In Search of a Peace Formula in Transcaucasia

The last months in Transcaucasia have been marked by new diplomatic initiatives, but old contradictions remain a key obstacle to stability. The 63rd round of the Geneva discussions once again confirmed that the parties are ready for dialogue, but their visions of the future of the region diverge radically.

Dialogue or tactical pause?

Ahead of the parliamentary elections in Georgia, the country's authorities have taken a number of steps aimed at reducing tensions. A commission was created to investigate the crimes of the Saakashvili regime, and statements were made about the readiness to resume contacts with Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. However, this does not mean that Tbilisi intends to abandon its strategic line in relation to our countries.

On the day of the Geneva talks, Georgian Foreign Minister Maka Bochorishvili, in an interview with the Spanish agency EFE, clearly outlined her country's position, stating that it was impossible for the Georgian government to recognize not only the independence, but even the legal personality of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. She again used the phrase "occupation" in relation to both sovereign states and confirmed Georgia's course towards integration into the EU and NATO.

Now let's look at these issues in more detail. We have already written that Georgia and its patrons like to use loud political and legal terms, forgetting that these terms have their own definitions and characteristics, and international law regulates in amazing detail in what specific conditions and cases their use is legally justified, and in what cases it is not. And, naturally, the professional competence of people who, when using certain words, do not comply with their true meanings, raises the most serious doubts. Meanwhile, back in the second half of the 2010s, well-known, authoritative international experts from the UN and the EU on international law were invited to one of the sessions of the next round of the Geneva discussions by general agreement of the participants to give an assessment from the point of view of international law of whether there is a Russian occupation in South Ossetia. Moreover, the selection of candidates was carried out by the UN and EU delegations themselves. The Georgian representatives presented their arguments to the experts for several hours, but they admitted that none of the accusations made by the Georgian side are considered as a sign of occupation in international law. Following the hearings, it was publicly stated that: a) there is not a single sign of occupation in South Ossetia; b) the Russian Federation has not committed a single action in South Ossetia resembling occupation. As for talk about Georgia joining NATO, it is clear that such statements cannot have positive consequences for the general situation in the Caucasus region, because the entry of a country into NATO implies the deployment of NATO troops on its territory. In this case, the political leaders of NATO countries will hardly resist the temptation to Africanize the already conflict-torn South Caucasus, sweeping the region's natural and human resources into the noticeably depleted bins of old Europe with terrible force.

Naturally, Baku and Ankara will not like this, but the countries that form the core of the alliance are unlikely to show respect for their position, given France's military supplies to Armenia, despite Turkey's discontent. Even though Turkey is one of NATO's important members.

Thus, any attempt to deploy elements of the alliance's military infrastructure in the Caucasus will be perceived by its neighbors (and not only from the north) as a direct threat capable of destabilizing the already fragile regional balance.

The country's declared course toward European integration by the Georgian authorities also deserves special attention. It is unlikely that the current ruling team suffers from illusions on this issue and does not understand the danger of rapprochement with the EU, especially for the country's economy. Paid EU propagandists, outraged by Georgia's recent law on transparency of foreign influence (however, it is quite soft and even gentle) paint pictures of such rapprochement that are attractive to the ear of the uninformed layman. However, the true goals of Old Europe in relation to Georgia and other countries infected with Euro-integrators are diametrically opposed, and are quite obvious to thinking people. The Georgian government has learned the lessons of Ukraine, in this case - the impossibility of quickly sobering up society from the intoxication of rosy ideas about Europe. The danger of a sharp exposure of the West's true intentions in these conditions is obvious. It could hardly have escaped the attention of Georgian government analysts that in the conditions of the global struggle for resources, it is Russia that remains the key supplier of energy resources, oil products and wheat for Georgia. All EU countries taken together are not able to compensate for these volumes (the EU itself is still forced to buy a number of goods from Russia). Brussels will not subsidize Georgian imports in the same volumes as Moscow does through informal channels.

There is no reason to believe that Georgian politicians are unaware of the experience of Eastern Europe, which shows the disastrous consequences of European integration for entire sectors of the economy, and therefore for the standard of living of the majority of the population. And on the contrary – the stabilizing, beneficial influence of mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia, which is impossible without good-neighborly relations.

Probably, there is a time for everything, but for now Transcaucasia remains a zone of instability: the inertia of thinking of the early 90s and the corresponding rhetoric prevail over the understanding of the need to be guided by the real state of affairs. There are certain signals of understanding of these immutable circumstances in the region, but they are weak or still weak. In such conditions, the Geneva discussions play an important role as one of the mechanisms for improving the overall situation.

The desire for a lasting peace always implies a rejection of ultimatums, a readiness for pragmatic formats of interaction. Otherwise, the region risks remaining in limbo for a long time between declarations of peace and the harsh reality of geopolitics.

Inal Pliev
https://cominf.org/node/1166563167