Nikoloz Samkharadze: "Georgia does not have any hidden agenda other than having peace and stability in the South Caucasus"

Prof. Dr. Nikoloz Samkharadze is the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament of Georgia. On 21 November 2022, during his visit to The Hague, Prof. Dr. Samkharadze spoke to commonspace.eu about Georgia's Euro-Atlantic trajectory, the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process, Georgia's relations with Russia and Ukraine, and recent successes in Georgian rugby. 

CS: How do you assess Georgia’s current trajectory towards NATO membership? Why, in your opinion, has NATO not yet granted Georgia membership of the bloc?

NS: It is a very good question, and the answer lies in allies’ lack of unity in terms of NATO enlargement towards the east. Unfortunately, we are still taken hostage by the Russian policy of occupation and annexation of territories of sovereign nations like Georgia and Ukraine. The NATO problem is that what happened 14 years ago is unresolved, I believe because of the Russian factor. Most of the allies are afraid of the Russian response to eventual Georgian and Ukrainian memberships, and I think that Russia effectively holds us all hostage on this. 

I always tell our NATO partners that we have to be smarter than the Russians, because we have to break this vicious circle that Russia created. We have to outsmart Russians, because if we continue acting like this, Russia will not stop. Recent history has shown that Russia always attacks its neighbours who are not members of any security alliance, and Georgia and Ukraine are the most vivid examples.

As for Georgia’s trajectory towards NATO, I think there are no question marks about Georgia’s compatibility and interoperability with NATO when it comes to military and security areas. More than 80% of the Georgian armed forces have served under different NATO command missions, that’s a fact. Our request to NATO is always to give us a clear path to membership, and we always ask that if there is anything that needs to be done from the Georgian side in order to become a NATO member, please let us know. After 14 years, our public and our society needs reassurance, and this reassurance should not come only from statements. It should be backed up with actions that show that NATO’s door is open for Georgia.

CS: It is fair to say that EU-Georgia relations are somewhat strained at the moment, in part due to the EU, at least for the time being, denying Georgia EU candidate status. What more, in your opinion, can the EU do to support Georgia?

NS: First of all, I think the June decision to grant Georgia a European perspective is a historic one, although we were a bit disappointed that we did not get the same status as Ukraine and Moldova. If you take a closer look, we are basically half a step behind Ukraine and Moldova because they got their candidate status with conditions, and we got conditions for a fully-fledged status, and those conditions are mostly the same as the others’ conditions. 

So we are working very hard now to deliver on those recommendations, and according to our timeline we will be ready by the beginning of the new year with the fulfilment of those recommendations. And then we very much hope for a positive assessment from the European Commission and then from the European Council. The recent statements by the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, by other European leaders, and also during the recent visit of the European Commissioner for Enlargement, basically assured us that with the implementation of those 12 recommendations, Georgia would definitely get candidate status next autumn.

CS: Negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan on a peace treaty are ongoing, but geopolitical rivalries are playing out over the mediation process. What role can Georgia play in mediating between the two countries, despite potentially being overshadowed by Brussels, Washington, and Moscow?

NS: Georgia has a very big asset in its hands, and this is trust and credibility in both the Azeri and Armenian capitals. Georgia is equally respected in Yerevan and in Baku, and equally trusted by Yerevan and Baku. And no other player around us, no big regional power, has the same trust and credibility. This is very important in the South Caucasus. As you know, we came up with the Peaceful Caucasus initiative, and this initiative is supported by both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Recently we have had very productive visits of high-level Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations in Georgia, and I believe that there is room for reaching a comprehensive peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We will do our most, we will facilitate, we will mediate, because it is in Georgia’s interests to finally have long-lasting peace and stability in the region. I believe that our partners in Yerevan and Baku also know that we don’t have any hidden agenda other than having peace and stability in the South Caucasus. So we will play a very active role despite the fact that some of our neighbours might not like our activity in that regard.

CS: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has upended the Eurasian order, and there are undoubtedly very many years - if not decades - before Eurasian relations with Russia can be “normalised” or indeed reach a “new normal”. What do you think the future of Russia-Georgia relations looks like?

NS: The future of Russia-Georgia relations are very grim. The outlook is not positive, and the main reason is because Russia continues to occupy 20% of our sovereign territory. Until these territories are de-occupied, until Russian troops are withdrawn from Georgian territory, and until Russia recognises Georgia’s territorial integrity, there will be no normalisation of relations between Georgia and Russia. Unfortunately, as we see right now, Russia’s aggressive stance towards its neighbours has not changed. Therefore I don’t expect that in the near future Russia will change its behaviour, and therefore I don’t see any realistic chances for Georgia-Russia relations to be normalised.

CS: Sticking with the Russian war in Ukraine, the Black Sea power balance has dramatically shifted since February 2022. What role can Georgia - which remains outside the EU and NATO - play in bringing security to the Black Sea region?

NS: I think that with the Russian aggression against Ukraine, now everybody has realised that the Black Sea plays a very important role in European security and in global security in general. Georgia, as one of the littoral states, can contribute a lot to Black Sea security, even though it was really very strange that NATO did not have a comprehensive Black Sea security strategy up until now. And we have been telling our western partners for the last 30 years that Russian aggressive behaviour was not only confined to Georgia. They will continue to do so elsewhere. Unfortunately, no-one listened to us attentively back then, and now we have been proven right. So now, with the attention being focused on our region and on the Black Sea, with the strengthening of the NATO eastern flank, especially in Romania, I think that Georgia can also contribute to this and can also play a very important role. But for that to materialise, we need a clear path to NATO membership, because Georgia alone is vulnerable, and can be a liability to NATO rather than an asset; and Georgia within NATO will be an asset to Black Sea security rather than a liability.

CS: While Georgia has indeed provided a great deal of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February this year, Georgia's response vis-a-vis Russia has been accused by Ukraine as being relatively weak. How do you think Ukraine and Ukrainians will remember the response of Georgia and Georgians in their hour of need?

NS: I think Ukrainian people will remember our assistance, not only our humanitarian assistance, but also our political and moral support. We have 30,000 Ukrainian refugees in Georgia right now, and almost on a weekly basis we receive Ukrainian children who come to Georgia to spend their holidays and to interact with Georgian youth.

As for certain circles in the Ukrainian political spectrum, well, of course we don’t agree with their assessment. Georgia’s response to Russian aggression against Ukraine was very strong. We have supported or co-sponsored all resolutions at the UN Security Council, the Council of Europe, at the OSCE, at every international forum. For a country which is partially also occupied by Russia, and today is the most vulnerable to a Russian attack after Ukraine in the world, I think it punched above its weight. And I am sure that people in the Ukrainian parliament, Ukrainian diplomats, and the people of Ukraine in general know this. I have to point out again that Georgia was the only country that did not evacuate its embassy from Kyiv during the heavy bombing, with the Vatican being the only other one, if I remember correctly. 

So we believe that we have done everything that we could to support Ukraine, and we will continue supporting Ukraine because the bonds between Georgian and Ukrainian people are very strong, and solidarity is very strong. Some unfortunate statements of single politicians will not damage these relations.
 

CS: And finally, on a lighter note, leaving behind geopolitics, on Saturday 19 November Georgia recorded a historic win against the Welsh rugby team at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff. How do you think this result will change Georgian rugby in the future and the face of Georgian sport in general?

NS: First of all, this is a historic win because Georgia beat a tier one rugby nation in an away game for the first time. We also beat a tier one rugby nation in a home game this year, and so it makes 2022 a fantastic year for Georgian rugby because our team beat Italy and Wales. This will be a huge boost for Georgian rugby, for young players especially because the younger generation can now really dream of playing in the Six Nations, and playing regularly with the top teams of the world. So this is an extraordinary victory for Georgian rugby and for Georgian sport in general. We also see very good developments in Georgian football - we have a rising star Khvicha Kvaratskhelia - we have very good developments in Georgian basketball, and I think this goes along with the overall development in the country.

source: commonspace.eu interviewed Prof. Dr. Nikoloz Samkharadze in The Hague on 21 November 2022.
The views expressed in opinion pieces, commentaries and interviews do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners.

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)