Georgian Foreign Minister:"Our country acquired independence with enormous difficulty and will never give it up."

On Wednesday, 14 November, at the same time that Prime Minister Bidhzina Ivanishvili was in Brussels meeting EU and NATO leaders, the Russian newspaper Kommersant published an interview with the new Georgian Foreign Minister, Maia Panjikidze in which she reiterated that Georgia's policy for European and Euro-atlantic integration were the asspirations of the Georgian people and not simply the policies of either the Saakashvili or the Ivanishvili governments.

The interview, conducted for Kommersant by Georgi Dvali is reproduced here:

[Dvali] You, like Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili, consider that there is no alternative to Georgia's pro-Western policy. Why?

[Panjikidze] Georgia has done a great deal of work over the last 20 years to make progress along the road of European and Euroatlantic integration. But much more could have been done. The previous authorities started to forget that the EU is not just an economic union and NATO is not just a military alliance. Both the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance are primarily associations based on common values -- the protection of human rights, democratic institutions, media independence, an independent judiciary, and a developed civil society. Our efforts will be directed primarily at strengthening democracy. Countries that do not completely meet the standards in the military sphere have also been admitted to NATO -- but they shared common democratic values. The path that Georgia needs to follow in order to join NATO and the EU is much more important than the actual goal, because successful progress along this path will enable us to build the kind of country that we dream of -- civilized, democratic, developed, and secure. But joining NATO and the EU will be only the culmination of the process.

[Dvali] Does that mean that you feel that the previous regime's violation of democratic standards was the main obstacle to success for Georgia's strategically correct pro-Western policy?

[Panjikidze] This was one of the reasons. Because of the previous regime Georgia suffered a setback in developing democratic institutions.

[Dvali] Is it possible to combine an aspiration to join NATO with a wish to improve relations with the Russian Federation, which Prime Minister Ivanishvili talks about? Many people regard this task as insoluble....

[Panjikidze] There are no insoluble tasks. Something that seems unlikely right now may turn out to be totally natural in a few years' time. For example, I studied in the GDR between 1979 and 1983. At that time nobody could even imagine that the Berlin Wall would collapse and Europe would unite, like Germany itself. That the USSR would collapse and Georgia would become independent. If somebody had told me at that time that I would become the ambassador of an independent Georgia to a unified Germany I would have thought that my interlocutor had lost all sense of reality. Yet all of this happened before our very eyes!

Our task (in joining NATO and improving relations with Russia -- Kommersant) is a very tricky, but we will work on resolving it. The countries of East Europe probably felt the same at one time. Their path to Europe was blocked, but today they are already members of the EU and NATO. Russia has the most secure borders and fewest problems with specifically these countries. Everybody needs to realize that a democratic and stable neighbor is better than a totalitarian and unpredictable one. There are numerous examples of NATO membership being compatible with good relations with Russia. Our task is to become the next example.

[Dvali] You assert that diplomatic relations with Russia will not be restored since it is occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Are other formats for relations with Moscow possible?

[Panjikidze] Despite the fact that diplomatic relations between our countries have been severed, actual relations exist. First, one manifestation is the Geneva format. Admittedly within this format we have not achieved substantive results mak ing it possible to hope for a solution of the main problems, but it exists and needs to be preserved. Second, certain decisions have been adopted on the subject of the Russian Federation's admission to the WTO. Third, Russian business has the possibility of operating comfortably in Georgia. Fourth, Georgia unilaterally abolished the visa regime with Russia. Fifth, the idea of participating in the Sochi Olympics has been made public.

There is a great deal that can be done even when there was no diplomatic relations. So the creation of new mechanisms for interaction such as, for example, the introduction of the post of the prime minister's special representative for relations with the Russian Federation, should not cause surprise. Links can be built through this channel too. Diverse channels of interaction are an important condition for unfreezing relations

[Dvali] But Moscow is awaiting specific steps from Tbilisi. What else can Georgia do to improve relations?

[Panjikidze] I can add that we do not rule out involving the international community in galvanizing the mechanism for interaction with Russia. The role of a mediator is generally very important when relations are strained.

As for the specific steps that people in Moscow talk about -- this is a subject for further consultation. Our message is specific, and we for our part are hoping to receive a more specific answer than are hearing right now.

[Dvali] Russia is in favor of the integration of the post-Soviet area. There is the Eurasian Union project, the Customs Union is operating, and the CIS, from which Georgia withdrew in 2008, still exists....

[Panjikidze] Our country acquired independence with enormous difficulty and will never give it up. We adhere to a clear policy of European and Euroatlantic integration. This is an irreversible process. The only associations that Georgia will join are NATO and the EU. Our country has no other path, and no regime will deviate from it.

source: Kommersant Website

Photo: The Foreign Minister of Georgia Maia Panjikidze (photo courtesy of the Press Service of the Georgian Foreign Ministry).

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)