By Molly Corso
The Georgian government is billing property restitution as a key for restoring trust between Tbilisi and the breakaway region of South Ossetia, but a recent roundtable on the topic – the first ever since the 1992 cease-fire – has prompted some observers to caution that Georgia’s optimism may be premature.
The government’s hopes are pinned on a draft law that would spell out the terms for restoring property to the estimated 60,000 Ossetian and Georgian refugees who left their residences in response to the 1991-1992 conflict between Georgia and South Ossetian separatists. Currently, the government is assessing property costs and the number of refugees who might appeal for restitution.
In an interview with EurasiaNet, Georgian Deputy Justice Minister Konstantine Vardzelashvili argued that the draft law shows that Georgia is committed to restoring to its rightful owners abandoned property affected by the 1991 conflict between Georgia and South Ossetian separatists. That message, he said, could help start a positive dialogue between Tbilisi and the separatist government in Tskhinvali.
“These people suffered for no reasons. Even though it has been 15 years, nevertheless we wanted to reassure [them] that the government takes the responsibility,” Vardzelashvili said. “You want to tell them ‘You have a home. It will be up to you to come back if you like or do whatever you want with this property, but you are not a refugee anymore. You have a home and you can come back to your home.’”
A six-person commission made up of an equal number of representatives of Georgian, South Ossetian and international organizations lies at the center of the proposed program. The commission, Vardzelashvili said, will “legitimize” the restitution program for refugees.
“We want to make sure that there is trust in this process; that there is credibility to the process. Therefore, a crucial component of the law is to establish a commission,” he said. “People will trust more when they see that things are moving. If we just talk about the need for rebuilding trust, we will never get there. We have to start doing something.”
The law is expected to go before Georgia’s parliament by the end of 2006, and could be operational by mid-2007, according to Vardzelashvili.
However, several key issues remain undecided, among them the amount of money needed for compensation, the number of refugees forecasted to petition the government for restitution, and whether or not to provide for moral compensation.
The plan is expected to take about nine years to complete, according to Vardzelashvili, who noted that the speed of implementation will depend largely on the amount of financial support the government receives from international organizations. To date, the government has received no firm offers of assistance, he said, although many organizations have expressed interest in the proposed program.
But if the Georgian government is upbeat about the chances for making amends with Ossetian refugees, some experts are more cautious.
At a March 31 meeting in the Russian city of Vladikavkaz, organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Georgian government officials met for the first time with Ossetian refugee representatives, and experts from non-governmental and international organizations, to pitch their message.
Oksana Antonenko, director of IISS’s Russia and Eurasia Program, stated that the roundtable provided a rare chance for dialogue between Ossetians and the Georgian government. “It was an opportunity for Ossetians to hear firsthand from the Georgian government about this law. There was no information about it before,” Antonenko said. “For Georgia, it was an opportunity to understand the mood of the refugees…some were critical, some were constructive.”
Nonetheless, she cautioned that although the Georgian government in the past several months has made “huge progress” on the draft property restitution law, “a lot of work” remains.
One key problem is the government’s frame of reference, according to Antonenko. The draft law would authorize restitution to those who suffered from the 1991-1992 conflict with South Ossetian separatists, although, according to Antonenko, most refugees were actually affected by the violence and ethnic tensions that preceded the actual fighting. “The title [of the law] should reflect the Georgian-Ossetian ethnic problem,” Antonenko said in a telephone interview from London. “It is an ethnic-bound problem.”
Antonenko notes that the government also needs to create a mechanism for refugees to receive compensation in lieu of their actual property, especially if “[I]tis an issue of choice between compensation and restitution,” she said. If the government sets a precedent of protecting refugees’ civil rights regardless of whether they want to sell their property or move back to Georgia, the plan will be more successful, she noted.
Defining how compensation will be provided for destroyed property or property that cannot now be sold is another critical issue, according to other meeting participants. Vardzelashvili stated that setting the amount of compensation to be offered could be one of the tasks set for the property restitution commission.
The draft law on restitution is nothing new, however. Georgian non-governmental organizations and the de facto South Ossetian authorities have floated various plans over the past 15 years.
But while many applaud the draft law, concerns exist that the current tensions between the Tskhinvali leadership and the Georgian government will preclude any real progress. The absence of representatives from South Ossetia’s de facto government at the conference has led some to question whether Georgia’s restitution plan could ever succeed.
Maia Tsaboshvili, chairwoman of the Georgian Ossetian Union, an NGO that consulted with the government on the draft legislation, believes that the law still represents a crucial step in patching up relations between the two sides, however. “How will there be trust if there are no concrete steps?” Tsaboshvili said. “I think work to develop this law is one of those steps that can assist - if it is correctly implanted – mutual trust and could even bring about the resolution of the conflict.”
Giorgi Meladze, who attended the meeting on behalf of the Liberty Institute, a Georgian NGO with close ties to President Mikheil Saakashvili’s government, also downplayed the concerns. “This process will show a real commitment towards one thing: To give people equal rights in this country and I think that is a very powerful message,” he said.
The lack of participation by South Ossetia’s leadership appear does not appear to discountenance Vardzelashvili. Although such cooperation will be crucial for the plan’s full implementation, he noted, the Georgian government can start returning property to those who were forced to leave territory under Tbilisi’s control without the participation of any “third parties.”
Editor’s Note: Molly Corso is a freelance reporter and photojournalist based in Tbilisi.
