Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TBILISI: Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement as Model for Improved Relns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TBILISI: Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement as Model for Improved Relns

    Georgian Daily, Georgia
    Dec 19 2009


    Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement Seen as Model for Improvement in
    Russian-Georgian Relations
    December 19, 2009
    Paul Goble

    Russia and Georgia may gradually overcome their current hostility and
    eventually restore diplomatic ties if they begin to address issues
    like flights between their capitals and the development of trade in
    much the same way t hat Turkey and Armenia have moved toward a
    rapprochement, according to a Moscow specialist on the Caucasus.

    In an article in this week's `Novaya politika,' Sergey Markedonov
    suggests that this is a very real possibility despite the current deep
    freeze in Russian-Georgian relations since the August 2008 war both
    because of traditional links and the recent comment of President
    Dmitry Medvedev to this possibility (www.novopol.ru/text79777.html).

    Russian-Georgian relations, Markedonov says, `bear a paradoxical
    character.' On one side of the scales are `the traditional and above
    all socio-cultural ties that have linked the two peoples together for
    much of the last several centuries and that still provide the basis
    for information contacts.

    But on the other `is the weight of mutual pretensions and the
    contradictions of `perestroika' and the post-Soviet period.' The
    Soviet use of force against Georgia in 1989 became `one of the
    catalysts of the disintegration of the Soviet Union,' and former
    Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze for many Russians is linked
    with the `hated' Gorbachev.

    Many in Moscow expected that Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power as
    a result of the Rose Revolution, would improve ties, but the new
    Georgian president's efforts to re-unite Georgia had the effect of
    transforming the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts `into
    a Russian-Georgian one,' leading to war a year ago.

    That led to a break in diplomatic relations and to the current `deep
    freeze' of relations. But, Markedonov asks, `is there a way out of the
    existing blind alley?' He argues that there is and that Medvedev
    pointed to this exit in comments he made at the Forum of European and
    Asian Media in Moscow December 9-10.

    The Kremlin leader was asked whether there were any `serious
    obstacles' to re-opening border points between the two countries.
    Medvedev said that `does not see any particular problems since this
    concerns ordinary people ¦ despite the great tension in the political
    establishment and the intense opposition on certain questions in the
    international arena.'

    While some commentators pounced on this response as an indication that
    Moscow might soon seek to restore diplomatic relations with Tbilisi,
    Markedonov continued, that expectation is almost certainly
    `premature.' But he said, `there is a rational kernel and good sense
    in Medvedev's words' that all concerned should given attention to.

    In many conflicts around the world, `the resolution of humanitarian
    issues' has helped promote a thawing of relations. Indeed, the Moscow
    analyst says, there is a clear example close at hand: the way in which
    Armenian contacts with Turkey `before the publication and signing of
    the protocols on the normalization of relations' helped make that
    possible.

    `Yes,' Markedonov notes, `Turkey to this day is blocking the land
    border with Armenia and supports Baku in its demands in the Karabakh
    conflict. However, beginning from 1996, direct air links between
    Yerevan and Istanbul and then between Yerevan and Antalya' were
    opened.

    As a result, `Armenian tourists in Turkish resorts are today not a
    rarity even without the restoration of diplomatic relations. [And] the
    Turkish co-president of the Turkish-Armenian business forum Kaan Soyak
    declared recently that the current level of trade between [the two] is
    200 million US dollars. With the opening of the border, that could
    rise to a billion dollars!'

    Thus it is worth `noting also that the Armenian-Turkish protocols
    appeared on a definite foundation, the bricks of which were the air
    links, and tourists and business contacts,' a pattern that can be
    observed in other cases. `Precisely this scenario was proposed by
    Dmitry Medvedev for Russian-Georgian ties.'

    Among the reasons for thinking this possible is that Russian business
    in Georgia `not only has not contracted but even increased' since the
    August war. And even in such a sensitive issue as the Inguri
    Hydro-Electric Dam, `Russian and Georgian energy officials have been
    conducting negotiations and have signed a memorandum, bypassing
    Sukhumi.'

    `Today,' Markedonov says, `it is difficult to image a Georgian
    politician would recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as territories
    not having a relationship to Georgia.' But `after 15 to 20 years, a
    new generation of leaders in Georgia, `lead by pragmatic
    considerations' is likely to recognize that Georgia's current approach
    undermines its own interests.

    Most probably, such a change of heart in Tbilisi will not come
    quickly, Markedonov concludes, but there is one thing at least that
    could speak up a rapprochement between Russia and Georgia: the growing
    threat of Islamist terrorism to both, something politicians in both
    those capitals and elsewhere should be thinking about.
Working...
X