Abkhaz MFA: UN Refugee Resolution Ignores Abkhazia’s Position
SUKHUM / AQW'A — The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Abkhazia has issued a statement in response to the adoption of the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution on 'internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia.'
Adopted on 4 June during the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, the resolution received the support of 107 member states. In its commentary, the Abkhaz Foreign Ministry criticises the resolution as politically motivated and one-sided, arguing that it ignores Abkhazia's position and fails to address the issue through an inclusive dialogue involving all parties concerned.
The Ministry also questions the practical relevance of the resolution, comments on the voting process and international diplomatic efforts surrounding its adoption, and reiterates Abkhazia's longstanding position on refugee-related issues, security guarantees, and relations with Georgia.
The full statement follows:
Commentary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Abkhazia on the Adoption of Another Politically Motivated UN General Assembly Resolution on Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia
The latest resolution on refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, adopted on 4 June 2026 during the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, is a purely political gesture entirely detached from any genuine concern for human rights. It is a clear product of coordinated pressure exerted by the collective West, which seeks by every means possible to keep the Georgian agenda artificially in the international spotlight.
The principal flaw that deprives this resolution of any practical value remains its complete one-sidedness. Once again, the discussion was conducted according to a deeply discriminatory pattern: the Republic of Abkhazia was, as usual, denied the opportunity to present its position before the UN General Assembly. For many years, the views of the Republic of Abkhazia have been systematically ignored, depriving it of a voice, preventing it from presenting objective information, and denying it the opportunity to defend itself against accusations made from the UN rostrum. Under such circumstances, the annual debate has become a carefully orchestrated monologue by the Georgian side, in which the issue under discussion is artificially isolated from the perspectives of those who are actually responsible for maintaining security and public order in the Republic of Abkhazia.
The voting results should not be interpreted as evidence of any “humanitarian breakthrough,” but rather as the direct consequence of intense behind-the-scenes pressure exerted by Western states upon developing countries. Amid the current climate of global geopolitical confrontation, Washington and Brussels employed their full range of instruments, from financial assistance to political coercion, in order to expand the group of co-sponsors to 68 states and compel the most vulnerable countries either to vote in favour or to abstain. The coordinated statements delivered by the resolution’s co-sponsors during the General Assembly debate clearly reflected a common strategy aimed at creating the false impression of the “global isolation” of the Republic of Abkhazia and the Russian Federation.
It is noteworthy that diplomatic activity in New York coincided with another round of political confrontation within Georgia itself. On the eve of the General Assembly session, the opposition party United National Movement (UNM) launched a large-scale populist campaign under the slogan “Remember Abkhazia,” presenting a package of so-called “ten initiatives,” including virtual property registration projects such as “My Home” and proposals to establish simulated government structures in exile. Opposition representatives openly complained that the “Abkhaz issue” was disappearing from the international agenda. It was precisely to dispel these concerns and demonstrate supposedly unwavering international support that Georgia’s Western backers mobilised substantial diplomatic resources at the United Nations in an attempt to artificially revive waning interest in Georgian claims.
The triumphant statements immediately issued by both the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Georgia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, David Bakradze, are purely declaratory in nature and primarily intended for domestic political consumption. For the ruling Georgian Dream party, maintaining the figure of 107 votes is little more than an attempt to present wishful thinking as reality and convince Georgian society of the alleged success of its strategy of “peaceful reintegration.”
However, despite Georgia and its Western supporters portraying the outcome of the 2026 vote as a success, the resolution remains entirely unworkable in practical terms. Neither the virtual projects promoted by the UNM nor the annual reports compiled by the UN Secretariat without the participation of the Republic of Abkhazia can alter the existing political and legal realities. The sovereign status of the Republic of Abkhazia, restored through the will of the Abkhaz people in accordance with the norms of Soviet and international law, is today securely guaranteed by bilateral agreements with the Russian Federation. Georgia’s attempts to characterise this reality as an “occupation” amount to nothing more than a propaganda cliché intended to obscure its own historical responsibility for unleashing the military aggression of 1992–1993.
Statements by representatives of the UNM claiming that “our citizens forcibly displaced from Abkhazia” have been struggling to survive in extremely difficult socio-economic conditions for more than three decades expose the true nature of Georgian state policy. Georgia has deliberately kept these people hostage to poverty, using them primarily as a political instrument and an electoral resource. If the Georgian state has been unable over the course of thirty years to assist those whom it describes as “its own citizens,” what practical value do such resolutions actually possess?
Accusations of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide,” together with the systematic dissemination of manipulated data, form part of Georgia’s broader effort to shift responsibility from the aggressor to the victim. Claims regarding the “historic belonging” of the Georgian population to the territory of the Republic of Abkhazia are unfounded. The large-scale settlement of Kartvelian sub-ethnic groups on Abkhaz lands was the result of deliberate colonisation, first through migration waves during the second half of the nineteenth century and later during the Stalin-Beria period, when the demographic balance of Abkhazia was artificially altered under the Abkhazpereselenstroi resettlement programme.
Despite Georgia’s destructive position, the Republic of Abkhazia has repeatedly demonstrated goodwill. As early as March 1999, Sukhum unilaterally initiated a process for the return of refugees, victims of Georgian aggression, to the Gal District of the Republic of Abkhazia. However, this humanitarian initiative was deliberately undermined by the Georgian side, which used people as instruments of political pressure. Residents were intimidated, their documents confiscated, and acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks were carried out against members of the Abkhaz Government Commission. As a result of these provocations, 117 peacekeepers stationed in the Republic of Abkhazia under an international mandate lost their lives.
Nevertheless, tens of thousands of ethnic Georgians have since returned to the Republic of Abkhazia of their own accord, completely disproving claims of systematic discrimination. Furthermore, the refugee statistics repeatedly cited by the Georgian side raise serious questions. Available information indicates that at least one-third of these individuals have long since acquired the citizenship of third countries. Under both Georgian legislation and international law, the voluntary acquisition of another nationality or permanent resettlement in another country automatically terminates refugee status. It should also be emphasised that individuals who participated in military operations against the multinational people of Abkhazia or committed war crimes do not qualify as refugees under international standards and are therefore excluded from such status.
The UNM’s initiatives relating to “elections to the Supreme Council of Abkhazia,” the “My Home” property registration programme, and the financing of the so-called Sukhum University in Tbilisi are entirely virtual in nature and bear no relation to reality. Throughout the territory of the Republic of Abkhazia, only the Constitution and national legislation of the Republic of Abkhazia are in force. Attempts by Georgia to issue various “certificates” concerning Abkhaz land amount to nothing more than a legal absurdity.
In international practice, responsibility for destruction is always assigned to the party that committed the act of aggression. It was the forces of Georgia’s State Council that, on 14 August 1992, launched a treacherous invasion of Abkhaz territory, bringing death and devastation. This raises an obvious question: when will those who organised the military aggression, and their present-day successors, be held accountable for the destruction of peaceful life and compensate the multinational people of the Republic of Abkhazia for the immense material damage inflicted upon them?
The Georgian political establishment continues unanimously to exploit the refugee issue of thirty years ago as an electoral tool and a political shield. The only viable path forward for Georgia is not the annual production of politically motivated resolutions in New York, but rather the recognition of existing political and legal realities and the signing of a legally binding agreement on the non-use of force against the Republic of Abkhazia.