The question of "Circassian genocide" and Georgia

VIEW FROM TBILISI --- The fact of holding the conference in Tbilisi, "Concealment of the nation, the continuing crime: The Circassians and other peoples of the North Caucasus between past and future," March 19-21 (the author of these lines was directly related to the conference as one of the organizers) caused a sharp negative reaction in Russia and serious differences among Caucasian, especially the Circassian diaspora in various countries.Some of their representatives felt that participation in activities carried out in Georgia, is unethical in relation to the kinship of Abkhazia, which are in conflict with Tbilisi. Now waiting to see how the Georgian parliament react to the treatment uchastvovashih in the conference of representatives of Circassian and whether he acknowledges the fact of Russia of genocide against the Circassians in the 19 th century. 

The mere posing of the question that the recognition of certain historical acts of "genocide" is the prerogative of parliaments of various countries, very controversial. Parliament decides solely on political considerations and difficult to call competent and impartial experts in the field of history. British historian Norman Stone, known for his negative attitude to the campaign for the recognition of the massacres of Armenians in 1915 genocide, was the keynote speaker at a conference in Tbilisi, and very critically commented on this trend as a whole: according to him, too hung up on the injustices of the past first unprofitable for most people, who form strong complex of the victim. 

Although the word "genocide" was invented only in the 20 th century, one can argue that the very practices that fall under its definition ("a deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, ethnic, racial, religious or national group") was very spread over many centuries. If the parliament can decide on the events of 1915 in the dying Ottoman Empire, then why not with the same terms to discuss Russia's actions in the Northern Caucasus in the 19 st century? 

Personally, I share the skepticism of Norman Stone in the general sense that not the case of parliaments - to engage in assigning the status of "genocide" the events of bygone years (especially when their country these past events are a little concerned). But the personal views of individual professors in this case, mean little. For politicians important precedents and political interests. After a series of confessions "Armenian genocide" there is no reason to reject the idea of the same confession in relation to what is done with the Circassians. Not being a historian, but after hearing reports at different times on both historical events, I do not think that the deliberate and systematic actions of the tsarist government in relation to the Circassians, to a lesser extent, deserve to be called "genocide" than the atrocities the Young Turks or their supporters in 1915. At least there is something to discuss. And I do not consider myself to be less expert in these matters than an ordinary member of the Swedish or Polish parliament (who chose the same, to assess the events of 1915). 

Ultimately, it rests not in academic or humanitarian, and political issues. The first of them - a comparative political weight on the one hand, Armenian and Circassian diaspora, and on the other - Turkey and Russia, both countries accused of historic crimes. The Armenian diaspora is much richer, organized and powerful than the Circassian - especially in the most important country in the world, the United States. On the other hand, states that are not afraid to spoil relations with Turkey, much more than those who avoid complications with Russia. Therefore, neither the results nor on the prospects for future advances Circassians not yet compete with the Armenians. But what does that mean? If the requirements of Circassians no less true, then why not try and make their voice? Moreover: it is because the Circassian diaspora resources less, the fact that Georgia gave them an opportunity to meet, discuss and formulate his requirements, would be welcome. 

What leads us to the next question: What's the most interesting of Georgia? Annoy Russia?Given the current state of Russian-Georgian relations, it is undeniable that any unpleasantness for Russia can cause a feeling of satisfaction from Georgians. But this can not be the basis for serious policy. Another thing is that Georgia has long existed a sense of solidarity with respect to the Caucasian peoples, and the understanding that Georgia should have with them their own contacts. The fact that the ethnic-territorial war in the early 1990's led to the alienation of the North Caucasus (especially its western part), Georgia experienced a long time. In the 1990's were enthusiasts who sought to restore and develop contacts - but hurt absence by resources, inconsistent, fear of irritating Russia. Now that Georgia has more resources and after the August war in 2008, paradoxically, has less reason to fear the reaction of Moscow - relationship with her anyway no, so do not worsen. So why not do what is right to do?

Translated by: Google