Making a State a State

Abstract

Sukhumi, Abkhazia—Angie loves traveling, dancing, and peach juice. She doesn’t like boundaries. That’s because this young human rights worker is from Abkhazia, a self-declared independent territory claimed by Georgia. The 26-year-old, who works for the organization World Without Violence, survived a war, and it has left her with some strong opinions. “I have this habit not to trust Georgians, except those I know long and well,” she says. “There isn’t a family in Abkhazia which doesn’t have a victim from those days. This is terrible, and it’s really hard to forget.”Tensions between Georgia and Abkhazia grew after the fall of the Soviet Union, with Georgia sending troops to the region in 1992, sparking a year-long war. Eventually Abkhaz forces drove out the Georgian troops, winning de facto independence in 1993. The violence left thousands dead and more than 200,000 people—mainly ethnic Georgians—displaced and homeless. A cease-fire was brokered a year later, and Abkhazia officially declared its independence in 1999. But in Abkhazia, which is only recognized as a sovereign country by five other nations, the battle for independence still rages.Right now, there is no internationally recognized standard for what constitutes a nation. Certainly, membership in the United Nations, which requires a two-thirds majority vote of the 193 members of the General Assembly, carries considerable weight. The structure of the United Nations invites deadlock, since the five permanent members of the Security Council—the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China—have the right to veto any membership bid. But membership in UN component organizations may accrue to some states, conveying limited privileges of sovereignty. When Palestine was granted observer-state status at the United Nations, there was dancing in the streets in Gaza, though it is only one step along the road to full statehood.Diplomatic recognition and an exchange of ambassadors on bilateral bases also yields considerable prestige and benefits, especially if this is undertaken by major powers. Abkhazia does not yet possess any such status—neither UN membership nor broad international recognition. A nation hardly becomes a nation by the simple act of self-proclamation. While the world is increasingly interconnected, many of the globe’s most intractable conflicts remain mired in issues of statehood and territorial divisions.Angie, who declines to give her last name because her family works in the Abkhaz government, believes widespread recognition of Abkhazia is “only a matter of time,” adding, “despite the attitude of the Western countries, I think that sooner or later everyone will accept the new reality. It’s worth it to wait.”Still, Thomas de Waal, a senior associate in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment, doesn’t see Abkhazia’s disputed status being resolved any time soon. “From now on, the situation is unlikely to change,” he says, adding that the best Abkhazia could hope for is one or two more small states recognizing its sovereignty.Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, lies Vanuatu. The Pacific island nation, with a population of 250,000, has been struggling economically since its independence from French and British rule in 1980. More than two-thirds of the people of Vanuatu subsist on small-scale agriculture. Many others sustain themselves through fishing. Due to the effects of climate change on the low-lying island, Vanuatu’s troubles are likely to intensify in the coming years. But this unassuming state has become a proxy in a power struggle between Russia and the United States over recognition of Abkhazia’s independence and, by extension, the broader question of who has the right to declare a nation a nation.In the last two years, Vanuatu has recognized, unrecognized, and then re-recognized Abkhazia’s sovereignty. In the end, it turned out that the government had never actually recognized Abkhazia through official channels to begin with. The waffling is a result of both miscommunication and turf battles within Vanuatu’s government and behind-the-scenes diplomatic battles over the issue.The turmoil between Abkhazia and Vanuatu—two countries whose respective citizens know little of the other but are bound together through outside influence and cash—illustrates the need for a mechanism to normalize the process of international recognition of a state. Abkhazia, along with another de facto independent territory within Georgia’s borders, South Ossetia, is a pro-Moscow separatist region. South Ossetia has enjoyed de facto independence since 1990, and Abkhazia since 1993. Russia became the first country to recognize the territories in May 2008, following a brief war with Georgia earlier that month.Russia’s recognition of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is part of a desire by the Kremlin to assert control over what it calls its “near abroad,” vast territories that broke free with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Having Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain under its sway, while retaining a veneer of independence, is one route to achieving this end. And it is by no means the only region in the world where such forces are in play.But Russia’s tactics have not gone unnoticed. Not surprisingly, its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia drew swift condemnation from the United States and the European Union, just as these two powers’ recognition of Kosovo two years ago drew denunciations from the Kremlin. Both Western powers affirmed their support for Georgia’s territorial integrity—a position they staunchly hold to this day. Unfortunately for Russia, states willing to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been hard to come by. Both territories are recognized only by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Tuvalu. Nauru and Tuvalu are Pacific island states even smaller than Vanuatu, each with fewer than 11,000 residents.Russia’s failure to win support from even close ally Belarus is seen as an embarrassment for Moscow’s foreign policy. “It’s been four years since the war and four years since Russia’s recognition of their independence,” says Lincoln Mitchell, a professor of international politics at Columbia University who visited Abkhazia for World Policy Journal in 2010. “They haven’t gotten to 10 or 12 [countries to recognize them]; they’re stalled at five or six, which is a low number, suggesting that really, it’s only extreme outliers who are supporting this idea of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia.”But for Moscow, the consolation prize of the two territories’ loyalty—as well as assured access to the Black Sea through Abkhazia—may be enough. De Waal notes that while Russia’s neighbors resisted pressure to recognize the two territories in 2008, Moscow isn’t too troubled by how things stand. “Since then, I see that Moscow is fairly happy with the status quo, and that the limited recognition of these two entities gives Moscow greater de facto control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.”As for Vanuatu, the island nation has changed its stance on Abkhazia’s independence several times. Its fractured politics are based on divided tribal and clan ties, resulting in an indecisiveness that has also provided a window into the pressure applied on the tiny island by powerful diplomatic forces.In May 2011, Abkhazia announced that Vanuatu had agreed to recognize its sovereignty. But three days later, Vanuatu’s ambassador to the United Nations, Donald Kalpokas, denied this. “I have asked my capital whether this is true, and they denied it emphatically,” he told The New York Times. “We don’t know who is responsible for declaring that this is true. As far as we are concerned, we are dealing with Georgia, not Abkhazia. It is defamation for our country. This is disrespect.” That statement would come back to haunt the ambassador. A week later, Vanuatu’s foreign minister, Alfred Carlot, said on video that his government did, in fact, recognize Abkhazia as a sovereign nation. He chalked the confusion up to a miscommunication between his ministry and Vanuatu’s UN mission. But 11 months later, Kalpokas again said that his country did not recognize the independence of Abkhazia. “Well, we here don’t have any position on it—whether to recognize or not recognize Abkhazia,” Kalpokas told me in a telephone interview. “It’s somewhere [that] we don’t know.” Then, under further questioning, he hung up the phone.Finally, the UN expert at Vanuatu’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified the matter. Johnny George Koanapo said that Vanuatu had never officially recognized Abkhazia. That decision would have to be considered and approved by Parliament. In January, Koanapo affirmed there had been no change. Carlot’s office had acted unilaterally and illegally in declaring recognition the previous year.Moreover, Georgia’s UN Ambassador Alexander Lomaia alleges that Russia engages in “checkbook diplomacy” when it comes to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moscow simply pays countries in exchange for their cooperation—and in some cases, for votes in their favor at the United Nations. “A huge delegation of Russian government representatives parachuted to the various gatherings of these [Pacific island] states, trying to court the governments, promising them financial and material resources,” Lomaia says, adding that of the Georgians displaced during the 1992-1993 war “three-fourths of those forced to flee were overwhelmingly in favor of the peaceful restoration of unity, and of the divided communities.” Which would mean no Abkhazia, no South Ossetia, only a single greater Georgia.Anton Uspensky, a spokesman at Russia’s UN mission, sidesteps the “checkbook diplomacy” allegation, but observes, “We are not conducting a special campaign among countries to have Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognized. However, we encourage everybody to accept the new geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus. Two independent states, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, exist there alongside Georgia.”Vanuatu’s UN mission denies its country has received any financial benefit from Russia in exchange for its declared recognition of Abkhazia, and Lomaia acknowledges there is no proof that such an exchange took place. But it has been widely reported that Venezuela found itself $2 billion richer from new military sales to Russia after recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Nicaragua also reportedly received a multi-million dollar aid package, while the Russian daily Kommersant reported Nauru received $50 million.Meanwhile, the United States, the European Union, and China have stepped in to deter such diplomatic recognitions. Juris Gulbis, Abkhazia’s de facto ambassador to the Pacific and Caribbean, says Washington has “constantly interfered” with Abkhazia’s efforts to win international recognition. “There is great pressure on … Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and Nauru to unrecognize Abkhazia,” Gulbis says. He claims Washington is “withholding aid” to the countries over the issue. In Washington, a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says, “Vanuatu has not formally recognized Abkhazia or South Ossetia, and we have no information of any plans for it to do so. We have made our position on Abkhazia and South Ossetia clear and continue to raise this issue with Pacific island states as appropriate.” American aid to the islands, he continues, is actually set to increase this May, through renegotiation of a treaty that provides aid to Pacific island nations in exchange for American access to the western and central Pacific Ocean’s tuna reserves. In 2012, Vanuatu received $9.4 million from one such five-year program.Christopher Matthews, spokesman for the European Mission to the United Nations, says the European Union “respects and supports” the territorial integrity of Georgia, adding, “The EU reminds its partners and interlocutors of this position when appropriate.” Indeed, the EU provides a five-year aid package of €23.2 million to Vanuatu, aimed at supporting economic development and creating employment.The Pacific island nation has some past experience in selling diplomatic ties to the highest bidder. In 2004, Vanuatu briefly suspended diplomatic relations with China and recognized Taiwan, after reportedly being offered $30 million in aid from Taipei. A month later, Vanuatu switched back, severing relations with Taiwan and restoring them with Beijing after its head of state, who orchestrated the deal with Taipei, was removed from office. This is a common occurrence in Vanuatu, where the recently re-elected prime minster faced an unsuccessful no-confidence vote within two weeks of taking office.The legal definition of statehood, developed in 1933, is known as the Montevideo Convention. In order to be considered a state, a territory must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. This definition of statehood, however, would include “nations” like Somaliland, Western Sahara, and Iraqi Kurdistan. Instead, at the United Nations and elsewhere, sovereignty is all about politics.The United Nations has presided over the decolonization of many of the world’s occupied territories. As countries won their independence from colonizing powers, an enormous wave of states, from Kenya in 1963 to Angola in 1976, joined the United Nations. The breakup of the Soviet Union caused another influx. In the early 1990s, Yugoslavia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Slovenia, and Croatia, among many others, became independent and were accepted as member states of the General Assembly. From 1990 to 1994, 29 countries became UN member states, while between 1995 and 2013, there were only nine: Tonga, Kiribati, Nauru, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia), Tuvalu, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Montenegro, and, most recently, South Sudan.Global boundaries have rarely been more rigid than they are today. This has left many of the world’s long-running territorial conflicts in a seemingly The to hold a vote for membership at the United Nations are the must an to the of the United Nations. The Security then the The Security votes on whether the be considered by the General Assembly, a that all 193 UN member states. this step to of the members must vote in with of the five permanent United States, United France, Russia, and This is where of these five has a or economic in the issue and to its veto was the by Palestine for full UN member This was by the United States, which with among Security that Palestine would not the votes it Palestine the vote to and the United States the need to an Palestine has a of its efforts to the United Nations as a full the to the to the it could with war and accepted to their citizens to And just the of the has not yet full at in UN it was to a a change that does not have to be approved by the Security only a simple majority in the General Assembly, which was is also no veto power in the General Assembly, the Security The was an from its previous status as a and Palestine on with the vote was in states and of the were Pacific island the and joined the United States, and In the of the of the Pacific island nations to the was a who a diplomatic says the United States have to the situation where the U.S. and were in He was to them to countries and that it an at the UN from and the that Palestine be as a new status means isn’t The by a disputed is at the United Nations, and each the have to whether to Palestine as a full But it is clear that the and its widespread was a to and the United UN which to has some countries struggling with a territorial to international recognition outside the of the Security which from in 2008, as a de facto state, even official UN been recognized by more than of the 193 UN even more than the it is recognized by the United States and of the European recognition carries with it some diplomatic or Western who more with a nation recognized by the United States and most of became a of the United Nations in after to war to a under its of independence, it has its government with and foreign while unilaterally the as its though it is not a member of the European Union. together with it the issue of just what constitutes a nation in that the United Nations itself does not recognize states. states other he says. “The to a state is other states recognizing as is some hope for Kosovo a full member of the United Nations. Russia, an ally of which has recognition of the government in the has to any for recognition in the Security But the government in in that it be to UN membership for Kosovo in exchange for a with is the pressure to normalize relations with the territory because it is EU membership for EU foreign with the and in early in in the to since Indeed, the European Union has the of the United Nations in a to the Kosovo A senior European speaking on recently told “The Security to these issues from time to but the is that it is the European Union and its that to the the Kosovo government has said UN membership is its it’s how which recognition by and with Western countries, as well as a widely recognized would actually benefit from being made a member Abkhazia has only a of a for internationally recognized But that from his The claims that family in the capital of is from the last war with Georgia and that he would still a to I all people and them But if I had the to in with Georgia, or and for the and independence of Abkhazia, the would be Abkhazia must be the that Abkhazia must be a part of Georgia is It’s to than accept also any “There is no in the world which would Abkhazia to be part of Georgia, if there is even one We will for our that we have to from We don’t have another and never is willing to for his the young human rights has of as a and that Abkhazia’s status as a nation on the international her to as she She says that while she has a Russian she has to to Moscow to for a to other European of to the to and of other she says with some I don’t have this I know well who me of these But I have hope for people to change to change their attitude and accept that this is the new geopolitical Abkhazia isn’t Georgia’s Abkhazia, or for that matter Kosovo or be recognized as independent countries is not even the central issue. of disputed who simply to and for their on the they not have to be as diplomatic between the world’s five permanent members of the Security the United Nations. Without their support there be no change to the veto which them to the of UN and all the membership would those on disputed an the permanent five would recognize that the Security power and veto structure is an to or UN membership to states. status quo, in one the United States Russia for UN and in the to any vote on there to be an Security for which was in during the to a in the The the General the power to the Security in some if the of of of the permanent to its for the of international and in any where there to be a to the of the or act of The issue of for would to under these But it because for has only been a of since its and never in the of the members of the Security may an issue to the General Assembly, and there is no veto by any of the permanent members to such a The with this is that it only gives the General the to for with no for as strong as for a General vote on if states are by broad international recognition by other states, it no to UN membership to be by one of the 193 UN member states. for be or a but mechanism to Security and a General vote where statehood is concerned, and of widely recognized territories the they not to the that to for international a and on international membership in the and for under international to name just a recognized as sovereign by the vast majority of the world have these rights that from UN membership a veto from a also be a for like Abkhazia to their if the UN it could to the which was to and the decolonization of territories. The been since 1994, when its last became this or creating a mechanism to the rights of those in disputed territories would within the UN full UN the citizens of these have no except being and for their to be a mechanism would states to in and for their to and in our increasingly for his a by a Russian during the war between Russia and about this one with all his I the has the of And the people are with and others who are with need a new to their Without an too many like are left between diplomatic at the United Nations or violence in the from in and from