Monday, November 8 2021 12:44

ArmInfo.Professor of the Georgian Technical University, Doctor of International Relations, Conflictologist Amiran Khevtsuriani, in an interview with ArmInfo,  comments on the latest internal political impulses in Georgia. He  forecasts the prospects of the "3 + 3" format, Georgia's  participation in the communication projects promoted by Russia as  well as shares his vision of the future of Armenia and Georgia.  

- I can't help but start our interview with the internal political  problems of Georgia. In particular, perhaps with the main trigger  that determines the internal political impulses in your country -  Mikhail Saakashvili.  The question, which may seem strange - how  would you assess Saakashvili's chances for the premiership in  Georgia?  

- Let's start with the fact that Mikheil Saakashvili once again  showed everyone that he is very creative and is still in good  political shape, as evidenced by his recent master class. Can you  imagine that the former president, who in recent years has been  considered the main fugitive of the country, announces his return and  mentioned a specific date and enters the country in a truck? Then he  travels around the country for three or four days, shoots videos and  publishes, while the leaders of the ruling parties insist that  Saakashvili did not leave the territory of Ukraine and is resting at  the Truskavets resort. A few hours after this statement, he was  detained by the police in Tbilisi. If this story hadn't happened in  my country, I probably wouldn't have believed in it for a long time,  because it reminds me of a comedy genre. Saakashvili is undoubtedly a  source of great concern for the government. Today the country lives  according to the agenda set by Saakashvili. Regarding your question,  how high are the chances that he will become prime minister,  I would  say that such chances, of course, exist, although I am not sure that  he needs it himself. I do not exclude that he will step aside and  give up the main post of the country to someone else, which he has  repeatedly hinted at. Moreover, he has a very good career in Ukraine,  high reputation and personal rating. I follow these processes  directly in Ukraine itself, where I often visit and conduct active  scientific activities. To date, he managed to unite around himself  even his former sworn enemies, who categorically demand from the  authorities his immediate release. Moreover, they urge Saakashvili to  end the hunger strike in the interests of the country. Of course, I  also think in the same way, but I cannot ask for it, because in his  place I would have done the same.  

- The opposition considers the results of all recent elections in  Georgia to be rigged, which is the reason for the internal political  crisis in the country. These assessments are shared by some of our  foreign colleagues.  Does "Georgian Dream" falsify the results of the  elections, and if so, how does it threaten Georgia?   - It is a fact that the last elections received the toughest  assessments both within the country and abroad. According to  authoritative observers, there were serious violations. Such as  "carousels", bribery, intimidation of voters, the use of  administrative resources and others. It is clear that such a reality  contributes to the detonation of the acute political crisis that is  already taking place in the country. The opposition has shown that it  has sufficient resources to bring a large mass of people to the  rally, and the authorities seem to be afraid of this, since they have  long ceased to react to diplomatic reactions. Of course, the current  situation in the country carries great risks for the Georgian  statehood itself. Not so long ago, in the 1990s, we experienced a  difficult civil conflict, which led to both the institutional  collapse of the country and its disintegration. Naturally, then these  processes were of local importance without the intervention of  external forces. Unfortunately, even today I see signs of such  processes, since society is extremely polarized and divided into two  parts.  

- Bidzina Ivanishvili's retreat from politics, that was unexpected  for many people, the resignation of the previous Prime Minister  Giorgi Gakharia - is it the result of internal or external political  processes? To put it bluntly, did external pressure on Tbilisi play a  role in all this in the form of a proposal to become part of a  project to unblock, I should stress, all regional communications in   the South Caucasus?  

- In the case of Ivanishvili, of course, this is due to an external  factor, and in the case of Gakharia, of course, with an internal one.  Bidzina Ivanishvili's retreat from politics has become less and less  believable both in Georgia and abroad.  Especially after the second  appointment of Irakli Garibashvili to the post of prime minister. And  he is still considered the shadow ruler of the country. For me  personally, Ivanishvili's next self-removal from politics did not  come as a surprise, since it is clear that he feels rather  comfortable in the "shadow". Moreover, by such a decision, he somehow  avoids direct pressure from the West, putting his own team, which all  this time was actually parasitizing on its political and financial  resources, before the fact. But Ivanishvili has one serious failure:  he never managed to form a strong and effective political team that  could withstand the challenges facing the country, as well as  establish a personal comfort zone for him. As for the Giorgi  Gakharia, he is undoubtedly a victim of internal intrigue in the  ruling team, which even he himself admitted to. I have never had a  great opinion of Mr. Gakharia, as I do not remember a single  successful project that he implemented during his tenure. And if we  add to this the events of June 20, 2019, when he held the post of  Minister of Internal Affairs, it will be difficult for me to mention  him in a positive context.  

- The Georgian leadership actually announced the impossibility of its  own participation in the 3 + 3 format promoted by Turkey and,  according to some sources, Russia. What, in your opinion, are the  reasons for this refusal?  

- I completely agree with our government and support it in this  matter. However, the recent statement by our Foreign Minister, Mr.  Zalkaliani, on this issue, which he made in response to the statement  made by Sergei Lavrov during a meeting with his Iranian counterpart,  simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Zalkaliani could have left  Lavrov's statement unanswered at all. Moreover, ignoring Lavrov's  statement personally for me would be more acceptable than a comment.  Sometimes silence is more useful than words, I think this is exactly  the case. Of course, no <3 + 3> format will work at this stage, since  the multifaceted and diverse conflict environment in the region does  not create the necessary political climate for this. We are well  aware of the time and circumstances in which this idea arose, then it  had a specific purpose and meaning. And today this format is  completely lifeless and useless. We do not talk with the Russians and  this will continue until they return our lands, you still have a  conflict with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and Iran has problems with  Azerbaijan, and vice versa. What kind of cooperation can we generally  talk about here?  

- According to your forecasts, is it possible that Tbilisi's refusal  to open communications through Abkhazia become the reason for  Georgia's isolation from the communication projects promoted by  Moscow with the participation of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey? And  in general, how promising is the implementation of the "Russian plan"  in the South Caucasus?  

- Georgia will never open this section of the road until the  restoration of Georgian jurisdiction in Abkhazia, and this is an  axiom.  I understand that this issue is important for Armenia, but  Georgia cannot harm its own national interests. We are dealing with a  completely different configuration. Of course, unblocking  communications is the most important criterion for the development of  regional stability, but it should be carefully done, it should not be  expansionary. Let me remind you of one episode that I touched upon in  January 2020 during a meeting with colleagues in Yerevan. I then  spoke a lot about the importance of unblocking communications from  the point of view of de-escalating the situation. If even then the  parties agreed to unblock the same communications, which are being  discussed today in such an aggressive tone that is written in the  same document of November 9, 2020, then perhaps we would have a  completely different reality in the region today. What would happen  if, for example, Pashinyan openly offered Aliyev to open the road to  Nakhichevan, and in return Aliyev stopped his aggressive rhetoric  against Armenia? Wouldn't that help to de-escalate the situation and  restore confidence between the parties? If so, then it can be assumed  that the war could have been avoided. As for the main point of the  question, in raising such questions we must be guided by strategic  interests. The South Caucasus region is less important for Russia  economically than militarily-strategically. Our region is small, with  a population of up to 17 million, which makes it irrelevant as a  global sales market. Therefore, the implementation of large  infrastructure projects in the South Caucasus has never been a  priority for Russia. From an economic point of view, it is in  Russia's interests to use only the transit potential of the region  and the development of the so-called "North-South" transport  corridor. It is in this sense that the factor of Azerbaijan is  important for Moscow, relations with which in recent years have  become increasingly important, bypassing the strategic  military-political alliance with Armenia.   - The economic situation in Armenia and Georgia, due to a number of  circumstances, remains rather difficult. What common corners of  political and economic cooperation for our countries do you see? Do  Georgia and Armenia have any opportunities today to maneuver to the  West, in particular in the direction of the EU, against the  background of the ongoing attempts by the Russian Federation and  Turkey to finally monopolize our region?  

- I see nothing new and strange in the striving of Russia and Turkey  to monopolize the South Caucasus. I would rather be surprised by the  lack of such a desire. But the source of our problems is not only in  external factors, but also in us. We failed to unite around one idea  and one goal, especially against the background of our own difficult  historical experience. Exactly 100 years ago, the common misfortunes  of the South Caucasus stemmed precisely from the Nagorno-Karabakh  conflict, which ultimately ended with the occupation of our region.  No mistakes are allowed in geopolitics, it works according to the  play off principle - loss means leaving the game without the  possibility of a second chance. Thus, the chance that we all missed  at the beginning of the last century, we got only at the end of the  same century. And if we lose it now, then it will probably take us  another 100 years or more to get it back. As for the future of  Armenian-Georgian relations, I always thought that that we are the  closest peoples with almost identical historical past. Accordingly,  our potential for political, economic and cultural cooperation is  simply limitless. First of all, it is necessary to normalize  relations between your country and Azerbaijan, because without this  it is impossible to achieve peace in the South Caucasus. Ending the  conflict between you is the key to peace in the region, and only then  can Georgia's problems be resolved. And, of course, the future of  Armenia, as well as Georgia, is connected only with the West. We are  not nations willing to endure slavery, we have a strong immunity to  survival, and we must make the most of this advantage.