GEORGIA CLOSE TO “CIRCASSIAN GENOCIDE” STATEMENT
By Nino Kharadze
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR)
CAUCASUS REPORTING SERVICE, No. 592
May 24 2011
UK
Some analysts warn that delving too deep into other people’s history
could create problems in the here and now.
Georgia’s parliament is moving closer to stating officially that
Russia’s expulsion of the Circassian people from their homeland in
the 19th century was an act of genocide. If it does so, the move is
certain to do more damage to an already troubled relationship with
Moscow, which rejects this description of the historical events.
Parliament began its consideration of the issue on May 13 by hearing an
expert report by Merab Chukhua, a professor at Tbilisi’s Javakhishvili
State University. Chukhua recommended that legislators acknowledge that
Russian imperial action against the Circassians qualified as genocide.
He said the evidence available indicated that from 1763 to 1864, “the
political and military leadership of the Russian Empire thoroughly
planned and implemented ethnic cleansing of Circassian territories”. A
20 per cent loss in population over this period of conquest meant
the term “genocide” was justified, he added.
Chukhua said more than 90 per cent of Circassians were killed or
expelled from their homeland, while Russians and Cossacks were
systematically settled in these areas.
Around five million Circassians now live outside the northwest
Caucasus, mainly in Turkey, and only a million still live in what
was their homeland until Russia began its southward expansion.
Nugzar Tsiklauri, chairman of the parliamentary committee for diaspora
and Caucasian affairs, said he and his colleagues would discuss the
professor’s findings and decide whether to submit them for a full
debate in the legislature.
Analysts believe the issue has come to the fore because of Georgian
anger at Moscow’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as
sovereign states in 2008. Both entities have been de facto separate
from Georgia since conflicts in the early Nineties.
Also in the mix is the fact that the 2014 Winter Olympics will take
place in Sochi, part of the Circassian’s heartland before they were
driven out from Black Sea coastal areas. Some Circassian organisations
have protested against the games being located here. Sochi is also
close to Russia’s border with Abkhazia.
Tsiklauri denied a direct connection between the winter games and
the genocide debate, although Georgian deputy prime minister Giorgi
Baramidze said in November that Russia did not deserve the Olympics
because of its past policies in the North Caucasus.
“I don’t think the Olympic movement has much to do with the murder of
hundreds of thousands of people in the North Caucasus, in Chechnya
and elsewhere,” he said. “Sochi, as you well know, is very close to
the border with Georgia, and [Abkhazia] is under illegal occupation.”
Gigi Tevzadze, the rector of Ilia State University in Tbilisi, sees
a direct connection between the two issues.
“The fact that genocide occurred on the lands where they’re holding
the Olympcics could give people serious pause for thought,” he said.
Tevzadze added that a formal statement on Circassian genocide would
improve Georgia’s relationships with the peoples of the North Caucasus.
Most analysts, however, warned politicians against provoking Russia.
Even if the proposed genocide decision is right, they argue, it will
not benefit Georgia politically.
“Recognising the genocide isn’t going to persuade the international
community not to hold the Olympics in Sochi,” Paata Zakareishvili,
head of the Institute for the Study of Nationalism and Conflict, said.
“Russia may well take retaliatory action, for example by accusing
Georgia of organising acts of terrorism in the North Caucasus, or of
inflaming the situation generally.”
Zakareishvili’s comments were echoed by experts like Mamuka Areshidze,
head of the Caucasus Centre for Strategic Studies, who said he opposed
a formal genocide statement, even if 19th century history had to be
considered as Georgia formulated its policy towards the North Caucasus.
One result, Areshidze warned, would be that “other nations which
believe they too are victims of genocide will appeal to Georgia –
first and foremost the Armenians and the Meskhetian Muslims”.
The Meskhetians were removed wholesale from Soviet Georgia in the
1940s, and are only now beginning to return, while Armenians have
consistently pressed for Ottoman Turkish actions in 1915 to be
recognised as a genocide.
“It would be hard for us to explain to the Armenians why we won’t
recognise their genocide – yet then we would lose our strategic
partners Turkey and Azerbaijan,” Areshidze said.
Backing the Circassian cause could also have serious effects in
the already smouldering North Caucasus. The Circassians who still
live there have struggled to unite as they live spread over several
autonomous areas, shared with the Karachay, Balkar and other ethnic
groups. A growth in nationalism and attempts to unify Circassian
groups could lead to land disputes and bloodshed in the region.
United States officials have already appealed for calm. In February,
James Clapper, director of United States national intelligence,
noted Georgia’s attempts to engage in the North Caucasus.
“Moscow’s continued military presence in, and political-economic
ties to, Georgia’s separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia,
combined with Georgia’s dissatisfaction with the status quo, account
for some of the tensions,” he told a Senate select committee hearing.
“Georgia’s public efforts to engage with various ethnic groups in
the Russian North Caucasus have also contributed to these tensions.”
Nino Kharadze works for Radio Liberty in Georgia.