From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National - Brookings

CHAPTER 2 Case Studies: Georgia, Kenya, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka
in the aftermath of the conflict in August 2008, which
was followed by the Russian Federation’s recognition
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states,
statements by Georgian politicians of the possibility of
large-scale IDP return in the immediate future have diminished
significantly. Even so, the IDP issue remains
prominent in the national consciousness and is an issue
of significant political import for the government.
As just one indication, the IDP issue features regularly
and with increasing prominence in the president’s
annual State of the Nation address. 28 It is noteworthy
that the president’s most recent address, in 2011, was
framed around the theme of national “responsibility”
to address the situation of IDPs. The president noted
that the government’s “main priority is to care for our
internally displaced population,” emphasizing that “the
State has an obligation to do everything to give our IDP
compatriots the possibility of a better life.” Continuing
with the theme of national responsibility, the president
emphasized that the government’s “main obligation” is
to improve IDPs’ living conditions and specified that
“part of this obligation” is “the resettlement of displaced
persons in private dwellings of their own, instead of
shelters,” where currently “many” IDPs “still live in difficult
conditions . . . in temporary shelters with poor conditions
for living.” The president summarized current
government programs for providing decent shelter to
IDPs during their displacement, while acknowledging
that these efforts were “just a drop in the ocean; much
more needs to be done.” At the same time, the president
underscored that IDPs’ situation will not be completely
resolved until “every displaced person gets back their
own property” in their area of origin. 29
IDPs’ Return to Abkhazia in Months,”, 28 November
2007(http://reliefweb.int/node/250451).
28 See, for instance, President of Georgia, “Annual Address to
Parliament,” 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 (www.president.gov.ge/
index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=231&info_id=2483).
29 President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, “Annual Address
to Parliament,” 11 February 2011 (twww.president.gov.ge/
index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=231&info_id=6143).
For an analysis, see Lasha Gogidze and Caitlin Ryan,
“Fact-Checking the State of the Nation Address: IDPs,”
184
More concretely, the government has taken a number of
high-profile national initiatives regarding IDPs. In 2000,
the Presidential Commission on IDPs was established,
comprising twenty senior representatives from different
ministries; though it appears that the commission’s
work was limited in time and impact (see Benchmark
7). In 2006, a state commission was established to develop
a state strategy on IDPs, resulting in the adoption
by the Council of Ministers of such a strategy, conveyed
by a decree of the prime minister in February 2007 (see
Benchmark 6).
Perhaps most notable, at least in terms of national
awareness-raising initiatives on IDP issues, was the
multimillion dollar “My House” program launched
by President Saakashvili in 2006 and funded from the
discretionary funds at his disposal. 30 This program,
which allowed IDPs to register abandoned property in
Abkhazia through state-of-the-art satellite technology,
was promoted in an extensive mass media campaign.
Notwithstanding the national prominence given to
the program and the hype surrounding it, its utility
and impact were limited (see Benchmark 10 below).
Moreover, when rumors and resulting panic spread
among IDPs concerning the “My House” program—
specifically, rumors suggesting that IDPs who did not
participate would lose their IDP status and the assistance
afforded under national legislation—the government
did little, if anything, to correct the misinformation. The
general view among observers of IDP issues in Georgia
at the time was that the program was more a political
and public relations exercise than a serious effort by the
government to strengthen the legal evidence for IDPs’
claims for property restitution. 31
Indeed, the aspect of internal displacement on
which the government has focused most national
28 February 2011 (http://transparency.ge/en/blog/
pfact-checking-state-nation-address-idpsp).
30 A description of the government program is available on
the government website (www.chemisakhli.gov.ge/index.
php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=1).
31 Author’s notes, while working in Georgia on IDP issues,
2006–07.