CLOSING THE "WINDOW ON THE WORLD"

The Armenian media are covering in detail the visit of their prime minister, Hovik Abrahamyan, to [the Black Sea resort of] Batumi [in Georgia], where Abrahamyan has met with his counterpart, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili. It has been noted in Yerevan that Abrahamyan and those accompanying him went to Georgia in a private jet provided by the Georgian side. Some people perceived this to be an act of good will on the part of the Georgians while others regarded it as the inevitable consequence of the crisis situation in Armenian aviation. We remind you that another national airline has gone bankrupt in that country, while yet another one cannot for some reason seem to "take to the air".  

The economic agenda also turned out to be extremely modest. The sides agreed to build a new bridge and a new checkpoint on the frontier between Armenia and Georgia. To be frank about it, the budget for the project is sufficiently modest, a mere 10m euros.

But it has to be said that in Yerevan they were not expecting any such economic results from Abrahamyan's visit to Batumi. It is common knowledge that Armenia does not have either investment capital at its disposal or the ability to attract investments, but it does have a political "hitch". An extensive political controversy between Tbilisi and Yerevan preceded Abrahamyan's visit to Georgia.

 The fact is that on 3 May Armenia arranged a farce on the occupied Azerbaijani lands which it referred to as "parliamentary elections". Almost all the significant "players", including the European Union, the Minsk Group and the US State Department, declared that they did not recognise these elections. 

The Georgian Foreign Ministry also made its statement. In Tbilisi they expressed support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, after noting that they did not recognise the so-called "parliamentary elections" in Nagornyy Karabakh. "The Georgian Foreign Ministry confirms its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan and does not recognise the so-called 'parliamentary elections' held on 3 May 2015 in the Nagornyy Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan."

Then an unpleasant sensation burst upon Georgia. "Ossetian Radio" broadcast that "the speaker of the Ossetian parliament ", Anatoly Bibilov, and Galust Sahakyan, the chairman of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, had met at a working meeting in the [Nagornyy Karabakh capital] Xankandi [Khankendi]. As became clear in [Georgia's South Ossetian capital] Tskhinvali, Bibilov was on a working visit to the self-declared "Nagornyy Karabakh republic" at the invitation (here and further on the speech marks are the author's - Ed.) of Galust Sahakyan and was also on an observation mission at the local "elections". During the meeting Bibilov congratulated Sahakyan on the Mayday holiday. The collocutors "stressed the friendly character of the relations between the two countries". We should hereby recall that Armenia has not formally recognised South Ossetia.

Initially they did not believe these reports in Tbilisi. Georgia's ambassador to Armenia was charged with clarifying the situation. Then the press spokesman for the Armenian parliament, Arsen Babayan, was forced to acknowledge that the meeting had taken place, but it "was of a personal nature and no official issues were discussed, so the private meeting of two individuals cannot thereby reflect on political positions". The fact that the meeting was an "unofficial one" was stated in the Armenian embassy in Tbilisi.

In Georgia, however, they were in no hurry to put an end to this. The Armenian ambassador to Georgia, Yuri Vardanyan, was summoned to the Foreign Ministry where Deputy Foreign Minister Gigi Gigiadze stated that the above-mentioned meeting "was in contradiction to the traditional friendly spirit between Georgia and Armenia and was damaging to bilateral relations". It was reported that "the Armenian ambassador expressed his regrets with regard to what had happened and stated that Georgia's standpoint would immediately be conveyed to Yerevan". Then Irakli Garibashvili and Hovik Abrahamyan has a telephone conversation. "As the Armenian prime minister

explained to the Georgian head of government on the telephone, Anatoly Bibilov was not in Nagornyy Karabakh on a working day, but on a private visit and he had informal communications of a private nature with Galust Sahakyan. Business matters, including those relating to the occupied territories of Georgia, were not discussed at the meeting," they reported in Tbilisi.

In short, an end was put to the controversy without much trouble. But while the visit was being prepared and made another controversy broke. At the sitting of the deputy foreign ministers' committee of the Council of Europe, the Armenian delegation refused to support the statement in which the so-called "treaties" signed between the Russian Federation and the regions of Georgia, Abkhazia and Ossetia, were discussed. In the view of the Council of Europe, these documents flagrantly violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, do not have force of law and are in contradiction to the principles of territorial integrity and the international commitments of the Russian Federation, including the ceasefire agreement of 12 August 2008. But Yerevan occupies its own special position when it comes to this. 

There can be no doubt that this is not the first time that Armenian diplomacy has had to deal with such controversies, and to no small extent because in Yerevan they do consider perfectly admissible not to respect the territorial integrity of other states. What is more, relations between Armenia and Georgia are a rather delicate matter in general. On the one hand, initially in the circles of the Armenian diaspora they made claims not only on Azerbaijan's Nagornyy Karabakh, but also on Georgia's Javakheti where there is also a high percentage of ethnic Armenians in the population. Many experts feel sure that, reading between the lines in territorial matters, there is a church dispute smouldering between the two countries. There are extremely influential forces and groupings in Yerevan which are prepared to "promote the self-determination" of Armenians in Javakheti even today.

Moreover, in Yerevan they realise that against the backdrop of the "frozen war" with Azerbaijan and the closed frontier with Turkey, Georgia is for Armenia essentially the only "window on the world". Freight is transited to Armenia via Georgia to and from Russia, the countries of Europe and the Middle East. True, Armenia does share a border with Iran, but the transport infrastructure in the "Iranian" direction is poorly developed. There are no rail links between the two countries.  It is understandable that against the

back-drop of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia is not interested in an exacerbation of the situation on the border with Armenia, but the "cost of the issue" differs for Tbilisi and Yerevan. It would seem that all these considerations should nudge Yerevan and Tbilisi to approach one another, but…

Here the realities with regard to direct relations that are missing from the Armenian-Georgian agenda should perhaps be recalled. It is common knowledge that Armenia is an ally of Russia. Relations between Georgia and Russia are extremely strained, especially after the "five-day war" in 2008. It would seem that any "a third country" would have plenty of possibilities as to why it should not intervene in another's conflict and normal relations should be maintained by both sides. Baku is managing to do this well with regard to Russia and Georgia.

But Azerbaijan is a self-sufficient country and can permit itself such a luxury as foreign policy based on its own national interests. In the case of Armenia which simply cannot survive without economic "hand-outs" from Russia, the situation is fundamentally different. In 2008, Yerevan refused to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but Armenia did not resolve to condemn Russia's further steps, being fully aware what the consequences of even slight dissatisfaction on the part of Russia would be for the country. This means that the Armenian establishment does not have an appropriate response to the "Georgian issue" just as before.