SECOND KARABAKH?

Georgian-Armenian relations are experiencing another round of tension. Despite all the rhetoric about the age-old friendship of the two nations, Yerevan’s policy aimed at annexing the Georgian region of Samtskhe-Javakhetia and appropriating the Georgian cultural heritage, hampers the normal development of interstate relations.

Alarm signal for Tbilisi

The hype surrounding the recent events in the Georgian village of Kumurdo in Samtskhe-Javakhetia is still relevant. Local Armenian population of the village clashed with police demanding to give them a church of the tenth century.

According to the statement of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, a group of residents of Kumurdo, mostly populated with Armenians, tried to penetrate the territory of the cultural monument - the restored church of the 10^th century, which is guarded by the police. Authorities did not allow them to enter the temple, after which the locals began throwing stones at the police. The incident resulted in injuries of policemen and damages to several vehicles of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Interior Minister Georgy Mgebrishvili arrived on the scene and managed to handle the situation.

Representatives of the "ancient and cultural people" explain aggressive actions of local Armenians against the Georgian police by the fact that the restorers allegedly "do not respect the burial of Armenians in the church yard." However, the authorities say that the Armenians' statements are "a malicious lie"; the restorers are only trying to restore the church and the wall inscriptions.

Relative stability in the village of Kumurdo was restored. The protection of the church was intensified; the restoration works are ongoing. However, the tension caused by the provocative actions of local Armenians persists. It is noteworthy that Armenians describe the events as violence of the police and Special Forces against the villagers. According to Armenian media, during the dispute that arose around the installation of the khachkar by Armenians, the law enforcement agencies used violence against them, "a lot of Armenians suffered, many have head injuries". However, the Armenian propaganda cannot deny the main thing: the problem, as one of the leaders of the Georgian Armenians David Rstakyan admits, is "not in the khachkar, but in the church. The Georgian side intends to appropriate the church."

Thus, the clashes with the police and the ensuing moaning of the Armenians pursue a specifically expansionist goal - primarily with respect to the Georgian cultural heritage. How can one not remember that the active phase of the Karabakh conflict was preceded by loud claims of Armenians to the Christian heritage of Ancient Albania. Now, the actions similar to those in Karabakh are taking place against Georgia: calling the Kumurdo church Armenian, Yerevan and the nationalist forces of Georgian Armenians, actually imply that both the church and its territory, and, in general, the whole region of Javakhetia belong to Armenians. It is worth recalling a relatively recent appeal of the Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Georgia to official Tbilisi, in which the Armenians expressed claims to 442 Georgian churches. It is not about the churches only, but also includes the adjacent lands. In general, the Armenian Church claims 650 Georgian churches, including those on the Georgian-controlled territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The Armenian claims to Georgian churches affect even the course of negotiations on the demarcation of border between Armenia and Georgia. According to Georgian media, Yerevan has managed to obtain consent from official Tbilisi for the transfer of the Khuchap monastery and the adjacent territory to Armenia's control. The Georgian authorities do not officially confirm this information; however, public dissatisfaction with such concessions is growing. Activists initiate even protests outside the Georgian government under the slogan "No to Armenian Occupation!".

Meanwhile, the dramatic events in Kumurdo clearly indicate that in the claims of the Armenians to the cultural heritage of Georgia, which are closely combined with territorial claims to the region of Javakhetia, live a new stage - a transition to a "practical struggle". It is impossible to regard the attacks on Georgian policemen otherwise.

No matter how some Armenian analysts try to present the events in Kumurdo as part of internal Georgian political struggle on the eve of elections to local self-government bodies scheduled for October 21 and to prevent attribution of responsibility to Yerevan and Armenian nationalist circles for the deterioration of relations between the two countries, the clashes in Kumurdo are the first alarming signal for official Tbilisi. It is no accident that the leader of Armenian separatists of Javakhk (as Armenians call this Georgian province), Vahagn Chakhalyan, who claimed that the incident in Kumurdo allegedly "exposes the Georgian authorities", once again demonstrated himself. Openly threatening the Georgian authorities, he urged them "to immediately ensure a logical and constructive solution to this problem and not provoke discontent of Armenians in Javakhk."

All these Armenian references to the alleged violation of rights, calls "not to provoke discontent of the Armenians" recall a painfully familiar phenomenon. We assume that Georgian authorities will prefer not to flirt with Armenian expansionists, but will take measures to prevent the second Karabakh in Javakhetia.

What about the ambassador?

Perhaps one of the indicators of Tbilisi's firm intention to suppress the practical nature of Armenians' claims on Georgian territories and cultural monuments is the reaction to the appointment by Yerevan of a new Georgian ambassador. The media is actively exaggerating the information that official Tbilisi finally refused to approve Sergey Minasyan for the post of the Armenian Ambassador to Georgia.

This issue has been developing since the summer, but Armenia, apparently, has not managed to convince Georgia to agree with the candidacy of Minasyan. It is understandable, since this political scientist has become famous not only as one of the mouthpieces of Armenia's aggressive policy against Azerbaijan, but also as a harbinger of territorial aspirations of the "long-suffering people" to Javakhetia. Moreover, Minasyan openly called on Russia to invade Georgia to protect the Armenian population of this region, which, he said, had never considered Georgia its homeland.

It is no surprise that Tbilisi made it clear about its extreme rejection of the odious Armenian political scientist as a possible head of the diplomatic mission in the neighboring country. Moreover, Georgia is dissatisfied with not only his image of a "fighter for Javakhk", but also Minasyan's appeal to Russia as a power, which, for certain geopolitical reasons, may benefit from supporting Armenian separatism in Javakhetia. The positioning of this infamous political scientist as a supporter of Russia gave Tbilisi grounds to believe that this person, if appointed as the Armenian Ambassador, would try to realize the interests of not only Yerevan, but also Moscow. Even the Armenian media, in particular the Zhamanak newspaper, acknowledge that Georgian authorities have serious suspicions that Minasyan will represent the interests of Russia rather than those of his own country.

However, the most important question in the whole story is: why did Yerevan nominate Minasyan? It is impossible to imagine that the Armenian leadership did not foresee that Tbilisi would disapprove an ambassador of a foreign state who actually encroaches on the territorial integrity of Georgia. Therefore, it is obvious that the official Yerevan, having nominated Minasyan for the post of the Armenian ambassador in Georgia, thereby supported the views he preached, in which the demand to ensure that Javakh belongs to Armenian takes one of the fundamental positions. In other words, Armenia officially, albeit indirectly, made it clear that it was considering "fighting for Javakhk" as one of its priorities. Given the high-profile events in the village of Kumurdo, which coincided with the clarification of the situation around the appointment of Sergey Minasyan, it is obvious that Yerevan continues explicitly inciting Armenian population of Georgia to oppose the official authorities.

On imaginary and real threats

One more aspect attracts attention In "Georgian" policy of Yerevan: a desire to blame Azerbaijan and Turkey for the allegedly "anti-Armenian" actions of Tbilisi. Armenian politicians and leaders of Georgian Armenians, like Chakhalyan, accused the Georgian authorities in his last statement on clashes in Kumurdo saying that "by conceding to the Turkish-Azerbaijani economic and political pressure, they continue demonstrating inadequate, discriminatory attitude to the national-cultural and religious rights of the local Armenian population."

Noteworthy in this sense is the reaction of the Yerevan experts to the incompleteness of the demarcation of the Armenian-Georgian border. They claim that it was not without the intervention of Baku and Ankara. Of course, such accusations are untenable and absurd. Apparently, Armenians cannot understand that Georgia, regardless of the opinion and policies of other states, will never agree to cede its region of Javakhetia or its churches to Armenia. Consequently, accusing Azerbaijan and Turkey of allegedly inflicting damage on the Armenian-Georgian brotherhood, Yerevan simply expresses its anger at the undeniable fact that the key strategic allies of Georgia are the neighboring Turkic countries.

It was with utmost indignation that Armenia reacted to the recent signing of the Action Plan on trilateral sectoral cooperation for 2017-2019 between Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. "The deeper and closer is the trilateral cooperation of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, the more it will disturb Armenia, which already has many problems," admit Armenian experts. At the same time, the interaction of the Troika in the military sphere is of particular concern to them.

Interestingly, Armenia, which has no tools to influence the policy of Baku and Ankara, is convinced in neutralizing the threats allegedly exposed by the cooperation between Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey using the Georgian factor. This is a clear sign demonstrating the readiness of Armenians to continue using the Javakh leverage and other tools on Tbilisi not only to achieve anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish, but also anti-Georgian goals of Yerevan.

Obviously, Azerbaijan and Turkey, who consistently defend the principle of territorial integrity of Georgia, are ready to render Tbilisi any assistance to curb real threats from Armenia. Theorists and practicing members of Yerevan's expansionist policy, who feel unconcealed anger with Georgia's strategic alliance with Azerbaijan and Turkey, are well aware of this.