Tweet
Democracy & Freedom Watch
July 6 2012
Brussels is focusing on Georgia's internal politics
by M. Gagua and L. Tughushi | Jul 6
TBILISI, DFWatch - Brussels is mainly concentrating on what happens
with Georgian reforms and internal politics. On Abakhazia and
South-Ossetia, everybody thinks that for as long as Russia will
recognize these two territories as independent states, there is not
much to be done on the diplomatic side, says Alain Deletroz, Vice
President of International Crisis Group.
The upcoming election is very important to us. Some people envisage
some escalation of the situation. What can you say about the electoral
process here in Georgia?
I can't say much because we haven't analyzed it yet. The only thing I
can say is that whenever you have an electoral process it brings up
the tension in the country. I think it is normal whenever you have
presidential elections. The main political parties have to take
positions on a variety of issues, and sometimes they take positions,
which go over or a bit further than the position they will actually
represent once they are in government. So I think in Georgia you are
already feeling this pressure boiling.
How do you asses from the European perspective this process of
Georgian relationship with the EU, the eastern partnership process,
neighborhood policy, how do you asses Georgia's progress in this
field?
I think if you take the South Caucasus, Georgia is certainly the
country that has made the biggest progress. It is seen so in Brussels
and if the election process goes well it will bring forth also this
positive image of Georgia in Brussels. In the South Caucasus it is
certainly the most advanced country.
You're Vice President of the International Crisis Group and maybe
familiar with Georgia's internal situation with Georgian breakaway
republics and the policy of the central government towards the
occupied territories and the policy of Europe towards Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. What are you views on this?
I'll be a bit tough in answering that question, but if you look at
what is happening in the world right now, especially for Europe, the
eurozone crisis, the elections in Egypt, with Libya, with Syria, with
Tunisia, the South Caucasus is certainly not on the top of European
prioirities. I think the Europeans want to engage with Georgia. But
the message Europe brought to the Georgian government after the war of
2008 was: a) we are pretty angry as nobody needed this war, and b)
they were advising the Georgian government to focus on internal
reforms and development. And I think now Brussels is mainly
concentrating its look on what happens with Georgian reforms and
internal politics. On Abakhazia and South-Ossetia, everybody thinks
that for as long as Russia will recognize these two territories as
independent states, there is not much to be done on the diplomatic
side. In Europe nobody agrees with this situation and all reaffirm
their commitment for Georgia's territorial integrity, but no country
is ready now to put any political and diplomatic strength into moving
this issue onto the agenda as they see no possibility for a positive
outcome. With the Eurozone crisis, trying to keep a working
relationship with Russia remains a priority for all, even without
warmth or friendship. Sorry for this pragmatic views on what I feel as
being todays' priorities in Brussels.
What about this escalation around Karabakh and Armenia - Azeri border.
Is there any threat?
This is probably the most serious danger for the region indeed. You
see the number of incidents growing not only on the ceasefire line,
but also, and this is a new phenomenon, on the state border between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. You had also this year civilians being killed
over the line, which is not the first time since 1993, but it has not
happened very often that civilians are killed over the line, right?
Azerbaijan is putting a lot of money into its defense, obliging
Armenia to a huge budgetary effort for its military whil on the
diplomatic side, through the Minsk Group, nothing is advancing. So the
conflict around Karabakh is probably the most dangerous escalation in
the South Cacuasus. The Minsk Group has a hard time reinjecting some
diplomatic and political content into its pattern of of negotiations.
Are you thinking over some open hostilities, is it visible in South
Caucasus I mean this Armenia Azeri conflict or engagement of some big
players, for example Russia, or Iran, Turkey into this conflict?
Well I hope not, but of course the messages are sent around the place
that great powers are looking very carefully at what is going on and
very clearly, in case of an armed conflict, there will be an
alignment. So I think this is something that nobody wants to see
happening. In the South of Armenia and Azerbaijan you have Iran, and
around Iran you have this big question of its nuclear program. A bit
further you have Syria, not to even mention Afghanistan. This probably
the region of the world where the highest amount of tension, and I
think the great powers would have no interest in allowing Baku and
Yerevan to add tension. At the International Crisis Group we have
urged all parties to take very seriously the level of tension that has
grown now between Azerbaijan and Armenia and to push in a much more
forceful way the diplomatic agenda to resolve this conflict.
Couple weeks ago there was a NATO summit in Chicago. Many people in
Georgia had expected some good news. I mean some open signals for
acceptance of Georgia in NATO; not acceptance, but some signals. After
the 2008 war there was a quite negative attitude in Europe towards
Georgia's ascention to NATO. Has something changed since the war?
As I said before, what has changed is that NATO member states have
seen a lot of efforts put into the internal situation in Georgia, into
the reforms, into the fight against corruption and all this is seen as
very positive. Now with NATO, we have to be realistic. NATO is a
military alliance in which each country accepts to march in to defend
a member that would be attacked. So for as long as Georgia has two
unresolved conflicts, I can guarantee you that strong NATO members
like Germany and France will be happy to make declarations like they
did in Chicago, that the doors of NATO remain open for Georgia, but I
don't think that they will allow for a full Georgian membership of the
alliance for as long as these two conflicts are not resolved. It would
mean that if a new war starts, and if the pattern of the war is the
same as in 2008, that NATO would have to fight Russia, and I don't
believe there is any member state of NATO ready to sign off on that.
For the last question we want to turn to the internal situation in
Georgia. I mentioned that there is a strained situation between the
opposition and the government and some people expect even using open
force during the elections or before the elections. Will the European
countries or EU, European powers somehow force the government not to
use force, pressure the government for more democratic processes?
For the EU this is pretty clear. The European agenda with Georgia lies
strongly in the strengthening of its democratic process. Europe is not
taking easily all those games aiming at preventing some contenders to
run, or any attempt to change the constitution to favour one candidate
over otheres. The democratic situation in Georgia is one of its best
assets in Europe and the US. It would be stupid to destroy these
achievements during the upcoming presidential campaing. And I am
pretty sure that the messages from Brussels are crystal clear on that.
http://dfwatch.net/brussels-is-focusing-on-georgias-internal-politics-23769
July 6 2012
Brussels is focusing on Georgia's internal politics
by M. Gagua and L. Tughushi | Jul 6
TBILISI, DFWatch - Brussels is mainly concentrating on what happens
with Georgian reforms and internal politics. On Abakhazia and
South-Ossetia, everybody thinks that for as long as Russia will
recognize these two territories as independent states, there is not
much to be done on the diplomatic side, says Alain Deletroz, Vice
President of International Crisis Group.
The upcoming election is very important to us. Some people envisage
some escalation of the situation. What can you say about the electoral
process here in Georgia?
I can't say much because we haven't analyzed it yet. The only thing I
can say is that whenever you have an electoral process it brings up
the tension in the country. I think it is normal whenever you have
presidential elections. The main political parties have to take
positions on a variety of issues, and sometimes they take positions,
which go over or a bit further than the position they will actually
represent once they are in government. So I think in Georgia you are
already feeling this pressure boiling.
How do you asses from the European perspective this process of
Georgian relationship with the EU, the eastern partnership process,
neighborhood policy, how do you asses Georgia's progress in this
field?
I think if you take the South Caucasus, Georgia is certainly the
country that has made the biggest progress. It is seen so in Brussels
and if the election process goes well it will bring forth also this
positive image of Georgia in Brussels. In the South Caucasus it is
certainly the most advanced country.
You're Vice President of the International Crisis Group and maybe
familiar with Georgia's internal situation with Georgian breakaway
republics and the policy of the central government towards the
occupied territories and the policy of Europe towards Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. What are you views on this?
I'll be a bit tough in answering that question, but if you look at
what is happening in the world right now, especially for Europe, the
eurozone crisis, the elections in Egypt, with Libya, with Syria, with
Tunisia, the South Caucasus is certainly not on the top of European
prioirities. I think the Europeans want to engage with Georgia. But
the message Europe brought to the Georgian government after the war of
2008 was: a) we are pretty angry as nobody needed this war, and b)
they were advising the Georgian government to focus on internal
reforms and development. And I think now Brussels is mainly
concentrating its look on what happens with Georgian reforms and
internal politics. On Abakhazia and South-Ossetia, everybody thinks
that for as long as Russia will recognize these two territories as
independent states, there is not much to be done on the diplomatic
side. In Europe nobody agrees with this situation and all reaffirm
their commitment for Georgia's territorial integrity, but no country
is ready now to put any political and diplomatic strength into moving
this issue onto the agenda as they see no possibility for a positive
outcome. With the Eurozone crisis, trying to keep a working
relationship with Russia remains a priority for all, even without
warmth or friendship. Sorry for this pragmatic views on what I feel as
being todays' priorities in Brussels.
What about this escalation around Karabakh and Armenia - Azeri border.
Is there any threat?
This is probably the most serious danger for the region indeed. You
see the number of incidents growing not only on the ceasefire line,
but also, and this is a new phenomenon, on the state border between
Armenia and Azerbaijan. You had also this year civilians being killed
over the line, which is not the first time since 1993, but it has not
happened very often that civilians are killed over the line, right?
Azerbaijan is putting a lot of money into its defense, obliging
Armenia to a huge budgetary effort for its military whil on the
diplomatic side, through the Minsk Group, nothing is advancing. So the
conflict around Karabakh is probably the most dangerous escalation in
the South Cacuasus. The Minsk Group has a hard time reinjecting some
diplomatic and political content into its pattern of of negotiations.
Are you thinking over some open hostilities, is it visible in South
Caucasus I mean this Armenia Azeri conflict or engagement of some big
players, for example Russia, or Iran, Turkey into this conflict?
Well I hope not, but of course the messages are sent around the place
that great powers are looking very carefully at what is going on and
very clearly, in case of an armed conflict, there will be an
alignment. So I think this is something that nobody wants to see
happening. In the South of Armenia and Azerbaijan you have Iran, and
around Iran you have this big question of its nuclear program. A bit
further you have Syria, not to even mention Afghanistan. This probably
the region of the world where the highest amount of tension, and I
think the great powers would have no interest in allowing Baku and
Yerevan to add tension. At the International Crisis Group we have
urged all parties to take very seriously the level of tension that has
grown now between Azerbaijan and Armenia and to push in a much more
forceful way the diplomatic agenda to resolve this conflict.
Couple weeks ago there was a NATO summit in Chicago. Many people in
Georgia had expected some good news. I mean some open signals for
acceptance of Georgia in NATO; not acceptance, but some signals. After
the 2008 war there was a quite negative attitude in Europe towards
Georgia's ascention to NATO. Has something changed since the war?
As I said before, what has changed is that NATO member states have
seen a lot of efforts put into the internal situation in Georgia, into
the reforms, into the fight against corruption and all this is seen as
very positive. Now with NATO, we have to be realistic. NATO is a
military alliance in which each country accepts to march in to defend
a member that would be attacked. So for as long as Georgia has two
unresolved conflicts, I can guarantee you that strong NATO members
like Germany and France will be happy to make declarations like they
did in Chicago, that the doors of NATO remain open for Georgia, but I
don't think that they will allow for a full Georgian membership of the
alliance for as long as these two conflicts are not resolved. It would
mean that if a new war starts, and if the pattern of the war is the
same as in 2008, that NATO would have to fight Russia, and I don't
believe there is any member state of NATO ready to sign off on that.
For the last question we want to turn to the internal situation in
Georgia. I mentioned that there is a strained situation between the
opposition and the government and some people expect even using open
force during the elections or before the elections. Will the European
countries or EU, European powers somehow force the government not to
use force, pressure the government for more democratic processes?
For the EU this is pretty clear. The European agenda with Georgia lies
strongly in the strengthening of its democratic process. Europe is not
taking easily all those games aiming at preventing some contenders to
run, or any attempt to change the constitution to favour one candidate
over otheres. The democratic situation in Georgia is one of its best
assets in Europe and the US. It would be stupid to destroy these
achievements during the upcoming presidential campaing. And I am
pretty sure that the messages from Brussels are crystal clear on that.
http://dfwatch.net/brussels-is-focusing-on-georgias-internal-politics-23769