Tweet
DISPUTE OVER GEORGIAN SECRETS
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
June 26 2014
26 June 2014 - 12:17pm
By Georgy Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively for VK
The Georgian and Armenian foreign ministers have signed an agreement
on exchange and bilateral protection of secret information during the
recent visit of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to Tbilisi. The
agreement is confidential. In any case, any efforts by journalists
to find the document or learn what secrets the countries plan to
exchange have been fruitless.
Secrecy has only caused more curiosity. What makes the whole story
so unusual is the neglect of the opposition's reaction. Georgian
ex-Minister for Defense Bachan Akhalaya, serving time in jail for
grave crimes, sent urgent letters to all the information agencies and
called the agreement treacherous. In his opinion, "NATO would close
its doors to Georgia" and the country would lose its chance to join
the Alliance or at least get a road map.
Nugzar Tsiklauri, an MP of the United National Movement (opposition),
noted: "NATO does not restrict Georgia in its right to have
confidential relations with neighbours. But when it is exchange of
secret information, natural questions arise. Armenia is considered
a strategic military and political ally of Russia in the Caucasus
Region. The CSTO is "an opponent" of NATO. I think that the overlap
of the topic of information exchange in the context of the renewal
of negotiations on reviving the railway through Abkhazia is not
a coincidence.
Thus, the foreign policy of Georgia under the current government
is becoming less predictable. On the one hand, the EU Association
Agreement is being signed, on the other, such agreements are signed,
and the true head of the government, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili,
says that he wants to take an example from the complementary policy
of Yerevan.
This is simply the infantilism of people who cannot understand what
is going on around. It is impossible to have good relations with
everyone. Eventually, you will ruin relations with everyone that way."
Iosif Tsintsadze, the rector of the Diplomatic Academy, supposes:
"At first glance, it is a narrowly professional issue. There are
the first, second, third and fourth categories of secrecy. We are
unaware what exactly the foreign ministers of Georgia and Armenia
signed. But we need to bear in mind that secret information of any
category passed to Armenia will immediately be transmitted to its
allies. First of all, this is Russia. On the other hand, everything
Armenia passes to us will be spread around our allies. First of all,
the U.S. and other NATO countries.
Considering the well-known and "on-the-surface" circumstances,
I cannot understand the need for either Georgia or Armenia to sign
such an agreement.
We certainly need to support trade-economic and cultural ties with
Armenia, but why would our government suddenly decide to lift the
benchmark to a position as high as exchange of secret information? It
is like imagining a NATO member, Holland or Belgium, for example,
suddenly signing a similar agreement on exchange of information with,
let's say the Czech Republic or Bulgaria, which were members of the
Warsaw Pact, in the 1970s. This is nonsense even in theory. We want
to join NATO, but Armenia is part of the Collective Security Treaty
led by Russia.
To be more realistic, Russia already knows all our secrets even without
any agreements, and NATO knows a lot about Russian secrets. So there is
nothing revolutionary here. Moreover, the fact that such an agreement
was signed by the foreign ministers seems all the more odd.
Only prime ministers and presidents are higher-ranking. It is peculiar,
to say the least, that an ally of our opponent becomes trusted.
Besides, the agreement may cause mayor annoyance in Azerbaijan. People
seem to ignore this and act as though the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh
and the frozen conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan does not exist.
At the least we may call this "diplomatic exoticism." Have we already
resolved all disputes with Armenia about possession of churches and
so on and need to sign an agreement on exchange of secret information?"
According to Petre Mamradze, ex-head of the State Chancellery,
"Saakashvili, Akhalaya and others of that ilk are trying to blame
this for Georgia's inability to join NATO. In reality, the doors to
the North-Atlantic Alliance were closed to Georgia forever after the
ex-president's reckless military-political scheme in August 2008. U.S.
ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her memoirs that
she had warned Saakashvili: if you start military actions, Georgia
will not see NATO for at least two generations. President Obama has
recently affirmed: Georgia does not stand on the path to NATO and we
will not be accepted regardless of the atmosphere."
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/politics/56906.html
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
June 26 2014
26 June 2014 - 12:17pm
By Georgy Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively for VK
The Georgian and Armenian foreign ministers have signed an agreement
on exchange and bilateral protection of secret information during the
recent visit of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to Tbilisi. The
agreement is confidential. In any case, any efforts by journalists
to find the document or learn what secrets the countries plan to
exchange have been fruitless.
Secrecy has only caused more curiosity. What makes the whole story
so unusual is the neglect of the opposition's reaction. Georgian
ex-Minister for Defense Bachan Akhalaya, serving time in jail for
grave crimes, sent urgent letters to all the information agencies and
called the agreement treacherous. In his opinion, "NATO would close
its doors to Georgia" and the country would lose its chance to join
the Alliance or at least get a road map.
Nugzar Tsiklauri, an MP of the United National Movement (opposition),
noted: "NATO does not restrict Georgia in its right to have
confidential relations with neighbours. But when it is exchange of
secret information, natural questions arise. Armenia is considered
a strategic military and political ally of Russia in the Caucasus
Region. The CSTO is "an opponent" of NATO. I think that the overlap
of the topic of information exchange in the context of the renewal
of negotiations on reviving the railway through Abkhazia is not
a coincidence.
Thus, the foreign policy of Georgia under the current government
is becoming less predictable. On the one hand, the EU Association
Agreement is being signed, on the other, such agreements are signed,
and the true head of the government, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili,
says that he wants to take an example from the complementary policy
of Yerevan.
This is simply the infantilism of people who cannot understand what
is going on around. It is impossible to have good relations with
everyone. Eventually, you will ruin relations with everyone that way."
Iosif Tsintsadze, the rector of the Diplomatic Academy, supposes:
"At first glance, it is a narrowly professional issue. There are
the first, second, third and fourth categories of secrecy. We are
unaware what exactly the foreign ministers of Georgia and Armenia
signed. But we need to bear in mind that secret information of any
category passed to Armenia will immediately be transmitted to its
allies. First of all, this is Russia. On the other hand, everything
Armenia passes to us will be spread around our allies. First of all,
the U.S. and other NATO countries.
Considering the well-known and "on-the-surface" circumstances,
I cannot understand the need for either Georgia or Armenia to sign
such an agreement.
We certainly need to support trade-economic and cultural ties with
Armenia, but why would our government suddenly decide to lift the
benchmark to a position as high as exchange of secret information? It
is like imagining a NATO member, Holland or Belgium, for example,
suddenly signing a similar agreement on exchange of information with,
let's say the Czech Republic or Bulgaria, which were members of the
Warsaw Pact, in the 1970s. This is nonsense even in theory. We want
to join NATO, but Armenia is part of the Collective Security Treaty
led by Russia.
To be more realistic, Russia already knows all our secrets even without
any agreements, and NATO knows a lot about Russian secrets. So there is
nothing revolutionary here. Moreover, the fact that such an agreement
was signed by the foreign ministers seems all the more odd.
Only prime ministers and presidents are higher-ranking. It is peculiar,
to say the least, that an ally of our opponent becomes trusted.
Besides, the agreement may cause mayor annoyance in Azerbaijan. People
seem to ignore this and act as though the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh
and the frozen conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan does not exist.
At the least we may call this "diplomatic exoticism." Have we already
resolved all disputes with Armenia about possession of churches and
so on and need to sign an agreement on exchange of secret information?"
According to Petre Mamradze, ex-head of the State Chancellery,
"Saakashvili, Akhalaya and others of that ilk are trying to blame
this for Georgia's inability to join NATO. In reality, the doors to
the North-Atlantic Alliance were closed to Georgia forever after the
ex-president's reckless military-political scheme in August 2008. U.S.
ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her memoirs that
she had warned Saakashvili: if you start military actions, Georgia
will not see NATO for at least two generations. President Obama has
recently affirmed: Georgia does not stand on the path to NATO and we
will not be accepted regardless of the atmosphere."
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/politics/56906.html