Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

`Armenization' of The Domestic Political Life in Georgia?

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

  • `Armenization' of The Domestic Political Life in Georgia?

    `ARMENIZATION' OF THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL LIFE IN GEORGIA?

    29-03-2013 05:32:08 | Georgia | Articles and Analyses



    By Sergei Minasyan
    PhD (in History), Head of the Department of Political Researches,
    Caucasus Institute


    On January 17 official visit of the prime-minister of Georgia Bidzina
    Ivanishvili to Armenia took place. This was the second regional visit
    of a new head of the Georgian government after a resounding and
    unexpected for many victory of the opposition at the parliamentary
    elections in October; at the end of the last year Ivanishvili visited
    Azerbaijan. Unlike Baku, where new head of the Georgian government was
    expected with some kind of alertness and distrust (in December
    Ivanishvili stated that he had doubts about reasonability of
    Baku-Akhlkalaki-Kars railway financed by Azerbaijan going through
    Georgia bypassing Armenia), Yerevan expected Ivanishvili with
    emphasized interest.

    The expectations of the Armenian authorities were connected with both
    promises given by Ivanishvili concerning the resolution of many
    imperious problems, which are, for example, connected with the
    Armenian population living in Samtskhe-Javakheti region and openly
    declared readiness of the Georgian government to improve the relations
    with the main military and political ally of Armenia - Russia. One may
    say that the expectations of the Armenian authorities from the meeting
    of the Georgian prime-minister and Armenian president and
    prime-minister were generally realized. Moreover, visit of Ivanishvili
    to Armenia took place in such a positive atmosphere which is so
    non-typical for many post-Soviet countries (including the visits of
    Saakashvili and his prime-ministers) that involuntarily thoughts about
    the feasibility of too optimistic development of the Armenian-Georgian
    relations came forward.

    During his visit Ivanishvili also met the Head of the Armenian
    Apostolic Church Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II. At the
    meeting the issues of reclaiming some of the Armenian Churches
    confiscated in the soviet period and then not returned to their former
    owner were discussed. For quite a long time this issue had not been
    solved; Saakashvili's government did not dare to take over this issue,
    which had been complicated after the Georgian Orthodox Church offered
    a challenge for some Orthodox churches on the territory of Armenia.
    During his meetings with both secular and church leadership of
    Armenia, the Georgian prime-minister offered a new, in his opinion,
    compromise solution. He stated that he was ready to initiate
    reconstruction of these churches in a short time at his own expense
    (despite their belonging) unless a joint Armenian-Georgian commission
    would define their belonging. Ivanishvili said that the Georgian side
    would agree with any decision of the commission and as he stated in
    his interview to the Armenian office of `Radio Liberty' he had
    received an impression that the Armenian side was also ready for such
    steps.

    Though the offer made by the Georgian prime-minister may arouse new
    problems and disputes (e.g. according to what projects and in
    compliance with what church and architecture traditions the
    reconstruction of the churches should be implemented before final
    defining of their belonging), nevertheless, it demonstrates a distinct
    readiness of the Georgian prime-minister to find political
    (compromise) decision of this inveterate problem leaving a negative
    mark on bilateral interstate relations.

    During his visit Ivanishvili responded in the same way to the issues
    regarding the problems of the Armenian population of
    Samtskhe-Javakheti. Underlining that he was very grateful to the
    Armenian population of that region which for the first time in the
    history of Georgia mostly voted for the opposition, he promised that
    he would never forget his promises made during the electoral campaign
    and he would do more than he promised in Samtskhe-Javakheti. In
    response to the request of the Catholicos of All Armenians,
    Ivanishvili also promised to consider the issue of discharging of the
    Armenian political activist from this region Vahagn Chakhalyan,
    arrested and convicted under the Saakashvili governing. As later
    Ivanishvili told he redirected this issue for the solution to the
    Minister of Corrections and Legal Assistance Sozar Subari. Soon after
    that the developments around Vahagn Chakhalyan, though for a short
    time, appeared in the spotlight of the political life in Georgia.

    Let us remind you that the activist of `United Javakhq' movement
    V.Chakhalyan was arrested on June 21, 2008 in Akhlkalaki. In the
    opinion of some local activists this happened in consequence of the
    actions of the then Georgian authorities which tended to secure `just
    in case' situation in Javakhq populated by the Armenians two weeks
    before initiating combat actions in South Ossetia and decided to
    neutralize the activists of the local youth socio-political movement.
    In spring 2009 Chakhalyan was convicted under rather disputable
    articles for 10 years of imprisonment. In the years to come a number
    of Armenian NGOs, including ones from Diaspora, tried to appeal
    against the decision of the Georgian court and in 2012 the case was
    considered in the European Court.

    The situation changed after the change of the regime in Georgia. The
    amnesty proclaimed by new Georgian authorities was also spread upon
    Vahagn Chakhalyan who was released free at the end of January 2013.
    After setting free Chakhalyan had a phone conversation with the
    Catholicos Garegin II and in Tbilisi he was received by the ambassador
    of Armenia to Georgia Hovhannes Manukyan and Head of the Georgian
    Dioceses of the AAC Vazgen Mirzakhanyan and after that he returned to
    his home town Akhlkalaki.

    This event induced overreaction of the incumbent president Mikhail
    Saakashvili and former prime-minister and a person responsible for
    power structures Vano Merabishvili. Saakashvili called this step
    criminal and vicious for republic and compared Chakhalyan with former
    Abkhazian leader Vladislav Ardzinba. Saakashvili also accused
    Chakhalyan of espionage in favor of Russia and stated that if the
    authorities had put Ardzinba behind the bars just like they did it
    with Chakhlyan the developments round Abkhazia would have gone in
    quite different direction. At the same time Saakashvili in his
    statement made a mention of the Catholicos of All Armenians and this
    was taken as something rather ambiguous by the Armenian Dioceses in
    Georgia so that it came out with special critical statement in the
    address of the incumbent president.

    At the same time Minister of Corrections and Legal Assistance of
    Georgia Sozar Subari also criticized M.Saakashvili's statements and
    even accused the incumbent president of lie and mentioned that
    Chakhalyan could be included in the amnesty declared by the Georgian
    parliament. According to the argumentation of the Georgian minister a
    question arouses - if Saakashvili accused Chakhalyan of espionage why
    he was not accused under the articles mentioned by Saakashvili when
    the later was governing. The similar comment was made by Chakhalyan.

    During next several days the incumbent president and his adherents
    from currently oppositional `United National Movement' criticized the
    decision of new authorities to amnesty Vahagn Chakhalyan. At the same
    time it was more than obvious that it was rather connected with an
    aspiration to use this event as a kind of information reason to
    criticize new authorities of Georgia headed by Bidzina Ivanishvili
    than with an irrational aspiration of Saakashvili to turn Chakhalyan
    into his `personal enemy'. But one should mention that many Armenians
    in Georgia take Saakashvili's aforementioned statements (including
    rather disputable accusations of `Armenian separatism') with at least
    vigilance and concern. In their opinion this may cause both heating of
    ethnic tension in Samtskhe-Javakheti and intensification of negative
    attitude towards Armenians all over Georgia.

    However, the attempts to critically use `Armenian issue' in the
    domestic political rhetoric by Saakashvili, which can be taken
    ambiguously if desired, were used by the incumbent president not only
    in connection with `Chakhalyan case'. During Ivanishvili's visit to
    Armenia the incumbent Georgian president in his speedy manner came out
    with tough reaction. On January 18, 2013 at a specially summoned
    briefing Saakashvili said that the statements made by Ivanishvili in
    Yerevan `do not take into account geopolitical and strategic interests
    of Georgia', and they `are in only Russia's interests' and that
    opening of the railway through Abkhazia `will become anti-state,
    criminal, anti-Georgian, anti-national and corresponding to the
    occupant's fundamental interests step'. Saakashvili still continues
    making such statements...

    In fact this caused a situation when against the background of
    ideological and political crisis in the opposition between the
    prime-minister and president the issues connected with both Armenia
    and Armenian population of Georgia, including `Chakhalyan case', to a
    large extent has become an indicator of the political opposition in
    the domestic political struggle for authority in Georgia.

    Moreover, currently the term `Armenization' has become to some extent
    denominative in the ideological estimations of the prospects of
    foreign political positioning of Georgia. Saakashvili and his
    adherents warn that improvement of the relations between Georgia and
    Russia will bring to its `Armenization' (using this term with negative
    coloring). And his opponents, as prime-minister Ivanishvili said in
    his interview to the Armenian office of `Radio Liberty' in Yerevan,
    bring as an example the policy of Armenia, which managed to establish
    and maintain good relations simultaneously with Russia, U.S., E.U. and
    even Iran.

    But at the same time it is obvious that in case if such a tendency of
    `multi-level' use of the `Armenian factor' in domestic policy of
    Georgia continues, it may be fraught with danger of negative
    perception of the Armenians in Georgia and Armenia at least by some
    circles inside the Georgian society.

    - Articles and Analyses
    News from Armenia and Diaspora - Noyan Tapan



    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X