CEU eTD Collection In partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the degree of of Master Arts Georgian NationalMobilization andits Radicalization 1987–1992 CENTRAL EUROPEANUNIVERSITY The Dynamics ofthe Department ofNationalism Department Supervisor: Alfred Rieber Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Irakli Jibladze Submitted to Submitted 2007 By CEU eTD Collection republican Communist regime, and later the assertive minorities in Abkhazia and South . South and in Abkhazia minorities assertive the later and regime, Communist republican the first faced: it challenges the through is evaluated movement Georgian the of radicalization The experience. Georgian the shaped that events transformative the of analysis the with examination the social inconjuncture mobilization existingthrough structural the conditions and nationalin movement the yearsItseeks uncoverthe national 1987-1992. dynamicsto of the Abstract This study discusses the processes associated with the radicalization of Georgian the of radicalization the with associated processes the discusses study This 1 CEU eTD Collection Rieber, for timely andinsightfulreplies suggestions. Acknowledgements I thank Timeia for encouragements and useful comments. And my advisor, Dr. Alfred my andAnd advisor, comments. useful I thankTimeia encouragements for 2 CEU eTD Collection References...... 59 ...... 56 Conclusion Chapter 3: Radicalization of the Georgian National Movement against ...... 39 the Minorities Chapter 2: Radicalization of the movement against the Communist ...... 27 Regime Chapter 1: The Soviet Structural Legacy and Main Actors...... 12 Introduction...... 4 Table of Contents 3.2 The South Ossetian ...... 51 Mobilization 3.1 The Abkhaz Mobilization...... 45 2.2 ...... 32 The Loud Phase 2.1 The Quiet Phase ...... 30 of the Confrontation 1.3 The Main Actors...... 22 1.2 Nomenklatura, Corruption and the Criminal ...... 19 Underworld Nationalism and Soviet 1.1 ...... 13 Federalism ...... 9 Terms and Definitions Theoretical Approach and Data Description...... 8 3.2.1 The Abolition of the ...... 54 South Ossetian Autonomy 3.1.1 The Event ...... 49 of 1989 July Riots 2.2.1 The April 9 Event...... 34 1.3.5 The Paramilitary The 1.3.5 Paramilitary Organizations 1.3.4 1.3.3 The Popular Forum 1.3.2 The ‘Moderates’...... 23 1.3.1 The ‘Radicals’...... 22 1.1.3 Brief history of Georgian and South ...... 18 relations 1.1.2 A Brief History of Abkhaz-Georgian ...... 16 Relations Ademon Nykhas –...... 25 Aidgylara –Akai ...... 24 –Abkhazia 3 and the ...... 26 National Guard CEU eTD Collection minorities. And lastly, by stance towards by characterized uncompromising the dominated organizations radical the champion was arena political the in Only in Georgia. as ofvigorously as movement thenational national movement innowhere the Union particular, republican regime SovietCommunist oppose didthe the and Georgia’sIn exceptional. case Georgian the makes instability president, political of sources different of simultaneity Zviad Karabakh could unquestionably becompared the Georgian to and experience, the evolution hundredthree thousandmention not refugees, to a delayeda transition functioningto statehood. nearly integrity and warsfor of the territorial more casualties than thousand ten Abkhazia, and Ossetia South in conflicts unresolved two behind left developments These opposition. the and Ossetia civil andAbkhazia, fought by aprotracted supporters Gamsakhurdia’s war president warsin is South military aggression peaceful marred1987 to1992 protesters, against with Soviet from period The independence. to way its on country the by experienced anarchy the resemble countries. independent newly fifteen Union into dustbin the was thrown history agreementreached of an through leaders by of the the Yugoslav country, the a bloody of scenariodisintegration theSoviet wereproven of wrong: a whopredicted Many with observers, Union. collapsedwhich together Soviet the eventually undermined the efforts ofthe underminedefforts the republics. Wavesofnational from constituent BalticStates mobilizations the to Central Asia Introduction Although humanitarian disasters in areas suchas humanitarian conflictanddisasters Nagorno Although Chechnya But when one considers Georgia, the images of the war-torn Yugoslavia more closely The disintegrated under the pressure of the nationalist movements initsmovements of under nationalist pressure the Union the The Soviet disintegrated campaign to reform the decaying Communist regime, Communist decaying the reform to campaign 4 CEU eTD Collection Berkeley: University California,of 1997 in ofSlavic,VisionsConflict Abkhazia” studies, of East European, and Institute Eurasian BordersZverev, “Ethnicin – ed., in Conflicts 94,” Bruno Coppieters 1988 Contested the in theZedSmall disorder, Books Ltd.: Nations: London, 1994;Alexei andPost-Soviet theCaucasus Caucasus,and Transcaucasia VUB University Press: Brussels, 1996; Ghia Nodia, “Causes and 1 of the From start very the overthrow. regime for non-nationalistissues, seemingly whichin thelater stages grew into wider for demands their nature was less so. Initially, the former Georgian dissidents were able to mobilize support place. firstthe from forces was in by which Gamsakhurdia him helped samepolitical ousted the power succeed . forof mass-mobilization potently ethnic issue used integrity the , center was territorial of side Union Abkhazia Ossetiaminority-dominated autonomieswith to the of tended and South Since the movement. national of the powerful characteristic another its determined territory, on through a series of bold actions and eventually pressed the regime to submission. gain public Underwas able support to Fronts. circumstances,radicalPopular grouping the these model Baltic the of the regime on the with establish to cooperation political groups moderate the formation of movements as a direct challenge to its authority. This in turn sidelined sawthe sphere and of political the inliberalization participate the the to unwilling was leadership efforts of of by minoritiesof weredeliberately leaders.exaggerated nationalistthe many this the‘dangers’ Union. reason,on For occasions from independence Soviet the country’s interests. This anxiety foundmorefar support among the population than issuethe of the national Georgia’s for obstacles represented autonomies the -that stance nationalists’ Georgian On in Hill, Fiona Georgia: conflicts the The complexities that accompanied Georgia’s path to independence were predictable, but independencepredictable, were path to Georgia’s thataccompanied The complexities Georgia’s multiethnic composition together with the existence of autonomous unitsGeorgia’s multiethnicof three with the existence composition together 1 The emergence of national movements in the autonomies only strengthened the strengthened only autonomies in the movements national of emergence The , Harvard University: Cambridge, Mass., 1993; Suzanne Goldenberg, Pride of Goldenberg,Cambridge, Mass.,1993;Suzanne Pride University: , Harvard Report on ethnic conflicts Report onethnicconflicts in theRussian Federation Perestroika 5 campaign, the Georgian Communist CEU eTD Collection 3 1992 Cambridge: Cambridge University p. Press, 1985, 24 the SocialCompositionof ofPatriotic among Groupings theSmaller European Nations J. Hobsbawm, J. UK: Gellner, Blackwell,Ernest 1988; of Nationalism of 2 action. elite-led the to prior identities were formed inby national which way the largely is successdetermined the which of behind unfolding the events. ineffective forforce explaining hownationalism andcrystallized suddenly thedriving became can beapproach understand existence helpful the identities, of to would butsubmerged be identity. case,this historicallyIn encoded our agradual socialof forces,broad transformation or of impact of an logical outcome isa nationalism of manifestation the mostly that argues literature be understood. can phenomenon the of essence the that hope a with origins its uncover to seeks on nationalism Alarge literature attention. appropriate needs nationalism, of concept nationalism. ideas of exclusive society the embraced andso andof those reason tolerance, overcame nationalism of advocates The minorities. the against integrity territorial for wars the Georgia’ssanction support people from Union andto departure came to collectively Sovietthe Georgian the and self-awareness, national crystallize helped challenges these bediscussed, later minorities that shaped the dynamics of Georgia’s path to independence. Eventually, as it will nationalism…create a predisposition for a certain type of action, and probability that, in certain forthat, acertain type probability of and action, apredisposition nationalism…create Miroslav Hroch, For instance, Benedict Anderson, instance, Benedict For Other views on nationalism contend that it is a product of ideas generated by the elites, the by generated ideas of product is a it that contend nationalism on views Other Before examining the Georgian national movement, its ideological substance, or the the with conflict the and regime Communist republican the from challenge the was It . London: Verso,1983;Anthony D. Smith, Nations andNationalismsince 1870 Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: a Comparative inEurope: Analysis a Preconditions NationalRevival Social of 3 Liah Garfield takesthisview further :“the even origins of Imagined Communities: Reflections ontheOrigin andSpread Reflections Imagined Communities: Nationalism. 6 London: Weidenfeld& 1997; Nicolson, Eric . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, The EthnicOriginsNations of . Oxford, 2 This , CEU eTD Collection University Press, p.8 5 Press, 1985,p.23 conflict with the minorities. the with conflict the of nature the defining as well as movement, the inradicalizing instrumental were events a chain galvanizing of I argue that this paper. of objective the central research constitutes what society Georgian the violenceof radicalization and to prelude the shaping influences on specific experience. Georgian the of account inclusive an constructing for are crucial approaches both shaped Thus, them. that conditions and structural events the of individuals in fostering thenational movement, would miss a wider relationship between the agents. the among behavior conditions the human determine thuslargely and interaction outcomes shape the of mobilization. contrary,structural and Onthe social existing secondary role the inthe nationalist it radicalism. to predispose necessarily donot its nationalism of attributes cultural and peculiarities Georgian the the instance, deterministic and avoids the question of under what circumstances are the ideas put toaction. For highly is view this However, not. or flourish will nationalism whether determine which 4 place.” take will action such conditions, MarkRBeissinger, Liah Garfield, Liah Essentially, it is the relationship between the pre-existing structural conditions and event- and conditions structural pre-existing the between relationship the is it Essentially, This of course does not imply that the social and institutional structures played a Nationalism: FiveRoadstoModernity 5 On the other hand, focusing only on the effect of agency,for instance, the role Nationalist Mobilization and Collapsethe Soviet Union of 4 From this point of view, it is the earlier conditions earlier the is it view, of point this From 7 , Cambridge, MA; Harvard, Cambridge, University , Cambridge CEU eTD Collection vol.1996, 25, p.843 7 Europe 6 events. insightimportance selected astransformative well of on providethe the sources. These events will be used determineto the dynamics of the confrontationsin Georgia, as unofficial and newspapers, andlocal Soviet central publications, publications, émigré 1987-1992 compiled byMark Beissingerfrom 150 differentnews governmentsources, U.S. through the prism of transformative events that shaped the nature of future conflicts. viewed be can minorities the and movement national the between confrontation the Similarly, conditions. structural and social the existing with itin faced that conjuncture challenges framevision.” precarious of crystallizes rather than gradually asa develops, contingent, conjuncturally fluctuating, and BrubakerRogers who argues thatnationhood can be “as understood somethingsuddenly that andDataDescription Theoretical Approach radicalization of the Georgian movement through the prism of the “eventful analysis” “eventful the of prism the through movement Georgian the of radicalization more attention centuries-longthan identity shaping processes. Inthismannerintend I view to the needs mood this precipitated that events of chain the society, the within sentiment national(ism) William H. Sewell, “Historical Brubaker, Rogers Events as Transformations of Structures,” , Cambridge, Cambridge UK: University p.19 1996), Press, I use the database on the mass events and riots in the Soviet Union between the years the between Union Soviet in the riots and events mass the on database the use I forward by approach focusput theoretical on I the such a In perspective, developing Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and National Question in the New andNational inthe Nationalism Question Nationhood Reframed: 6 Given that the Georgian national movement reflected a sharp rise of 8 Theory andSociety samizdat 7 of the of , CEU eTD Collection 8 norm delineated or behavior, of patterns established resources, accumulated the to action: on radicalism. movement’s national the conditioned that events of chains transforming and powerful temporal, the on focus will minorities in autonomous the regions, which eventually resulted inmassviolence. Theanalysis massmanifested through non-violent andacts of protests confrontation second, the with the mostly was which regime Communist existing the to opposition its first, faced: it challenges focus on the I power. itprovide transformative much the confrontationof andwith to spectacle-like quality Georgian mobilization orderandthe who those uphold it, involvea large also audience of“observers” lendwho a at differentconditions. stages and political insocial andsubsequent changes movement national Georgian the radicalization of of its evolutionaccountfor atto I look the types ofeventsthat Itisdurably previous structures. these transforms and on the specific Definitions and Terms break with routine practices. As the break practices. a consequence, with routine were initiated byasurprising chainof that or events, of conceived assequences occurrences, shouldbe events the that Sewell argues may havepossible. madethem that gradual changes the authority. systems of modes or of causation, practices, challenges normalized actthat subversive potentially Ibid p. 843 By The of formulation Sewell’s William use I myanalysis, In 8 This pre-existing structural conditions event event also has a social quality to it: two contending groups i.e. those who challenge whocontendingit: i.e. two groups alsohasasocial those quality to transforms social relations in ways that could not be fully predicted from Irefer toone dimension of structural the influence 9 event touches off a chain of occurrences that occurrences of achain off touches event as a contentious and asacontentious CEU eTD Collection ones. national than rather rights civil and democracy on emphasisin program their greater and also sense,moderation ininstitutions, tactical inthe Soviet and negotiate participate willingness to combined inanationaliststructures agenda. participate with Soviet the Radical became character. of eventually a violent agendas. In Union,this way,but only Soviet the many in around places the existed groups stress radical onceagain, the To of events. confrontationin Georgiamovementby radicalthe adevelopmentgroups, which negatively affected consequent the chain were theywith ablethe tominorities marginalize in theAbkhazia moderates and andSouth set Ossetiatheir own 10 University Press, 2002,p.14 1991, p6 9 their presence. action through facilitate which conditions the actions of those who would challenge them. And by acted instructures certain ways which where conditioned by institutional existingthe structures. empowered by actors conflictsminorities, autonomous the the but rather, future with the existence of the autonomous units on the Georgian territory did not automatically condition the behavior which in of actwithinactors turn of framework existingthe Forinstance, conduct. the structural conditions do not determine specific modes of outcomes, but rather condition the MarkRBeissinger, Jonathan Aves, Jonathan 10 Within the movement, I make distinction among the groupings as radical groupings Imakeasradical and moderate. amongWithin the movement, the distinction By referstacticsuncompromising activists: stance and usedby to unwillingness the to institutional constraints radicalization of the movement radicalization of Paths toNationalIndependence inGeorgia1987-1990 Nationalist Mobilization and Collapsethe Soviet Union of I mean the ways in which the institutions define and marginalize and define institutions the which in ways the mean I Irefer to the dominance of the Georgian national 10 9 My argument is that the pre-existing Moderate , University of London refers greaterto , Cambridge CEU eTD Collection prelude for the eventual hostilities. for theeventual prelude the set which events transformative the present I case, each In Abkhazia. and Ossetia South of autonomies dominated minority the with movement national the of relation the discuss to move republican Communist by regime, Inthethird which April was galvanized event. I the 9 chapter, the and movement national the between conflict of dynamics the analyze I two, chapter main involvedmobilization in groups national processesthe of confrontation. In and subsequent conditions in Georgia prior to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In addition, I present the In the first chapter of the paper I discuss the relevant structural, social anddemographicsocial structural, discuss first of relevant the In chapter paperI the the 11 CEU eTD Collection landscape in landscape dyingyearsthe Soviet of the Union. organizations and which paramilitary instrumental groups inwere shaping the Georgian political major political introduces the part The second Union. Soviet the of collapse the to Georgia prior andautonomous structures goodwillthe localtheirof governments. as the success was importance, of factor acrucial This goals. fornationalist their use resources the ableto thus of the minorities andwere regimes local the Communist with relations Ossetia close enjoyed South Abkhazia and directly in movements nationalist The defined. of regions,were ethnically which autonomous two three dependedthe minorities in Georgia: the principleon of the Soviet ethno-territorialthe division left Georgia with existence of resourcesamong the ethnic living groups in considerablyGeorgia worsened. from therelations to openly Asaresult, their agendas. wereable pursue nationalists campaign, the their by about the brought With liberalization center. the Soviet existence of a protective the movements in the autonomies would not stay within the Georgian territory without the as just intheir regions, sympathizers Communist the not tolerate would as Georgians the start, the from was movements inevitable thus The conflictbetweenthe center. of support Soviet the movements in the autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia based their programs on attainindependence from movement, Sovietthe mainUnion, whose analogous was to goal Chapter 1: The Soviet Structural Legacy andMain Actors The first part of this chapter aimselucidate to the major structural and social conditions in The existing structural and social conditions playedapivotal inthemobilizationrole of national Georgian the emergence half with of 1980s,along In the secondthe of 12 Perestroika CEU eTD Collection delegate secondary executive powers to the indigenous ethnic cadres in return for cooperation cadresinreturn indigenous ethnic tothe powers executive secondary delegate in certain areas. powers decision-making and structures parliament-like resources, administrative symbols, state the with historicalnominal ‘homeland’ tothe thatresided territory,the communities providing them on Eurasia: an Institutional Account’, in 12 1923 –1939 Republics, Autonomous dividedfifty-three into territorial consistingcomponents of Union AutonomousRepublics, center. tothe levelsrelative autonomy of different territory of the state intoa complex four tier system of administrative units, units which exercised andto many establishment their the benefitof of institutional forms nation-state. the consciousness, national minorities’ of promotion systematic the involved policy The content’. in socialist and form in ‘national – terms inSoviet nationhood the of vision Stalin’s following national creatingproletariats on worked butrather identity, proletariat’ instill to a ‘Soviet seek not did state Soviet the of builders the way, this level. In state-wide at than rather sub-state the at nationhood of codification and institutionalization the sponsored Union Soviet the goal, exist peacefully and co- make groups Union’s diverse ethnic howto the Soviet of nation-building question the was on thereby resolve the problems associated with nationalism. To achieve this 11 1.1 Rogers Brubaker, ‘Nationhood and in Union ‘Nationhood Brubaker, Question National Rogers the Soviet the and Post-Soviet Terry Martin, ‘ Nationalism and SovietFederalism Nationalism By such a laborious division of the state, the architects of the Soviet Union meant to The Soviet leaders never attempted to forge a Soviet nation. The major emphasis of major emphasis The nation. forge aSoviet to leaders attempted never The Soviet This policy was best exemplified by ethno-territorial the federalism which the divided ’, Cornelll University Press: Ithaca London, 2001, p.1 The Affirmative Action Empire:NationsandNationalismThe Affirmative intheSoviet Union, Oblasts and Autonomous Theory andSociety 13 12 Following this pattern, theSoviet wasUnion Following this pattern, Okrugs. , Vol.23, No. 1, p. 50 Most of these units represented a 11 CEU eTD Collection 14 2, p.199 in particularly autonomous whichheldthree pronounced units:AdjaraGeorgia, Abkhazia, was and Moscow center units, republican the relationship autonomous between the dependent multi- a republic.Such union parentthe against center ally the with able to in were practice and theory in autonomies the from elites the However, ‘behavior’. proper for in exchange agendas pursue their wereallowedto theautonomies rulers the of thecenter: republicsand of union the Press: 2001, p. 87 61, 2002,p. 147 Caucasus –Casesin Georgia 13 Source: Stuart J. Kaufmann, ‘ Total Others Abkhaz Greeks Ossetians Azeris Russians Armenians Georgians Ethnic Group Table 1.1: Ethnic Composition of Georgia and Autonomous Regions in1989 Abkhaz. wereethnic divisions local raikom of the first secretaries of the 50% nationality, atitular constituted because they republic Table1.1 below), more Abkhazautonomous of the (See no population than the 17% of Abkhaz were although example, For society. respective their within rule Soviet the of legitimacy ensure the as to so area, the of nationality titular the represent hadto cadres the of majority its influencebypoliticizingfor ethnicity: scheme the the of work, powerdevolution the the to expanded way, Moscow this them.appropriate In to how on were given directions but resources, Moscow. center all-Union with the Svante E. Cornell, ‘ Philip G. Roeder, ‘Soviet Federalism and Ethnic Mobilization’, in Philip ‘Soviet Federalism Mobilization’, G.Roeder, and Ethnic Often, the relations between the union republic and its autonomies closely resembled that itsresembled closely autonomies and republic union between the relations Often, the Population 212,000 95,000 100,000 164,000 307,000 341,000 437,000 3,787,000 5,433,000 The Georgian SSR Georgian The Autonomy and Conflict: EthnoterritorialityAutonomy andConflict: andSeparatism inthe South Modern Hatreds: the Symbolic Politics ofEthnic War 14 ’, Uppsala University, Peace and Conflict Monograph ’, UppsalaMonograph PeaceandConflict No. Series University, 70.1 100 3.1 1.8 1.9 3.0 5.7 6.3 8.1 % 13 The local national cadres were allocated economic wereallocated cadres national Thelocal Population 40,000 - - - 74,000 77,000 242,000 14 91,000 524,000 The Abkhazian ASSR Abkhazian The 17.3 14.2 14.6 42.2 100 7.7 % - - - World Politics ’, New York, Cornelll University Population 3,000 - - 65,000 - 2,000 - 29,000 The South Ossetian AO Ossetian South The 99,000 , Vol.43, No. 66.2 29.0 100 2.7 2.2 % - - - - CEU eTD Collection Russian republics, who benefited from affirmative action or preferential treatment policies). treatment preferential or action affirmative from benefited who republics, Russian non- in the nationalities titular (for positively or Jews) the (especially negatively either chances inof most individual cases, an some in notably thehigheradmission shapedto education, life the background national The residence. of territory of irrespective nationality, her or his to according wasclassified citizen Soviet Every recordings. bureaucratic most for Soviet basis served asthe Georgians tosuspectseparatist motives behind autonomies’ the actions. majority the to whichgavereason of movement, Georgian mindedagainst theindependence with all-Union center the collaborated atautonomies the end from elites the power 1980s, the of 15 the tofollow samepathof the challenging itsimplicitly ethnic minorities center encouraged Perestroika the center over its peripheries, but eventually served to undermine the foundations of the system. identification. It is a historical irony self- that and both accounting of social these of norm the policies remained meantethnicity that to strengthen ensured farms, collective the control of in andregistration migration means ofregulating system, usedasa Thepassport agendas. nationalist own their for andresources structures autonomous the used units territorial those division of the state intended to quench the national sentiments of the minorities, the elites from placeas theliberalization of regimethe in took half second Whilethe of 1980s. the the federal identification. of social integral part an became also but way, this preserved only not was identity ethnic individual that logical only is Ossetia(autonomous republics)(autonomous andSouth Brubaker, and ‘Nationhood Nationalthe p.53 Question’ Another dimension of ethnic identity system ethnicAnother dimensionwas which passport identity of preservation Sovietthe These Soviet legacies considerably shaped the Georgian politics in the years of years the in politics Georgian the shaped legaciesconsiderably Soviet These Both policies bore of ethnic and institutionalization unintendedcodification consequences : the Georgian national movement by campaigning for independence from the Soviet the from independence for campaigning by movement national Georgian : the 15 oblast ). During the decline of Soviet decline of Duringthe the ). 15 It CEU eTD Collection Contested BordersintheCaucasus, 17 anddifferentindefinedstages manner. at different independentlytreated Georgianother of kingdoms because its relationship with Russia was and their rights and statuses were defined16 at different stages, one could argue that Abkhazia was Abkhaziaincluded was asrepublic an within autonomous independentMenshevik-led the moreinfluence amongAbkhazThe population.eventually the and Bolsheviks were defeated inpower Abkhazia between Menshevikandthe factions,ideological latter having the Bolshevik in wascharacterized for consolidation bystruggles power (1918-1921) Bolshevik Russia the of andindependence autonomy between Abkhazia and Georgia before theirinclusion into Soviet the is Union dubious and both relationship the on evidence historical The princedoms. and Georgian kingdoms (often separate) vassalage various effective Russianthe union in1829,Abkhazia wasinnominal Empire or with related to the Northern Caucasian group known as Circassians. Prior toAbkhazia’s inclusion into linguistic andCaucasian family. is Georgian the to Their connection ethnic faint Abkhaz– the are ABrief 1.1.2 History of Relations Abkhaz-Georgian warfare. open into evolved confrontation the Ossetia South and Abkhazia autonomies, its of in two And projects. national their implement to institutions official the of legitimacy and with resources economic adventurers nationalist the formations inGeorgia presented autonomous in and 1989the legitimate for Thus, procedures action. mobilize their through grievances minorities enabled toarticulate The existence the structures of autonomous the Georgian center. Alexei Zverev, “Ethnic in Alexei Zverev, conflicts Caucasus the 1988 –1994”, ed.BrunoCoppieters, Russian intoEmpire the gradually absorbed were instance,kingdoms Georgian the For since The period between the defeat of World Russian of between the WarIand The period defeat Empire during the indigenousThe Abkhaz to are Caucasus region the and speak alanguage from the 16 of Abkhazia of beargued. could VUB University VUB University Press: Brussels,pp. 39 1996, 16 17 CEU eTD Collection head of the secret police NKVD and was also in charge of the South Caucasus. 20 transition intheformerSoviet Union 19 Resolution: Case Studies from European the Periphery,Academia press: Gent, 2004, pp. 193 18 by was refused that ademand Federation, Russian from the to beGeorgia transferred request to with AlreadyinGeorgia. four years 1957, Stalin’s after death,the Abkhazmade officials a this view. by numerically superiorGeorgians, and andBeria’s Stalin background furtherethnic reinforced exercised oppression of signs were experiences Abkhaz, these the For nationals. Abkhaz against Abkhaz schools, the planned migration of Georgians into the on ban Abkhazia the andlanguage, the discriminationAbkhaz the for alphabet Georgian-based the of imposition the through of an republicautonomous within SinceGeorgia. thenAbkhazia’s has status changed. not Abkhazia’sto that demote status Union in Sovietto decision the restructuringresulted of Stalin’s Georgia. subordination) to association its (but not republic andstipulated defined underthe treaty conditions of union, whichnominally Abkhazia asrecognized a union were relations Abkhaz – Republic. Georgian Socialist Federated Soviet Transcaucasian the the and the Bolsheviks were treated as irrelevant. between confrontations ifmade ideological the beeasily could that acase Georgia, expansionist from Abkhazmemories with independencefor areassociated thestruggle period this from the the of course), self-interest (with government Abkhaz Menshevik backed the Georgia Because invadedarmy Georgia. Soviet the anew constitution, of approval eveof Georgia.the On Beria, an ethnic Georgian (Mingrelian), was one of Stalin most trusted henchmen‘ who was Wheatley, the Jonathan Bruno Coppieters, “The Georgian – Abkhazian conflict,” Europeanization and Conflict These motives largely shaped the Abkhaz unwillingness to remain in subordinate status remain in Abkhaz the unwillingness to subordinate These motivesshaped largely by campaign markedundertaken The years reign were‘Georgianization’ of the Stalin’s In 1921, bothGeorgia andAbkhazia wereincludedin futurethe SovietUnion of as parts 20 Georgia from national awakeningGeorgia from totherose revolution: delayed ’, Burlington,2005, VT:Ashgate, pp.57 17 19 In1931,the 18 CEU eTD Collection 22 21 center. the Ossetia wereraised. Ossetia North the with unification eventual of view a with Georgia, from autonomy greater for demands many moreinjured duetoGeorgian cruelty. In1922,the South Ossetian Autonomous Peoples’ Army. by Casualties reported Ossetian historiography numbermore than 5,000 deadand Georgian integrity territorial ended with suppression the of Ossetian defiance by Georgian the breakaway from inanattempt Ossetian kin to theOssetianBolshevik leaders with the Northern allied (1918-1921) Georgia. Russiaadministrative unitwithin Georgiacalled Samachablo. However, during Georgia’s independence largely aregional constituted for most part nobility the and by princedom Ossetian governed stayed out or kingdom aseparate ofwas never Ossetia South Abkhazia, Unlike (Georgia). Ossetia South the conflict and Federation) Ossetia (Russian in North nationality titular werethe Ossetians language. The and the challenge to the Ossetiansrelations and South 1.1.3 BriefhistoryofGeorgian Abkhaz. before 1989. With the emergence of the South Ossetian national movement, national Ossetian South the of emergence the With 1989. before officials Ossetian by South the wereraised change border the concerning demands nocalm: formed Union within Georgian Republic. the Zverev, ‘Ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus’, p.40 Cornell, ‘ The Ossetians belong to a Caucasian group of people speaking a north-eastern Iranian of a Caucasianpeople group anorth-eastern The Ossetians speaking belong to During the Soviet rule the relations between Georgia and South Ossetia were mostly Ossetia were andSouth Georgia between rule relations the Soviet the During 21 Autonomy andConflict Autonomy On other occasionsthree in 1967, 1977and 1989similardemands were raisedby the ’, p. 151 22 18 Ademon Nykhas Oblast was , the , CEU eTD Collection Georgia) andcorruption. inof case the true especially (this was economies shadow ensuing with republics, respective intheir networks strong developed elites local entrenched way, this In favors. similar for in choice networks exchangelatter forof involvedof other each creation ‘covered’ who officials the Usually ways. other insome targets the achieve to rules bend to had they or jobs), their even rules, meet andlose fail productionforto the promotion thus prospects targets sometimes (and local of members The their targets. meet to able always not were officials the system, command the of inefficiency and centralization productionthe set by targets Central the Planning Committee in BecauseMoscow. of meeting for responsible those of true especially was This maneuver. to room little very with left to acquire raw materials from. materials to acquire raw agencies in Moscow – orders on howmuch produce,to howmany workers to hire, oreven where from centralized the dictated production industrial were the instance, regarding decisions For for thelocal resourcesamongsupervisory role anddistributed territorial the bureaucracies units. Moscow. in located center, Union were the of Ministry Defense, the and Ministry Foreign asthe well as policies, industrial and economic implementing for in were bodies bureaucratic of affairs,domestic key all whereas charge responsible ministries the These powers. decision-making formal with officials Party Communist and bureaucrats of body 23 Underworld andtheCriminal Corruption 1.2 Nomenklatura, Wheatley, ‘ The centralized nature of of the nature The centralized Each territorial unitin the Soviet Union had its own Georgia from NationalGeorgia Awakening from nomenklatura nomenklatura 19 ’, p. 20 faced a dilemma: either they had to follow the coordination meant that local officials were nomenklatura 23 The center filled in the filled center The , orahighly centralized CEU eTD Collection 25 26 of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies, University 47 of London, pp. 24 from society: insulated restof the the eventually became groups Ghia these to Nodia, According bureaucracy. the of members and Party Communist hierarchy the of entire the capturing secrecy, ideology created fertile grounds for the cultivation of vast corrupt hierarchies. vast corrupt of cultivation for the grounds fertile ideology created official the towards cynicism deep with together friends close and relatives ones’ favoring of principle of accountability. of democratic principle the establish to hard it making thereby customs, organizational similar followed forces political new asthe regime, Communist the of weakening the even after prevalent remained culture in Andthis wasespecially and degreeof superiors. on true dependency Georgia. extreme by breaking,rule indifference dissimulation, clientelism, corruption, ordinary towards citizens their monopoly on power. share to and toreform reluctant its wasparticularly interests innercircle, secure of the to anxious became even more evident with the emergence of the quality This organization. national a political than rather clans, certain of interests the representing movement: the Communist party, Georgian the Jonathan Aves, ‘ Aves, Jonathan Wheatley, ‘ Wheatley, ‘ Such practices especially characterized the Georgian the characterized especially Such practices all attended the same meetings, spent their holidays in the same resorts for the privileged. party, the managerbig ofa factory, the university rector and the ofsecretary thecomposers’ union Markers such as occupation were secondary: the whobureaucrats worked for the communist by characterized usually phenomenon widespread a became corruption time, With To summarize, the organizational culture of Soviet the of culture summarize, organizational the To Georgia from NationalGeorgia Awakening from Georgia from NationalGeorgia Awakening from nomenklatura Paths to National Independence in Georgia, 1987-1990 National Independencein Paths to 25 and the Communist party came to represent a social stratum, 20 ’, p. 24 ’, pp. 23 nomenklatura nomenklatura ’, London: The School , as the cultural norm was characterized was 24 Due to this fact, 26 This CEU eTD Collection Comparison’ availableat: 28 these groups closer. The political opportunities brought aboutby closer. brought these Thepolitical opportunities groups criminal underworld sustained theblack and market, in this way mutual benefactiontheir brought 27 the which effectively impeded the development tradition, society of civil a the tolerant, of in absence democratic resulted groups political independent of formation culture. to resistance Instead, as Soviet the Moreover, interests. concrete with groups self-aware into itself to organize society organizations such as united Georgian paramilitary future the that was ‘thieves’ understanding’ It of this culture codeof washighlyor the by younghonor within criminal underworld, the Georgians. esteemed Georgian The term, honest. noble and more the of ranks in the serving those to contrast in admiration; inmuch invokeda particular younger generation the of criminal Georgia, the underworld aseparate with itsculture owncode In of andfinancialresources. ethics underworld constituted dissidentorganizations. criminal society:and The underground the underworld criminal the mainly intereststhe offamily based clans and criminal networks. were linked to the world membersof market”, criminal the the black and them on the soldfinished and products materials “who those stoleraw or elite’ economic Nodia the‘shadow bywhat calls represented underworld would beirreconcilable; however, this was not case.the Through networks social Jonathan Wheatley, ‘Group Dynamics and Institutional Change in Georgia: A Four Region A Four in Georgia: Change Institutional and Dynamics ‘Group Wheatley, Jonathan Wheatley, ‘ Perestroika The absence of self-constituted mechanisms of social organization made it difficultfor the In theory, the ideological antagonism between the between antagonism ideological the theory, In Underindependent circumstances, these only two organizationsin could exist Sovietthe Georgia from NationalGeorgia Awakening from revealed, political the scene inGeorgia washighlyfragmented, representing nomenklatura Mkhdrioni http://www.oei.fu-berlin.de/en/projekte/cscca/downloads/jw_prop.pdf and the National Guard. . 28 The nomenklatura kurduli gageba kurduli 21 ’, p. 38 provided with the legal cover, whereas the whereas legal the cover, with provided nomenklatura , or literally ‘thieves understanding’, nomenklatura Perestroika , the criminal was seen as helped criminal the and the criminal 27 CEU eTD Collection 30 29 name a made already had Gamsakhurdia, Konstantine figure literary Georgian renowned a of son of ofintellectualsa small group led byZviad Gamsakhurdia andMerab Kostava. Gamsakhurdia, The1.3.1 ‘Radicals’ Actors Main The 1.3 and dissidents criminal the underworld. Georgia was in of political the culture independent theorganizations development absence other Due tothe of shaped by elementsbenefits maximized andflourished, thuscreating obstacles politicalto integration.and social from Inthe this Sovietcontext a myriad past: of citizens. interests the promote shared the to formal of organizations building the discouraged of discrete by the informal members networks, of in thewhichcounterparts. economic,regime, social the andinspired movementsoon turned into a repressive regime acting along the lines its Sovietof cultural dissident the demonstrated, experience asthe Georgian However, movement. national of the mainlocus actuallyformed these surface the ingroups inGeorgia, to groups certain cases and as establishment. official the by activities their from obstructed crucially were and resources institutional to access have not did who intellectuals of organizations. elements toparticipate in politicalthe processes, usually organizingthrough paramilitary Aves, ‘ Philip G. Roeder, ‘Soviet Federalism’, p. 209 The evolution of The movementinspired national Georgian the dissident activities was by evolution of the rule Soviet underthe institutions legitimate political absence theweaknessof or In short, smallgroups consisted of usually weak: they organizations wererelatively The dissident Paths toIndependence Paths ’, p.15 22 29 The Perestroika campaign allowed these 30 CEU eTD Collection available at: available of a massive hydro-electric scheme, against the construction of the Transcaucasian railway and railway Transcaucasian the of construction the against hydro-electric scheme, massive of a For instance,rights. in moderates 1987-1988 the were active incampaigning against buildingthe beginning of by 1988 campaigning over relatively ‘safe issues’, such ecology as and cultural The1.3.2 ‘Moderates’ politicalmore popularity moderate the than organizations. command able to were parties in these but Georgia in beplaces, many found could organizations BrunoCoppieters, 32 during fact, the achieve. In became hard to Baltic States) 31 unacceptable. andpolitically morally was regime” “occupation of the thestructures within participation any that idea the defended parties radical The authorities. the stancetowards their radical for known became which parties political radical several created organization this from splinters The independence. forprepare nation Georgian an eventual the organization to aimed which national television, whileKostava chose to stand his groundand wasimprisoned until 1987. repentingon of Gamsakhurdia ‘errors his judgment’ wasreleased the after regime campaigning. Georgia. Gamsakhurdia and hisfollowers jailed were soon by Sovietauthoritiesthe for anti- he Watch founded theGeorgian Group Helsinki which monitored issues human the in rights Church. Orthodox Georgian the of head the Katolikos, new a of appointment inhimselfformanipulation acampaignagainstthe in1972, apparent the thatsurrounded Ghia Nodia, ‘Political Turmoil in Georgia and the Ethnic Policies of ’, ed. Gamsakhurdia’, Zviad of Policies Ethnic the and Georgia in Turmoil ‘Political Nodia, Ghia Aves, ‘ Moderate activists began to playModerate activists beganto influential an inGeorgian role from politics the In 1987,sevendissidents established prominent Ilia the Chavchavadze Society, an Paths toIndependence Paths http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/ContBorders/eng/ch0201.htm 32 Because of this stance, the formation of an all inclusive Popular Front (as in Popularthe Front formation inclusive of an all the stance, this Becauseof Contested Borders intheCaucasus, ’, p.8 23 VUB University VUB University 1996, Brussels, Press: Perestroika 31 similar ‘radical’ similar In January 1977, InJanuary CEU eTD Collection participated on on several participated inorganizedoccasions by but Forum,conferences Georgian Popular the 1985-1991, Duncan (eds.), 35 34 inforriots frequently July1989Moscow help. appealedand to movementinitially campaigned for protection the of rights of Abkhazthe involved in ethnic the The Georgia. from separation Abkhaz of the support for avehicle became later which Peoples, Aidyglara to prepare for the formation of the Abkhaz Popular Forum or The1.3.3 Popular Forum when negotiations with Sovietthe authoritieswidely were perceived as unpopular. couldnot hold its foundingmeeting until late July 1989 (after Aprilthe massacre),9 ata time comparatively strong organization of the moderate opposition, the Popular Front of Georgia, 33 action. political aconcrete initiated than rather theory political about argued who intellectuals of clubs small fact in were they "movement", themselves called they Although awaken much opinion.public from Georgian the Mamardashvili response popular to were unable and Natadze film Eldar Nodar Merab andphilosophers Tarkhan-Mouravi, a Shengelaia director, model. Baltic according theFront in organize to to aPopular Caucasian inefforts 1988 andparticipated Club firing practice. for grounds monastery Gareja medieval Davit a of usage the army over Soviet the confronted Jonathan Aves, ‘The rise and fall of the Georgian Nationalist Movement’ in Hosking, Aves and Nodia, ‘Political Turmoil in Georgia’, ch.2, p. 3 Aves, ‘ In November 1988, an initiative group based on the Abkhaz Writers’ Union Writers’ formed basedwas AbkhazUnion the In on group 1988,aninitiative November The moderates, represented by a historian, Giorgi Zhorzholiani, a physicist, Giorgi by Zhorzholiani, aphysicist, represented Giorgi a historian, The moderates, Paths toIndependence Paths became a moving force behind the establishment of the Assembly of Mountainous the Assembly the of of establishment behind the force becameamoving London and New York: Pinter Publishers, 1992,pp.160 33 The RoadtoPost-Communism:Independent Movements inthe Soviet Union These ‘moderate’ activists united under the organization known as the known unitedunder organization the Theseactivists ‘moderate’ Aidgylara ’, p.11 –Abkhazia 24 Aidyglara 35 The organization also Theorganization . Thefollowing year, 34 The only CEU eTD Collection detachments, and the Republican Guard. and Republican the detachments, military purpose special Ossetian South organizations, political local of wings armed Beginning militias in1989,several and paramilitary were established,groups includingthe by violent againstthreats communities. as manyGeorgians in their region perceived the under control. but with the radicalization of Initially organization by the was notsupported the leadership local the Communistin Ossetia, South Georgian brethren. rhetoric,Northern their rejoin Ossetians help would it precedent the washoping Georgia, ablefrom to take the Ossetian parliament actions called at: 38 37 in Georgia,’ of Republic the 36 1.3.4 the authority of the Abkhaz ministry of internal affairs. several battalion Parallel this, internalhundredstrong was of to a under also established troops ofapproximatelyauthorities 250ex-Soviet servicemen. establishedaNational Guard, consisting with moderate organizations. partnership Georgian the because of factions’radical dominance onboth sides, themovementwas unable toestablish Spyros, ‘Politics from the Barrel’, p.5 Kaufmann, Hatreds’, pp. 107 ‘Modern Demetriou, Spyros, ‘Politics from the Barrel of the Gun: Small Arm Proliferation and Conflict in http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/o_papers_pdf/2002-op06-georgia.pdf Ademon Nykhas Ademon Nykhas In South of in In South Ossetia,mobilization towhat asimilar pattern armed developed response Ossetians responded to Abkhaz and Georgian mobilizations by forming a frontpopular Moreover, by the end of 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union imminent, Abkhaz imminent, Union Soviet the of collapse the with 1991, of end by the Moreover, Ademon Nykhas in January 1989. Led by Alana historian Chochiev, among its first public expressed solidarity the expressedAbkhaz solidarity more togain attempts with autonomy –South Ossetia Small Arms Survey Small Arms 38 25 , Occasional Paper No. 6, Novemberavailable Occasional No. 2002, , Paper 36 37 CEU eTD Collection 40 antagonistic, and organized onthebasis neighborhood familyof or ‘brotherhoods’. or clans mutually fragmented, wereinherently period in the 1989–91 paramilitaries Georgian political apro-Gamsakhurdiaduringinto thecivilwarsplit two, and an Both anti-Gamsakhurdia camp. but within Georgian the constitution, asemi-legal acquired eventually status , Ossetian conflict. South incipient tothe response of ‘National Self-Defense’ (numberinggroups hundred in several men)created late 1989 in cities. mistreatment of civilians in conflict zones in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and even in Georgian 39 from drivers. tributes collect to businesses the and roadblocks protection to offering smuggling,survived robberies, on drug At heightthe of its itboasted aroundmembers,activities 5,000 many whowith criminal records authority. criminal the of member elite – criminal” “lawful a also was who Ioseliani, Jaba critic Mkhedrioni Gamsakhurdia. was led by a former bank robber tuned playwright and murderer, presidentZviad first of Georgia’s ledmovement ousting the civilwarand tensions to which intra- fueling as well as minorities, ethnic the with clashes armed initiating in instrumental heavily were based organizations Guard were These onthe of traditions criminal the underworld. The1.3.5 Paramilitary Organizations , Spyros, ‘Politics from the Barrel,’ p. 7 Wheatley, ‘ The second main paramilitary group in Georgia was the National Guard, a loose amalgam The major Georgian paramilitary groupings, From Awakening, 39 The lack of professional in Thelackcadres of professional ’ p. 55 Mkhedrioni 26 40 The group Thegroup headed by former architectthe Mkhedrioni and the NationalGuard (Horsemen) and the National Mkhedrioni contributed to the to contributed CEU eTD Collection military action against the demonstrators. As a consequence, 20 people were killed andhundreds killed were As 20people a consequence, demonstrators. the against action military leaders a Union, authorized from Communistfor secession the the Soviet the demonstrations strategy dealingof with growingthe of popularity nationalthe movement. Amidst themass nationalists’ onseveral demands occasions. InApril communists 1989, the an tried alternative republicanthe fearing Communists, who succumb agrowing disapproval had to the local regime with overtly nationalist demands. Aseries of mass demonstrations visibly weakened gradual the movementspolitization across similar of it Sovietthe Union,soon challenged the Georgia. Initially, Georgiamovement the didnot explicitly on rally issues,nationalist but with leadership,was reluctant in who toassistthedemocratization Communistof sphere political the campaign. gain wider autonomy itaimed as goal, to from political immediate movement’s national Union the was not from Soviet the the center in line with the liberalization process of the Georgian people, in order to prepare them prepare them for to in order people, Georgian Chavchavadze nationalistfor radical Ilia of foundingactivists, 1987, the chapter umbrellathe organization Society,which in followingthe yearsmanifested its strength primarily protests. streetthrough In October aimed ‘to only eventually underground, spearhead came toamass-led national Georgian mobilization encourage organizations inGeorgia. dissidentgroupsand The oppositionalthe movements previouslythe active political development and education of the 41 Regime theCommunist against of movement the 2:Radicalization Chapter Aves, ‘ The agenda ofwasimpeded national the movement by Georgian entrenched the From From 1986 onwards, the Paths toIndependenceinGeorgia, Paths Perestroika campaign resulted in the polarization of the political the of polarization the in resulted campaign ’ p.9 27 future independence’. 41 Therefore, the separation the Therefore, Perestroika CEU eTD Collection leadership did not favor the remaining moderate forces either; they were constantly either; denied forces were constantly they favormoderate theremaining not leadership did intelligentsia whowould otherwise have to looked a Popular Frontfor leadership. The communist intellectuals. In this way, the Communist Party sidelined a significant section of the Georgian which along with faithful the such as theRustaveli organizations ‘public’ official by other establishing liberalization 42 predecessors. Gorbachev’s employed against Georgian the human movementrights during the repressive years of October 1987,wasvirtually indistinguishable from tactics of the detentionthreats, and arrests in Society Chavchavadze of creation Ilia the to initial response authorities’ Georgian The drastic. was emergencepolitical organizations the of reaction the towards theyevoked, sympathy which nationalthe of Instead movement. co-opting unofficial political the groupings and the popular movement. national the with along society the of radicalization and a violent whichin provoked from state reaction resulted the protests, thus eventually demonstrations. phase, In latter the confrontation the massmainly manifested through was In the former, crucial events materialized, but did notinvolve popular upheavals or phase. loud the and phase quiet regime: the the and movement national the between of contention phasescategorizations and the Imake regarding practices. structures thetwo existingtransformed ruptures, which had a causal effect on the galvanizing event of April 9, event that fundamentally event. mention massive were injured,not to and social the from this outcomes resulted that political Beissinger, ‘ Furthermore, the Georgian communist leadership attempted to take control of social the control of take to leadership attempted communist Georgian the Furthermore, The actions of the communist leaders in Georgia negatively influenced the dynamics of dynamics the influenced in negatively leaders Georgia of communist the The actions generated politically or occurrences, of temporal division the I present In thischapter, Nationalist Mobilization 42 nomenklatura ’, p.180 28 members also included members also moderate Georgian Society, CEU eTD Collection dangerous than the radicals who just "walked in the streets" and "shouted alot". andjustin than"walked "shouted streets" the dangerous who radicals the moderates – striving power for officialthrough mechanisms institutional more –werepotentially mediawith space. them andevenprovided radical tothe organizations attached bands paramilitary formation the of the not obstruct instance, they did for aims; in factserved the radicals’ leaders of communist the 44 43 ledto that events of chain the analyze I this reason, For occurred. actually what explain not does it but upheavals, mass to vulnerable was Georgia why explain help may – movements emerging the to opposition authorities’ the – condition existing the short, In position. political their improve to unable were thus and confrontation capitalize on this to unable were which organizations support themoderate Similarly, didnot authorities the garner the mostsupport. popular able to provide not ofwhy organizations were radicalorganizations afullpicture eventually does the became champions. national movement the groups radical most nationalist the sidelined and effectively were organizations moderate the byMoscow, replaced leadership was Communist in favor of radicals. Georgian The the changed drastically in landscape Georgia political the Society, Chavchavadze Ilia the of foundation years the after In two expected. leadership strategy createdamucheventually more popular andformidable adversary than communistthe organizing andforcefully property. government demonstrations occupied were much on they radicalsrestrictions inthis morerespect defied government the effective: permission register,tohold to ortoestablish rallies for headquarters their organizations. The Ibid Nodia, ‘Political Turmoil in Georgia’, p.3 . p.4 The actions of communistleaders, Nodia explains,were reasoned by the assertion that the The unwillingness of the authorities to cooperate withcooperate emerging the political to authorities The unwillingnessof the 29 43 Moreover, the tactics the Moreover, 44 However, this However, CEU eTD Collection many hydro-electric stations. hydro-electric many mountainousthe Svaneti yearduringregion thesame wereblamed onthe construction of too of non-Georgians to the republic. As for the construction of the electric scheme, the avalanchesimmigration in to lead and Russia with link direct a create would railway the as character, national carried a projects to these opposition Moreimportantly, the nature. of secondary were concerns Georgia, and hence the first expression of andhencethe firstexpression Georgia, sense inmedia in in firstdebate a true actually the resulted project to these The opposition River. Enguri the on scheme thehydro-electric of construction issue of the on alsocentered protest the 46 45 construction and the planned destruction of historical onits monuments path. heavy of dueto consequences from attracted because criticism opposition environmental the Russia. linking Theproject Georgia buildingthe to a railway through Caucasus,directly the of Railway most expensive“would –the inhistory, be”project project whichenvisaged Georgia’s and dispute the over the use of DavitGaredji Monastery for military grounds exercises. construction of Transcaucasian the and the railway Enguri scheme in hydro-electric mid 1987, of theConfrontation 2.1 TheQuietPhase society. of the radicalization the precipitated that power transformative had the which Iargue massacre, April the 9 Ironically, even today Georgia suffers from from shortages. power suffers Georgia today Ironically, even Cornell, ‘ Of course the economic benefit of these projects was unquestionable andecological wasunquestionable projects of these benefit economic the Of course An initial focus of attention of the emerging national movement was the Transcaucasian the was movement national emerging the of attention of focus initial An In the quiet phase of the confrontation, I discuss two events: the opposition to the Autonomy andConflict Autonomy 46 Whether this was right or wrong mattered little: there was a ’, p.154 Perestroika 30 . 45 Simultaneously, CEU eTD Collection 50 49 Brussels University 96 2002p. press, Conflict’, 48 University of Michigan Press, 1996, p.298 in the History of Armenia, Azerbaijan, andGeorgia in theHistoryof 47 monastery trainingcomplex, only restart later.month By fall to frustration a 1988 the public over year stalling of ministry Sovietdefense finally the move agreed firing from to military away the David Gareji monastic complex as a shooting range. This concern was mishandled as well: after a popularity more.even shrinking their undermined issues concrete very these to responses inflexible authorities’ The be thewhichfor toconcretequestion broadchanges.” out with already turned desire ripened it things“Really,remarked, moving; was thequestion Railway, whichgot of Transcaucasian the a time, at party Green the member of ,a Later, demands. movement’s national the concedeleadership to to communist Georgian forced the first when later demonstrations serious over these issuesthoughhunger petitions, strikes, articlesinit themediabutuntil wasnot a year care about welfare of the did not nation. local the the conviction that widespread government failing to graspfailing the to popularmood. Even worse, officials the promoted this inboth Russian slogan and languages, Georgian hence introducing anew typical slogan, Sovietthe of view on environment: ‘Enguri we willtame you!’ sovereignty. wereabreachof Georgia’s projects these that arguing Gorbachev Secretary-General addressed Gamsakhurdia), Zviad Kostava and declaration,by andscientistsinJune Merab signedartists 800 writers, them 1987(among Aves, Bruno Coppieters, ‘In defense of the Homeland: Intellectuals and the Georgian-Abkhaz Parsons,‘Georgia and the Georgians’, Ibid . p.13 Another issue that caused public outrage was the Soviet troops’ use of the area near the useof area the troops’ Soviet wasthe outrage caused public issuethat Another The response from the local authorities was unserious and flippant: they by they reacted andflippant: wasunserious local authorities from the The response Paths toindependencein Georgia Secession, History and Social Sciences andSocial Secession, History 49 Thedissidents and groupings moderate other the tried win to Transcaucasia: Nationalism and Social Change: Essays Nationalism and Social Transcaucasia: , p.12 31 48 , ed. Bruno Coppieters andMichel Huysseune, Bruno Coppieters , ed. , ed. Ronald Suny,Ann Arbor: Grigor 47 A 50 CEU eTD Collection independence. with Moscow over other issues to refocus nationalist consciousness around demands for radicalthe nationalistmovements sought toutilize thepublic mood frustrationof and outrage mobilizationnationalist Georgiaencompassed inNovemberApril both 1988 and cases, 1989. In 2.2 TheLoudPhase 1988. breakthrough came with talksa the overadoption of newUnion Soviet inconstitution November 52 51 alleged rape of a Georgian by girl Azerbaijani,an but responsethe modest. was For instance, during the October 1988 demonstrations, the radicals tried stirto the crowd over the rhetoric. nationalist the with experimented radicals the where massfor gatherings, as apretext forpopular Georgia’s independence. thisissuesFor support reason,the non-nationalist used were goals ofthemovement. Theradicals issues well shape understood these not would the that achievefar-fetching of number people the to attracting –aninsignificant 5,000 demonstrators sometimes continuously, held were rallies The above. discussed issues the on centering mainly constantly grabbed limelight political the by aseriesorganizing inof demonstrations 1988, demonstrations. through pressured unless they were groups by dissident the legitimate raised concerns for action gave to mass impetus demonstrations. Again, authorities the were and unwilling tocooperate take these non-nationalist issues boiled over when the introduction of Soviet Constitutional reform Beissinger, ‘ Ibid . p.11 It was within the context of these non-nationalist issues that the explosion of the of explosion the that issues non-nationalist these of context the within was It The radicals, such as Gamsakhurdia, Kostava and another dissident Giorgi Chanturia, Giorgi dissident another and Kostava Gamsakhurdia, as such radicals, The 52 Nationalist Mobilization The mobilization The under banners secessionistthe inNovember 1988 eventually ’, p.181 32 51 Thereal CEU eTD Collection 54 53 in Moscow. Gorbachev on a working trip to Great Britain, the request and in of Shevardnadze time, absence the law.This martial leaders andimpose the arrest was granted by conservative elements Communistleader party a telegram Jumber Moscowasking sent Patiashvili to for permission to under in lead of leaders, the nationalist radicalized the direction. OnApril a secessionist 7 200,000 people gatheredinfront of Georgianthe House of beginningGovernment April 4 over of A crowd from Georgia. for secession inAbkhazia mass demonstration the reaction to as a into power resultcatapulted of regime collapse. chagrindemonstrationsmuch the nationalists, be had ceased,of secessionistto the whohopedto population theirthat Shortly be would dispersed met. demands thecrowd after, and Georgian the assuring with message a a Shevardnadze at time, Eduard minister foreign instead dispatched boss andSoviet Union’s Georgian was Moscow former party and dismissed request The law. martial the of introduction for Moscow beg and panic leadership communist mademore attended rally, the the Georgian November which than thousand people 29, 200,000 aswell. On issuessurfaced and monuments ecological historical protection of overthe grievances secession. on reject thepetition to rightlaw andthe all-Union the contradicted which would give was themassacre ofApril 9. the Sovietsubsided. Butwhatultimately radicalized and publicmood the the movement national with it, center the right to strike down any republican law which Beissinger, ‘ Wheatley, ‘ The protests weremuted,The not butprotests for long. April as In a started 1989, demonstrations The focus mobilizationsof in SovietNovember wasthe proposed constitutional changes Georgia from NationalGeorgia Awakening, from Nationalist Mobilization, ’ p.182 33 ’ p.42 54 53 The unresolved The th th and the CEU eTD Collection Furthermore, the data, thejournalist andinvestigative accounts the commission suggest that motivated. symbolically already were actions their potential; national of fulfillment tothe barrier it a ruleauthority because for them did theSoviet Those whochallenged represented Soviet the deaths. human of milestone statistical a as just event 9 April the conceptualize to artificial be for all importance Georgians. becameof regime, critical Communist by the of independence, oppressiveness contrasted the future followingof Georgia’s bright the conceptions nationalist way, girls. Inthis the 16of were teenage whom peaceful demonstrators, by of20 reality,deaths into evidenced national crystallized strive camp”.of imagery The Gulag in the conditions the “improving to equivalent were if it as grounds moral on compromise mobilizehard “oppressive the forces population the to of against andrejected occupation” radicals tried the in favorpast, the oftheradicals. In culture political Georgian the transformed meanings, took authoritative and soon, which “sacrifice”, “national “heroism”,awakening” minorities confrontation the with acquirednature. aviolent the and groupings political other over dominance their championed radicals the law, adopted Georgianlaw national the supremacy sovereignty Union and overof the approved gradually Georgian –the leadershipclear Communist was sacked byMoscow, newthe leadership 2.2.1 TheApril 9Event finallyits found audience. calls secession for radicals’ was equivocal: the killing twenty civilians andinjuring hundreds using sharpenedshovels and The tear-gas. reaction The symbolic interpretation is The symbolicof itsthis crucial understanding Itwouldevent effects. interpretation to “massacre”, “tragedy”, of terms the combined followed that event the on The reflection April had9 apowerful lingering The effect. effects of politicalthe became conjuncture In the early hours of Aprilmilitary Soviet9, the acrowd dispersed of demonstrators, 34 CEU eTD Collection South Ossetia. The March was intended to intimidate the local Ossetian population with show of 58 55 the only grouping that represented national interests. As Ghia Nodia points out: minorities. the towards aggressive strategy organizational by resources, allowing theformation of paramilitaries and byupholding their new themovements by themwith and political atmosphere supplying cooperating with adapt leaders communisttothe triedin andThenewly to appointed modes resources power. of peoples atthe other time. percentage among all highestthe Union, Soviet the Georgia of out opinionthe fivepole conducted months later,revealing92% of that Georgians wanted see to gas. Butitdid not matter, emotionthe was of sustained,repulsion which became evident through thetear of chemical the composition to reaction from manya strange died that it concluded was many demonstration the joined people rumors after of hadsuppression surfaced. 57 carried task. the out regimentthat Airborne 56 military. Soviet shovels byarmed with teenagegirls chopped effect wasobnoxious: mostperceived people had that injuriesthe from sustaineddied The by shovels. sharpened the was widely it Initially power. foreign andthe made oppression the between wereassociations emotional tone society. the rule over was that Soviet of despotism the of illustration actual the followed, was what sacrifice and of deliberate of repulsion thecharacteristics encompasses this event Therefore, was ignored. that looming aplea of danger, wasin Ilia IItodisperseface bytheKatolikos continuously from crowd demonstration the asked over the excessive coercion against civilians and For instance, the new secretary, Givi Gumbaridze, participated in Gamsakhurdia’s March March on in Gamsakhurdia’s participated Gumbaridze, Givi newsecretary, instance, For the Beissinger, ‘ Aves, ‘ it in was thespecial participate not did operation, police Theforces Soviet the Georgian The cultural The cultural by transformation effected eventwas this stimulated by in both shifts A constitutive ingredient of this event was the emotional reaction that followed it. The Paths toIndependence Paths Nationalist Mobilization ’, p.2 ’, p.351. 58 Furthermore, the radicals came to be as perceived to came radicals the Furthermore, 35 55 In addition, the 56 later Only 57 CEU eTD Collection past, withdrawal of the Soviet army from the country, etc. 60 59 split to form their own organization. movement of radical few members the that controversial so were The tactics power’. ‘number April after 9 character nationalist with demonstrations demonstrations. leaders April byparty tothe communist of awkwardresponse consequences the Georgian the awakenit.”itandwas necessary to slept Peopleprepared give not werestill to them The nation their[nationalists] active support… still the of majority “the massacre the before that noted had 9events, April the of investigation the led demonstrations by (as captured number of demonstrations permonth) over 88-92period.the Over issues such as secession from the Soviet Union, commemoration of the events from the from events the of commemoration Union, Soviet the from secession as such issues Over Ibid . These developments can be easily traced if one looks at the evolution and proliferation of proliferation and evolution atthe if looks one canbeeasily traced These developments who Sobchak, Anatolii well. as nationalism of rise in the transformative was event The April 1989, and the agenda was being completely and definitely set by the nationalist movement. nominally in power until the fall of 1990, the legitimacy of Soviet rulein Georgia really ended in communism or the SovietUnion in public. Onecan thatsay although the Communist Party was After the massacre of April 9… it became impossible for anybody to say anything in favor of 59 36 The awakening came from from unintended the came Theawakening 60 . Figure 1 below plots the intensity of CEU eTD Collection more effectively through armed more confrontations. effectively through the of control subsidednature were –thenationalistgrievances resolved of demonstrations republic, the took this nationalists the and waned, power Soviet the Once movement. national tothe devolvemore powers Abkhaz against theaction to and totake Moscow towards directed were April 9 demonstrations instance, the For inGeorgia. legitimacy still exercised center 61 Figure 1 dominate the Georgian political spectrum and anything short of dominate the of political anti-Sovietand anything became Georgian an position spectrum short environment in Georgia. minorities. Georgia’s First, of ‘problem’ growing the resolve to attempted which ones the movement, national the the of policies radical lessmassacres,instead emphasispopulardemonstrations, put onmore but on centered assertive organizations 9 April the of aftermath the followed that events The opposition. his and Gamsachurdia ofbetween confrontations the to the refers demonstrations non-ethnic in rise the period, the nationalof movement the end less density. butwith Towards frequencyand mobilization the considerably crowds, of cameof popular mood. It is toalso evident that non-nationalistissues continued to play a pivotal role in radicalization dynamics suggests the 1989, that so afterApril Novembermore the after 1988and calculations own Author’s Source: It should also be mentioned that the nationalist demonstrations were effective until the Soviet -10 10 20 30 40 50 0 . To sum To sum up, theshock by triggered April the fundamentally9 event the political changed increased considerably demands ethno-nationalist over demonstrations of frequency The Number ofdemonstration overNationalist and Non-nationalist issue among ethnic Georgians April 9 Jul -88

Dec-

Jul -89

Dec- 37

Jul -90

Dec-

Jul -91

Dec- Ethnic Non-Ethnic Jul -92 61

Dec- CEU eTD Collection http://www.idea.int/publications/georgia/upload/Book-01_scr.pdf Discussion Paper 1 Journey movements’ assertiveness against the minorities. the against assertiveness movements’ national of transformation the 9 and April of aftermath the discuss will I chapter, following 62 movement. with national the of by or consent the weretaken decisions pressure under governmentin continuedpower carry to routineout the while managementpolitical allimportant Aprilperiod 1989 -October 1990,Georgia lived underadivided rule: the communist widelyAnd frowneditslost rule upon. second,thecommunist last vestige legitimacy. In of the Ghia Nodia, ‘ ’, in Building Democracy in Georgia: Attempts to Establish Democracy in Georgia, in Democracy Establish to Attempts Georgia: in Democracy in Building ’, Two Attempts to Establish Democracy in Georgia: Summarizing a 15 Year-Long Summarizing inGeorgia: a15 Attempts toEstablishDemocracy Two , May , May 2003. availableat: 38 62 In the In CEU eTD Collection minorities and the Georgian national movement. I argue that the processes associated with the with associated processes the that argue I movement. national Georgian the and minorities between the confrontation the which galvanized occurrences of sequence as analyzethe issuesmobilizationforce. chapter Iexamine surrounding Inthis the of the minorities, aswell the theuseof be through came resolved disputes to the center, Sovietthe with earlier confrontation the unlike and each-other against groups the pitted eventually events of A series minorities. political spectrum inimpose favorand its its thus wasableto agenda regardingown the of the communist government in Georgia. Since then, the Georgian radical movement swayed the movements. within respective forces their became dominant theradical factions as aresult, and and societies, the movements the within radicalization sidesencouraged from all The actions for theircounterparts. Georgian program logically,of unacceptable parts Georgia – acompletely Moreover, the Abkhaz whereas Georgian the national movementcooperate withandrefused to Sovietthe authorities. South sovereignty, Ossetian Soviet the towards themselves oriented movements Ossetian and nationalistsAbkhaz the other: clearly each contradicted openly as programs their wasinevitable, movements between national preferredthe to opt out large. clash The fromat society the among aswell as movement, of Georgian the leaders among the being suspicion caused nationalist organizations andOssetian Abkhaz of emergence previously, the mentioned As country. the of integrity territorial ensure to was movement national Georgian Minorities the against Movement National oftheGeorgian Chapter 3:Radicalization As discussed intheApril previous chapter, the decisively 9 event the position undermined Along with the struggle achieveto independence from the Soviet rule, the main aim of the 39 CEU eTD Collection Repertoires in Repertoires formerUSSR’, the 64 Institute of Slavic, East European, and Eurasian studies, Berkely: University of California, 1997 University Brussels, “CausesPress: Ghia 1996; Nodia, and in of Visions Conflict Abkhazia”, Bordersin in ed.,Caucasus Contested BrunoCoppieters 1988–94,” Caucasus, VUB the London, ZedBooks and 1994;AlexeiLtd.: “Ethnic Zverev, inthe disorder, Conflicts Post-Soviet University: Mass.,1993;SuzanneGoldenberg, Cambridge, Small theCaucasus of Pride Nations: 63 futurethe of the status of their autonomy to that of the union republic, but tono avail. The lastletter sent by Moscow for advance applied nationalists Abkhaz to the since Stalin’sOnce death, decade every changes. the agree implementto itandhad to Moscow weretobechanged, if borders clear:the erupted. with minorities. confrontation the the of outcome violent eventual the with connected directly were independence for strive Georgian to adopt policies to bring about the revision or maintenance of the borders. the of maintenance or revision the about bring to policies adopt to force them and to sought governments, andtherepublican authorities againstthe Soviet targeted Union haveas many Sovietshown. the casesaround warfare, in result does notautomatically status political over conflict the However, Abkhaz. andthe main issue of contention was the conflictingnational programs of the Georgians, South Ossetians the that idea the with concur I violence. of wave the to contributed significantly borders existing the of re-definition the that accept generally all theories another, or theory for one argue to for theminority independenceclaims to from WhileGeorgia. is it beyond thescopeof this paper outbreak of violence, while many point tothe mistreatment of the minorities as the main rationale that causedthe of concerns groups security thinkthe isit others the between thegroups, ‘hatreds’ Beissinger, ‘Nationalist Violence and the State: Political Authority and Contentious and Authority Political State: the and Violence ‘Nationalist Beissinger, Hill, Fiona There are many accounts explaining whythe in conflicts OssetiaSouth andAbkhazia For the most part, the conflicts over the redefinition of the borders inwere borders and 1989 the redefinition 1988 most overthe the part, conflicts For the of 63 Some catalogue these conflicts as being ‘ethnic’, resulting from asbeingfrom long these resulting Some conflicts centuries catalogue ‘ethnic’, Aidgylara Report onethnicconflictsin the Russian Federation andTranscaucasia movementin was November 1988 aswell.TheSovietUnion’srejected Comparative Politics 40 , Vol. 30, No. 4. p. 402 64 The rationale is rationale The , Harvard CEU eTD Collection will of the communist leadership was bent. Now, if we consider the minority movements facing movements minority the consider we if Now, bent. was leadership communist the of will center. months It took and of mobilizations,protests galvanized by April the before9 event the they theSoviet before republicanthe could challenge struggle against successfully communists to had movement national the however, Georgia In leadership. communist the within visible local to topplecrowds the authorities. even impossible for the South Ossetian nationalist movement – movement nationalist Ossetian South the for impossible even been for sympathy the localof the communist regime.it Likewise, would have beenvery hard or hadit not impossible have been would mobilization previously, the changeborders the about of autonomousautonomous November10,1989(from republic on an Ossetia declare andto South parliament gain of the control ableto were nationalists unification with North Ossetia. For the numerically inferior South Ossetians inferior South numerically the Ossetia. For with North unification influence. mediainstitutional and resources, access to leadershipmeant more theanythingpromoting communist than separatism. proximity to The them. attended even leaders communist the hold and to rallies permitted were nationalists for the instance, leaders.In Abkhazia communist local by alwaysthe shared wasnot grievances nationalist sympathize with the to center Soviet 67 p.211 66 65 path,disastrous andnot inonly regions [Caucasus].”those meeting“reviewing saying that is boundaries unrealistic; would meangoingthat downa in his1988Politburo the time,position the expressed Mikhail General at Gorbachev Secretary 66,000in 1989, seetable 1.1 Federalism Philip Mobilization’, ‘Sovietand Ethnic G.Roeder, Ibid, 409 The same situation can be observed in Abkhazia, where signs of separatism were clearly of separatism in Abkhazia, where signs can be observed The samesituation The sympathy of the local communist leadership proved to be a crucial factor forbe acrucial factor leadership to proved The sympathyof local the communist 41 66 In South Ossetia, for the instance, Ossetia, InSouth 65 However, the unwillingness of the of unwillingness the However, oblast World Politics Ademon Nykhas ) with a view to eventual 67 whodid notargue , Vol.43, No. 2, , Vol.43, tomobilize CEU eTD Collection influence over the population through legitimate channels. Moreover, the evidence of mass of the evidence the Moreover, channels. legitimate through population the over influence theirexert to wereunable organizations nationalist the because significant happened nothing in Only etc. Javakheti reunite Armenia, that with to wish in rhetoric Georgia, nationalist rising the with concern issues, language Ossetians: South the of those to similar very were Armenians members. Armenian forrepublic andnumbered150,000 The issuesatstake Javakheti the Source: Author’s calculations Figure 2.Number ofmobilizations per year of different nationalities becomes evenmore obvious. structures autonomous of importance the institutions, official no but groupings nationalist their had also who region minorities (SeeFigure 2below), for instance thenumerically superior in Armenians Javakheti the legitimate to from institutions. through If looks one similarly assertive secession other Georgia declared nationalists Ossetian in In South groups way,this power. the for those activities legitimate of vehicle a as served institutions the influence, their exert to able were nationalists the Once minorities. of mobilization forthe thesuccessful factor wasa regions crucial a leadership was key successful mobilization. to local sympathy the of the short, In materialize asthey did. would mobilizations Georgian similar challengesbefore being abletoexertanyinfluence, it is highly unlikely theirthat anti- 12 16 0 4 8 The Armenians were also territorially concentrated close to their ethnic kin in kin the close ethnic totheir concentrated also territorially were The Armenians autonomous inthose institutions of existence the that evidence suggests Furthermore, 1988 1989 1990 42 1991 1992 Adzars M.Turks Kurds Azeris Abkhaz Ossetians Armenians CEU eTD Collection present day frozen conflictsby all shared is violence of a characteristic institutionalization fact,the anylonger. In events from the Sovietinfluence to able hardly were institutions Soviet that especially conflicts, violent sustain the era (South Ossetia,official government. Thisenabled theinstitutionalization violence which helpedof consequently Abkhazia, the by backed were that groups the of Nagornohands into came weapons the importantly, More armies. Karabakh mobs into the arms transformed of theproliferation time years in three wars”, “stone called possible arm for movements the to in The ethnicthemselves. 1989were confrontations rightly their programs. 68 Russia. tactics, not to mention economic supplies, military technology and volunteers flooding from army high-ranking retired Abkhazia, helped Soviet generals Abkhazsketch combat the In secession. towards chance real only the was Russia) (later center from Soviet the assistance forces, troops which are stationed there till this day.For the numerically inferior South Ossetians, peacekeeping into them and transformed eventually from each-other fightingkeep the sides between theGeorgian side andmilitias theSouth Ossetian in dispatched 1991, Moscow troops to by certain elements in the Both Abkhazin power. werestrengthenedOssetian movements external andSouth various ways Soviet center. For instance, at the height of the forutilized mobilization purposes. armed confrontation which be iscould institutional structures Thisexistenceof to the others. connected fact crucially mobilization among with the ethnicgroups autonomous status i.e. Abkhaz and Ossetians, than events in intheyearsGeorgia 1988-1989(SeeFigure 2 muchabove),to higher points levels of Cornell, ‘ 68 And itwas the availability lastly, of Sovietweaponsthe it in whichmade region the Similarly, a successful mobilization is also significantly shaped by the activity of the of activity the by shaped significantly isalso mobilization a successful Similarly, The existence of potential ‘rescue’ emboldened the separatist movements to carry carry movements toout separatist the ‘rescue’emboldened potential of The existence Autonomy andConflict Autonomy ’, p.183 43 CEU eTD Collection Figure3. Number of demonstrations and riots per month from 1988-1992 intentions. separatist whoexhibited ethnic groups againstwas turned the but regime, the toppleaimed to longer noinfluence, mobilization the Soviet the of and Georgiancommunistwaning regime the Source: Author’s own calculations own Author’s Source: after the center overtheir But aimed influence groups Sovietthe the grievances. to strikes, hunger or sit-ins, asdemonstrations, such methods non-violent of means By clarification. stages mass violent events sharply rose (See Figure 3below). This needstendency further whereas factor: crucial wavesof at characterizedlaterdemonstrations the years1988-1989, Georgian republican government. defy leadership to mass andemboldened Ossetian the thisfactthe event caused demonstrations language Georgian the in OssetiaSouth in unimportant to an 1989 mightappear in outsider,but strengthening law the of introduction the contention, of height the at instance, For mobilization. intensity the the determine of larger withinsymbolic referenceswhich constructed setof a however, these events obviously have great meaning for those who were swept by them. They are massive. became itconflictproportions was that violence, then ethnic got structures involvedand Oncethestate in Transnistria). inter- the andsustaining organizing -10 10 20 30 40 0 The analysis of data on mass events and demonstrations in Georgia, reveals anothertrivial; appear often motion in violence nationalist of waves set which events specific The

Jul -88

Dec-

Jul -89

Dec- 44

Jul -90

Dec-

Jul -91

Dec- Demonstrations Riots de-facto Jul -92

Dec- fall of CEU eTD Collection the influencethe of major waves of mass Georgian demonstrations in itNovember 1988,though had Union. Soviet the of beforelong collapse the –Abkhazconfrontation of Georgian the character the which determined events of chain the on focus I section, this In movement. national Georgian the and nationalists Abkhaz the between dynamics confrontational earlier the with in inseparable Abkhazia is conflict years during The collapse. was the product which of were shapedof the Sovietthe processes it counterpart, Abkhazian andits movement national between Georgian the not Abkhazia was in war eventual the Although arena. from political the sidelined leaders were movement By from national and 1992. August many influential wasousted power Gamsakhurdia time, that Mobilization 3.1 TheAbkhaz movement. national Georgian the of radicalization the caused turn in which movements, national minority the of assertiveness the influenced that events of chain the analyze will nominally inbutincreasingly power, irrelevantleadership.communist In followingthe sections I authority in the country, as after the April 9 event, the Georgian nationalists came to dominate the of change the by is explained events violent in surge The below). 3.3 Figure (See observed canbe events violent in themass increase of aclear 1989, thesecondhalf after reason, For this necessarilywould influence not behavior of the inleadership minority the Sokhumi (Abkhazia). capital in instance, mass Georgian the for demonstrations minorities: againstineffective the The Abkhaz national movement, national Abkhaz The in Union Soviet of the collapse the months after eight started war Abkhaz – The Georgian regime communist againstthe methods were used of The non-violentcontention Aidgylara 45 emergedin late 1988 and early 1989 under CEU eTD Collection leaders of the Society caused a widespread outrage among who Georgians the outrage widespread caused a of Society leaders Chavchavadze Ilia the on buscarrying the Abkhazattack the Worse, inAbkhazia. population Georgian among the republic (thus separating it from from itGeorgia). separating (thus republic tothatof union the toupgradeAbkhazia’s status Moscow Georgiaintoincorporation andcalled historicalthe Lykhny field and a declarationapproved condemning Abkhazia’s‘illegal’ July 1989. in earlier years place three took however, riots, largescale first The hostility. open into erupted of the Soviet disintegration, butit was not until the summer of 1992 that the confrontation stance. anti-Soviet movement’s Georgian the with clashed explicitly thus and region, the over sovereignty Soviet the supported movement Abkhaz the start very the From center. Soviet the even and leadership, communist institutional face mobilize,of significant since enjoyed thesupport constraints to localthe they of the of before onset the reaction a well-established thusalready was Abkhaz separatism Abkhazia. The against ‘Georgianization’ As the language.of protests theAbkhazmobilized aresponse, demonstrated against massively Georgians the place in1978,when took Abkhaz andthe between Georgians the the proposed Soviet constitutional changes on the status of the Georgian 69 the Abkhaz20 the throughout relations Abkhaz strive from Georgia. separate to of attempts long record in the clear roots for independence. Before the 70 71 Beissinger, ‘ Beissinger, ‘ Aves, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Georgian Nationalist Movement’, p.160 Perestroika Once the Georgian national movement emerged as a formidable force, the Abkhaz did not did Abkhaz the force, formidable a as emerged movement national Georgian the Once In March 1989, 30,000 Abkhaz, includingIn Abkhaz, leadership,March at the Abkhazcommunist1989, 30,000 gathered Nationalist Mobilization Nationalist Mobilization campaign. 70 Georgian – Abkhaz relations were most tensethroughout part th century century (see chapter 1)left memoriespainful which shaped ’, p.223 ’, p.225 71 The declaration provoked a series of demonstrations 46 Perestroika campaign, the last showdown 69 The history of Georgian – CEU eTD Collection 73 72 language of affiliate inUniversity Sokhumi. three hundred Georgian instructors and left students the AbkhazianGeorgian hundred twelve Statea result, As University demand. the to approved set upquickly a rival nationalists, Georgianthe establishmentof their university. own considerably Theplease Communist government, to eager morepermitin conciliatory government central to authorities the Tbilisi,the demanded issues. incapable any handling of concrete Abkhaziafunction ceased to a as division ethnicalong place, lines took and theparty was in Party Communist the purposes, practical all For Moscow. to subordinated directly become and Party Communist Georgian the of from ranks bethe removed to Union of Soviet the Committee that MenshevikJune, arguing Georgian that the communist partyhad distanceditself from Leninistprinciples and ideology had returned,suppression of Georgianthe demonstrations by military Sovietthe on April 9. the Abkhaz massivelyin turn for mobilized aseries of from Aprilstarting led protests 4. These tothe events Communist Party petitioned the Central from the from militia Abkhaz armed the 12, July On rifles. hunting with themselves arm to started Georgians many For self-protection, police. Abkhaz was bythelocal attack assisted the claimed that was rejected. recommendation The decision. its back turn to government Georgian the advised Georgians, and Abkhaz between fearing a confrontation authorities thecentral wasconducted, investigation and Moscow the Beissinger, ‘ Cornell, ‘ A month later, the Georgians living in Abkhazia, emboldened with the appointment of a of appointment the with emboldened Abkhazia, in living Georgians the later, A month In inTbilisi. Party Communist the of role the diminished effectively event 9 April The In the meantime the question of the bus attack was raised again. The Georgian was side The Georgian raisedagain. In themeantime question busattack the the of Aidgylara Autonomy andConflict Autonomy Nationalist Mobilization movement surrounded the local surrounded thelocal house movement which was publishing planning to ’, p. 172 ’, p.301 72 47 73 When the Abkhaz complaints reached complaints Abkhaz the When CEU eTD Collection 75 74 some extent. them to facilitated even and raids, such to resistance little very offered sides both on police that noted investigation the Later weapons. toobtain headquarters police local “stormed” Georgians volunteers. Abkhaz the to weapons distributed openly officials Abkhaz and combatants, Abkhaz transport to wereused militia helicopters Georgians, shotatunarmed policemen entirelocal Abkhaz region: forces republic.” of autonomous the “inbuilding and spitehave close of the thought, onethreatening would of proximity police the same evening, agroup fiveof Abkhaz thousand stormed thefuture Tbilisi branch university The dubious. are first clashes the whosparked of accounts The center. Sokhumi clashed inthe the Abkhaz interior ministry. Meanwhile, the groups of Abkhaz and Georgian demonstrators surrounding theuniversity Abkhaz and policemen were stationed instead. area the from removed were nationality Georgian of policemen later, days two Moreover, forces. police the from intervention no was There branch. University Tbilisi of formation the allow backturn decision to recommendation theon to publishSoviet of official the rebuttal organize a picket wereableto groups Abkhaz armed Sukhumi.The and Kostava toward marched Merab dissident block the Georgian Meanwhile,several 30,000Georgians days afterward. from Western ledthe Georgia, bythe marchers for intermittently and night all lasted spree shooting (someThe Georgia. Western and Abkhazia over of whom were armedfighting for several asdays come.to The same evening, thewell) Abkhaz and the Georgians mobilized all at a Ibid. Ibid . p. 303 This incident set off open warfare between the ethnic groups that soon the encompassed soon that groups ethnic between the warfare open set off This incident A unitpolice sent from helpTbilisi maintainto orderwasdisarmed the anddismissed by This set off a chain of casualtiesThis set off of achain both events produced that sides engaged asinarmed p. 304 75 74 48 CEU eTD Collection for futurebe to prepared control local inorder institutions both needed the groups that to became evident, also It channels. enforcement law of involvement direct the without achieve to confrontations.impossible was efficiency organizational an such as evident, became authorities local of riot the in complicity vehicle regimentsvolunteer fororganizing tofight Georgiansthe during the war.Second, the founding conference of Confederationthe PeopleMountainous of of Caucasus,became which the Thirdly,August in1989, face alone, already not theGeorgians Abkhaz could the that after Sincebecame shortly after theAbkhaz. riots. it obvious visible outcomes werearguably Several the riots, The3.1.1 Eventof 1989 July Riots the proliferationSukhumi. no and beturned events toMoscow branch over that University of bein TbilisiState openedthe demand July the investigation of the incultural continued that to the region, and dominance of claimed newthe that instrument in university was an hands the Georgians toreinforceof their the Abkhaz the hand, other the On movement. paramilitaryindependence irrepressible otherwise Georgia's curb to inAt Abkhazia. samethe time, they accused the of manipulating governmentSoviet ethnicissues in region,the structures autonomous thusdeprive thegovernmentover the control and of Tbilisi todeclaremartialin lawMoscow a provoke alarge-scale prompt would which violence order to in secessionists by Abkhaz the wasintentionally staged on their attack suspected the university Georgians again. Georgians The 302were accounts, official of to according whom, injured, more and bloodshed, Interior troops soon Sovietthe wereinvoked toreestablish order. bridge outside the ethnically mixed town of Ochamchire. march,the Kostava stopped averting The July 1989 riots had a powerful effect on the relations between the Georgians and the The July events in Abkhazia left at least eighteen dead (mostly Georgians) and 448 49 Aidgylara held a CEU eTD Collection of ConflictStudies 78 Shadow 77 at: 76 people and their cultural institutions”. Georgian nationalistAbkhaz the combatingmovement for special program a hadout "worked the that pointed further annihilation", undergoing people were Abkhaz "inwhichthe period The leadersof people needed protection. perception rightsof the that Georgians livinginthe wereautonomies infringed, and thus these Georgian.”the people against Abkhazian the set and Abkhazian question the created artificially decades for which forces external reactionary are events these of instigators real “…the saying 1989 in July statement issued hand.movementPopularFront a ‘moderate’ of Russian Georgia sawthe Even the of mystical the unity Georgia. were undermining psychological state shape able radicals a asGamsakhurdia, whowere to gaveto such riots ammunition symbolic of siege, where the minoritiesGeorgians, and it thewas imperialthe second power time ofthat the GeorgianSoviet security groups. the dilemma between Union blood was spilled the raised and suspicion interethnic the heightened theriots of outcomes tragic the lastly,And on their own territory. sides. both on be observed can of contention) changing nature to due (logically, organizations The http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JCS/bin/get4.cgi?directory=spring99/&filename=cotter.htm#58 Svetlana Chervonnaya, ‘ Chervonnaya, Svetlana S John M. Cotter , ‘Cultural Security Dilemmas and Ethnic Conflictin Georgia’, http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472098985-ch10.pdf tephen Jones, “Georgia: Nationalismfrom under theRubble,” in As for the Abkhaz side, the riots once again proved that their identity endangered. identity was their that againproved once riots the Abkhazside, the As for both sides. For victimization on of oncemore perceptions sharpenedthe The riots ’, (trans.) Ariane Chanturia, Glastonbury, Somerset, UK : Gothic Image, 1994 Aidgylara , available at: , available already perceiving the period of of alreadyperceiving period the Abkhazia’s inclusion intoGeorgia asa Conflict in Conflict the Caucasus: Georgia, and Abkhazia the Russian 77 Furthermore, the assault on the Georgian nation created a created nation Georgian the on assault the Furthermore, 78 In short, the event did not crystallize a new perception of 50 76 Inevitably, behind the clashes, the national the clashes, the behind Inevitably, After Independence in TheJournal , available , CEU eTD Collection the escalation of nationalist violence. The confrontations were characterized with low intensity low with characterized were Theconfrontations violence. nationalist of escalation the mobilization – new national in phasethe defined a organizations proliferation the paramilitary of in endof atthe By this armedtime, 1989. clashes eventually already movementnational resulted Ademon Nykhas Mobilization Ossetian 3.2 TheSouth would clashafew yearslater. Sovietstyle ‘friendship ofnations’ andset off of armamentthe paramilitary organizations which futureof violence between animosity finally It dispelled shaped the groups. the naivety the the of meaning of left about the clash perceptions were the conflicting until unanswered, dynamics the evidence. The with motives of Abkhazwereprovided the separatist the suspicions over armedwas inevitable. conflict dissuadingsides two the from a conflictintoengaging of nature,this the confirmed riots that the clash demonstrated bound andthe possiblethe insteadintensity to riots of clash.But the of were projects national Abkhazian the and Georgian the that confirmed events These country. leadershipcommunist in Tbilisi and movement placedthe national at theleading of positions the firm.Georgia, Thesamecouldbesaidabout largely as April the 9 event, sidelined the was already society the within position movement’s asthenational inAbkhazia, of modes power aggression, for which Abkhazthe needed preparation and external support. example yetrather providedwith butanother Georgians among Abkhaz, the of Georgian The South Ossetians followed the Abkhaz example by founding their Popular Front, Georgian the and right, proven was aggression Georgian of fear Abkhaz the short, In thecultural on effect had transformative asignificant is event It arguablewhetherthe in early 1989.Aseries inearly of between standoffs Ossetians the and theGeorgian 51 CEU eTD Collection the historicalthe friendship of Georgians and Ossetians. emphasize to and Georgia to loyalty their stress to rushed Ossetians Many time. the at Ossetians sharedby not all were views apparently Chochiev’s Ossetia.for However, South a precedent Union and autonomous formations’. Clearly, Chochiev theenvisaged Abkhaz that case would set ‘just solution to the Abkhaz Question will set a precedent for a precedent set will Question Abkhaz the to solution ‘just achieve greater autonomy from autonomy from Georgia. greater achieve 80 79 conflict. hundreds dead. In this section by theI Georgianlook parliament. This was the immediate reason forat ayear-long war whichthe resultedin chainAutonomy Ossetian the of annulment of subsequent events the and elections unsanctioned thatseparate, hold precipitated the South Ossetian of waged by Ossetia.Georgia parliaments and South the in much South Ossetia, but moreimportantly wardue tothe of declarations and laws was which violence because low-scale ethnic the not of place.escalated Theconflict low took innumbers) were (many which of 24demonstrations only theyears1987-1992 between mobilization either, of at elitethe decisions level.TheOssetiansdistinguished werenot by a highlevel popular of and considerably militia did stopescalated until not a yearlater. Ossetian irregularsandtheSouth Georgian between second halfof the fighting 1990,the the power. In the Gamsakhurdiaviolence elections in catapulted the before into in1990 Georgia Cornell, ‘ Kaufman, ‘ The Ossetians’ desire to South was the of conflictdefinedthe nature the major that The event by but a series shapedmass event, was not by a conflict Ossetian South the Interestingly, Autonomy andConflict Autonomy Ademon Nykhas Modern Hatreds , among its first acts issued a statement supporting the supporting a statement issued acts first its , among ’, p.106 ’, p.203 79 Its leader, Its Alan Chochiev expressed hishopes a that 52 80 de facto parity between so-called parity between Aidgylara to CEU eTD Collection parliament banned the regional parties from participating in the elections (particularly targeting (particularly elections in the from participating parties regional bannedthe parliament autonomies. itsincluding Georgia, inentire sole the as topromote Georgians attempted balance of power within the Ossetian society became clearly tilted towards the radicals as during the demonstration that demonstration during the among the Ossetian population. In July, the First Secretary of the South Ossetian in gettingrhetoric onthenationalistemphasis weregradually resonance and Georgia constant itsforleadership, local but the over demonstrations, for campaigns unification calls communist 83 82 81 South aswell.Ossetia into intervene to werepreparing Georgians when the riots beganrising Natadzeobserved. tensions The Nodar as a moderate Georgian of character, isolated July 1989 took with them. wipedtheir andwere killed) shoes publicly place in Abkhazia. flags snatched theGeorgian of independencethe (underwhich yearsof ancestors their 1918-1921 Rumors started during the Ossetians celebration independencedayonMay26,1989,the Georgian the of to circulate that armed Chochiev and from his group reading the Georgian pressis notunfounded. about learnt Ossetians most that claim the hence limited; certainly media the was access to his time, atthat enjoy ofthe local authorities Ossetian not support Indeed, asChochiev the did in Ossetia. career Chochiev’s for ‘launching’ media nationalist Georgian the and Gamsakhurdia Cornell, ‘ Kaufman, ‘ Ibid. Georgia held parliamentary Georgia heldparliamentary in elections 1990.Previously,October Georgian the It seems that at this point the Ossetian The issue wasmagnified in media,and Georgian the some Georgian blameobservers p. 205 Autonomy andConflict Autonomy Modern Hatreds In themeantime, level confrontations atgrassroots instance,were emerging. For ’, p.107 Ademon Nykhas’s ’, p.204 Ademon Nykhas 53 demands for unification were groundless. 82 But incidents of this kind were of still did not possess the leverage the possess not did still 81 Oblast declared 83 The CEU eTD Collection center, therefore, Georgia did not necessarily need to show its force. But the outcomes of the of outcomes the But its force. show needto necessarily not Georgia did therefore, center, wereviewedelections, asillegalevenbytheSoviet their andappoint independence actions Georgian leadership toraid South Ossetia is puzzling: even if the Ossetians were able ‘declare’to radicalism inGeorgia, and thus wasresponded by to measures.exaggerated decision The the of flourishingof height at the came authority Georgian tothe Ossetia’s defiance camp. South Georgia’sdemonstrated inability counter to challengesthe coming from ‘anti-independence’the Tskhinvali, periodically harassing thelocal population. territorial integrity. By the early February 1991, they were able to achieve a complete blockade of ‘protect’ enter Georgian the Tskhinvali to freeto hand given Merab Kostava’s were Society, and George white Society the Guard, the of as theNational such paramilitary organizations Tskhinvali (capital of South Ossetia) Ministry of Internal Affairs troops. In a few weeks time, the into sent and territory the on law martial imposed parliament Georgian the Subsequently, Ossetian autonomous South the once do to have of idea what a clear not did however, side, Georgian The of a series on calculations. The3.2.1 Abolition of the South Ossetian Autonomy its elections,annulled Georgian autonomy.to hold the separate parliament its intention declared Ossetia South the but once autonomy, Ossetian South the retain to promised participate in initially electionswhosethe votes, Gamsakhurdia,at all. majority party gained the Ademon Nykhas way in a Abkhazia,in July riots massacre and 9 April of events The galvanizing based isconventionally which decision apolitical is essentially event this of nature The and Aidgylara ). It is unclear however, whether the parties were willing to oblast was abolished and open hostilities became inevitable. became hostilities open and abolished was 54 CEU eTD Collection 84 unprofessional and abusivebehavior of paramilitary the originations to hindered due were successful operation thechancesof Instead, territory. the over jurisdiction come had officialsthe sustainable upwith claimed,then to reassessing the of strategy they as fighting ‘extremists’, Ifit the were about Ossetia. South assertive the on its jurisdiction force of radicalization height atthe forces were illegitimately imposed by Bolsheviks.” the was it because autonomy, Ossetian South the abolish to not right no had “we explains: Nodar measures. Natadze of Ossetian South Themoderate the autonomy subsequent and the abolition the of favor in voted leaders opposition ‘moderate’ the Even parliament. elected newly ofGamsakhurdia. overthrow the linked totheviolencedecision were directly long andthe year which only was stopped war, after Kaufman, ‘ This event was transformative in terms of final decision by the Georgian government to the as well as society the of conformity is the event the of dimension surprising Another Modern Hatreds ’, p.111 84 It seems that at this stage the society and political 55 CEU eTD Collection society. Georgian of the influences ontheradicalization event-specific between the relationshipthe unparalleled in anywhereelse establishUnion. Sovietthe Itwasthe maingoal research this to of time, Georgia experienced a drasticin surge instability political and social transformation, period of short a relatively within initially As observed, behavior actors. the of shapethe rather alone constitutes only half negatively independence. the country’ssocial affected This structures road to fact and political the story: the structuresits for almostterritorial years. units 80 As has experienceGeorgia’s shown,the pre-existing themselves do not define the outcomes, but from their communist predecessors in terms of their democratic credentials. much not different were spectrum, the political dominate cameto that movements the Georgia, the evolution obstructed civilsociety of tradition absent apractically legacy of Soviet the However, demands. of nationalist involved democratic soon very which agendas, political their into regime Communist corrupt and tolerantinorganizations. Thesegroupings the succeededfrustration popularre-channeling with the movements.Perestroika Instead,massivefor political instability. liberalization The of politicalthe sphereby brought the and dissolution Sovietthe Unionof breakdown the and institutionalof grounds cohesion created that especially it gradual was the Foremost, movement. national of Georgian the character radical to the in the case of Conclusion The breakup of the Soviet Union activated the legacy which it had been implementing on implementing been had it which legacy the activated Union Soviet the of breakup The The situation in Georgia in the late 1980s contained a number of elements that contributed campaign, for the first time enabled the emergence of multiple political multiple of emergence the enabled time first the for campaign, 56 CEU eTD Collection violent methods were utilized to confront the increasingly assertive minorities. assertive increasingly the confront to utilized were methods violent theconfrontation, of stage second the In state. the of cohesion institutional the destabilizing in were instrumental etc.Thesemethods hunger publicactions strikes, peaceful protests, this way, the firstlater concentrated on challenging the state authorityphase by raising issues of a nationalist character. In but issues, of non-nationalist on rallying by off thestarted movement national the that evolutionshown have I faced. it confrontation of modes in ofchanges the and the movements national the of evolution the Georgian into national movement was shapedmovements. bynational the between relationship the of dynamics the shaped which events, transformative and structures between pre-existing the inhaveas theinteraction wereembedded shown, I outcomes, particular The havecould beentaken. of that action courses many ofthe one potential remain within the Georgian territory, clashbecame inevitable. the Violencejust was however, intendforfeit to its didnot over autonomies andconversely,the prepared to autonomies, control not was movement national Georgian the Because radicalism. movement’s the of dimension organizations into the center of the political arena. political the centerof into the organizations radical the propelled and regime Communist the marginalized which transformations confrontation which was galvanized by April the 9 massacre, producedsocial and political The in place. regime the with course collision on movement national emerging the set inevitably in regime democratization participate the leadership to Communist of Georgian the unwillingness The independence. to path its on faced movement national the challenges the of frame the within The analysis of the data on mass demonstrations and riots revealed interesting insights interesting revealed riots and demonstrations mass on data the of analysis The The be understood can society Georgian the of radicalization the shown, has analysis the As emergence of national movements in Georgia’s autonomous shapedanother republics autonomous in movements national emergenceGeorgia’s of 57 CEU eTD Collection Abkhaz and the South Ossetians still “frozen”. Ossetians still remain South Abkhaz andthe the theGeorgians, between relations the that is unfortunate It attention. paid appropriate not AbkhazOssetian andthe South however had theirgenuine grievances and concernswhich were The byforces’. as “external manipulation of being result developments the contemporaneous the still regard they moreover, independence, to road their on obstacle asan Ossetians South the and country, which still the of fragmentation territorial the daysaffected in those generated processes Georgia. The remains divided. The Georgians perceivedsociety. by communist the roleassumed destructive the their relations withsociety wasthe very fragmented not Abkhazonly due to the absence of civic consciousness, but also due to the national movements in terms of consolidation of the society. As I have shown, the Georgian of success the determined authorities local the with cooperation the that revealed also research the haveFurthermore, significantly structures, higher public activity. on autonomous record andmobilizationstructures instance, outcomes the minorities.the For of had minorities the that Almost twenty years have passed since the first attempts at national mobilization in mobilization national attempts at first the since yearshavepassed Almost twenty autonomous of existence the between correlation apositive alsorevealed The data 58 CEU eTD Collection Available at: Available 1992," Beissinger, Mark R., Perspective,’ in Perspective,’ Cornell, Svante61, 2002. Caucasus –Casesin Georgia E., ‘AutonomyCornell Svante as Resolution: Case Studies from European the Periphery,Academia a press: Gent, 2004. Source E., ‘ of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical in Repertoires formerUSSR,’ the Beissinger, MarkR.,‘Nationalist Political Violence and State: the Authority and Contentious Cambridge University 2002. Press, Coppieters,(ed.), Brussels University 2002. press, in Conflict,’ Coppieters, Bruno, ‘In defense of Bruno,the Homeland: Intellectuals and the Georgian-Abkhaz State ‘ ‘ Valerie, Bunce, Beissinger, Mark R., ‘ 1985-1991 and (eds.), Duncan Aves, Jonathan, ‘The Slavonic andeast European Studies, University RiseLondon, 1991. of and Fall of the Georgian Nationalist Movement,’ in Hosking, Aves Eurasia: an Institutional Account,’ in Account,’ an Eurasia: Institutional Brubaker, ‘Nationhood Rogers, and the National in Question Sovietthe Union and Post-Soviet Europe, Brubaker, Rogers, ‘ ‘ Jonathan, Aves, Nationalism, Anderson, Benedict, ‘ References ,’ Cambridge University Press: 1999. research data on mass demonstrations and massin research onmass 1987-1992. events the data demonstrations Soviet Union and ’ Cambridge: Cambridge 1996. University Press, , London and NewYork: Pinter Publishers, 1992. ’ London: Verso,1983. Secession, History andSocial Sciences Secession, http://www.princeton.edu/~mbeissin/research.htm World Politics Subversive Institutions: theDesignandDestructionSubversive ofSocialismandthe Paths inGeorgia1987–1990, to NationalIndependence The RoadtoPost-Communism: Movements Independent in theSovietUnion Nationalism NationhoodReframed: andtheNational Question intheNew "Mass Demonstrations andMass Violent Events in theFormer USSR,1987- Autonomy andConflict: Ethnoterritoriality andSeparatismthe South in Nationalist mobilizationand thecollapse ofthe Soviet Union The Georgian – AbkhazianConflict The Georgian Imagined Communities: Reflections of Spreadon theOrigin Imagined Communities:Reflections and , Vol. 54, 2002,, Vol.pp.245-76. 54, ,’ Uppsala University, Peace and Conflict Monograph ,’ UppsalaMonograph PeaceandConflict No. Series University, Comparative Politics Theory andSociety 59 , Brunno Coppieters and Michel andCoppieters , Brunno Michel Huysseune, , Vol.No. 4. 30, pp. 401-422. , Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb., 1994, pp. 47-78. ,’ Europeanization ,’ Europeanization Conflict and ’ London: School of ,’ New York: CEU eTD Collection http://www.idea.int/publications/georgia/upload/Book-01_scr.pdf Georgia, Journey Nodia, Ghia, ‘ 1996. Nodia, Ghia, ‘Political turmoil in Georgia and the ethnic policies of Zviad Gamsakhurdia,’ in (ed.), Bruno Coppieters, Gamsakhurdia,’ Zviad of policies ethnic the and inGeorgia turmoil ‘Political Ghia, Nodia, and Eurasian studies, Berkeley: University California,of 1997. Nodia, Ghia, ‘ 1923 –1939 Martin, Terry, ‘ press: 2001. Hill, Fiona, ‘ Books Ltd.: London, 1994. ‘ Suzanne, Goldenberg, Press, 1985. Kaufmann, Stuart J., ‘ and Georgia Nationalism and History:ThePolitics Nation-Building inPost-SovietArmenia, Azerbaijanof Jones, Stephen, ‘Populism in Georgia’ in and V.Schwartz RamzilDonald Panossian, (ed.), http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472098985-ch10.pdf Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. the SocialComposition ofPatrioticGroupings amongthe Smaller European Nations Miroslav, Hroch, University: Cambridge,Mass., 1993. ‘ Liah, Garfield, http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/o_papers_pdf/2002-op06-georgia.pdf in the in Georgia,’ Republic of Conflict and Proliferation Arm Small Gun: the of Barrel the from ‘Politics Spyros, Demetriou, Conflict Studies Cotter, John M., ‘Cultural Security Dilemmas and Ethnic Conflict in Georgia’, http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JCS/bin/get4.cgi?directory=spring99/&filename=cotter.htm#58 S tephen, “Georgia: Nationalism from under the Rubble,” in ,’ in Building Democracy in Georgia: Attempts to Establish Democracy in Democracy Establish to Attempts inGeorgia: Democracy in Building ,’ ,’ Cornelll University London, Ithaca Press: 2001. , University 1994. of Toronto: Report on ethnic conflicts in the Russian FederationandTranscaucasia intheRussian onethnicconflicts Report Two Attempts to Establish Democracy in Georgia: Summarizing a 15 Year-Long inGeorgia: a15 AttemptstoEstablishDemocracy Summarizing Two Causes and Visions of ConflictCauses andVisions inAbkhazia of Discussion Paper 1 , available at: , available The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and The Affirmative Nationalism Soviet Union, in the Nationalism: Five Nationalism: Roads toModernity Social Preconditions ofNationalRevival in Europe: a Comparative Analysis of Modern Hatreds: theSymbolicPolitics ofEthnic War Pride ofSmallNations:theCaucasus andPost-Sovietdisorder Small Arms Survey Small Arms Contested Borders in the Caucasus, Contestedin the Borders , Occasional Paper No. 6, November 2002, available at: Novemberavailable 6, 2002, Paper No. , Occasional , May , May 2003. 60 ,’ Cambridge, MA: Harvard,’ Cambridge, University ,’ Institute of Slavic, East European, of East Slavic, ,’ Institute VUB University Press: Brussels, Press: University VUB After Independence ,’ Cornelll University Cornelll ,’ Available at: Available in TheJournalof , available at: ,’ Harvard ,’ Zed ,’ , CEU eTD Collection Comparison’ availableat: Wheatley, Dynamics ‘Group Jonathan, and Institutional Change in Georgia: AFour Region in theformer Soviet Union Wheatley, Jonathan, ‘ Soviet Union ‘ Suny,Ronald Grigor, Smith, Anthony Smith, Vol.1996, 25, p.841-881. Sewell, William H., ‘Historical Events as Transformations of Structures,’ in Structures,’ of Transformations as Events ‘Historical H., William Sewell, 2, pp.191-233. Roeder, Philip G., ‘Soviet Federalism and Ethnic Mobilization,’ in Mobilization,’ Ethnic and Federalism ‘Soviet G., Philip Roeder, Contested BordersintheCaucasus, Zverev, Alexei,‘Ethnic in Conflicts the Caucasus (ed.), 1988–1994,’ inBruno Coppieters, Roeder, Philip G., ‘ Ann Arbor: University Michigan of Press, 1996. Change: Essays Azerbaijan, intheHistory andGeorgia ofArmenia, in Georgians,’ andthe ‘Georgia Robert, Parsons, ,’ Stanford University 1993. Press, D., ‘ Red Sunset: the Failure ofSoviet Politics The EthnicOrigins of Nations, Georgia from national awakeningGeorgia from totheroserevolution:delayed transition The RevengeofthePast:RevolutionandCollapsethe Nationalism, of http://www.oei.fu-berlin.de/en/projekte/cscca/downloads/jw_prop.pdf ,’ Burlington, 2005. VT: Ashgate, VUB University VUB University Press: Brussels, 1996. 61 ’ Oxford,UK: Blackwell, 1988. Transcaucasia: NationalismandSocial Transcaucasia: ,’ Princeton University Press, 1993. World Politics , Ronald Suny, Grigor (ed.), Theory andSociety , Vol. 43, No. ,