How can Abkhazia become a rule-of-law state?

In this discussion, program host Inal Khashig invites Abkhaz experts Astamur Tania and Arda Inal-Ipa to address pressing issues in Abkhazia’s political and economic life. Experts touch upon the topics of Abkhaz-Russian relations, the population of Gali, and issues of citizenship for the Abkhaz diaspora, among others.

Full text of the interview:

Inal Khashig: Hello, you are watching Chegemskaya Pravda. December has been extraordinarily busy for us. The president came to parliament with an agenda of issues that need urgent resolution. On the other hand, the same parliament made changes to legislative acts, allowing people to change their nationality and become Abkhazian.

Additionally, today we will discuss how several opposition organizations and public groups have addressed the president and parliament, requesting that the process for representatives of related peoples—such as Kabardians, Adygeans, Circassians, and so on, who belong to our general language group—be simplified for acquiring Abkhazian citizenship. This is again a group of issues related to citizenship. Furthermore, at the beginning of the month there were serious issues, specifically a strong push against international non-governmental organizations, which has become a trend. We will discuss this range of issues with our guests today.

First, I would like to introduce the co-director of the Center for Humanitarian Programs, Arda Inal-ipa, and our regular expert, Astamur Tania. I will start with the parliament and the president’s visit thereto. Essentially it was a closed session, and not much is known about it. There is an interview with Adgur Kharazia, a parliament deputy, where he explains the situation related to the president’s visit.

From the official statements we have seen, it seems that the President mentioned the numerous problems we face and stated that solving them without external assistance is essentially impossible, and we need to attract foreign investors to our economy more actively. And the issue of Pitsunda was discussed. Adgur Kharazia explains that the president mentioned that the Russian side had agreed to amend one of the disputed points that were unacceptable to the Abkhaz side, particularly regarding incorrect coordinates. Now it appears that these coordinates have been changed, but the document has not yet reached parliament. Nevertheless, the issue of Pitsunda is once again on the agenda.

Arda Inal-Ipa: I was very surprised that after such public outrage, after letters signed by almost the entire intelligentsia, after speeches by the youth, and after very well-reasoned protests against transferring ownership of this property, the issue is still being raised. The thing is, the government estate is adjacent to a large tract of particularly valuable land, specifically the main part of the Pitsunda pine grove, which is the heritage of the entire nation. The issue is not just about the coordinates being incorrectly marked, but when attention was drawn to this particular issue, it became clear that there was an attempt to shift public focus to this detail while the real issue is about ownership.

In Abkhazia, no one is opposed to the Russian side continuing to use this place. To be honest, it’s about indefinite use, not ownership. The argument that Russians cannot repair it is quite laughable because there are examples abroad of where they have repaired buildings located in various countries. So it’s very strange that this issue is being raised again. It’s like, you understand, this contradicts the law on particularly valuable lands. And this is precisely such a piece of land.

If we talk about the arguments we often heard during the previous crisis related to this issue, some supporters of the transfer argued that it never belonged to us. But the estate was created in the late 1950s, and these people view the history of Abkhazia from the 1950s onwards, which makes you question how responsibly they view things, with such a short timeline. Then they say it always belonged to Soviet Communist bodies. Well, the successor to this Communist Party should be Zyuganov, and all others like the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (VTSPS) and other such bodies. So, these are completely incomprehensible arguments.

Interestingly, when they say it never belonged to us, indeed, when the Abkhazian principality was abolished, a part of Pitsunda, specifically this part of the grove, was handed over to the Novy Afon Monastery. The monks began to harvest wood for repair and construction of the monastery’s territory. The inhabitants of Abkhazia were outraged because it was a sacred grove. Nearby is the Ldzaa-nakha (Abkhaz sanctuary), not far from the Abkhaz shrine. They appealed to the imperial government to stop the harvesting. Trees could not be cut down, hunting was prohibited, and special regulations were required. It should be noted that the Russian imperial government listened to this opinion and stopped all work that upset the people.

We also heard rumors that due to the complex energy situation in Abkhazia, there was supposedly a proposal that if Pitsunda were transferred to Russian ownership, the energy flow would be free. For some, this might be an enticing offer, but I believe that framing the issue this way is simply criminal. Today our energy problem will only grow because the glaciers that feed the Enguri HPP are melting due to climate changes.

Each time this amount will increase, so next we might give away a mountain, today a grove, then a village, and so on. This is a strategic object. You know that in the eastern Black Sea region, there are only two bays of such strategic importance—one is Poti, and the other is Pitsunda, which is right by the estate. This is a military strategic object and it should remain in the possession of the Republic of Abkhazia, the people of Abkhazia, as valuable land and as historical heritage.

Finally, I want to say that the agreement itself has Article 22, which states that if the new owners of these properties cause damage to nature, historical monuments, or any other economic damage, the Abkhaz side cannot even make claims or demands. There are many objectionable provisions in it. I strongly believe that our deputies understand this, realize the responsibility they bear, and how such a decision will be perceived by our people today and in the future.

Inal Khashig: Astamur, the Pitsunda issue has been going on for almost a year.

Arda Inal-Ipa: No, it’s been two years already.

Inal Khashig: Yes, it’s been two years. Why is this such a fundamental issue? Why is it so crucial for the authorities? Is it crucial for our authorities? For Moscow? Perhaps for some individual figures?

Arda Inal-Ipa: If I may add a couple of things, I spoke with an MP and they, in communication with representatives of certain Russian authorities, heard their opinion that, for example, we would be quite satisfied with an extension of the existing agreement. So it’s not so clear-cut; it’s not a unanimous opinion.

Inal Khashig: Please share your own opinion, Astamur.

Astamur Tania: Yes, there is a lot of ambiguity. Firstly, it hasn’t been clarified what Adgur Rafetovich said because, as far as I understand, the agreement has been signed and, moreover, it has been ratified by the State Duma. So, I don’t see a legal mechanism for making changes to it now, because coordinates can only be changed if a new agreement is concluded. This question also needs clarification. There is no information that the State Duma has revisited this issue, and it’s unclear what there is to denounce when the Abkhaz side hasn’t ratified it. Denunciation would only apply to something that has gone into effect, but it hasn’t, because the Abkhaz side did not ratify the agreement.

Regarding how fundamental this issue is for Russian-Abkhaz relations, well, we ourselves have turned it into a matter of prestige. At an early stage, I don’t know who initiated this process; frankly, I wouldn’t exclude that the Abkhaz side might have initiated the process of transferring the estate. We can’t sort this out within the framework of our program today. During the drafting of this document, the Abkhaz side made mistakes. When two sides are negotiating, each side strives to achieve the most favorable conditions for itself. The Russian side evidently acted that way, and we would have expected the Abkhaz side to do the same. It turns out that they didn’t even check the coordinates.

First, no one has been held accountable for this—neither the people who worked on the document, nor those who signed it. Everything has been left irresponsibly unresolved. We’ve created a heap of problems ourselves and politicized the issue. Did our authorities really not foresee that such a resolution would cause a significant resonance?

Land issues in Abkhazia are the most complex, as they affect a large number of people who suddenly, due to the coordinates being violated, find themselves under the jurisdiction of another state. The main issue here is not even ownership, but jurisdiction. We have many properties on Abkhazian territory owned by Russian citizens, but Russian jurisdiction does not extend thereto. All these issues were completely overlooked by the Abkhazian delegation handling these matters.

So this agreement cannot be altered, and there is only one way forward: to start from scratch and work on a new draft. We, of course, have also implicated Russia, because Russia is a large state with global ambitions, and we’ve turned this into a matter of prestige for Russia, and our allies don’t take us into account. In reality, this is not the case. I believe we can explain to our Russian partners that such mistakes were made.

I think that those responsible should be held accountable or, at the very least, there should be staffing changes regarding those responsible for the development of this agreement and for overseeing the document review process. Once these issues are resolved, it may be easier to return to square one. For now, nothing threatens Russia’s positions in this territory because the 1996 agreement is in force.

I want to remind you once again that all state properties on Abkhazian territory were under the jurisdiction of the 9th Directorate of the USSR KGB. Its successor is now the Federal Protective Service (FSO). In 1996, when these bodies left Abkhazia, they handed over all estates to us by decree, including Pitsunda. They wanted to remain there, acknowledging that all these estates were the property of the Republic of Abkhazia. The document was signed by Gennady Gaguliya on one side, and on the other side by a representative from what was then called, not the FSO—I don’t remember the name—and a new agreement on indefinite use was concluded.

By the way, check out what conditions for use were stipulated. How nature should be treated, how protection should be carried out—all these details were much better outlined in 1996, when we were under blockade and not yet a recognized state. These conditions were better detailed by the erstwhile representatives of Abkhazia than by the representatives of recognized Abkhazia, which acted as an equal party in the negotiations. This must be acknowledged.

Inal Khashig: Well, in any case, this bill, that is, this agreement, has not been submitted to parliament, and we can’t say with certainty what has actually changed or under what circumstances this might have happened.

Astamur Tania: It’s unclear how it could be submitted in a new version if the document has been ratified by the State Duma but not by our parliament. So, it would need to be denounced first. But what can be denounced? It hasn’t gone into effect yet.

Inal Khashig: Maybe they made a handwritten note somewhere.

Astamur Tania: I don’t know… That’s not how it’s done; you can write anything you want.

Inal Khashig: Alright, we’ve probably sorted out the Pitsunda issue, though this conversation might still continue separately because the document hasn’t been submitted to the parliament. We don’t know any details, or maybe there’s some manipulation going on. Manipulations also occur at a rhetorical level from time to time. I’d like to return to another issue related to citizenship.

The parliament has adopted amendments to the law on “civil acts,” which allows people to change their nationality and thus become Abkhazian, and correspondingly, to revert to their original or historical surnames. This change essentially provides the right to automatically become a citizen of Abkhazia, as the Constitution states that any Abkhaz, no matter where they live or what citizenship they hold, is considered a citizen of Abkhazia.

On the other hand, this gives residents, primarily from the Gali district, where many assimilated Abkhazians live with surnames like Targaya, Zukhbaya, Ketsbaya, the opportunity to return to their Abkhazian identity. But the opposition strongly dislikes this because, while nationality can be restored, the spirit of it cannot ⁠— if they do not actually feel like Abkhazians. Many, by the way, during the difficult ‘90s, participated in various sabotage and terrorist groups. Nonetheless, there are people who genuinely wanted to restore their Abkhazian identity.

I remember when I was sitting in the Public Chamber during Sergey Bagapsh’s presidency, we had a member of the chamber, Inalishvili, with that surname. I remember he long tried to restore his Abkhazian roots, even though he already had an Abkhazian passport at that time. He wanted to return to his Abkhazian roots and eventually received the surname Inal-Ipa. So, such people exist, and there are also those who, in reality, did nothing good for the Abkhazian state during its formation and so on.

Now this is a topic of discussion. Considering that in 2014, this issue led to a change in power, to put it mildly, it is indeed a painful topic. How do you view this? I haven’t seen the exact formulations of the amendments, nor the context in which they were introduced, so I don’t know the nuances. However, there is quite a lot of noise around it. I would like you to share your perspective on this process. I have my own view, but more about that soon.

Arda Inal-Ipa: The issue of Gali district is complex. As we know, this is historical Samurzakano, which in the 19th century valued its Samurzakano flag under which they often fought alongside the ruling prince of Abkhazia and so on. In the 19th century, the Abkhaz language was still widely spoken there. However, by the end of the 19th century, the Abkhaz language was spoken mostly by the nobility and heads of households, with a gradual process of Georgianization taking place.

But border populations are always problematic. Each country should strive to make these border populations loyal and full-fledged citizens of the country. I believe that during the Stalinist era there was a significant effort to integrate the Gali population. Those who still had surnames in the Abkhaz form often found that, during document exchanges, their surnames were changed to the Georgian form along with their nationality, often without warning. I know this from surveys and similar sources. Some people were surprised to discover that, for example, when they received a duplicate birth certificate, it listed them as Georgian instead of Abkhaz.

In the 1930s and ‘40s, there was intense legal reorganization of the Abkhaz population, who spoke Georgian frequently but retained their distinct identity, whether purely Abkhaz or Samurzakano. Samurzakano is a historical part of Abkhazia which should not be forgotten. So now, when families and surnames want to return to their original names and thus their original nationality, I believe this process represents a form of de-Stalinization. It is a process overcoming the Georgianization that was in full force in the 1930s and ‘40s. I think we should support this process.

Regarding the family you mentioned, Inalishvili. Yes, Inalishvili got this way because his father was Tengiz, and his grandfather was one of Abkhazia’s early intellectuals, Mikhail Inal-Ipa, who received education at the Sorbonne and taught, if I’m not mistaken, at one of the first schools in the Okumi area. He was a well-known educator throughout the district and all of Abkhazia. His grandchildren should indeed reclaim this surname and take pride in their heritage.

Some say it creates a confusing situation about which country they will belong to if they have Georgian citizenship. We already have thousands of Batumi Abkhazians who are simultaneously citizens of both Georgia and Abkhazia. They come here to visit their relatives, and nothing terrible has happened. Some of our most patriotic individuals also visit their relatives there. These thousands of Batumi Abkhazians all hold dual citizenship.

When people ask what will happen if, say, a war breaks out, I remind them that we lived through the war of 1992-1993. There is a list of around 400 people, and I spoke today with the head of the Gail district administration, who assured me that none of the people from that list or their close relatives remain in the district. They either left or died, mostly left. There is no known Gali unit that fought against us. Perhaps a few did, but it was truly only a few. Remember, that district had a population of 80,000 people, and many helped Tkuarchal residents avoid starvation by bringing food, and so on. We have lived through the hardest of situations.

So I believe we need to actively support the parliament in restoring historical justice in Abkhazia and overcoming the Stalinist legacy through their laws.

Inal Khashig: It’s clear that this is a very complex issue. I remember the times when Sigua, the chairman of the district election commission, was abducted after he spoke and said they had decided to leave, and then he was kidnapped and killed, as well as Fridon Chekaberia, who was also abducted. At that time, Gali residents had just started receiving passports, and among the Samurzakano, there was a group of people who decided that the Abkhaz project was their project. But then people saw that the project was worthwhile, and gradually the residents of the area began to change their stance. However, a catastrophic mistake was made when all the documents were distributed en masse.

The recipient was both Sigua and, for example, the Lukava family, whose member was a terrorist and caused so much harm. He was later exchanged, released, and so on. Problems arose from such situations.

Arda Inal-Ipa: I know that each case has been examined by our intelligence agencies, both then and now. Of course, if they are not doing their job well, an ordinary citizen should not have to suffer for it.

We have already moved past the period when at least some Gali residents were citizens. Vladislav Ardzinba appealed to Samurzakano as citizens of Abkhazia during the election period when Khajimba and Bagapsh were running for office, asking them to support Khajimba. These same people participated in the referendum, supporting the Constitution of Abkhazia, whose first article declares it to be an independent state.

We saw how they behaved with this passport. Despite significant threats from the Georgian side against those working in government bodies, who were involved in preparing elections for parliament and the presidency, these people were stripped of their citizenship. Two-hundred and fifty people served in the Abkhaz army, and all of them had their passports taken away.

I think this is a very important issue for us, and there are risks. But can a state be built without risks? I have a sense that in addressing the Gali issue, there are expectations that we will never become part of the international community. Within our internal affairs, these issues can be resolved this way. It seems to me that these people do not believe that Abkhazia will ever be recognized. Because if the international community does recognize it, how we resolve these issues, as we have done so far, will be a significant disadvantage for us as a state.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of a state approach among those who criticize the current law passed by the parliament.

Astamur Tania: Recall that during the period when problems with passports arose, the approach was to issue passports en masse. This caused protests in society; if the issue had been organized according to the law, I don’t think there would have been such outrage. Second, regarding the new amendment, it doesn’t imply mass issuance; it involves a voluntary process.

If a person considers themselves Abkhaz and wishes to return their surname and nationality, they can do so. There is no coercion or mass approach. Regardless of whether a person has historical Abkhaz roots or not, it should be a voluntary process.

We have Abkhaz people with historical Megrelian roots; we cannot forcefully exclude them from the Abkhaz nation. Nation is more about self-perception. I also support the idea of simplifying the process of granting citizenship to representatives of the Adyghs who live here.

We need to avoid becoming bogged down by some campaign mentality. When we work on these issues and legal norms, we should not end up with more problems like the Pitsunda case. We need to sit down calmly, without shouting or propaganda, and let the lawyers work to clarify what we want to achieve and ensure they present it properly.

We lack a calm atmosphere. It’s impossible to work on anything without being accused or labeled a traitor or enemy of the people. Patriotism is good, but when it leads us to the past or is wrapped in outdated ideas, it ceases to be patriotism and becomes obscurantism.

We are experiencing polarization, and when people switch places between power and opposition, it’s like an hourglass—the content doesn’t change, just the positions do, until everything settles and authority collapses, then there is a reversal. We should think about a realistic plan for what we want. If we want to be a nation, we need to move away from tribal thinking and embrace state thinking. A nation usually offers an attractive idea. Modern nations are not built purely on an ethnic basis. We need to gradually advance to higher levels of national building, moving towards a civil nation.

Our people, the citizens of Abkhazia, are divided into national communities with different rights de facto. This is very problematic for our harmonious existence and could lead to conflicts. It’s a very unstable environment. This may lead to conflicts.

Abkhaz people, as the titular nation and state-forming nation, should offer ideas that unite others. People gather in communities because they want to protect their political interests. This indicates that we have problems. We need to think about this and make even difficult or seemingly dangerous decisions.

Regarding the population of the Gali district, that is a separate issue. I don’t link it to the issue of surname restoration; it’s a more complex problem where we’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I was involved in these processes too. We need to create an environment where no unpopular issue can be advanced.

This is related to our energy problems as well. Why should Russia pay for our miners? It’s strange for them to pay for us, for the excess flow. They bear the costs. Now we have capitalism; even during Soviet times, we paid for electricity. Neighboring, albeit friendly, allied states supply us with electricity at the cost of their resources. Meanwhile, they cut back on investment programs, which Russia itself set up.

Miners are profiting from this, and not just the few we catch with two or three rigs. 500 rigs were also caught, but the investigation into them stalled. This is a matter of principle as well. It turns out that if 500 rigs are found, nothing happens, but if two or three are found, people are held accountable and fined. If there is no equal approach, nobody will pay anything.

Arda-Inal Ipa: If it’s true that for Pitsunda property there will be free flow, it means that miners are making money here, while the people will pay with their most valuable lands. This is just absurd and definitely needs to stop.

Astamur Tania: We live in the modern world, yet we’re experiencing feudalism. Certain regions, economic sectors, and agencies are developing their own class of feudal lords, where you can’t interfere. You can’t change things; everything is frozen under slogans of patriotism. Patriotism will come when we sit down, identify our problems, and address them.

Inal Khashig: I will finally move on to the topic of the authorities tightening the conditions for international organizations’ work in Abkhazia. Initially, there was a presidential decree, then the Foreign Minister banned the activities of USAID in Abkhazia, declaring the regional director persona non grata.

There were several more points regarding the restriction of international organizations. This is a general trend. The logic regarding USAID is that they are said to implement projects in occupied territories to quickly restore Georgia’s territorial integrity and turn Abkhazia against Russia, and so on. Such announcements about project activities are clearly not in our interests. Though, as far as I know, by the time the ban was signed, this definition was no longer present.

Arda, you might know more about this.

Arda Inal-Ipa: Of course, USAID is our ideological opponent. They support the territorial integrity of Georgia. We have repeatedly opposed such approaches, especially when they try to be involved in peacekeeping processes.

10-12 years ago, the Center for Humanitarian Programs refused to participate in a large multilateral project because of this issue. We reviewed the project text and sent a letter, which we still have in our archives. In the letter, we stated that the approaches were unacceptable and that we would not cooperate until they were changed to be more balanced.

What is the situation now? We were also appalled by the text you quoted. We haven’t checked the USAID website for a long time, and when the minister quoted text from their site, we were surprised and contacted UN representatives.

We do not work directly with USAID, but they are one of the major donors to UN projects. We informed them that we find such one-sided wording unacceptable, especially in such a harsh manner. It should be noted that a few days later, the text on the website was changed. As for such a harsh, non-peaceful approach that doesn’t help establish dialogue and trust—we support the authorities’ stance on this.

However, no one in Abkhazia works directly with USAID, we work with UN programmes. We write our own projects, and none of the goals of this organization can be implemented here because we work towards goals we set ourselves: peacekeeping, development, education, human rights, etc. We always require our partners not to use the term ‘occupied territory.’ We are categorically opposed to this, and in fact, UN structures do not use this term.

What concerned me about the approach of Abkhazia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is that, as Astamur put it, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Abkhazia needs international contacts. We have many tasks regarding expanding international recognition, connections, and participation in various international processes. International organizations are the channel through which we voice Abkhazia’s position at the global level. Those who try to cut off this channel are feeding into the hands of our opponents.

I must say that the Georgian government does not welcome the work of international development programs here in Abkhazia. Some parties, like the traditionalists, call for the cessation of international organizations’ activity in Abkhazia. Our authorities should listen to such speeches.

It is very strange when such demands from Georgian politicians are in unison with our own politicians. This means that both sides want to limit Abkhazia’s international contacts. You know how often Abkhazian viewpoints are voiced by representatives of Abkhazian civil organizations at international forums, and until recently, no serious discussion of conflicts in the South Caucasus took place without our involvement.

But if we are not involved in these processes, our absence won’t go unnoticed. Our opponents will be the only ones talking about the situation in the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict and what’s happening in Abkhazia.

Inal Khashig: Our political opportunities are quite limited. Aside from the countries that have recognized us, which are unfortunately few, the largest being Russia, our other window is limited to Geneva discussions. Beyond that, we cannot go much further.

Our official contacts take place only there. Even then, our representatives participate only in a personal capacity due to the rules of the Geneva discussions. On the other hand, our Foreign Minister is also limited. He is under sanctions due to the situation related to Ukraine. He can’t even go to Geneva, even if he wanted to. Our diplomacy has boundaries and very limited reach. That’s why it’s crucial for Abkhazia to have non-governmental organizations. They enable various experts and representatives from Abkhazia to access international platforms.

We mostly engage with these platforms in connection with the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, though not exclusively. There are many such platforms related to the conflict.

Arda Inal-Ipa: It’s essential that on platforms dedicated to the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, Abkhaz representatives emphasize that this is not a Georgian-Russian conflict. We have our own deep-rooted disagreements. There was a Georgian-Abkhaz war, which people tend to forget, focusing only on the August 2008 war. There are many aspects that only non-governmental organizations bring to light—issues that the international community tends to overlook.

If it weren’t for our NGOs, the 1992-1993 war would likely be forgotten. The memory of that war challenges the narrative currently popular in Georgia, especially against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, which portrays Russia as the instigator of Georgia’s conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is a completely biased perspective that, unfortunately, is spreading. We are constantly fighting against it. But if we are silenced, this narrative will ultimately prevail. That is very dangerous.

Inal Khashig: I want to return to a topic I’d like to continue discussing. There is a point in the resolution approved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Abkhazia that concerns me. It’s the clause prohibiting contact between Abkhaz and Georgian NGOs.

For example, contacts occur when conferences on the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict are held. This means Abkhaz experts simply won’t be able to attend.

Arda Inal-Ipa: Recently, there was a presentation of excellent books that resulted from this kind of collaboration. What’s wrong with that?

Inal Khashig: Let me remind you about the presentation. It involved long and meticulous work where Georgian and Abkhaz historians and archivists met to restore Abkhaz archives that were burned during the war in the 1990s.

The result of this effort was a presentation of the restored Abkhaz archives that took place just over a month ago. These archives include multi-volume works related to the migration of Abkhaz people, the Russian Caucasian War, the repressions of 1937-38, as well as lists of all those drafted, killed, and wounded in World War II. There are also documents related to the New Athos Monastery and the Duripsh assembly.

There are many documents that would have been impossible to gather without these contacts. Astamur Tania was involved in these projects, and thanks to his efforts, we were able to restore these archives to some extent. However, now, by the minister’s directive, these contacts are prohibited. How do you feel about this?

Astamur Tania: I have doubts about the legal soundness of the Foreign Minister’s statement. First, regarding the declaration of persona non grata. A persona non grata designation is typically applied to diplomats working within a country.

This person has not been declared a diplomat. It is unclear whether he plans to visit Abkhazia. He cannot be declared a persona non grata. His entry can be restricted or a visa can be denied, but this is governed by a different law – the law on entry and exit procedures. Perhaps the phrase sounded appealing to them, but it has no legal basis.

That was the first point. Now, the second. Recently, a presidential decree was issued regarding the regulation of reporting and financial controls. This decree contains no such prohibitions. Maybe I missed something, and now the Foreign Ministry has a higher rank than the president? The Foreign Ministry issued a statement, not a decree. I haven’t seen any regulatory documents, and in any case, they cannot contradict the presidential decree or the laws. This also falls into the realm of feudalism and feudal fragmentation.

I haven’t seen the documents that justify these statements. But again, they cannot contradict or amend the presidential decree. The task of the Foreign Ministry is to implement what the president has assigned to it. I believe the Foreign Ministry has overstepped its bounds with these statements.

Recently, Margarita Simonyan (head of Russia Today) visited us. She recently said that if legal norms are unsatisfactory or not functioning well, then disregard them. Apparently, our officials have followed this slogan and disregarded legal norms.

However, I want to say that, in Russia, things are not done as Margarita Simonyan suggests. She might say things in the heat of debate, but government authorities do not rush to act on what is said on television. Therefore, we will not ignore the legal foundations of our state. That addresses the legal aspect of the issue.

Unfortunately, we do not have full-scale recognition. And so, we fill gaps in our international relations by conducting activities on an unofficial level. The non-governmental platform is used primarily as a laboratory. If the parties are not engaged in open military conflict, making it difficult to discuss things, representatives of the academic and expert community can meet and discuss certain issues.

Prohibiting this is quite foolish, as it hinders our ability to model the official process. Unfortunately, we cannot be relocated to another part of the planet where Georgia does not exist. So, whether you prohibit these contacts or not, they will still occur.

Currently, the authorities are working on the issue of border trade with Georgia. There will also be contacts between representatives of Georgia and Abkhazia, and we need to consider what legal forms to give to this process.

We see a lack of coordination among our leaders. Secretary of the Security Council Sergey Shamba says he has always supported and continues to support informal contacts. The president issued a decree to establish strict control over financial flows, and I agree with this.

The Foreign Ministry’s position is at odds with the position of the highest leadership of Abkhazia. I don’t understand why there is such feudal fragmentation. It seems to me that it would be beneficial to convene a Security Council meeting and develop a unified stance. Even better, before making a final decision, it would be wise to consult with people who have participated in both unofficial and official negotiation processes at different times, and reach a final decision through discussion.

That would be the correct approach. This would prevent conflicts and disputes in society. As it is, we constantly live amidst various quarrels. We don’t need to exacerbate these issues further.

Inal Khashig: I will now wrap up our broadcast. Our director is signaling that we need to end the show as we have entered the second hour. We have discussed various topics, including citizenship, Pitsunda, and international contacts. We face many issues, each of which is complex and evolving.

These matters all relate to our approach to the law. If everything were clearly outlined, we wouldn’t face such challenging situations. Unfortunately, this is our reality.

We have had Arda Inal-Ipa and Astamur Tania as our guests. Thank you very much.

How can Abkhazia become a rule-of-law state?