|
|
Abkhazia
Legal basis of statehood and sovereignty
Chapter 2. Statehood of Abkhazia
2.3. Abkhazia as a part of the Russian empire
Expansion of Osmansk Porta (Turkey) taking place in XVIII - the beginning of
XIX centuries, and Russian-Turkish and Russian-Persian wars of this period,
forced Russia to reconsider its policy in Transcaucasia. The independent
position of the kingdoms already accepted under its protection, which did not
provide reliable guarantees of their loyalty to the crown, and assurance by
oaths of fidelity “to serve Russia assiduously to their last breath”, did not
satisfy Russia. For this reason at the beginning of XIX century Russia undertook
active steps towards the establishment of control over kingdoms and princedoms
of the former Abkhazian kingdom.
The political interests of Russia in the Caucasus were not co-ordinated with
those of the states which entered under its protection, for which only formal
cover was necessary, without intervention into their internal affairs. Russia,
considering these states as a base for conducting military actions against the
Ottoman empire, in a very short time deprived them of their sovereignty,
having included all these territories within the structure of the Russian
empire. Then, using the right of a suzerain, Russia posted its armies there and
transformed all the territory into a semi-colonial formation with division into
provinces (Caucasian region controlled by a governor-general) with military
authorities at their head, having appropriated the name “Georgia” to this
formation for simplicity.
During the same period on the coast of the Black sea, on the most
strategically important site under conditions of incessant seizures by Turkey
of cities and territories, there was one independent sovereign state - Abkhazia.
Direct pressure was put as necessary upon governors of the country, and upon
rulers of neighbouring princedoms and church leaders who could be friendly,
fraternally advising it to become a part of Russia. Such advisers appeared. We
quote a fragment from the letter of the Catholicos of Abkhaz-Imers Maxim III to
Besarion Gabashvili about the expediency of a reunion of Abkhazia with Imeretia
and fidelity with Russia, from July 2nd, 1789:
“The brilliant Prince, Besarion Zakharych!
Now I write, that if his Highness the Prince deigns to send you back to our
Tsar David, report to the prince that our Tsar by his efforts will join the
possessor of Abkhazia, Sharvashidze, who will agree with the Tsar and will be
devoted to the Russian Sovereign. If he agrees and does this, there will be an
influence of only our Tsar; the possessor of Abkhazia, Sharvashidze, I think
will find great happiness. If he suddenly disagrees with our Tsar over the
question of fidelity with Russia, I think in the end he will regret it,
therefore it is better to unite now with our Tsar, to show fidelity to the
Russian Imperial throne”.
As follows from the text, the direct aim of Imeretian governors (but not
Kartvelian - "Georgian") was to attach Abkhazia to their country, though
Abkhazia was then an independent state, the subject of international law.
A corresponding initiative was also shown by the rulers of neighbouring
Mingrelia. We quote a fragment from an application by Grigol Dadiani, addressed
to Emperor Alexander I, about acceptance of Mingrelia (including Abkhazia)
within citizenship of Russia:
“I, the undersigned Prince Grigory Dadian, the lawful possessor of Odish,
Lechkhum, Svan, Abkhazian (?) and all lands belonging to my ancestors from time
immemorial, and autocratic master of these from the day of
subscription of this certificate, after fulfilment of the oath promised at a
ceremony, offer Myself with all my lawful posterity and with all my possessions,
both the above- named and any others acquired, in eternal both true
slavery and citizenship to the highest All-Russia power”.
In 1806 the Prince of Abkhazia, Keleshbei (Sharvashidze) applied for the
acceptance of Abkhazia within the citizenship of Russia, but Emperor Alexander I
hesitated with the decision of this question, though assumed to award to the
Prince the rank of General Lieutenant of the Russian army with a huge salary,
and to leave him the lifelong governorship of a princedom.
The commander-in-chief of the Russian army in Georgia and in the Caucasus,
General A. P.Tormasov, wrote on January 11th, 1810 to Earl N.P.Rumiantsev (the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia), that Nino (the spouse of G.Dadiani, and
the daughter of the last Tsar of Kartli-Kakhetia George XII, and who in the
early childhood of the Tsar’s successor ruled Mingrelia from 1805-1810)
“should be thanked for Sefer-Ali-bek’s intention to enter with all Abkhazian
possessions into the eternal protection and citizenship of Russia”. The ruler
of Abkhazia George (Sefer-bek) Sharvashidze (1810-1821), son of Keleshbei,
informing General I. Rykgof of the murder of his (George’s) father, wrote that
Keleshbei during his lifetime had given his lands to Russia, and now “if you
want, I give this land to you if only to revenge Arslan-bek (his brother who had
killed the father - author).
I undertake to obey, with all my true and assiduous citizens, the orders of
the Chief Commander of Georgia, with all my might as you depend on him.
I undertake henceforth this letter and I commit myself, and together with me
Abkhazia and all beings in Abkhazia, in hereditary citizenship and slavery to
the throne of the most gracious and august monarch of All-Russia and
also the successor of that throne, with confession of our former belief
(Christian - author).
I wish sincerely to be, to the last drop of my blood, a true subject and I
undertake by oath of allegiance and the promise in eternal citizenship to be
obedient to the Chief Commander of Georgia, together with both my true assiduous
slaves and my citizens”.
The application was supported by the commander of Russian armies in
Transcaucasia I.V.Gudovich. George Sharvashidze's pleading points were also
signed by Princes Tulaa Sharvashidze, Tuflasu Lakerbaya, Levan Zepishvili,
Khutunia and Levan Anchabadze, Hitu, Rostom, Bezhan and Jambulat Margania etc.
Entering in July 1805 under the protection of Russia, with the direct
mediation of Mingrelia, Levan and Manuchar Sharvashidze were presented in the
oath as “the Abkhazian princes, sovereigns of Samurzakan”. Chkondid
metropolitan Vissarion swore them on oath in Mingrelia. Such a situation was
explained by the fact that the Mingrelian princedom had addressed Russia for
help and entered under its protection earlier than others. From then on its
governors became the most active conductors of Russian policy in the
territory.
In the previously mentioned “Historical note about the management of the
Caucasus” S.Esadze wrote that Samurzakan made a part of Abkhazia and was ruled
by a “special branch” of Abkhazian Sharvashidze**. In the middle of XVIII
century in Abkhazia there were big disturbances, and its rulers Sharvashidze
(Chachba) at the will of the sultan were sent to Turkey. Disturbances promoted
some isolation ("autonomy") of the Samurzakan branch of Sharvashidze, the head
of which became the ruler Murzakan. His rule was serially inherited by:
Khutunia, Levan and Manuchar (Mancha).
** In sources the writing of the name of rulers of Abkhazia occurs as both
Sharvashidze and Shervashidze. To us the first is accepted, according to the
undermentioned "Charter".
Penultimate Samurzakan ruler Levan Sharvashidze was in advanced years, and
his nephew Manuchar entered into a struggle with him for advantage of
possession. The latter was incited in every possible way by Mingrelian ruler
Dadiani, to whose sister Manuchar was married. Attaching Samurzakan to Russia,
Dadiani thereby extended his power to this area. In 1834 General Akhlestyshev
entered Samurzakan and constructed the fortification of Ilori. In 1840 the ruler
of Abkhazia, Michael, proved his right to this area, and from then on it was a
separate region controlled by a police force.
In 1810 Abkhazia received the protection of the Russian empire, about which
there is a Charter given by Emperor Alexander I to the ruler of Abkhazia Prince
George Sharvashidze, by means of which the Russian Emperor declared a
recognition of the statehood of Abkhazia and the distribution over it of the
protectorate of Russia.
TheCharter given 17 Feb., 1810
By Emperor Alexander I
To the ruler of Abkhazia PRINCE GEORGE SHARVASHIDZE,
with pleading points
By the Grace of God, WE, ALEXANDER the FIRST, the EMPEROR and the AUTOCRAT of
ALL-RUSSIA: and so on and so forth. From us, to kindly loyal Ruler of the
Abkhazian land Prince George Sharvashidze, OUR IMPERIAL favour and goodwill.
Condescending on Your application to arrive in eternal citizenship of the
Russian empire and, not doubting Your fidelity to OUR high throne, explained in
Your obligatory letter, to OUR all HIGHEST Name sent, WE confirm and WE
recognise You as OUR kindly loyal hereditary Prince of the Abkhazian Possession
under the Supreme protection of the Russian empire, and including You and Your
house and all the Abkhazian possession of inhabitants in OUR loyal number, WE
promise You and Your successors OUR IMPERIAL favour and goodwill. Having
accepted also for the blessing all articles and explanations from word to word
in that Your application, which together with a copy of the Russian
translation of all of OUR bestowed Charter it is applied, WE confirm them by
OUR IMPERIAL word for US and OUR high successors with all Our force for
ever inviolably and, owing to that condescend to mark You with OUR special
favour, defining You the salary in silver of two thousand five hundred roubles
a year, and to Your Mother the kind Princess one thousand five hundred roubles
a year in silver, which as for You, so for Her, from the date of declaring Your
fidelity of citizenship on the oath, will be delivered by the Commander-in-Chief
in Georgia from OUR treasury each third of a year. In greater expression to You
of OUR IMPERIAL favour, WE award to You and Your successors a banner with the
arms of the Russian Empire, ruling to store this hereditarily in Your house, and
moreover with OUR IMPERIAL favour WE honour You as a Gentleman with an award of
the Order of St. Anna of the first class, with signs which on this warning WE
rule to assign to Yourself and to wear according to protocol. Your successors
have the right to ask for the HIGHEST confirmation of their position as Prince
of the Abkhazian possession by OUR IMPERIAL Charter, which according to OUR
mercy will also be most graciously delivered. Due to this WE charge You to rule
the people of the Abkhazian lands with mildness and justice, WE are assured that
You and Your successors are in fidelity to OUR throne, and in accuracy of
execution of duties by Yourselves You will be unshakable. In such hope and as
proof of OUR Monarchical favours to You and to all Abkhazian people, OUR
IMPERIAL Charter is given with OUR autographic signing and with the State Seal
appended. In OUR Capital City (St. Peter), 17th day of February 1810, and OUR
reign in the tenth.
Alexander I
State Chancellor Earl Rumiantsev
Far-sighted politician Keleshbei with the price of his life defined autonomy
for the Abkhazian princedom within the limits of the Russian state. Thus,
Abkhazians too cast in their lot with Russia. According to the Charter of the
Russian Emperor, the Abkhazian Princedom became a part of Russia with its own
territory, in which it kept autonomy and an independent position within the
internal political sphere. The presence of such a document highlights two
important political moments. Firstly, Abkhazia was a part of the Russian
empire independently, as a sovereign state, and the subject of world politics
and international law. As such, its position was recognised by the imperial
government and was legally fixed. Secondly, even within the limits of
empire the autonomy status had been kept, and it was still considered as a
princedom (as, say, Poland - a kingdom, and Finland - a great princedom), and
ruled by Chachba – Sharvashidze national princes.
But there was one more feature distinguishing the placement of Abkhazia under
protection of Russia. If Guria, Imeretia and other states became parts of
Russia complete with their full complement of all nationalities and families,
then when Abkhazia came under the protection of Russia, free Abkhazian
societies (Aibga, Pskhu, Dal, Tsabal, etc.) did not enter according to the
Agreement, which led to further unpredictable consequences. Such behaviour of
separate nationalities was explained by the fact that Abkhazians and the people
of this territory close to them (Ubykhs, Shapsughs, Abazinians, etc.) throughout
centuries-old history were completely free, proud and independent people, bold
and eager to fight. At all times of the country’s existence its lands was
never seized by conquerors completely, and enemies always received a worthy
repulse. Therefore the idea that Abkhazians voluntarily would enter into
submission to someone caused aversion in them.
Describing the political and state system of Abkhazia of that period,
N.I.Karlgof gives the following data:
“In the Abkhazian tribe there are two different types of political system: 1)
the Abkhazian property is a mixture of the feudal system and the appanage; 2)
other societies of the Abkhazian tribe are situated between the Abkhazian
and Circassian societies (i.e. Between the Abkhazian monarchy and democratic
republics)...
We cannot positively tell which of the two forms of political system
of the Abkhazian tribes was the first, i.e. whether small Abkhazian societies
were torn away from dependence on rulers, as was common for all Abkhazian
people, or the Abkhazian method of control is the result of the development of
Abkhazian society; whether it was originally formed in the latter case, or
occurred from the assignment of hereditary power by one of the governors of
the people who was placed by the Georgian tsars...
In Abkhazia, Svanetia, Tsebelda, Pskhu, and for Djigets, the two forms of
rule have remained to the present time, aristocratic republic or sovereignty,
i.e. Abkhazia possessed the necessary statehood to allow the country to be
independent”.
Because for Abkhazians it was unworthy and unnatural to be dependent upon
foreigners, immediately after the posting of Russian armies into the country
there was a counteraction to the Russian presence, though in the beginning of
XIX century it was purely symbolic. But counteraction, revolts and resistance
to the Russian administration and armies were always followed by
retaliatory measures by the other side, and there was a conflict escalation.
This process was warmed up, on the one hand, by military actions in the North
Caucasus, and on the other by expansion of Turkey along the Black Sea coast of
the Caucasus.
Islamisation of the territory and promises of help from Turkish invaders to
the Abkhazian governors led to separation of the country leaders and,
accordingly, split its political unity. Russia, which relied on the oath
promises stated in the Agreement of 1810, was compelled to combat in this
region on two fronts: with Turks in open fight for the Caucasus as a whole and
with the people of the Caucasus who did not tolerate the presence of Russia on
their land. We will not pause with the history of development of these events,
as it does not enter into our problem. We will only say that during this period
Makhadjirstvo began (resettlement to Turkey and the countries of the Middle
East). According to historians, the number who left Abkhazia until the end of
XIX century was 180 thousand persons. The blow to the Abkhazian ethnos was
irreparable.
As an example we will give only a quotation from the official report of
General E.A.Golovin to A.I.Chernyshev about destruction of the population and
conquest of Dal:
“... In two weeks Dal was absolutely obedient, devastated and deprived of
population, and in all it cost 10 killed and 20 wounded men, including only 6
Russian soldiers...
As to the opinion of Colonel Muravev, the settling of Dal by Russians still
very attentively demands a reason for this country being subject to attacks by
Karachaevs and other hostile tribes nearest to it... [Samurzakanians] since
times of separating from Mingrelia and entering under direct control of
Russian leaders, express the greatest diligence, do not know dangers and under
the first requirement appeared from 600 to 700 persons in number, which is
rather considerable given the small population of the Samurzakan district...”.
We quote this section not only with the purpose of showing the result of
retaliatory measures by the Russian army, but mainly to note that as a result of
the devastation of Abkhazian lands, including the Samurzakan area belonging
to Abkhazia, there appeared a problem with the resettlement of this
territory.
Despite the preservation of state sovereignty and autonomies of Abkhazia by
Russia, instability within the territory still disturbed it. The Russian
administration considered the developed instability in Abkhazia as being due to
the governor of the country, Prince Michael Sharvashidze, who by his inactivity
provoked disturbances. Confirming this view of the problem, we quote an excerpt
from N.N.Muravev's report to Prince V.D.Dolgoruki about the actions of the
ruler of Abkhazia:
“In actions of the possessor of Abkhazia I see double-faced behaviour against
us and the Turks, resulting from his doubts: which of the countries at war
will gain Abkhazia? He has no sincere attachment to one party, but wishes to
keep his possession and considers himself in the right to remain neutral,
forgetting his high rank as a General-Adjutant of H.I.M...”.
The unreliable position of Russia in autonomous Abkhazia (in comparison with
other princedoms of the Central and East Transcaucasia which had already
been deprived of sovereignty for a long time by the imperial government and were
a part of Russia as military departments), and also its special interest in a
strategically important site on the coast, demanded acceptance of cardinal
measures on a change of the status of the region. Military leaders and the
Governor-General incessantly reminded others of it, as we see from the official
report from the Chief of Armies in Abkhazia, General M.T.Loris-Melikov, to the
Kutais Governor -General G.R. Eristov of August 12th, 1858:
“The necessity and importance of our occupation of Abkhazia, having a unique
good port on the east coast of the Black Sea, and the country which, recognising
the power of Russia, should form the basis for distribution of our sovereignty
on all the east coast, cannot of course be subject to any doubt.
We occupied Sukhum in 1810. Since then a half-century has passed, and it is
necessary to confess that our influence in Abkhazia has not increased at all,
and that as General Philipson said, we do not own, but only occupy it. It even
seems more truthful to say that this occupation is less strong now than it was
before, because secret intrigues of foreign powers, with the purpose of inciting
the tribes occupying territories on the east coast of the Black Sea against us,
have greatly increased recently”.
Also there came the moment when Russia made its decision about
inclusion of Abkhazia in its structure, that was confirmed by the following
document:
“Decree from the Governor-General of the Caucasus Grand Duke Michael
To Earl V.Adlerberg about introduction into Abkhazia of Russian rule.
June 26th, 1864
The highest command about elimination of Prince Sharvashidze from duties of
the possessor, for ever with his descendants, and about introduction in
Abkhazia of Russian rule, has been received by me during my last expedition to
the river Mzymta valley. Wishing personally to declare the Supreme Will to
Prince Sharvashidze, and at the same time to call him from Abkhazia so that at
the forthcoming transformation of rule of this territory possible disorders and
even armed resistance can be avoided, I have charged the Chief of Staff to
invite Prince Michael to Kutais at my arrival time there... considering
everything, in case the further measures of indulgence in relation to Prince
Michael will not lead to the desirable purpose, I have sent to him my decree
in which I positively declare to him the Supreme Will, and order the Kutais
Governor-General to introduce Russian rule in Abkhazia now, having insisted on
the immediate departure from Abkhazia of the former possessor”.
The document with which the Governor-General of the Caucasus addressed the
tsar, concerning the liquidation of Abkhazian independence, is indicative. It is
necessary to appreciate the delicacy in approaches to the decision of this
problem, which was not simple. As follows from the text, only special
circumstances compelled Russia to take this step, which was not undertaken with
other princedoms which had earlier become a part of the Russian empire.
Here is how the Governor-General of the Caucasus, Grand Duke Michael, wrote
on this occasion about the necessity for the abolition of the Abkhazian
princedom and its settlement by Cossacks, on March 27th, 1864.
“In view of the close realisation of the highly-approved Assumptions of
settling the Cossack villages on the East coast of the Black Sea from the mouth
of the Kuban to the river Bzyb, it is obviously necessary to solve questions on
the future position of Abkhazian rule: whether Abkhazia should be in its present
state, i.e. under the unaccountable rule of Prince Michael Sharvashidze, or
whether a newly-arranged rule should be entered.
Sixty years has passed since Abkhazia recognised the Supreme power of the
Russian Sovereign and the father of Prince Michael Sharvashidze was recognised
as its hereditary ruler. This country was then still half-wild, with the
various princely families torn apart amongst themselves and constantly exposed
to violence from Turks and predatory mountaineers, and since the time of
joining to Russia has received external protection from the Russian government.
The Abkhazian people, occupying the best part of the Caucasian territory,
have fallen to the last degree of poverty and wildness. Half have accepted
Islam, the others have lost almost any concept about religion. Russia instead of
a grateful ally has got in Abkhazia a rebellious and artful slave, ready with
open arms to accept each of our enemies who appears at its coast. Our
authorities are not concerned with the internal ruling of these people:
Abkhazians neither pay taxes nor duties, armies do not stay with them in their
homes, do not take any supplies from them, do not use anything and constantly
protect them; for all this Abkhazians pay us in murders behind a bush.
Where are we to search for the reasons for all of this, as it is not under
the control of the present ruler. Legally it is impossible to accuse Prince
Michael Sharvashidze of any one of those grave crimes of which he is accused by
public opinion and by everyone closely observing the activities, because his
actions as ruler have never been exposed and could not be exposed to lawful
investigation. Anyway, it is necessary to pay attention to many obvious facts of
his long period of rule... Assessing commoners for small offences by huge
penalties in favour of the treasury, he always leaves strong predators and
murderers unpunished and even patronises them; from this predation robberies and
murders have become constant phenomena in Abkhazia. Whether or not in such a
territorial position it is favourable to Russia, and whether or not it
produces a feeling of justice and philanthrophy, to leave it under the power of
the possessor ruling it now, in the political situation it would be
positively harmful. Destruction of such power which, deliberately or not, has
done so much harm for so long makes it a duty of our government.
We should:
1. Persuade the possessor and his successor to refuse the right of
possession.
2. Define and supply an allowance to the possessor and his successors.
3. Form a military district of Abkhazia, which together with Tsebelda will be
subordinate to a special military chief, like the chiefs of departments in areas
which submit to the Governor-General of Kutais.
4. If the quantity of free land permits, install Cossack settlements along
the coast to the mouth of the Ingur, which together with settlements on the
river Bzyb could make the Abkhazian Cossack army under the control of the
chief of the Abkhazian military department.
5. Appoint a ridge, closing Gagra pass and now separating Abkhazia from
Djigets land, as a border between the Kuban and Abkhazian armies”.
So, management reform also concerned Abkhazia. In 1864 with the aim of “a
settlement of internal order” the Abkhazian princedom was abolished and Russian
control began with the formation of the Sukhum military department of the
Russian empire. This coincided with the termination of the Caucasian war and
defeat of Turkey in the Russian-Turkish war. The Governor-General of the
Caucasus, in a letter of March 23rd, 1864 wrote to Alexander II:
“... The independent position of Abkhazia made sense, while
the east coast of the Black Sea was not attached to Russia”.
Analysing the period of existence of the autonomous sovereign state of
Abkhazia as a part of the Russian empire, being under its high protection, it
is possible to say that in the Russian empire, military departments were not
state formations, and were created as temporary administrative structures.
Military departments territorially corresponded to the former princedoms, as,
for example, Sukhum to the Abkhazian princedom, or to arbitrary
territories, as, for example, the Black Sea department to the occupied
Adler-Sochi-Tuapse region.
The administrative structure of this colonial formation was as follows: the
military districts headed by governors (representatives of the Governor-General
of the Caucasus), being in the district centres, submitted to the Tsar’s
Governor-General who had residence in Tiflis and submitted directly to the Tsar.
This complete structure, which had incorporated all kingdoms and princedoms of
the Central and Western Transcaucasia, for simplicity was called “Georgia” by
Russian governors. However, in each of the princedoms of this formation the
people named themselves according to their own ethnos (to a tribe or a
nationality). The name "Georgians" was also used, but only as a certain
generalising symbol which could be applied to any inhabitant of this territory.
Anyway, ethnic Abkhazians never used this name concerning themselves.
It is especially necessary to note that during the existence of military
departments, civil authorities and any local government were absent. There was
a centralised military power, typical of all colonies in the world. When in
need of decisions to questions which fell outside the limits of competence of
these departments, under their management corresponding committees were
created, to solve the vital issues in the lives of the local population. In
these committees representatives of the local nobility and communities were
involved. This absence of local government was one more sign of the
transformation of Abkhazia into a colony of Russia.
However, even with the formation of a military department, nothing had
changed regarding the formal and legal position of Abkhazia. The population
structure of the country was monoethnic and so it remained; the territory
of the country practically remained unvaried, and hence Abkhazia was de jure a
sovereign state. Nevertheless, considerable de facto deviations from the
normal development of a sovereign state actually took place, namely:
a) The creation of a military department meant that development of the state
occurred under emergency conditions;
b) Retaliatory actions increased against dissatisfied people, especially
after the Abkhazian revolts of 1866 and 1877, after which began the violent
expulsion of Abkhazians from their dwelling-places;
c) The population of Abkhazia after suppression of the above-stated revolts
was declared “rebellious and guilty” and then retaliatory sanctions followed;
d) The aggregate population of the country sharply decreased;
e) The military and civil authorities of the Russian empire started
realisation of the plan of settling Abkhazian lands, released as a result of
makhadjirstvo, with foreigners i.e. country colonisation began.
The Sukhum military department existed till 1883, and then was transformed
after the next reorganisation, and in the form of the Sukhum military district
became a part of the Kutais province, and for all this period till 1917 the
country was ruled by a Governor-General directly submitting to the Russian
Emperor. Though nothing formal changed for Abkhazia during the following
period, some events which essentially affected the subsequent development of
relations with the present state of Georgia actually took place:
1. Remaining in the form of the Abkhazian kingdom, the Abkhazian princedom,
or even the Sukhum military department, Abkhazia had the possibility to keep
ethnic uniformity (monoethnicism).
2. The statehood of the country, its laws and immigration policy, and later
administrative and territorial separation from neighbours to the south,
prevented penetration into the country and the free settlement of people of
other ethnic groups.
3. The transfer in 1883 of the government of the military district to the
territorial centre of governorship Kutais, and the absence of civil national
ruling and control promoted formation of the official channel allowing
representatives of other ethnoses to emigrate freely from southern provinces (Guria,
Kartli, Mingrelia, etc.) and to settle in empty regions of Abkhazia.
4. Assistance with resettlement of the people in Abkhazia was rendered by the
colonial policy of imperial Russia, directed towards replacement of rebellious
people by unscrupulous marginals, which was easy to operate by means of a whip.
To the end of the century the number of settlers was still small, but in
comparison to the size of the rest of the people who avoided being destroyed by
genocide, it became dangerous as it laid the foundation for a change of
demographic balance in Abkhazia.
The association of separate princedoms of Transcaucasia under the Russian
majestic eagle had come to an end by 1878 with the joining to Russia of former
Batum pashalyk (region), occupied mainly by Moslems. Imeretia together with
Guria left the Georgian-Imeretian administrative region in 1864, as an
independent administrative unit which received the name of the Kutais province.
In the beginning its structure also included Ahaltsikhski district, and later
Mingrelia, Abkhazia and part of Svanetia provinces also joined, with their
former rulers submitting directly to Russia.
The most important element in the circumstances was that the people of this
phantom state conveniently named by Russians as "Georgia", which Russia
involuntarily joined at the end of XIX century, showed a special interest in the
territory of the neighbouring country of Abkhazia, which it appeared (by means
of Russia) possible to take without undue effort. The territory was
devastated, entrance and settlement were unobstructed, counteraction from local
authorities was absent (as were the authorities), and the Russian military
administration not only did not interfere with such resettlement, but
even welcomed it.
In the history of Abkhazia there were two attempts at replacement of the
Abkhazian native ethnos by other nationalities. The first of them occurred in
XIX century, as a result of the colonial policy of Russia. For this purpose,
not wishing to have to stomach restless Abkhazians, Circassians, or Ubykhs, it
made an attempt at removal of these rebellious people from their native lands.
This generated makhadjirstvo, i.e. an exodus of the native people of Abkhazia
to Turkey, Jordan, Syria and other countries of the Middle East. There was an
undertaking to replace rebellious nationalities of the Caucasus with those
more loyal, who in the south were Mingrelians and Gurians, and in the north were
the Russian Cossacks who completely replaced Circassians in the Tuapse-Sochi
area, up to the river Bzyb.
As V.A.Gurko-Kryazhin notes, “the artificial reduction in the size of the
Abkhazian population is explained by three main reasons: its mass emigration
as a result of a gain of the Caucasus by Russia and its wars with Turkey, the
infiltration of Megrel-Kartvels assimilating natives of the country, and the
colonial policy of the imperial government”. Thus, the colonial policy of
Russia in 1864-1917 began an exodus of Abkhazians from the country and led to
replacement of the native people by foreigners - in short, to a change in the
ethno-demographic situation in the country. And the population of the central
and western areas of Transcaucasia accepted the most active participation in
this process.
The second large-scale attempt at replacement of the native Abkhazian people
was undertaken by Georgia which continued colonisation of their country
(Abkhazia) in a military expansion 1918-1921. Then later, Abkhazia became an
autonomous republic within Georgia, and thereby entered the USSR through
Georgia. The people of central Transcaucasia, encouraged by Russia from the
end of XIX century, longed to live in Abkhazia. The country, as a result of
makhadjirstvo, had been weakened and had lost the possibility of
administratively protecting the territory, as is practised by all sovereign
states of the world through limiting the entrance of foreigners for
settlement by the use of quotas or other regulating measures.
Population
Fig. 3. Changes in the population of Abkhazia according to census. Years of
occurence of census are shown.
(абхазы = Abkhazians, грузины = Georgians, русские = Russians, армяне =
Armenians, греки = Greeks)
Settling by Georgians of Abkhazia was well-planned and occurred so
intensively that from 1918 to 1964 the number of Georgians in Abkhazia grew to
240 thousand persons, and in comparison with data from the first census
increased by a factor of 60, having thereby exceeded the number of the
indigenous population of Abkhazians five-fold (Fig. 3). Ethnoreplacement allowed
Georgia and the government of the USSR to consider Abkhazian people as an
ethnic minority, i.e. a crime against the native ethnos was committed. Thus, in
Abkhazia, especially during its occupation by Georgia, genocide occurred. This
name according to “the Dictionary of foreign words” derives from Greek genos - a
sort or tribe, and Latin caedo - I kill, and it represents one of the worst
crimes against humanity - the extermination of separate groups of the population
according to racial, national-ethnic or religious identities. All actions by
Georgia in relation to Abkhazia throughout practically all XX century were
inspired by genocide, national chauvinism, military expansion, aggression and
terrorism. Their purpose was annexation of the country and replacement of the
Abkhazian ethnos by the Georgian majority, through eradication of all ethnic
groups of the population: Russians, Armenians, Abkhazians, Greeks, Jews, etc.,
and the settling in Abkhazia of Georgians. All this occurred both before and
after acceptance of the Operating Convention of December 9th, 1948 about the
prevention of crimes of genocide and punishment for it.
There are incontestable documentary written sources (firstly Georgian), about
the exact date of mass resettlement of Mingrelian peasants in Abkhazia after
the termination of the Caucasian war, the abolition of an autonomous Abkhazian
princedom in 1864 and the expulsion of Abkhazians (makhadjirstvo) to Turkey
which followed the revolts of 1866 and 1877. J.Gogebashvili wrote in detail
about it all in 1877 in the newspaper “Tiflis bulletin”, in a vast article
entitled “Whom to occupy Abkhazia?”, in which the developed plan of
colonisation of Abkhazia was given.
Eventually the military authorities, under pressure from the indignant
population of Abkhazia, and having estimated the possible consequences of such
ethnic diversion, blocked access of immigrants to Abkhazia. And here the
second stage of action occurred - an ideological substantiation of the postulate
that Abkhazians and "Georgians" are ethnically one people, immemorial friends
and brothers. Those who opposed such a statement were enemies of Abkhazians and
"Georgians" who have lived from ancient times in one territory, and for their
protection and for that of already arrived settlers, the acceptance of emergency
measures, up to military action, was necessary.
From the moment of transformation of the Sukhum military department to a
district with its centre in Kutaisi, favourable conditions for ideological
propaganda and sabotage against the Abkhazian people were created. From Tbilisi
and Kutaisi political emissaries and other agents rushed to Abkhazia to prepare
a base for the assimilation and seizure of the country. The press conducted
incessant work to introduce into the consciousness of the population the idea
of both ethnic and territorial unity of Abkhazians and so-called "Georgians". We
give quotations from press publications of that time, filled with unctuous
speeches:
“It is a cause of regret that Abkhazians stand in the way of intellectual
regeneration whilst showing complete indifference to the question of national
independence. The policy of Russification has already done so much that these
people have completely split from their neighbours - the Georgians; this
policy, because of wrong education, has intellectually spoilt these people who
have forgotten that if Abkhazia should have something in common with anyone, it
should be with neighbours, with Georgians to whom they are connected
historically; and the geographical position of their native land is such that
further than Georgia these people do not have any salvation”. (Article in
“Tsnobis Purtseli” from April 1st, 1905, signed “Sukhumian”. Despite the
publication date, it is obviously not an April Fools' joke. - authors).
Apparently from N.Djanashia's letter “Motley notes about Abkhazians and
Abkhazia”, Georgians were very strongly disturbed by thoughts about the
independent, liberated territory of Abkhazia:
“Georgian magazines and newspapers in recent years have almost forgotten that
on the coast of the Black Sea Abkhazia is located, its fate connected with the
bitter past of Georgia. Though Abkhazians are hardly close relations of the
Georgian tribe (at last it is told correctly!), it is also true that this
remarkable corner, as fresh as spring, (notice that this is the country, not the
people!) has been connected and united with Georgia: joining together with it
has time and again drained the historical bowl filled with a bitter drink. Even
if it had not been, today's interests of Abkhazians and Georgians are so
bound, that leaving them without attention has been an inexcusable and
irreparable sin of Georgian magazines and newspapers. In 1897 there was an order
not to give any part of the area of settlement (Ochamchira and Gudauta) to
"natives". Thus, the "natives" (Abkhazian and Georgian?) have been deprived of
the right of acquisition of private property. Now I wish to note, as times and
circumstances have changed, that nowadays very many care for them and caress
them, if only to destroy and put an end to the small remains of a historical
link uniting Abkhazians and Georgians over many centuries... Unless the
Georgian nationality hinders in this matter? Certainly not. Georgians have
undergone national oppression, and this bitter experience is a pledge that they
themselves will never incur the role of executioner, let alone the
executioner of not one person, but all people!” (“Droeba”, 1909).
Later in many works about the occupation of Abkhazia by Georgia in 1918, and
up to the war of 1992-1993, it was shown that the Georgian mini-imperialists and
national chauvinists, in relation to the Abkhazian people, actually became
executioners and murderers.
In the press of that time incorrect data about the population of Abkhazia
misrepresented its ethno-demographic structure, but simultaneously showed
anxiety about the beginning of resistance of the Abkhazian people to ethnic
expansion. We will give an example of this from S.Pirtskhalava's article
"Forgotten land" - about the situation in Abkhazia.
“The majority of inhabitants of Samurzakan, which stretches to Ochamchira,
are Megrelians... Ochamchira today is a completely Megrel settlement... There
is no link with the rest of Georgia, and the local pulse does not join to the
general pulse of the native land.
In Sukhumi there are now more than 40 thousand inhabitants. The majority are
Georgians, Russians are 15 thousand, Armenians are 5500. And in the property
plan the first position is occupied by Georgians... Local Georgians thirst to
live a national life and wish to link closely with the rest of our country.
... The sharp question for Sukhumi and for the whole district is the
Georgian-Abkhazian mutual relationship. It should not be forgotten that
Abkhazians have given high political and cultural merit to our native land. In
VIII century our revival began from Abkhazia”. (“Sakhalho Purtseli”, October
25th, 1915).
Thank God at least one has told the real truth, that today's Georgia was
constructed by Abkhazian hands and minds. Thanks! It is to be hoped that this
has reached today's Georgian leaders and politicians. And as to the numbers of
separate ethnic groups living in Sukhumi, the author did not indicate how
many Abkhazians were there, believing that Georgians were the main people in
the city, and ranking all ethnic Abkhazians to them.
It will be pertinent here to give the following example from the directory
"Caucasus" for 1903. On page 226 the following statistical data are published:
“Inhabitants about 180 thousand souls, which in percentage terms rate as
follows: Armenians - about 40 percent, Georgians - almost 25 percent, Russians -
about 20 percent, and the remainder of 15 percent - Persians, Tatars, Germans,
Turks, Jews, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Czechs and others”.
What do you think - where was such structure of the population? In Yerevan?
No, in Tiflis, nowadays Tbilisi – the capital of Georgia. Therefore, before you
complain about your neighbour’s house, take a look at your own.
And here is what N.Djanashia wrote about the Georgian-Abkhazian mutual
relationship: “Dark forces spread mean gossip and fairy tales here, as if
Georgians prepare for destruction of Abkhazians and capture of their lands and
manors”. Only today is it possible to appreciate the truth of these words,
having compared them with what has been done by Georgia in Abkhazia during all
these years. After comparing the above-stated citations with quotations from
the press and the materials of the Georgian historians quoted in the second
chapter, inevitably there will be this conclusion: the main weapon of the
Georgian politicians, and naturally historians and the press, was not even
double, but threefold morality: one was spoken, another was meant, and
the third was carried out. Behind tender words and the alleged expression of
care there was a rigid pragmatism, aggression and despotism.
Already then, at the beginning of XX century, and developed under the
revolutionary movement trend in Russian program documents, the following was
provided:
From the program of the Constitution-Democratic party of Georgia.
“With the establishment in Russia of the new political system, all nations,
and in particular Georgia, must acquire the right of establishment of autonomous
control. In autonomous Georgia civil freedom must be established and the rights
of national minorities will be inviolable. The borders of autonomous Georgia
will be defined by an extra-ordinary meeting consisting of freely selected
deputies from Tiflis and Kutais provinces and the Batum, Sukhum and Zakatal
districts.”
What cynicism must have been possessed to assume that as a part of the future
national-state formation, "Georgia" would receive autonomy for only one people,
and all other ethnoses of Transcaucasia would become in its structure "national
minorities". Here it was decided to deprive Abkhazia of sovereignty, to take
away its territory and to define its ethnos with a centuries-old history as
being in a "national minority" position. Then also the idea appeared of
defining the border of “the autonomous state of Georgia” not on the basis of
historically developed states, but by the decision of district representatives,
under the condition that all regions controlled by Governors-General would
automatically enter the new autonomous state. Apparently from the document,
nobody asked for the consent of administrative formations which earlier became a
part of Russia as independent states, and later, by a power decision, were
included in the structure of military districts and regions controlled by
Governors-General.
In conclusion it would be desirable to say yes, since 1846 the state
structure of Abkhazia as sovereign de facto, in the full sense of this phrase,
did not exist. But after all, other princedoms which entered at various times
into the structure of Russia also did not exist as independent states. There was
only Russia with a region controlled by a Governor-General in Transcaucasia, and
military districts or departments in the territory occupied by armies with
military management.
Formally, Sukhum district existed till 1919 and introduced into the
development of Abkhazia both negative and positive elements. On the positive
side, it is possible to refer to a wide cultural exchange between Russia and
Abkhazia, and the help of Russia in the creation of modern Abkhazian writing,
which is based upon the Cyrillic alphabet.
For the negative influence, it is necessary to refer to: the violent
entrance of elements of Russian culture and routine into the lives of the
Abkhazian population, who had a culture based upon centuries-old traditions and
laws of the mountain people; autocratic (without consideration of the opinions
of the people or decisions of the Abkhazian state institutes) settling of
Abkhazian lands by immigrants from other regions which led to changes in the
demographic situation of the country; the beginning of the destruction of the
Abkhazian ethnos and creation of conditions for the suppression of consciousness
of the Abkhazian ethnos by other ethnoses; and the beginning of ideological
diversion, which justified the subsequent annexation of the country by Georgia.
On the basis of the above it is possible to draw the following conclusions:
1) To the beginning of XIX century Abkhazia de jure and de facto was an
independent state within outlined geographical borders, the subject of
international law, and capable of entering into international agreements.
2) Abkhazia, unlike Georgia, had not completely lost its statehood after
joining to Russia. From July 1810 to June 1864, and actually till 1883, the
Abkhazian princedom kept “autonomous status” as a part of the Russian empire,
and it still was considered as a princedom ruled by national princes Chachba -
Sharvashidze. Abkhazia became a part of the Russia empire independently, as a
sovereign state and a subject of world politics, and at the moment of
reception of the Charter from the Russian empire, Abkhazia officially de jure
and de facto confirmed the sovereignty which it had possessed since VIII century
that was fixed by legal documents.
3) According to the text of “The Highest Manifesto on the joining of Georgia
to Russia”, the borders of "Georgia" were defined, but they did not include not
only the territory of Abkhazia, but also Mingrelia, Guria, Imeretia and Svanetia.
4) As follows from the text of the Petition, Abkhazia asked for the
protection of Russia forever, i.e. eternal preservation of the sovereignty of
Abkhazia under the protectorate of Russia was meant.
5) After abolition of the Abkhazian princedom and the bloody revolts of 1866
and 1877, Abkhazians because of numerous protests were declared a “guilty
population” by the imperial government. Tens of thousands of Abkhazians were
compelled to leave their native land and move to Turkey and the countries of
the Middle East, and in their place, beginning from 70-80th years of XIX
century, representatives of other people, mainly Megrelians, rushed in from
adjoining areas. The ethno-demographic situation in the country began to vary
sharply. Uncontrollable settling of Abkhazia became so intensive that it started
to worry the imperial authorities. The stream of immigrants was limited, but the
process nevertheless proceeded continuously.
6) Sovereign Abkhazia, by a powerful order due to a decision of the tsar, in
1864 “ lost independence” (which confirms the existence of the sovereignty of
the country until that moment). The thesis “Russia stopped the existence of the
Abkhazian princedom”, i.e. deprived de jure Abkhazia of its sovereignty in 1864,
is incorrect, as Russia was not competent to deprive Abkhazia of its
sovereignty, and in reality colonisation, as a retaliatory action of the Russian
empire against Abkhazia and its people, took place. Therefore the liquidation
agreement regarding the de facto sovereignty and deprivation of statehood of
Abkhazia by Russia in 1864 has no validity, because the power change in the
Abkhazian state system and its placement within the Russian empire was not
included in the request for protection. Hence an infringement by Russia of its
international obligations took place according to this agreement.
7) The decree of 1864 in which Russia attached Abkhazia to itself never had
and could not have any validity, as in its basis it did not lay down bona fide
one word about either the right of the conqueror, or the right of hereditary
territorial possession, or any of the other norms demanded by the rules of
international law.
8) At the same time it is impossible to consider an acquisition of one
territory violently united with another territory during the presence there of
military, or civil but generated by means of military force, government, as
the loss of de jure sovereignty. Also, it is impossible to separate,
and use as legally significant, the annexation or capture during any period
of one state by another during civil war or formation of the statehood of the
country.
9) The resistance of the Abkhazian people to innovations generated by
Russian colonial policy, and the forceful suppression of that resistance,
led to makhadjirstvo and to a devastation of the Abkhazian lands. This was the
beginning of the genocide of Abkhazian people which was continued during almost
the next two centuries by Russia, and later by the USSR and Georgia.
10) During the period between 1810 and 1917, Abkhazia did not transfer its
sovereignty to anybody.
11) Loss of both the statehood and the sovereignty of Abkhazia during the
period of the Russian empire controlling the Caucasus from 1883 to 1917, and
also during the revolution and de facto disintegration of the Russian empire,
is not the reason for the termination of its existence subsequently, with the
arrival of other interstate and international circumstances. This status of
Abkhazia de jure remained, as its formal liquidation was illegal.
Shamba T., Neproshin А. Abkhazia: Legal basis of statehood and sovereignty. М: Open Company "In-Oktavo", 2005, 240 pages.
Далее читайте:
Абхазы -
(самоназвание апсуа) автохтонное население Кавказа.
Абхазия
(краткая историческая справка).
Исторические лица Абхазии (биографический справочник).
|
