Tweet
GEORGIAN-OSSETIAN MEETING IN YEREVAN
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 13 2013
Grigory Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza
Recently an official meeting between experts and representatives of
non-governmental organizations has taken place in Yerevan within the
dialogue "A Point of View." Non-governmental organizations which were
represented by the delegation from South Ossetia stated that their
participation in the dialogue is "private." Official authorities of
South Ossetia expressed their negative view on the meeting and stated
that it wouldn't reflect official Tskhenval's opinion. The Georgian
side didn't make such statements, but only because this meeting in
Yerevan didn't draw attention of the society.
In fact any dialogue of experts after the tragedy of August 2008
enables us to imagine the gap between two societies, at least. And
the meeting of civil society's representatives is even more effective
than political talks, as social activists, experts, and civil activists
are not obliged to hide their true views or opinions which are popular
among population.
The topics of the meeting were numerous: from the geopolitical
context of the situation over the republic recognized by Russia to
trade-and-economy cooperation and the notorious Ergnetski market on the
border between Georgia and South Ossetia. The materials of the meeting
confirm that civil society in Georgia, at least its representatives
who spoke in Yerevan, is ready to reconsider significant principles
of the official conception of "occupation" of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Primarily, it is readiness to a direct dialogue between
Tbilisi and Tskhinval within cooperation with Moscow.
The state minister on reintegration of Georgia, Paata Zakareishvili,
suggests recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "sides of
the conflict", if not full participants of the process. However,
it is still dim because the team of Premier Ivanishvili is afraid of
accusations of "receding from the positions" and rejections of the
concept of "occupation."
It doesn't matter whether the concept is productive or not, but it
is clear and reasonable, from the point of view of Georgian-Western
relations. According to Saakashvili's team, if the problem of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia will be considered by the West not through a
paradigm "great post-imperial Russia and small Georgia which strives
for independence", but in the context of relations between the Georgian
state and one of ethnic minorities, the attitude to the problem by
Western capitals can change. And not in favor of Georgia.
That is why the idea proposed by representatives of Georgian
non-governmental organizations on a direct dialogue with Tskhinaval
under cooperation with Russia could be implemented only if Tbilisi
dramatically changes its foreign political course.
However, the thesis on a differentiated approach to Abkhazia and South
Ossetia by Tbilisi is very interesting. It is true that the conflicts
have their own specific peculiarities. But the idea of differentiation
cannot be implemented without rejection of the "occupation" concept
which requires one-sided attitude to the situation over the former
autonomies of Georgia.
It was suggested to restore trust and eliminate perception of Georgia
as an enemy in the Ossetian society. However, "systematizing of
democratic institutes at the political level and establishing the
notion of "civil nation" at the social level" are not enough for this.
The August events have taken place too recently to believe that the
emotional background doesn't influence rational understanding of
certain interests.
The Caucasus issues expert Georgy Gvimradze voiced a "seditious"
idea for the Georgian society that territorial integrity is not the
primary goal, but a resource. But this sound though will hardly find
support in the modern Georgian society which undergoes "an identity
trauma" because of losing Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
It is surprising that even in the "simple" issues of transport
communications and people's free traveling the sides have no mutual
understanding. Georgian social activists interpret it as free
traveling all over Georgia, while their Ossetian colleagues mean
getting Shengen visas.
Numerous conflict interests and contradictions were discussed
intensively. Despite the difficulty of settlement of the problem,
both sides admitted that this knot couldn't be cut at one stroke.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/36979.html
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 13 2013
Grigory Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza
Recently an official meeting between experts and representatives of
non-governmental organizations has taken place in Yerevan within the
dialogue "A Point of View." Non-governmental organizations which were
represented by the delegation from South Ossetia stated that their
participation in the dialogue is "private." Official authorities of
South Ossetia expressed their negative view on the meeting and stated
that it wouldn't reflect official Tskhenval's opinion. The Georgian
side didn't make such statements, but only because this meeting in
Yerevan didn't draw attention of the society.
In fact any dialogue of experts after the tragedy of August 2008
enables us to imagine the gap between two societies, at least. And
the meeting of civil society's representatives is even more effective
than political talks, as social activists, experts, and civil activists
are not obliged to hide their true views or opinions which are popular
among population.
The topics of the meeting were numerous: from the geopolitical
context of the situation over the republic recognized by Russia to
trade-and-economy cooperation and the notorious Ergnetski market on the
border between Georgia and South Ossetia. The materials of the meeting
confirm that civil society in Georgia, at least its representatives
who spoke in Yerevan, is ready to reconsider significant principles
of the official conception of "occupation" of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Primarily, it is readiness to a direct dialogue between
Tbilisi and Tskhinval within cooperation with Moscow.
The state minister on reintegration of Georgia, Paata Zakareishvili,
suggests recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "sides of
the conflict", if not full participants of the process. However,
it is still dim because the team of Premier Ivanishvili is afraid of
accusations of "receding from the positions" and rejections of the
concept of "occupation."
It doesn't matter whether the concept is productive or not, but it
is clear and reasonable, from the point of view of Georgian-Western
relations. According to Saakashvili's team, if the problem of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia will be considered by the West not through a
paradigm "great post-imperial Russia and small Georgia which strives
for independence", but in the context of relations between the Georgian
state and one of ethnic minorities, the attitude to the problem by
Western capitals can change. And not in favor of Georgia.
That is why the idea proposed by representatives of Georgian
non-governmental organizations on a direct dialogue with Tskhinaval
under cooperation with Russia could be implemented only if Tbilisi
dramatically changes its foreign political course.
However, the thesis on a differentiated approach to Abkhazia and South
Ossetia by Tbilisi is very interesting. It is true that the conflicts
have their own specific peculiarities. But the idea of differentiation
cannot be implemented without rejection of the "occupation" concept
which requires one-sided attitude to the situation over the former
autonomies of Georgia.
It was suggested to restore trust and eliminate perception of Georgia
as an enemy in the Ossetian society. However, "systematizing of
democratic institutes at the political level and establishing the
notion of "civil nation" at the social level" are not enough for this.
The August events have taken place too recently to believe that the
emotional background doesn't influence rational understanding of
certain interests.
The Caucasus issues expert Georgy Gvimradze voiced a "seditious"
idea for the Georgian society that territorial integrity is not the
primary goal, but a resource. But this sound though will hardly find
support in the modern Georgian society which undergoes "an identity
trauma" because of losing Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
It is surprising that even in the "simple" issues of transport
communications and people's free traveling the sides have no mutual
understanding. Georgian social activists interpret it as free
traveling all over Georgia, while their Ossetian colleagues mean
getting Shengen visas.
Numerous conflict interests and contradictions were discussed
intensively. Despite the difficulty of settlement of the problem,
both sides admitted that this knot couldn't be cut at one stroke.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/36979.html