"Georgian society lives in illusions toward Russia and 'Georgian-Russian brotherhood'". Commonspace.eu interviews Giorgi Kanashvili, Director of Caucasian House.

The 5th anniversary of the Georgia-Russia War, the visit of President Putin to Baku a few days ago, and continued debate about Armenia's new relations with the EU have increased focus on Russia's role in the Caucasus Region. In the first in a series of commonspace.eu interviews and articles about Russia and the Caucasus, Marion Kipiani spoke to Giorgi Kanashvili, Director of the civil society organisation Caucasian House, about the future of Georgian-Russian relations.

Your organization, the Caucasian House, has been involved in Russian-Georgian dialogue projects particularly for young experts in the field of politics, human rights, and journalism. Can you briefly tell us about the scope and aims of your activities?

 

The project aims to raise awareness of Georgian-Russian mid-level experts about Georgian-Russian relationships and establish platforms of cooperation among them. Caucasian House for the last two years has already organized nine meetings between Russian and Georgian experts. Most of them were held in Tbilisi, but we were also able to organize one in Moscow. The main target group of the project is a new generation of experts. We think that problems and a lack of confidence are observed on all level of expert society. However, the nonexistence of channels for direct communication and cooperation between the new generation of experts makes this group especially vulnerable toward state propaganda. That pushed us to concentrate on this segment of our societies.

 

How do you evaluate the potential of dialogue initiatives (both those conducted by Caucasian House and by other organizations) to influence the broader Russian-Georgian relationship? In which areas do you see particular impact?

 

We don't have any illusions toward the influence of such dialogue process; it is very difficult to measure direct outcome of such type of projects. Still, we think that a multilevel dialogue between various groups of experts will bring results. Maybe these results will often not be directly felt, but still both in Georgia and Russia some circles of politicians are taking in account information they get from the expert society. Of course not every recommendation crafted in policy documents developed by the expert society will be "translated" into state policy. Nevertheless I am deeply convinced that part of such documents are read and noticed.

 

How do you assess the sentiment within the Georgian population toward the Russian Federation? Can you say anything about the reciprocal feelings of Russians vis-à-vis Georgia?

 

Georgian society lives in illusions toward Russia and about a "Georgian-Russian brotherhood"; the same applies to one small segment of Russian society. The "brotherhood" narrative is less popular on the level of Georgian youth, but quite popular amongst older generations, especially in rural areas. Even the war 2008 has not radically changed this narrative. Under the rule of [President Mikheil] Saakashvili this discourse was marginalized. Under the new ruling power [the "Georgian Dream" government led by Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili],  we see a reincarnation of these myths. But on the level of elites and politically more educated society we don't observe this tendency.

 

Despite an improvement in bilateral relations since the August 2008 war, and particularly since the change of government in Georgia following parliamentary elections in October 2012, progress on the most contentious issue between the two countries - Russian recognition of state independence of and military support to Abkhazia and South Ossetia - appears to be completely stalled. Do you see any possibility in the short to medium term to move beyond deadlock?

 

For the moment we observe even a worsening of the situation on the ground; I think it is not linked to any "weakness" of the new Georgian government. The main pillars [of Georgian-Russian relations] for the moment are: the Sochi Winter Olympics 2014, which directly affect Georgian-Ossetian and particularly Georgian-Abkhazian relations and leads to a "closing" of both entities; and also the lack of readiness of all three actors - Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - with regard to the change of the ruling party in Georgia. Nobody was expecting that the "Georgian Dream" would come into government, or the subsequent change of policy on the Georgian side towards the conflicts. The Georgian government proclaimed the policy - "Everything but Recognition"; which represents a radical change in policy, and nobody was ready for such a proactive and cooperative policy from the Georgian government. I think during the next year we will observe a process of elaboration of new attitudes on all sides. I am quite sure there will be changes on the grass-root level, regarding humanitarian issues etc which in the medium term have a capacity to improve the degree of mutual confidence both on the level of elites as well as on society level.  Nevertheless I do not envisage any breakthrough regarding political and statues related issues. 

 

How do you evaluate the efforts of the Government of Georgia, particularly the Prime Minister's Special Representative for relations with the Russian Federation, in improving bilateral ties? What would be your recommendations to take these efforts further?

 

Cautious optimism and rational approaches both from Georgian and Russian sides must be only welcomed. I cannot remember any negative events for that last nine months, except the situation about the so called "borderization" process. [The process of demarcating and installing border barriers along the Administrative Boundary Lines, especially with South Ossetia, ed.] The new [Georgian] government inherited difficult Georgian-Russian relations, and we should not have illusions regarding this process, this very slow and painful process. Any speed-up can cause serious problems and disappointment.

 

I could recommend more focus for engagement on educational institutions, establishing contacts on the level of universities. Of course trade related issues are also very important. Nevertheless the Georgian government must not forget to work with the international community and organizations, explaining the motives and aims of Georgian-Russian normalization [in relations], particular steps are necessary regarding our closest allies such as Poland and Baltic Countries. Perceptions towards this process are especially ambiguous in these countries.

 

Of course the so called "borderization" issue must be raised on every  meeting between [Special Representative Zurab] Abashidze and [Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigoriy] Karasin, and within the Geneva talks [the internationally mediated talks for stability and security in the South Caucasus, initiated after the August 2008 War, ed.]. Normalization is one thing, but another thing are our "red lines", which must not be forgot.

 

In your view, how could the international community support the improvement of relations between Georgia and Russia? Are there any initiatives, programs, or policies you find specifically helpful, or do you see a lack of adequate policies?

 

I think the international community could work as on societal, also on the governmental level. First of all the international community must send clear signals. The new Georgian government internally is very seriously criticized by the opposition because of its "soft" positions towards the Russian occupation [of Abkhazia and South Ossetia], in this context the voice of the international community has utmost importance. On the other side our international partners have to observe the process of normalization pro-actively and give recommendations to the Georgian government in an off-the-record regime. On the level of civil society there is still much to do. One format is solely Georgian-Russian meetings, but there is potential to engage expert and civil society representatives of these two countries within other formats and configurations. 

 

Marion Kipiani interviewed Giorgi Kanashvili for commonspace.eu.

 

 

Related articles

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!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

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)