Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ossetia    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Ossetia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Georgia (country) (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Abkhazia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 


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

Medvedev's Perspectives on Kosovo[edit]

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.

Sixth "recogniser" of Abkhazia?[edit]

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 ([1]) 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[2], 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[3]:
"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 [4] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Vanuatu withdrew recognition, this is very common knowledge on this article's subject. IJA (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
“the Republic of Vanuatu recognizes territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders, including its regions - the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia,” [5] [6] [7] [8] IJA (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
"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." IJA (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
No one has claimed that they didn't withdraw recognition in 2013. But Vanuatu has had 6 different PMs since originally recognizing in May 2011, and each takes a different position on the matter. The sources you link to are out of date as they quote people from a government that is no longer in power. The new sources suggest that Vanuatu's new government, which was in charge when Vanuatu previously recognized Abkhazia, has reiterated their original position: "In 2011, we wrote the recognition of Abkhazia and request diplomatic relations. Nothing has changed, except that we have not established diplomatic relations with Abkhazia, but established with Georgia." TDL (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
But establishing diplomatic relations with Georgia automatically means that they respect and recognize territorial integrity of Georgia, and let say until they won't establish such relations with Abkhazia withdraw is in power. --g. balaxaZe 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The Foreign Minister of Vanuatu explicitly says that he doesn't consider diplomatic relations with Georgia and Abkhazia to be incompatible. And he explicitly states that Vanuatu still recognises Abkhazia.sephia karta | dimmi 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
No it does not. The United States maintains diplomatic relations with Serbia while also recognizing Kosovo. Diplomatic relations and respect for territorial integrity are separate issues.[9][10][11] TDL (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
TDL as it written and sourced in the article "On 12 July 2013 Georgia and Vanuatu signed an agreement on establishing diplomatic and consular relations, which stated that "the Republic of Vanuatu recognises territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders, including its regions - the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region/South Ossetia." so what are you trying to prove I don't understand. --g. balaxaZe 18:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that was 2013. This is 2015. There is a new government of Vanuatu, and they have reversed their position again. Vanuatu has the sovereign right to change their position at any point they choose. Citing Vanuatu's position in 2013 does not refute newer sources showing that they have changed their position. TDL (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
From 2013 I am citing Vanuatu's official position (signed agreement), but from 2015 you are citing just one man's position, his words has no power until they are not written in official documents and shown as Vanuatu's position. --g. balaxaZe 19:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
And maybe Vanuatu government during meetings with Abkhazian officials says one, and with Georgian officials says something different – for every one Vanuatu has what they want to hear… Aotearoa (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the words of this "one man" do have power, as he controls Vanuatu's foreign policy. Unless you can provide a more recent statement from either himself or Vanuatu's Prime Minister that directly contradicts this, it would be OR not to accept his words as Vanuatu's official position. sephia karta | dimmi 09:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Shame on all of you, who tries to promote their "independence". If Putin say Alaska is Russia's territory just because he is a president of RF doesn't mean that "his statement" is official, has power and Alaska is really part of Russia. So as you can understand from my example just because that man "controls Vanuatu's foreign policy" doesn't mean that his words are as powerful as signed agreements and documents between two countries (Georgia and Vanuatu). Unless you won't provide official statement from the official website of the Government of Vanuatu your try is groundless, and just representation of your personal attitude about "independence" of Abkhazia--g. balaxaZe 15:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Please stop resorting to ad hominem, and address the issues being raised. I understand that this is a sensitive issue for Georgians, but just because editors want to accurately represent up to date facts does not mean they are trying to promote Abkhazia's independence.
The FM is the authority on the matter. He sets policy. He explained the position of the government on the matter. There is absolutely no need for a treaty or official document to formalize his statements. If the FM of Nauru announced tomorrow that it no longer recognized Abkhazia, it would be removed from the list, whether or not there was an official document. TDL (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what about Kosovo or Serbia but in Georgian law it is impossible to have relations with country that do not recognize your full sovereignty. If Vanuatu has relations with Georgia it means that they recognize Georgia from Psou to Alazani and from Sarpi to Roki. As you can check with all 4 countries which recognized conflict regions Georgia has no relations IT IS JUST IMPOSSIBLE. And when Vanuatu signed agreement, that proved officially with document — they respect Georgia's territorial integrity and recognize Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region as Georgia's part. I insist if Vanuatu recognize Abkhazia then first what they have to do is to break relations with Georgia and revoke signed agreement with Georgia. They didn't do that so officially Vanuatu recognize Georgia's territorial integrity as it was before that man's interview with RIA Novosti.
P.S. policy sets Government, FM is just head of one branch, FM deals with Government.--g. balaxaZe 07:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No, Vanuatu does not need to break relations with Georgia first, they can do whatever they please. They do not need to follow Georgia's laws since Georgian law does not apply to Vanuatu. Of course, Georgia is free to break relations with Vanuatu if they so please, but that is an entirely separate issue.
I suggest you look at the other four cases in the past, as they don't support your theory. For example, Nicaragua recognized Abkhazia in September 2008.[12] However, they did not sever relations with Georgia first. In fact, it was not until November 2008 that Georgia decided to retaliate by severing relations with Nicaragua.[13] So the entire premise of your argument is flawed.
And I have no idea what you mean by "policy sets Government". Nor "FM deals with Government". The FM IS government, so it can't deal with government. The FM is responsible for foreign affairs and sets policy. They don't meed to ask the Health Minister, or Energy Minister for permission. TDL (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Vanuatu has not made a clear-cut statement on recognition. I would not call that minister's vague statement, clearly aimed at pleasing the Russian ears, a confirmation of recognition. Interestingly, only a couple of Russian-language news websites cite this statement, while the rest of international media have not reported it at all. This is in contrast to Vanuatu's earlier diplomatic antics—its recognition and subsequent withdrawal thereof—which were extensively reported by various media outlets. --KoberTalk 20:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing vague about that statement, and it is cited literally. What is more, I don't think we actually have any direct statements by ni-Vanuatu sources stating that Vanuatu (under Carcasses) stopped recognising Abkhazia's independence. All we have is citations of Georgian officials. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) sephia karta | dimmi 13:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong. Here is the source which has nothing to do with the Georgian officials. On the other hand, the Vanuatu officials have a long history of making false or contradictory statements on this issue. Here is one illustrative example; back in 2011, the Russian news outlet Kommersant published a copy of the joint statement of Vanuatu and Abkhaz MFAs on establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations at ambassadorial levels. However, all available evidence, including from the top current and former Vanuatu officials indicate that the diplomatic relations between the two entities have never been established and the things did not go farther than a verbal statement of intention by the Vanuatu foreign minister. On the other hand, we have credible third-party sources that Georgia and Vanuatu have enjoyed diplomatic relations since 12 March 2013. And this could hardly be possible without mutual declaration of respect of each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity.--KoberTalk 14:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Per Ria Novosti is Russian state-operated domestic Russian-language news agency and as Russian state likes to use media for its propaganda goals and per Kober's comment above, I think the best is to wait if any reliable third source (nor russian or abkhazian) write about that. Or we won't have video version of that man's statement and after that make some changes. So, I am reverting the last ones.--g. balaxaZe 22:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the alleged statement at least worth mentioning in the notes about Vanuatu? GeoEvan (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You are accusing Ria Novosti of falsely attributing words to a foreign government dignitary without a shred of evidence. I am reverting your deletion (which also removed other material). sephia karta | dimmi 13:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Well no. Natapei only states that his government decided not to go through with establishing diplomatic relations with Abkhazia. This is completely in line with what Kilman stated in his recent interview. I repeat: we have no statement by a ni-Vanuatu official that Vanuatu withdrew recognition, but we do have a recent statement that recognition is still in place.
As for your second assertion, Vanuatu's Foreign Minister at the time confirmed (on Vanuatu's government website) that Vanuatu and Abkhazia did indeed sign a document on establishing diplomatic relations. Vanuatu's position since then has been that it never finalised the procedure, which is fine, but it does not affect recognition. sephia karta | dimmi 13:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


Okay, agreed; there was recognition by Vanuatu, but there are no diplomatic relations (see below), so the article needs fixing. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vanuatu, on March 2015, in http://ria.ru/interview/20150331/1055729593.html#ixzz3bMAeN23h :

"Interviewer: That means that now Vanuatu does not recognize Abkhazia as an independent state?

Foreign Minister of Vanuatu: In 2011, [when the party that is now the opposition was in office in Vanuatu], we wrote a request for the recognition of Abkhazia and [the establishment of] diplomatic relations. Nothing has changed, except that we have not established diplomatic relations with Abkhazia, but have rather established diplomatic relations with Georgia. Interviewer: And now you want to establish diplomatic relations with Abkhazia?

Foreign Minister of Vanuatu: Yes, we [the Foreign Ministry of Vanuatu] is in fact waiting for a decision to be made by the Vanuatuan government and orientation on the issue be given to us on the issue. In Vanuatu, there are different viewpoints, different political parties. When the political ambiance in Vanuatu reaches a decision on what the country's position on this issue should be, the Foreign Ministry will be given all the information.

Interviewer: But you, do you hope that diplomatic relations between Abkhazia and Vanuatu will be established any time soon?

Foreign Minister of Vanuatu: Yes, I hope so." MissionFix (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Vanuatu's Government officially issued a statement saying that the recognition of March 2011 had been cancelled and withdrawn by Vanuatu: http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/suresnois/17886242/58974/58974_original.jpg MissionFix (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and a couple weeks later they issued another that withdrew that withdrawal.[14] We aren't discussing the status in 2011, we are discussing the status in 2015. TDL (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
What a fool things are you doing here? This Wikipedia and not your own blog! That minister's hopes (Foreign Minister of Vanuatu: Yes, I hope so.") doesn't mean anything. I. E. Vanuatu Does Not Recognize Abkhazia !--g. balaxaZe 07:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
As it was said above firstly provide any third reliable source about that new recognition and then make changes. Stop your politically motivated editing without any reliable source! Sephia I am not accusing РИА Новости, I am just stating facts and in this controversial case third sources needed!--g. balaxaZe 08:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Here it is ! Official Press Release of the Government of Vanuatu about its withdrawal of recognition of Abkhazia. This is not claim and so on, but officially signed document about canceled recognition. Therefore unless you won't provide such kind of source any change about that issue is willful and baseless.--g. balaxaZe 11:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Giorgi, please stop and read the sources listed above again as you have not understood them. The Minister's "hope" is to establish diplomatic relations with Abkhazia. However, the Minister very clearly says that "nothing has changed" with regards to the recognition of 2011. This discussion is about recognition and not diplomatic relations.
"unless you won't provide such kind of source" - I have, it's listed directly above your post. See: [15]. It's an official document signed by the MFA which postdates the statement you've linked to, and makes it very clear that the June withdrawal you cite was itself withdrawn.
Finally, please stop making bad faith accusations. Given that you have infoboxes promoting your political ideology on the subject and have been indefinite blocked for disruptive editing on the issue on commons, you really aren't in a position to accuse others of "politically motivated editing". I understand that this is a sensitive issue for Georgians such as yourself, but just because people disagree with you does not make them "politically motivated". TDL (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)