHAZIA: THE PREDOMINANCE OF IRRECONCILABLE POSITIONS * © ICRC OCTOBER 2018 I GRAZVYDAS JASUTIS * For ease of reading, there are no qualifiers such as ‘de facto’, ‘unrecognized’ or ‘partially recognized’ in relation to Abkhazia. This does not imply a position on its status, nor does the article make any judgement regarding this. Abkhazia is recognized as an independent state by Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru and Syria. Georgia considers it to be a territory occupied by the Russian Federation (RF). A majority of UN countries support its territorial integrity. THE GENEVA ACADEMY A JOINT CENTER OF The Georgian historian Pavle Ingoroqva claimed that the INTRODUCTION ‘historical’ Abkhaz – the people to which authors used to Georgia was engaged in an Abkhaz conflict in 1992– refer as Abkhaz in the writings of previous centuries – were 2008 with some respites. The Georgian regular Armed in reality Georgian tribes, while the contemporary Abkhaz Forces and volunteers fought against the Abkhaz from the descended from Adyghean tribes who had come from the breakaway territory of Abkhazia and the Confederation North Caucasus to settle in Abkhazia in the 17th-18th of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus in 1992–1993, which centuries4. resulted in an Agreement on a Ceasefire and Separation of The Georgian-Abkhaz conflict stems from the Forces signed in Moscow on 14 turbulent period at the end of May 1994 (Moscow Agreement). The Georgian-Abkhaz conflict stems the First World War. On 25 May The Moscow Agreement did not from the turbulent period at the end 1918, Georgian independence prevent further bloodshed and of the First World War.
[Show full text]
©Copyright 2018 Malkhaz Saldadze
©Copyright 2018 Malkhaz Saldadze Resources for Crafting Sovereignties in Breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Politics of Nationhood within the Rivalry between Russia and Georgia Malkhaz Saldadze A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Studies: Russia, Eastern Europe & Central Asia University of Washington 2018 Committee: Scott Radnitz Glennys Young Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Jackson School of International Studies University of Washington ii Abstract Resources for Crafting Sovereignties in Breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Politics of Nationhood within the Rivalry between Russia and Georgia Malkhaz Saldadze Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Associate Professor Scott Radnitz Jackson School of International Studies This thesis is aimed at analysis of nation making in Georgia’s breakaway territories engaging certain aspects of foreign and domestic affairs that might be viewed as sources for crafting sovereignties in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. For this purpose, I deal with historiography and collective memory as a source of justification of secession and sovereignty, and relevant political interpretation of these discourses that have mobilizing effects in the respective societies. Demographic changes and politics of ethnic consolidation after the wars for independence in 1990s and Russian-Georgian war in 2008, and their influence on legitimacy of elites of the respective political entities, are also examined in order to gain more understanding of state building in Georgia’s breakaway republics. Russia’s efforts to support nation building in Abkhazia and South Ossetia through financial, human, symbolic-emotional and political investment is one more aspect brought into analysis. Overall goal for studying domestic and international resources of crafting polities in breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is to understand how these post-war iii societies construct their identities, institutions and statehood under influence of the contested geopolitical environment.
[Show full text]
Elections in Abkhazia, Executive Summary in English
Analysis The Presidential Elections in Abkhazia Ivan Sukhov Adapted and tran slated by Marek Laane and Marju Randlane www.icds.ee The Presidential Elections in Abkhazia | Ivan Sukhov There is a joke circulating in Abkhazia about the presidents of Abkhazia and South-Ossetia, the independence of which was endorsed by Russia in 2008 – they fulfil the same roles as Belka and Strelka, the Soviet space dogs whom scientists sent to orbit the Earth in order to find out whether living creatures could actually survive out there. The first major survival test for Abkhazian President Sergey Bagapsh will come on the day of presidential elections, December 12, when he will fight for re-election. Bagapsh became the leader of Abkhazia in 2004 against Russia’s will but, in the end, via a Moscow-mediated compromise. His main opponents are Raul Khajimba, his rival from the 2004 elections, who was then backed by Moscow and who became vice president under Bagapsh after the compromise, and Beslan Butba, who represents the new pro-economic opposition. The team of the current president: Its problems and programme President Sergey Bagapsh was somewhat hesitant to stand for re- election. Several reforms and changes that had been planned during the 2004 election campaign had not been implemented. Since then, his team has undergone a transformation which, however, has not improved it. The developments of August 2008 were, indeed, of historical importance, pushing the president’s popularity temporarily to new heights. At the same time, these events greatly restricted his freedom of choice in terms of foreign policy.
[Show full text]
Abkhazia Today
ABKHAZIA TODAY Europe Report N°176 – 15 September 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... i I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 II. CAUSES OF CONFLICT ............................................................................................... 2 A. POLITICAL AND LEGAL...........................................................................................................2 B. HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS ..............................................................................................3 1. Competing narratives ..................................................................................................3 2. The 1992-1993 war.....................................................................................................5 3. The peace agreement and peace implementation mechanisms......................................6 C. THE RUSSIAN FACTOR ...........................................................................................................7 III. LIFE IN ABKHAZIA...................................................................................................... 8 A. TODAY’S INHABITANTS..........................................................................................................9 1. “Citizenship” and documentation ................................................................................9 2. Georgian
[Show full text]
Osce Mediation in an Eroding International Order
security and human rights 27 (2016) 273-288 brill.com/shrs osce Mediation in an Eroding International Order Philip Remler retired u.s. diplomat Abstract The feeling is widespread in the West that the post wwii normative international or- der has been under severe challenge since Russia’s seizure of Crimea, now exacerbated by statements from the American president casting doubt on the institutions that un- derpin that order. Is there a future role for osce mediation as this order erodes? Study of the Ukraine crisis in light of other protracted conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union shows that the same challenges have existed for a generation. Because the conflicts were small, however, the international community chose to accept a fic- tion of convenience to isolate them from an otherwise functioning international order: the narrative that the separatists sought independence, not (as in reality) a re-drawing of post-Soviet borders. This isolation is under pressure both from the new experience in Ukraine and from the extension of ever-greater Russian control over the separatists, amounting to crypto-annexation, despite a backlash from Moscow’s clients, including in Armenia. There is little likelihood of a resolution to the Ukraine crisis, including Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and prospects for mediation to resolve the conflicts remain dim. However, continued talks may resolve some humanitarian issues and pro- vide a release valve to prevent pressures boiling over into renewed open warfare. In 2015 the present author published an article outlining some effects of the Ukraine crisis on protracted conflicts in the osce area and on osce mediation in those conflicts.1 He has been asked to revisit his assessment of that time in * Philip Remler is a retired u.s.
[Show full text]
Beyond Frozen Conflict
Beyond Frozen Conflict Beyond Frozen Conflict Scenarios for the Separatist Disputes of Eastern Europe Thomas de Waal Nikolaus von Twickel Edited by Michael Emerson CEPS, Brussels Rowman & Littlefield International, London CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies) is an independent and non- partisan think tank based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. This book has been part of a project on the EU’s Association Agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine supported by Sweden through the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida). The views expressed herein are those of the authors alone. Cover art work by Constantin Sunnerberg ([email protected]) Published by Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd. 6 Tinworth Street, London, SE11 5AL www.rowmaninternational.com Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd. is an affiliate of Rowman & Littlefield, 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706, USA With additional offices in Boulder, New York, Toronto (Canada) and Plymouth (UK) www.rowman.com Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) Place du Congrès 1, 1000 Brussels, Belgium www.ceps.eu Copyright © 2020 CEPS The editors and authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the editor and/or author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-5381-4416-9 Hardback 978-1-5381-4417-6 Paperback 978-1-5381-4418-3 eBook “For almost 30 years, Europe has been struggling to handle several territorial or separatist conflicts in its Eastern neighbourhood: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorny Karabakh, and Transdniestria.
[Show full text]
Reflections on Abkhazia
REFLECTIONS ON ABKHAZIA [14 August] 1992-2012 ABKHAZ WORLD Introduction The bulk of the world’s ethnic Abkhazians today live in Turkey as part of the North West Caucasian diaspora, their ancestors having lost their homeland as a consequence of Russia’s victory in the 19th- century Caucasian War, which ended in 1864. But it was not Russians who were destined to be seen as presenting the main threat to the well-being (or even survival) of the Abkhazians during the eventful years of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Today, exactly twenty years have passed since Georgian tanks rolled across the bridge over the River Ingur, thereby sparking the war with Abkhazia, which was to last for 14 months and to cost the Abkhazians 4% of their local population, every family in Abkhazia lost at least one of their members — not for nothing has Abkhazian historian, Stanislav Lakoba, spoken of his motherland as lying between hammer and anvil. Despite the fact that Eduard Shevardnadze, who headed Georgia’s State Council at the start of hostilities, has acknowledged that the war was “our biggest mistake”, Georgia has done nothing to make amends; on the contrary, it has continued to make grave mistakes. Since the end of the war in September 1993 Georgia has not only done its best to have Abkhazia isolated internationally but has attempted more than once again to essay the military option there, supporting acts of sabotage and terrorism launched from its western province of Mingrelia, which is separated from Abkhazia by the Ingur. Georgia’s final huge miscalculation came in 2008, when, late on 7 August, President Mikheil Saakashvili issued the order for Georgian troops to attack South Ossetia.
[Show full text]