Talk:Abkhazia

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Not 'de facto independent' but 'partially recognized'

A country is not a 'de facto independent' since at least one other state of UN recognizes its sovereignity, but 'de jure' independent state. This is an international Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia were recognized by a UN member Russian Federation. Here is a quote from the 'de facto' article of Wikipedia: '...a nation with de facto independence, like Somaliland, is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory.' We may use the 'partially recognized' characteristic as appropriate both here and in South Ossetia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.148.66 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bearing in mind that Russia basically decides what happens there and is an occupying power, is "de facto independent" true? They're not independent of Russia, more a puppet state gently being annexed...

Furthermore, three of the four refs for "de facto independent" are older than 5 years. Should we get some newer citations? Malick78 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

First, Russia doesn't fully decide what happens there. It couldn't impose the Abkhazian president against the will of its people, for example.

Some experts would explicitly disagree with you that Abkhazia is a puppet state:[1]

“ Yet it would be a mistake, one most distant observers make, to regard Abkhazia merely as some kind of rogue Russian puppet-state. ”

This is from the article by Thomas de Waal from London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

It's undeniable that Russia has very strong influence in Abkhazia. However it would be wrong to call it a 'puppet state', imho. Finally, it's far from certain that it's being annexed (even gently). Do you have sources proving that this is indeed what has been happening over the last 5 years? Alæxis_¿question? 09:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

NATO POV

references are us( or nato nations)/ georgian.. abkhazian references/ russian blanked out to insignificant portions.. neutral references (say from non aligned movement nations) missing..

This is really disturbing sometimes. But this is English Wikipedia, and, of course, the editors use mostly Western media. They just do not have other sources to use, as next to noone speaks non-Western languages in Europe/US and there are no sites that provide any information free from US corporate interests. Well, maybe some Egyptian sources, some Chinese do write in English. Maybe some from Middle East like Al Jazeera may have been quoted more frequently, just to give an independent POV sometimes. However, most people in the West think Western medias are neutral during the conflict and just do not ask questions about pro-Georgian POV in Wikipedia links, both medias and NGOs. Of course, if you analyse the discourse of these articles, most are absolutely pro-Georgian. But what can be done about it? We have only one media system, and if most medias are controlled by US corporations, we just do not have much choice.

We have choices...There are so many english newspapers in india, pakistan and other nations OUTSIDE EU AND NATO states..the size of the circulating volumes and size of population coverage will match (if not exceed) most of the western ones..If people are too lazy to have a look in at other neutral portals, then dont blame the lack of availability..i feel that excuse is an excuse for laziness and insincerity..Please note that many of the asian news agencies like ndtv, zee, dawn ..have independent reporters at many of the conflict zones , besides having inputs from western sources-(from which they portray an independent neutral observation without any need for sexing it up to favour their nation's role)..So, stop excusing laziness and stop being myopic..That is a request!..Cityvalyu (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

could you be more specific? Like what exactly you don't like and what exactly do you propose. Alæxis_¿question? 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Soviet constitution

Article says:

Invoking the right of secession under an interpretation of Articles 70 and 72 of the USSR Constitution,[14] in 1992 the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia.

The way this is worded suggests that there was such a right under the USSR constitution, when a reasonable interpretation of the document does not support that view. The quoted articles, 70:

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.

and 72:

Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

(Quoted from reference cited in article, namely this.)

Now, article 70 says nothing specifically about secession. At best, one could argue that the principles such as "free self-determination" and "voluntary association" imply a right to secession, but that is very arguable. As to article 72, it explicitly mentions the right of secession, but specifically for Union Republics, not ASSRs such as Abkhazia. So, Abkhazia has no right to succeed under article 72; and article 70 nowhere mentions a right to secession. In fact, one could argue, that insofar as article 70 implies a right to secession, that implied right is expressed by article 72; the fact that a right to secession is mentioned for Union Republics, but not for ASSRs, can be taken to mean that ASSRs had no such right under the Soviet consitution.

-No one denies that abkhazia did not have the right to secede from the USSR under article 72. However, the interpretation is based on the fact that Abkhazia was from 1917 to 1931 a SSR, and did have the right to secede legally from the USSR, up until 1931. Stalin took this right away from the Abkhazian people, without their consultaion. This is more than Kosovo ever had, as far as I know, they never had the right legally for independence. Also, Abkhazia and South Ossetia lived as separate subjects under the russian empire for centuries prior to being incorporated into Georgia in 1931.Guitar3000 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Of course, I am assuming through all of this the English translation referenced above is reasonably accurate, since I don't speak Russian. But, since this translation was published in 1985 by a Soviet publisher, I assume that amounts to official endorsement by the Soviet government.)

So, here we have an article, claiming that the Soviet constitution says things which it doesn't appear to say, and not even referencing who makes these claims. So I think this sentence has to go. --SJK (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also questioned this change, and I agree with you. I've restored the original wording. Khoikhoi 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

since the removed text depicts the position accurately without ambiguity (see:Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.), may i point out to kho khoi that he lacks the consensus to change the long standing "status quo"..i oppose the removal of referenced consensus text UNILATERALLY(vandalism?)..Shall restore status quo till consensus is arrived at talk page..Cityvalyu (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the status quo, as I've pointed out, it was only changed very recently. "Practice what you preach". ;-) Khoikhoi 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

“ Статья 3. В союзной республике, имеющей в своем составе автономные республики, автономные области и автономные округа, референдум проводится отдельно по каждой автономии. За народами автономных республик и автономных образований сохраняется право на самостоятельное решение вопроса о пребывании в Союзе ССР или в выходящей союзной республике, а также на постановку вопроса о своем государственно правовом статусе. ”

“ The referendum is held separately in all the autonomous republics, oblasts and okrugs of the union republic [that wishes to secede]. The peoples of those autonomies have the right to decide independently whether they want to be part of the USSR or of the seceding union republic and can also raise the question of [the change of] their legal status ”

This is the article from the 1990 USSR law on secession (and my approximate translation of it) and not from the 1977 Constitution. Indeed according to this law a separate referendum had to be held in an autonomous republic if its parent union republic wished to secede from USSR. Alæxis_¿question? 07:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• The link you give above for the USSR law on secession returns an error on my computer. Could you please check and correct the link to this important document? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. Here's another link to the external site. Alæxis_¿question? 06:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. Many thanks. --Zlerman (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia's (latest) declaration of independence upon which Medvedev extended his recognition dates to 1999. I don't think that any of the Soviet legal acts was valid at that time. --Kober^Talk 13:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think between 1992-1999, Abkhazia's constitutional status (from its own perspective) was quite confused. I don't know whether it considered itself independent. The UN secretary general reports say that Abkhazia did not consider itself to have any constitutional links to Georgia. We would have to have a look whether its parliament passed any relevant acts during or shortly after the war. sephia karta 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm opposed to mentioning all these legalistic claims and counter-claims in the lead section. --Kober^Talk 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia: second paragraph in lead section

As an impartial outside reader (I am neither Georgian nor Abkhazian) I am frustrated by the recent edit-warring between Cityvalyu and a group of other editors. Two observations:

(a) The resolution of the Georgian Parliament cannot be dismissed as an unreliable source. It is an official state document in English and specifically uses the word "occupied". By putting "Russian-occupied territory" in quotation marks we indicate that we are quoting from this document, and it is not permissible to change a direct quotation to a free construction, such as Russian-administered territory. The second citation is from a Georgian news agency and can be dropped as biased. Its main contribution, however, is the use of the adjective "non-binding" in reference to the Parliamentary resolution. I think this is highly significant and actually goes to show the lack of Georgian bias in this news item.

(b) The insertion of Kosovo in the first sentence of the paragraph looks odd and inappropriate. If there is a need to discuss analogies between Abkhazia and Kosovo, this should be done properly and comprehensively in a separate sentence or paragraph, but somewhere else in the article – not in the lead.

I am correcting the wording of the second paragraph in line with these thoughts. To me it now reads balanced and NPOV. I appeal to you most strongly to stop this edit-warring: please consider the general user of Wikipedia who needs stable authoritative information, without daily or even hourly reversals. --Zlerman (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil.ge is generally a very good source, because it just presents who said what, from all sides. sephia karta 17:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased statements in 4th paragraph

I find the following sentences objectionable: "During 2008 South Ossetia War in August 2008, Russian and Abkhazian forces attacked the Georgian police units located in the region, and occupied Kodori Gorge which had never been under the Russo-Abkhazian control before. The majority of the population was forced to flee the gorge and to move Western Georgia." The statement that the population was "forced to flee" is dubious. Most accounts indicate that the civilian population panicked when the Georgian forces packed up and left, and did the same. The article that is cited is no longer available, and I have not seen any other articles indicating that this was a forced expulsion. A more impartial sentence would be: "The majority of the population fled the gorge and moved to Western Georgia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.178.52 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

on this edit. I tried to separate statements with different levels of credibility. The first tells us that many Abkhaz left/were expelled and that various new peoples were settled in Abkhazia by the Tsarist government. I've brought one ref for this but I don't think anyone would dispute it. So here I've removed "Modern Abkhaz historians maintain" as it's in reality a mainstream version of events.

The second statement is that Georgian tribes inhabited Abkhazia since the times of Colchis. As far as I understand it's a mainstream view among Georgian historians so it should be attributed like 'according to Georgian historians' Here I haven't changed anything besides moving the ref and doing a minor rewording that did not alter the meaning.

In the third statement another theory is described according to which Abkhaz are the descendants of 16th-century migrants from North Caucasus. Unlike the previous one this theory is marginal - we have a reference telling that it has little support among Georgian academics. So the words "According to these scholars" were clearly misleading and I've changed them to "Some Georgian scholars even claim". Alæxis_¿question? 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)