Tuesday Map: Abkhazia, what’s really at stake?

Tue, 05/13/2008 - 5:23pm

The smaller the renegade province, the bigger the pawn -- at least so it seems in the world of post-communist geostrategic positioning.  Just as the dust has begun to settle around the Kosovo independence issue, Georgia’s breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia now find themselves front and center in the separatist question lime light.

In recent months, the U.S. has pushed for Georgian memebership in NATO, rebel pockets and all; while Russia has upped its ties with both of Georgia's de facto independent states. And just this week, the EU threw in its two cents, declaring support for Georgian territorial integrity.

With Moscow-Tbilisi tensions running high, let’s take a look at what Abkhazia and South Ossetia really have to offer...beyond their mad drone-downing skills:

Map by Phillipe Rekacewicz - UNEP/GRID-ARENDAL

According to this week’s Tuesday Map of Georgia’s environmental and security issues from the IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre), the two rebel provinces come complete with two refugee camps (orange triangles), two nuclear waste sites (yellow markers), and one “large aging Soviet industrial complex still generating pollution” (red circle).

Abkhazia does have a beautiful coast -- so beautiful, in fact, that the most famous Georgian of them all incorporated it into Georgia proper back in 1931, setting the province on course for decades of ethnic tension and the economic isolation. Beautiful or not though, this week's map shows that much of Abkhazia's shore line is actually chock full of “pesticides and/or heavy metals (mainly inherited from the Soviet period)” (yellow patches).

All in all, I can see why neither Georgia nor Russia will give up their influence over this diamond in the rough -- what country wouldn't forsake regional stability for a few more nuclear waste sites?

( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Feedback regarding the posting on Abkhazia

To the Editors of the Passport Blog of the Foreign Policy magazine:

I am writing to you in response to the posting entitled “Tuesday Map: Abkhazia, what’s really at stake?” by Lucy Moore of May 13, 2008. First of all, even in the blogosphere, where rapid reaction to events is of primary consideration, this inapt vignette falls well below the common standards because of its derisive tone and factual inaccuracies. Drenched with tasteless sarcasm Lucy Moore’s posting on Abkhazia appears to be written with a noticeable disdain for the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Georgian internally displaced persons (IDPs), who once resided in Abkhazia. Second, cloaked in a seemingly tongue-in-cheek style of prose, Lucy Moore’s posting actually betrays a number of unforgivable factual inaccuracies. For starters, the map “National environment and security issues in Georgia,” which apparently represents the centerpiece of this posting, is incorrectly cited as being provided by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC). In reality the map was created by Philippe Rekacewicz of the United Nations Environment Programme/GRID-Ardenal in July 2004. You can find it in the electronic library of maps and graphics of the United Nations Environment Programme/GRID-Ardenal at http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_environment_and_security_issues_in_georgia. Interestingly, the caption below the map correctly identifies the source as “Philippe Rekacewicz – UNEP/GRID-ARDENAL,” and yet the author proceeded to incorrectly cite the source of the map as the IDMC. Third, just because certain symbols were placed on the map arbitrarily does not mean that they actually exist. There are no refugee camps in either Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The majority of Georgian IDPs from Abkhazia live in and around Zugdidi, while most of the Georgian IDPs from South Ossetia are scattered across Eastern Georgia, including Tbilisi. Fourth, contrary to the markings on the map, there are no nuclear waste sites in either Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Obviously the map contains gross factual inaccuracies and it is regretful that such a reputable publication as the Foreign Policy and its extension in the blogosphere failed to carry out the most basic fact-checking to verify the aforementioned claims. This is a clear indication of lax editorial guidelines and insufficient control over the content of postings on the Passport blog or simple lack of professionalism or all of the above. Fifth, as a Georgian, I was deeply offended to read that Stalin was the “most famous Georgian.” By whose verdict? Lucy Moore’s? After displaying her utter lack of knowledge about this complex region, she can hardly qualify as an expert on Georgia or Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Sixth, it is blatantly wrong to say that Abkhazia was incorporated into Georgia proper by Stalin in 1931. For centuries Abkhazia has been an integral part of the Georgian Kingdom and at the very least Lucy Moore should have visited the Wikipedia entry on Abkhazia in order to pick up the most basic facts from this region’s history. Finally, I must admit that in general I find Passport blog rather informative, but Lucy Moore’s dilettante and uninformed posting on Abkhazia made me think twice about accessing this blog or recommending it to others. It is my sincere hope that this feedback will result in improvement of quality of the postings related to Georgia, Abkhazia or Caucasus region in general.