Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

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

Abkhaz SSR

I'm astonished how assertive some users are despite their lack of knowledge of the history of Georgia's conflicts. I don't know who advanced an ignorant claim with regard of Abkhaz SSR being part of Russia, but here are a few sources from all Georgian, Abkhaz and third parties proving that Abkhaz SSR was a "treaty republic" subordinated to Georgian SSR:

1. "The Abkhaz SSR, united on the basis of Union Treaty with the Georgian SSR, enters Trans-Caucasus Soviet Socialist Federative Republic through the Georgian SSR and as a member of latter, the USSR." Constitution of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia of 1 April 1925 from an Abkhaz web-site

2. Template:Ru icon "ССР Абхазия, объединившись на основе особого союзного договора с ССР Грузией, через нее входит в Закавказскую Социалистическую Федеративную Советскую Республику и в составе последней - в Союз Советских Социалистических Республик." ИЗ КОНСТИТУЦИИ СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКОЙ СОВЕТСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ АБХАЗИИ from an Abkhaz source

3. "The Abkhaz SSR, united on the basis of Union Treaty with the Georgian SSR, enters Trans-Caucasus Soviet Socialist Federative Republic through the Georgian SSR and as a member of latter, the USSR." CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ABKHAZIA OF 1 APRIL 1925 from a Georgian NGO website

4. "Separate Soviet Socialist Republics of Georgia and Abkhazia with equal status are created. A treaty of alliance is signed between the two, though the division of responsibilities is not made clear. In 1922 they enter the Transcaucasian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic. In 1925 Abkhazia promulgates a constitution sanctioning its status as a union republic with treaty ties to Georgia. An earlier reference to Abkhazia as an autonomous republic in the 1924 USSR Constitution remains unratified until 1931 when Abkhazia’s status is reduced to an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the Georgian SSR." International NGO project involving Abkhaz and Georgian contributors.

More sources can be provided if requested. --Kober^Talk 09:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't need any more sources. The revision was done by myself, in error, due to myself being responsible for introducing the bulk of those sections into the article, and I checked and rechecked sources at the time of their introduction, so that they were in fact accurate. However, I mistakingly believed that I also introduced those assertions into the article, and upon checking I did not introduce them; the cited sources didn't look familiar to me upon second look. Having an IP editor simply coming in and using "what a nonsense" as an edit summary can make one jump the gun somewhat, and this is what I did on this occasion. I have removed the cited reference, and will leave it for an appropriate source to be added. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC says Somalia has recognised South Ossetia

It says "a miniscule country of 50,000 people, recognised only by Russia, Nicaragua and Somalia." Its about 2 thirds down under the title "Understanding our ancestry" BBC source Ijanderson (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, contribute to the respective subsection at the talk page instead of creating new subsections.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No I won't. I'm using the talk page for its intended purpose which is to help improve the article. What you have just done could be classed as disruptive editing. Ijanderson (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Brrr. Where is my disruptive editing? We have the special section about Somalia at the talk page, but it was archived by bot, because you preferred to create the new subsection instead of using the old one.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a personal opinion of a single journalist in an article about Ossetian culture. According the last agency news (?) [1] Somalian sources report about conflicts between Somalian foreign office and Somalian ambassador in Moscow. Elysander (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, after reading your link, I think that it is better to delete Somalia from the article at all. I will do it now.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

and because it has been achieved i had to start a new thread when new info comes around. Your making things rather difficult Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't delete everything about Somalia because there are conflicting messages - that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Those differeces should be highlighted, so the readers can see the complications in the Somali situation. Just because something is confusing or inexplicable, it doesn't mean that we should remove everything. I'm going to reinstate the Somalia section. It probably needs some work though - a job for tomorrow. Bazonka (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why tomorrow? Officials of Foreign Ministry in Somalia (Mogadishu) rejected clearly ambassador's ( "phony" !) remarks as assumption. Elysander (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I said tomorrow because I was just about to go to bed :) Bazonka (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Elysander's version only because my version says exactly the same thing, but also has redlinks for downline article development. As I am involved in articles relating to foreign relations of Russia, such redlinks are highly important to editors such as myself. Additionally, mareeg.com, is this a reliable source of information? It appears to be a personal website of someone in the US (as per all the vote for Obama graphics scattered around it), so it could very well be that this source is not a reliable source for information; I am not saying that the information contained in it is not correct, however, a more reliable source for information is required for an encyclopaedia. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should Russian state media own more reliabilty seeking desperately for recognition supporters for months ;) ? One simple source multiplicated in variations via several state media to cover it's only one source. In question of recognition government's statement should come first .. and not an obviously not authorized ambassador who expressed his personal view. Elysander (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Mareeg.com provides World news and information, In particular somalia and African current events posting articles daily both in English and Somali and offering reliable and diversity of multi-lingual streaming programming as well as more articles in our searchable archive (which includes the archive of Somali old News and more). Educational, cultural and environmental issues are the most important to us. The Mareeg.com family includes all Somali Regional correspondents in and out of Somalia. Our main goal is to connect the Somali society to the global society. Mareeg news web site is gladly accepts any contribution of News articles and Information about Somalia and the world in general". I think it is impossible to find more reliable source about Somalia. Remember that Somalia is under the state of civil war, so we cannot find many news agencies there.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we know Russavia's rhetorical questions and manoeuvres .. but i'm always assuming good faith. :) Regarding his personal record I'm sure russavia did already check that information is true. :)) [2] - Elysander (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At the outset, I'm not going to get into ridiculous repartee about reliability of Russian media. This is Wikipedia where we are bound by WP:FIVE, with one of those policies being WP:V. One of the guidelines we also use is WP:RS. The information which was reported by Russian news services about Handule's comments was widely carried by other news services such as the BBC, AP, AFP, etc, etc. This means that for our purposes, we do not discount such information (unless one only wants their own biases and POV to shine through, and frankly I've had a gutful of that on other articles, and this article should be no different). The information from mareeg.com, hell, it may be true, but is mareeg.com a reliable source? The information was only found by way of a google search; it's appearance in google news is not an indicator to their reliability as anyone can add their website feed to google news and have it appearing there. If mareeg.com is a reliable source, then this information should be carried by mainstream news services also, and as yet it is not, hence I have marked it accordingly; it needs to be demonstrated by editors inserting information that it is a reliable source above and beyond simply finding a link on google. It is original research on your part to insinuate that Handule is not authorised to speak on the behalf of the Somali government; many ambassadors are authorised to speak for their governments, many are not. That insinuation also needs to be referenced to a WP:RS. The statement, how it is ordered is absolutely irrelevant; go ahead and refactor if you wish in a coherent way, but ensure that redlinks are provided how I have done so, because as I have mentioned such things are important for editors who are editing in particular areas for downline article development. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also I can provide this link [3]. The same news, but with the date 5 October 2008, so we can use this date in the article. Also, we can use this link [4]. That is why a number of Somali news sites reported the same information. Also, I have to underline that Mareeg is the media, which has included in Google news service [5]. So, we have to treat it as reliable source.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. apanews.net is a reliable source, so I trust that it will be used as a reference rather than mareeg.com, which does not appear to have a track record of reliability as far as I can ascertain. I will search for other sources in other languages so that we may have a permalink as well. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not before instead of bringing up rhetorical questions? Your manoeuvres confirm only existing "prejudgements". ;) Elysander (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that to be the case, then you didn't WP:AGF at the outset. I had already searched in Russian and found nothing. I will keep digging there and see if something else can be found. But it appears that apanews.net is the ultimate source of this information. To Yuriy Kolodin above, the existence of a source in Google News does not confer notability or reliability upon that source, due to the nature of the google news service; its machine automated, which any webmaster can add their website to; you can also find forums in GN, and these definitely are not WP:RS. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of your remarks are hard to believe. If you are only typing some key words in different google searches you find enough agency news with this information within seconds; obviously their journalists were attending the press conference on 5 Oct. If I really understand you did already know that this Somalia passage was before pure bias? It's soon time to check all article's lines ( text & sources). Elysander (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Russavia, your assertion about mareeg.com is not very sound. For example, there are other articles in Wikipedia which use mareeg.com as the source. [6]. That is why I think that this source is reliable source. It is very strange for me why Russian media didn't disseminate such important information at all. But, probably it is because of absense of Russian journalists in Somalia - the country which is under the state of civil war. Also I see no strangeness that Somali news agency supports Obama [7] --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Elysander. I think that recognition by Somalia is not important for Russia at all. The probable recognition by Belarus is important. The existant recognition by Nicaragua is important (because Nicaragua is a)democratic b)real c)Central American state). But recognition by paper states such Somalia is not important. I see no malicious intent in the fact that Russian media did not explore futher the position of Transitional Federal Government of Somalia - and there were no news about press-conference in Mogadisho in Russian media at all.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazian declaration of independence

The article currently states that "Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia in 1992, when it invoked the right of secession under an interpretation of Articles 70 and 72 of the USSR Constitution." This is however not supported by any citations, and I question whether it is true in this literal sense. In 1992, a version of the 1925 constitution was adopted, but In Abkhazia, the end of the war (either September 30th or October 1st 1993, I don't remember) is celebrated as the starting day of independence, and Russia's recognition is based on the adoption in 1999 of the new constitution which (re)affirmed Abkhazia's independence. I don't know whether at any point before, Abkhazia issued an official declaration of independence, but whatever turns out to be the case, sources are needed. sephia karta 18:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The declaration of sovereignity was adopted 25 August 1990 [8] . 23 July 1992 the Constitution was officially changed and the name of the state became "Republic of Abkhazia". This day can be considered as the day of proclaiming the independence. The new Constitution was adopted 26 November 1994 [9] with amendments adopted 3 October 1999. The official Act of Indepdence was adopted only 12 October 1999[10], however this act rather reiterates that Abkhazia became the independent state in 1992 because of severing the state-legal ties between Abkhazia and Georgia [11]--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. But so it is as I thought, Abkhazia never explicitly declared independence at the time, and according to the 1999 act on state independence, Abkhazia became de jure independent with the 1992-1993 war, and this was legally confirmed with the 1994 constitution, but again, independence is not explicitly mentioned therein. So in any case, the way it is currently written in the article needs to be changed. sephia karta 01:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The constitution of 1992 (1925) declares Abkhazia as the special part of Georgia. So, Abkhazia declares its independence after the war with Georgia (not before- it is quite suprisingly for me). So, we have to say that Abkhazia declares its independence only on 26 November 1994 when the Constitution of sovereign and independent Abkhazian state was adopted [12]. I will try to rewrite the article now. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 1808

I propose removing the paragraph on UNSC resolution 1808 (the one which starts with "In April 2008, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1808 (2008)"), either from the lead intro section or preferably from the article altogether. Alternatively, I propose slimming it down to a single sentence to demote its prominence.

It is both confusing and irrelevant to include the position a United Nations organ in any article about recognition, especially since the statement was made prior to the initiation of the conflict which led directly to recognition. Especially since the United Nations did not (and does not) have any direct leading role in the settlement of the conflict, unlike in Kosovo where the position of the UN has been relevant due to its intimate involvement.

The United Nations has, ever since it was founded, stressed over and over again that it has no power to recognize or not recognize any state. Any statements coming from the UN has to keep this in mind. So it is nonsense to give prominence to select sentences from UNSC 1808 in this article, which is an article about recognition.

To make this clear, I quote directly from MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT IN MARCH 1950 ON THE REPRESENTATION OF COMMUNIST CHINA IN THE UNITED NATIONS, as quoted by Quincy Wright, "Some Thoughts About Recognition", 44 The American Journal of International Law (1950) p.548, where the United Nations Secretariat itself reiterates:

"the United Nations does not possess any authority to recognize either a new state or a new Government of an existing state. To establish the rule of collective recognition would require either an amendment of the Charter or a treaty to which all Members would adhere."

It can not be clearer than this. The UN itself has said over and over again that it has no recognition powers, therefore any statements by a UN organ have even less legal force than statements by such entities Hamas or Gagauzia.

There is no relevance for this inclusion in an article about recognition. However, it would (marginally) be relevant in an article about Georgian territorial integrity. But this is not what this particular article is about, as per its title. Jagiellon (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You can rewrite this paragraph to underline that this resolution was adopted before the conflict, and Russia voted in favour of it. However, please do not remove this paragraph from the article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

International (un)recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (npov opinion)

The title implies Abkhazia and South Ossetia are internationally recognized countries but the wiki seems to list just as many countries not recognizing them. I think the both wordings are too biased. Do Abkhazia or South Ossetia hold UN seats? 161.185.151.218 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (edit: fixed spelling)

I think that title does not imply anything. This article is about international recognition of A&SO. The reader can realize the degree of this recognition simply by reading the article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nicaragua only declared it's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. At least this decision wheren't ratified by the parliament of Nicaragua. Please correct me, if I am wrong at this statement.

From this news article we can see, that there should be decision of the parliament.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080904/116538071.html zebra24 (just not logged in) 134.134.136.3 (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Zebra24, we have already discussed this issue plenty of times. Nicaragua HAS recognized A&SO. We have the links in the article to the respective decrees of Nicaraguan president. According to the Constitution of Nicaragua there is no need for approvement of these decrees in the Nicaraguan parliament (we have the link for this statement of acting Foreign minister of Nicaragua in the article also). Also you can see that the date of your news in your link is 04/09/2008, but the decrees was signed 05/09/2008, that is why your news is obsolete and is not applicable to the article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Belarus

http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2008/12/22/13373/ Max Mux (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of Facts

The title : International Rrecognition... is misinterpretation of facts, the republic is recognized only by Russia (who is considered as an occupant) and Nicaragua. The article violates not only suverenity and teritorial integrity of Georgia recognized by UN and all the other international organizations, but also modern international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.68.18 (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As you say, the territories have been internationally recognised by two countries - the title is clearly appropriate for these. And the positions of other countries are outlined in the article - details of any opposing positions are also relevant to the subject matter. Whether you personally agree or disagree with the recognitions/non-recognitions is irrelevant - what matters is the response of the international community, whether that be for or against. Bazonka (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Martintg's POV-pushing

Martintg is POV-pushing in this article. Firstly, he unilaterally moves the article to a title to match his POV. Go and move International recognition of Kosovo to International non-recognition of Kosovo, after all a vast majority of countries do not recognise Kosovo as independent.

He has then changed the lead from:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are partially recognised countries, which Georgia considers as parts of Georgia's sovereign territory.[1]

to:

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are only recognised by Russia and Nicaragua, which Georgia considers as parts of Georgia's sovereign territory.[1]

I have reverted this change, only to have the edit undone by User:Kober (no surprise there). In my edit summary, I mentioned that this information is already covered in the lead....

The European Union,[9] NATO,[10] OSCE,[11] the United States[12] and many countries have voiced displeasure with Russia's decision and have reaffirmed their recognition of Georgia's territorial integrity.[13] Georgia responded to Russia by declaring Abkhazia and South Ossetia occupied territories and downgraded its diplomatic mission to Russia to consulate level.[14][15][16] Nicaragua was and still is the only country to join Russia in recognising the independence of the two breakaway regions.

So, what, in the Constitution section, do we state that only Russia and Nicaragua recognise their constitution? And again in the UN resolution section? And in the following section? Hell, we could include this fact after every sentence. Let's really ram home the POV-pushing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)