Arda Inal-Ipa: and if not to boycott, but to develop?!

The Olympic Games in Sochi are in the centre of attention of the whole world. But not people are interested in goals, points and seconds, but the policy is more interesting! So, the conference «Political Factor of the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi» took place in Brussels in which the experts from Abkhazia participated also.

The known public figure, the psychologist, the coordinator of peacekeeping and humanitarian programs Arda Inal-Ipa shared the reasons. We give the most interesting fragments from her report:

- It is necessary to tell that, despite sharpness of brought-up questions, in the Circassian movement there is no absolute unity in the relation both long-term prospects of the Circassian movement and the Sochi Olympic Games in particular.

On the one hand the appeals of some representatives of foreign Circassian diaspora to the IOC and to various countries and the international organizations to boycott the Olympic Games in Sochi. On the other — the consent of representatives of the North Caucasian republics to participate in the official opening ceremony of the Olympic Games at which, under the influence of the stated protests, the elements of the Circassian national culture will be used.

Here it should be noted that «even radical leaders of the Circassian movement don’t divide groundless denial of carrying out the Olympic Games, and actually speak about forms concerning which the organizers of this sports forum could carry on more constructive dialogue with Caucasians, locals of the region».

… It is difficult to argue with that fact that contradictions between official Moscow and the Circassian movement are used by traditional opponents of Russia for situation destabilization in the Caucasus and supports of centrifugal forces. We consider necessary nevertheless shortly to stop on connection of Georgia to the Circassian perspective in connection with SOG.

According to a number of political scientists, after war of 2008 when, from the Georgian point of view, the allied relations with the Western countries didn’t undergo testing for durability, Georgia decided to position itself as the regional power, having unexpectedly remembered the Caucasian identity and value of the brotherly relations with the neighbouring republics. Having paid attention to the North Caucasus, Georgia, at the interrupted communications with Russia, started developing diplomatic relations with the Russian subjects, in particular, with parliaments of the North Caucasian republics. The Georgian management tried to solve some problems at the same time — to organize the symmetric answer of Russia after recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, supporting separatist movements and the anti-Russian moods, to bring dissonance in the relations between Abkhazians and the North Caucasian republics and to pave the way for formation in Tbilisi of the all-Caucasian centre of gravity, being approved as the regional leader.

Abkhazia watched with big alarm how the Georgian politicians pro-actively acted in the Circassian direction. Abkhazians were very concerned that their North Caucasian brothers can trust in dangerous initiatives of their southern neighbour. From the Abkhazian point of view, the foreign policy of Georgia of a North Caucasian orientation was connected not with sincere desire to claim the friendly relations with the border people, but that the Circassian card seemed advantageous in game against Russia.

Who was the winner from the rigid resistance to carrying out of SOG? At an unambiguous anti-Russian orientation of the international campaign which has undoubtedly brought a serious headache to Russia, a question of a winning party, at least, has no definite answer. It is unlikely it is possible to tell that the Circassian movement was the winner.

In my opinion, the lifted loud anti-Sochi campaign instead of approach of the solution of the topical issues standing in the extensive agenda of the Circassian movement, caused big alarm that the Circassian movement (first of all in the person of his foreign actors) was positioned as hostile to the Russian state. Tactics of advance of the idea based on the way «everything or nothing» as a result complicated the solution of those questions which could be solved in interaction with the Russian authorities.
Those authoritative public figures in Kabarda and other republics of the North Caucasus are right who say that is easy, being outside Russia, to dictate rules to those who not at virtual forums, but in reality daily work and firmness cultivate the soil for advance of idea of a reconstruction of the Circassian unity — this the most difficult in conditions of the modern Caucasus of a political and ideological task.

Both Russian-Georgian, and the Circassian -Abkhazian relationship weren’t the winner. And the Olympic Movement is not in a prize when approach of day of the Olympic Games is saddened by threats and unfriendly statements. The question results, the position occupied with those organizations of the Circassian diaspora which categorically demanded to boycott the Sochi Olympic Games was how reasonable?

… Perhaps the requirement put positively not to boycott, but opposite, to develop, improve rules, having expanded a participation format would find more understanding and would attract more supporters around the world, having created conditions for new sounding of the Circassian question.

What turned out as a result? Did the carried-out campaign of consolidation of the Circassian communities living in various subjects of the Russian Federation and in foreign countries help? No. Moreover, a certain division, dissociation of the Circassian public became one of its results. In a word, it is available the complications caused not always by rational actions of some foreign Circassian organizations. Passivity of the North Caucasian public also played the negative role.