"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
''Coalition of the Willing'' meets in Kyiv to restate its support for Ukraine

''Coalition of the Willing'' meets in Kyiv to restate its support for Ukraine

The ''Coalition of the  Willing''  of thirty five countries, has renewed its support of Ukriane, at a meeting in Kyiv, held on Ukraine's national day on 24 August, under the chairmanship of British Prime Minister,A ndy Burnham. Burnham has promised to keep up the pressure on Russia despite Moscow's "outrageous threats", on his first official visit to Ukraine as UK prime minister. Burnham met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and chaired his first meeting of the "coalition of the willing", set up by the UK and France under his predecessor Sir Keir Starmer. He said the coalition was "doing everything we can" while urging the US Congress to "ratchet up" economic pressure on Russia. The government has agreed to hand over blueprints for British-made components for the Scalp missile, a French version of the UK's Storm Shadow cruise missile - allowing Ukraine to produce the long-range weapon domestically. During the meeting with France and Ukraine, Burnham said allies were doing "everything we can" to "dig into our own stocks and help others dig into their stocks" of air defences to protect Ukraine. "This is the moment to keep up the pressure on Russia, the moment to squeeze their ability to fund this illegal war," Burnham said, praising the "strength" of the Ukrainian people. "Ukraine has been Europe's protector, not a drain on our security but the front line in keeping Europe safe." It comes after Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov criticised the UK's decision to share the missile blueprints. Peskov said it prevented "even the slightest progress" towards achieving peace. He told reporters on Monday that the Russian military was already gathering data to locate any missile production sites to destroy them. "Britain is involved in this war on the side of the Kyiv regime. Britain methodically and regularly adds fuel to the fire," he added. In response, Burnham said: "Who started the fire? That's the question, isn't it?" He added the issue of missile interceptors would be the main topic at the coalition of the willing meeting. Burnham chaired his first meeting of the "coalition of the willing" in Kyiv Burnham has been reaffirming the UK's backing for Kyiv in the wake of escalating Russian strikes on Ukraine in recent weeks - including one on a shopping centre on Friday that killed at least 16 people. In a joint statement after the meeting, Burnham and co-chairs French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the group would aim to strength Kyiv's air defences "as a matter or urgent priority". They also condemned Moscow's "systemic and escalating strikes against Ukraine's cities, critical infrastructure and civilians" and pledged to "constrain Russia's war chest through sanctions and actions against the "shadow fleet". (click image to read more).

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)