Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Inventing the Self: Instrumentalization Of

Inventing the Self: Instrumentalization Of

CEU eTD Collection INVENTING THESELF:INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF HISTORY Submitted to Central European University Studies Program Studies Nationalism University European Submitted toCentral In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of for thedegree oftherequirements In partialfulfillment IN ABKHAZIAN-GEORGIAN CONFLICT IN ABKHAZIAN-GEORGIAN Second Reader: Alexei Miller , HUNGARY MARIAM GOSHADZE MARIAM Advisor: Maria Kovacs Master ofArts Master 2008 By CEU eTD Collection Dedicated toMartin forhissupport and belief in me and to my and tomy dear friendsMose, Mariam and MariamBubliks. CEU eTD Collection EEEC IT ...... 66 REFERENCE LIST: CONCLUSION...... 63 CHAPTER 5: DEVELOPING THE ‘TRADITIONS’ OF HISTORICAL NARRATIVE...... 58 4.6. Spirit 54 of the National ...... Revival 4.5. The 52 Soviet Era...... 4.4. Status of in the Independent 47 ...... 1917-1921 4.3. Principality of Abkhazia under Russian 43 Authority...... 4.2. Kingdom of 41 Abkhazia and Georgia...... 4.1. Origin of the Abkhazian People and the First 38 Political Communities...... HISTORIOGRAPHY...... 35 ABKHAZIAN SAME FACESANDCOIN: 4:TWO OF GEORGIAN THE CHAPTER 3.2. Reigning National Spirit 31 of the 1990’s...... 3.1. The Effects of the ‘Wrong’ 26 Nationalities ...... Policy ...... 26 POLITICAL MOOD OF THEPRE-DEMOCRATIC AND REVIVAL ERA NATIONALISM THE 3:THE OF CHAPTER 2.4. Russian Involvement 25 in the Conflict...... 2.3. Aftermath of the 23 War—Frozen ...... Conflict 20 2.2. Military Engagement ...... 2.1. Deteriorating 16 Relations...... CONFLICT OFGEORGIAN-ABKHAZIAN FACTORS AND2: FACTS UNDERLYING CHAPTER CHAPTER 1: HISTORICAL NARRATIVE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF NATIONAL IDENTITY.6 0.2. Structure and Significance of 4 the Research...... 0.1. Introduction 2 of the Topic...... INTRODUCTION...... 2 ...... 15 1 CEU eTD Collection have always been different. History both have been struggling with remains the remains with struggling been have regions both History different. been always have its own separate identity drawing a clearline with Georgia and claiming that were highly emphasized in the popular discourse. Abkhazia, on the other hand, built up and history aswell sharedculture ethnos, as Abkhazian with similarities case of Georgia, conflict as well, with both sides molding historical ‘facts’ to their particular claims. In the policies. political justifying for history employed nationally conflictmotivated after dissolutionthe of Sovietthe Block in 1990’sthe every or ethnically Thus, almost for independence. assertions of authenticity the the about central aspects for mobilization of the society as well as an integral part of the discourse the program of cultural affirmation. Building the myth of the nation became one of the Along with the claims of political self-sustainability, secessionist regions embarked on further encouraging autonomous ornon-autonomous regions topushfor recognition. unsuccessful, been always not have such ventures illustrates, Kosovo caseof As the regions ethnically conscious todemandindependence international from organizations. Lack oflegal background and abundance of political alloweddiscourse many the of itapplies tomade its application leaving problematic, room for experiments and trials. scene starting from the First World War. Ambiguous definition of the term and the units 0.1. Introduction ofthe Topic Construction of the new identity can be discerned in the Georgian-Abkhazian in the discerned be can identity new the of Construction international the on promoted strongly been has self-determination of idea The I NTRODUCTION 2 CEU eTD Collection 2 Balakrishnan (,New York: Verso, 1996), 228. 1 life.Although argumentsthe from both sides are substantiated by ‘proofs’the from the partially due to virtuethe of reproducing theidentity in social,the political and cultural compete to control [the] symbol and its meanings’ can be viewed only in its andsocietal in context institutional which groups ‘different developments of the past two centuries. a purely modern construct stemming from socio-economic or socio-cultural dissimilarity in the essence of the Abkhazians and . Neither will it be viewed as organic, asan unchangeable reality which could notbe due accommodated intrinsicto the through myths and symbols. ‘Nation’ in the conflict will not be defined as preexistent and identity andissues of self-creation. solutions to the crisis. Most of the information however is political,looking over the International organizations and NGOs have been trying to come up with the best conflict, sizeable amount of scholarly work has been produced in relation to Abkhazia. impossible. level political the on same—nevertheless, the disparities in the revival of the past have made the reconciliation other for the self-evident reality, the two groups dispute over the ‘recreation’ of the self and the A.P. Cohen, in ‘Nationalism’?”, and ‘Nation’ “Whither Verdery, Katherine 2 —the very identification of Abkhazians as separate or the same as Georgians exists Instead, I will argue that nationalism of the two regions is a phenomenon, which My aim is scrutinizeto the fluidity of the perception of ethnic identity generated increasingDue to of the buildingin ‘trend’ state 1990’s andthe subsequent the The Symbolic Construction of Community 3 (London: Ellis Horwood, 1985), 114. 1 . In other words, rather than fighting than rather words, other . In Mapping theNation , ed. Gopal CEU eTD Collection different histories’ created from the same past by the Abkhazian and Georgian historians. of ‘two the actual research—comparison chapter presentsthe Thefourth out. is pointed significance of Sovietthe legacy in creating in charged nationally atmosphere 1980’s the emphasizing the ‘disputable’ aspects of the confrontation. In the third chapter the intenduse. to The second chapter willinto historical the go background of conflict,the overview of ideathe of ‘fluidnational pointingidentity’, out themain approaches I that by perceived side basedoneither intangible each past. tangible or different histories and how they attempt to construct a reality best fitting the conflict as books from both regions will give me an opportunity to discern the formation of two the Comparing textbooks. history Georgian and Abkhazian in the presented narratives 0.2. Structure and Significance of the Research present. at negotiations andin successful of communities two actions the the undermining in substantiating cover only one of the portions of the confrontation—which is the role of historiography I choose to Instead, be impactwhichcannot the of downgraded. conflict, aspect of the ‘other’. the hating into people the of minds the orient demonstrate how much the confrontation between the ‘imagined nations’ can shape and to be, sometimes altering the ‘history’ to unrecognizable state. My broader objective is to past, the past is revived in a way as to fit the specific perception of what one is supposed After introducing the topic and explaining the content, Iwill offer a theoretical Structurally my isargument organized aroundtheassessment of historicalthe By this proposition I do not mean to disregard significant economic or political 4 CEU eTD Collection be impossible. Which, in turn, will affect the political solution of the conflict. expanded as to incorporate the version of the other, objective definition of the reality will culture and politics in shaping the . If the stories of the communities will notbe Georgian of role the acknowledge to is unwilling hand, other the on Abkhazia, Abkhazia. with relations ‘once-perfect’ the isdeteriorating onRussia,skillfully conflict placed the separate? What was the basis of the secessionist claims? At the same time, the blame for to want Abkhazians did side—why Abkhazian the from conflict the of explanation the ideological reconciliation.What Georgian perception of the conflict fails to address, is region. Caucasian and Abkhazian substantiated by articles books and by influential scholars working on Georgian-the be will sphere intellectual the in confrontation Georgian-Abkhazian of evaluation creating the theoretical framework of the study. Historical background, as well as the books from both Abkhazia and Georgia. I have also used nationalism theories for the value in of historical conflict. ongoing reconciliation the context of Georgian and Abkhazian conflict. Lastly, Isum up my argument and stress the The last chapter offers additional information about impactthe ofhistoriography in the In my view, understanding the patterns of identity building is crucial for school the of analysis the on based mostly is work the out, pointed already I As 5 CEU eTD Collection symbolic interpretation of nationalism for deciphering the nature of Georgian-Abkhazian of nature the deciphering for nationalism of interpretation symbolic identification can be identified. Due to this trend, my research greatly relies on the ethno- Abkhazians. of distinctness ethnic disregarding territory ‘historical’ its which fusedoften with politicalthe Georgiadevelopments. emerged as pretenderthe on field, scholarly inthe echoed strongly was Georgia and Abkhazia between confrontation 1980’s In the basisthe their characteristics. on of demonstrate separateness unique principalities with their distinct characteristics, made it harder for autonomous units to Georgia of ‘patchy’nature numerous Moreover, the with subject of present dispute. territory ‘blurred’has produced cultural ethnicalor boundaries thatemerged asthe mutual struggle for‘allotment’ the of past. Centuries-long co-existence in asmall (The University(The of Press:Michigan 1996), 110. and Social Change: Essays in the History of , and Georgia, of ’ of peoples the peculiarities the divided betweenlargerentities. thatwere provinces ‘nation’ was weak. Solidarity was rather bound to the regional affiliation within small persistent influence from numerous empires and kingdoms, common feeling of one nineteenth century. Before this period, due to the complex web of authority sharing and 3 Ronald Grigor Suny, “The Emergence of Political Society in Georgia”, in Society ofPolitical Emergence “The Suny, Grigor Ronald Chapter 1: Historical Narrative as an Integral Part of National of Part Integral asan Narrative 1: Historical Chapter In this period, a strong tendency to employ myths and symbols for self- Consolidation process eliminate wasthe reaction foreigngovernments‘to process the to Consolidation late inthe form and shape their acquire to started nations Abkhazian and Georgian Identity 6 3 . The process was accompanied by in Transcaucasia, Nationalism, ed. Ronald Grigor Suny Grigor Ronald ed. CEU eTD Collection 5 9. 4 Considering this feature of history-writing, popular today’s history in Abkhazia and way the best capable of andproviding support the forevidence thepresent assertions. present: the strives and claims of the given nation today bend and transform the past in nationalist the of light in the be seen to has History nation. a consolidating of sake the shouldtextbooks not be readatits face-value, as an undoubted reality ‘remembered’ for altering nature of individualthe nations. Dueto historicalthis, offeredpast in the ever- in the resulting reconstituted, are believes and symbols new generation every With memories havetobecultivatedand developed. process of ‘being a nation’, since for the survival of the collective identity shared which the political strategies generate. In this way,recreation of history is in itself the integral the popularandrepresent through the vision,part of social processes structures beingjust ‘invented fortraditions’ themanipulation of society,the history and culture cultural claims.Anthony D. Smith, the originator of this view, argues that rather than present-day with the authority and legitimacy justifyto their political or has been, and can be, rediscovered and reinterpreted’ traditions, and symbols of ethnic heritages and the waysin which a popularliving past subject. conflict. At the same time, Iincorporate some aspects of constructivistapproach to the Ibid., 10. Anthony D. Smith, Popular history Popular history transforms with changingthe boundaries and political situation. memories, myths, ‘the of significance the underlines theory Ethno-symbolic Myths and Memories of theNation 7 (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1999), 5 4 . This ‘past material’ empowers the empowers material’ ‘past . This CEU eTD Collection Publishing Ltd., 2004), 52. Destiny: Ethnosymbolism and its Critics, 8 11. with a specific territory of andsolidarity asense with territory a specific common myth of descent, a shared history, a distinctive shared culture, an association ‘preconditions’ are crucialfor becoming anethnically collective group: defined name,a 7 University Press, 2002). Secession, History and the Social Sciences 6 identity’ national of rituals and territories customs, languages, symbols, as‘names, such elements involves This continuity. establish to elements of history need to be transmitted to the present definition of the nation in order movements. opposingidentities, which can be decisive for developmentthe of secessionist role the in in he that scholars can play agrees important constructing discourse, popular the of manipulation more accenton elite he the Although places sphere. academic that there is instrumental correlation between the political goals of the state and the . Havingwritten considerable amount of scholarly onGeorgia, work hebelieves Coppieters, political scientist concentrating on the ethnic wars and secessions in the arguments for theirinseparablebe unity, viewed not should as undoubted truth. words, claims about the continuous confrontation of the Abkhazians and Georgians or Georgia should mirror the aspirations of the national politics of the regions. In other Thomas Hylland Eriksen, “Place, Kinship and the Case for Non-Ethnic Nations”, Non-Ethnic for Case the and Kinship “Place, Eriksen, Hylland Thomas Anthony D. Smith, Conflict”, Georgian-Abkhazian the and Intellectuals Homeland: the of Defense “In Coppieters, Bruno However, past cannot be recreated out of the thin air. According to Smith, some Bruno advocated been has conflict Georgian-Abkhazian of aspect historical This 6 Myths and Memories of theNation ed. Montserrat Guibernau and John Hutchinson (Blackwell , ed. Bruno Coppieters and Michel Huysseune (Brussels Huysseune Michel and Coppieters Bruno , ed. 8 (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1999), 8 . What happens if these elements are if elements happens . Whatthese 7 . In addition to this, six in History and National in CEU eTD Collection vol.1 (Academic Press: 2000). 11 10 Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 15. 9 mostly was Georgian culture and language name, the of spite in that maintain Georgians while independence, their argue thethat kingdom foundedwas by Abkhaziansandthe servesthe justification of the same period and same territory, the (9 to determine the legitimate ‘owner’ of the past. For example both regions lay claims on Abkhazian cases, large part of the history is the subject todispute, making itimpossible Inboth, Georgian and canbedisputed. characteristics existence of abovementioned the Georgia emergedwell-equipped with necessary these for‘tools’ self-definition, objective shared, or disputed between the two nations? Although, in a way both Abkhazia and the nation as a category, which ‘is invoked,institutionalized and more generally used as a Brubakerproposes Rogers core’, ‘ethnic or tangible characteristics nation as builtaround constructivist theory serves as the supplementary background. Rather than defining process reification oneself asunique could anddistinct, the abovementioned serve factors identitythe mannerthe in which interpreted. history that supporting nationalist assertions. However, national consolidation has been mostly leftto documents, which can be seen as the samples of ‘history’, has played an important role in Alexei Zverev, “Ethnic Conflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in Liah Greenfield, “Etymology, Definition, Types”, in Graham Day and Andrew Thompson, At this point of divergence of my case-study from ethno-symbolism, from mycase-study of divergence of point this At 11 . 9 . Clearly, employment of historical and anthropological Theorizing Nationalism 9 10 Only given the willingness to define to willingness the given Only Encyclopedia of Nationalism, (New PalgraveYork: Macmillan, 2004), 81. Contested Borders in theCaucasus, th century). Abkhazians century). ed. Alexander J. Motyl, ed. CEU eTD Collection Howard Wollman (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd., 2005),185. 14 Press). identifications’ and understandings ‘setthe perceptions, of beliefs, 13 83. 12 met or seen. Imagination of the nation played a crucial role in the late nineteenth century never have we whom community the of members those with identify we which through concept by claiming that membershipintoa nation requires the process imagination,of example, ‘the nation, which celebrates its antiquity, forgets its historical recency’ nationalism since the very act of remembering involves forgetting of some events. For conflict. of the Abkhazia and Georgia will assist the comprehension of the emergence and perseverance the both sides. So the very ways in which the ‘nation’ is ‘remembered’ in case of is in for past arguable the andAbkhaziawhere case of especially Georgia true considered frame’‘cognitive ‘imagined’ nature. Benedict Anderson, in Anderson, Benedict nature. ‘imagined’ isforgotten due nationalism massto the forgetting.act of involved bloodshed for thesake of unanimity. way, This very the symbolic nature of century from tenth the warsof starting which unification the of Georgia, true is especially the violent means, through which the nation is created is often ‘left out’ or forgotten. This Michael Billig, “Banal Nationalism”, in Rogers Brubaker, “Ethnicity as Cognition”, in Graham Day and Andrew Thompson, However, forgetting, just like remembering,is the foremost component of Perception Perception of nation the as aframe’ mightbring ‘cognitive its ustoassuming 12 . Thus, instead of real symbols or touchable past, nation is based on Theorizing Nationalism Nations and nationalism: A Reader, Ethnicity without Groups Imagined Communities 10 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), (Cambridge: Harvard University , illuminates this illuminates , ed. Philip Spencer and 13 . This can be 14 . Also, CEU eTD Collection 18 95. 17 University(The of Press:Michigan 1996), 110. and Social Change: Essays in the , Azerbaijan and Georgia, 16 (London, New York: Verso, 1991). 15 formulated being were nationalisms Georgian and Abkhazian when Georgia Abkhazia with andSouth Ossetia its within borders feeling of oneness, especially among the Georgians, who created the image of united introduced by the Tsarist and modern ways of communication, have enforced the national symbols is stressed as the central aspect for enforcing national belonging national enforcing for aspect central the as is stressed symbols national everyday use of flag, language, songs, maps, anthems, coins, memorials and other called ‘banal nationalism’ suggested by Michael Billig. Here, the significance of the same time welcoming the influence of ethnicother groups at the inferior, as Georgians reject the to Abkhazians the of explains the‘choice’ also in different parts of the country. This symbolic ‘belonging’ further developed by Cohen, brothers’ ‘unknown the to them extended and identifications national existent already the strongly reinforced discourse mediapopular regions, two and the warbetween the during ongoing conflict. impossible forgetto ‘what we are’ in terms of nationality, further exacerbating the nationalism, both in Abkhazia and Georgia, has greatly contributed to making it ‘nationalto device much and promote later Banal symbols’ then Georgian the state. had region sincethe case Abkhazian the to applied be especially can nationalism’ ‘Banal Ibid., 99. Graham Day and Andrew Thompson, Ronald GrigorSuny, “The Emergence of Political Society in Georgia”, in Benedict Anderson, Institutionalization of nation also happens through the enforcement of the so- Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism Theorizing Nationalism 11 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 17 . 16 . In times, modern . the Transcaucasia, Nationalism, ed. Ronald Grigor Suny 15 . Unified economy 18 . CEU eTD Collection 21 (Hanover: University Press of New England, 2000), 59. 20 15. 19 replenishment and cultural borrowing, andhence social and cultural adaptation’ membership, this kindof definition of nation ‘for adegree allows of demographic flexibility in terms of membership. Rather then delineating oneself with ethnic criteria of itterms of greater beliefs perceptions—granting cultural the values—memories, and nation is a ‘construct’? can nation is bethe How felt willed community’ and nation ‘equally a ‘construct’? feelingthe ‘belonging’ of toeither side. mentioned ethnic and boundaries cultural havemostly over centuries, dissolved leaving where, asIalready conflict, in of Georgian-Abkhazian case important especially and cultural standing of the given community. Existence of any kind of community in depending molded can that political specificunderstandingpresent the of be the on tothe the ‘past, which is nota ‘pre-given’ reality, but rather a patch of memories or artifacts of remembrance the through is constructed it in which ways the to subject is a ‘nation’ belonging. To sum up all the abovementioned theories, Ibelieve that the essence of the and existence’ nation’s the contingency precarious of Moreover, Everyday nationalism plays a great role in concealing ‘the very elusiveness ‘evidence’from pastthe is still necessary,it be language, territory, traditions orsymbols. Although constructivism endorses illusionary nature of the nation, some kind of ZygmuntBauman, “Blood,Soil and Identity”, Anthony D. Smith, Anthony D. Smith, In both, ethno-symbolic and constructivist discourse, nation is mostly defined in How can we then explain the sentiment and belonging to the nation, if the very if the nation, the to belonging and sentiment the explain then we can How The Nation in History: Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism Myths and Memories of theNation Sociological Review 40 12 (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1999), 21 andin reinforcing the sense of (1992): 677. 19 . This is 20 ? CEU eTD Collection Hobsbawm Terence and O. Ranger(Cambridge University 1992).Press, 22 events. historical important icons), flags, (anthems, symbols national folksongs, characteristics: arguments. Revitalization of traditions was happening on basisthe ritualizingof cultural new for substantiating materials’ ‘ancient employed and Georgia Abkhazia ‘traditions’. 1990’s, when collapsethe of Sovietthe Union allowed full-flown of practice national the world. the ordinary of encountering social process turn, implies specific way of perceiving oneself and the other, which represents an made toforget great share of the past. involuntary—a result provocations and the absence of strong state control. Thus, effortis by Russia. Involvement of the Georgian army in the conflict is also portrayed as heartened and motivated operated who separatists’ ‘disobedient the on but Abkhazians on emphasizing common history and culture, while theblame for conflictthe is placed not failures both of sides: ‘oneness’ of andGeorgia Abkhazia is promoted through and clash military the tooverlook textbooks history in the trend general is a There war. the for responsibility the acknowledge to unwillingness and concessions political actions. for main two tostrengthen purposes: cohesion, group the and tolegitimize political andmobilize its identity against ‘significant the other’. Invention of wastraditions used Eric J. Hobsbawm, “Introduction: Inventing Traditions”, in 22 The official ‘nation building’ process in the Caucasus started mostly inthe mostly started Caucasus in the process building’ ‘nation official The Nowadays, the popular Georgian narrative is caught upbetween the necessity of This was especially true of Abkhazia: for the first time the region had to collect 13 The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric J. CEU eTD Collection 23 unwillingnessengage to in open debates pastabout and present hand with the recognition of the fault of the both sides in the escalation of violence and realize the ‘elusiveness’ historical of have‘evidence’. Political negotiations togo hand in intellectual and both claims sphere in sides the accommodate of the the to necessary Dov Lynch, “Separatist States and Post-Soviet Conflicts”, In my view,in order to achieve a healthy perspective on the conflict, itis 14 International Affairs 78 (4) 23 . (2002):831-848. CEU eTD Collection to the ferocity of Georgian ‘ethnie’ as such. Georgians, on the other hand, seemed titular nations in the ,in Abkhazia it was given ethnic coloring and ascribed can also be viewed as part of the general trend of the period to promote superiority of the the resettling of the Abkhazian population, changing the script to the Georgian alphabet aggravated by apparentpolicythe Georgianizaton of in 1930’s.Thisthe policy included Georgians and Beria were Stalin, main ‘perpetrators’, acquired suggests,the Bruno Coppieters meaningterror for anew Abkhazians sincethe years of the Stalinist terror were unbearable for the whole Soviet Union, however, as expressed their dissatisfaction either due to limited autonomy or unequal rights. The have occasions several at and majority Georgian the by oppressed felt Abkhazians Abkhazia was unwillingly included in Georgian the Soviet Socialist Republic. Since then half in first becamefeasible already the when twentieth century, the of confrontation writing, some basic background has to be offered about the conflict itself. The 26 St. Martin’s Press, 1998), 177. 25 University Press, 2002), 91. Secession, History and the Social Sciences, 1998), 235-236. closing down Abkhazian schools and ‘colonization’ of the region 24 Chapter 2: Facts and Underlying Factors of Georgian-Abkhazian Factors Underlying and Facts 2: Chapter Daniel Mueller, “Demography”, in “Demography”, Mueller, Daniel Vasilij Avidzba, “Literature & Linguistic Politics”, in Bruno Coppieters, “In Defense of the Homeland: Intellectuals and the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict Georgian-Abkhazian the and Intellectuals Homeland: the of Defense “In Coppieters, Bruno Before moving on to the actual comparison of Abkhazian and Georgian history- TheAbkhazians, eds. Bruno Coppieters and Michel Huysseune (VUB Brussels (VUB Huysseune Michel and Coppieters Bruno eds. Conflict 15 ed. George Hewitt (New York: St. Martin’s Press, The Abkhazians, 24 . The situation was further ed. George Hewitt (New York: 26 . Although processthe ”, in 25 , CEU eTD Collection 1991), 24. 29 1991), 20. Aves, Jonathan Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 39. 28 University Press, 2002), 107. Secession, History and the Social Sciences, Union Republic in which leading Abkhazian figures were asking toraise the Status of Abkhazia to a Georgia. In July the ‘Abkhazian Letter’ was sent to the 19 2.1. Deteriorating Relations intellectuals. werealreadyagendas formulatednationalist among being local the and elites Nevertheless, administration. in the overrepresented were Abkhazians importantly, more station out of Georgianthe itscontrol, National University, houseand publishing theatre; granted numerous cultural concessions. By 1988 Abkhazia had its own radio and TV Georgia and join Russia, however, their requests were not satisfied. Instead, they were territory.1967, 1956, 1978Abkhaz intellectuals petitioned the Centreseparate fromto communities. Abkhazians felt that was trying to increase its control over the in same wereenforcedthe Georgia. repressions 27 unwilling to ‘assume any responsibility for Stalin’s or Beria’s actions’ Jonathan Aves, Jonathan Alexei Zverev, “Ethnic Conflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in Bruno Coppieters, “In Defense of the Homeland: Intellectuals and the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict Georgian-Abkhazian the and Intellectuals Homeland: the of Defense “In Coppieters, Bruno Already in1988 takingAlready started Abkhazians measures in be from order separated to two the between relations strained already the era deteriorated Thus, Stalinist 28 Paths to National Independence in Georgia, 1987-1990 Paths to National Independence in Georgia, 1987-1990 29 . This served as a principal rationale behind the strained relationship ed. Bruno Coppieters and Michel Huysseune (VUB (VUB Brussels Huysseune Michel and Coppieters Bruno ed. 16 Contested Borders in theCaucasus, th Party Conference of CPSU, (London: , University (London: (London: University London, of University (London: 27 , claiming that ”, in ed. CEU eTD Collection Publishing Company,2005), 44. building) Diplomatii Mirotvorcheskomv Protsesse (The Role ofUnofficial Diplomacy in the Process of Peace- Manana Gurguliani, “The Role of Unofficial Diplomacy: Reality and Illusions”, in Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 41. 31 1999), 114. 30 calling on to recognize Abkhazia asafull Union republic’ 30,000 around Abkhazians met in villagethe of and ‘approved adocument . capital between the two ethnic within groups the confines of Abkhazia, and especially inits deteriorating Georgian-Abkhazian relations. Georgian-Abkhazian deteriorating independence by the radicals.At the same time, the incident became the ‘memorial’ of nineteen students. The tragedy of 9 April was swiftly adopted as a symbol of peaceful citizens were brutally ‘dispersed’ on9 April in mainTbilisi avenue—killing forto sanctify Condemning instigatingmovement. thedemonstrators ethnic the conflict, Georgian sovereignty. At this point, Moscow stepped in to provide the necessary martyrs for restoration of toinclude call the the broadened were independence Abkhazian the thousands of gathered inprotesters front of Governmentthe building. Demands against intellectuals. Abkhazian separatism constituted a mass movement rather then a small association of However,itto rallyLykhny the Appealmadeapparent that ‘traitors’. the against publiclySoviet theGeorgian declaration in the condemned and called students Abkhazia Jonathan Wheatley, Jonathan Alexei Zverev, “Ethnic Conflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in However, the turning pointwas the Lykhny Declaration of 18 March 1989, when In Tbilisi, the situation was echoed in the demonstrations of 4 April, when Georgian Abkhazian Conference held in , March 1999 Georgia fromNational Awakening toRose Revolution 17 31 Contested Borders in theCaucasus, (Irvine: University California, of University (Irvine: (Burlington: Ashgate 30 . Georgian Supreme Rol’ Neofitsialnoi ed. CEU eTD Collection Research Centerfor Constructive Conflict Management, 2006), 13. 34 33 1991), 25. 32 Abkhazian anddeclaration. annulled refusedGeorgianlegally proclaimed independent. toacceptthis explanation government February Since Abkhazia wasnot 1921. partof officially itGeorgia by was this time, by which Georgian Supreme Soviet, annulledthe all concludedbefore treaties the SSR. issuedits Abkhazian from stipulating withdrawal adeclaration parliament Georgian the ‘encompass the problems of the whole Georgia’. In response, on 25 August the The actwasexplainedparliament. by of inability non-Georgian to the the parties regionally based political from groups inparticipating electionsthe of Georgianthe werestrongly democratic elements suppressed. with the political spirit of the early 1990’s, where both Abkhazian and Georgian in handhand went Radical stance anyconcessions. were categorically against supporters his and Gamsakhurdia irreconcilable. sides of were positions two the the reached since Achba visited Tbilisi with an attempt of cooperation. However, no agreement could be of thevictims clashes. became Georgians twenty in Abkhazia, town another in Ochamchira, time, same the At students. Abkhazian the by picketed was building the satisfied, was University Abkhazian of branch Georgian the of opening the Ibid., 26. Jonathan Aves, Jonathan Oliver Wolleh, 34 The declaration asserted its Thedeclaration legality legislationto asserted 1989-1990 the adopted referring Meanwhile, hostilities erupted in Abkhazia as well. After Georgian demand for In August 1990,Georgian passedSupreme Soviet an lawelection banning Sensing thelooming danger,in March 1990 Abkhazian leddelegation by Zurab Paths to National Independence in Georgia, 1987-1990 A Difficult Encounter – The Informal Georgian-Abkhazian Dialogues in Press. 18 33 (London: University London, of University (London: 32 (Berghof CEU eTD Collection (PhD (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin 2005), 149. Georgia”, and Russia in Resolution and Conflict Ethnic Federalism? or “Separatism George, Alynn Julie Research Centerfor Constructive Conflict Management, 2006), 14. 37 Affairs, 2001), 21. Bruno Coppieters, Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 43. Collapse”, in Soviet the since and before Ajara and Abkhazia Resorts: ofTwo Tale “The Derluguian, M. Georgi European Studies, University of London, 1991), 51. Aves, Jonathan Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 42. 36 2001), 273. Crawford (Center forStrategic and International Studies Program on New Approaches to RussianSecurity, in Abkhazia. civil of disobedience the as theauthorization population Georgian the session of the parliament. This act by Georgian official representatives was perceived by inAbkhaziadeputies being boycotting about complained and discriminated started the when Gamsakhurdia was already removed from the office. In early 1992 Georgian Abkhazians of the on based over-representation 35 withelections Abkhazian majority 1991) (October-December parliamentary Abkhazian allow to forced is Gamsakhurdia alternative, other no with left contacts with the Russian military and welcomes Russian battalion in Sukhumi. Being Abkhazian constitutional rights. In response, establishes friendly Soviet Georgia, while Vladislav Ardzinba becomes chairmanthe Abkhazianof Supreme Gamsakhurdia’s party ‘Round table—Free Georgia’ wins the parliamentary elections of Oliver Wolleh, Alexei Zverev, “Ethnic Conflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in Alexei Zverev, “EthnicConflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in 35 Abkhazian Supreme Sovietmetunder system newthe quota first in January 1992, In the fall 1990, the leadership of the both regions is elected: Zviad Soon after, Georgian Parliament enacts the law on the prefects, violating . The Myth of “Ethnic Conflict”: Politics, Economics, and “Cultural” Violence, Paths to National Independence in Georgia, 1987-1990 A Difficult Encounter – The Informal Georgian-Abkhazian Dialogues in Press Federalism and Conflict in the Caucasus 19 37 . (London: Royal Institute of International Contested Borders in theCaucasus, Contested Borders in theCaucasus, (School of Slavonic and East and Slavonic of (School 36 . The electoral law was ed. Beverly ed. (Berghof ed. ed. CEU eTD Collection Group International 2002), 9. Anna Mateeva, “ Research Centerfor Constructive Conflict Management, 2006), 15. 40 Affairs, 2001), 22. 39 Studies Working Paper, Berkley, USA, 1997-1998), 34-35. 38 Abkhazia’ boththe parties to‘abandon hopethe of establishing an exclusive grip the on territory of seemed inevitable for both sides. The lack of success stemmed from the unwillingness of military confrontation Georgia, Abkhazia and of between representatives the power Internal Affairs was replaced by Arzindba’s man Ministry of Internal Affairs mostly controlled by the Georgians—Georgian Minister of was more capable ofnegotiating Ardzinba with then made whoShevardnadze no legitimization. necessary democratic individual respected inand West the was recognized as soon thea leaderdespite to lead the affairs as a chairman of the State Council. Shevardnadze was a highly Atmilitary therequestcoup. opposition,the of toTbilisi returned 2.2. Military Engagement region. the on rights historical of discussions Oliver Wolleh, Bruno Coppieters, Post-Soviet and Soviet in Program (Berkley Abkhazia” in of Conflict Visions and “Causes Nodia, Ghia The same month, Abkhaz national guardsmen attacked the building of Abkhazia’s of building the attacked guardsmen national Abkhaz month, same The After the attempts and failure of the institutional agreement to legitimately divide Some historians believe that regardless of nationalistthe rhetoric, Gamsakhurdia In December 1991 Gamsakhurdia was removed from his post as a result of a 39 . These positions,in turn, were strongly supported by the intellectual The South Caucasus: Nationalism, Conflicts and Minorities” A Difficult Encounter – The Informal Georgian-Abkhazian Dialogues in Press Federalism and Conflict in the Caucasus 40 20 38 . (London: Royal Institute of International (Report by Minority Rights (Berghof CEU eTD Collection Periphery Bruno Coppieters et al., (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin 2005), 150. Georgia”, and Russia in Resolution and Conflict Ethnic Federalism? or “Separatism George, Alynn Julie (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 133. 44 Publishing Company,2005), 71. claim that Abkhazians were aware that the goal of the operation was to regulate the in Sukhumi. Guard National Abkhaz situation,the forces Georgian marched in Abkhazia on 14 August and confronted the Abkhazia, at the same time disrupting the railway traffic. With the pretext of ‘regulating’ in Region inGali them kept and hostages as Abkhazia) bordering (region was to again pronounce the decision void on 25 July. granted Republicthe Abkhazia of therightto secede’ between the Georgian and Abkhazian republics were based on a union treaty and which invalid and1925 Abkhazian adopted the which constitution, relations‘declared that werenoless nationalistic. his actions more pragmatic, historian thatalthough Darchiashvili David languagealso suggests was Shevardnadze’s 43 Georgia”,and (PhD diss.,University of Texas at Austin 2005), 154. 42 (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin 2005), 154. 41 attempts to‘discuss a possible politicalsettlement toavoidviolentmeasures’ Thomas Goltz, Thomas Jonathan Wheatley, Jonathan Quoted from: Julie Alynn George, “Separatism or Federalism? Ethnic Conflict and Resolution in Russia Georgia”, and Russia in Resolution and Conflict Ethnic Federalism? or “Separatism George, Alynn Julie This from excerpt history has been largely in debated pastthe decades. Georgians In the same month, supporters of Gamsakhurdia took Georgian officials of On 23 July 1992, Abkhazian declared SovietSupreme 1978constitutionthe (Academia Press, 2004), 196. Georgia Diary—A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus Georgia fromNational Awakening toRose Revolution Europeanization and Conflict Resolution—Case Studies from the European 21 44 43 42 . Georgian reaction to Abkhazia (Burlington: Ashgate 41 . Georgian CEU eTD Collection (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 134. 48 Company, 2005), 72. Jonathan Wheatley, Jonathan Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 48. 47 Press, 2001), 119-120. Stuart J. Kaufman, (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 134. Thomas Goltz, Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 48. 46 Company, 2005),72. Jonathan Wheatley, Jonathan Caucasus, ed.KarenDawisha andBruceParrott 45 railway and free the hostages, but they were still the first to open the fire Abkhazian sides, this time in Sochi. However, part of the Georgian troops joined ‘occupiers’. Georgian the forces against Abkhazian the resolution calling for volunteers among the Ingush, Adyghe, and others to join was available engagement hand, Ardzinba denies version,this claimingno that information Georgianabout book, around2000Abkhaz andothernon-Georgians werekilled during assault this parliament and removed the flag as a war trophy. According to the Abkhazian white Kitovani, August Sukhumi,military, headof Abkhazian the the the occupied recaptured forcesGeorgian againstthecivilian population. units. Nevertheless,it remains undisputed that serious atrocities were committed by the movewas apre-planned theresult in or of military disorganization the Georgian the Thomas Goltz, Thomas Alexei Zverev, “Ethnic Conflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in Alexei Zverev, “Ethnic Conflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in Darrel Slider, “ in Georgia”, in Georgia”, in “Democratization Slider, Darrel On 27 July another agreement of ceasefire was signed by Russian, Georgian and The same day, the Confederation of Mountain , passed a Ceasefire was negotiated in wasnegotiated Ceasefire forces However, both July on retreated. 18 1993 and Georgia Diary—A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus Georgia Diary—A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War Georgia from National Awakening to Georgia from National Awakening to Rose Revolution 46 . It is also contentious whether the occupation of Sukhumi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 172. Conflict, Cleavage and Change in and the 22 48 Contested Borders in theCaucasus, Contested Borders in theCaucasus, (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing 45 . On the other the On . 47 . ed. ed. CEU eTD Collection Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 57. 50 Research Centerfor Constructive Conflict Management, 2006), 16. 49 shooting guards,which atthe served as a reasonfor denying accesstotherefugees for return the of refugees fighting the Abkhazians revived. blamed Georgians for this did not mean the end of the hostilities. On 10 February 1994, on the scheduled day 2.3. Aftermath oftheWar—Frozen Conflict volunteers. Caucasian by North the committed many Georgians. Abkhazians reject this label, claiming that most of the brutalities were troops. This demographic ‘alteration’has been described as an ‘ethnic cleansing’ by population. Many of the Georgians, who remained, were murdered by the Abkhazian the remaining Georgian troops from the region, along with a large part of the Georgian Kobalia. Gasmakhurdia’s supporters and remained inAbkhazia undertheleadership of Loti Georgian families were allowed to return to region. In addition around 40000 more of hundred from and war-zone was removedthe several military equipment Georgian returnees. the of amount the limited which back, refugees. However, individuals involved in the military actions were not allowed to go Alexei Zverev, “EthnicConflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in Oliver Wolleh, Negotiations started Negotiations1 Decemberon started 1993under supervision the of UN. However, ejected counter-attack Abkhazian contract, of the violations and other After this As a result of the next meeting between Shevardnadze, Ardzinba and Yeltsin, and Ardzinba Shevardnadze, between meeting next the of result a As the of return voluntary the on Moscow in signed was Agreement 4April On A Difficult Encounter – The Informal Georgian-Abkhazian Dialogues in Press 23 49 Contested Borders in theCaucasus, (Berghof 50 . ed. CEU eTD Collection 54 Research Centerfor Constructive Conflict Management, 2006), 18. 53 (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), prologue. 52 Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 58-9. 51 ofAbkhaziaindependence went back on their own. On 26 November 1994, Abkhaz parliament declared the more emigrated. Abkhazians and 17%Abkhazians. During the wararound 250,000Georgians leftAbkhazia, some war, therepublic’s population was around 545,000,from which 45% wereGeorgians were again confrontation. duringdisplaced the They by responded eliminating guerillas with military force. Around 35,000 Georgians Abkhazian city of Gali.From Abkhaz perspective this event meant an open act of war. anniversary by of statehood raising the Georgianflagabove thegovernment buildingin in in 1998 Gali Georgianparamilitary region. the‘Whitegroup, League’‘celebrated’ the authority over the territory. legally considered to be part of Georgia, although Tbilisi does notexercise any actual isstill region the thus and recognized internationally is not independence Abkhazian secessionist demands are already very categorical. The conflict remains unsettled. Ibid., 17. Oliver Wolleh, Thomas Goltz, Thomas Alexei Zverev, “Ethnic Conflicts in the Caucasus 1988-1994”, in The war changed the demographic situation Abkhaziaof considerably. the Before Progress Progress towards conflict resolution was interrupted when heavy fighting erupted Since 1998negotiations havebeen much slower andeventless. Today the, Georgia Diary—A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus A Difficult Encounter – The Informal Georgian-Abkhazian Dialogues in Press 51 . 54 24 53 Contested Borders in theCaucasus, (Berghof 52 ed. CEU eTD Collection (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 195. Thomas Goltz, Group International 2002), 12. 56 in theCaucasus, 55 Abkhazia.its towards denied position that was predisposed mostly military the of performers, Abkhazian andconflict its operations stemmed from of standpoints the individualthe 2.4. Russian Involvement inthe Conflict Georgia. with were grouped with the for taking part in the ‘conspiracy’ against Due to this, the validity of the secessionist agendas was nullified—Abkhazians, along Abkhazia and Georgia, Georgians stayed insensitive to the demands of the minorities. between divergence the of artificiality in the Believing disengagement. Abkhazian inciting and promoting the hostilities. Georgians strongly believe that Russia orchestrated rebels. the against roads strategic accepted conditionthe of inentering for CIS return themilitary insupport guarding the were signed under Russian supervision.1994 From onwards EduardShevardnadze Anna Mateeva, Anna Dmitri Trenin,“Russia’s Security Interests and Policies in the Caucasus Region”, in General view is that Russia did not have a single policy in the Georgian- Nevertheless,in the Georgian perception Russia played a considerable part in However, it has to be noted that most of the ceasefire agreements during the war Georgia Diary—A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus ed. Bruno Coppieters (Brussels:Vubpress, 1996),98. The South Caucasus: Nationalism, Conflicts and Minorities 57 55 . Although Russia was supplying both sides,it is not 25 56 (Report by Minority Rights Contested Borders CEU eTD Collection University of Michigan Press, 1996), 400. Multinational Society”, in 60 (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin 2005), 73. 59 Sharpe, inc.,72. 1998), final stage of the consolidation of different nationalities in union the nationalities different of consolidation of stage final the or independence. At the same time, Bolshevik ideology promoted internationalism as the was seen as a way of keeping the political units satisfied and unwilling to seek autonomy was offered as a ‘reward’ for joining the Soviet realm. Promotion of cultural diversity national were grantedgroups concessions in of terms self-expression. Self-determination 58 project’ national discourse while promoting bilingualismand apopular commitment Soviet tothe policy ‘attempting shapebecame theproject of maneuvering, to theforms political of historic suspicions amongnon-Russians andgainfor popular support regime’the had beenunder foreign the beforedomination uniting under socialism. erode order ‘In to Union in the included nations the of Most nationalities. for policy Soviet the to connected 3.1. The Effects of the‘Wrong’ Nationalities Policy the mainstream Soviet ideology, nationalism became legitimized as an as legitimized anti-Soviet became ideology, nationalism Soviet mainstream the Ronald GrigorSuny, “On the Road to Independence: Cultural Cohesion and Ethnic Revivalin a Robert Strayer, Julie Alynn George, “Separatism or Federalism? Ethnic Conflict and Resolution in Russia and Georgia”, and Russia in Resolution and Conflict Ethnic Federalism? or “Separatism George, Alynn Julie Chapter 3: The Era of Nationalism and the Revival of the Pre- of Revival the and Nationalism of Era 3: The Chapter The ferocity of the post-Soviet secessionist and nationalistmovements is often 60 . Ghia Nodia also suggests that exactly due to the fact that internationalism was internationalism that fact the exactly that due to suggests Ghia Nodia also . Why did the Soviet Union Collapse? (Understanding Historical Change Transcaucasia, Nationalism and SocialChange, Democratic Political Mood Political Democratic 26 ed. Ronald Grigor Suny (The 59 . Thus, nationalities ) (London: M.E. 58 , CEU eTD Collection 63 Press, 1996), 400. Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change, 62 70. 2003), Development, and Democracy Sazogadoeba, Mravali Etnosi (One Society, Diverse Ethnicity) 61 offered units political the of structures administrative years, Stalinist during distinction federalism of persistence Although wasjust structural adecorative self-determination. temper. theirnationalist promote andmoment ofthe advantage to take identification had self-necessary all the ’s national the of civil society, creation the forethnic every ’mark’ Whenin citizen. 1970’s facilitated late the the ‘modernization’ Ethnic identity was further institutionalzied in when 1932 passportthe system included worldview. class, clan, tribe and gave way to a new ‘overarching identity based on ethnicity’ organizaiton of theethnoterritorial state formation, downgraded theHowever, traditional social identitiesidentity. such as all-Soviet an into dissolve would nationalities statehood’ national ’linkage of ethnicity, territory, and political administration [...] enshrined the idea of with this principle, titular nations had central positions in the administrative units. The autonomous regions and oblasts, were defined in either ethnic or national terms. In line administrative division of the empire bore a national character: union republics, as well as became impossible. ethnic groups Ibid., 403. in Transcaucasia”, Soviet in Politics Ethnic and Culture Nation-State: the “Beyond Saroyan, Mark Ghia Nodia, “Polytechnic Georgia: Facts, Approaches and Suggestions for the Political Strategy”, in Quasi-federalist nature of Union Sovietthe also provided for the grounds Nationalities policy was reinforced on several levels. First of all, the territorial 61 As a result of this double-sided approach, cultural assimilation of different 62 . This distinction was supposed to be temporary, until all the ed. Ronald Grigor Suny University(The of Michigan 27 (Tbilisi: Caucasus Institute forPeace 63 . Erti CEU eTD Collection (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,2001), 33. 68 (London, Portland: Frank Cass, 1998), 23. the State in Post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia, Bruno Coppieters, “Soviet andPost-Soviet Nationality and Regional Policies”, in 67 Press, 1996), 404. Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change, 66 1991), 30. and EconomicDecentralization 65 Waller, Bruno Coppieters and Alexei Malashenko (London, Portland: Frank Cass, 1998), 3. nationalism’ feel ‘comfortable’ under Russian control, eradicating ‘the potential for defensive 64 and embarkedRussification projects the on mobilization. national of Already in mid the immunityethnic developed centre, loyalty the communities towards towards etc. newspapers, political publishingunit; houses were established assisting spreadof the books, groups: studies were conductedin nativelanguagethe of the titular population of the etc. soviets, flags, courts, equipped with were and self-administration andcultural economic nativization (1921): native officials wereinvolved in trainingthe for program political, formation indigenousof leaderships. This process was called Korenizatsiia or triumphalism. preserved the ambitions of non-Russianthe nationalities and protected them from unitary them during weakenedcontrol privileges the considerable secession on the paper kept the possibility of secession on the future agenda future the secession on kept of possibility paper the the on secession Terry Martin, Corliss Lamont, in Transcaucasia”, Soviet in Politics Ethnic and Culture Nation-State: the “Beyond Saroyan, Mark Raymond Pearson, “The historical background to Soviet federalism”, Soviet to background “The historical Pearson, Raymond Introduction to 66 Education also played a decisive role in forming the national consciousness of the During Stalin’s era federal system also provided institutional basis for the 68 The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939, . However, the outcome was the quite the opposite, instead of developing Conflicting Loyalties and Statethe in Post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia, The Peoples of the Soviet Union 67 Purpose of these policies was to assure that national minorities would , ed. Alastair McAuley (Leicester and London: Leicester University Press, University Leicester London: and (Leicester McAuley Alastair ed. , ed. Michael Waller, Bruno Coppieters and Alexei Malashenko Alexei and Coppieters Bruno Waller, Michael ed. ed. Ronald Grigor Suny University(The of Michigan (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1946), 174. 28 64 . Existence of the right of in Soviet Federalism, Nationalism Conflicting Loyalties and ed. Michael ed. 65 . All this All . CEU eTD Collection Malashenko (London, Portland:Frank Cass, 1998), 25. and the State in Post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia, 72 Sharpe, inc.,75. 1998), 71 (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin 2005), 78. 70 Sharpe, inc., 1998),72, 75. mobilization’ national more groups incentives for national political activity and continued ethnic linked with territorialization, modernization enhanced with identity,cultural gave 69 corruption’ of republicsthe with littlefor Moscow. regard ‘Extensive networks of patronage and in the project of socialism and returned to harsher politics. 1930’s nativization Stalin that realized successful hinder wouldof incorporation people practice, frompractice, ofbooks, publishing periodicals newspapersand totheactivities of theater process the ‘hegemony of the titular nationality was reproduced in all spheres of cultural also introduced institutional innovations of Sovietthe state-formation. During this identity’ national of ‘markers real the as borders educational and language policies resulting in perception the of administrativethe administrative reforms; self-consciousness, on the other hand, was formulated by the the through favored been already had nationality titular the 1970’s by Thus, modified. spread dissident ideas. Stalinist restrictions on ethnic expression were also reasonably Bruno Coppieters, “Soviet and Post-Soviet Nationality and Regional Policies”, in Robert Strayer, Georgia”, and Russia in Resolution and Conflict Ethnic Federalism? or “Separatism George, Alynn Julie Robert Strayer, After Stalin’s death, ‘the combination of combination After ‘the national of Stalin’sdeath, korenizatsiia and ‘Nationalization’ didnot only already backrefer to existent ethnic traditions, but 71 during Brezhneveraandtheflourishing assisted arts underground the 70 . National elites evolved intonational ‘mafias’ that controlled the affairs Why did the Soviet Union Collapse? (Understanding Historical Change Why did the Soviet Union Collapse? (Understanding Historical Change ed. Michael Waller, Bruno Coppieters and Alexei and Coppieters Bruno Waller, Michael ed. 29 72 . 69 Conflicting Loyalties ) (London: M.E. ) (London: M.E. CEU eTD Collection Collapse”, in 76 (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 34. 2001), 263. Crawford (Center forStrategic and International Studies Program on New Approaches to RussianSecurity, 75 University of Michigan Press, 1996), 378. Multinational Society”, in 74 Press, 1996), 406. Transcaucasia, Nationalism and Social Change, 73 the titular nationality’ ‘indirect rule’ from Moscow ‘was used by local party elites to extend favoritism toward andfolkloric song and dance ensembles’ led to their total assimilation and disappearance’ entities or at least allowed them ‘to survive in an atmosphere that would have otherwise believed thattheinitial Leninist of policies ethnic particularism benefited theethnic influence to generate their own plans. own their generate to influence to thecreation and machine’ grantingof Abkhazian an ‘ethnic enough power elites in the last decades of the Soviet Union. This support from the centre largely contributed especially elites, Abkhazian and Russian between existed alliance autonomy, broader or as ‘culprit’. the incorporated nation titularin was inwhich the ideologies of formulation resulted the national influence This dual centre. andthe nations titular bythe repressed hand they were traditions and unique values somethrough kindof freedom,cultural and on the other their of reminded were regions autonomous in the nationalities the hand one the on effect, Georgi M. Derluguian, “The Tale of Two Resorts: Abkhazia and Ajara before and since the Soviet the since and before Ajara and Abkhazia of Resorts: Two Tale “The M. Derluguian, Georgi Thomas Goltz, Thomas Ronald GrigorSuny, “On the Road to Independence: Cultural Cohesion and Ethnic Revivalin a in Transcaucasia”, Soviet in Politics Ethnic and Culture Nation-State: the “Beyond Saroyan, Mark In Abkhazia, despite Moscow’s unwillingness fulfill to independencedemands for The Myth of “Ethnic Conflict”: Politics, Economics, and “Cultural” Violence, Georgia Diary—A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus 74 Transcaucasia, Nationalism and SocialChange, . In spite of partiality towards the titular nation,it is generally 76 73 ed. Ronald Grigor Suny University(The of Michigan . In Transcaucasia especially, the period of 30 75 . The created situation. The had created double ed. Ronald Grigor Suny (The ed. Beverly ed. CEU eTD Collection Company, 2005), 57. Jonathan Wheatley, Jonathan much stronger stance attracted ‘irreconcilable’ heroic The wasavailable. consciousness sinceidea pre-democraticthe towards of behavior notradition political of democratic nineteenth Facedwith independence century. possibility the in of Georgians turned 1990, era suppressed the elements of civic consciousness shaped during the last decades of the lead. to Georgia,started take spirit Communist political In avery independence. peculiar minorities. the in polarizing role significant a played movement independence Georgian Theethno-nationalist Georgia. Abkhazia and forbetween thewarfare justification Union. However, Soviet policies towards nationalities cannotserve as the only 3.2. Reigning National Spirit of the1990’s independence.their rights on unprecedented opportunity both, autonomousto regions andUnion toclaimRepublics, pressure) andhis recklesspolicies of dismantling the party offeredpower an ideology,international of downfall, (economic the circumstances weakening socialist agendas. nationalist of development fornecessary the ‘resources’ decent been hadgranted Abkhazia demands of secession were alleviated by considerable increase of autonomy. By 1988 Cultural Cultural forpromotion Abkhazia reached its zenithin late1970’s,the when the Political chaos of 1980’s was the birthplace for the plans of national The conflict is well contextualized within the ‘historical legacy’ of the Soviet General scene. the entered Gorbachev mobilization, ofethnic stage At this Georgia from National Awakening to Rose Revolution 31 (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing CEU eTD Collection Borders in theCaucasus, 81 Ioseb Archvadze, Schneider Deters (Tbilisi: Friedrich Eberto Stiftung, 2001), 66. Zamorozhennih Konfliktov (South Caucasus—Unstable Region of Frozen Conflicts), Collapse”, in Soviet the since and before Ajara and Abkhazia Resorts: ofTwo Tale “The Derluguian, M. Georgi Borders in theCaucasus, 80 2001), 285. Crawford (Center forStrategic and International Studies Program on New Approaches to RussianSecurity, 79 Metsniereba,1995), 18. 78 Borders in theCaucasus, past. JackSnyderdissident popularity of arguesthat is leaderethnic a general tendency ‘people’sthe man’, a charismatic leader impressive with intellectual andbackground minority discourse was soon transformed into the populist ideology Abkhazian relations—widening theschism with separatistthe regions. conflict’ ethnic the them them with more radical anti-Russian and pro-independence actions disorders of Abkhazia and as the machinations from Moscow, and handled Trappedinprovocateur. searchthe for evil, the leadership Georgian deemed the ethnic acquiredof status omnipresent the it was Kremlin In caseof that Georgia echoed. 77 nation the revival of the for cornerstone the as enemy the of image the employed radicalism revolutionary the Nationalist discourse gained anupper hand over political sobriety and while tolerance, appeal for search then the specific means for achievingpractical political ends. Ghia Nodia, “Political Turmoil in Georgia and the Ethnic Policies of ”, in Malkhaz Kakabadze, “Peaceful Caucasus—Myth or Reality”, in Ghia Nodia, “Political Turmoil in Georgia and the Ethnic Policies of Zviad Gamsakhurdia”, in Giorgi Zhorzholiani et al., Ghia Nodia, “Political Turmoil in Georgia and the Ethnic Policies of Zviad Gamsakhurdia”, in In this atmosphere of ‘Georgians against the others’, Gamsakhurdia’s anti- In the search for the ‘invisible enemy’, familiar Bolshevik ideology was strongly The Myth of “Ethnic Conflict”: Politics, Economics, and “Cultural” Violence, Tu Dagivitsko Apkhazeto (I won’t forget you Abkhazia) 79 77 was a response to Russia’s ‘efforts’ to deteriorate Georgian- ed. Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 79. ed. Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 78. ed. Bruno Coppieters (Brussels: Vubpress, 1996), 76. . Historic, Political and Legal Aspects of the Conflict in Abkhazia 32 Yuzhni’ Kavkaz—Nestabilnii’ Region (Tbilisi, 2004), 24. 78 81 . ‘Politicization of . Gamsakhurdia was ed. Wienfried ed. 80 ed. Beverly ed. (Tbilisi: Contested Contested Contested CEU eTD Collection 85 Affairs, 2001), 22. 84 Publishing Company,2005), 61. 83 (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin 2005), 40. 82 parliament with more than half seats reserved for non-Georgians to its own police force of Georgia, by latethe 1970’s Abkhazia enjoyed unique privileges rangingits from own autonomous regions toput independencetheir agendas into action.the Whilelegally part Union and the loosened control of lastthe decades provided favorable conditions for the imperialism.As I already mentioned, the ‘Matryoshka-style’ structure of the Soviet Georgian of expression another yet as identified were policies Gamsakhurdia’s our soil’, who had to be grateful liveto in Georgia on ‘guests as the described werebeing tomedia. Minorities transmitted were leadership leadersof minorities the aslegitimate were portrayed nation’ asthe ‘titular emphasized—Georgians wasstrongly Georgians the Supremacy of Gamsakhurdia. by exploited was fear society’—emergent in the situation ‘psychotic population to rallyfor ‘united’ the InadditionGeorgia. to this, tragedy provided message toconsolidate their positions. unite citizens commonpower leaders the to around ethnic nationalistic usethe cause, statechangethe brings about support Since the of discourse. hasmessageethnic national during unstable political situation. Vulnerability publicof opinion influenceto the during Ghia Nodia, “Democratization in Georgia: at a Dead-End ora Crossroads?”, aDead-End at Georgia: in “Democratization Nodia, Ghia Bruno Coppieters, Jonathan Wheatley, Jonathan Georgia”, and Russia in Resolution and Conflict Ethnic Federalism? or “Separatism George, Alynn Julie Given the already existent separatist ambitionslate in inAbkhazia 1980’s, the separatist Given already the existent The losingdanger of Abkhazia and Ossetia sufficient provided forgrounds the Federalism and Conflict in the Caucasus Georgia fromNational Awakening toRose Revolution 82 33 85 (London: Royal Institute of International . 84 . Chauvinistic slogans of the (Burlington: Ashgate Pomegranate (2003), 83 34. CEU eTD Collection 1991), 19. 88 87 (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006), 6. 86 alsoGeorgia but enjoyed afull to self-determination’ and equal right Abkhazians claimed that ‘their autonomy was not only ethnically distinct from the rest of Georgiansconflictuous. vigorously asserted indivisibilitythe twothe units,of while Union Soviet andSSR. specifically Georgian couldn’t Abkhazia appeal for the independence lost first to Tsarist Russia and then to the heritage as independent state an had that been lost to Bolsheviksthe in why 1921’, rights of its people. If Georgia could break away from the Soviet Union and ‘reclaim its where virtually no-one was Georgian. Gamsakhurdia’s famous slogan ‘ unconsciously for promoting the righteousness of ideological beliefs. in incorporated discourse eitherthe ethnicity were repeatedly or consciously intellectual sphere starting already in the early 1980’s. In both cases, history,identity and tothe Thedivergencewas automatically rationale’ conflict. behindthe transmitted ‘true the about raisingfor awareness the sufficient wasnot propaganda Political side. each incompatibility produced needthe substantiation for the of individualthe of positions was perceivedas call the mobilization for Jonathan Aves, Jonathan Ibid., 59. Thomas Goltz, Thomas Thus, the national movements of Abkhazia and Georgia were inherently were Georgia and Abkhazia of movements national the Thus, In thelate 1980’s Abkhaziaits demands based for onthepoliticalindependence Georgia Diary—A Chronicle of War and Political Chaos in the Post-Soviet Caucasus Paths to National Independence in Georgia, 1987-1990 86 . 34 87 (London: University London, of University (London: 88 . Ideological Georgia First! Georgia ’ CEU eTD Collection Language Abkhazians. today’s historiography, otherthe hand, on lists several the unification tribes, of which produced Abkhazian Abkhazia. of territory the on living the of descendants the exact origin of the group. Most widespread assumption is that Abkhazians are the differentethnic group than Georgian; however, there is a considerable ambiguity about a Abkhazians represent that is beacknowledged hasIt generally offered.people to Georgians are indeed different groups, ashort overview of the origin of the Abkhazian peoples of the Georgia. of were one of Abkhazians part and integral Georgia yetanother Abkhazia represented in which ideology nationalist informulating successful been have books history Georgian be considered Judging undoubted. my from personal experience, Ican boldly say that Textbook for the seventh grade regional can be as regional classified 90 might be hard to believe that there is contention about the ‘Georgianness’ of Abkhazia. of ‘Georgianness’ the about is contention there that believe to hard be might 89 Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Voronov, Chapter 4: Two Faces of the Same Coin: Abkhazian and Abkhazian Coin: Same the of Faces Two 4: Chapter As for thelanguage, Abkhazian belongs totheNorth-Western Caucasus In order to avoid any kind of confusion about the fact that Abkhazians and The effects of popularthe historiography on mindsthe of schoolchildrenthe can Given the differences in the ethnic consistence and the linguistic traditions, it linguistic traditions, and in the consistence ethnic Given differences the the 89 Abkhazi—Kto Oni (Abkhazian—Who Are They?) , which is distinct from the Kartvelian Languages. Georgian, along with its (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003), 13. Georgian Historiography Georgian 35 90 (, 1993), 4. . Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) CEU eTD Collection adopt essentialist view, giving categorical statements about theconsistence andheritage essentialistview, givingstatements categorical adopt isunifyingfactor the from approach to historiography.ethnogenetic sidesboth Scholars Abkhaziainfluence of connection and Georgia isalmost omitted. Abkhaziantrend, individuality is strongly in suppressed Georgia, while in case of same events are ascribed different significance and meaning. According to the general samethe time. Abkhazia at modelsdistinct ofhistoriography—where the same placeis spoken of as andGeorgia Western Georgia. Clearly this divergence in the perception of the region results in the even consider it necessary to specify it asAbkhazia, but rather as a component of Georgian history thesameportrays region as inseparable partof Georgia anddoesnot that the territory of present Abkhazia is the ancient homeland of the Abkhazian people, for sides. Abkhazian sideargues the regionis both If of legacy of the apple contention the On the one hand there is an apparent dispute over the territory of Abkhazia, in which the inheritance. builtaround ideaAbkhaziathe isa that unique completely region itswith separate stressing shared culture, traditions and past.Abkhazian textbooks, on the other hand, are intellectuals have are trying to overlook the ethnic disparity with Abkhazians,mostly military andnineteenth century with of confrontation 1990’s. Georgian the culminating from the starting ongoing has been the placeofAbkhazia over the dispute However, The two historical narratives differ in terms of style of writing as well. One On the other hand, conflictis evident in the very pattern of history-reading. The Simply Georgian speaking, andAbkhazian historiography depart on levels.two 36 CEU eTD Collection 92 University Press, 2002), 105. Secession, History and the Social Science, 91 evidence’ definitive answers [are]given complicated scientificto any problems without firm of rigidlythe definednation. Thiskind of approach has ‘led to situationthe where controversy involves historical sites as well. For example, Abkhazians take pride in the textbooks reject association with Georgia and Georgian culture in general. The continually mentioned as part of Georgia in the Georgian textbooks, while the Abkhazian is territory Abkhazian textbooks. the throughout is repetitive is performed it which historiography—the history reading. Territorial dispute will be omitted since the way in andRussians. Turks Mongols, , Germans, ‘all the peoples in the world’: Greek, Romans, French, English, North-Caucasian Peoples, mostly Western, civilizations. It is claimed that Abkhazians have borrowed little from of the affinity with the Georgian past and strong emphasis on the connection with other, statements. categorical nineteenth Georgian on textbooks, century. otherthe hand,offerlittle supporttotheir comparatively later then Georgian narrative, which has its roots in the end of the fact thatAbkhazian historiography official in its form today’s has been developed the of outcome be the might This evidence. by archeological argument its substantiating Voronov, in Conflict”, Georgian-Abkhazian the and Intellectuals Homeland: the of Defense “In Coppieters, Bruno The following chapter will mostly concentrate aspectof the second on concentrate mostly will chapter following The is the categorical interesting of denial Another historiography Abkhazian aspect 91 Abkhazi—Kto Oni (Abkhazian—Who Are They?), . However, it seems that Abkhazian textbook puts much more effortin ed. Bruno Coppieters and Michel Huysseune (VUB Brussels (VUB Huysseune Michel and Coppieters Bruno ed. 37 17-18. 92 CEU eTD Collection 95 Textbook for the tenth grade 94 ( from Ancient Times to the Present) Georgia same time, both historical sites are listed among the ancient heritage of 93 Georgian tribes on the central territory of is highly doubted, maintaining that they presence of the Moreover, of culture. Colchis version ‘Abkhazian’ aseparate represented united in the tribe alliance of Heniokh (different from Laz-Mingrelian—Georgian tribe), with it. beingAbkhazia natural part of one King as a ruler. Georgian historians consider Colchis as the first Georgian entity, werenumerousthere other tribes inhabiting area.Colchis the was aunified country with however (Laz-Mingrealians), tribes bythe Kartvelian mostly settled was territory that the as well of as parts . anthropologists Modern aswell suggest Georgian as textbooks and present-day Georgian provinces of Mingrelia, , , , , , to the first centuries B.C. Colchis is believed to have occupied the region of Abkhazia 4.1. Origin of the Abkhazian People and the First Political Communities textbooks. Abkhazian and Georgian in the revealed as interpretation its over disputes major the and Abkhazia not going togo through them. Instead, I will try to chronologically present the history of world’s ancient cave community Apiancha,of and the settlement of Kistrick Ibid., 26, 39. Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg Abkhazian textbook rebuffs this implication, suggesting that ancient Abkhazians ancient that suggesting implication, this rebuffs textbook Abkhazian The allegedly first ancient Georgian Kingdom was Colchis existing from the sixth 94 . This and other examples of territorial disagreement are abundant, thus I am (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2002), 13. Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 95 38 (Sokhumi, 2007), 23. Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) 93 . At the . CEU eTD Collection David Marshall Lang, Russian Conquest in the Nineteenth Century 100 6. 1995), Metsniereba, 99 (History ofAbkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 98 97 (History ofAbkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) tribes have hadtheir princes and kings and some kind of political organization. 96 sources. in ancient used the Lang. Both believe that Apsilia and Abasgia are the Greek names for Abkhazia, both foreign experts on Georgian history, William Edward David Allen and David Marshall by the advocated is also Abkhazians present-day the with tribes these of connection Apsilae (Apsilians) fell it apart in firstcenturiesthe of era,our leaving behinduntil several proto-Abkhazian tribes: period this at powerful quite became it, of part being Abkhazians alliance, understandable that the rights over the cities are the subjectof row. isit in region, cradles of the the civilization oldest represent PhasisandDioskuria that Colchis and especially the cities of Dioskuria (Sokhumi) and Phasis (). Considering of civilization ancient the of building inthe participate significantly not did Georgians that suggests also but Abkhazia, included Georgia ancient that claims the nullify century. fifth the after North the to moved only lived on the Southern part of the Kingdom, onthe territory of the present-day Turkey and Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg In the sixth century Missimians broke of from Apsilae. Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg William Edward David Allen, Giorgi Zhorzholiani et al., The Kingdom of Colchis ceased existence in the first century B.C. Heniokh A Modern History of Soviet Georgia 97 , Abazinians and San(n)igs and Abazinians , Historic, Political and Legal Aspects of the Conflict in Abkhazia 100 A History of the Georgian People—From the Beginning down tothe Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ (New York: Barnes&Noble, Inc., 1971). 39 (Sokhumi, 2007), 13. (Sokhumi, 2007), 61. 96 98 (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1962). This assertion attempts not only to . Starting from the first century, these (Tbilisi: 99 The CEU eTD Collection (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 101 Lazika to states vassal were Abazgia and Apsilia that noted is it however textbook, Abkhazian Georgian territory. the of part being Abkhazians of tradition century-long the establishes again This region. Apsilians andSanigs (Abkhazians tribes) its and powerover thewhole consolidated already Georgian textbooks, in Lazikacentury fourth the Abazinians, conqueredthe ithowever independencewas granted in domesticgovernance the present-day Georgians. Formally, Lazika was subordinated to the , of bethe ancestors to Lazsarebelieved nameof the Lazika (Egrisi). blackseaunder the living of country’. the territory on were the it possible to assume that Abkhazians are ethnically connected to Georgians since ‘they origin of Abkhazian people as such,is left out from the Georgian historiography,making the result, As a nation. Abkhazian the of formation in the significance their explaining time.that at already have been to established claimed is Georgians the with border ethno-political present the thus Ingur, river the above 102 Textbook for the tenth grade Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli and Mikheil Bakhtadze, Textbook for the seventh grade Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg 102 According to Abkhazian sources the abovementioned tribes occupied the territory The conquest of the ancient Abkhazian tribes by the Lazs is not mentioned in the mentioned is not Lazs by the tribes Abkhazian ancient the of conquest The In the fourth century another powerful Kingdom emerges in the Eastern coast of not tribes, Abkhazian the of some mention superficially only chronicles Georgian , which most probably provided military assistance tothe provinces. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2002), 49. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003), 35. Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 40 (Sokhumi, 2007), 94. Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) 101 . According tothe 103 Thus, CEU eTD Collection and cultural interaction. and cultural Apsilian started ethnic element to spread Georgian to the part asaresult intermarriageof Patriarch. () Georgian to Eastern episcopate Georgian Western the beginning of the unification of the country, emphasizing the religious subordination of (presentGeorgia) and it was dividedprincipalities. into Georgians view this period as the Kings was also extended to Eastern Georgia. The capital of the Kingdom was Abkhazian of authority the century ninth inthe Later II. Leon king the under Georgia second part of the eighth century, the power of which spread to the whole Western 4.2. Kingdom of Abkhazia and Georgia This authority would become the basis for the emergence of the ‘Abkhazian Kingdom’. 103 century. seventh the Abkhazian andGeorgian peoples during period. this some kind of political collaboration can be claimed to have existed between the 104 Textbook for the tenth grade Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli and Mikheil Bakhtadze, Textbook for the seventh grade (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 105 Textbook for the tenth grade Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli and Mikheil Bakhtadze, Textbook for the seventh grade 106 Textbook for the tenth grade Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg It is mutually exactly thatconsented during time this (eighth century) Abazgo- inthe Kingdom Abkhazian of creation the upon agree sides both from Historians Starting from sixththe century Lazika weakened and eventually was abolished in 104 Meanwhile, hereditary emergedin andApsilia. Abasgia hereditary power Meanwhile, (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2002), 59. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2002), 67. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2002), 76. 106 (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003), 44. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003), 48. Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 41 (Sokhumi, 2007), 124. Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) 105 CEU eTD Collection 109 (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 107 kingdoms andprincipalities with theirrulers own thatenjoyed considerable autonomy. to invasionsthe by Turksandthe Mongols. The territory became intodivided small integral part. Abkhazia as its incorporates idea atthis Georgia time, of were‘one’ the Georgia cohesive columnmyth-building for during the national revival of 1990.Sincethe Abkhazia and layers of society.the higher the among spread language Georgian territory, Abkhazian the on built were churches Exactly thisduring time diddeal agreat of intermixingcultural place. take Georgian sides. Abkhazian and Kartvelian Abkhaziaof and . BagratIIIinhibited the from throne both Kartli (Eastern Georgia). Itwas decided to put their son Bagrat III on the throne of the 978, leavingbehind heir. no was of Sister Theodos married son tothe of Kingthe of Textbook for the seventh grade 108 of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Textbook for the tenth grade Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli and Mikheil Bakhtadze, Textbook for the seventh grade discourse. nationalist inthe points reference main Kartvelians is considered tobe the Golden Age inGeorgian historiography and one of the Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg The last king of Abkhazian Kingdom Theodos was removed from the throne in throne the from removed was Theodos Kingdom Abkhazian of king last The The Kingdom Abkhaziansof and Georgians in declined thirteenththe century due lands. Georgian and Abkhazian of unification official first the marks period This The era from Bagrat III until the dissolution of the Kingdom of Abkhazians and (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2002), 81. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003), 91. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003), 65. 108 Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ (History 107 Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ (Sokhumi, 2007), 126. 42 (Sokhumi, 2007), 152. 109 Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) ‘United Georgia’ becamethefocal ‘United Georgia’ Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) CEU eTD Collection 110 form judiciary establish and a war, systems. peace There was almost no difference between the princes and the King, the princes could wage (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 111 Textbook for the eighth grade Mingrelia, another region of Georgia which was also part of the Imereti Kingdom Kingdom. four Kingdoms: Kartli, , Imereti and Samtskhe. Abkhazia was part of Imereti in toengage necessary self-governance. political power emphasizes the significance of the Abkhazian principality of this period, which had 112 Textbook for the tenth grade region. According to Abkhazian sources, this was the period when Abkhazia regained 4.3. Principality of Abkhazia under Russian Authority autonomy. broad enjoyed territory the of rest the while independent, less or more remained Abkhazia of part northern continuation of the Abkhazian belonging to Georgia. Although this was officially true, Since Mingreliawas andis partof Georgia, interpret Georgians this period asthe Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli Mikheiland Bakhtadze, Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg Since then and until the seventeenth century Abkhazia was subordinated to subordinated was Abkhazia century seventeenth the until and then Since The Kingdom Abkhaziansof and Georgians officially in disintegrated into1490 In the seventeenth century Abkhazian Shervashidze dynasty gained power in the power gained dynasty Shervashidze Abkhazian century seventeenth the In 111 (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2002), 141. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003), 35. Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 43 (Sokhumi, 2007), 162. 110 Abkhazian textbook greatly textbook Abkhazian Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) 112 . CEU eTD Collection 116 115 (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 113 between maneuvering interests the of skillfully and Turkey Russia state-policy independent an led Chachba Keleshbey prince sovereign the Abkhazia dynasty that spread to some parts of Mingrealia independence. However, Georgian chronicles just mention the authority of Abkhazian 114 Textbook for the tenth grade Merab Vachnadze, Vakhtang Guruli and Mikheil Bakhtadze, eleventh grade heir tothe throne, Aslanbey. Instead, Seferbey was appointed as the ruler of Abkhazia. to eliminate him. The death of Keleshbey was blamed on his second son, the legitimate Doubting the sincerity of Keleshbey, Russia in collaboration with Nina Dadiani decided appointing herpuppet,theson of Keleshbey—Seferbey illegitimatean (arguably heir). pro-Russian, was determined togetrid of Keleshbey institute herand authority through commanded by Nina Dadiani. Abkhazian sources argue that Nina, who was explicitly withRussia. thecooperation steps towards take to Keleshbeystarted region remained Turkish protectorate, however, sensing the Russianrising influence in the 300 years.next the Kartvelians and Abkhazians was restored and remained more or less the same for the Ibid., 198-199. Ibid., 194. Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, Vakhtang and Vachnadze Merab Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg Eastern Eastern Georgian Kingdom was abolished by Russia in in1801. Meanwhile, Neighboring Mingrelia Russian entered protection in 1803. The region was According to Abkhazians, this is also the period when the ethnic border between (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003), 88, 166. 114 . (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2002), 181. Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Textbook for the 44 (Sokhumi, 2007), 168. 113 . Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) 115 . Abkhazia formally 116 CEU eTD Collection 117 Same suggestion is made by David Marshall Lang, who states that Abkhazia was one of strongly rejected, asserting that it was part of Georgia and entered Russia remaining such. is Russia with unification the before Abkhazia of independence the Thus, Imereti. of Abkhaziaunder went protection the of Russia notseparately,as partbut of Kingdom the populationthe is Onerevealed. detail important is Georgian that sources suggestthat interest of Georgia in the matter. However, the disapproval of the person of Seferbey by presented as pro-Turkish, murdering his father.pro-Russian No mention is made of the independence. stressed, establishing the traditional role of Georgia as the suppressor of Abkhazian unfairness. Contribution of in Georgia limiting the self-governance of Abkhazia is highly and betrayal of story the through is explained Russia to Abkhazia of subordination from support population the consideredthat Aslanbey thelawful leader. gaining control over the territory with Russian assistance, he could notacquire any authority over Abkhazia, which in reality by was ruled his brother Aslanbey. Evenafter of Abkhazia. importance strategic perfectly understanding interests own from Russia on 17 February 1810. Itis claimed that Nina was operating according to her she,that along with her pressuredSeferbey priest, toaskfor theassistance and protection Ibid., 203. Abkhazian textbook emphasized the machinations of suggesting of Nina Dadiani, machinations emphasized the Abkhazian textbook Georgian textbook offers a different story about the same event. Here, Aslanbey is Aslanbey Here, event. same the about story different a offers textbook Georgian Legitimacy of Seferbey is also strongly refuted—it is argued that he had no 45 117 This way the CEU eTD Collection eleventh grade. 3 grade. eleventh 121 120 (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 119 grade Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, David Marshall Lang, (History ofAbkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 118 Muhajirism thousands of AbkhaziansMuslim wereforced toleave for Turkey—an incidentcalled Bulgarians, Armenians and Estonians in the Abkhazian territory. At the same time, WarCrimean the principalities of Georgia when incorporated in Russia in 1864 as a result of the colonization. intellectuals, thus, are presented as the redeemers of Abkhazia going against the Russian in influence region the Russian eliminating at of aimed Georgia, movementinitiated in 1860’s is known as fightthe for unificationthe and strengthening Caucasus. formulated—promoting the image of the Georgians as the legitimate leaders of the Abkhaziansexactly believe that during period this Georgian imperial wasconsciousness Mohajirs. by the abandoned territories the of settlement the for called who intellectuals is campaign portrayed initiated in asadeliberate late 1860’s the by leadingGeorgian the weaken Abkhazian elementin the region were made by the Georgians. ‘Georgianization’ Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli. Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Textbook for the for Textbook Georgia) of (History Istoria Sakartvelos Guruli. Vakhtang and Vachnadze Merab Ibid., 242. Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 6,8,40. Starting from Startingfrom Russo-Turkishthe warof 1877-78, Russians settle Greeks, Georgians, however, have a completely different perspective on the matter. The 120 119 118 . However, Abkhazian textbook suggest that the most virulentattempts to d ed. (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 70. . A Modern History of Soviet Georgia Sakartvelos Istoria (History ofGeorgia) Textbook for the eleventh Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 46 (Sokhumi, 2007), 239. (Sokhumi, 2007), 219. (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1962), 52. 121 . Georgian CEU eTD Collection pro-Georgian. territory of Abkhazia. They also revived the ANS with half of the representatives being textbook suggest Georgian that in engaged robbery and pillage in the Mensheviks for assistance, who defeated the Red Army on 17 May. 125 Metsniereba,1995), 22. 124 123 122 acknowledged contacts on 9 February in1918 Tbilisi, when indivisibilitythe Abkhazia wasof first established units administrative two The (NSG). up set is also Georgia of Council of Unionthe of United People Mountainous (8November, Alittle 1917). later National Abkhazia and Georgia. However, Abkhazian People’s Council (ANS)is created as part independence. national the proof of the unlawful Georgian occupation, while Georgia sees it as the era of of utmost importance for both Georgia and Abkhazia. Abkhazia considers these years as 4.4. Status ofAbkhazia intheIndependent Georgia 1917-1921 century. twentieth the of beginning in the be formulated to is starting consciousness national Abkhazian Ibid., 274-275. Giorgi Zhorzholiani et al., Ibid., 271-271. Ibid., 254. On 8 April 1918 entered Abkhazia.Abkhazia asked the Georgian As a result of the outside pressure first from Russians and then from Georgians, from andthen from Russians first pressure outside the of As aresult With the disintegration of the , national councils emerge both in both emerge councils national empire, Russian the of disintegration the With The period from 1917 until the establishment of the Soviet regime in the region is 125 123 . 122 Historic, Political and Legal Aspects of the Conflict in Abkhazia 47 124 Abkhazian (Tbilisi: CEU eTD Collection 128 grade Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, (History ofAbkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 126 Adyghea Daghestan, Checheno-Ingushetia, Ossetia, Karachay-Balkaria, Abkhazia, Kabardia and (Tbilisi, 1990), 11-16. Menteshashvili, Metsniereba,1995), 19. 129 eleventh grade 127 Martin’s Press, 1998), 90. Georgia in 1918. independent the of entities administrative the of one was district Sokhumi that suggests part of Mountain the Republic during period. Georgian this textbook, hand, other the on Abkhazia remained claim that is formed. Abkhazians of Georgia Republic Democratic Turkey and , Republic the wasdisbanded16 May on 1918 Russia, Turkey and Germany by timethe itwas signed. Experiencing pressurefrom of since agreement, the the independence Republic of the acknowledged wasnot by However, Transcaucasian Republic maintained that it would notcomply with the terms agreement. under Brest-Litovsk of the territoriesdemanded promised the relinquishment Republic consisting alsoofAzerbaijan Armenia.and Inthespring 1918,Turkey independent. then rather entity larger of becamepart Abkhazia convincing since is not this statement However, date. on this Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, Vakhtang and Vachnadze Merab Stanislav Lakoba,“History: 1917-1989”, in Giorgi Zhorzholiani et al., Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 94. On 11 May Caucasian1918 North Republic wasdeclared. wascomposed It of Meanwhile, Georgia stays united in the Transcaucasian Democratic Federal Democratic in stays united Transcaucasian Georgia the Meanwhile, 126 . Abkhazian textbook proposes that the sovereignty of Abkhazia was revived was Abkhazia of sovereignty the that proposes textbook Abkhazian . (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 109. History of Interrelations between the Georgian, the Abkhazia and the Ossetian People 128 This view islargely bysupported numerous Georgian historians. Historic, Political and Legal Aspects of the Conflict in Abkhazia Sakartvelos Istoria (History ofGeorgia) Textbook for the eleventh Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Textbook for the The Abkhazians, 48 (Sokhumi, 2007), 279. ed. George Hewitt (New York: St. 127 . The same day the (Tbilisi: 129 CEU eTD Collection 131 (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 130 3. him. had beagreed with toAbkhazia connected to matters 2. 1. concessions to Abkhazia. The document signed on 11 June offered the following terms: Consequently two agreements emerged, one of which granted more rights and 1918. The agreement by crafted ANS, on otherthe hand, wassigned on 11 June1918. the delegation, not consulting with ANS, signed an agreement with Georgia on 8 June politicians with the false threat that Turkey was planning to attack Abkhazia. As a result, Georgian the by ‘deceived’ were Abkhazians that idea the adheres textbook Abkhazian Abkhazia. of organization governmental for the entity political from newthe Georgian wasrequested hand,assistance other the and Republic of tothedissolution null on Georgia wasproclaimed Transcaucasian due influenced by both sides. On the one hand, judicial basis for the previous relations with to to response independencethis, the of confusing, beingGeorgia was apparently pro-Georgianinto and pro-Abkhazian camps.According totheAbkhazian due textbook, relations begins.By ANSstill time the divided declaresindependence, Georgia remains Ibid., 284. Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg ANS had the right of domestic administration. the all and government in Georgian be present to had representative Abkhazian ANS. by be approved to had relations Georgian-Abkhazian about decision final The At pointfrom this ambiguous excerpt the history the of Georgian-Abkhazian In order to regulate the relations, Abkhazian delegation arrived in Tbilisi. Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 130 49 (Sokhumi, 2007), 282-283. 131 CEU eTD Collection Abkhazia. First of all,ANS, responsible for decision-making, was dispelled two times. historians claim that this was a clear violation of the ‘wide autonomy’ offered to meeting. This was answered by secondthe dispelling meeting as well. Abkhazian decision-making process. the dominate to in order in ANS elements anti-Georgian eliminating at aimed Georgia, from move sideof was astrategic the this Abkhazians, tothe According were arrested. supporting Turkey and pro-Turkish Abkhazians. Pro-Abkhazian members of council the Abkhazia. of general-gubernator asthe appointed was also 134 (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 132 country. the of sovereignty in the intervention armed the as considered pretext from of protecting territory the moveBolsheviks and This Turkey. hasbeen under the leadership of general Mazniashvili Abkhaziaentered in June 1918 with the claims thatANSwas granted of rights the ‘good’the 11June agreement Georgian textbook, on the other hand, gives no notice of the vague situation. Moreover, it isforgery,agreement anythis treaties signed considereda after annulling date. other for refer Georgiapossible Due to this tothe‘desired’ to document. situation, the 133 eleventh grade Ibid., 292-293 Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, Vakhtang and Vachnadze Merab Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg On 9 October the second ANS again protested against the dissolution of the first ANS, not hiding its indignation over the Georgian politics, was swiftly accused of According toAbkhazian historiography, about confusion documentsthe made it According to the Abkhazian account, following these events, Georgian army . (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 111. 134 Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Textbook for the 50 (Sokhumi, 2007), 287. 133 132 Mazniashvili . CEU eTD Collection grade Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 136 135 1. Abkhazia was becoming an autonomous part of Georgia. clauses: nature, illustrated by the oversimplified terms of agreement which consisted only of two were Georgian, clearly allowing the dominance of the Georgian interests. the 1921 constitution of Georgia. Whatever the reality,from the elected 40 deputies, 27 status of Abkhazia as an autonomous region of Georgia. The document was endorsed by side claims that the elections were democratic. The ‘fairly’ elected council approved the of Georgian monopolizing with objectivethe deputies of the decision-making. Georgian election the allowing laws election the to changes made Georgians textbook, Abkhazian achievewas determinedindependence. to and autonomy broad the with satisfied not was ANS since unavoidable was intervention andhis post his position was abolished. from wasremoved in government Georgian the representative Abkhazian the Secondly, 137 eleventh grade Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, Vakhtang and Vachnadze Merab Ibid., 301. Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg . (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 111. According to the Abkhazian textbook, the act about autonomy was ornamental in ornamental was autonomy about act the textbook, Abkhazian the to According On 27 December1918elections wereheldinAccording Abkhazia. to the military the that Itargues light. in case the different presents of Georgia course (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 111. Sakartvelos Istoria (History ofGeorgia) Textbook for the eleventh Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Textbook for the 135 136 51 (Sokhumi, 2007), 304-305. 137 CEU eTD Collection 139 (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 138 andrepresentatives. Abkhazian mixedGeorgia, would a committee be consisting of elected equal number of Georgian and Abkhazia between relationship the regulating and constitution the drafting For 2. 4.5. The Soviet Era of Georgia during its independence. argues thatdue to andthis violations, other Abkhazia wasnotlegally partan autonomous Georgian SSR and 1925 Constitution of Abkhazia. In the former, federative nature of nature federative former, the In Abkhazia. of Constitution 1925 and SSR Georgian that the standing of both political units was equal as revealed in the 1927 constitution of fact became autonomous entity within in Georgia 1921, while Abkhazian side believes Abkhazia in that emphasize Georgians Republic. as‘contractual’ Abkhazia ismentioned governance, broaderthen autonomy. According to1922constitution of Georgian SSR, Georgia, which itsubordinated to Georgia butalso allowed itretain to considerable self- 1931. In between these dates Abkhazia remained a Socialist Republic in association with SSR as an autonomous region. However, this decision was enforced only on 19 February Stalin. Suggestion was made toinclude Abkhazia within administration the of Georgian initiative of the under wasannulled SSR Abkhazian of separate declaration later the Ibid., 315. Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg Abkhazia became separate Soviet Socialist republic on Sovietrepublic on 4 March SocialistAbkhaziabecame separate 1921 and autonomy the of nature involuntary the emphasizes textbook Abkhazian 138 Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 52 (Sokhumi, 2007), 309. 139 . 45 days CEU eTD Collection 142 (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 141 grade Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, (History ofAbkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) willing togive upafter dissolution the of union.the modern the Abkhazia being tradition of Georgia, partof whichthe country was not Abkhazia Incorporation impact. part of as of inan Georgiaautonomous established 1931, preserved until 1980’s, breakingfree during the Georgian-Abkhazian confrontation. 140 already existent state-like institutions became dueto more from viable central state the separation since 1921andsecondly, to several reasons: first of all, collective identity of the region was strongly strengthened The provision of autonomy inincreased 1931 thelikelihood of conflict.the This was due mobilization. national the during projects myth-building in the role considerable a played partof Georgia. became anautonomous Abkhazia 19February and on 1931 accept terms’ thus these but choice to other had ‘no of collectivization only if Abkhazia wouldbecome part autonomous of Georgia. Lakoba Nestor Lakoba was against collectivization in the region. Stalin would allow the refusal Georgia. According to the Abkhazian sources the head of the Abkhazian government constitutions. have not did units autonomous point that at since Abkhazia Georgia isrevealed, while latterthe excludes thepossibility of status autonomous of Svante E. Cornell, “Autonomy Conflict”and (PhD diss., Uppsala University 2002). Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 125. From the perspective of Georgia, the socialist period had an equally significant Political status AbkhaziaPolitical status of andGeorgia in between period 1921 andthe 1931 In 1931the statusof Abkhazia changestothat of autonomous republic within Sakartvelos Istoria (History ofGeorgia) Textbook for the eleventh Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 142 . The memory independencethe of in 1921 was 141 53 (Sokhumi, 2007), 321-322. (Sokhumi, 2007), 319-320. 140 CEU eTD Collection 144 143 1965, 1967,and 1978. century. of twentieth in part the entity second the as aseparate self-perception is changed from Georgian to Russian. All this contributed to the formation of Abkhazian Ministry of Culture and Sukhumi Philharmonic Hall In1954Abkhazianopened. alphabet of Abkhazian in wascreated Philology sector was initiated, literature Sukhumi Institute, and language Abkhazian of department re-opened, were schools Abkhazian down However, after 1953 Abkhazians are slowly granted more cultural freedom: the closed until of Beria. and death Stalin in Abkhazia, whichlasted the started Georgianization 4.6. Spirit oftheNational Revival wasmetresistance. with great which changeself-perception, the Georgian of the Abkhazia being part of Georgia. With the dissolution of the union, Abkhazia demanded new Georgian identity was formulated in such a way that it incorporated the idea of modernity, and namely to the Soviet era. If we agree with this claim,it can be argued that to 1931. Lykhny declaration did not receive any to 1931.Lykhny any notreceive did attention. declaration assessment of Abkhazian status by restoration of the Abkhazian SSR existent from 1921 on Lykhnymeetingthe on 18 March 1989, when 30 000Abkhazians demanded the re- Ibid., 348. Ibid., 337,347. Ronald Gregory Suny ascribes the formation of Georgian national identity to Abkhazians continuously inexpressed their discontent mass the of 1957, Abkhazian as well as foreign historians believe that after 1931 period of 143 However, the major dissatisfaction of Abkhazians came tolight 54 144 CEU eTD Collection (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) However, on18August Georgian forces re-occupied Sokhumi. agreement was reached, according towhich both sides had to retrieve their militaries. 15 ceasefire August railway. the On of excuse defending the Abkhazia under entered 147 grade Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, (History ofAbkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 145 agreement. restoration of Abkhazianthe Supreme Councilin July 23 go notagainst1992 did the was deemed unlawful, Abkhazian then ASSR could notexist within its borders. Thus, the sinceSSR Georgian that asserts legal.side Abkhazian as period this recognize did not this decision, the constitution of 1978, as well as that of 1921 became void since Georgia Union in 1921. Independence of Georgia was on26 May proclaimed 1991. According to rightthe independence of basedon unlawfulthe occupation of by Georgia Sovietthe wereviolently Georgia. on9April protests The 1989by dispersed Soviet troops. the of independence the for calls the into transformed soon Discontent autonomy. Abkhazian Governmentbuilding on 4 April in1989 Tbilisi. demanded Protestors the abolition of Abkhazian side. As a result, Georgian citizens started to in front of the 146 eleventh grade Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, Vakhtang and Vachnadze Merab Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 169. Abkhazian textbook Abkhaziansuggest textbook that on 14 August 1992Georgian military forces Georgian textbook views the Lykhny letter as an anti-Georgian move from the from move anti-Georgian an as letter Lykhny the views textbook Georgian After the events of 9 April, Georgia strengthened its national movement claiming movement national its strengthened Georgia April, 9 of events the After 146 (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 168. Georgians of rejectedcourse this supposition. Sakartvelos Istoria (History ofGeorgia) Textbook for the eleventh Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Textbook for the 55 (Sokhumi, 2007), 352,354. (Sokhumi, 2007), 352-353. 147 145 CEU eTD Collection 149 rather than to Abkhazians. generally acknowledged the that above-mentioned acts canbe ascribed tothe supporters of Gamsakhurdia 148 to free and Sokhumi the Georgian defeat opponent. army was overpoweredon 30 2).Only side (Seechapter did devisean Abkhazians infringements, these operation after as Abkhazian historians claim both that agreements weredisregarded by Georgianthe 1993 (Moscow) and July 1993 (Sochi). On the other hand, international scholars as well Abkhazians of September agreements wereguilty ceasefire: suggest that violating the of itis claimed that the main aim of the Georgian side was to sustain peace in the region. Nevertheless, in war. the theengagement for its blame Georgia recognizes assumed that example of which is the occupation of Sokhumi. Ifwe reflect on this ‘excuses’,it can be troops are also held responsible for operating ordersthe without of their agood superiors, inin andengaged The disorganized military provocations the and undisciplined warfare. at up army the andequipped caught structures time,governmental poorly was organized of duetotheweakorganization Georgian that routes.Georgians assert transport State Council took the decision to enter Abkhazia with the objective of defending the secession. Individuals were kidnapped and trains robbed political turmoil in Georgia and with the support of Russia started preparing the plan of eleventh grade Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, Vakhtang and Vachnadze Merab Itis not indicated who was responsible forkidnapping politicalthe figures in the However,region. it is Georgia offers a different story: according toit, Abkhazians took advantage of the In order to substantiate Georgian rightfulness in the warfare, Georgian in textbook Georgian warfare,the rightfulness Georgian substantiate to In order (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 176. Sakartvelos Istoria (History of Georgia) Textbook for the 56 148 . In August. In 1992 Georgian the 149 CEU eTD Collection (History of Abkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 151 grade Merab Vachnadze and Vakhtang Guruli, (History ofAbkhazia from Ancient Times to the Present) 150 Georgiamain as hindrance to the negotiationsthe of politics aggressive the emphasizes only textbook Abkhazian Abkhazia. with relations textbooks try completelyto avoid engagement in matters connectedpresent-day the to proclaiming Abkhazia as a sovereign state. September 1993.On 26 November 1994Abkhazian parliamentratifiednew constitution Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg Oleg Bgazhba, and Stanislav Lakoba, Stanislav and Bgazhba, Oleg (Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2004), 177. Present political situation is not discussed in any of the textbooks. Georgian Sakartvelos Istoria (History ofGeorgia) Textbook for the eleventh Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Nashih Dnei’ 150 57 (Sokhumi, 2007), 373. (Sokhumi, 2007), 56-358. 151 . CEU eTD Collection massive in protests Abkhazia in realized1956. Abkhazians thatIngoroqva’s thesis known form historical sources the three centuries. Instead, Georgians were claimed to be the ancestors of the ‘Abkhazians’ indigenous to regionthe and arguedthatthey hadoccupied the territory foronly past the explaining the origins ofAbkhazian people. Heardently Abkhazians that denied were inwhen literature in scholarly promoted the 1950’s. the University Press, 2002), 93. Secession, History and the Social Sciences, 153 Caucasus Institute forPeace Democracy Development,and 2003), 34-35. aggression minorities is explained by ‘defensivethe mechanism’ developed asa result of external was formulated already in endof the nineteenththe century. approach ‘Superior’ to the historical instrumentalizaiton is established byboth sides, but especially by Georgia. from messages concerningchauvinistic Starting minorities. the 1950’s the tradition the of promote to started intellectuals Georgian when Stalin’s free death, broke field after scholarly in the interests Conflicting by Beria. conducted campaign ‘Georgianization’ alreadyAbkhazia mostly 1918and deteriorated after in 1930’sduring the 152 Bruno Coppieters, “In Defense of the Homeland: Intellectuals and the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict” Georgian-Abkhazian the and Intellectuals Homeland: the of Defense “In Coppieters, Bruno Gaga Nizharadze, in Nizharadze, Gaga Chapter 5: Developing the ‘Traditions’ of Historical Narrative ofHistorical ‘Traditions’ the 5: Developing Chapter This argumentwas promptly assumed by Georgianother scholars, resultingin In 1954, Pavle aGeorgian Ingoroqva, literary historian, published abook As already mentioned in the second chapter, the relations between Georgia and relationsGeorgia between the in second mentioned chapter, the As already Some scholars argue that the ethnocentric consciousness among the Georgians the among consciousness ethnocentric the that argue scholars Some 152 . This approach, in part, caused the indignation of minorities, especially Erti Sazogadoeba, Mravali Etnosi 153 ed. Bruno Coppieters and Michel Huysseune (VUB (VUB Brussels Huysseune Michel and Coppieters Bruno ed. . 58 (One Society, Diverse Ethnicity ) (Tbilisi: , in CEU eTD Collection 156 155 154 Abkhazians perceivedthismoves as yet assaults other on theirindividuality compulsory in every region, branch of Georgian university was opened in Sukhumi. Abkhazia: in program 1989 state launchedwas tomake the confrontation. Cultural figuredprograms also significantly in the policies of Georgia to situation. their cultural rights by the Abkhazians. Consequent concessions did not improve the right of secession in the 1978 constitution were perceived as the last infringements on enough were not ideology to preventin Abkhazia. budding the secessionist theseminor attempts However, communities. ethnic the between inequalities cultural of dozens deaf ideas. three scholars Ingoroqva’s ears—around other echoed chain among of protests the Abkhazian students andintellectuals. Their objectionsfell on was highly in praised Communistthe (1967). Party newspaper This act causedanother its first appearance, Berdzenishvili published a similar work. This time, the ‘research’ political conflict, Ingoroqva’s was book censored by Moscow. a pretext for the repression of Abkhazians in the region. Due to the danger of inciting have might and as of served Abkhazia theGeorgian colonization legitimacy for provided Ibid., 98. Ibid., 94. Ibid., 93. As illustrated above, academic traditions played a significant role in role asignificant played the above, traditions academic As illustrated The refusal togrant an equal minority to status languages and denial the the of On 1976 party congress, EduardShevardnadzeconstrain tried to educational and However, Ingoroqva’s thesis did not completely disappear. Around ten years after 59 154 155 156 . CEU eTD Collection Vicken Cheteryan, Vicken National Museum of Ethnology, 2001). 158 157 between the two national communities’ conflict in the issues main the of one became Abkhazia of territory the on rights ancestral assumptions they supporting.remainswere One undoubted:aspect ‘discussion of in the believed strongly sides both on scholars The instrumentalized. voluntarily was events of 1918-1921 gainedprominence. great it However,cannot be argued history that Periphery Collapse”, in 159 incorporation in Sovietthe Union labeled as ‘forced’ annexation by Bolsheviks.the So, for disrupting the balance between titularthe nation and the ethnic groups. Georgian Soviet isengineered. federative condemned relations system Georgian-Abkhazian was granted more privileges then the majority in the region, which was Georgian wasseenin a injustice nation were Abkhazians titularas factthat case ofAbkhazia, the presented as being oppressedby nationalthe minorities in regions autonomous the werelabeled as latter the ‘guests’ for centuries—the territory legitimization of the superior role of Georgia over the ethnic groups existent on its both movements. In case of Georgia independence calls were framed around 160 2001), 267. Crawford (Center forStrategic and International Studies Program on New Approaches to RussianSecurity, Victor A. Shnirelman, A. Victor Ibid., 90, 98. Georgi M. Derluguian, “The Tale of Two Resorts: Abkhazia and Ajara before and since the Soviet the since and before Ajara and Abkhazia of Resorts: Two Tale “The M. Derluguian, Georgi Bruno Coppieters et al., In the late 1980’s history was greatly politicized. Ingoroqva’s ideas, as well as the This is also the period when the myth about Russian blame in deteriorating Some reference points from history emerged as more significant than others in (Academia Press, 2004), 196. The Myth of “Ethnic Conflict”: Politics, Economics, and “Cultural” Violence, The Reshaping ofa Borderland Region, The Value of the Past: Myths,Identity andPolitics in Transcaucasia Europeanization and Conflict Resolution—Case Studies from the European 157 . 60 21. 158 . Georgians were 160 ed. Beverly ed. . (Osaka: 159 . In CEU eTD Collection International Affairs, 1999), 191. Edmund Herzig, 10. 2000), Norton, 164 Group International 2002), 9. of the pretexts for the war. Exactly ‘with the 1925 constitution began the began constitution 1925 the ‘with Exactly war. the for pretexts the of constitution of 1925 became markerthe independence, of andits restoration became one in wereemphasized. Georgia the incorporation and specifically Abkhazia vigorously Georgianto responded claims—dreadful legacy Sovietthe of era in discourse ethno-nationalist already The existent ofindependence. movements Georgia 163 Metsniereba,1995), 48. 162 of theGeorgian State 161 day thepresent to continues regions secessionist the manipulating is Russia that idea the with majority the of ‘obsession’ considering the failures of the Georgian politicians to neutralize the situation. The separatists’ Abkhazian toattack first to suggest that ‘the Georgian side has never triggered armed clashes, has never been the to address the issue of secessionist regions rationally. Some scholars went even so far as wholethe responsibility on Russia madeimpossible it to acknowledge Georgia’s failure anti-Soviet. as itself identify to started movement independence the Jack Snyder, Jack Anna Mateeva, Anna Giorgi Zhorzholiani et al., Edward G. Thomas, Nationalist attitude was further exacerbated by wasfurtherinattitude Nationalist exacerbated radical the government Several historical events emerged as focal in Abkhazian historiography. The 164 . Faced with the chauvinistic discourse, minorities fortified their own From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict The New Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia The South Caucasus: Nationalism, Conflicts and Minorities (Undercurrent,Vol. III, No 1, 2006), 55. When Sugar Cane Growsthe inSnow: Ethno-Nationalist Politics and theCollapse Historic, Political and Legal Aspects of the Conflict in Abkhazia 163 162 . , which can be considered an absurd statement 61 (London: Royal Institute of (Report by Minority Rights 161 Of course, placing (New York: W.W. York: (New (Tbilisi: CEU eTD Collection 1996), 175-185. Collapse”, in 165 identity’ political Abkhazian of institutionalization in 167 scholars. Georgian the to relation 166 2001), 266. Crawford (Center forStrategic and International Studies Program on New Approaches to RussianSecurity, ideologicalthe background behind the conflict, which is still unsettled. ongoing debate about the national identity of both communities. This in part, illuminates the past. Because of this, itis instructive to assess the dichotomy of historiography as an Nevertheless, history textbooks have ‘preserved’ the schism in the two interpretations of disciplines’ their ‘prostituting for Georgia or Abkhazia either have condemned some andresearchers fact historians the Despite that conflict. the Georgians. in conducted 1930’s the was presentedasan Abkhazian victimization by of example culpability makingsuppression, every incommunity right refusalthe for acknowledging their victimization of self,isthe aggression justified wherecontinuous by previous the Coppieters points out, even today Abkhazian-Georgian relations are based on the sides can be held responsible for employing history in the political conflict. As Bruno Georgi M. Derluguian, “The Tale of Two Resorts: Abkhazia and Ajara before and since the Soviet the since and before Ajara and Abkhazia of Resorts: Two Tale “The M. Derluguian, Georgi Ronald D. Crelisten, “Prosecuting Gross Human-Rights Violations from the Perspective of the Victim”, This term was used by George Hewitt, professor of Caucasian Languages at the University of London in Contemporary Genocides: Causes, Cases, Consequences After the war the use of history has been on decline in scholarly literature. In short, In short, these are the ‘highlights’ of Georgian-Abkhazian historiography before 167 The Myth of “Ethnic Conflict”: Politics, Economics, and “Cultural” Violence, . 62 , ed. Albert J. Jongman (Leiden: PIOOM, 165 . In addition. In to this, Georgianization 166 , itmust be understood that both ed. Beverly ed. CEU eTD Collection with the claims of political self-sustainability, secessionist regions as well as Georgia as aswell regions secessionist self-sustainability, political of claims the with projects ‘preparing the ethnic material’have been taken up by national the elites. Along Georgia. in incorporation resistthe to decided Abkhazians toassimilate, of choosing Instead which openly assimilationurged the of minoritiesthe through cultural programs nationalisms’, ‘official the through happened authority political the of legitimization the framework of the general tendency of creating nationally defined states. Due to this, independence. its for push to Abkhazia for encouragement popularity of the principle of self-determination in the last decades have become the to Georgian-Abkhazian confrontation. Disintegratingfederations in 1990’sthe and the with combined multiethnicatmosphere Union’shave Soviet composition the contributed or Russia—all have been as suggested possible justification. of the minorities to the majority oppression,interest of the elites and the imperial policies Georgian, Abkhazian and foreign scholarly literature. Long-held ethnic enmity, reaction 168 169 Publishing, 1998), 19. Abkhazi—Put’ K Primireniu, Ghia Nodia, “Conflict in Abkhazia: National Projects and Political Circumstances”, in Circumstances”, Political and Projects National Abkhazia: in “Conflict Nodia, Ghia Hugh Seton-Watson, Since the historical material does not offer ready-made idea of ideaof nation,the the not ready-made offer material does historical Since the On the other hand, as Ghia Nodia explains, Georgian position can be viewed in international as well the all as reasons, I wouldthat abovementioned argue the in the discussed widely been have conflict Georgian-Abkhazian for reasons The Nationalism and ed. Bruno Coppieters, Ghia Nodia and Iurii (Moscow: Ves’ Mir CONCLUSION 63 (London: Methuen, 1964), 19-24. 168 Gruzini I 169 . CEU eTD Collection Oxford University Press, 2006), 70. 171 Group International 2002), 10. accept open dialogue. One of the ways of encouraging the discussion is by presenting the impossibleis isactions of opinion one-sidedness duetothe almost that to public reluctant try to protecttherights of individuals.the instead and should beto the innational has neutral projects to state relation the progress, the significant factors in the attempts for reconciliation. In order to achieve any kind of 170 nationGeorgian is still undefined. Abkhazian cultures thathas blurred any ethno-political distinct borders. and interaction Georgian sharebetween because of of great the in andsecondly case, this impossibleaccomplish to first of all due to the practical inexistence of ‘objective’ history attempt to assess the ‘rightfulness’ of either sides’ claims. This is the task that is the namely and textbooks, history the of examination further any avoided intentionally complexity of arguments and their correlation with the national projects. I have stronglywhich versions of textbooks, present ‘nationalized’ past. the perception of either Georgian Abkhazianor identity is reinforced also through history of thesame.The ‘frozen’ each other remain interpretations ideological transforming, clash. political the to related directly embarked on the programs of cultural affirmation. Conflict in the intellectual sphere was Wayne Norman, Wayne Anna Mateeva, Anna Today, the conflict remains unresolved—the place of the ethnic groups in the By analyzing the historical narrative of both sides Ihave attempted topresent the After the war, the rising intellectual confrontation was halted. However, instead of The South Caucasus: Nationalism, Conflicts and Minorities Nation-Building, Federalism, and Secession in the Multinational State 170 In my view, historical divergence represents one of 171 64 However, at present neutrality of political (Report by Minority Rights (New York: CEU eTD Collection their role in delaying the settlement of the conflict. ‘view of the other’, which can be well done by pointing out historical divergences and 65 CEU eTD Collection Smith, Anthony Smith,Anthony D. Menteshashvili. Martin, Terry. Lynch, Dov. “Separatist States and Post-Soviet Conflicts”. Lamont, Corliss. Lang, David Marshall. Kaufman, Stuart J. Herzig, Edmund. Thomas. Goltz, Day, Graham and Andrew Thompson. Andrew and Graham Day, Cohen, A.P. Bgazhba, Oleg andStanislav Lakoba. Bauman, Zygmunt. “Blood, Soil and Identity”. Jonathan. Aves, Voronov. Ioseb. Archvadze, Coppieters, Bruno. al.et BrunoCoppieters, Cornell, Svante. Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflictin Benedict. Anderson, Allen, William Edward David. Books: Press Inc.,1999. Ossetian People. Company, 1946. Union, 1923-1939. 831-848.(2002): 1962. Inc., Cornell University 2001. Press, Institute of International Affairs, 1999. Soviet Caucasus. Macmillan, 2004. International International Affairs, 2001. 2007. Nashih Abkhazia Dnei’(Historyfrom Ancient Times of tothePresent). University of London, 1991. European Periphery. Caucasus.the Curzon Surrey: Press, 2001. Nationalism. Barnes&Noble,1971. Inc., down totheRussianConquest intheNineteenth Century. Abkhazi—Kto Oni(Abkhazian—Who They?) Are The Symbolic Construction ofCommunity. The AffirmativeActionEmpire: Nations and Nationalisminthe Soviet Georgia Diary—A Chronicle ofWarandPolitical Chaos in the Post- History of InterrelationsHistory between of theGeorgian, the Abkhazia andthe Paths to NationalIndependenceinGeorgia, 1987-1990. The Peoples oftheSoviet Union. The New Caucasus: Armenia,Azerbaijan, andGeorgia Tu Dagivitsko Apkhazeto (I won’t forget you Apkhazeto(Iwon’tTu Dagivitsko Abkhazia). forget Modern Hatreds: TheSymbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Myths andMemories the Nation.of Federalism andConflict inthe Caucasus. London,NewYork: Verso, 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections ontheOrigin and Spread of A Modern HistoryA Modern Soviet of Georgia Tbilisi, 1990. Europeanization andConflict Resolution—Case Studies fromthe Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2006. Ithaca: Cornell University 2001. Press, Academia Press, 2004. A Historyof theGeorgian People—From theBeginning Reference List: Reference Istori’a Abkhazii—S Drevneishih Vermjen do Theorizing Nationalism 66 Sociological Review 40 New York: Harcourt, Brace and NewYork: Oxford University London: Ellis 1985. Horwood, . Gagra, 1993. International Affairs International Affairs 78 (4) . New York: Grove Press, London: Royal Institute of . New York: Palgrave NewYork: (1992):677. . London: Royal London: Tbilisi, 2004. Ithaca, N.Y.: Sokhumi, CEU eTD Collection Vachnadze, Merab, Vakhtang Guruli VakhtangGuruli Vachnadze, Merab, and Mikheil Bakhtadze. VakhtangGuruli Vachnadze, Merab, and Mikheil Bakhtadze. Brubaker, Rogers. “Ethnicity as Cognition”. In Zhorzholiani, Giorgi, et al. Oliver. Wolleh, Wheatley, Jonathan Vachnadze VakhtangGuruli Vachnadze, Merab, and Mikheil Bakhtadze. Coppieters, Bruno. “Soviet and Post-Soviet Nationality and Regional Policies”. In Coppieters, Bruno. “In Defense of the Homeland: Intellectuals and the Georgian- Cornell, E.“Autonomy Svante and PhDdiss., Conflict”. Uppsala University, 2002. Billig, Michael. “Banal Nationalism”. In Robert. Strayer, Avidzba, Vasilij.“Literature & Linguistic Politics”. In Articles inBooks and Journals: Snyder, Jack. Smith, Anthony Smith,Anthony D. Shnirelman, A. Victor Norman, Wayne. Norman, Hugh. Seton-Watson, (History of Georgia)(History Textbook the of for eighth grade. Georgia) Textbook the (Historyseventh of for grade. Ashgate PublishingAshgate Company, 2005. grade. the eleventh Textbook for London: M.E. Sharpe, inc., 1998. Press Ltd., 2005. Philip Spencer andHowardWollman, Edinburgh: 13-36. Edinburgh University Press. Georgia)(History Textbook the of for tenth grade York: W.W.York: 2000. Norton, Conflicting Conflicting Loyalties andthe State in Post-Soviet Russia andEurasia, 2002. CoppietersBruno and Michel 91-113. Huysseune, Brussels University Press, Conflict”. Abkhazian Brubaker,Rogers 699-700. Cambridge: Harvard University 2006. Press, 176-189.Hewitt, NewYork: St. Martin’s Press,1998. Abkhazia. and Nationalism. New York: New York: Oxford University 2006. Press, Transcaucasia. , Merab , Merab and Vakhtang Guruli. From Voting toViolence: Democratization andNationalist Conflict. Berghof Berghof forResearch Center ConstructiveManagement, Conflict 2006. A Difficult A Difficult Encounter – The Informal Georgian-AbkhazianDialoguesin Why did theSoviet Union Collapse? (Understanding Historical Change Nation-Building, Federalism, andSecession intheMultinational State Tbilisi: 1995. Metsniereba, The NationinHistory: Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity Georgia from NationalGeorgia Awakening toRose from Revolution. Nationalism and Communism. The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 2001. Hanover: University Press of New England, 2000. Historic, PoliticalandLegalAspects the Conflictof in In Secession, History and the SocialSciences Tbilisi: Artanudji,2003. Nations and nationalism: AReader, Nations and Sakartvelos Istoria (History ofGeorgia) 67 Ethnicity without Groups, London:Methuen, 1964. The Abkhazians, . Tbilisi:Artanudji, 2002. Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003. Tbilisi: Artanudji, 2003. Sakartvelos Istoria Sakartvelos Istoria Sakartvelos Istoria edited by George edited by edited , edited by Burlington: edited by edited by New . ). CEU eTD Collection Nodia, Ghia. “Democratization in Georgia: at a Dead-End or a Crossroads?”. In andPolitical Circumstances”. in National Projects “Conflict Abkhazia: Nodia, Ghia. Nodia, Ghia. “Causes and Visions of Conflict in Abkhazia”. Berkley Program in Soviet Nizharadze, Gaga. In Gaga. Nizharadze, Mueller, Daniel. “Demography”. In Lakoba, Stanislav. “History: 1917-1989”.In Kakabadze, Malkhaz. “Peaceful Caucasus—Myth or Reality”. In Hobsbawm, Eric J. “Introduction: Inventing Traditions”. In Gurguliani, Manana. “The Role of Unofficial Diplomacy: Reality and Illusions”. In Guibernau andJohn Hutchinson, 49-63.Blackwell Publishing2004. Ltd., Mateeva, Anna. “ Anna. Mateeva, Greenfield, Liah.“Etymology, Definition, Types”. In Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. “Place, Kinship and the Case for Non-Ethnic Nations”, Derluguian, Georgi M. “The Tale of Two Resorts: Abkhazia and Ajara before and since Crelisten, Ronald D. “Prosecuting Gross Human-Rights Violations from the Perspective Pomegranate (2003), and Iurii Anchabadze,Moscow: 19-66. Ves’ Mir 1998. Publishing, Gruzini IAbkhazi—Put’ KPrimireniu, and Post-Soviet Studies Working Paper,Berkley,USA, 1997-1998. 33-38. Tbilisi: for Caucasus PeaceDemocracyInstitute 2003). and Development, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Minority RightsInternational Group 2002. Friedrich Eberto Stiftung, 2001. Region ofFrozen Conflicts), Nestabilnii’Region Zamorozhennih (South Konfliktov Caucasus—Unstable Press, 1992. edited by Eric J. Hobsbawm and Terence O. Ranger, 1-15. Cambridge University held inSochi,March 1999, Diplomacy intheProcessPeace-building) Georgian Conference Abkhazian of Neofitsialnoi Diplomatii v Mirotvorcheskom Protsesse (The RoleofUnofficial by Alexander J. Motyl. Vol. 1. Academic Press: 2000. 89-102. New York:89-102. St. Martin’s Press,1998. 2005. Resolution in Russia and Georgia”. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin Montserrat George, Julie Alynn.“Separatism or Federalism? Ethnic Conflict and History andNational Destiny: Ethnosymbolism and itsCritics, International Program Studies New Approacheson toRussian Security, 2001). “Cultural” Violence, In Collapse”. Sovietthe edited by J. Jongman,Albert Leiden: 175-185. PIOOM,1996). Portland:Frank Cass, 1998. Michael Waller, BrunoCoppieters and Alexei 12-33.Malashenko, London, of the Victim”. In The SouthCaucasus: Nationalism, and Conflicts Minorities” Erti Sazogadoeba, Mravali Erti Sazogadoeba, Mravali Etnosi Contemporary Genocides: Causes,Cases,Consequences Contemporary Genocides: edited by Beverly Crawford. Center for Strategic and 34. The Mythof “EthnicConflict”: Politics, Economics, and 110-130. Irvine: University of California, 1999. edited by Wienfried Schneider 62-67. Deters, Tbilisi: The Abkhazians, 68 The Abkhazians, edited by Coppieters, GhiaBruno Nodia edited by Hewitt, 218-241.George Encyclopedia ofNationalism, (One Society, Diverse Ethnicity The Invention ofTradition, edited by George Hewitt, by edited George Yuzhni’ Kavkaz— edited by . Report by in. , edited Rol’ ), CEU eTD Collection Zverev, Alexei.“Ethnic in Conflicts Caucasusthe 1988-1994”. In In and‘Nationalism’?”. “Whither‘Nation’ Katherine. Verdery, Trenin, Dmitri.“Russia’s Security Interests and Policies in the Caucasus Region”. In G. Thomas, Edward Transcaucasia, Nationalism,andSocial Change: Essays in theHistoryofArmenia, Suny, Ronald Grigor. “The Emergence of Political Society in Georgia”. Saroyan, Mark. “Beyond the Nation-State: Culture and Ethnic Politics in Soviet Suny,“On Grigor. Ronald RoadtoIndependence:the Cultural Cohesion and Ethnic in In Georgia”. Darrel. “Democratization Slider, Pearson, Raymond. “Thehistorical backgroundto federalism”.Soviet In Nodia,“Polytechnic Ghia. Approaches Georgia: Facts, and Suggestions for the Political Zviad of Policies Ethnic the and inGeorgia Turmoil “Political Ghia. Nodia, the Caucasus, edited by London,Gopal 226-235. Balakrishnan, Verso, NewYork: 1996. Brussels: Vubpress,1996. Contested BordersintheCaucasus, and theCollapse the of Georgian State. Michigan Press: 1996. Azerbaijan andGeorgia, Ronald Suny. Grigor University The Michigan Press,of 1996. Transcaucasia”. In Transcaucasia”. 400. Change, In Society”. inaMultinational Revival 201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Central AsiaandtheCaucasus, McAuley. Leicester and London: Leicester University Press, 1991. Federalism, Nationalism andEconomicDecentralization 61-96. Tbilisi: for Caucasus PeaceDemocracyInstitute 2003. and Development, Strategy”. In Coppieters. Brussels: Vubpress, 1996. In Gamsakhurdia”. edited by Ronald Grigor Suny (The University of Michigan Press, 1996), When SugarCane Grows intheSnow: Politics Ethno-Nationalist Erti Sazogadoeba, Mravali Etnosi (One Etnosi DiverseErti Sazogadoeba,Mravali Society, Ethnicity), edited by Coppieters, 17-71.Brussels:Bruno 1996. Vubpress, Transcaucasia, NationalismandSocialTranscaucasia, Change, Contested Borders intheCaucasus, edited by Suny. Grigor Ronald University The of edited by Karen Dawisha and BruceParrott, 156- 69 editedCoppieters, 91-102. by Bruno Transcaucasia, NationalismandSocial Undercurrent,Vol. III, No 1, (2006). Conflict, CleavageandChange Conflict, in edited by Bruno Mapping theNation , edited by Alastair Contested Borders in In Soviet edited by edited ,

Top View