Tweet
Georgian Daily, Georgia
Dec 19 2009
Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement Seen as Model for Improvement in
Russian-Georgian Relations
December 19, 2009
Paul Goble
Russia and Georgia may gradually overcome their current hostility and
eventually restore diplomatic ties if they begin to address issues
like flights between their capitals and the development of trade in
much the same way t hat Turkey and Armenia have moved toward a
rapprochement, according to a Moscow specialist on the Caucasus.
In an article in this week's `Novaya politika,' Sergey Markedonov
suggests that this is a very real possibility despite the current deep
freeze in Russian-Georgian relations since the August 2008 war both
because of traditional links and the recent comment of President
Dmitry Medvedev to this possibility (www.novopol.ru/text79777.html).
Russian-Georgian relations, Markedonov says, `bear a paradoxical
character.' On one side of the scales are `the traditional and above
all socio-cultural ties that have linked the two peoples together for
much of the last several centuries and that still provide the basis
for information contacts.
But on the other `is the weight of mutual pretensions and the
contradictions of `perestroika' and the post-Soviet period.' The
Soviet use of force against Georgia in 1989 became `one of the
catalysts of the disintegration of the Soviet Union,' and former
Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze for many Russians is linked
with the `hated' Gorbachev.
Many in Moscow expected that Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power as
a result of the Rose Revolution, would improve ties, but the new
Georgian president's efforts to re-unite Georgia had the effect of
transforming the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts `into
a Russian-Georgian one,' leading to war a year ago.
That led to a break in diplomatic relations and to the current `deep
freeze' of relations. But, Markedonov asks, `is there a way out of the
existing blind alley?' He argues that there is and that Medvedev
pointed to this exit in comments he made at the Forum of European and
Asian Media in Moscow December 9-10.
The Kremlin leader was asked whether there were any `serious
obstacles' to re-opening border points between the two countries.
Medvedev said that `does not see any particular problems since this
concerns ordinary people ¦ despite the great tension in the political
establishment and the intense opposition on certain questions in the
international arena.'
While some commentators pounced on this response as an indication that
Moscow might soon seek to restore diplomatic relations with Tbilisi,
Markedonov continued, that expectation is almost certainly
`premature.' But he said, `there is a rational kernel and good sense
in Medvedev's words' that all concerned should given attention to.
In many conflicts around the world, `the resolution of humanitarian
issues' has helped promote a thawing of relations. Indeed, the Moscow
analyst says, there is a clear example close at hand: the way in which
Armenian contacts with Turkey `before the publication and signing of
the protocols on the normalization of relations' helped make that
possible.
`Yes,' Markedonov notes, `Turkey to this day is blocking the land
border with Armenia and supports Baku in its demands in the Karabakh
conflict. However, beginning from 1996, direct air links between
Yerevan and Istanbul and then between Yerevan and Antalya' were
opened.
As a result, `Armenian tourists in Turkish resorts are today not a
rarity even without the restoration of diplomatic relations. [And] the
Turkish co-president of the Turkish-Armenian business forum Kaan Soyak
declared recently that the current level of trade between [the two] is
200 million US dollars. With the opening of the border, that could
rise to a billion dollars!'
Thus it is worth `noting also that the Armenian-Turkish protocols
appeared on a definite foundation, the bricks of which were the air
links, and tourists and business contacts,' a pattern that can be
observed in other cases. `Precisely this scenario was proposed by
Dmitry Medvedev for Russian-Georgian ties.'
Among the reasons for thinking this possible is that Russian business
in Georgia `not only has not contracted but even increased' since the
August war. And even in such a sensitive issue as the Inguri
Hydro-Electric Dam, `Russian and Georgian energy officials have been
conducting negotiations and have signed a memorandum, bypassing
Sukhumi.'
`Today,' Markedonov says, `it is difficult to image a Georgian
politician would recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as territories
not having a relationship to Georgia.' But `after 15 to 20 years, a
new generation of leaders in Georgia, `lead by pragmatic
considerations' is likely to recognize that Georgia's current approach
undermines its own interests.
Most probably, such a change of heart in Tbilisi will not come
quickly, Markedonov concludes, but there is one thing at least that
could speak up a rapprochement between Russia and Georgia: the growing
threat of Islamist terrorism to both, something politicians in both
those capitals and elsewhere should be thinking about.
Dec 19 2009
Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement Seen as Model for Improvement in
Russian-Georgian Relations
December 19, 2009
Paul Goble
Russia and Georgia may gradually overcome their current hostility and
eventually restore diplomatic ties if they begin to address issues
like flights between their capitals and the development of trade in
much the same way t hat Turkey and Armenia have moved toward a
rapprochement, according to a Moscow specialist on the Caucasus.
In an article in this week's `Novaya politika,' Sergey Markedonov
suggests that this is a very real possibility despite the current deep
freeze in Russian-Georgian relations since the August 2008 war both
because of traditional links and the recent comment of President
Dmitry Medvedev to this possibility (www.novopol.ru/text79777.html).
Russian-Georgian relations, Markedonov says, `bear a paradoxical
character.' On one side of the scales are `the traditional and above
all socio-cultural ties that have linked the two peoples together for
much of the last several centuries and that still provide the basis
for information contacts.
But on the other `is the weight of mutual pretensions and the
contradictions of `perestroika' and the post-Soviet period.' The
Soviet use of force against Georgia in 1989 became `one of the
catalysts of the disintegration of the Soviet Union,' and former
Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze for many Russians is linked
with the `hated' Gorbachev.
Many in Moscow expected that Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power as
a result of the Rose Revolution, would improve ties, but the new
Georgian president's efforts to re-unite Georgia had the effect of
transforming the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts `into
a Russian-Georgian one,' leading to war a year ago.
That led to a break in diplomatic relations and to the current `deep
freeze' of relations. But, Markedonov asks, `is there a way out of the
existing blind alley?' He argues that there is and that Medvedev
pointed to this exit in comments he made at the Forum of European and
Asian Media in Moscow December 9-10.
The Kremlin leader was asked whether there were any `serious
obstacles' to re-opening border points between the two countries.
Medvedev said that `does not see any particular problems since this
concerns ordinary people ¦ despite the great tension in the political
establishment and the intense opposition on certain questions in the
international arena.'
While some commentators pounced on this response as an indication that
Moscow might soon seek to restore diplomatic relations with Tbilisi,
Markedonov continued, that expectation is almost certainly
`premature.' But he said, `there is a rational kernel and good sense
in Medvedev's words' that all concerned should given attention to.
In many conflicts around the world, `the resolution of humanitarian
issues' has helped promote a thawing of relations. Indeed, the Moscow
analyst says, there is a clear example close at hand: the way in which
Armenian contacts with Turkey `before the publication and signing of
the protocols on the normalization of relations' helped make that
possible.
`Yes,' Markedonov notes, `Turkey to this day is blocking the land
border with Armenia and supports Baku in its demands in the Karabakh
conflict. However, beginning from 1996, direct air links between
Yerevan and Istanbul and then between Yerevan and Antalya' were
opened.
As a result, `Armenian tourists in Turkish resorts are today not a
rarity even without the restoration of diplomatic relations. [And] the
Turkish co-president of the Turkish-Armenian business forum Kaan Soyak
declared recently that the current level of trade between [the two] is
200 million US dollars. With the opening of the border, that could
rise to a billion dollars!'
Thus it is worth `noting also that the Armenian-Turkish protocols
appeared on a definite foundation, the bricks of which were the air
links, and tourists and business contacts,' a pattern that can be
observed in other cases. `Precisely this scenario was proposed by
Dmitry Medvedev for Russian-Georgian ties.'
Among the reasons for thinking this possible is that Russian business
in Georgia `not only has not contracted but even increased' since the
August war. And even in such a sensitive issue as the Inguri
Hydro-Electric Dam, `Russian and Georgian energy officials have been
conducting negotiations and have signed a memorandum, bypassing
Sukhumi.'
`Today,' Markedonov says, `it is difficult to image a Georgian
politician would recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as territories
not having a relationship to Georgia.' But `after 15 to 20 years, a
new generation of leaders in Georgia, `lead by pragmatic
considerations' is likely to recognize that Georgia's current approach
undermines its own interests.
Most probably, such a change of heart in Tbilisi will not come
quickly, Markedonov concludes, but there is one thing at least that
could speak up a rapprochement between Russia and Georgia: the growing
threat of Islamist terrorism to both, something politicians in both
those capitals and elsewhere should be thinking about.