The Triumph of Abkhazian Diplomacy: Marking 30 Years since the Tripartite Agreement in Sochi
Reflecting on the 30-year anniversary of the Sochi Agreement, this piece explores the historical and political intricacies that led to a key ceasefire between Abkhazia and Georgia.
The ceasefire accord between Abkhazia and Georgia, along with the mechanism to monitor its enforcement, was signed by Abkhazia's Prime Minister Sokrat Dzhindzholia, Georgia's Parliament Chairman Vakhtang Goguadze, and Russia's Foreign Affairs Minister Andrei Kozyrev.
Delve into the events that culminated in the pivotal agreement for the withdrawal of Georgian troops from Abkhazia on July 27, 1993, and comprehend the profound importance of this accord.
"The July Agreement emerged from the ebb and flow of military events. During the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, negotiations were frequently disrupted and then resumed, leading to a raft of agreements, the majority of which remained unfulfilled. This agreement represents the first international document that recognizes Abkhazia as an autonomous entity. According to its terms, Georgia was obliged to withdraw its troops, allowing the rightful leadership of Abkhazia to regain control of the capital, Sukhum. The signing of this agreement indicated that Georgia had unlawfully deployed troops on Abkhazian soil," asserts historian Aslan Avidzba.
The signing of the agreement was a direct result of the successful outcomes of the July offensive. Abkhazia, bolstered by its Armed Forces, managed to reach its interim goal - the liberation of Sukhum. Consequently, it persuaded both Georgian and Russian sides to incorporate these clauses into the agreement.
"The Georgian side found itself compelled to sign a treaty that necessitated the withdrawal of its troops, primarily because it was unable to maintain military control over Sukhum at that time. If circumstances had been different, Georgia would not have agreed to such terms. As for Russia, it assumed a mediatory role in this conflict. Pushing for a ceasefire, it had no interest in combat actions that would lead to drastic shifts in the front's balance of power," the historian explains.