A STEP BACK TO TAKE A RUN?!

Suggestions are being made in Georgia about the need to start negotiations on the recognition of Abkhazia. One of the first people to make the initiative was an expert on Caucasian affairs, Mamuka Areshidze, who explained his position in an interview with the Georgian newspaper Rezonansi.

Areshidze explains that the Abkhaz are actually under the threat of displacement from Abkhazia and extinction. "We should make a special effort not to get Abkhazia back, but to get the Abkhaz back, at the very least, to stop their assimilation on the territory of Abkhazia," Areshidze says.

In his view, under the current circumstances Georgia should take steps in respect of Abkhazia that will distance it from Russia. And since Russia is ahead of Georgia in this direction, the Georgian side has to take unexpected action. And one such unexpected action, the expert thinks, could be an initiative to create a Georgian-Abkhaz format for the recognition of Abkhazia's independence. In the course of negotiations, the Georgian side should put forward conditions, such as the return of refugees.

Areshidze's idea has to some extent been supported by another Georgian expert, Irakli Sesiashvili. "I am not in favour of recognition of Abkhazia, but discussion of this issue may throw up other issues to be used in resolving the conflict later," Sesiashvili said in an interview with GHN.

He believes that in exchange for certain conditions, the debate on recognition of Abkhazia could be interesting. "The Abkhaz are saying they want independence. We can offer that under certain conditions, including the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Abkhazia," Sesiashvili said.

According to the expert, Georgia could benefit from that, because, on the one hand, it will show the West that it wants to resolve the conflict, is concerned not only about its own interests - the restoration of its territorial integrity - but also about the citizens of Abkhazia, and approaches the issue in a civilized manner. On the other hand, Georgia destroys the myth of "the independence of Abkhazia".

At the same time, overall public opinion in Georgia rejects the idea of recognizing the independence of separatist entities in whatever form it may manifest itself. This opinion is shared by the director of the International School of the Caucasus, Professor Gia Nodia. In an interview with our magazine, he shares his vision of the problem and of overall security in the region.

- Professor, how much does Mamuka Areshidze's idea reflect the sentiments of Georgian society?

- Judging by the reaction to this statement and opinion polls, Areshidze's position would be supported by a minuscule portion of Georgian citizens. According to surveys, about 1-2 per cent of the population. There was almost no reaction from the authorities.

- Before the war, the Georgian government launched a program on the social development of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. What happened to the policy of rapprochement with the population of the occupied territories after the war of August 2008?

- After the war, there was a plan for "cooperation without recognition". It envisaged that Georgia, without recognizing these entities or establishing official contact with them, would develop contacts at the level of civil society through humanitarian and economic projects. But in practice this does not yield any results because it is difficult to work with communities without cooperating with the authorities.

- There is some disappointment in Azerbaijani society over the ambiguous stance of the West on the Karabakh conflict. Quite often, there are explicit or implicit "double standards" on the part of the USA and the EU. Do you observe the same Western policy in relation to the rebel Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

- Officially Georgia considers South Ossetia and Abkhazia occupied territories. The United States has been consistently using the term "occupied territories" in recent years. The US Congress has recently passed a statement that was welcomed in Georgia. Leaders of European countries use different expressions. Some speak of occupation, others don't. But officially the word "occupation" is not used in EU policy towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As for the content of the Western policies, on the one hand Georgia believes that the West is Tbilisi's main ally. At the same time, there is concern that the West is not principled and consistent enough in relation to these conflicts, because the priority for it is the relationship with Moscow.

In fact, Western leaders also recognize the occupation of Azerbaijani territories, but shy away from explicitly naming the aggressor.

When the term of occupation is mentioned, it is assumed that the aggressor is Russia. But this is not always said openly, which causes Georgia's discontent.

- Is it likely that Georgia and Azerbaijan will restore their territorial integrity in the foreseeable future?

- I do not think it will be possible to change the situation in the near future. Azerbaijan and Georgia should strengthen their statehood and their international standing, try to improve relations with their citizens living in the occupied territories and hope for a favourable situation to resolve these conflicts in the future.

- What geopolitical changes have to take place in the region for these conflicts to be resolved?   

- This primarily applies to Russia, which believes that it is in competition with the West for influence in the South Caucasus. And the existence of these conflicts in a frozen state plays into the hands of Moscow. The West believes that it is bad when conflicts are frozen, but there is nothing better so far. Therefore, in order to resolve conflicts in the South Caucasus it is necessary to change the geopolitical balance of powers in the region.

It is often said in Russia that the problem is not with Georgia, but with its president.   

Russia wants to show that it is the master of the neighbouring countries and the South Caucasus in particular. It wants to impose its will on others, and since Georgia is considered the most obstinate and unyielding, then it should be punished. In addition, by stepping up its military power in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia is holding Georgia at gunpoint. In a military sense, Georgia is in suspense. Thus Russia wants to teach a lesson to other former Soviet countries, so that they reckon with Russia.

- Do the Georgian authorities maintain direct contact with the "authorities" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? 

Officially they do not, but there may be some technical contacts. It is believed that there cannot be any productive political contacts at the current stage. 

- How effective can cooperation between Baku and Tbilisi be as regards restoration of their territorial integrity?

- Of course, there is a prospect for some coordination, rhetorical, legal positioning, etc.

- Until recently the Armenian-populated Javakheti region was regarded as yet another sore point for Georgia. What is the situation there now?

- Samtskhe-Javakheti is no longer a sore point. The situation there has improved of late, it has become quite calm and the local population has become more loyal to the state. They see what useful projects the government is implementing there. Of course, there are nationalist groups there, but their influence is weakening rather than increasing.

- Some Russian politicians have argued that the West is fully immersed in the battle in North Africa and the Middle East. And for this reason it has actually given up its plans in relation to the South Caucasus...

- Russian politicians are engaged in wishful thinking. It is true that following the election of Barack Obama US interest in the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe as a whole has somewhat diminished. It has nothing to do with the Arab revolution, but is a priority policy of the Obama administration. And this policy is subject to sharp criticism in the US Congress. So it is quite possible that Washington will revive its interest in our region. European interest is not high either, but it has grown in the past two years. Now the world's attention is focused on North Africa. Perhaps the cash flows there will now increase. It is not known how developments will unfold there. But, without a doubt, the South Caucasus remains in the sphere of strategic interests of the West.