 This file photo shows South Ossetia refugees heading toward the Russian border, fleeing the fighting between Russian and Georgian forces. AP photo |
Hundreds of Georgians displaced by the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia could face fresh upheaval this week as authorities begin evicting internally displaced persons, or IDPs, from illegal temporary shelters in Tbilisi.
While government officials claim the evictions are unavoidable, critics argue that the policy will sacrifice what progress these individuals have made in rebuilding their lives.
The evictions, which were expected to start Thursday, will affect nearly 1,500 IDPs from the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who, during the chaotic days that followed Georgia’s 2008 war with Russia, took up residence in empty Tbilisi buildings not classified as official shelters, EurasiaNet reported Wednesday.
Residents of the 22 buildings affected by the decision are a living mosaic of Georgia’s turbulent past: displaced individuals from the 1992-94 conflict in Abkhazia share makeshift kitchens and bathrooms with families who fled fighting in South Ossetia two years ago. Over the years, both generations of IDPs have married, given birth, gone to university and attempted to integrate into Tbilisi life.
Now faced with eviction, the IDPs said they were confused, scared and angry by the government’s decision to relocate them to new settlements outside the capital.
“Where are we supposed to live?” asked one IDP woman displaced from the Upper Kodori Gorge, a swath of territory in breakaway Abkhazia that was controlled by Georgia until the 2008 war. Like other IDPs interviewed by EurasiaNet.org, the woman declined to give her name from fear of alleged government reprisals.
“Children are supposed to start school Thursday … what is the government thinking?” she said.
Valeri Kopaleishvili, administrative department chief at the Ministry of Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodations and Refugees, or MRA, said the government was not forcing IDPs to go anywhere.
The ministry has profiled the families living in the buildings and offered them a variety of substitute accommodations, including recently upgraded buildings in western Georgia, Kopaleishvili said. The substitute accommodations were upgraded or built with post-war funds provided by international organizations and foreign governments.
“We are not moving these people from Tbilisi. They can continue living here,” he said, but added that the buildings were not designed for a durable housing solution. “Because someone enters [a building] illegally and acquires it – that could not be the way of a solution.”
An estimated 1,020 IDP families were affected by evictions last summer before the government halted the process amid a public outcry. Many were relocated to villages in western Georgia, including to a remote settlement not far from the Abkhaz-Georgia conflict zone.
Lawyer Malkhaz Pataraia, who specializes in IDP cases, said the evictions were illegal because, over the past two years, the IDPs have established a de facto claim to ownership by living in – and sometimes restoring – the buildings, even though the properties officially belong to the government or private companies.
“Ownership is not an absolute right,” Pataraia said. “I cannot always sell my house. I cannot always use my house how I want. I cannot always even enter my own house.”
But Kopaleishvili dismissed Pataraia’s argument, saying the government could not set a precedent by allowing IDPs to claim property ownership based solely on occupation. Working together with international donors and embassies, the ministry has created a “standardized operating procedure” for informing IDPs about the evictions and their options.
“There is a way it should be done: there is a procedure, there is a strategic plan. How can I – just because you entered somewhere illegally – provide you with a solution where you would like to get it?” he said.
Speaking to EurasiaNet, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg said there was “no legal obligation to offer accommodation to displaced individuals in their preferred location.”
However, he said both Georgian and international law “hold the state primarily responsible for taking care of the needs of IDPs.” While commending the government for its “serious efforts to render the eviction process more transparent,” Hammarberg said the “reported lack of livelihood opportunities in many of the housing options offered to the IDPs” was his “biggest concern.”
“This will make life in their new homes very difficult for them,” he said.
Local IDP-rights advocates like Eka Gvalia, an IDP from Abkhazia and the executive director of Charity Humanitarian Centre Abkhazeti, or CHCA, share that concern.
“This will be, for them, definitely a second displacement, a second psychological shock [about] how to get integrated into those communities because integration is not just a word,” Gvalia said. “It includes social welfare, it includes employment, it includes education. It includes everything.”
Employment opportunities and social welfare services “will be limited” in IDP settlements or residences outside of Tbilisi, she said.
International donors and organizations monitoring the eviction process told EurasiaNet that conditions at the new settlements varied.
“There has certainly been a lot of discussion and some strong recommendations on the part of the donor community, the UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] and the U.S. embassy as well to ensure that the social [welfare] opportunities and the economic opportunities of IDPs in their new settlements are given enough attention,” a Western diplomat involved in monitoring the process told EurasiaNet.
Two days before the scheduled evictions, however, there were few signs that IDPs were preparing to leave. A middle-aged woman displaced by the Abkhaz conflict said she and her family were not prepared to move back to western Georgia or closer to Abkhazia.
“What the government is doing is no different than what happened to us before: we were driven from our homes and told to live somewhere else,” she said. “There will be a war [when the evictions start]. No one is ready to leave.”
While government officials claim the evictions are unavoidable, critics argue that the policy will sacrifice what progress these individuals have made in rebuilding their lives.
The evictions, which were expected to start Thursday, will affect nearly 1,500 IDPs from the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who, during the chaotic days that followed Georgia’s 2008 war with Russia, took up residence in empty Tbilisi buildings not classified as official shelters, EurasiaNet reported Wednesday.
Residents of the 22 buildings affected by the decision are a living mosaic of Georgia’s turbulent past: displaced individuals from the 1992-94 conflict in Abkhazia share makeshift kitchens and bathrooms with families who fled fighting in South Ossetia two years ago. Over the years, both generations of IDPs have married, given birth, gone to university and attempted to integrate into Tbilisi life.
Now faced with eviction, the IDPs said they were confused, scared and angry by the government’s decision to relocate them to new settlements outside the capital.
“Where are we supposed to live?” asked one IDP woman displaced from the Upper Kodori Gorge, a swath of territory in breakaway Abkhazia that was controlled by Georgia until the 2008 war. Like other IDPs interviewed by EurasiaNet.org, the woman declined to give her name from fear of alleged government reprisals.
“Children are supposed to start school Thursday … what is the government thinking?” she said.
Valeri Kopaleishvili, administrative department chief at the Ministry of Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodations and Refugees, or MRA, said the government was not forcing IDPs to go anywhere.
The ministry has profiled the families living in the buildings and offered them a variety of substitute accommodations, including recently upgraded buildings in western Georgia, Kopaleishvili said. The substitute accommodations were upgraded or built with post-war funds provided by international organizations and foreign governments.
“We are not moving these people from Tbilisi. They can continue living here,” he said, but added that the buildings were not designed for a durable housing solution. “Because someone enters [a building] illegally and acquires it – that could not be the way of a solution.”
An estimated 1,020 IDP families were affected by evictions last summer before the government halted the process amid a public outcry. Many were relocated to villages in western Georgia, including to a remote settlement not far from the Abkhaz-Georgia conflict zone.
Lawyer Malkhaz Pataraia, who specializes in IDP cases, said the evictions were illegal because, over the past two years, the IDPs have established a de facto claim to ownership by living in – and sometimes restoring – the buildings, even though the properties officially belong to the government or private companies.
“Ownership is not an absolute right,” Pataraia said. “I cannot always sell my house. I cannot always use my house how I want. I cannot always even enter my own house.”
But Kopaleishvili dismissed Pataraia’s argument, saying the government could not set a precedent by allowing IDPs to claim property ownership based solely on occupation. Working together with international donors and embassies, the ministry has created a “standardized operating procedure” for informing IDPs about the evictions and their options.
“There is a way it should be done: there is a procedure, there is a strategic plan. How can I – just because you entered somewhere illegally – provide you with a solution where you would like to get it?” he said.
Speaking to EurasiaNet, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg said there was “no legal obligation to offer accommodation to displaced individuals in their preferred location.”
However, he said both Georgian and international law “hold the state primarily responsible for taking care of the needs of IDPs.” While commending the government for its “serious efforts to render the eviction process more transparent,” Hammarberg said the “reported lack of livelihood opportunities in many of the housing options offered to the IDPs” was his “biggest concern.”
“This will make life in their new homes very difficult for them,” he said.
Local IDP-rights advocates like Eka Gvalia, an IDP from Abkhazia and the executive director of Charity Humanitarian Centre Abkhazeti, or CHCA, share that concern.
“This will be, for them, definitely a second displacement, a second psychological shock [about] how to get integrated into those communities because integration is not just a word,” Gvalia said. “It includes social welfare, it includes employment, it includes education. It includes everything.”
Employment opportunities and social welfare services “will be limited” in IDP settlements or residences outside of Tbilisi, she said.
International donors and organizations monitoring the eviction process told EurasiaNet that conditions at the new settlements varied.
“There has certainly been a lot of discussion and some strong recommendations on the part of the donor community, the UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] and the U.S. embassy as well to ensure that the social [welfare] opportunities and the economic opportunities of IDPs in their new settlements are given enough attention,” a Western diplomat involved in monitoring the process told EurasiaNet.
Two days before the scheduled evictions, however, there were few signs that IDPs were preparing to leave. A middle-aged woman displaced by the Abkhaz conflict said she and her family were not prepared to move back to western Georgia or closer to Abkhazia.
“What the government is doing is no different than what happened to us before: we were driven from our homes and told to live somewhere else,” she said. “There will be a war [when the evictions start]. No one is ready to leave.”
No comments:
Post a Comment