Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Medvedev's Perspectives on Kosovo

Regarding Kosovo, President Medvedev was correct. One cannot support a region breaking away from a state for purely ethnic reasons (i.e. Kosovo from Serbia) and then deny this right to other regions round the world such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, the interest and motives of Russia in this area are unclear and could be discussed in the article. Is it oil or something else, for example. I doubt whether England would intervene to protect a breakaway Shetland Islands from an independent Scotland.

Vanuatu withdrawn

In regards to this revert, the withdrawal has been confirmed by Moana Carcasses Kalosil according to Agence France-Presse [1] so I think we do need to indicate this in the table somehow. A separate "withrawn recognition" section is probably the best approach, though I'm open to other ideas. TDL (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Vanuatu’s PM tells of strong opposition to Abkhazian ties.--Kober^Talk 02:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an original footage showing the meeting between the President of Georgia and PM of Vanuatu, during which the reversal of recognition was discussed.--Kober^Talk 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My objection was to the awful sourcing. If we have good sources, then I agree a "Recognition withdrawn" section would be useful. A source noting the Vanuatun Prime Minister's statement would be preferable than one discussing Saakashveli however, although including both to create a chronology would be better. CMD (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a model for these cases in the article Int.recogn.of SADR, we should apply them in other articles (Int.recog. of Abkhazia and SO, of Kosovo, etc., where there are). This is a stable version to view these cases (of states that have "withdrawn" or "frozen" recognition). Jan CZ (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the classification of Vanuatu among those countries that have withdrawn recognition is premature. We have only the Georgian President's assertion, made only on Facebook (WP: BLOG). All journalistic comment are based on this his blog speech. Vanuatu this information so far no comment. Abkhazia claims today saying that it is only a Saakashvili imagination [2]. I think we should wait for the official expression of Vanuatu. Jan CZ (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well there was a public press conference (some of which you can watch here) where Kalosil (PM of Vanuatu) discussed the issue. Agence France-Presse described the PM's statements at this conference as: "Vanuatu's premier Moana Carcasses Kalosil later confirmed the move in a joint video statement with Saakashvili from the sidelines of a conference in Thailand." Also, the President of Georgia has also published the comments on the official presidential website. Yes, we don't have a direct quote from confirming the move from Vanuatu, but I think that's pretty convincing sourcing. The argument of Abkhazian officials seems to be that this was his personal POV, and not an official act of government. Just because Abkhazia has denied it, I'm not sure that's reason to refrain from making the change. TDL (talk)

Agree. However, hopefully soon to be official confirmation. Jan CZ (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that would certainly help add some clarity to the situation, but if this whole disaster has taught me anything about politics in Vanuatu it's that they'd just change their mind the next day anyways. I suppose 8 changes of PM over a span of 3.5 years tends to have that effect. TDL (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as we state the source of the information, when it comes from a primary statement such as the Georgian, Abkhazian, and Vanuatuan governments, it should be fine. CMD (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Vanuatuan governments statements on its own foreign policy is a reliable source, it would be ludicrous to consider it not a reliable one.XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Vanuatu is that different representatives of the government have given contradictory statements in the past. They probably have to be identified to even smaller detail. CMD (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Abkhazian press release on Vanuatu

I'm starting a new topic on this specifically, so that it doesn't get lost in the above discussion from May. Namely, I'm concerned about the weight that we're giving (both here and on Abkhazia–Vanuatu relations) to statements released in Russian by the deputy foreign minister of the Republic of Abkhazia, contradicting claims that Vanuatu has withdrawn its recognition.

The problems with this statement are that in both linked sources 1. it's in Russian, 2. when I use Google Translate on those articles, they seem to confirm that Vanuatu-Abkhazian relations have been cut off, and 3. though I may be missing something with Google Translate (see point 1), both of the linked articles seem to suggest that the Abkhaz official is condemning international pressure on Vanuatu and condemning Georgia's propaganda efforts, rather than denying that Vanuatu has withdrawn recognition. It's possible that in a better translation he may in fact suggest that the Prime Minister of Vanuatu has no authority to withdraw recognition, or something to that effect; but even if he were claiming that, I strongly doubt that an obscure Abkhaz official is reliable source for Ni-Vanuatu constitutional law.

In short, we seem to be giving undue weight to what seems to be a hissy-fit by a minor Abkhaz official over the (possibly temporary) severing of relations with and recognition by Vanuatu, in which he may or may not have claimed that the Prime Minister of Vanuatu does not have the authority to withdraw recognition.

It seems that Vanuatu has indeed withdrawn recognition, and though I suspect it will be restored in the next change of government (consider the mercurial diplomatic tendencies of the Pacific Island states in general and Vanuatu in particular), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and for now the position of Vanuatu seems to be that it no longer recognizes Abkhazia, full stop. —Quintucket (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sixth "recogniser" of Abkhazia?

I don't get it. What is the sixth country which recognizes Abkhasia? I only see Nauru, Nicaragua, Russia, Venezuela and Tuvalu, but what is the sixth?! Vanuatu has withdrawn its recognition.--31.17.153.69 (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But they were (past tense) recognized by Vanuatu after the war. Assuming you are asking about the second sentence, the rest of the sentence explains that this was withdrawn. TDL (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't allow countries who previously recognised them under the sub-title "States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent" because that implies that they still do recognise them and that is misleading the reader/ audience. IJA (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• States which have recognized Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent (The following lists all the states that have ever recognised Abkhazia or South Ossetia).
  • States that currently recognise.
  • States that have withdrawn or frozen recognition.

I think that view is now quite clear. Jan CZ (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with IJA, clearly states that have withdrawn recognition cannot continue to be listed under "States formally recognising", it is contradictory and misleading. This is more logical:

• States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent
  • States that have never recognised
  • States that initially recognised but subsequently withdrawn

The article needs to reflect the present situation. --Nug (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanuatu and Tuvalu must be under the title "States that do not recognise Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent" because these two countries do NOT recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent. Period! IJA (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

IJA: no one has ever suggested that they currently do recognize either. In the latest revision Vanuatu and Tuvalu are listed under the heading "States which have recognized" which is perfectly correct because of course they did recognize.

The question is do we divide the states by their current position or by whether they have ever recognized at some point. The former is discouraged by WP:PRECISELANG, since it is only true at one point in time and quickly becomes out of date. (Vanuatu alone has changed their mind at least 6 times now by my count.) So the statement "Vanuatu currently does not recognize" is somewhat meaningless without a timestamp. However, the statement "Vanuatu has formally recognized" is true and remains true for ever. For this reason I think Jan's latest revision with retitled sections is the best option. Another advantage of this layout is that it allows us to properly present the chronology of recognitions. TDL (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article always divided states by their current position, the section title is Positions taken by states and the map caption states "A world map, showing the status of international recognition". Vanuatu may have flip flopped in the past, but they signed an agreement on establishing diplomatic and consular relations with Georgia, formalising their non-recognition of the break-away regions. We always list states by their latest position, for example in the case of the Baltic states, Australia briefly gave de jure recognition of Soviet annexation for 18 months but reversed their position, so we do not list them in the section "3. De jure recognition" but in section "2. De jure non-recognition" with appropriate annotation in the article State_continuity_of_the_Baltic_states#List_of_recognition_and_non-recognition_of_annexation. The same approach is take here. --Nug (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the article has always divided the states by whether they have recognized at some point in time or not, until you changed it just yesterday. That's why we are having this discussion. It's a bit disingenuous to change the article and then argue it should remain changed because you have already changed it. That "Vanuatu has formally recognized and then withdrawn recognition" is an entirely legitimate "positions taken by state".

Vanuatu signed an agreement recognizing Abkhazia and establishing diplomatic relations with them in 2011, and then changed their mind three weeks later. So them signing an agreement is hardly conclusive. Andyourn example from 40 years ago entirely misses the point of WP:PRECISELANG. Besides, that WP:OSE isn't a legitimate rationale to do things here. TDL (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That is demonstrably untrue. The version before my change, here, has these subsection titles:

4 Positions taken by states

4.1 States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent

4.2 States that do not recognise Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent

Clearly the article has always represented the present tense, this past tense wording is something new that you and Jan have introduced in order to preserve Vanuatu and Tuvalu in the recognition section. As IJA pointed out, that is just plain misleading. Vanuatu and Tuvalu, having withdrawn their recognition, are correctly moved to the section States that do not recognise Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent while their past recognition is duly noted. Vanuatu may have flip flopped initially, however recognition of states isn't something that changes often and Vanuatu has settled down to its final position, thus WP:PRECISELANG does not apply. --Nug (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No, now you're diverting from the issue at hand by trying to change the subject. We were discussing how the states were divided on the list, not what the section titles were. What you said: "this article always divided states by their current position". Meanwhile, if one actually looks at the article ([3]) one can clearly see that the states are divided into two groups: those that have recognized at some point (6) and those that have never recognized (the rest). You can confirm this by checking to see that Vanuatu and Tuvalu are grouped with all the other states which have recognized at some point, and have been so for months now following their withdrawal of recognition. Unless you are trying to suggest that Vanuatu and Tuvalu are grouped with the states that have never recognized in that revision, then the diff demonstrates precisely the opposite of what you claim. Dividing states by the current status is something new that you and IJA have just come up with in an attempt to justify moving Vanuatu and Tuvalu to the section of states which have never recognized. If you'd like to WP:BOLDly propose such a change to this long-standing division then fine, but to suggest that the states have always been divided in the manner in which you propose is simply false, as demonstrated by your own link, no matter how much you try to rewrite history to fit your story.

By my count there have been at least 7 flipflops by the two states combined in the last 3 years, most recently 3 months ago. That's hardly "isn't something that changes often", "settled" or "final". TDL (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Now your argument is somewhat disingenuous. The section titles concretely demonstrate the intent of the groupings is to differentiate on the basis of a country's current position, which is confirmed by the supporting map showing only Nauru, Nicaragua, Russia and Venezuela. Jan CZ attempted to sneak in new section titles[4], changing the long standing "formally recognising" to a new "which have recognised", with a misleading edit comment "Return to the standard view". Vanuatu and Tuvalu where simply in the wrong section given their withdrawal of recognition and that has now been corrected. If you want to change these long standing section titles then seek consensus first. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To claim that "Jan CZ attempted to sneak in new section titles" is really quite silly. In the very diff you link to Jan clearly stated that they had "edit the titles". That's certainly not "sneaky". What do you expect, a personal notification on your talk page documenting any changes to the encyclopedia? Rather than cherry picking quotes to try to discredit others, please WP:AGF, actually read what has been written and attempt to refute the points that have been made rather than resorting to personalizing your beef with others.

The suggestion that "the section titles concretely demonstrate the intent of the groupings is to differentiate on the basis of a country's current position" neglects the proper usage of the English language. Neither "Positions taken by states" nor "States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent" imply the present tense. In fact, "taken" can exclusively be used for the past tense. For example, "Vantuatu has taken the position of formally recognizing Abkhazia as independent then subsequently withdrawing their recognition" is neither wrong nor needs to be "corrected". That is the point of the section title. A title written in the past tense doesn't "demonstrate the intent of the groupings is to differentiate on the basis of a country's current position", but rather quite the opposite.

You are welcome to propose a reinterpretation or rewording of the title, but any changes to the long-term sectioning, which has been in place for over a year, needs consensus, not edit warring to force through. At your suggestion I will restore the long-term sectioning and titles per WP:BRD, pending the establishment of a a consensus for any such changes on the talk page. TDL (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

To me there should be two lists, one list for countries which currently recognise and one list for countries which currently don't recognise. This will provide the reader/ audience with the latest up to date information. I suppose I'm open to the idea pf a third list 'Countries which used to recognise A & SO". IJA (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanuatu was almost a year, after the withdrawal of recognition, still in the first paragraph. Of course, my editing was Return to the standard view. View current and "former" recognizers in one section is a logical and meaningful as well as for other reasons than told by Dan. In particular, international recognition is something vastly different from the diplomatic relations. While relations may be at any time canceled by States legally, international recognition is, according to international law, final and irrevocable. In some cases, States have issued formal withdrawal of this acts, but it does not mean that such acts of withdrawing have legal force under international law. Indeed, MFA of Abkhazia still lists the full number of recognitions (6). In articles about foreign relations, Yes, let placed in a one paragraph existing relationships, in the second former relationships. But "former recognitions"? As regards the recognition is final and irrevocable, the recognitions should be all together in united paragraph. Along with a note about the legal and practical aspects of a possible "withdrawal" of recognition. Color resolution well shows to readers the current real political positions of all recognizers.

The legality of "withdrawing" of recognition is at least questionable, Nug disposal of "former" recognitions is a major change, and Nug should look for consensus for this change before edits. Jan CZ (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Vanuatu's recognition was never legal to begin with. According to this interview with Vanuatu's foreign minister Edward Natapei, Vanuatu never signed and formalised the relationship documents with Abkhazia and South Ossettia[5]:

"COUTTS: And so did you say, did I hear you correctly, that that relationship with Abkhazia and South Ossettia was never signed with Vanuatu?"

"NATAPEI; No, it was never signed. The former minister of foreign affairs actually announced it, but they never did formalise it, so when I came in as Minister of Foreign Affairs, we checked it up and we realised that there hadn't been any formalisation of that decision, so we it was a simple issue of deciding to establish diplomatic relations with Georgia and that's what we did."

So Vanuatu was never even a "former" recogniser, they never actually established relations with Abkhazia or South Ossettia, so please stop pushing this nonsense --Nug (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No that is not true at all. You have been confused by all the flip flops and don't understand the difference between diplomatic relations and recognition. The original recognition was most certainly legal. You can see a copy of the document, complete with signature by the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, for yourself at [6] dated May 2011. Natapei was speaking of the reestablishment of diplomatic relations. And besides, as Jan tried to explain to you, diplomatic relations and recognition are completely different things. Even if they had never established diplomatic relations, that has no bearing on whether they recognized.

@IJA: A 3 section layout seems like a reasonable compromise to me. TDL (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The price of recognition

It would be interesting to see information on prices paid to Vanuatu and a few other countries for their recognition of small new (created or restored) countries. WP currently says nothing about why a new country should be recognized by a specific few existing countries; is there a reliable source stating that such recognizing countries require substantial payments for their service? It is pretty clear that payments are the only reasonable motivation. (Reference: The Rachel Maddow Show, March 10, 2014, MSNBC television) David Spector (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Vanuatu issue

As we can read from this source — "В 2011 году мы написали признание Абхазии и запрос дипломатических отношений. Ничего не изменилось, за исключением того, что мы не установили дипломатические отношения с Абхазией, но установили с Грузией." Vanuatu has official diplomatic relations with Georgia, that means Vanuatu recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Id est if Vanuatu has official relations with Georgia it provides respect of Georgian territory including Abkhazia and informal unofficial "relations" with Abkhazia of one man from Vanuatu can't be more weighty than official agreements between these two countries (Georgia and Vanuatu). --g. balaxaZe★ 08:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• He says that not only established diplomatic relations, speech derecognition not going--Murza-Zade (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Such contradictions caused by the ambiguity of these statements about what exactly they recognized the territorial integrity with Abkhazia or without--Murza-Zade (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)