ArmInfo. Professor of the Georgian Technical University, doctor of international relations, conflictologist Amiran Khevtsuriani, in an interview with ArmInfo, comments on the prospects of unblocking the Abkhazian section of the railway linking Russia, Georgia and Armenia from the point of view of Tbilisi.
The other day the Abkhaz parliament, in an appeal to the State Duma of the Russian Federation, announced Abkhazia's readiness to participate in a project to unblock the railway communication between Russia and Armenia through Abkhazia. What, in your opinion, is the reason for the Abkhaz interest in this project right now and is there any connection here with the results and, most importantly, subsequent events after the last year's war in Artsakh?
Moscow's next promotion of the issue of restoring the Abkhaz railway after the signing of a trilateral statement following the 44-day war in Artsakh and the strengthening of Russian positions in the South Caucasus was indeed quite expected. However, this time Moscow changed its tactics, using its Abkhazian puppets to voice this idea. According to our sources, the number of supporters of the restoration of the section of the railway connecting Abkhazia with Armenia has been growing like mushrooms in the Abkhaz parliament lately. It looks rather strange considering that they have never shown such excessive interest in this issue before. As it turns out, this process is led by the chairman of the Abkhaz parliamentary committee for international inter-parliamentary relations and relations with compatriots Astamur Logua. And according to Russian media, a special request was even sent from Sukhumi to Moscow in this regard. It is obvious that the separatist regime in Abkhazia could not start this game on its own. Why do you think so?
The fact is that the issue of restoring the Black Sea section of the Transcaucasian railway in Sukhumi has always been treated with caution and suspicion, considering it primarily in a political rather than an economic context. As for Mr. Logua's fears that "Abkhazia cannot exist for a long time as a depot country, a dead-end country", this is an obvious fact. Their dream of "independent Abkhazia" was finally buried in 2008, when Russia formally recognized it as an independent state, and in fact annexed Abkhazia. We are, of course, concerned about the dubious and undesirable reality that reigns today in Abkhazia, and we take on a certain responsibility for this. The Abkhaz people are the people closest to us. We have no problems with the Abkhaz, and this has been repeatedly proven by the Georgian state and Georgian society over the years. Thousands of our Abkhaz compatriots continue to use various free medical and educational services. And, paradoxically, the separatist regime often does not allow them to receive these benefits. Accordingly, we have a problem not with the Abkhaz people, but with the separatist regime in Abkhazia. In Armenia, many people believe that the economy, not geopolitics, is behind the opening of the Abkhaz section. Do you have a different opinion?
Despite multiple speculations, I doubt that the restoration of the Abkhaz section of the railroad is part of even the Kremlin's economic interests in the South Caucasus. The project, the implementation of which, according to experts, will require from 150 to 250 million dollars, the return of which will take at least 100 years, cannot be considered economically viable. In this light, we are no doubt again dealing with Russia's unbridled political and geopolitical interests. For Moscow, it is of interest, first of all, from the point of view of the supply of Russian bases located in Armenia.
Can it be stated that unblocking the Abkhazian section of the railway not only does not meet, but also contradicts, first of all, the economic interests of Georgia?
At this stage, the opening of the railway to Abkhazia is only a theoretical question. And for the project to move into a practical plane, it will have to overcome many obstacles, ranging from political, customs and visa, and ending with determining its economic feasibility for our country. In general, I think that it is unthinkable even to talk about the same passenger traffic due to the absence of a visa regime with Russia and any legal mechanisms for moving to Abkhazia. As for the economy, referring again to expert assessments, I will note that this project has no serious direct economic effect on Georgia. On the contrary, it may even be unprofitable, because its implementation will primarily affect the country's roads and our ports on the Black Sea. At the same time, the question of the final determination of economic benefits requires serious study and analysis, although any analysis should be based primarily on the national interests of the country. In this light, if this geopolitical project corresponds to transit interests, national security or energy independence, we could seriously consider it even if it is economically unacceptable. But in this case we are dealing with a completely opposite situation: our economic, energy and political independence depends on the very infrastructure projects that bypass Russia. And these projects are of vital importance for Georgia. The formula is simple - the less Russia, the more independence and freedom. Meanwhile, the Abkhazian section of the railway makes Georgia more dependent on Russia. Armenia is extremely interested in the restoration of the Abkhazian section:
We understand very well how important it is for Armenia to restore this railway. Armenia is our fraternal country. We view Armenia and Azerbaijan in the context of the idea of a common Caucasian home, on the implementation of which, over time, we pin great hopes. That is why the recent Karabakh war turned out to be especially painful for our state and society. We will never forget the fact that Armenia did not allow the Russian troops stationed on its territory to participate in the August 2008 war against Georgia. We understand that this was a very difficult decision for Yerevan. At the same time, it should be understood that Armenia is not Georgia's natural partner in the restoration of the Abkhaz railway. Unfortunately, we have other realities, we can only conduct such negotiations with Russia. And there are enough red lines here.
For instance?
If the issue of restoring the railway is still on our agenda, then questions will inevitably arise that need to be answered. For example, what kind of cargo will be transported on this railway? Military or just civilians? We are well aware that the use of the railway for military purposes is a common practice. We last saw this in 2008. One more question - who will ensure the safety of goods on the territory of Abkhazia? Let's not forget that since Abkhazian law enforcement agencies are illegitimate for us, and the Russian military are for us invaders. Perhaps the only solution is international control mechanisms, which the Russian and Abkhaz sides will clearly not welcome with great enthusiasm. The third most important question is how can we restore the railway if the issues of free movement have not yet been resolved? What documents will be possible to use to travel on this railway? Where will the customs officers, border guards stand? From your words, an obvious link emerges between these problems and the problem of the status of Abkhazia.
Exactly. Based on all this, it is quite obvious that the restoration of the Abkhazian section of the railway is directly related to the restoration of the territorial integrity of Georgia. Only in such conditions will this project acquire its natural appearance. Therefore, it is inappropriate to present the restoration of railway communication as a separate problem. It is completely absurd to think that rebuilding the railroad will help de-escalate the situation and restore relations. Until the seventh Russian occupation base is located in the Abkhazian part of Georgia and until the official Kremlin refuses to recognize Abkhazia, it is useless to even talk about any economic preferences. 250 thousand Georgians have been waiting for their return to their homes for almost 28 years. And we, of course, cannot overshadow this issue.