|
PRESIDENT OF GEORGIA OFFERS ABKHAZIA BROAD FEDERALISM
ALEXANDER KRYLOV, ALEKSEY MALASHENKO, ANATOLY OTYRBA, SERGEI MARKEDONOV, SHALVA PICHKHADZE, ZURAB ABASHIDZE, IVLIAN KHAINDRAVA,
Moscow-Tbilisi
Alexander KRYLOV, senior research fellow, Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, political scientist, Moscow
Georgia’s recent offers to the Abkhaz leaders about the conflict settlement are worth discussing. For the first time the President of Georgia has put forward such far-reaching proposals: Abkhazia has been offered a post of Vice Premier of the Georgian government, and it has been proposed that Abkhazia’s representatives be delegated to the Georgia’s ruling bodies, the region has been also offered to become the free economic zone, etc.
But the way those offers were made depreciated them. This was not a coincidence that they were made public on the eve of the NATO summit in Bucharest. Probably the offers were intended to be heard in the European capitals rather than in the Abkhazian capital, Sukhumi. The President wanted to make it clear that the unsettled conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia did not stand in Georgia’s way to NATO or, if they did, they would have been settled in the near future. So, the proposals are bad in terms of their form and time they were started not in terms of their content.
If the Georgian side had been serious about the offers, it would have returned to the situation before the peace negotiations had been cut off. And as we know, that was done after the agreement on stabilization of the situation in the region had been violated and after the Georgian troops had been brought into the Kodori gorge.
If Georgia had been serious about the idea of Georgia and Abkhazia’s federation and of granting Abkhazia broad autonomy, the sides would first of all have used low-key diplomacy and only then would have made official offers. It was necessary to try to sit down at the negotiating table again and then to discuss specific offers.
Aleksey MALASHENKO, head of Research Programs of Carnegie Moscow Center
I would like to emphasize three points. I take a pessimistic view of the situation. The opposing parties – Georgia and Abkhazia – are not ready to make a compromise with each other. They’ve missed the boat. Neither of the parties will make drastic concessions on granting independence now.
Secondly, I do not agree that Georgia cannot join NATO. I think that in the long run Georgia will join the Alliance. This is a matter of time. When Georgia joins NATO, the situation with Abkhazia and with separatism in its entirety will be different. Though the Tbilisi officials believe that this will solve all the problems, in my opinion it is too early to draw such a conclusion. It is important that the situation is changing. Georgia, Abkhazia and Russia will have to adjust themselves to that.
If the political leaders do not take the events into account and do not premeditate their actions, we will not end the deadlock. In this respect the offers made by President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili are fine, but they are of little importance now.
Anatoly OTYRBA, independent political scientist, Moscow
I think that for Abkhazia the NATO factor is a time bomb. Georgia’s joining NATO will not solve the problem. Georgia’s attempt to join NATO without solving Abkhazia’s issue means its political irresponsibility. In this respect, the decision made by the NATO summit about non-accession of Georgia to NATO Membership Action Plan was one of the best decisions.
We would like Georgia to pursue the right policy. The only right policy is the recognition of independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I believe that there is no other way out.
Sergei MARKEDONOV, head of the International Relations Department of the Institute for Policy and Military Analysis, Moscow
I would like to dwell on some offers made by Mikheil Saakashvili that can give rise to questions and Abkhazia’s hostility. First and foremost, I believe that the status proposed by Saakashvili is not worked through. It seems strange to me that the President with legal education uses a comma between the words “autonomy” and “federalism”. Those are different things. Georgia’s federalization concerns not only Abkhazia. The problem is much broader.
The same is true of the free economic zone. It is offered to create the zone in the East of Abkhazia, in Ochamchira and Gali not in Gagry or Gudauta that are closer to Russia’s Krasnodar region geographically, economically and politically.
It is supposed that the free economic zone will be created through mass return of the Georgian refugees, or maybe, more correctly, the temporarily dislocated persons to Ochamchira. It is well-known that the great part of the male Georgian population living in that area took part in the 1992-93 military operations. That’s why the Abkhazians take it as a threat.
In my opinion, Saakashvili’s proposals were put forward unilaterally. For the time being, the Abkhazian party is not ready to compromise. Any scheme of reintegration of Abkhazia will be successful only if it is a compromise scheme. Otherwise, no integration scheme will be efficient.
I think that NATO problem comes to something more than Bucharest. Tbilisi makes its foreign-policy and geopolitical choice in favor of NATO. Tbilisi believes that Russia is unable to solve the problem of Georgia’s territorial integrity or to help Georgia do that. Georgia pins its hopes on NATO, although I consider that neither Russia nor NATO can solve Georgia’s territorial problems. Nobody but Georgia can do that.
NATO is a military and political bloc. So, when Sukhumi sees Tbilisi joining NATO, it is taken as a threat. So, I do not think that in terms of territorial integrity NATO is an efficient tool.
Shalva PICHKHADZE, political scientist of “Georgia in NATO” non-governmental organization, Tbilisi
As regards NATO, one should not disregard this point in the general context of the conflict settlement. It is felt in Georgia (the representatives of NATO and the Western countries confirm that) that Georgia’s joining NATO is a question of time. We are not faced with the question of “yes” or “not” any more. We are faced with the question of “when”. It comes natural that it will tell on the conflict settlement process.
That’s why Saakashvili has put forward the Abkhazia proposals on the eve of his trip to Bucharest. I agree that the form of the proposal representation is unsuccessful. I would not like Saakashvili to make them in the Foundation of Strategic Studies through the lens of the television cameras. I would prefer those offers to result from the agreement with the Abkhazian party and I would prefer Mikheil Saakashvili and Sergei Bagapsh to head the parties at negotiations. This would be more productive.
Let’s think about the content. It would seem strange if we turned down the proposal because of the good content and bad form. Let’s pay attention to the meaning. The statements made by the leaders of Georgia, Abkhazia and Russia contain some populism, it is inevitable. Let’s keep that in mind and assign primary importance to the content.
Zurab ABASHIDZE, former Georgian Ambassador to Russia, Tbilisi
While Vladimir Putin was Russia's President, the Russian-Georgian relations became still more complicated and the prospects of settlement of the conflict with Abkhazia reached a deadlock. We do not understand why the country, for which separatism is a serious challenge, supports the separatist regimes in the neighboring country. This continues to be our main problem.
In Russia the new President has been elected. We hope that our relations will change for the better and that will influence the Abkhazian conflict settlement positively. It is also true that Georgia decided to choose the Euro-Atlantic integration for good.
It behooves the Abkhazians to agree that Abkhazia cannot become independent. I would say that even if everybody recognizes Abkhazia’s independence, Russia will never back that and will not recognize Abhkazia’s independence. The recent hearings in the State Duma on this issue have confirmed that.
To some extent Russia itself has prompted Georgia to join NATO, especially lately.
Ivlian KHAINDRAVA, member of the Georgian Parliament, the Republican Party, Tbilisi
In my view, Saakashvili’s proposals on the conflict settlement with Abkhazia should have been initiated, at least, four years ago. After Saakashvili had come to power, he got a finished concept on Abkhazia containing many proposals he made public.
Nevertheless, it is good that the initiatives are aimed at peaceful conflict settlement and improvement of the situation including in the economic sphere. All in all, those proposals are useful.
As regards NATO entry, this process will be completed. At the same time, we think that NATO is a step forward on Georgia’s way to the EU. Georgia should step up its efforts to do that.
What is more dangerous for the Abkhazians? Georgia as the NATO member state, seeking to join the EU with the highest standards of the smaller peoples protection, or Georgia, which does not belong to any security system? The answer is quite clear.
If to speak about Abkhazia’s prospects, three national projects clash with each other in Abkhazia. Those include the Abkhazian project according to which Abkhazia strives for independence, the Georgian project aimed at Abkhazia’s reintegration into Georgia and the Russian project which aims at preserving the existing status quo with the gradual annexation and integration of Abkhazia into Russia but without the recognition of its independence. In terms of Russia’s interests, I do not understand why Abkhazia should become independent. The West will accept any format leading to the long-term and stable peace.
In this context the three actors must look for areas of common interest. Abkhazia is faced with the choice – the Eurasian Russia with imperialistic aspirations or Georgia seeking to join the West (NATO and EU).
The material is based on the addresses of the participants in Moscow-Tbilisi television space bridge on the subject “The President of Georgia offers Abkhazia broad federalism” held at the Russian News and Information Agency RIA Novosti.
April 14, 2008
|
