Tweet
PHILLIPS: MOSCOW'S PROBLEM IS GEORGIA'S SOVEREIGNTY
Reflecting on recent tension in the Russian-Georgian relationship,
David L. Phillips, Director of the Program on Peace building and Rights
at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights,
says that relations between the two countries could have improved
when Saakashvili left power; But even after Ivanishvili became prime
minister, Russia continued to undermine Georgia. However, according to
Phillips, Georgia should avoid aggressive rhetoric and confrontation
with Moscow.
Phillips has worked as senior adviser to the United Nations
Secretariat and as a foreign affairs expert and senior adviser to
the U.S. Department of State. Georgia Today interviewed him via email.
Q: In your recent interview with Voice of America, you noted that
the 2008 ceasefire agreement has failed to bring people closer to
each other and to establish peace in the region. Can you elaborate
what the signs of failure are and why the agreement failed?
A: Russia continues to support the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. It is also encroaching on Georgian territory, erecting
barbed wire barricades and maintaining a substantial military
presence in the occupied territories. Georgia's recent overtures
towards Russia were rudely rebuffed. No real steps have been taken to
foster reconciliation between the peoples of Russia and Georgia over
the past 5 years. The leaders of both countries are still at-odds;
Vladimir Putin's confrontational approach is unchanged.
Q: You have advocated direct engagement with Abkhazians and South
Ossetians to help them escape Russian dominance... How achievable is
this? Can you provide any specific advice for Abkhazians and South
Ossetians and also for Georgian on how they can rebuild relations
and trust?
A: Engagement between Abkhazia and the international community must
not occur at the government level. Bilateral contact with the Abkhaz
authorities undermines the policy of non-recognition, which is widely
accepted around the world. Non-recognition of the authorities does
not, however, prevent contact, communication and cooperation between
civil society representatives, including academic exchanges involving
students and educators to help reduce negative stereotyping and
rebuild confidence.
Track two activities typically involve trade and business. However,
Prime Minister Ivanishvili's initiative to promote commercial contact
has fallen flat, including efforts to open the Abkhaz railway. Track
two activities are not a substitute for official diplomacy. Nor can
they proceed when both Russia and the Abkhaz authorities oppose them.
Russia knows that track two activities will wean Abkhazia from its
control, revealing Russia's insidious challenge to Abkhaz identity.
Q: How effective is the Geneva format and is there a way to make it
more successful?
A: Talking is always preferable to confrontation or violent conflict.
The Geneva format provides a venue for interaction, which can help
prevent disagreements from escalating. It could evolve into a more
pro-active forum for engagement by building on business openings,
such as Russia's decision to allow the import of Georgian wine and
mineral water. For now, the Geneva format isn't doing much good. Nor
is it doing any harm.
Q: When Mikheil Saakashvili's United National Movement was in power
- before the 2012 parliamentary elections - the Russian government
demonstrated hostile rhetoric and blamed this on the Saakashvili
regime. Now we have the Georgian Dream with its Russian-friendly
messages, but still Russia is building barbed wire fences along the
administrative border in South Ossetia and moving the border deeper
into Georgian- controlled territory, which has sparked a new wave of
tension... PM Bidzina Ivanishvili has said many times that he sees
no logic in this policy... What is your impression? Why is Moscow
doing this?
A: Moscow systematically vilified Saakashvili. Its aggressive
policy towards Georgia was based on Putin's deep personal dislike
of Saakashvili. Russia-Georgia relations could have improved when
Saakashvili left power. Turns out, however, Russia misrepresented
its intentions. Even after Ivanishvili became prime minister,
Russia continued to undermine Georgia. Moscow's problem is Georgia's
sovereignty, as well as the aspirations of Georgians for Western-style
freedom and democracy. Russia simply does not want Georgia to exist
as an independent sovereign state.
Q: Against the background of these developments where should Georgia
draw its red lines? What are the best ways for Georgia to protect
its sovereignty and internationally recognized borders?
A: Georgia's best, and perhaps only, hope of protecting its sovereignty
is through closer ties with the West and integration into Euro-Atlantic
institutions. The EU's Partnership Program can foster cooperation
between Georgia and European countries. NATO membership for Georgia
is on the distant horizon. Pledges for eventual membership made in
Bucharest five years ago are an empty promise.
Q: With Armenia having announced its consent to join the
Russian-dominated Eurasian Union, do you think that it was the outcome
of pressure from Moscow? How do you see Russia's short and long term
plans in this region amid these developments?
A: Russia strong-armed Armenia into joining the Eurasian Union. Moscow
must have threatened Armenia's President Sarkissian to dissuade him
from Armenia's multi-year effort at European integration. Or maybe
Moscow offered a big prize, like recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Intimidation by Russia is more likely than a reward.
Q: PM Bidzina Ivanishvili has also said that Georgia is observing
the Eurasian Union, although he stressed that getting closer to the
European Union and NATO is paramount...Is it possible and wise for
Georgia to look at both?
A: Yes, it is possible and smart to look at both. In reality,
Georgia has already chosen the West. Regardless, Georgia should avoid
aggressive rhetoric. Confrontation with Russia is not in Georgia's
interest.
Q: Where is and should be the United States as Georgia and other
former Soviet Union countries find themselves under continued pressure
from Russia? For instance, Carl Gershman, President of the National
Endowment for Democracy, recently published an op-ed piece in the
Washington Post describing the situation as "a reply of the classic
East-West rivalry" with the United States "conspicuously on the
sidelines." Do you share this position and what is your reply to the
question in the headline - "Former Soviet states stand up to Russia.
Will the U.S.?"
A: The US and Georgia are allies. We have formalized a strategic
partnership, encompassing cooperation in diplomatic, security,
commercial and cultural spheres. The United States has supported
the self-determination of the Georgian people for 20 years. While
Washington will continue to support Georgia's freedom and territorial
integrity, it should be clear on the nature and extent of its support
lest its intentions be misunderstood.
Q: And my last question - Here in Georgia, the debate whether Georgia
should participate in the Sochi Olympics is quite hot. Historically
there are numerous cases where the games were boycotted for political
reasons. How effective or important can the boycott be in Georgia's
case? Generally speaking, what are the opportunities and limitations
when sports, politics and diplomacy come together?
A: The Olympics, to be held a stone's throw from Georgia, are not
shaping up well for Russia. Putin's homophobia and bigotry has sparked
anger worldwide. Georgia has already pledged to participate in the
Games and work with Russia on security, but Russia takes Georgia's
goodwill for granted. Georgia should let others criticize Russia or
ruminate about boycotting the Games. It is wise for the Government
of Georgia to wait and see what happens.
By Maia Edilashvili
10.10.2013
http://www.georgiatoday.ge/article_details.php?id=11550
Reflecting on recent tension in the Russian-Georgian relationship,
David L. Phillips, Director of the Program on Peace building and Rights
at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights,
says that relations between the two countries could have improved
when Saakashvili left power; But even after Ivanishvili became prime
minister, Russia continued to undermine Georgia. However, according to
Phillips, Georgia should avoid aggressive rhetoric and confrontation
with Moscow.
Phillips has worked as senior adviser to the United Nations
Secretariat and as a foreign affairs expert and senior adviser to
the U.S. Department of State. Georgia Today interviewed him via email.
Q: In your recent interview with Voice of America, you noted that
the 2008 ceasefire agreement has failed to bring people closer to
each other and to establish peace in the region. Can you elaborate
what the signs of failure are and why the agreement failed?
A: Russia continues to support the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. It is also encroaching on Georgian territory, erecting
barbed wire barricades and maintaining a substantial military
presence in the occupied territories. Georgia's recent overtures
towards Russia were rudely rebuffed. No real steps have been taken to
foster reconciliation between the peoples of Russia and Georgia over
the past 5 years. The leaders of both countries are still at-odds;
Vladimir Putin's confrontational approach is unchanged.
Q: You have advocated direct engagement with Abkhazians and South
Ossetians to help them escape Russian dominance... How achievable is
this? Can you provide any specific advice for Abkhazians and South
Ossetians and also for Georgian on how they can rebuild relations
and trust?
A: Engagement between Abkhazia and the international community must
not occur at the government level. Bilateral contact with the Abkhaz
authorities undermines the policy of non-recognition, which is widely
accepted around the world. Non-recognition of the authorities does
not, however, prevent contact, communication and cooperation between
civil society representatives, including academic exchanges involving
students and educators to help reduce negative stereotyping and
rebuild confidence.
Track two activities typically involve trade and business. However,
Prime Minister Ivanishvili's initiative to promote commercial contact
has fallen flat, including efforts to open the Abkhaz railway. Track
two activities are not a substitute for official diplomacy. Nor can
they proceed when both Russia and the Abkhaz authorities oppose them.
Russia knows that track two activities will wean Abkhazia from its
control, revealing Russia's insidious challenge to Abkhaz identity.
Q: How effective is the Geneva format and is there a way to make it
more successful?
A: Talking is always preferable to confrontation or violent conflict.
The Geneva format provides a venue for interaction, which can help
prevent disagreements from escalating. It could evolve into a more
pro-active forum for engagement by building on business openings,
such as Russia's decision to allow the import of Georgian wine and
mineral water. For now, the Geneva format isn't doing much good. Nor
is it doing any harm.
Q: When Mikheil Saakashvili's United National Movement was in power
- before the 2012 parliamentary elections - the Russian government
demonstrated hostile rhetoric and blamed this on the Saakashvili
regime. Now we have the Georgian Dream with its Russian-friendly
messages, but still Russia is building barbed wire fences along the
administrative border in South Ossetia and moving the border deeper
into Georgian- controlled territory, which has sparked a new wave of
tension... PM Bidzina Ivanishvili has said many times that he sees
no logic in this policy... What is your impression? Why is Moscow
doing this?
A: Moscow systematically vilified Saakashvili. Its aggressive
policy towards Georgia was based on Putin's deep personal dislike
of Saakashvili. Russia-Georgia relations could have improved when
Saakashvili left power. Turns out, however, Russia misrepresented
its intentions. Even after Ivanishvili became prime minister,
Russia continued to undermine Georgia. Moscow's problem is Georgia's
sovereignty, as well as the aspirations of Georgians for Western-style
freedom and democracy. Russia simply does not want Georgia to exist
as an independent sovereign state.
Q: Against the background of these developments where should Georgia
draw its red lines? What are the best ways for Georgia to protect
its sovereignty and internationally recognized borders?
A: Georgia's best, and perhaps only, hope of protecting its sovereignty
is through closer ties with the West and integration into Euro-Atlantic
institutions. The EU's Partnership Program can foster cooperation
between Georgia and European countries. NATO membership for Georgia
is on the distant horizon. Pledges for eventual membership made in
Bucharest five years ago are an empty promise.
Q: With Armenia having announced its consent to join the
Russian-dominated Eurasian Union, do you think that it was the outcome
of pressure from Moscow? How do you see Russia's short and long term
plans in this region amid these developments?
A: Russia strong-armed Armenia into joining the Eurasian Union. Moscow
must have threatened Armenia's President Sarkissian to dissuade him
from Armenia's multi-year effort at European integration. Or maybe
Moscow offered a big prize, like recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Intimidation by Russia is more likely than a reward.
Q: PM Bidzina Ivanishvili has also said that Georgia is observing
the Eurasian Union, although he stressed that getting closer to the
European Union and NATO is paramount...Is it possible and wise for
Georgia to look at both?
A: Yes, it is possible and smart to look at both. In reality,
Georgia has already chosen the West. Regardless, Georgia should avoid
aggressive rhetoric. Confrontation with Russia is not in Georgia's
interest.
Q: Where is and should be the United States as Georgia and other
former Soviet Union countries find themselves under continued pressure
from Russia? For instance, Carl Gershman, President of the National
Endowment for Democracy, recently published an op-ed piece in the
Washington Post describing the situation as "a reply of the classic
East-West rivalry" with the United States "conspicuously on the
sidelines." Do you share this position and what is your reply to the
question in the headline - "Former Soviet states stand up to Russia.
Will the U.S.?"
A: The US and Georgia are allies. We have formalized a strategic
partnership, encompassing cooperation in diplomatic, security,
commercial and cultural spheres. The United States has supported
the self-determination of the Georgian people for 20 years. While
Washington will continue to support Georgia's freedom and territorial
integrity, it should be clear on the nature and extent of its support
lest its intentions be misunderstood.
Q: And my last question - Here in Georgia, the debate whether Georgia
should participate in the Sochi Olympics is quite hot. Historically
there are numerous cases where the games were boycotted for political
reasons. How effective or important can the boycott be in Georgia's
case? Generally speaking, what are the opportunities and limitations
when sports, politics and diplomacy come together?
A: The Olympics, to be held a stone's throw from Georgia, are not
shaping up well for Russia. Putin's homophobia and bigotry has sparked
anger worldwide. Georgia has already pledged to participate in the
Games and work with Russia on security, but Russia takes Georgia's
goodwill for granted. Georgia should let others criticize Russia or
ruminate about boycotting the Games. It is wise for the Government
of Georgia to wait and see what happens.
By Maia Edilashvili
10.10.2013
http://www.georgiatoday.ge/article_details.php?id=11550