In the news

Abkhazia and South Ossetia with Tbilisi on a one-on-one basis

Moscow has never expressed a desire to address the issues of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with Tbilisi on a one-on-one basis

The 24th round of Georgian-Russian negotiations in Geneva with the participation of the EU, the OSCE and the UN, as well as all previous ones, ended without results. The latest round stands out for the fact that the representative of the Russian side Grigory Karasin did not rule out the termination of these consultations. If earlier the parties in one voice stated that Geneva was the only and the most important area of the Georgian-Russian dialogue on the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts, now it is possible that these meetings will not take place. How do you assess the statement by Karasin and what could a possible suspension of the Geneva consultations mean?

-I have read the statement of Karasin, published by "RIA Novosti". Karasin said that Moscow considers the Geneva format important to preserve stability in the region. So I cannot say that under the plans of Karasin the consultations may be suspended. At the same time, in a situation where it is difficult to consider practical issues, Karasin focused on the uncertain prospects for such consultations. Despite this, I do not think the parties will refuse to participate in the Geneva format.

In your opinion, does Karasin’s statement have something to do with the fact that Moscow wants to discuss the Abkhazian and South Ossetian issues on a one-on-one basis with Tbilisi without the involvement of the international community?

-As far as I know, Moscow has never expressed a desire to address the issues of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with Tbilisi on a one-on-one basis. I do not remember such statements from Moscow. Be that as it may, Moscow will always raise the question of the participation of representatives of Tskhinvali and Sukhumi in the Georgian-Russian negotiations. So, Moscow and Tbilisi will not be able to negotiate on this issue alone.

Georgia’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Davit Zalkaliani noted that the position of the representatives of Moscow, Sukhumi and Tskhinvali poses a threat to the Geneva consultations and their actions were orchestrated by Russia and, accordingly, for the possible failure of the Geneva talks the responsibility will fall on them...

-I'm not surprised at the statement by Zalkaliani and it is quite natural, since hardly anyone hoped that for what happened in Geneva, the Georgian Foreign Ministry would put the responsibility on the Georgian side. I have never participated in such meetings, but if some persons from the group of one Commission will participate in the meeting of another commission, I do not think it would be a gross violation of procedures. In my view, the position of the Georgian side at the last Geneva consultations was too radical.

As far as I know, the representatives of Tskhinvali and Sukhumi, who were to participate in the work of the commission for the return of refugees, refused to participate in the meeting and wanted to attend a meeting of the committee on security issues. Their action was regarded by the Georgians as a failure of representatives of Sukhumi and Tskhinvali to discuss issues related to the return of refugees, and this action seems to be objective...

-The work of the Commission on Security - Georgian delegation was frustrated because the Abkhaz and Ossetian members of the group wanted to participate in it. As for the return of refugees, as far as I know, the position of Tskhinvali and Sukhumi is that - if we discuss this topic in Geneva, let the Georgian side refuse putting resolutions on this subject in the Assembly of the UN. Sukhumi and Tskhinvali perceive Tbilisi's actions in the UN as ideological and emotional pressure on them.

How do you assess the statement by Karasin that Moscow will not sign an agreement on non-use of force because Russia was not at war with Georgia? That Russia was forced to help defend South Ossetia from Georgian aggression. It is hard to imagine that Mr. Karasin forgot about the actions of Russian armored and infantry divisions, as well as aircraft in August 2008. Is Mr. Karasin so forgetful?

-As far as I know, Russia is ready to sign a multilateral declaration of non-use of force in the region. As for the fact that Russia refuses to admit that it was the party in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, I do not see anything surprising. Since before the beginning of the armed conflict, Russia had the status of a peacemaker and was obliged to intervene in the conflict. Therefore, the statement by Karasin is based on an assessment of the Russian side of the development of events in 2008.

Foreign Minister of the Sukhumi authorities Sergei Shamba welcomes the opportunity to restore the rail link between Georgia and Russia through Abkhazia. A few months ago, when the Minister of Georgia for Reintegration Paata Zakareishvili announced this initiative, the position of Sukhumi was essentially negative. What happens now? More precisely, what could a change of the Abkhazian position on this issue mean?

-Then this offer to Sukhumi was greeted coldly and they said that they do not need it. In my opinion, now the internal political struggle in Abkhazia played its role. Shamba was one of the favorites in the presidential elections. By such statements he is trying to demonstrate that he is still active in politics and in this matter, which concerns international relations, he has a non-government stance. Furthermore, in his statement there was such logic - if we support the interests of Russia in the region, and Russia is in favor of the restoration of the railway through Abkhazia, then we have to think about this issue.

Maybe things are much simpler - Moscow does not give Sukhumi long promised finance and is it possible to assume that Moscow trades with Sukhumi on restoring the railway link?

-I doubt it, because I know how Russia treats its allies. The issue of the restoration the railway came in the first stage of the Georgian-Russian warming. It was supported by Armenia, Abkhazia was skeptical; Russia did not publicly fix its interest in this matter. It is difficult to imagine a plan according to which Moscow delays the transfer of finances to Abkhazia due to the failure of restoring the railway. If this question was in practical terms, it would have been discussed at the recent meeting of top officials of Russia and Abkhazia.

How do you assess the results of the work by Karasina and Abashidze and how may their meetings impact on the process of settling the Georgian-Russian relations?

-As for the prospects and outcomes of the dialogue format between Karasin and Abashidze, in my opinion, the main thing here is not to exceed the expectations. No matter how talented diplomats Abashidze and Karasin are, between Russia and Georgia there are serious differences. Despite this, both negotiators are familiar with each other and the results of their work can be called positive. They are trying to solve those issues which are now possible to solve. In my opinion, it's thanks to Karasin and Abashidze that we are well moving forward in the recovery process of the Georgian-Russian relations.