Interview: Lasha Darsalia discusses Georgia's relations with Russia and South Caucasus regional co-operation

Lasha Darsalia, Deputy Foreign Minister of Georgia, discusses relations with Russia, and how Georgia views the recent agreement ending the  Karabakh War in this exclusive interview with commonspace.eu. He also  lays his vision for South Caucasus regional co-operation.

When it comes to Georgian foreign policy, Russia remains the elephant in the room.  Over the last years Georgian-Russian relations have stabilised, but not normalised. How do you assess the current state of Georgian-Russian relations? Has the pandemic impacted Georgian-Russian relations positively or negatively?

Amid the global struggle against the COVID-19 pandemic – while states are desperately trying to curtail the spread of the virus; when more than ever the world needs peace, compassion, and a common effort not only to fight the pandemic, but to think about post pandemic recovery – the Russian Federation shows no sign of respite. Indeed, the scale of Russia’s aggression policy against Georgia, which is manifested in conventional provocations and hybrid warfare tools, intensifies.

One vivid example of a conventional provocation is the ‘Caucasus 2020’ military drills, which included military units from several member states of both the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and Collective Security Treaty Organisation – around 100000-120000 men and 3000 military armoured vehicles in total. What is more alarming was that the military manoeuvres in Russia’s Southern Military District included the Russian military bases illegally deployed in Georgia’s occupied regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali/South Ossetia, grossly violating the EU-mediated 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement.

I would like to remind you that before Russia’s military invasion of Georgia in August 2008, the Russian Federation conducted the unprecedentedly large ‘Caucasus 2008’ military exercises in the Northern Caucasus.

Another evident example of Russia’s increased provocations during COVID-19 is the intensification of the so-called process of ‘borderisation’ –  the erection of barbed wire fences and so-called "border” signs along the occupation line, as well as illegal detentions and kidnapping of local conflict-affected people by the Russian FSB troops, many of whom still remain in illegal custody in Tskhinvali.  

Alongside these conventional means, Russia continues its active disinformation campaign intended to intimidate Georgia as a country aligned with the West, to undermine our sovereignty and frame us, ironically, as a threat to regional security. In this regard, Moscow’s propaganda continues to target the Richard Lugar Research Laboratory, which has played a critical role in the fight against COVID-19 in Georgia and is held in high regard by the Georgian public and the international community alike. The centre has continuously been accused by Russia of developing pathogen agents for military purposes, and even during the pandemic, the Lugar laboratory was the victim of cyberattack supposedly conducted by a Russia-linked source.

Both Russia’s conventional and hybrid tools used against Georgia have one main goal: to destabilise the situation in the country, and obstruct Georgia’s path towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration. At the same time, all these actions represent a demonstration of power, exerting pressure on the government of Georgia, and threatening peace and stability – not only for the South Caucasus region, but for the wider Black Sea area. 

Nonetheless, Georgia has been trying to engage constructively with Russia, to find durable solutions to the conflict and achieve lasting peace and security through negotiations and a peaceful conflict-resolution policy. Moreover, in order to deescalate the situation, in 2012 the Government of Georgia assigned a special representative of the Prime Minister to conduct informal talks with its Russian counterpart on, amongst other things, economic, trade and cultural topics. Although the talks bore tangible results in these spheres, this progress has not had any positive implications for the settlement of Russia-Georgia conflict.

On the contrary, years of experience have shown that Russia is not interested in either a solution to the conflict nor the normalisation of its relationship with Georgia. It is interested only in the preservation of this shaky status-quo that allows it to hold leverage against Georgia and the West more generally. As Georgia has been moving towards a consolidated democracy and European and Euro-Atlantic integration, Russia’s policy has become more and more aggressive. The Russian Federation has used the ongoing occupation and its large arsenal of hybrid tools to slow down Georgia’s progress and impair its ability to establish a secure and stable foundation for its development. If the Russian Federation were ever determined to normalise relations with Georgia, this should first and foremost be reflected in progress of the settlement of the Russia-Georgia conflict.

The restoration of territorial integrity remains the main foreign policy objective of Georgia. Yet we see very little progress in this direction. In the last months the scheduled meeting of the Geneva International Discussions (GID) were disrupted. How do you see the situation at the moment with regards to Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Will there be a meeting of the GID soon? Is this mechanism (GID) useful?

Peaceful conflict resolution is indeed the primary objective of the Government of Georgia, relying on two major pillars: namely the de-occupation of Georgian regions, and reconciliation and confidence building between the communities divided by occupation lines. Georgia is in full compliance with the EU-mediated 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement and has several times unilaterally reaffirmed the non-use of force commitment. Whilst Georgia has been implementing this principle, we are still awaiting the reciprocity from the Russian side. Notwithstanding the hardships, the Government of Georgia has been trying to effectively utilise the peace negotiation format to reach tangible results for lasting peace, security and human rights protection of conflict-affected populations on the ground.

The Geneva International Discussions represent a unique and inclusive format with co-chairmanship of the EU, UN, OSCE and participation of the US, established to address the security and humanitarian challenges stemming from Russian occupation in full respect of the 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement. This format gives us the opportunity to sit around the negotiation table and discuss the manifold challenges that the conflict-affected people face on the ground, which has helped to alleviate major escalations in the past 12 years.

Nevertheless, we could not reach any tangible solution to the outstanding security and humanitarian issues within the format of the GID. But let me be clear and stress that the problem is not the format itself but Russia’s lack of willingness to make any progress towards the peaceful settlement of the conflict. Due to Russia’s destructive attitude, the practice of walkouts and deliberate politicising of humanitarian issues, no progress could be made concerning the agenda items, including: the non-use of force commitment, international security arrangements and the safe and dignified return of IDPs and refugees. Every time the Georgian side brings up the issue of IDPs and refugees, the Russian side leaves the negotiation table making it effectively impossible to find any solution to the existing problems.

The Russian Federation went even further and, using the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic as a pretext, disrupted the scheduled 51st round of talks and hampered the negotiation process. This is while, in light of the aggravated situation, the Geneva International Discussions are even more crucial in order to find solutions to the security and humanitarian problems of the conflict-affected people. Georgia, together with the Co-Chairs, has been doing its best to make sure it takes place in the near future.

In parallel, the Russian Federation has also been undermining the work of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms, which have been useful for addressing immediate safety and humanitarian issues on the ground.

Every day, conflict-affected people continue to struggle with unbearable conditions resulting from Russia’s ongoing occupation – amongst other things, the installation of physical barriers along the occupation line, resulting in restrictions to freedom of movement; kidnappings and arbitrary detentions; deprivation; torture and ill-treatment; ethnic discrimination; and a ban on native language education. Moreover, Russia’s actions accelerate a factual annexation of these regions based on the so-called ‘integration treaties’, to fully incorporate these regions into its military, political, economic and social spheres.

Turning to regional issues, your two neighbours in the South Caucasus – Armenia and Azerbaijan – have in the last weeks fought a bitter and bloody war in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. What is Georgia’s approach to this conflict?

Georgia’s foreign policy concerning the region is clear, effective and balanced, and comprised of both political and economic considerations. From the regaining of independence, Georgia developed a strategic relationship with Azerbaijan and good neighbouring relationship with Armenia. However, the recent escalation of this conflict considerably deteriorates the security environment of the region as a whole. It shows that there are no “frozen conflicts” and that the efforts of the international community must be directed towards solutions. Whilst I do not have the recipe of how to do this, one thing is clear: we must not allow the conflict to freeze again.

We in Georgia believe that the region has great potential and that it is possible to find solutions to all problems based on mutual respect and shared values. As an example, in Georgia, our Azerbaijani and Armenian citizens live side by side, sometimes in the same villages, even in mixed families. They historically have always played a great role in the development and strengthening of our country, as well as the entire region. Their peaceful coexistence demonstrates that Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis have the potential to turn the entire South Caucasus into an area of peace and development.  

How do you assess the news that volunteers from Abkhazia went to Armenia to fight in this war?

Considering the significant number of ethnic Armenians living in Georgia’s Abkhazia region, it was expected that there could be volunteers. However, we can also see Russia’s role in this situation. For years now, Russia has been trying to promote the contacts of  its occupation regime in Sokhumi with Nagorno-Karabakh. Now that the fighting is over, it is no longer relevant; but even if it was, two dozen volunteers would have little impact other than symbolic. It is evident that this move has been a part of Russia’s hybrid and provocative approach to spread its desired narrative of the new realities in the Abkhazia region in full contradiction of the fundamental principles and norms of International law.

As you know, on 10 November an agreement was reached between Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to stop hostilities. What is the position of the Georgian government on this agreement?

We hope that the ceasefire agreement reached between Azerbaijan and Armenia will contribute to the full-scale resolution of the conflict. Georgia obviously supports the dialogue between both parties. Once again, we have also expressed our readiness to contribute to the peace process together with the international community. We believe that the international community’s active efforts and the enforcement of multilateral international mechanisms will have an effect on ensuring long-term peace that will open up new opportunities for the region as a whole.

As I underlined, it is important that the international community mobilises efforts towards finding a long-term solution to the conflict, which would be beneficial to all sides. This ceasefire agreement might become an even bigger cause of escalation in future without the active role of the International Community towards a final resolution to the conflict.

The agreement also provides for the deployment of two thousand Russian troops to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zones. Georgia has had its own experience of Russian peacekeeping and knows that it does not come without a price. How do you view the presence of this large Russian force in the South Caucasus?

You are right. Unfortunately, Georgia is well aware of the price of Russia’s ‘peacekeeping’, and the reality that it is not ‘peace’ that they are protecting but Russia’s interests. Currently, in violation of the EU-mediated 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement, Russia holds a considerable number of military personnel in Georgia’s occupied regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia – more specifically, approximately 4500 military and 1300 FSB personnel in each. These illegal military bases are equipped with contemporary and sophisticated offensive weaponry. So, we can see that Russian ‘peace’ has offensive qualities.

Now that Russia has an increased military presence in the South Caucasus, it will use it to exert political pressure on the countries of the region and beyond, posing a threat to European and Euro-Atlantic security as a whole.

The world has learned that Russian peacekeeping is an oxymoron. Therefore, an increased Russian military footprint in the South Caucasus requires more active engagement from the international community. It should take a firm stance and send a clear message to the Russian Federation that illegal attempts to redraw the borders of its neighbouring countries or halt their free choice of democratic development and European and Euro-Atlantic integration is unacceptable.

Georgia has from time to time embraced regional co-operation as a solution for some of the problems of the South Caucasus. If we can ask you for a personal, rather than an official viewpoint, do you think regional co-operation in the South Caucasus is ever going to be possible; and if so, what can be done to make that happen sooner?

As I mentioned, Georgia’s example of the peaceful coexistence of Armenian and Azerbaijani people shows it is possible. Of course, the situation within a country and between independent States is different. But there are also common similarities.  We have to set the main rules of political game, we have to respect each other’s sovereignty and foreign policy choices, we have to look for common interests and mutual benefits which can guarantee peace in the region. This is the only way to create opportunities for the countries of the region and for the people living in those countries.  In this regard, Georgia might be able to play a unique role as a champion and strong promoter of regional cooperation. There is awareness of the need of such cooperation in Georgia and I also believe there is a strong will to work in this direction.

Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Lasha Darsalia spoke to commonspace.eu in Tbilisi on 16 November 2020

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)