[Skip to Content]

Subscribe to our web page

აქციის მონაწილეების საყურადღებოდ! საერთო ცხელი ხაზი +995 577 07 05 63

 

 საერთო ცხელი ხაზი +995 577 07 05 63

POLITICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONFLICT REGIONS / Statement

The Recent Statements Made by Georgian Politicians Concerning Matters of Conflict and Peace Are Unacceptable

The Social Justice Center condemns the recent inappropriate statements by Georgian politicians on conflicts and peace policy and urges political parties to recognize their responsibility in shaping the country's future and align their positions with the state's announced peace policy.

This month, while addressing grave human rights violations in the Tskhinvali region and Abkhazia, specifically the murders of Tamaz Ginturi and Temur Karbaia, politicians have made troubling statements. These remarks sharply deviate from the declared state policy of peace, appearing more as an instrumentalization of conflict issues and populism, contradicting the peace policy's principles.

On December 6, 2023, during a visit to TV Pirveli's "Public Policy" program, Shalva Natelashvili, the leader of the Labor Party, reiterated a chauvinistic narrative from the 1990s. This narrative fosters speculative and distorted notions about the ethnogenesis of the Abkhazians, exacerbating existing tensions. Natelashvili said, "If Apsuan people want, they can go to Kabardo-Balkaria. We received the folded Apsuans, hugged them, and they thanked us like this. They didn't have clothes when they came to Gudauta. The world should not think that we and the Apsuan people have equal rights. Whoever wants an independent state, drag them from where they came from and create it there." Regrettably, the program's presenter, Ekaterine Mishveladze, did not publicly challenge this irresponsible statement by the politician nor provide an appropriate critique.

On December 13, 2023, the leader of the "European Georgia" political party, Giga Bokeria, while commenting on the murder of Temur Karbaia in Gali, said: "Under this government, 80% of the electricity generated from Enguri HPP in recent years, and sometimes more, is supplied to the occupation regime. The question is, why? Why are we financing and supplying energy to our enemy? How does this change if the situation in occupied Abkhazia is worsening for our citizens, murders continue, and our enemy does not pay any price for this? Today, using this instrument, we can put pressure on the occupation regime and the proxies of Russia. We can demand that if the situation is not fixed for our citizens, Engurhesi will be completely closed for them." Before that, on his official Facebook page, Giga Bokeria wrote: "The constant whine of the government and opposition parties for a peaceful solution is only a manifestation of weakness and helplessness, and instead of mobilizing our society around the right goal, it only leads to demoralization and thereby distracts us from our national objectives."

The December 11, 2023 statement of Beka Davituliani, an MP of the ruling political party, was particularly alarming, where he directly opposed the peace policy announced by his party: "Unfortunately, today we do not have the strength to take back these territories by forceful methods immediately. If we had it, we would certainly have done so, but we have these circumstances."

The statements above diverge from Georgia's official peace policy, established in 2010, which explicitly asserts the nation's commitment to achieving the goals of de-occupation and conflict resolution solely through peaceful and diplomatic means. Military intervention is expressly excluded as a viable option. Additionally, as outlined in the government's decree dated January 27, 2010, titled "Engagement Through Cooperation," Georgia is dedicated to extending the benefits derived from ongoing reforms and integration into the European Union and Euro-Atlantic structures to the populations of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia.

After 2010, the instruments and programs of the peace policy have expanded and deepened. For instance, the 2014 and 2017 visions outlined by the state ministers on reconciliation and civil equality and the peace initiative 'Step to a Better Future' underscore the importance of settlement and reconciliation with divided societies, emphasizing the need for restoring trust.

All the statements discussed above contradict this nature of the peace policy because:

  1. Fails to acknowledge the significance of peace as a fundamental political concept (B. Davituliani's statement).
  2. Heightens hostile and chauvinistic sentiments towards Abkhazians (S. Natelashvili's statement).
  3. Neglects the Georgian-Abkhazian/Georgian-Ossetian dimension of the conflict, the rationale for engaging in dialogue with these societies, fostering trust, and providing them with appropriate human rights and social benefits through reforms and European integration efforts (G. Bokeria's statement).

Furthermore, these statements diverge from the expectations and aspirations of our society, which overwhelmingly advocates for conflict resolution exclusively through peaceful means, confirmed by recent quantitative studies (CRRC, UNWOMEN).[1]

In the current context, where the Abkhazian and Ossetian communities closely follow political and public discussions in Tbilisi, the continuous string of such statements only deepens mistrust and separation. Over the years, growing estrangement and suspicion between divided societies have reduced the possibility of conflict resolution, transforming it into an irreversible and severe loss. Regrettably, Georgian politicians seem to overlook the importance of building trust.

Moreover, our political class appears incapable of adapting to the changed regional context and formulating realistic and compelling political initiatives for conflict resolution. Following the 2nd Karabakh War and Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine, the Abkhazian and South Ossetian communities have become increasingly concerned about their future and security. More specifically, trust in Russia has declined, and concerns are particularly pronounced in Abkhazia, where civil society openly opposes Russia's appropriation of resources and strategic facilities. Simultaneously, the process of Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia joining the European Union has gained momentum after the war in Ukraine. This development will have a profound impact on conflict resolution and the peace policy of these countries. Peace is a fundamental principle of the European Union, which has substantial experience, resources, and knowledge in conflict resolution and peaceful transformation.

Georgia's peace policy is currently facing a crisis. Since 2008, policies related to conflict regions have not kept pace with the regional context, concerns, and expectations of local communities. Regrettably, the Georgian government has not adopted de-occupation or renewed peace policy strategies. Instead of the political opposition presenting new visions, unifying messages, and compromise solutions for Georgian, Abkhazian, and Ossetian societies, they are stuck in immature populism. It is important to note that the discussed political parties lack a comprehensive vision for de-occupation and often confine themselves to superficial statements on these critical issues.

We recognize that the rise of political populism can be attributed to the growing distrust of parties and a shortage of human and intellectual resources within these political organizations.

Considering the above, the Social Justice Center urges political parties, their leaders, and representatives to:

  1. Exercise caution in their statements on conflict-related matters and align them with the main principles and spirit of the peace policy. This policy recognizes the resolution of conflicts only through peaceful and political means and emphasizes increased involvement and cooperation with divided societies.
  2. Comprehend the current changes in the region and the emerging new and historical geopolitical opportunities for Georgia. With the principles of coordination and agreements between the government and political parties, work towards renewing and strengthening the peace policy. This effort should focus on offering new alternatives and fostering dialogue for divided societies. It is crucial that this process involves our partners and adheres to principles of accountability and genuine participation of the population affected by the conflict.

Footnote and Bibliography

[1] Note: These documents will be published shortly and are not publicly availableby now.

The website accessibility instruction

  • To move forward on the site, use the button “tab”
  • To go back/return use buttons “shift+tab”