Examples of using Schlaining process in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Schlaining Process filled this gap to some extent.
Whatever the actual causes of its demise were, the Schlaining Process should not have been abandoned.
Chapter 3: The Schlaining Process| 85 Selection of participants was driven by a number of factors.
Nonetheless, it is important to examine how the Schlaining Process contributed to each of these domains.
The 20th Schlaining Process meeting was due to be held in London on 27th-30th July 2007.
These phases were not conceived of as mutually exclusive steps noras engagement restricted to the Schlaining Process.
These were also issues brought to the Schlaining Process with the participation of key interlocutors from both sides.
It is our view that the search for an acceptable format must go on, so that projects such as the Schlaining Process continue.
Nonetheless, the Schlaining Process does appear to have informed specific confidencebuilding measures that were undertaken by participants.
Selection of participants A total of 57 people took part in the Schlaining Process from the Abkhaz side.
Addressing this dynamic, the Schlaining Process was conceived as being“process oriented” rather than“results driven”.
Since I was the coordinator from Abkhazia,this article gives a view of the Schlaining Process from the Abkhaz perspective.
The Schlaining Process provided all its participants with an opportunity to obtain a fuller understanding of the positions, interests and fears of the sides in the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict.
In this sense, many participants assumed a different approach to dialogue as a result of participation in the Schlaining Process.
Results and lessons learnt from the project The seven-year Schlaining Process is not the only project within which Georgian-Abkhaz meetings have been held.
Many of these relationships, ideas and collaborations have been sustained to one degree or another,despite divergent trajectories of the respective societies in the period since the Schlaining Process concluded.
In this context, it was difficult for initiatives such as the Schlaining Process to fundamentally influence the parties' engagement in dialogue, let alone negotiations.
Since the Schlaining Process does not constitute official negotiations by the sides in the conflict, where binding documents and decisions were taken, attendance by representatives of the Abkhaz and Georgian NGOs was a necessary precondition.
While I take sole responsibilityfor the content and views expressed in this article, the Schlaining Process itself was a collaborative endeavour.
The role of insiders and partners As outlined above, the Schlaining Process evolved out of discussions between the UNV/ Conciliation Resources/Berghof team and Abkhaz and Georgian civil society actors between 1997 and 2000.
The government in Tbilisi was clearly concerned that the representatives of Abkhazia, who were unable to present their views officially within the different European structures,would use the Schlaining Process as a platform to state their position.
The Schlaining Process operated in Russian- a lingua franca for most participants, but not the first language for all and not the first language for the facilitators, although there was knowledge of Russian in the facilitation team.
Moreover, during periods when the authorities, for one reason or another, discontinued official negotiations, the Schlaining Process provided one of only a small number of opportunities for direct bilateral contacts.
In the Schlaining Process, this was something that changed over time:the insiders were actors in the political life of their own communities- the Schlaining Process was one vehicle for them to be so, but certainly not the only one.
Substantive outcomes Through joint analysis andaddressing both underlying and emerging issues, the Schlaining Process sought to introduce new frameworks for understanding the sources of the conflict.
The lack of status and leverage enabled the Schlaining Process to be a creative environment for participants to explore issues that, in other contexts, could have been given unwarranted value or importance before they had been adequately explored.
At different points in the process, different issues had more or less prominence in the negotiations or in public discourse, and the Schlaining Process allowed politically engaged participants to explore them in a joint way that rarely happened elsewhere.
Throughout the Schlaining Process, it was clear that the Abkhaz partners held firmly to their aspiration for the recognition of an independent Abkhazia; meanwhile, the Georgian partners maintained a clear articulation of a territorially integral Georgia in which Abkhazia would have a respected role.
Different agendas were at play:a Georgian partner might meet a minister to discuss the Schlaining Process, or to discuss a separate issue relating to the conflict/ peace process or to wider processes of change.
In the Schlaining Process, it was deemed necessary to create a space in which people could talk and challenge one another; but it was also important to have a space in which the dialogue could continue and not be disrupted by intransigent behaviour, as opposed to intransigent opinions and interests.