TWO SIDES OF THE SAME RESOLUTION

On 9 September, upon a Georgian initiative, the UN General Assembly held a vote on the resolution "On the situation of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, Georgia". Forty-eight delegations voted for the document with 19 against and 78 abstentions. Forty-seven delegations did not participate in the voting. Tbilisi described the outcome of the vote as a major success for Georgian diplomacy. According to Mikheil Saakashvili, the resolution, which "provides for the return of refugees to the Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali regions and the protection of their property, reaffirms the territorial integrity of Georgia". "Georgia will continue its intensive diplomatic and political work for a peaceful end to the occupation of the country and a peaceful restoration of its territorial integrity," he said.

Russia's assessment was diametrically opposed. Its Foreign Ministry's comment on this issue noted that "Georgia submitted a clearly politicized draft which speculates on humanitarian topics". The document, according to Russia's Foreign Ministry, "is not directed at alleviating the plight of refugees and IDPs in the region following Tbilisi's aggression against South Ossetia in August 2008, but only aims to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Georgia within borders that no longer exist." "This resolution is removed from reality, and we see no need for urgent steps for the return of refugees," said the head of the CIS Department at the Foreign Ministry, Andrey Kelin, who oversees relations with Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, in an interview with Russia's Kommersant daily. Another senior official in the Foreign Ministry explained that the resolution is not binding and, for this reason, Moscow will simply ignore the document.

Indeed, the contents of the document can hardly be acceptable to Russia. The prescriptive part of the resolution consists of 8 points, each of which contains specific recommendations on the humanitarian situation in the conflict regions of Georgia. Inter alia, it reaffirms the right of all internally displaced persons, refugees and their descendants, regardless of ethnicity, to return to their homes throughout Georgia, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The resolution specifically stipulates the need to respect the property rights of refugees and contains a call to refrain from acquiring property in violation of these rights. In addition, the document requires a timetable to be established "which would ensure the voluntary and unhindered return of all refugees affected by conflicts in Georgia."

Along with the other 47 countries, Azerbaijan supported the resolution, thus confirming its principled and consistent position in support of the principle of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of our neighbouring state and its interest in resolving the humanitarian problems there.

 However, this support is unlikely to be understood as Baku's willingness to associate itself with all the tough measures taken by the Georgian leadership towards Russia. The past few days have confirmed the correctness of this conclusion. Several days ago, the Georgian delegation submitted a proposal to PACE to deprive the Russian delegation of the right to vote in the forthcoming autumn session of the Assembly in late September. Under PACE rules, the signatures of 20 parliamentarians are required to put a proposal forward for discussion. The document already has 70 signatures, with MPs from Poland and Lithuania heading the list - 16 and 8 signatures, respectively. In addition, the document was signed by parliamentarians from Denmark, Great Britain, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Austria, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Italy, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Ireland, Hungary and even Monaco. The authors of the document accuse Russia of reneging on PACE Resolutions 1633 (2008) and 1647 (2009) and call for "a response to a policy based on force and provocation", said News-Georgia.

 The question arises about Tbilisi's recent initiative: was there any point in going for such a tough confrontation with Moscow after a successful vote in the UNGA? Tbilisi has only increased suspicions, in this way, that the true meaning of the resolution is not to find a solution to the humanitarian crisis in Georgia, but to whip up political pressure and propaganda against Moscow and to attempt (quite frankly, probably in vain) to isolate Russia in the international arena. This confrontational policy is unlikely to lead Georgia to success. And it is even less likely that this line will be supported by friends of Georgia. 

There is one more thing I would like to draw your attention to, in connection with the UN resolution. One of its most important positions was the unacceptability of demographic changes in the make up of the populations in the Abkhaz and South Ossetian regions of Georgia. In our view, this rightful stance not only allows the Georgian leadership to demand the preservation of the ethnic composition of these regions, but also places certain obligations on it with regard to a domestic policy that would lead to a change in the demographic shape of other regions of the country. This concerns, above all, the Azerbaijani-populated Kvemo Kartli region. The fact is that, since Mikheil Saakashvili came to power, the Azerbaijani population in this region of Georgia has shrunk from 224,000 (the 2002 census) to 132,000 (2007 data). In 2002, in three districts of Kvemo Kartli - Marneuli, Bolnisi and Dmanisi - Azerbaijanis formed the majority of the population (from 65 to 85 per cent of the total population in the districts). Today, Azerbaijanis are no longer the leading ethnic group in any district of this region. This trend cannot but worry Baku. Not only Georgians, Armenians and the Abkhaz and South Ossetian minorities of Georgia, but also the Azerbaijani population of the country, have the right to live a worthwhile life and to defend their rights and freedoms.

In other words, Georgia has the right to an aggressive foreign policy. But it should not forget the need to pursue a responsible domestic policy.