The Future of Abkhazia and Its Diaspora: From Romanticism to Realistic Steps

For much of the post-Soviet period, discussions of relations between Abkhazia and its diaspora were shaped by the ideal of mass return. In this thoughtful conversation with Arda Inal-ipa, one of Abkhazia’s most respected civil society figures, the focus shifts from romantic aspirations to practical realities. Reflecting on the successes, disappointments, and lessons of the past three decades, she explores how the homeland and diaspora can strengthen their ties through realistic, achievable initiatives while preserving a shared national identity.

Editor's note: This interview was originally published in Turkish by Altınpost and has been translated into English by AbkhazWorld for an international readership.

Interview: Anıt Baba (Papba)

Altınpost: Hello Arda. I would like to conduct an in-depth interview with you about Abkhazia and its diaspora. But first, for readers who may not know you well enough, could you briefly introduce yourself and the Center for Humanitarian Programmes, of which you are a board member?

Arda Inal-ipa: Hello, and thank you very much for this opportunity. Let me begin with a small correction: I am not currently the director (executive director) of the Center for Humanitarian Programmes. That role is held by Batal Kobakhia, a hero of Abkhazia, who has previously served as a member of parliament and deputy minister of culture. I am a member of the five-person board of directors; our institution is based on a collective governance model.

Our Center was founded immediately after the war, in 1994. In its early years, it functioned as a civil society organisation focused on psychological and medical rehabilitation. Over time, we did not limit ourselves to the direct consequences of the conflict; we also worked actively to develop civil society dialogue in order to prevent the war from recurring.

Altınpost: From a civil society perspective, what is understood by the term “diaspora” in Abkhaz society? How do you position the Türkiye diaspora within this framework?

Arda Inal-ipa: In the final years of the Soviet Union, when the Abkhaz national independence movement was gaining momentum in Abkhazia, many hopes for the future were linked to the return of diaspora representatives to their homeland. When the opportunity arose for representatives of the Abkhaz diaspora in Türkiye, Jordan and Syria to come to their homeland, there was a genuine celebratory atmosphere in the country. It was a true national celebration; on both sides there was strong romanticism and very high expectations.

Unfortunately, the post-war period brought certain disappointments for both sides. When people from the homeland and the diaspora came together, they realised something important: we are very closely related peoples, but 150 years of separate life have inevitably left certain traces in our character and culture.

Altınpost: I also lived in Abkhazia for about eight years and had the opportunity to work with you at one point. My observation was also that the 150-year separation has resulted in significant cultural divergence. Communication and interaction between newcomers and the local population was weaker than it should have been. This was partly due to the fact that many newcomers were of rural origin, while the resident population in Abkhazia was more urban and had gone through a different educational process. Nevertheless, I observed a strong sense of sympathy and empathy towards newcomers among the general population. However, there were serious shortcomings in implementing the “return” promises in official discourse through appropriate policies. Do you think this was solely due to a lack of resources?

Arda Inal-ipa: You are absolutely right. The adaptation of our returnees required a multi-layered approach and a holistic state policy and strategy that took all factors into account. Unfortunately, this was not implemented as it should have been. The post-war economic and political environment in Abkhazia was so complex that we simply did not have the resources or budget to properly address the needs of returnees and ensure sustainable reintegration. However, it was not only a question of financial limitations; we also made many mistakes on our side.

There were mutual misunderstandings and illusions. Those in the diaspora believed they would adapt immediately. People in Abkhazia believed that the diaspora would be able to exert significant influence on the Turkish government and secure immediate recognition of Abkhazia. Over time, these expectations gave way to disappointment. But I must emphasise that despite this disappointment, the sense of love, kinship and brotherhood between us has remained strong. We have simply developed more mature perspectives and understood that return is not something simple.

Altınpost: Let me raise a sensitive question here. Did religious differences—given that the Abkhaz community in Türkiye is predominantly Muslim, while in Abkhazia the population is mostly Christian or adheres to traditional beliefs—become an obstacle to integration? How was the religious factor perceived in public discourse in Abkhazia?

Arda Inal-ipa: In short, religion is certainly an important factor, but I do not believe it had a decisive or obstructive impact on return and resettlement. It was clear to everyone that people coming from Türkiye were not radicalised by political Islam and would therefore not have a negative impact on the country’s social and secular environment. For this reason, religious differences did not create a sharp division in everyday life.

Nevertheless, it remained a point of uncertainty for some segments of society. It is important to remember that the population of Abkhazia does not consist solely of ethnic Abkhaz. Some of the non-Abkhaz population may have had quiet concerns about an increase in the Muslim population, but this was never expressed openly or turned into a source of tension in public discourse. Ultimately, the limited scale of return migration is better explained not by religion, but by political factors, internal policy failures and a lack of strategy.

Altınpost: So can we conclude that Abkhazia’s already delicate demographic and political balance at the time may not have been able to accommodate large-scale migration, and that in Türkiye there were also no sufficient social conditions to motivate such a movement? If we move beyond the idea of diaspora–homeland relations being confined to physical return, could we not place this relationship on a more meaningful and qualitative footing?

Arda Inal-ipa: This is an extremely important question that I have reflected on a great deal. I fully agree. Given current realities, rather than focusing on generating a mass migration flow, it is far more realistic and necessary to strengthen relations and contacts in other areas.

I still envision a united nation, and I know that many of our citizens share this aspiration. However, in a world where globalisation is dramatically reshaping human life and exerting strong pressure on ethnic identities, we must not waste time. Assimilation processes are taking place in the diaspora, and here in the homeland, the situation regarding the Abkhaz language is also far from ideal. Therefore, we must focus on practical, achievable projects and make the most of every opportunity to maintain mutual engagement. Beyond mass return, there are many technical and practical ways to strengthen our cohesion.

Altınpost: Absolutely, we need to define concrete goals and create synergy. I have some suggestions in this regard. For example, the first step could be improving transport links. An Abkhaz passport could be recognised as a travel document for entry into Türkiye (as the United Kingdom once did for Northern Cyprus citizens). Secondly, a direct sea passenger route could be established between Sukhum and Samsun or Trabzon. In addition, although difficult, systematic public diplomacy could be conducted in Türkiye for the recognition of Abkhazia. There are hundreds of thousands of Abkhaz people in Türkiye, as well as millions of Circassian peoples who are sympathetic to this issue. With proper planning, this potential could be activated and represented more strongly in the Turkish public sphere. What do you think of these practical steps?

Arda Inal-ipa: These objectives are highly strategic. In particular, breaking the transport blockade and opening a maritime route between Abkhazia and Türkiye should be one of our key humanitarian priorities. Recognition of Abkhazia by Türkiye is, of course, a major political goal. However, we should not allow this political demand to become an obstacle to urgent humanitarian solutions such as family reunification and the development of cultural and economic ties.

Dear Anıt, the work you and your colleagues have done in civil society demonstrates that there are opportunities we must now use more actively. The key element in mobilising this potential, conducting advocacy and shaping public opinion is for the Abkhaz diaspora in Türkiye and civil and political society in Abkhazia to share a single, agreed agenda. Rather than pursuing abstract and currently utopian goals, we should focus on platforms that enable communication. If we meet more often, hold joint meetings and amplify our voices collectively, our demands will carry far more weight.

Altınpost: Since we are on the subject of a shared agenda, the issue of citizenship and passports for diaspora compatriots is also widely discussed. What is your position on this?

Arda Inal-ipa: I fully support the idea that all members of the Abkhaz diaspora who identify as Abkhaz and maintain a connection with their historical homeland should have the opportunity to obtain an Abkhaz passport. However, this process must be approached with great care and sensitivity. Those receiving passports should also have an understanding of the internal affairs and complex political and social processes in Abkhazia. Otherwise, individuals who are not sufficiently informed about local dynamics could, unintentionally, make political choices in elections or referendums that are not in the country’s best interests—whereas referendums are matters that determine Abkhazia’s future.

This is undoubtedly a complex issue that cannot be resolved quickly. I very much want our diaspora to have the opportunity to engage in these processes, but this must be grounded in knowledge and understanding. Even if it seems impossible to establish a full mechanism today, we must certainly work towards it.

Altınpost: Considering today’s technological capabilities and speed of communication, I believe that if there is sufficient intent on both sides, even civil society organisations can achieve remarkable outcomes by building these informational bridges. Thank you very much for this valuable and thought-provoking interview, Ms Arda.

Arda Inal-ipa: Thank you. We must develop these ideas further and establish concrete objectives to achieve real synergy. I wish you success in your work.

Editorial note
The Center for Humanitarian Programmes (CHP) is one of the most established civil society organisations in Abkhazia, known for its post-war work on strengthening democracy, supporting civil society, and implementing human rights-focused projects.

Board member Arda Inal-ipa is regarded as one of the most respected intellectual figures within Abkhaz civil society, with long-standing and visionary work on peacebuilding and diaspora relations.

The interview’s framing, moving from romanticism towards realism, also sets the philosophical foundation for future interviews, reports, and related materials to be published on our platform.