UNGA ENDORSES THE RIGHTS OF IDPs FROM ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA

On September 7, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Georgian-backed resolution “The status of IDPs and Refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia and Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia, Georgia”.

By a vote of 50 in favor to 17 against, with 86 abstentions, the document re-approved the rights of all Internally Displaced Persons, Refugees and their descendants from breakaway regions to return to their homes. Moscow called the document “counterproductive” whereas Tbilisi celebrated the victory of Georgian diplomacy.

A similar resolution gained only 14 votes in favor to 11 against and 105 abstentions, in 2008. The Georgian side organized better support in 2009 when the resolution was passed by 48 votes against 19 with 78 abstentions. This year two more countries were added to the list of supporters of Georgia, matched by a decrease in the number of opponent countries voting against the resolution.

Official Tbilisi hails the resolution, stating that apart from recognizing the right of displaced persons to return to their homes, it is “mindful of the urgent need to find a solution to the problems related to forced displacements in Georgia” and concerns over “forced demographic changes” and the “humanitarian situation” caused by the armed conflicts. Moreover, it acknowledges the property rights of all IDPs and calls on any party “to refrain from obtaining properties in violation of those rights.”

Further, the resolution expands the geographic scope of the Assembly’s engagement to IDPs of the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, saying that “unimpeded” humanitarian access should be ensured to all the IDPs, refuges and peoples residing in the war-affected regions, Georgia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Kakha Lomaia said.

His Russian counterpart, however, argued that the resolution did not have humanitarian aims; rather it was fully imbued with political motivations. The resolution is “outside the context of realities prevailing in the regions”, according to a statement released by the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Before the resolution had been passed, Russia even introduced a no-action motion to take the issue off the agenda. The initiative was defeated by a vote of 67 against to 32 in favor, with 54 abstentions though.

Moscow argued that early and unconditional return of refugees and internally displaced persons did not reckon the 2009 report of the Secretary-General report, including the timetable for IDP return. Adoption of the “odious” text would harm the confidence building process under the Geneva talks, the Russian side proclaimed.

The tangible achievement of the document, from a Georgian point of view, is that it explicitly voiced the issues of “occupied territories” and status of IDPs at the international level. In spite of Moscow’s attempt to isolate the small country and deprive it of an effective mechanism to speak out on IDP problems internationally, Georgia has managed to increase its number of supporters year by year. After Russia contributed to the closing of the OSCE mission in Georgia and used its veto at the UN Security Council, the General Assembly has become the largest international body where Georgia can promote the rights of displaced persons.

With these meager diplomatic tools, Tbilisi tries to create a favorable environment for a “voluntary, safe, dignified and unhindered return of all IDPs and refugees”.

For these purposes, Georgian diplomacy seeks to strengthen the moral pressure on Moscow, forcing it to reject purely humanitarian issues such as the return of exiled people to their houses. As President Mikheil Saakashvili put it “If Russia is not supporting it [the return of IDPs], then about what else can we talk with the current Russian leadership?”

Whereas such an approach may prove successful in discrediting Russian policies in Georgia’s breakaway regions, more rigid measures should be taken to ensure higher international involvement in the settlement of IDP related issues, and the mere support of Western countries is not sufficient to meet this goal. Georgia needs to make a tremendous effort to win over the countries which abstained from voting this year. However, it can be assumed that countries displaying less hostile relations with Russia may lack the motivation to help Georgia on these issues.