Pitsunda estate

Article originally published on the ‘Echo of the Caucasus’ website. Text and terminology of the article are reproduced without changes. All rights belong to ‘Echo of the Caucasus’. Publication date: March 20, 2024.

Abkhazia’s attention remains fixed on the controversial agreement with Russia over the Pitsunda estate. Following a late-night parliamentary session in December, the government claimed victory in ratifying the agreement despite opposition, some of which it even managed to sway. But the situation took a turn when the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a surprising note about the agreement just over a month later.

Public figure and member of the Public Chamber Tengiz Djopua commented on the note from the Russian foreign policy department to ‘Apsnyhabar’:

“As for this note, it’s now abundantly clear to everyone that the transfer of Pitsunda under the agreement signed with the FSO (Federal Protective Service) was a mistake. Initially, this wasn’t just the stance of certain political factions in Abkhazia but of the entire society, which vehemently opposed both the agreement and its terms. This was the only correct and justifiable standpoint. This is the first thing

“Given the above, with no remaining arguments in favor of the agreement and universal acknowledgment that the state dacha is being transferred to third parties, our parliament must revoke its ratification. We’ve all been deceived, and our self-respect and dignity demand the withdrawal of this bill. This is the second thing,” Djopua said.

The third point proffered by the expert was the behavior of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Inal Ardzinba, at a meeting at the Abkhazian Foreign Ministry media center, where the latter disapprovingly of those who disclosed the content of the note from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“Publishing such documents without permission is unacceptable, but society demanded their release for nearly a month. Our Foreign Ministry remained silent. When accusing others of violations, it’s essential to acknowledge your own actions. The Minister of Foreign Affairs deceived the public for an extended period regarding this agreement. Furthermore, he called those who raised concerns about third-party interests in the agreement ‘idiots’, only for them to be proven right.

At this briefing, the minister should have apologized to the people, the parliament, and those he slandered, in view of defamation laws. Resignation would have been the right course of action. This responsibility extends not only to the Minister of Foreign Affairs but also to the Minister of Justice [Anri Barcic], both staunch supporters of the agreement,” Djopua went on.

In conclusion, he said a few words about head of state, Aslan Bzhania:

“I doubt he was unaware of the true purpose behind transferring the state. It’s evident he deceived us. Frankly, I wonder if we merely handed over or actually sold it. No one can be trusted anymore.

“Such behavior from the head of state, in my opinion, should have political and legal consequences. And I would like the president to explain to us how third parties in this agreement suddenly became the first for everyone!”

Earlier, historian and political scientist Astamur Tania commented on the ratification in an interview with ‘Chegemskaya Pravda’:

“There’s a bad aftertaste on the Russian side too. From the start, there were inherent mistakes in this agreement. We’ve discussed this extensively. Rather than starting afresh and drafting a comprehensive document, they opted for this approach to resolve the issue.

“But what happens next is uncertain. I expect this issue will linger unresolved for quite some time. Accountability is necessary, but what answers can be provided? Claiming that the Constitutional Law supersedes the agreement creates a dilemma, as the law was designed to restrict the agreement. This undermines the parliament’s integrity, which is not an accurate portrayal.

Because our deputies, whether they are pro-government or others, are closely connected with society. They are much more connected with society than the executive branch; they are more sensitive, so to speak, to signals from society. So they will not be obedient tools, as this leads to nothing for the executive branch or for them.”