Tweet
WPS Agency (Russia)
January 17, 2013 Thursday
IVANISHVILI WILL COMMENT ON HIS MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON KARABAKH
by Yury Rox
Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, N4, 17.01.2013, p. 1
[Translated from Russian]
Tomorrow Prime Minister of Georgia Bidzina Ivanishvili begins his
visit to Armenia. This visit, like the previous one to Azerbaijan,
will begin against a difficult background. Just on the eve, head of
the Georgian Foreign Ministry Maya Pandzhikidze supported the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Yerevan did not leave unnoticed
Georgia's support of Baku. In Tbilisi, that demarche caused a storm of
criticism and demands of Pandzhikidze's resignation.
The Prime Minister's press service confirmed that Bidzina
Ivanishvili's visit to Armenia will not be re-scheduled. In Yerevan,
he will meet with President Serzh Sargsyan and Prime Minister Tigran
Sargsyan. They will discuss a range of issues of bilateral and
regional cooperation.
So, what exactly did Foreign Minister Maya Pandzhikidze say while in
Vilnius, which caused such a storm of emotions in Tbilisi, and
bewildered Yerevan? It is rather unusual to make unfriendly statements
- at least before a visit. On January 10, at a press conference in
Vilnius, Azerbaijani Ambassador to Lithuania Hassan Mamedzadeh asked
Maya Pandzhikidze a question about Georgian-Azerbaijani relations.
Here the misunderstanding begins. According to Azerbaijani media, in
her response the Georgian Minister noted that the Karabakh conflict
should be solved only in the framework of the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. According to publications of neutral countries, she
mentioned respect for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but did
not mention Nagorny Karabakh. The difference seems insignificant, but
in such a delicate matter, as the position of Georgia over the very
tense between the neighbors, it is fundamental.
Both Azerbaijan meaning the return of Karabakh under its jurisdiction
by the "territorial integrity", and Armenia considering Nagorny
Karabakh to be a sovereign though unrecognized republic unrelated to
Azerbaijan - and, consequently, to its territorial integrity - could
accept the second version of the Georgian Foreign Minister's response.
Pandzhikidze herself claimed that Azerbaijani media misinterpreted her
words, and that she herself only noted that Tbilisi was not going to
interfere in relations between Baku and Yerevan. However, the Minister
will apparently have to provide a more detailed explanation.
Actually, Pandzhikidze's response should not entail any special
criticism. The official position on the Karabakh issue of Georgia,
which itself is experiencing the most severe territorial problems, is
well known and has repeatedly been proclaimed at the UN. Not long ago,
during a visit to Tbilisi of head of the Caucasus Muslims Directorate
Sheikh-ul-Islam Allahshukur Pashazadek, Catholicos-Patriarch of All
Georgia Ilia II mentioned Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, which did
not cause emotions similar to the ones caused by Pandzhikidze's words
at all. Today representatives of the parliamentary minority, who
surprisingly quickly 'forgot' their own similar statements on the
Karabakh issue during their stay in power, fiercely criticized the
Minister.
So, one of the leaders of the United National Movement (UNM) Akaky
Minashvili accused the Foreign Minister of incompetence. He declared
that the parliamentary minority summons her to Parliament and demands
that she clarify her statement on Nagorny Karabakh. Minashvili
believes that "...her words delivered a blow against the Prime
Minister's visit to Yerevan".
One would not see as genuine such a concern on the part of the UNM of
the awkward position, in which its political opponent Prime Minister
Ivanishvili found himself. It appears that the former ruling party is
preparing to make the existing confrontation in the country to be
become more acute. By the way, on the same day ex-prime minister and
current UNM Secretary General Vano Merabishvili criticized the
government and declared that the activities of the new government had
already led to Georgia's economic regression.
But taking all this, the nationalists are certainly right in claiming
that on the eve of important events prominent officials should pick up
their wording with greater delicacy. Our edition already wrote that
during his previous visit to Azerbaijan Bidzina Ivanishvili had to
disavow the ambiguous statements on the expediency of the construction
of the Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars railway, and the possibility of
reducing the cost of the Baku gas. Apparently, Pandzhikidze's request
to the Lithuanian authorities to call Georgia "Georgia" [literally,
like the US state of 'Georgia' - Translator's note], since the current
name of the country is reportedly an unpleasant reminder of the Soviet
occupation in the past can be also dubbed as another case of poorly
coordinated statements. Pandzhikidze said nothing new; her
predecessors also worked in the direction of changing Georgia's
international name. However, it was hardly necessary to voice the old
request under the situation in Vilnius, and the timing was badly
chosen, when the feeble signs of warming of Georgian-Russian relations
barely showed. The two sides were just about to begin negotiations on
the resumption of trade. It is well-known how sensitive Moscow is
towards accusations about the so-called 'Sovietization'.
Such cases contributed to the demand of the Foreign Minister's
resignation, and, more to it, to the emergence of reports that Irakly
Menagarishvili who worked as foreign minister under Eduard
Shevardnadze had already headed the agency. However, Menagarishvili
denied these reports and noted not without humor that for their
authors Christmas holidays were obviously not over yet.
Bidzina Ivanishvili did not comment on the above developments; he only
noted that the minister herself will have to explain her behavior.
Anyway, it appears that he will have to start his second visit as
Prime Minister with smoothing the roughness that occurred on a level
ground. And I do not think that it will be a difficult task. Official
Yerevan has a number of issues to discuss with one of the leaders of
the country that as of today is practically the only land road
consistently linking Armenia with the outside world. According to
Caucasus Institute Deputy Director Sergey Minasyan, after the regime
change in Tbilisi, its relations with neighbors started to change. If
based on the publications in Azerbaijani media, there is no positive
dynamics in Georgia's relations with Azerbaijan, but, on the contrary,
there is a clear tendency for development of its relations with
Armenia in the context of smoothing Georgia's unhealthy relationships
with Russia.
January 17, 2013 Thursday
IVANISHVILI WILL COMMENT ON HIS MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON KARABAKH
by Yury Rox
Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, N4, 17.01.2013, p. 1
[Translated from Russian]
Tomorrow Prime Minister of Georgia Bidzina Ivanishvili begins his
visit to Armenia. This visit, like the previous one to Azerbaijan,
will begin against a difficult background. Just on the eve, head of
the Georgian Foreign Ministry Maya Pandzhikidze supported the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Yerevan did not leave unnoticed
Georgia's support of Baku. In Tbilisi, that demarche caused a storm of
criticism and demands of Pandzhikidze's resignation.
The Prime Minister's press service confirmed that Bidzina
Ivanishvili's visit to Armenia will not be re-scheduled. In Yerevan,
he will meet with President Serzh Sargsyan and Prime Minister Tigran
Sargsyan. They will discuss a range of issues of bilateral and
regional cooperation.
So, what exactly did Foreign Minister Maya Pandzhikidze say while in
Vilnius, which caused such a storm of emotions in Tbilisi, and
bewildered Yerevan? It is rather unusual to make unfriendly statements
- at least before a visit. On January 10, at a press conference in
Vilnius, Azerbaijani Ambassador to Lithuania Hassan Mamedzadeh asked
Maya Pandzhikidze a question about Georgian-Azerbaijani relations.
Here the misunderstanding begins. According to Azerbaijani media, in
her response the Georgian Minister noted that the Karabakh conflict
should be solved only in the framework of the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. According to publications of neutral countries, she
mentioned respect for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but did
not mention Nagorny Karabakh. The difference seems insignificant, but
in such a delicate matter, as the position of Georgia over the very
tense between the neighbors, it is fundamental.
Both Azerbaijan meaning the return of Karabakh under its jurisdiction
by the "territorial integrity", and Armenia considering Nagorny
Karabakh to be a sovereign though unrecognized republic unrelated to
Azerbaijan - and, consequently, to its territorial integrity - could
accept the second version of the Georgian Foreign Minister's response.
Pandzhikidze herself claimed that Azerbaijani media misinterpreted her
words, and that she herself only noted that Tbilisi was not going to
interfere in relations between Baku and Yerevan. However, the Minister
will apparently have to provide a more detailed explanation.
Actually, Pandzhikidze's response should not entail any special
criticism. The official position on the Karabakh issue of Georgia,
which itself is experiencing the most severe territorial problems, is
well known and has repeatedly been proclaimed at the UN. Not long ago,
during a visit to Tbilisi of head of the Caucasus Muslims Directorate
Sheikh-ul-Islam Allahshukur Pashazadek, Catholicos-Patriarch of All
Georgia Ilia II mentioned Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, which did
not cause emotions similar to the ones caused by Pandzhikidze's words
at all. Today representatives of the parliamentary minority, who
surprisingly quickly 'forgot' their own similar statements on the
Karabakh issue during their stay in power, fiercely criticized the
Minister.
So, one of the leaders of the United National Movement (UNM) Akaky
Minashvili accused the Foreign Minister of incompetence. He declared
that the parliamentary minority summons her to Parliament and demands
that she clarify her statement on Nagorny Karabakh. Minashvili
believes that "...her words delivered a blow against the Prime
Minister's visit to Yerevan".
One would not see as genuine such a concern on the part of the UNM of
the awkward position, in which its political opponent Prime Minister
Ivanishvili found himself. It appears that the former ruling party is
preparing to make the existing confrontation in the country to be
become more acute. By the way, on the same day ex-prime minister and
current UNM Secretary General Vano Merabishvili criticized the
government and declared that the activities of the new government had
already led to Georgia's economic regression.
But taking all this, the nationalists are certainly right in claiming
that on the eve of important events prominent officials should pick up
their wording with greater delicacy. Our edition already wrote that
during his previous visit to Azerbaijan Bidzina Ivanishvili had to
disavow the ambiguous statements on the expediency of the construction
of the Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars railway, and the possibility of
reducing the cost of the Baku gas. Apparently, Pandzhikidze's request
to the Lithuanian authorities to call Georgia "Georgia" [literally,
like the US state of 'Georgia' - Translator's note], since the current
name of the country is reportedly an unpleasant reminder of the Soviet
occupation in the past can be also dubbed as another case of poorly
coordinated statements. Pandzhikidze said nothing new; her
predecessors also worked in the direction of changing Georgia's
international name. However, it was hardly necessary to voice the old
request under the situation in Vilnius, and the timing was badly
chosen, when the feeble signs of warming of Georgian-Russian relations
barely showed. The two sides were just about to begin negotiations on
the resumption of trade. It is well-known how sensitive Moscow is
towards accusations about the so-called 'Sovietization'.
Such cases contributed to the demand of the Foreign Minister's
resignation, and, more to it, to the emergence of reports that Irakly
Menagarishvili who worked as foreign minister under Eduard
Shevardnadze had already headed the agency. However, Menagarishvili
denied these reports and noted not without humor that for their
authors Christmas holidays were obviously not over yet.
Bidzina Ivanishvili did not comment on the above developments; he only
noted that the minister herself will have to explain her behavior.
Anyway, it appears that he will have to start his second visit as
Prime Minister with smoothing the roughness that occurred on a level
ground. And I do not think that it will be a difficult task. Official
Yerevan has a number of issues to discuss with one of the leaders of
the country that as of today is practically the only land road
consistently linking Armenia with the outside world. According to
Caucasus Institute Deputy Director Sergey Minasyan, after the regime
change in Tbilisi, its relations with neighbors started to change. If
based on the publications in Azerbaijani media, there is no positive
dynamics in Georgia's relations with Azerbaijan, but, on the contrary,
there is a clear tendency for development of its relations with
Armenia in the context of smoothing Georgia's unhealthy relationships
with Russia.