http://newcaucasus.com/ ru English Version - Newcaucasus.com | Íåçàâèñèìîå èíòåðíåò èçäàíèå http://newcaucasus.com/yandexlogo.gif http://newcaucasus.com/ DataLife Engine http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=5629 After presidents of USA and Georgia have met, the Georgian society has pinned its hope that America will help our army with the arming; this means that the defense from possible Russian aggression won’t be a problem anymore. To some extent such hope is given by some representatives of Georgian authorities. Several statements by the president Saakashvili made simultaneously after the meeting with president Obama laid down the foundation for this. English Version Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:32:48 +0400 After presidents of USA and Georgia have met, the Georgian society has pinned its hope that America will help our army with the arming; this means that the defense from possible Russian aggression won’t be a problem anymore. To some extent such hope is given by some representatives of Georgian authorities. Several statements by the president Saakashvili made simultaneously after the meeting with president Obama laid down the foundation for this. Having analyzed these statements, we may conclude the following: If America has helped Georgia with preparation and arming of the military contingent to send for peacemaking mission ISAF to Afghanistan so far then from now on the military-technical cooperation of the two countries will stipulate the significant increase of self-defense of Georgia on the whole. Moreover, the president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, addressing Georgian soldiers in Afghanistan in the province Helmand even claimed that USA would help Georgia in defense of the latter’s territories. According to him, USA will not only help in holding operations and anti-terrorist activities as it has been lately but also in strengthening the defense capability. “This is a brand-new level in the training of our Military Forces”, - stated president Saakashvili. So, the question is what new can American side offer? If it has been helping with military staff in the military academies of USA, then now it is logical to assume a transfer of some kinds of arms of defensive character into the ownership of Georgian Army. This issue is being talked over much. Even in 2008 in a few days after the end of the August war two American congressmen stated while in Georgia that America will definitely give Georgia antitank and antiaircraft emplacements. American mobile zenithal-rocket complex “Stinger” and antitank rocket guided by missile complex “Javelin” - these are “representatives” of the simple armament mastering of which should not present much difficulties for Georgian Army. The word “simple” in this case means not difficult principle of action of the complex – “shoot and forget”, in other words, an operator guides the rocket onto the target and launches it. Here his mission is over. The system of thermal aiming, set in the head of a missile, “tracks down” “hot” parts – engines of planes (in this case – of “Stringers”) or tanks (“Javelins”). Antiaircraft complex “Stinger” can launch a missile maximum from 4800 meters towards the object flying on the height 180-3800 meters. These are namely those heights that Russian attack helicopters Mi-24 and battle planes Su-25 cruised at during the August war of 2008. Transportable antitank missile complex ‘Javelin’ is designated for warfare activities against armoured technics of the enemy from the maximal distance of 2500 meters. Unlike other complexes of similar type, cumulative charge of ‘Javelin’ rocket strikes the tops part of the enemy’s tank, in the place where armour is significantly thinner than in any other part. This factor is to be considered as Russia’s Ministry of Defense has already dislocated relatively more modernized types of tanks T-90A on the territory of the 7th occupied base in Abkhazia, whose front armour is more durable, rather than of those outdated T-72 types, yet, the top armour remains the same. The Russian T-90A has got one more nuance to bear in mind: they are equipped with the complex of optic-electronic suppressing of ‘Shtora -1’, designed to reverse antitank rockets controlled by laser rays. Whereas, American system of thermal aiming of ‘Javelin’ of the passive activity and the Russian ‘Shtora-1’ is not able to interfere with its aiming. American ‘Stingers’ and ‘Javelins’ could strengthen defense of the Georgian Army. However, they cannot become a panacea and provide a complete protection to Georgia if a new war with Russia outbreaks. Why? ‘Stingers’ are helpless against Russian bombers at the altitude of more than 4 km. Meanwhile, Russian bombers (fronting Su-24M and long-haul type Tu-22M3) attacked Georgian strategic objects (including airfield Kopitnari) in August 2008 from the same altitude and above. Consequently, it would be more reasonable if American military aid took into consideration echeloned defense of Georgia’s air space. If ‘Stingers’ can ‘block’ the air space at the distance of approximately 5 km and at the altitude of 4 km, then more powerful antiaircraft mountings, say ‘Patriots’, are able to defend Georgian air space almost entirely. Multifunctional radiolocator of the ‘Patriot’ anti-aircraft system can set the target at the distance of 70 to 180 km (at 70 km distance missile warheads are spotted, at 100 km – rockets, at 130 km – fighters, and at 180 – a bigger bomber), and simultaneously accompanies 125 targets. The anti-aircraft missile, itself, can hit aerodynamic targets at the altitude of 24 km and up to 80 km away. This tactic and technological characteristic proves that anti-aircraft systems ‘Patriot’ dislocated in West and East Georgia (for example, in Poti, Senaki, Kutaisi, Gori, Tbilisi, Marneuli, and Telavi) can provide a reliable defense of the Georgian air space. However, there are some buts… As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Defense of Russia has based supersonic systems of volley firing ‘Smerch’, and, presumably, operative-tactic missile complexes ‘Point-U’ on the territory of the 4th occupied base in Tskhinvali. ‘Smerch’ launches its 12 missiles (with the caliber of each 300 mm and weight of 800 kg) aiming at the maximum distance of 70 km (more modernized ones – up to 90 km), meaning that they can easily reach Tbilisi fired from the occupied Akhali Gori region. There will not be enough ‘Patriot’ missiles to reverse an attack of at least one troop of ‘Smerch’, considering the fact that in order to destroy each ‘Smerch’ missile two or more ‘Patriot’ missiles should be launched. The same could be said about operative-tactical missiles of ‘Point-U’, which are launched at the maximum distance of 120 km and are very difficult to trap. Therefore, I will repeat myself, considering purchase of American weapon cannot be considered as panacea against Russian aggression. On the contrary, if official Tbilisi decides to obtain American armours at the global market prices, Georgian budget will not be able to afford it. For instance, one missile of the ‘Javelin’ system costs more than seventy-five thousand dollars, ‘Stinger’ is even more expensive, and ‘Patriot’ is not even worth talking about. Albeit, if American party manifests a good will and bargains defense armaments to the Georgian party for a symbolic price, it is another case. Nonetheless, there is a feeling that the White House is scrutinizing the current political affairs, and, most likely, is not going to hurry to rearm the Georgian Armed Forces. By the way, on the 17th of February Giga Bokeria, the secretary of the Department of National Defense of Georgia, claimed that a group of representatives of the relevant US establishments were going to visit Georgia to negotiate the country’s defense improvement. ‘The Georgian side would like Americans to aid Georgia not only in supplying armaments, but also in training Georgian troops. The society will be informed in more detail upon completion of the set tasks’, - reported Bokeria. Irakli Aladashvili, editor in chief, military-analytical magazine ‘Arsenali’ (Georgia), for newcaucasus.com http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=5557 There may be sanctions for Iran, but who is going to fill in the pipelines then? The deal concluded by Russian and Azerbaijani energy holdings, made Nabucco prospects look still vaguer. One of the few options for the Southern Corridor, bypassing Russia, remains Shah Deniz II, in which the National Iran Oil Company has a stake. Consequently, EU wants the stability in the region to last, says Fabio Indeo, political researcher at the University of Camerino (Italy) in his interview to newcaucasus.com. English Version Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:57:20 +0400 There may be sanctions for Iran, but who is going to fill in the pipelines then? The deal concluded by Russian and Azerbaijani energy holdings, made Nabucco prospects look still vaguer. One of the few options for the Southern Corridor, bypassing Russia, remains Shah Deniz II, in which the National Iran Oil Company has a stake. Consequently, EU wants the stability in the region to last, says Fabio Indeo, political researcher at the University of Camerino (Italy) in his interview to newcaucasus.com. Do you think that, a deal between Gazprom and SOCAR on doubling gas supply from Azerbaijan, to 3 bln m3, with future increase, Russia can consider the idea of Nabucco discarded, at least for a time? - Russian attempts to deepen energy cooperation with Azerbaijan are clearly geopolitically motivated because aimed to weaken a potential implementation of the EU-backed Southern energy corridor. However the Socar-Gazprom deal only represents another evident signal of the Nabucco project growing weakness, because currently the economic and geopolitical rationale of this energy corridor appears seriously affected by the idea to develop a Southern East Europe Pipelines and mainly the deal on the Trans Anatolian Gas Pipeline. The implementation of these projects and the others which Baku has decided to support (TAGP, BTE, the AGRI project based on LNG option, the interconnector ITGI, the Trans Adriatic Pipeline) will deprive Nabucco of the necessary amount of gas moreover, the lack of Turkmenistan's strong commitment to support the EU Southern energy Corridor is destined to delay or to definitively stop the EU ambitions in the Caspian energy game. In 2011, Turkmenistan has increased it oil exports through Baku- Tbilisi – Ceyhan from 1,17 to 2,24 mln tonnes (around 50% of its total oil expots in 2011). Could this mean that BTC could become an option of choice for Turkmenistan in the midterm? I believe that Turkmenistan's decision to participate in the BTC oil pipeline could be interpreted according to different perspectives. Firstly the economic-geographic one, because Turkmen oil production and exports are limited and located on the shelves of the Caspian Sea: consequently, Ashgabat can easily exploit this opportunity, enhancing its position in a relevant energy corridor towards European markets. Secondly, Turkmenistan's participation in BTC could be explained by the will to show a cooperation approach in the Caspian region with two important players, Azerbaijan and the West (EU and US): the aim to achieve with Baku is linked to the achievement of a deal on the disputed Serdar-Kapaz offshore oil field and to have a common position concerning the Caspian settlement. Moreover, Ashgabat's oil exports towards BTC would represent a first stage of concrete energy cooperation with the West, even because the BTC was the first “pillar” of the East-West energy corridor launched at the end of 90's. Why do the EU officials turned to the US to fence Shah Deniz II against possible sanctions against Iran, who has a 10% stake in the project? Can this affect the bilateral relations between Baku and Tehran? This European Union position towards US sanction against Iran clearly reflects the realpolitik approach of the EU in the region, mainly based on the needs of its energy security. In the EU perspective Shah Deniz II has a strategic relevance for the EU energy security strategy, mainly because 10 bcm of gas (of the planned 16 bcm which will be extracted from this field by 2017) represent the only source committed to the realization of the Southern corridor. The strengthening of the EU energy security by means of a pipeline bypassing Russian territory and Gazprom control – in order to lessen EU dependency from Russian imports – is also a strategic goal of the US, which consequently support EU attempts in this issue. Moreover also a potential expulsion of NIOC by the Shah Deniz consortium is unlikely to happen, in order to avoid the risk of a temporary stop of the operations to begin the gas extraction and exports. Lastly, all geopolitical players involved in the region will surely seek to avoid a deterioration of Iranian-Azeri relations for several and often colliding strategies, but mostly linked to the need to maintain a condition of security and stability in order to preserve energy routes of exports (Turkey, EU, Azerbaijan, China, Central Asian nations, Russia). Do you think that after the clashes at Zhanaozen in December 2011, Kazakhstan has managed to preserve its appeal both as an investment-friendly country in energy sector, and as a potential participant of Nabucco? The riots in Zhanaozen and the other terrorist attacks occurred this year have undoubtedly damaged the image of stability which Kazakhstan has offered in these twenty years of independence. In my opinion the attractiveness of Kazakhstan for financial investments is not under discussion even because these threats to the stability are expression of social discontent and of economic distortions which must be coherently addressed, using the huge wealth deriving from oil exports to support an equitable growth of the country. In addition, the multi vector policy adopted by the President Nazarbayev has allowed several geopolitical players and international energy companies to obtain strategic concessions in the Kazakh energy field: it is evident that their main goal will be to preserve a condition of stability in order to achieve their aims. Concerning the Kazakh potential participation in Nabucco, I believe that it is interesting to consider that this project is not the only option for Kazakh gas exports: the enhancement of the China-Central Asia gas pipeline capacity (better known as the Sino-Turkmen pipeline), the projects involving Azerbaijan both like an export hub and energy supplier, maybe the TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline) are relevant alternatives to take into consideration. Aram Gareginyan, for newcaucasus.com Photo from personal archive http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=5548 The possibility to utilize the Georgian territory to attack Iran by USA militaries is often discussed in various mass media. They say that after USA makes attack from the territory of Georgia, Teheran will respond by bombing Tbilisi. English Version Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:49:40 +0400 The possibility to utilize the Georgian territory to attack Iran by USA militaries is often discussed in various mass media. They say that after USA makes attack from the territory of Georgia, Teheran will respond by bombing Tbilisi. However, taking into consideration that Georgia doesn’t have common border with Iran then it is impossible to attack Iran from Georgia directly – it will be necessary to “use” air domain of neighboring Armenia and Azerbaijan. According to tactics of American and Israeli air forces, it is much more advantageous to administer pointed strikes on the objects of strategic importance in the Northern part of Iran from the territory of South Caucasus. In order to reach Northern part of Iran from Azerbaijan by bombers 3-5 minutes are needed. And American “Super Hornets”, taking off from the drifting in Persian Gulf aircraft carrier, will need no less than 2 hours (in the meantime Iranian radars can easily trace them and open zenithal fire). It’s unlikely that USA will use air domain over South Caucasus. The point is that there are 2 divisions of anti-aircraft rocket systems of C-300B type plus 8 launchers of C-30PM type of Armenian Army based on the territory of 102 Russian military base in Giumri. 18 fighters MIG-29 (2 of them are always on the lookout) that belong to Russian Air forces are on the Erevan aerodrome. Powerful Russian radio locating station (RLS) of “Darial” type operates in Azerbaijan city Gabala that informs Moscow about what’s going on in the air space of not only Azerbaijan and Iran but also Iraq and India. Effective working radius of the station – approximately 6000km. RLS allows not only to launch rockets but also trace their trajectory that gives possibility to use antimissiles to neutralize threats. Relatively modern radio-electronic and zenithal-rocket complexes of mean and short-range (including ZRK “BUK-M1”) are brought to the territory of self-proclaimed South Ossetia. However, in order to bring more powerful ZRK C-300 through Russian tunnel, the Russian Army will need only a few hours. The division of zenithal-rocket systems of C-300PM type is dislocated on the territory of self-declared Abkhazia, which can be transferred from Gudauta to Gali in 3-4 hours. So what do we have? Radio locating stations, radio-electronic means of reconnaissance, zenithal-rocket systems and fighters at disposal of 102nd military base in Giumri, 7th Abkhazian and 4th Tskhinvali occupational bases of south military region of Russia can fully control and block air space of South Caucasus especially from the Black Sea towards Georgia-Azerbaijan. Pentagon is well aware of this. They know that as soon as American bombers appear in the air domain of Georgia, Russian General Staff immediately will inform their Iranian colleagues. As a result, the effect of suddenness will not be successful. And even in any state of things, the USA President will not run the risk and expose his pilots to the hazard of Russian anti-aircraft guns. As they say, every cloud has a silver lining: coming from the above-mentioned, Georgia will not go down in history as a country, the air domain of which was used to attack Iran. Nevertheless, if Tbilisi joins to anti-Iranian coalition, Teheran will possibly consider Georgia as enemy. Should we, in this case, expect attack from Iran on countries-members of coalition including Georgia? The distance between the borders of Iran and Georgia – 160km., to the center of Tbilisi – 215km., and this excludes the possibility to use gun artillery and rocket systems of volley fire by Iran. Air forces of Iran are armed with 13 storm-troopers Cy-25 (by the way, they were assembled in Tbilisi aircraft factory, 7 of them flew to Iran from Iraq) and 30 front bombers Cy-24MK that will easily fly from Iran to Georgia. However, this is doubtful coming from the factor of existence of Russian military base in Giumri. Yes, Kremlin opposes the hypothetical attack of the West to Iran but it will never let military planes of Iran fly over air domain of South Caucasus as it reckons the region the sphere of its influence. It seems more dangerous that Iran has ballistic rockets. Due to the trajectory of rocket flight (the highest point of trajectory is more than 50-70km) their detection is rather difficult. And their shooting down is much more difficult. Iran possesses ballistic rockets of tactical and theatre-of-war purpose, “Shakhabs” of various modifications. The radius of their operation varies between 300-350km (“Shakhab-1”) and up to 1500km (Shakhab-3”). That’s why any of them can easily fly from Iran to Georgia. Although it is rather doubtful that Iran will spend its scant supply of ballistic rockets on Georgia. Besides it chose more significant goals on the territory of Israel and countries of Middle East, where American military bases are located. If we don’t stop Iran then in the nearest 3-5 years (if not earlier) it will have nuclear warheads equivalent to the explosion of 10-20 kiloton of trotyl at its disposal, which “Shakhab-3” or a ballistic rocket of more advanced type will transfer without any difficulties in a few minutes to Israel in 1000 km from Iran. Hence, it is clear that Israel tries to prevent Iran from getting nuclear warheads by means of preventive air strikes and diversions (killing Iranian physicists and rocketeers). If it were not for the prohibitive policy of USA, Israel would have already attacked Iran. Presumably the military aviation of Israel will still undertake an effort to suddenly attack Iranian atomic and rocket targets, control units of air defense, positions of rocket complexes and others by air. It may well be that Israel may attack Iran through air domain of Iraq as after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime the air defense of Iraq almost doesn’t function. The USA will definitely support Israel and for this it will use the possibilities of drifting in the Persian Gulf of the 5th operating fleet. It’s noteworthy that the 3rd atomic aircraft carrier (USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is already bound to the Persian Gulf that will join with two aircraft carriers there and this will become the final stage of preparation to attack Iran. It seems as Israel and USA have different directions to fulfill air strikes on atomic and rocket targets of Iran so that not to use air domain of South Caucasus and Georgia. And Georgia should be afraid of radioactive clouds more than Iranian ballistic rockets in case of destruction of Iranian atomic targets. Irakli Aladashvili, editor-in-chief of military-analytical magazine “Arsenali” (Georgia), for newcaucasus.com newcaucasus.com collage http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=5539 Russian-Georgian relations, maintaining contacts between representatives of civil societies of the two countries, prospects of conflict settlement and assessment of the possibility of a new war – these and many other issues are discussed by Andrey Kalikh, director of human rights and anti-corruption programs of the Russian Center of democratic development in his exclusive interview to newcaucasus.com. English Version Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:01:42 +0400 Russian-Georgian relations, maintaining contacts between representatives of civil societies of the two countries, prospects of conflict settlement and assessment of the possibility of a new war – these and many other issues are discussed by Andrey Kalikh, director of human rights and anti-corruption programs of the Russian Center of democratic development in his exclusive interview to newcaucasus.com. - What, in your opinion, is the foreign policy of Russia towards Georgia? - It seems to me as if there is no foreign policy towards Georgia. All relations are frozen, there is no diplomatic relations; borders are blocked and the passing is limited. Russian Foreign Office doesn’t have any strategy towards Georgia and people there do not know what to do with this conflict. Especially considering the events taking place in Russia itself – presidential elections, inevitable change of presidents, or as we call it – reshuffle, when not only foreign policy towards Georgia is frozen but also domestic policy is stuck; no decisions are taken until a new President’s appointment. Nobody knows what a new President is longing for. The same is with policy towards Georgia. Anyway we continue exchanging tough statements. The situation reminds of a serious foreign-policy confrontation, cold war and stringency between two countries as if the matter is about two really equal enemies. For example, between Russia and USA or Russia and European Union. In this case it is a matter of little Georgia. Moreover, foreign policy is based on the propagandistic myth – any foreign-policy activities of Georgia are assessed as anti-Russian. Also, unfortunately, vice versa – Georgian officials react, to my mind, too hard and to no purpose concerning inadequate statements of our leaders. One could observe permanent squabbles, piquing and provocation. Unfortunately, both sides keep up provocations and yield to provocative actions as well. - Do you think that vectors of foreign policy of Russia and Georgia are similar to each other? - Russia must become the country that will take the first step towards peace and decrease of stringency. Georgia has done much in this direction. There was a promise that conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia won’t be settled in an armed manner. There were statements concerning the readiness for a dialogue from the side of administration of the President Saakashvili. Liberalization of a visa system, especially towards citizens of the North Caucasus, - is a very grave step towards meeting. There are almost no return steps from the side of Russia. Georgian citizens haven’t been given Russian visas recently, now the situation has changed a little bit. The hostile rhetoric continues to dominate in speeches of official representatives of both countries; and militarization of the region – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – is continuing. I reckon that the conflict is maintained artificially and is stirred up by harsh and provocative statements and responses from both sides. This situation is artificial namely in the fact that Georgia and Russia aren’t enemies. This is an artificial conflict, having arisen from the remnants of Soviet Imperia and Soviet unsolved problems. And instead of making honest joint efforts to settle this conflict we are observing the reversed process when the conflict is puffed up… - What is the attitude of civil society of Russia towards the war of 2008 and recognition of independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia? - The civil society’s attitude towards the worsening of Russian-Georgian relations is bitterly negative due to the fact that the war was preceded by the worsening of relations in 2006-2007, deportation of citizens according to their nationality. In other words there was a whole chain of conflicts, the culmination of which became a war… Unfortunately, the war represents a big episode of confrontation between two countries. I remember when in 2006 during the demonstration on the Pushkin Square in Moscow I myself was walking with a sign: “I’m Georgian” and there were lots of people like me. Worsening of Georgian-Russian relations was being assessed in the context of the common growth of anti-Putin criticism from the side of the civil society and considering the most powerful growth of hurrah-patriotism in Russia. The propaganda machinery has been working nonstop over persuading the Russian society that Georgia is a little aggressive state bought by America and that the West is standing behind; that the enemies attacked our citizens in South Ossetia and stuff like this, which in reality was only propagandist myth. However, the civil society hasn’t been watching TV for a long time; it gets information from other sources. The delusion was obvious, a huge state deception, and, of course, we have all understood that it was our fault as well. We understood that we had little contact with the Georgian civil society; we had little connection with Georgian non-governmental sector; we gave little consideration to those processes that were on in Georgian society as we had too much to do in our own country. I well remember that immediately after the 5-days’ war the Russian-Georgian dialogue was intensified and new contacts arose simultaneously. There weren’t direct flights and I, for instance, reached Georgia in 2009 through Istanbul, and many others – through Kiev. And if earlier we weren’t aware of Georgia, then after war there was a strong demand to get to know Georgia better, see our Georgian friends, find out how they live. We were getting more information; we started to read more from Georgian sources. It’s strange but namely due to this conflict, Georgia became more recognizable to the world. In this particular case Russia of course lost in its propagandist war; approval of Russian activities has been decreased in the world and the Russian image has received a terrible impact. In the aspect of propaganda, Georgia has won and Russia, vice versa, - has lost. If we abstract away from the civil society, then, on the whole, the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia hasn’t caused craze among Russians neither in negative nor in positive aspect. There was hysteria from the side of pro-Kremlin organizations: “Look, we were right to stand up for little but proud states!” Russia recognized their independence but this entailed aggravation of relations with the rest of the world: USA and EU. Due to this recognition we were left alone again. The escalation of the conflict around South Ossetia and Abkhazia took place far from Georgian borders. Not without reason one of the famous Russian experts, the head of the Union of Foreign Defensive Policy, Sergey Karaganov after the conflict was writing with bitterness in his article that he is very sorry but there is no chance to push “the nuclear bludgeon” in the backyard of the history. And when various island states like Nauru and Tuvalu after the dictatorial Venezuela began recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia then the “total fascination” and the feeling of disgrace came at once. We were ashamed for our country. And this feeling has remained with us till now. When I participate in various meetings or conferences, I’m frequently asked in the lobby: ”what other island states have recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia?” People are sincerely laughing. And I, as a citizen of Russia, really feel shamed… - Is there any danger of escalation of Russian-Georgian conflict taking into consideration growing oppositional protest and oncoming presidential elections in Russia? - I don’t think so. The country has changed, the situation has changed. The war isn’t popular any more neither for Russian society nor for Georgian one. Moreover, I suspect that authorities are ashamed for this war as well, and they are trying to make excuse. During the last anniversary of the war, the President Medvedev was giving interview to three channels including Georgian PIK. Certainly the military rhetoric has been raised, but, on the whole, it seemed as if he was making excuses. The same with Putin. In one of his last speech, while discussing the reasons of the invasion of Russian troops into Georgia, he repeated one phrase four times: What else could we do? When a psychologist is observing Putin on TV, he definitely sees that the latter is making excuses; that he feels uneasy; that he wants the world community to forget about this as soon as possible. The Russian authorities are likely not to put up a Georgian card. They’d rather leave everything as it is until elections. According to those events that are taking place now, I don’t think that conflict escalation is possible. However, it may well be so. - And how does Georgia use the card of outer enemy represented by Russia? - Undoubtedly, the foreign-policy card is being put up by the Georgian side as well. Antagonistic rhetoric or rhetoric of besieged fortress takes place here. Unfortunately, Georgia is far from being an example of political suspension and patience, permanently losing its temper and yielding to provocation of Kremlin. When the conflict is fading away itself the reaction in a spirit of “The same to you!” only slows down its settlement. It would be nice if Georgia would show wisdom and not bellicosity. It is difficult to expect the same from upper echelon of Russia but Georgia has all chances to show its worth. Remember the same during the negotiations concerning WTO. As a result, Georgia has only won due to the decision to override a veto for Russia to enter this organization. - Have you participated in the project “Dialogue between Russian and Georgian professionals” where Russian group has met with Georgian state officials, ministers, representatives of non-governmental organizations and experts? To what extent could these kind of projects influence on the improvement of Russian-Georgian relations in the time when contacts are frozen on the highest level? - The whole point is that, namely in this epoch when official contacts are frozen we have this unique way of similar meetings and exchanges. This is the only thing we can do now. The people’s diplomacy is a wonderful tool to prevent conflicts. And in this particular case, as it seems to me, this works perfectly. And, I hope, other Russian participants of the program have three main impressions: First – it’s a continuation of reforms; sharp economic growth despite the conflict and high level of social-political activities. The observations and impressions cause discussions in our group. We, observing what’s going on in your country, take this discussion further to Russia; we will discuss what we have seen and heard here with our colleagues. Not everything is true that is presented by our media. Second, a very essential result – is that we want to do something together; possibilities of further cooperation and joint projects are being discussed. We can clearly see the desire for communication, the desire to understand each other from the 10 days’ dialogue between Georgian and Russian participants. The key word here I would name amicability from both sides. We were surprised to see such benevolence from the Georgian side after all that had happened between our countries. People were happy to hear Russian speech on the streets. Russian songs were sung in cafes and restaurants especially for us. I was once shocked and captivated when a taxi-driver in Tbilisi turned off the radio and turned on the Russian song. After this particular project we became bearers of friendly relations towards Georgia in Russia. Third key result – significant observations on discussions among Georgian participants that reflect the existence of the intensive social discourse concerning the way of reforms. And opinions of state officials and social activists, to put it mildly, not always match. - Representatives of Georgian civil society try to find common language with Abkhazian and South Ossetian societies for a long time. There is an opinion that we need to talk one-to-one. Do you think there is a chance that Russian civil sector can play its role concerning this situation? - Russia has an enormous pain – North Caucasus. This is painful for the state, for its internal and foreign policies, for human rights and for democratic development. This is a huge factor, influencing on our further development. The corrupted supreme-authoritarian regimes in some Northern Caucasus regions do not let democracy and economics develop not only in the regions themselves but also in Russia as a whole. This affects the mode of life of the whole country. Coming from this, the problem of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for the Russian society is not so important considering common North Caucasian problems. We still have pending problems on other borders, in particular, with Poland and Moldova. All these problems, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia need to be solved quickly when the power changes in Russia at last. We all remember Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but the life of all little quasi-state regimes on the post-Soviet space will continue as long as the Putin system exists. There are many challenges and it’s not only Caucasus. These are growing tension and discontent in the society over the problem with democracy. It’s important to achieve conduction of honest and clear elections and change this regime peacefully. This is our top priority task. When it is solved, when the power in Russia becomes more democratic, when we have normal parliament only then, unfortunately, we will have strengths to come and help you in real settlements of those conflicts. - What should Georgia do to establish good relations and to throw a bridge of trust with Abkhazia and South Ossetia? - The main thing Georgia should do – is to do nothing. Namely, it should develop, sail its own boat, and as we have already talked about show patience and wisdom. In this sense I’m in prayer for Georgian democracy, its development and that democratic social discourse will be able to keep the Georgian authorities from hasty actions. I would like nothing better for Georgia than consolidation around democracy and not around the conflict. I would wish Georgia not to yield to provocations and to watch for what’s going on in Russia as namely we, today, represent young democracy not you. This is us that start everything over again and now those events that were taking place in your country in 2003 are happening now here in our country. I wish you to be benevolent, selfless and patient. I want you to demonstrate advantages of democracy, transparency and to influence on the actions taken by authorities. This is a truly high mission of any civil society. Irakli Chikhladze, for newcaucasus.com Photo I.Chikhladze http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=5341 Consideration of claims for the assignment of status of the repatriate to Meskhetian Moslems, deported in 1944, is still in process in Georgia. At present, out of 9 thousand requests, the status of the repatriate was granted to 105 Meskhetians by the Ministry of Refugees of Georgia. English Version Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:52:34 +0400 Consideration of claims for the assignment of status of the repatriate to Meskhetian Moslems, deported in 1944, is still in process in Georgia. At present, out of 9 thousand requests, the status of the repatriate was granted to 105 Meskhetians by the Ministry of Refugees of Georgia. A special operation on deportation of the local Muslim population in Meskheti region of South Georgia was set at night, November 15th, 1944. Soviet authorities brought units of the National Ministry of Interior Affairs to the region. From 125 to 144 thousand people – children, women, old men - were taken from 220 villages and wagons transported to various republics of Central Asia in army trucks and cattle. Few thousand people perished from hunger and illnesses during the journey... In 63 years, on July 11th, 2007, the law on repatriation of people forcefully deported from Georgian Soviet Socialistic Republic in the forties of XX-th century was passed at last. According to this law, any person deported from Georgia against his or her will, had the right for repatriation. Along with Meskhetians this right was given to Kurds-Moslems, Hamshils (Armenians-Moslems) and Karapapakhis, who had resided in Georgia until 1944. The question on Meskhetian repatriation has been lifted during presentation of book “Meskhetians: a way home...” in Tbilisi. Publication of this book was arranged by ECMI with the assistance of the European Union in the frameworks of the program «Support repatriation of deported from Georgia and their descendants in 1940». The book was issued in Georgian, English and Russian languages simultaneously. The book contained general data on why Meskhetian Moslems were deported from their native land and on their continuing struggle to return home. One of the book authors, head of regional ECMI office, Tom Trier has declared that the primary goal of this book is to cause discussion in society concerning the process of Meskhetians returning back to Georgia. ”Information given in the book can become a basis for a full analysis, on the grounds that many don't have information on the situation at all,” says Tom Trier. However, Meskhetians residing in Georgia still assume that the state pays insufficient attention to this theme. “First of all, we insist on practical execution of “Law on repatriation”, accepted by parliament in 2007”, - says the chairman of International Meskhetian Congress, Sandro Khozrevanidze. To receive the status of a repatriate person, it is necessary to collect data that a person himself or his/her ancestors were forcefully moved from Georgia, along with certificates about his family composition, physical health and the absence of previous conviction. All these documents in Georgian or English are to be submitted to embassies or consulates of Georgia on the territory of a residing country. The representative of the International Union of Deported "Meskheti”, Iso Molidze, considers that the abovementioned law apparently states impracticable conditions. As one of them he specifies the requirement to present the certificate of the origin. Molidze reminds that most of the Meskhetians were expelled from Uzbekistan in July, 1989, as a result of a market quarrel in Fergana valley. “Now they are told: go to Fergana valley and receive the document. It’s the same as demanding a house management certificate from Abkhazian refugee. Maybe he will reach the house management alive, but, things being as they are now, no one is going to bother about the document”, says Molidze bitterly. In his opinion, an identification of applicants is the state’s job, given that copies of birth certificates and other documents still remain in local archives. Due to the fact that there were no conflicts between Uzbekistan and Georgia, the demand for the required documents could be met quickly. However, a basic discontent of representatives of the Meskhetian organizations is caused by the narrow time-frame of the law. According to the first edition, accepted in 2007, it was possible to apply only from the beginning of 2008 till January 1st 2009. Following amendments prolonged the period of application until January 1st, 2010. After that, an applicant could only submit the corrected document until January 1st, 2011, if such a necessity was announced by Georgian government through its foreign offices. In two years 8900 application were filed. Only these documents will be considered by the ministry of refugees and internally displaced people of Georgia. No application for granting the status of the repatriate, submitted after January, 1st, 2010 will be accepted in consideration. Thus, the law on granting the status of the repatriate actually became the statutory act of disposable use. Once submitted applications will be examined, the law will cease to act. According to Sandro Khozrevanidze, the narrow time frames are not the only weak point of law: “First of all, Meskhetians demand for return of their Georgian citizenship. In addition, we ask for return of ancestral names, and only in the third place we’re talking about restoration of our right for property, lost in 1944". It should be noted that the law on repatriation does not give the right for returning the property on the territory of Georgia. Nor does it ease up the taxation or provide any social benefits. The only thing that the immigrant gets is Georgian citizenship. However, many experts believe it is quite a doubtful gift: by getting Georgian passport, immigrant loses citizenship, which he had owned before he decided to move to Georgia. Even today, the loss of citizenship is connected to many inconveniences. For example, deprived of citizenship of one of the CIS countries - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia or Uzbekistan, immigrant loses the right to cross borders with Russia visa-free. In short, the immigrant who decided to move to Georgia, loses all the benefits he had before applying for repatriation. After obtaining the status of the immigrant, a person must renounce citizenship of the country where he lived before, and with the loss of citizenship, loses all the rights he had in a country of former residing, such as the right to receive a pension (and in Azerbaijan or Russia, for example, pension is two or more times higher than in Georgia), as well as the right to travel to Russia visa-free. This last fact, according to the settlers, already gives a lot of inconveniences. "Many of us have relatives living in Russia, because most of those who left the Fergana Valley in Uzbekistan after the market quarrel in 1989, such as me, for example, have settled there. I was forced to appeal to the Swiss consulate to travel to Krasnodar for the funeral of a relative. To do so, I had to ask people in Krasnodar region to send a telegram explaining the reason why it was necessary for me to go. But one should be able to visit ones relatives not only because of their death! "- says immigrant Ali Eyubov. It seems that in such situation it would be much easier for Mesketians to forget about repatriation and just use a residence permit in Georgia. In fact, the owner of the residence permit has the same rights as the citizens of Georgia, except the right for social help, as well as the right to elect and be elected. But if a person really wants to become an active citizen, then, after five years of living in Georgia with a residence permit, he is automatically entitled the citizenship of Georgia, however, with the condition of loss of previous nationality. However, according to Sandro Khozrevanidze, those Meskhetians who genuinely yearn to return to Georgia have strong ethical barriers against obtaining a residence permit: "We want justice! It is very important for us that our right for Georgian nationality must be recognized. It’s a primary condition.” Khozrevanidze expresses extreme dissatisfaction with the fact that almost two years have passed since the end of filing the cases and the Ministry of Refugees has finished examining just 105 of them. This is the exact number of people given the status of immigrants. "The law on repatriation has no specified time limits for processing the applications. However, it is unclear why considering the cases of those people proceeds so slowly. We insist that the Ministry for Refugees must at last introduce some time frames for those cases. Otherwise, theoretically, they may examine applications for eternity", - says Khozrevanidze. In his turn, an employee of the Ministry of Refugees, Levan Gzobava says it was always planned to complete the review of all cases within three years, but the ministry will not accept any new applications. Theoretically, those who wish to move to Georgia, but did not apply, may do so without resorting to the law on repatriation. There are no legal obstacles to this. However, as "Open Society - Georgia" fund’s employee Malkhaz Saldadze says: “some rejection of the Meskhetians exists among few radical politicians. Of course, it is not open, and gradual integration of the settlers eventually takes place, but the initial reaction of the population is often connected with rejection.” Immigrants who settled at their own risk in Georgia since 1981, most often do not have any problems with local population, although sometimes there are cases of some tension among different ethnic groups. “And this will occur until we won't be assimilated and won’t return to our primordial cultural source — Georgian society», - tells Sandro Khozrevanidze. A well-known Georgian activist for human rights, Emil Adelkhanov believes that many won’t return for the fear of conflict with the local population. "The negative attitude towards deported is a consequence of active propaganda by nationalist forces in the early 90s. Invocation and explanatory work of the non-governmental organizations are needed in regions of Georgia”, he says. It should be noted that fears of radical Georgian politicians concerning "mass" repatriation are, at least, groundless. And one of the key indicators is the number of applications, some part of which will be obviously "rejected." Krasnodar Region is recognized by experts as one of the most disadvantaged regions for Meskhetians to reside at. Difficult living conditions were created by local authorities and Cossacks there. According to the survey, Meskhetians were named as the "enemy number one" of the region a few years ago. In 2006, about 12 000 Meskhetians were resettled from the Krasnodar Region to the United States. According to various sources, about one-two thousand of Meskhetians still remain in the region. "The rest do not want to lose Russian passports, because obtaining them was too hard. Moreover, relocation to Georgia doesn’t warrant them any better conditions than what they have today. Only old people dream of repatriation, as in their emotional memory they see Georgia as their homeland”, says former executive director of Novorossiysk Human Rights Committee, Tamara Karasteleva. It is worth noting that Meskhetian resettlement to the United States program was implemented due to the efforts of the NHRC. According to Karasteleva, Meskhetians resettled to the United States are already fully adapted to new conditions of life and most of them do not want to give up American passports. It should be added that out of 8900 applications for the repatriation just two applications were received from young Meskhetians residing at United States. Vakhtang Balavadze, for newcaucasus.com http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=5153 The leader of the National Self-Determination Union, Paruir Hayrikyan talks about his formula for democratic states, conflicts and Russian influence in the South Caucasus in an exclusive interview given tonewcaucasus.com. "Our conflicts are often infringed from outside ...initiators of the conflict pursue other goals - on the one hand, they talk about the peoples' right to self-determination, on the other -they destroy people who utter this very word," - he said. According to Hayrikyan, the region needs to get rid of foreign influence. As an example, he cites the following fact: "In Armenia, the security officer day is celebrated as a national holiday - the day of the national security of Armenia ..." English Version Sun, 09 Oct 2011 16:13:26 +0400 The leader of the National Self-Determination Union, Paruir Hayrikyan talks about his formula for democratic states, conflicts and Russian influence in the South Caucasus in an exclusive interview given tonewcaucasus.com. "Our conflicts are often infringed from outside ...initiators of the conflict pursue other goals - on the one hand, they talk about the peoples' right to self-determination, on the other -they destroy people who utter this very word," - he said. According to Hayrikyan, the region needs to get rid of foreign influence. As an example, he cites the following fact: "In Armenia, the security officer day is celebrated as a national holiday - the day of the national security of Armenia ..." - You claim that you have derived a formula by which it will be possible to raise the level of democracy in different countries ... - I have derived a formula to ensure that democracy was introduced in the figures, as often while describing a democratic situation in a country, a subjective approach is taken. When democracy is expressed arithmetically, there are only numbers to be compared. The formula was devised as a standard for measuring the level of democracy, but the same formula helps to find better forms, to reach a better level of democracy. The formula from the very beginning was based on human rights and, in particular, on the right of a citizen to be an equal participant in the democratic process. Everyone wants not just to be a participant at the election, but feel that he is an important unit of the social and political life. No votes in favor of any candidate should be left out of the process of country's government because of imperfections in the parliamentary system. In a parliament each deputy has to vote in accordance with votes he has obtained (including the ones transferred from the losing candidates), that is, in each of the parliamentary voting as many votes as the electorate which participated in the elections should be involved. Thus, a parliamentary voting becomes more similar to a referendum on the issue put to a vote, but, unlike a referendum, in matters requiring a professional approach, not the citizens are responsible, but confined deputies. Once we gave a rough diagram of the state structure. This formula reflects upon all branches of the government - executive, legislative and judicial. By combining individual requirements of all major branches of government and summarizing them in one formula, we, first of all, have obtained a result according to which we can judge the level of democracy. Secondly, we can understand where, in what sphere and what exactly hinders the development of democracy in our country. Locke and Montesquieu were talking about power separation, not for its own sake, but so that citizens could make use of the results of the struggle between different branches of government. In order to make the citizen more secure. For some reason, politicians mostly ignore these lessons and are mostly guided by their own benefit - in way which makes the government more comfortable and easier. Therefore they introduce limitations on representativeness of the parliament and rights of citizens. The people is proclaimed the supreme source of power, but often when it is actually possible to give a direct power to the people politicians are handling through the parliament, calling it a parliamentary republic. In short, this formula aims at returning people to the real incites of the democratic state, the actual separation of powers, improvement of a democratic system in their own state. Of course, the formula is not an absolute truth, but it could become one of the standards. Regardless of whether you are using a yard or meter, you are using different standards of metric measurements. One can also pay attention to the fact that those who ignore democratic principles tend to argue that they "own democracy." But when you consider that democracy is based on human rights, on equality of citizens, which is the supreme principle, the idea of national democracies shall not be speculated about. I am a politician myself, and I understand that politicians do not like to talk about it and I understand why. I think one of the biggest drawbacks is that it is allowed to talk to people about "own democracy." Let's look at specific examples: the British and Dutch systems of democracy. They differ from each other. A culture of tolerance, respect for human rights culture is at such a high level, that the sustainability of one of these democracies, particularly British one, is not clear at first. The most important thing is to understand that democracy is based on human rights and that any democratic system must first of all be able to ensure equality of all the citizens, not only on election days, but during the entire period between elections, during the entire process of democratic institutions. In two words, the formula is apt at measuring the level of democracy in a state and with its help go back to the forgotten principles found in the works of Montesquieu. - What is the level of democracy in South Caucasian countries, as measured by your formula? - With this formula it is very easy to measure the level in various states. I have created the formula, but I haven't taken the liberty to measure the level of democracy. American experts have conducted their measurements, which showed that we have a deplorable situation. Georgia, until recent changes to the Constitution was, at least according to this formula, a democracy of larger scale as compared to the state of democracy in Georgia after the changes, since the executive branch used to be elected directly by the people. Today, after constitutional changes based on some unidentifiable European models, Georgia, which could have been an example for Azerbaijan and Armenia, is backwards. With regard to Armenia and Azerbaijan, democracy is not the highest value for Azerbaijani and Armenian politicians. They may occasionally rant about this, but I see that democracy in Armenia is just a meaningless word. The essence of this concept is of no interest to anyone and there is no desire to turn Armenia into a democratic state. The same thing is happening in Azerbaijan, which perfectly uses the Karabakh conflict, forced on us back in the 20s of the last century, which back then was stirred up also by Mikhail Gorbachev. By the way, conflicts are often used to justify the shortcomings of existing democratic systems. - In Armenia parliamentary elections will take place in 2012. Will your party participate in them? - We have not yet decided. We did not participate in the last so-called elections because it was clear beforehand that there would be no elections. A massive purchase and bribing of votes was undertaken in an open and upfront fashion. A variety of governmental agencies were used in order to introduce as many civil servants as possible in the so-called "Republican Party". Neither I nor any of my colleagues saw any sense in participating in elections in such format.2012 is unlikely to host elections in Armenia in the true sense of the word, but we are ready to turn this process into an action. We have already applied for the elections and urged other political forces to join us. We are ready to achieve a parliamentary majority with joint forces and then pass a law on a full-fledged democracy, to amend the Constitution in order to increase the frequency of elections, and then dissolve the parliament and hold real elections. This is our program and we are ready to unite with other political forces or start a new movement on the civil level. Thus, there are two options - either to unite parties, or to start a civil movement to democratize Armenia. We consider these elections as the first step towards democratization of Armenia and as soon as constitutional changes are introduced, we will simultaneously hold a referendum on constitutional reforms and will adopt a new election law. In the new parliamentary system, not a single vote of a citizen who took part in the elections will be lost. All the votes will reach the parliament and all the votes will be taken into account at every parliamentary voting. Next elections will be held according to the new system, and if our idea will be supported, Armenia will have no head. Constitution will become the head of state; there will be executive authorities elected for a maximum of three years, an elected parliament, either by proportion or by majority, but with multiple members, not to lose any vote. The parliament will also be elected for a maximum of three years, preferably for two years. The institute of jury and constitutional judges will be restored, and the judges of the second echelon will also be elected. These changes will make Armenia a democratic state and citizens will feel themselves the masters of their country, not the tool in the hands of politicians. In this case, we will participate in the elections, otherwise it makes no sense to fight against wind mills. I understand that I have managed to make Armenia a multi-party country. Previously Armenia had communists and our party. The parties Dashnaktsutun and Republican Party were revived in Armenia on the basis of our movement, and before them - the National Self-Determination party, and even before that - The National United Party. But that time has already passed, children were born and now we have to work with them. But if children fell under the influence of the KGB, it is the biggest problem ... Our political system should be free from the secret system, first of all - from the KGB. - In your opinion, what will it give to the country? - Many experts believe that the development of post-Soviet countries is largely connected precisely with this problem. Countries that got rid of the KGB agents, like the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe, today are in a very different political, moral and psychological condition than those that are still under the influence of the KGB agents, sometimes even in the open ... As an example, I want to note that the security officer day in Armenia is celebrated as a national holiday - the day of the national security of Armenia. It is not even only shameful, but also frustrating for most of its citizens. How is it possible that Armenia, which had 94 percent of votes against Bolshevism, today celebrates the national security day!? There is coincidence, it is a policy of demoralization. - You said once that it would be much easier to overcome the Soviet syndrome after the collapse of the USSR not individually but altogether, as did the Baltic countries. Do you think there is a prospect of unification of the South Caucasus? - On January 12, 1988 leaders of Ukrainian, Georgian and Armenian national democratic dissident movements gathered in Armenia. Out of 9members, five were from Armenia, two from Georgia and two – from Ukraine. Three of the nine later became national heroes in their countries. This is an exceptional case in the history of mankind, when representatives of various nations of an empire gathered, made a decision and later became national heroes in their countries. Our hero became Movses Gorgisyan, in Georgia it was Merab Kostava, in Ukraine - Vyacheslav Chornovil. That is, at first, when we only started to meet, representatives of the Baltic States were yet not with us. There were meetings in Lviv, Tbilisi, and later in Vilnius we were joined by representatives of other nationalities. We began working together. At the Prague conference, we were joined by Azerbaijanis – To fig Gasimovand the chairman of the Socialist Party, Araz Alizadeh. The Prague Conference was morally patronized by Vaclav Havel. At the conference I was re-elected president of the Coordination Center. Incidentally, the Center was founded in Paris and it was founded, though it sounds immodest - by Armenians, Georgians and Ukrainians. Later we were joined by representatives of other nations. The Centre brought together all the peoples and for many it was surprising to see Armenians and Azerbaijanis together. By the way, at the Prague conference the future Azerbaijani foreign minister Tawfiq Gasimov and future president of Armenia Robert Kocharian discussed together common challenges and adopted a joint resolution. When you struggle for the independence of your people, everything is obvious and clearly defined- we are not independent, we are not subjects of international law and we want to achieve it. Now the situation is slightly complicated by the fact that you are a subject of international law, but your power is often under the direct influence of another country. In international practice, there is no practice of transferring national property to another state for a national debt. This was organized in Armenia by authorities, Russian chauvinists, businessmen, the oligarchs. This was an impossible deal! I know that the International Monetary Fund was astonished by this information. A normal government will not allow such a disgraceful move. How can a national debt be transferred in the sum of $ 100 million which is the equivalent of 10-15 debts! Especially taking in consideration the catastrophic economic situation in Armenia. The main problem in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia is the disregard for democratic principles. That's why I have been advertising the formula in the last three or four years, hoping that we will agree on some solution, not even necessarily on the change of destruction. At first, we could become allies at the level of political parties and public organizations, as it is not even a political issue, and automatically become allies on issues regarding a huge range of problems. That is, if we have a conflict situation and we do not look at it from apolitical point of view, but only from a legal point of view, it is much easier to find a solution to the conflict. A democratic government which truly represents its people, will achieve an understanding with other peoples in a much easier way. Today when we have a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan the South Caucasus, we cannot talk about a full cooperation in the format of the region. Nowadays those who talk about our inescapable lot to live next door to each other and live in peace are almost declared traitors. The purpose of my formula is not to minimize the tension in the conflict zones, but indirectly it would lead to its resolution. If Azerbaijan realizes that the original objective is to turn its citizens into full-fledged owners of the country, that the primary task of Armenian politicians and public figures is not to help Paruir Hayrikyan, Serge Sargsyan, or Levon Ter-Petrosyan to become masters of Armenia but to make the people masters of the country which is feasible with the help of this formula, then other questions will be easier to solve. Why is it difficult to solve common problems? Today we have no general principles, we are talking about different values, different approaches. When we have common values, when the value of an individual is above all else, we can say that we live in the same space, which is common to all. The attitudes towards conflicts will change as well. In order to overcome antagonisms, it is necessary to have common values, which are human rights. When in the 80s we started to act in open, created an official opposition party - Association of the National Self-Determination, there was a Committee on Defense of Political Prisoners in Georgia. During our meetings we discussed XII-XIII centuries, when there was no independent Armenian state, but there was a general Armenian-Georgian state, what is considered time silver age of Armenian culture and the golden age of Georgian culture. We talked about what we should strive for in order to create a federal Armenian-Georgian state. Merab Kostava and I were guided by the fact that this historical experience has already taken place it paid off. Unfortunately, my deportation to Ethiopia happened later and Kostava was killed, so we failed to develop this idea. Unfortunately, our enemies could then ignite the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, but I am very happy for the Armenian-Georgian relations, despite the fact that due to objective circumstances Georgia has often been frustrated by Armenia, I am talking about close Armenian-Russian relations; in Georgia there is no intolerance. The same thing is happening in Armenia. I am pleased that the Armenian-Georgian relations are not at the mercy of international provocateurs. - Have you suggested the formula to other countries? - I offered it to the Ambassador of Georgia to Armenia. He told me that it would be nice to pass the formula to the Georgian opposition in order for them to pass it in their turn to the Georgian authorities. Then I sent an e-mail with the formula to Georgian presidential staff members. By the way, some US congressmen and academia representatives have expressed their interest in the formula. The formula managed to intrigue even Iran. - Conflicts in the South Caucasus seriously hamper the development of all our countries. In your view, is there a solution to these conflicts which will be acceptable to all parties, or are those conflicts a Gordian knot? - The world has seen many conflicts which remained in the past. At the same time, new conflicts appear. The best way is to create a situation where conflicting countries would have the same system of values. In this case, the risk of conflicts will be minimal. Some conflicts are fueled especially for political reasons. If peoples are guided by similar values that are enshrined in constitutions, then solutions will be found easier. Although I was surprised to learn that Georgia intends to change the number of deputies, as it was announced that the referendum was held not on the whole territory of the country which is considered a ground for the invalidity of results. According to this logic, the parliament is not parliament and the president is not a president ... The constitution must be sacred. External conflicts often begin because in their own country people do not treat their constitution, nor human rights with due respect. Unscrupulousness leads to lawlessness. Our conflicts are often infringed from outside, but they are infringed exactly because initiators of the conflict pursue other goals - on the one hand, they talk about the peoples' right to self-determination, on the other - they destroy people who utter this very word. The European Union for us represents an exemplary reconciliation of contradictions. When people say, Armenians, realize that they are representatives and citizens not only of Armenia, but also of the whole world and the attitude towards the value system will change and the same will happen in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and desirably as soon as possible in Russia , then many problems which result in conflicts will automatically disappear. I did not invent anything new with my formula; I just brought to the logical end the idea of equality of citizens. We have the example, experience of the European Union and we have to adhere to the principles of equality even more than the Europeans themselves. When we talk about freedom, we must remember that we need a freedom from external pressure and external provocations. For example, when Armenians talk about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, they remember the protection of Russia. I believe that the conflict must be resolved either under the auspices of the international community, or without any patronization at all, and surely not under the auspices of Russian, American or Turkish influences. Irakli Chikhladze, for newcaucasus.com Photo by newcaucasus.com http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=4643 The President of the Center of Political and Economic Research “Far Centre,” ex-ambassador of Azerbaijan in Russia, Khikmet Gajiadze tells newcaucasus.com of the influence of events in Arab countries on Azerbaijan, perils of the recommencement of Karabachos conflict and the role of Russia in exclusive interview. According to the expert, Karabachos conflict could be settled when Armenia becomes independent from Russia and Azerbaijan becomes a democratic state. English Version Fri, 20 May 2011 23:55:39 +0400 The President of the Center of Political and Economic Research “Far Centre,” ex-ambassador of Azerbaijan in Russia, Khikmet Gajiadze tells newcaucasus.com of the influence of events in Arab countries on Azerbaijan, perils of the recommencement of Karabachos conflict and the role of Russia in exclusive interview. According to the expert, Karabachos conflict could be settled when Armenia becomes independent from Russia and Azerbaijan becomes a democratic state. - Did the Arab revolutions have an effect upon the situation in Azerbaijan; and how is spring activization of opposition connected to the Arab events? - The Arab spring is definitely exerting influence upon the social opinion of Azerbaijan; this is being discussed, emphasized and tried on here. Everybody is talking about this – from a taxi driver to the President. As soon as the events took place in Tunis and Egypt our authorities had ants in their pants – I just can’t think of any other expression. The authorities canceled all debts of population for communal payments and declared a struggle with corruption. The Prosecutor General has announced with lament that “we are the first to be blamed for corruption” that is unprecedented fact in the history of Azerbaijan. Demonstrative dismissals of sixth class officials have begun. The owners of small shops privately tell that for the last several months nobody came to them for share though each month they were scrounged of money… As concerns to opposition and democratically oriented society, they think of how to straddle this “Arab” war, raise it and, as a result, they write and speak about it every day. Opposition forces have made several attempts to gather and arrange actions of protest with the hope to initiate a revolutionary wave. Unfortunately, there were no special results out of these hopes. Hopes that a sparkle will inflame the events similar to Tunisian ones haven’t come true. It seems that revolutions do not ensue at the call of democrats and are not put off under the pressure of autocrats as well. However, the population carries on talking about Arab spring and hoping for changes. Though in countries of our region, Muslim countries of Central Asia, in comparison to Arab countries there are other dynamics; it may be considered as the events there evolve in some other area. We experienced similar nationwide, national indignation in the beginning of 90s and 80s. But these events take place approximately once in hundred years due to the piled up common crisis and resentments throughout the centuries. We may have passed it already. And in Arab countries according to some commentators, common nationwide unrest began for the first time in the history of Arab civilization; these submissive people, who had been bowing throughout the centuries and resigning themselves to their masters, suddenly, conducted themselves in a different way. But, somehow, Arab spring will remain as part of social capital for us and someday, I hope, it will show itself. Authoritarian-corrupted regimes in constrained countries like Azerbaijan feel comfortable when there are many similar regimes. People eat their bread, the power is transferred from father to his son and there is always a country where the situation is worse. In other words, dictators always have possibility to justify themselves – in many neighboring countries the situation is similar and even worse, so what do you want from me?! But now, when these countries are fewer and fewer, it is much more difficult to appeal to it. When people wake up around you than your island of “strict regimen” becomes less and less attractive. In the nearest future similar liberal changes are being expected in Iran. And if it takes place there, then it will definitely affect our country and it will directly have an impact on Azerbaijan. - Do you think that “revolutionary sparkle” might spread on Azerbaijan from Iran? - It is not necessary. However, if there is a rational, at least half-democratic regime in Iran then the significance of Azerbaijan for the West will decrease. Our dictators won’t be needed any more. Nowadays, the Western leaders come here and decorate our leaders with orders and shake hands. Why? Because Azerbaijan is a single alternative way from the East to the West. Russia is from the North, Iran – from the South, there is only one route Black Sea-Georgia-Azerbaijan and further. The West needs our airports, railways through which the transit of goods to Afghanistan is arranged. According to Zgibnev Bjhezinski, Azerbaijan is a holdup-country. But if Iran will be open then Azerbaijan and Georgia will lose their roles. However, Georgia follows another progressive way. I can see that there are all signs in Iran that large-scale liberal reforms await Iran… I acknowledge that Arab events were total surprise for me. Besides, Arab spring means the beginning of end of the “world Khomeinistic revolution”. If earlier the liberal part of Arab world was inactive, and we have heard about the activeness of Islam only, then now, liberals (this is conventional name) step up. Attitudes of mind are changing, we don’t see radical Islam on Arab streets anymore, and we don’t hear slogans to destroy cinemas and so on. Absolutely another part of Islamic world has woken up. Moods of Bin Laden and Khomenists are abating. And I am glad to see it. If similar events take place in Azerbaijan, in your opinion, which scenario will they develop on? Tunis, Egypt or still Libya? This is difficult to foresee. We can consider several versions. For example, the part of elite has woken up and decided to take democratic reforms in the country, in a nutshell, the government has been split. In this case, progressive part of elite will join to the progressive part of society, as a result of which we will get some social-political hybrid. The second version – pure opposition forces raise and they are massively supported by people. In this case there will be absolutely another scenario. There will be lots of troubles as current government has done lots of bad things during the years of power. I do not believe in the military coup d’état, as our army doesn’t represent politically active institution. Though, in theory, it is possible that some general-liberator will appear on a white horse, but now I can’t see this. - In case of a risk of revolution in Azerbaijan, can the authorities provoke the beginning of hostilities in Karabachos with the aim to shift the accent to outer threats? - I don’t think it is possible. One should be out-and-out scoundrel and spit upon his country in order to preserve his powers. However, if it occurs, the events will develop according to the scenario of Russian-Georgian war of 2008. Russia will immediately interfere; military planes without wing markings will fly above and Azerbaijan will lose the bigger part of its territory, its transport junctions and so on. But I don’t expect this. - However, skirmish has become more frequent on the confrontation line for the last time and more people are dying from both sides… - This is the tactic of Azerbaijan government and the mood of the biggest part of our society – to perturb Armenians, shoot and not give them a moment’s rest. I think the war isn’t anticipated. Although there are other signs, for instance, the purchase of armament and the strengthening of army. The authorities are permanently scaring Armenia with a possible initiation of war but if this happens it will become a tragedy fro our country. - Is Status Quo in the area of conflict convenient for the “main” mediator – Russia? Isn’t Russia interested in a new war in order to get maximum control over the region on the whole? - Of course, Status Quo suits Moscow completely. It may well be that such scenario exists in the Russian General Staff. What can it mean? Moscow took South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and now Georgia is completely lost for Russia and it became a hostile country. Similar situation will occur in Azerbaijan in case of war. For example, the war begins; Russia recognizes the independence of Karabachos. Then Azerbaijan will be lost for Russia as well. For now, the current situation on the South Caucasus satisfies Moscow. It has lots of possibilities to exert pressure upon our countries. - What do you think, how can Karabachos conflict be settled? - Karabachos conflict can be settled when Armenia becomes independent (from Russia), and Azerbaijan will become democratic (for Armenians of Karabachos could return under the jurisdiction of our government). Besides, Karabachos conflict can be settled when contradictions between the West and Russia will become milder or vanish. When Russian “bunker consciousness” that the whole world is against it and tries to move their rockets to the Russian borders will disappear then there will be no need in conflicts along the perimeter of Russia. The fears of Moscow are that if we leave them, in other words stop pressure on Georgia and Azerbaijan then NATO will come and place their rockets near our borders. And tomorrow Makhachkala may well leave, and then Kazan and enemies will take water from Baikal… The ideology is that the whole world is against them, they want to take oil, water and so on from them. Enemies have been approaching the borders since the times of comrade Lenin. And the next in turn frontier is Georgia and Azerbaijan. If this philosophy vanishes and the reconciliation, dialogue and cooperation with the West take place, Russia will become the part of a civilized world, then Karabachos, Abkhazian and South Ossetian problems will be settled. If not, then conflict settlements will be postponed for indefinite time. The West, of course, worries about Georgia, but it doesn’t want to start the Third World War because of Georgia. Moreover, because of Karabachos. - Is it possible that Moscow assists Azerbaijan with the transfer of some of the territories by Armenia? - Never. It may well be that western mediators exerted pressure on Erevan so that Erevan will agree to transfer the territories, but Moscow – never. Vice versa as I know, Moscow has always forbidden Armenia to agree to this. - In your opinion, could bilateral negotiations between Tbilisi, Sukhumi and Tskhinvali be arranged? To what extent is it real to settle conflicts without Russia? - I reckon that Abkhazia and South Ossetia don’t exist anymore. Those people in the presidential chairs are nobody. Even several tens of thousands of local people are deprived of will, opportunities to express themselves or take some steps. Everything is solved by an official from Kremlin or from Russian garrison. Now in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Karabachos, it is as it is ordered from Moscow. Has anything Abkhazian remained in Abkhazia? Maybe a miserable quantity. And there is nothing left in South Ossetia as well. Abkhazians and Ossetians on their own free will fell into the bear’s breech of Moscow and now they are "married" to Russia for a long time… - How do you see the future of South Caucasus? - Conflicts similar to ours are not unique. What is going on in Gibraltar which was taken away by Britain from Spain? Nothing happens. And Spain continues to live. We will also continue to live if, of course, Russia does not come to reason and does not become a part of the civilized world. And if not – then the sword of Damocles will still be hanging over our heads; and shooting and killing will continue on the border… Despite everything, we need to develop, cooperate and become the part of the world’s community like Georgia is actively doing and Azerbaijan – not. We are not the first ones having suffered from Russian imperialism. It’s enough to remember Kurile Islands. Japan, by the way, is not a weak state. However, it can do nothing right now. That’s why I don’t see in the nearest perspective, cardinal changes for the countries of South Caucasus and I think that in spite of everything we must carry on working, developing and integrating into the world’s democratic community. We’ll see later… Irakli Chikhladze, for newcaucasus.com Photo from Kh. Gajiadze’s private archive http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=4455 Georgia and Kazakhstan are proceeding with consolidating of economic relations and have set an objective to launch “close economic cooperation”. English Version Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:15:43 +0400 Georgia and Kazakhstan are proceeding with consolidating of economic relations and have set an objective to launch “close economic cooperation”. This cooperation is developing particularly in the frames of energetic and transport projects and towards the development of tourism. Kazakhstan is announced one of the most significant trading partners of Georgia. Georgian-Kazakh cooperation is expected to be involved in small and medium-sized business more actively. “Extremely attractive sphere for business groups of Kazakhstan may become such areas as energetic and agricultural sectors,” – makes special mention Nikoloz Gilauri, prime-minister of Georgia during his call in Kazakhstan in spring, 2010. Nowadays the main areas where Kazakh investments have been made are telecommunication and distributional networks, tourism in the region of Adjaria. The owner of distributing gas network of the capital of Georgia is AO “Kaztransgas-Tbilisi” – a company founded by AO “KazTransGas”, a part of NK group “KazMunaiGas”. Another subsidiary of “KazMunaiGas” – AO “KazTransOil” – has been running Batumi seaport since February, 2008. There are two banks with Kazakh capital – “BTA Bank” and “Halyk Bank Georgia”. Kazakh investors are fulfilling reconstruction of several hotels and etc. Economic cooperation with Georgia in Kazakhstan was marked as one of the priority trends back in 2005. The first meeting of Kazakh-Georgian intergovernmental committee concerning the trading-economic cooperation with Georgia – the main body coordinating bilateral economic interaction – was held in Astana, on June 1st, 2006. In 2006 Kazakhstan became investor ¹ 1 in Georgia (leaving behind Turkey and Great Britain) taking a firm stand in banking and resort-recreational spheres. If in the beginning of 2006 the Kazakh investments in Georgian economy made up to 300 million US dollars in total, at the end of the same year the investments increased up to 1 billion. The commodity turnover between two countries grew to 90% in 2006. Since then the trading-economic relations have been characterized by the tendency towards growth. According to the results of 2010, the turnover between Georgia and Kazakhstan accounted for 139 million US dollars; it’s 641,2 thousand of US dollars (three times more than the rate of the previous year, 2009 (43 million and 714,2 thousand US dollars)). The import to Georgia has increased from 23 million 258,9 thousand to 91 million, 648,0 thousand US dollars; and export from Georgia – from 20 million 455,3 thousand to 47 million 993,2 thousand US dollars. Moreover, in 2010, Kazakhstan was in the top ten according to the volume of export for Georgia. Georgia exports to Kazakhstan the following: products for metallurgical, machine-building, chemical and food industries as well as steel pipes, ferroalloy, electric welding, power transformers, tea, wine, tobacco and etc. Kazakhstan imports to Georgia the following: charcoal, tin plate, rental of ferrous and nonferrous metal, polypropylene, tires for cars and trucks, car accumulators, plumbing equipment, corn, flour and etc. Georgia represents a promising market for delivery of Kazakh corn and its further transit in other countries. Recently more and more active discussion in connection with the world actual problems with corn is being held concerning the building of a large grain elevator in the Georgian seaport to store the corn, especially the Kazakh corn. This project isn’t new. A few years ago Georgian and Kazakh parties were even planning to realize this project jointly. However, the events of August 2008 hampered the process. On March 23rd of the current year Bakur Kvezereli, Minister of Agriculture of Georgia addressed the construction of terminal as “the vital objective”. He mentioned that the realization of the project would positively reflect on the food safety of the country and, besides, “Kazakh companies would receive the so-called trading ways in the Black Sea”. On the whole geopolitical position of Georgia and Kazakhstan, located on the route, connecting Pacific and Asian region with Europe, stipulates their transit potential and represents tangible prerequisite for the successful participation in transnational energetic and transport projects. Several options of transportation of Kazakh oil to Europe through Georgia are being considered. Nowadays Kazakh oil is delivered to Georgia by railway tanks and then to the West by means of ferries. It is planned to connect this route with the new main line Baku-Akhalkalaki-Kars. It may well be so that Kazakhstan will join to the main line pipes passing through Georgia as well as to the prospective projects of such pipelines. Nursultan Nazarbaev, President of Kazakhstan confirmed the intentions of the country to exceed the delivery of oil to Europe and diversification of these deliveries last autumn. “European union – is our main trading partner. Kazakhstan delivers 20% of oil consumed by EC, and in some countries – up to 30%. And this figure is bound to increase,” – mentioned Nazarbaev during his official visit to Belgium. Some interesting facts about Kazakhstan Nowadays Kazakhstan carries on stable economic development. In 2010, the economy of the country grew by 7% having overcome the aftereffects of the world financial crisis. It is noteworthy that during the most difficult years GDP of Kazakhstan slackened the pace but still didn’t turn into “minus” (the growth of GDP comprised 8,5% before the crisis of 2007, in 2008 – 3,2%, in 2009 – 1,1%). This was due to large governmental investments of 14% from GDP as well as restoration of the world prices on raw materials. GDP per capita had exceeded 9 thousand US dollars by January 1st, 2011. Enumerating the achievements of the country for 2010 in the annual message to Kazakh people, President Nursultan Nazarbaev mentioned the initiation of the realization of the Program of forced industrial-innovative development (PFIID) for 2010-2014. “The main outcome of the first year of the first five-year plan– is the beginning of serious structural changes in economic growth at the expense of real sector of Economy,” – said the President. According to him, 152 enterprises were brought into operation, nearly 24 thousand of Kazakh people were provided with permanent work places and, on the whole, approximately 800 various manufactures were created in the country. The process of active restoration and development of chemical and light industries was launched. The breakthrough was noticed in the processing agricultural production. 294 investment projects on the total sum of 8,1 trillion tenge (1 USD = 146 KZT) are planned to fulfill until 2014. 161 thousand of permanent and 207 thousand workplaces throughout construction will be created. Speaking about the aims of Strategic plan for the nearest decade, Nursultan Nazarbaev said that by 2020 the growth of GDP of Kazakhstan would have comprised no less than 30%. The growth in the processing spheres would exceed and achieve the level of extractive spheres. The assets of national fund will comprise no less than 30% of GDP. Domestic and foreign investments into non-raw material sector of economy would increase by no less than 30%. The share of small and medium business in GDP will comprise 40%. The population size will approach 18 million people. The portion of qualified specialists will be 40%. The level of unemployment will reduce by 5%. The productivity of labor in agriculture will increase twice by 2014, and four times by 2020. Among the tasks for the government is the approval of the Complex plan of energetic efficacy and the Program on the development of regions as well as programs towards the social modernization and the new program for provision of the full employment of population. According to Nazarbaev, the size of pensions, scholarships, wages of public officials are being increased by 30%. The average size of pensions, salaries in the public organizations and scholarships will increase twice in comparison with 2008. Together with this, said the President, Kazakhstan would continue the uncompromising struggle with corruption, having emphasized that for the last three years the country had improved the index in the world anticorruption rating Transparency International by 45 points. It is unlikely that the stable economic development of Kazakhstan would be possible without political and social stability. For the whole 20-year history of Kazakhstan independence there were no mass conflicts on either national or religious ground (let’s not forget that the representatives of 140 ethnic groups and 46 confessions live there), and no social explosions as well. Those, as the events of the last period demonstrated us in the Arabic countries (Egypt, Tunis, Syria and etc.), often represent a trigger for revolutions. And revolutions, as the reality gives evidence, mostly entail nothing good. The stable development of Kazakhstan has become the basis for the initiative group of politicians to address the CEC of Kazakhstan on December 27th, 2010 with the proposal to hold the referendum concerning the extension of the powers of Nazarbaev until December 6th, 2020 instead of regular elections of 2012. The group has gathered signatures of more than 5 million citizens in support of their initiative. The proposal was approved by the parliament of the republic of Kazakhstan. However, Nazarbaev declined this initiative and offered to present it for consideration to the Constitutional Council. The latter didn’t recognize it as relevant to the Constitution, after which the president declined referendum once and for all. However, taking into consideration the will of his people, President has decided to hold early presidential elections instead of referendum. The Constitution of the country allows such precedent. The elections are set on April, 3rd. EC and USA have welcomed the decision concerning the presidential elections and expressed their hope that they will be fair and democratic. And if Nursultan Nazarbaev wins again, on the whole, it will be very good for the country. As because we know, namely during this President, Kazakhstan declared its nuclear-free status and has chosen the way of market economy and democratic development and, namely, under Nazarbaev the level of well-being of Kazakhstan has grown by several times, and the population – by 1,5 million people. The stable development of the country is defined to a large extent by the personal qualities of Nazarbaev. And this represents the greatest interest not only for Kazakh people but for EC, USA, Caucasus and Central Asia, and particularly for Georgia. David Gelashvili, for newcaucasus.com Foto daylife.com http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=4034 Political scientist, Suren Surenyants talks about Russian military bases in Armenia, Armenian relationship with Georgia, Karabakh conflict, Armenian-Turkish relations and other issues in his exclusive interview with newcaucasus.com English Version Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:52:19 +0400 Political scientist, Suren Surenyants talks about Russian military bases in Armenia, Armenian relationship with Georgia, Karabakh conflict, Armenian-Turkish relations and other issues in his exclusive interview with newcaucasus.com - You’ve left the opposition, what was the cause of this move? - I have left the political council of the party “Republic”, which is a part of Armenian National Congress (ANC) due to the consequences of my meeting with the Minister of Defense of Armenia, Seyran Oganyan in August of this year. The second reason is foreign-policy guideline of ANC. I’ve met the General Oganyan after painful events in the army. As a citizen of Armenia I was anxious by this fact and I made an appointment with the General and expressed my concern as well as listened to him. I was amazed by the reaction of my opposing fellows concerning this fact. I don’t think that Armenia is divided into barricades and that the representatives of opposition don’t possess the right to meet with the representatives of the authority. I believe that my meeting with the Minister has been conducive to the further discussions of the necessary reforms in the army. But the main reason was the Russian factor in the foreign policy of the Congress. After the validity period of the Russian military base in Armenia has been prolonged, I was sure that ANC will state blame of this fact but nothing happened. Moreover, the governing body of ANC has announced that the influence of the Russian factor in the region is quite impartial. After this I have decided that it is meaningless for me to act in the frames of ANC. However, this does not mean that I’ve changed my mind towards the authorities of Armenia. As earlier I still think that this is nonviable. - And what do you think how viable the Armenian opposition is on the whole? - The first President, Levon Ter-Petrosyan – is the most politically established figure in Armenia. He was able to create a system that has qualitatively been distinguished from previous opposition associations. ANC in the current political structure of Armenia is the most paramount factor. But there are things that are unacceptable for ANC to change. I’ve already stated my opinion concerning the Russian factor. Then – the absence of the internal democracy in the association. As a matter of fact, there is no big difference in the structures created by Serj Sarkisyan and Levon Ter-Petrosyan; both of the structures are closed and differ by their own authoritarian style of governing. Another question is that the structure established by Ter-Petrosyan is more viable both in political potential and moral attitudes. I think that the question of special elections is closed and if there are no force-majeur situations (this could only be connected with the Karabakh incident) then the regular election will take place. On the regular election the authorities have a huge resource of the continuity of policy. I believe that the next composition of the Public Assembly (parliament) the opposition will be accepted. Regardless of the suspension of their activities in ANC, I respect my friends from the party “Republic” that consists of people representing the team of Vazgen Sarkisyan (Vazgen Sarkisyan – ex Prime Minister of Armenia, assassinated during the act of terror in the parliament on October 27th, 1999) and I consider myself its representative. The Leader of the party is Vazgen Sarkisyan’s brother. And this is the only party in ANC which had openly spoken at the last meeting against the Russian bases in Armenia. In this respect I have no contradictions with the party. However, I don’t want to impede the relations between my party and ANC through my activities. - During the Russian-Georgian war in 2008 Levon Ter-Petrosyan backed up the activities of Russia in Georgia. You have become the only representative of the opposition who has condemned the actions of Russia. What was the reaction of opposing forces? - I still hold to this opinion. For me Armenian-Georgian relations are more valuable than any other political junctures. I will say more – for me Tbilisi is the second home town in the world. I find it impossible to support neo-imperialistic policy of Russia. Taking advantage over the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia made an effort to restrict the independence of Georgia. I’m not delighted with the policy of the President of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, but I will choose him by all means and not the leaders of Cheka Russia. I consider Armenian-Georgian relations not only brotherly but also strategic. As to Levon Ter-Petrosyan, he is not Messiah for me, he is – the first President of the Republic. I have always expressed my position regardless the fact whether it agrees with the position of Ter-Petrosyan. By the way, the day when Medvedev recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I was on the Northern Avenue of Erevan on the democratic meeting, where people hissed the news. This is not connected with the fact that people spoke against the independence of any other people, but with the fact that our society is sure of the fact that today’s Russia is associated with the totalitarianism and occupation. Javakheti – the bridge of Armenian-Georgian friendship - What is the way you see the situation in Georgia today and what can you say of the policy in Georgia and what is your assessment of the activities of the Georgian opposition? - It is always difficult to assess the situation from the view. Certainly the authority of Saakashvili has fulfilled some of the reforms, but in my view hasn’t born the consistent nature and the reforms haven’t led to the institutional consequences. But more grievous thing is the situation around the Georgian opposition. It seems that they couldn’t create an effective structure; it lacks the realistic approach. Let me set an example – the candidate from opposition, Levan Gachechiladze who participated in the Presidential elections with the slogan of the liquidation of the post of the President. It was clear that his chances were too low. The same mistake was made by Armenian opposition in 1997 when it took part in the parliament elections with the slogan of the President’s impeachment. Or in May, 2009, when ANC participated in the elections of the mayor of Erevan, stating that it represents the continuation of the elections of the President. Inadequate behavior is never assessed positively by a society. I think that it will be difficult for Saakashvili to tackle the issue of his succession. Perhaps Gigi Ugulava has gained a convincing victory during the election of the Mayor of Tbilisi, however, he does not possess the image of the national figure. I consider the situation in Armenia and Georgia similar with minor distinctions. The authorities do not have the resource to conduct cardinal reforms and opposition does not have the necessary resource of the qualitative change both in them and in the country. - You’ve named the Georgian-Armenian relations strategic, what exactly do you mean? - Current relations are not quite normal. There are some certain impeding factors, the main of which is – the authorities of both countries. The second factor is Russian one. Unfortunately, the political elite of Armenia is under the Russian influence. From the other side, pro-Western orientation of Saakashvili – that is mainly in form and not content. It is natural that the emerged situation hinders the development of our relationship. Fortunately, after the Russian-Georgian war, the authorities of our countries have mutually moderated behavior despite the Russian pressure. Serj Sarkisyan refused to acknowledge the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It seems that the authorities of our countries will succeed in finding the necessary formula in order to liquidate the Russian factor. There is also a question concerning the region Javakheti. There is no main party that would support the independence of Javakheti. This region was and must be an integral part of Georgia. Another question is that authorities of Georgia have to create prerequisites for cultural autonomy of the residents of Javakheti as well as the mechanisms of social security. I was saying to one of my friend from Akhalkalaki that Armenians from Javakheti shouldn’t live in ghetto, that they are the same citizens of Georgia as the residents of Tbilisi, Gori and other Georgian cities. In other words the issue of integration of the residents of Javakheti in the social life of your country has arisen. All these issues can be settled, besides, there isn’t any Russian base in Akhalkalaki which represented a serious destabilizing factor. - In your opinion, what should Georgian authorities do to integrate the populace of Javakheti? - First of all it is necessary to eliminate the total police control in Javakheti. As far as I know, the authorities try to artificially control the social life in the region by means of their protégés on various positions. Moreover, some artificial obstacles were created during the last municipal elections for some candidates to participate. I don’t want people think that Javakheti can receive another new Abkhazia or South Ossetia due to the hasty policy on the North. It is necessary to pursue the new qualitative lingual policy. Nowadays the efforts to reduce hours of the lessons in Armenian language at Javakheti schools at the expense of hours of the lessons in Georgian language are held. I was told that there is a special structure that pays additional sums to the Georgian teachers and no payments to the Armenian teachers. In case residents of Javakheti receive proper social and ethnic guarantees, then I’m pretty sure that Javakheti will become the bridge of the Armenian-Georgian friendship. I can say for sure that Serj Sarkisyan, Robert Kocharyan, Levon Ter-Petrosyan and any next President of Armenia in no way will support any separatist movement in Javakheti. - What do you think: Won’t it be easier for the residents of Javakheti be integrated into the Georgian society if they will use Georgian language fluently? - The Armenians – residents of Georgia – have to know Georgian language as it is an official language of the country they reside. The citizens have to respect the laws of the country they live. In Armenia it is impossible to take up a position in the government if you don’t know Armenian. The Armenians of Georgia must know Georgian language but not at the expense of Armenian language. I will tell you more: I don’t consider the offer of Serj Sarkisyan to attach to the Armenian language in Georgia the status of the regional language as adequate. The relations of Georgia and Armenia should be built without any legal changes so that the issues concerning the languages in Javakheti could be settled by the residents themselves. - What is your assessment of the early signing of the treatment between Armenia and Russia concerning the prolongation of the period of the Russian military base in Armenia? Virtually all political figures and social organizations of Armenia have positively assessed this fact… - Unfortunately, the history of Armenia has witnessed such a President as Robert Kocharyan who suspended the peacemaking process to regulate Karabakh conflict in order to preserve his power and declared his slogan: “one border – three battlefronts”. All off this should have brought to the creation of the Russian-Armenian vassalage. Of course the situation could be changed only by legitimate President. Alas, Sarkisyan does not possess full legitimacy. Despite his efforts to conduct more balanced foreign policy, he is not able to withstand the Russian pressure. Moreover, there are many people in opposition that, coming from political conjuncture, turn their eyes towards Moscow. That’s why it was easy for Kremlin to compel official Erevan to such a treaty, which hasn’t provoked big inspiration in Armenia. However, all people openly talk only about the usefulness of its signing. Unfortunately, the struggle between authorities and opposition has embarked in Armenia to receive the go-ahead from the leaders of Cheka Russia. This is the worst situation, but it doesn’t reflect the reality or relations of our society. It is clear that public mood for the independence has grown in the blogosphere of the Armenian society. In other words, a man that strives for independence and freedom clearly grasps that this is possible only outside the sphere of influence of Cheka Russia. For instance, I have organized a group in the network of Facebook – “Armenia without Russian bases”; dozens of people have already joined. Soon I am going to transfer this movement in institutional character. The base – leave by 2020 - To what extent does the military base in Gumri represent a serious battle unit? Could its military potential be used to settle the tasks both outside and inside Armenia? - Nobody apprehends seriously the situation where this base will help Armenia in case of recommencement of Karabakh conflict. Russia will definitely prefer to sell weaponry to both Armenia and Azerbaijan as this had happened during the first war. Of course after President Medvedev’s visit in Armenia, the next visit he made was to Baku where he tried to convince the Azeri that nothing has changed in the status of Gumri base. The only thing that worries me that this base may hamper the relations between Armenians and Georgians and can become the cause of the strained situations between our countries. Fortunately, we do not have any borders with Russia and I am sure that Russian bases will leave Armenia by 2020. Now they have only signed a paper that doesn’t have long-term perspective. This treaty is only an expression of the Russian neo-imperialism. If the authorities of Armenia and Georgia follow wise policy then this treaty wouldn’t complicate our relations. Moreover, the restoration of Armenian-Turkish relations - is a real perspective and after this happens there won’t be any need in these bases. - To what extent can the base act autonomously in Armenia? - The policy of Russian authorities is unpredictable. I can’t exclude anything but I am sure that there are authority and opposition in Armenia that despite their mistakes wouldn’t allow such a rude interference in the affairs of their country. - At what stage is the process of Karabakh conflict settlement? -I support Ter-Petrosyan concerning this issue: he pointed out that Armenian-Turkish relations will become realistic only after any perspective in the Karabakh conflict settlement is seen. Most likely there will be some settlement of the Karabakh conflict in the following year or after the Presidential elections. After this the process of restoration of the relations between Armenia and Turkey will take place. The authorities and opposition in Armenia are not at variance. Both sides understand that the issue should be settled by means of compromises. It is natural that the issue of self-determination of Karabakh people is important for Armenian side. I believe that the principles of Madrid provide an opportunity for both Armenia and Azerbaijan not become a capitulated party. I’m pretty sure that the Karabakh conflict will be settled if Erevan and Baku reject an irrational slogan “Karabakh is ours”. It’s vital that Armenia and Azerbaijan understand that both countries are integral parts of the united Caucasus, which in its turn tries to integrate into the unified Europe. In this case the issue of territorial belonging is a question of minor importance. - And how real is the recommencement of military acts in Karabakh? - Unfortunately, nowadays the probability of this has been increased. First of all, the quality of the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan contribute to this. Both authorities are authoritarian; both are occupied with the issues of manipulating the society more than the issues of establishment of the long-term peace. But the pragmatists hold the power in Erevan and Baku and they clearly understand the danger of the war. The Armenians have no reasons to start the war and in Azerbaijan this is more propaganda than reality. However, as the national rhetoric sounds from both sides, the danger of a war increases. In addition the interest of such players as Russia and Iran whose behavior is unpredictable is still strong. And what about the absence of creative resource of Stalin’s heirs - Do you think Russia is able to try and solve its problematic issues on the South Caucasus including Karabakh conflict, relations with Georgia through one big South Caucasian war? - I strongly believe that today’s Russia does not possess such resources. Nowadays Russia has problems with the CIS countries, e.g. Byelorussia. I’m sure that Moscow will try to control the elite of our countries by means of prolongation of the term of the military base in Gumri and the intention to sell Azeri ZRK C-300. It is clear that Russia wouldn’t start a large-scale war due to the fact that there is a huge possibility that it will completely lose the South Caucasus. Russia tries to control the South Caucasus on the analogy of USSR. However, this is impossible in the modern world. It is impossible to expect creative resource from Stalin’s heirs due to which they were able to settle the problems of the South Caucasus in the long-term perspective. - President of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili has spoken at UN and proposed an idea of the unified Caucasus… To what extent is it real, especially if we consider that Armenia, according to the statements of Russian politicians, represents “the Outpost of Russia in the South Caucasus”, Azerbaijan keeps balance between the West and Russia, and Georgia states its pro-Western orientation? - It is impossible to create confederation on the South Caucasus. The main reason is the quality of authorities again. In order to fulfill such issues we lack leaders of postwar Europe as for example De Gaulle. The main task these days is the liquidation of the seats of tension in the region. But I strongly believe that the future of South Caucasus lies in the establishment of a unified safety system. It is clear that we are parts of European and not Russian political system. Sooner or later the leaders of our countries will come to the understanding of this. Concerning Armenia I would like to add that I don’t consider the opinion of the fact that our country is indisputably the outpost of Russia right. We mustn’t forget that the large-scaled anti-imperialist movement began namely in Armenia in 1988. And the potential of our society would not let us to accept super-influence of any other country. Even the authorities of our own country can’t impose their will on our society; the striking example is the last elections of the President. The new generation is growing in Armenia including a political one that comes with the slogan of real independence. Let me state a daring assertion for this moment – the political area of Armenia has greater potential than Georgia and Azerbaijan. We’ve got strong power and strong opposition and this means that Armenia has the resource to develop. In this aspect Armenia is able to come across the solution. The same ANC – is multilevel structure. Yes, Ter-Petrosyan hasn’t blamed censured the treaty of prolongation of the military base but he also hasn’t approved it, as he clearly understands that ANC will split after his statement. I believe that in the nearest time Armenia will become free from the Russian influence without any serious consequences. I’m pretty sure that during the elections of 2012-2013 a force will come out to the political arena that will come up with the slogan: “Armenia without Russian bases”. Having communicated with our society I can see that the society wouldn’t bear vassalic relations for long. The society remembers the events of October 27th and March 1st very well. - What do you think the factor of Russian military base can influence the domestic policy in Armenia, and if it is possible to conduct punitive actions in Armenia itself “justified” by necessity to defend the safety of Armenia? - The Army and police in Armenia do not possess big potential concerning the dispersion of meetings not only in Erevan but also in Tbilisi and Baku. That is if they are requested they will be able to do it. Thus they do not need any power support in this aspect. Another question is the political assistance from the side of Russia and the existence of the base in this frame is essential. The base itself cannot represent inner-political factor, the authorities do not need this. There are more than 4 000 people in the base and half of them are children of well-secured people of Armenia. - Nevertheless, the existence of the Russian military base in Armenia is clearly important for Erevan especially if we take into consideration the fact that Moscow does not pay any rental for the base and the payment for public utilities are fulfilled by Armenian side. - Alas and alack, it is true! Throughout the period when our President was Ter-Petrosyan, Russia was paying for the rental of the base. The changes have taken place during the times of Kocharyan. Unfortunately, Serj Sarkisyan has just updated the conditions of the base approved by Kocharyan. And the most degrading thing is that we pay for the loss of our independence. There could have been at least a symbolic payment, but it is certain that namely at Russia’s insistence the treaty is what it is today. I think Russia does not trust Sarkisyan’s authority as it is sure that he follows the pro-Western policy, and as a result the treaty was signed earlier in the form as it is now. This opinion of Moscow is fallacious, as Serj Sarkisyan has neither pro-Russian nor pro-Western orientation. His base is oligarchic and power structures. The misfortune of Armenia is that the authorities make concessions to the outer world in order to preserve their power and opposition does the same on the contrary. Alas! Such picture is being developed in Georgia as well. I was staggered when I’ve heard the news that some of political figures in Georgia have met with Putin… He can’t be independent but he has longing for…. - From an outsider’s viewpoint it seems that Serj Sarkisyan, compared to Kocharyan, tries to build more independent policy from Moscow. To what extent is it true? - It’s by all means so. Robert Kocharyan couldn’t grow from the leader of one of the Armenian province to a leader of the republic. Besides, he was a proponent of tough measures in the internal issues. The events of October 27th and March 1st happened during his being in power. Kocharyan is intolerant to all his political opponents. Everybody was surprised when he didn’t begin a run for the third term of the presidency; most likely due to the fear of confrontation with the people. The Russian model of power doesn’t operate in Armenia. A typically Karabakh model of power functions in Armenia. In other words this is authoritarian system with some democratic freedoms, a system which is based on the priority of the strong-arm structures. The current leaders of Armenia preserve their power due to Karabakh factor. Such situation has remained in Armenia since 1996. Unfortunately, the second elections for Ter-Petrosyan have become the cause of fussy political scandals as a result of which Robert Kocharyan came into power. Nowadays Sarkisyan tries to put forward some democratic elements into his power, but at the same time he doesn’t want to reject many non-democratic bases of power. Of course there are fewer arrests, people are not beaten on the streets, however, there is a square in Erevan where you can’t hold a meeting and there are political prisoners as well. As to foreign policy, Serj Sarkisyan has some smart ideas. Let’s not forget that since 1993 he has been the minister of Defense, then the minister of National Security, then the Minister of National Security and Internal Affairs then again the Minister of Defense, Prime Minister and now – President. This man knows very well the elite of Armenia, he has a certain contribution in Karabakh war. The problem is that he is inconsistent in his foreign policy. Today he can support the Armenian-Turkish relations settlement, tomorrow – to initiate anti-Turkish meeting, on the third day – to have good relations with Moscow, and on the forth day – to understand that he won’t act as dictated by Kremlin. His main problem is that he doesn’t have any political team. As a matter of fact he does everything alone; he completely controls the situation in the country but very often he doesn’t know what to do. This results in that many people do not understand what the Armenian authorities want. Besides, the factor of the May 1st has essential meaning in Armenia, whether the details of meeting dispersal will be revealed or not. If not, then many would see in Serzh Sarkisyan the direct heir of Kocharyan. But that Sarkisyan is more tolerant than Kocharyan - is unequivocal. Three questions for three people... - If you had a chance to meet Serzh Sarkisyan, Mikhail Saakashvili and Ilkham Aliev what would you ask each of them? - I would demand from Serzh Sarkisyan, as he is the President of my country, to settle Karabkh conflict and Armenian-Turkish relations sooner, as this is the key to the independence of Armenia. I would ask Mikhail Saakashvili not to disappoint millions of residents of post soviet area for who the notions of democracy and Saakashvili are identical. I would ask him after having created a normal democratic system of power in Georgia leave the policy and not to repeat a mistake of a more talented political figure, Levon Ter-Petrosyan. I would tell Ilkham Aliev that oil brings money in the modern world; however, it doesn’t bring freedom and happiness to people. - In your opinion how should the Karabakh conflict be settled? - It’s important for me that for three thousand years Karabakh was Armenian and would remain Armenian for the next thirty thousand years. I do not consider the issue of status as priority. The main thing is that people living there have guarantees of safety and freedom. From the moment the issue of status has become priority the chances of conflict settlement have been reduced by far as neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia is ready to this. The Karabakh conflict can be settled only in regional context. First of all, all consequences of war should be eliminated, concessions should be followed from both sides, Armenia should call the troops off some specific territories bordering with Karabakh, and Azerbaijan should refuse the blockage of Armenia. These steps will lead to the creation of atmosphere of trust, after which the parties may discuss the issue concerning the Karabakh status. The democratization of the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan will assist to Karabakh problem settlement. Of course Armenia can’t cede Lachin and Kelbadjar to Azerbaijan until the status of Karabakh is grasped. I don’t think that other regions are neither free nor occupied. I consider them as the zones of safety that our Army is ready to release in exchange to international guarantees of safety. These territories must demilitarized, there shouldn’t be lodged any troops of Azerbaijan. International structures have to carry out their peacemaking mission. The status of Karabakh cannot be determined now. I guess future generations will do it. Maybe the President of Armenia who has had nothing to do with the war can solve it and the President of Azerbaijan who hasn’t promised to return Karabakh. I strongly believe that some times Karabakh will become the centre of the friendship between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And as France and Germany could settle their territorial problems after the war having become a locomotive of the unified Europe, so will Armenia and Azerbaijan together with Georgia may become the locomotive of the regional cooperation on the Caucasus. If Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia stick together no single destructive Russian factor will be able to operate. If our countries are able to live together no other foreign force which wants to restrict our independence will be able to do so. Russia is strong in the region while there are closed borders, conflicts, no legitimate authorities, energetic policy and Russian military bases. If we are able to open borders inside our region no other foreign force will be able to affect us. Irakli Chikhladze, for newcaucasus.com Translated by Ekaterina Jinoridze http://newcaucasus.com/index.php?newsid=3585 The present situation in the South Ossetia, the relations between Russia and Georgia, the summary of Russia–Georgia war of 2008, the danger of war activities recommencement. These are some of the topics covered in the exclusive interview for newcaucasus.com with Timur Tskhurbati, the editor in chief of the 24 Hours, the founder of ‘The People’s Party Iron’ (the South Ossetia), co-founder of Georgian-Ossetian civil forum. English Version Wed, 02 Jun 2010 23:15:51 +0400 The present situation in the South Ossetia, the relations between Russia and Georgia, the summary of Russia–Georgia war of 2008, the danger of war activities recommencement. These are some of the topics covered in the exclusive interview for newcaucasus.com with Timur Tskhurbati, the editor in chief of the 24 Hours, the founder of ‘The People’s Party Iron’ (the South Ossetia), co-founder of Georgian-Ossetian civil forum. - What changes has the South Ossetia undergone after the Russian-Georgian war conflict of 2008 and the independence recognition of unrecognized republic by Russia? Are there any side effects of this recognition? - There have been many changes, and especially in the people’s mentality. However, I will be speaking about my vision of the situation. The recognition of the South Ossetia by Russia was not a big case, since I did it long ago in 1989. The Russian recognition of the independence of the South Ossetia has been a mere proof of this fact. For most people of the South Ossetia the fact of recognition represents security. The people started feeling more secure, they now have work on construction sites. It is clearly seen what has already been done according to the buildings being built, some buildings have already been raised, and the town got much better. There is nothing I would consider negatively from Russia’s side. But we can talk about it from the point of view of our Government. I would say that our authorities have become more Russian in their zeal, than the Russians themselves. For example, even in the shows like “Good night, kids” you hardly ever hear Ossetian language. Russia is not the one to be blamed; this is our own Government’s ‘merit’. The pedestal of the ex-monument as a symbol of the present… - There is a lot of information spread by the Russian Mass Media on accusations of the authorities and Eduard Kokoity, the President of the South Ossetia of corruption. It is also said that the Russian aid is being embezzled… - I cannot prove these facts documentarily. I live in Tskhinvali and can see with my own eyes what happens there. For instance, the street lightning infrastructure is being restored, expensive light polls are being set, the railway station is being illuminated. The Monument of Lenin is being renovated and a new pedestrian alley is being set around… Besides, the pedestal has long been without a monument on it, there is nothing on it… The money laundry is obvious here. Whether this is done by Kokoity’s instructions or not, is hard for me to judge. A town Moskovskiy can be set as an example of money laundry. The three billion rubles were spent on construction of cottages, the school and so on. The financing and constructions were done not through the budget of the South Ossetia and without intervention of our authorities. Meanwhile, as far as I know, 11 billion rubles were assimilated by the Ossetian party on the capital restoration. But there is no progress seen so far. Ideally, there should have been done thrice more than has been done in Moskovskiy. Not even half is seen… It’s difficult to say where it has all gone. There is a chance that Kokoity is not guilty at all. I think that the mediating link of Russian corruption has bound with our authorities and grand larceny is taking place. And it is clearly seen that all this does take place. The party of local resource -How would you explain your decision to form and take over a party in the South Ossetia? To make matters worse, the People’s Party Iron has already benn announced to be an oppositional force… - My decision is related to the fact that a so called “Moscow Movement” was created in the South Ossetia which is being formed around people such as Albert Djussoev, Anatoly Barankevich. I consider them both patriots of the South Ossetia, one of them held a post in the government, the other played out as a Maecenas sponsoring various projects in the South Ossetia. But they are in Moscow now. And I think that if you would like to make any changes in Tskhinvali, you should be present in Tskhinvali and make them directly here. I have come to a decision that if you would like to influence the politics in the South Ossetia, you ought to create a party, which will be supported by a local resource, by the resource of local Tskhinvali authorities. - The party’s aim – to take positions of power? - If not to take the positions of power, then at least to create an authorized, respectable force which will assist in running fair elections on the basis of law. I think that the present Parliament of the South Ossetia is very weak. We do need a real force which will help the region to move forwards, towards democracy and human worth. Twenty years of my life were spent on the war, and I do not want something like a Banana Republic to be built. I would like my republic to be democratic and self-sufficient. And I do hope that in this case Georgia will have to recognize the republic, since there are no reasons for not doing it. This is of a vital importance for me. Almost all republics of the USSR were recognized by means of force, i.e. only the strongest ones were recognized. Personally I want the South Ossetia to be recognized in a judicial way, so that it sets an example of democracy unlike any other country and there would be no reasons for not recognizing it. The right to live where one was born… - Speaking of the universal values we first need to solve a humanitarian problem of Georgian refugees. And, as we know, some parts of Georgian villages in the South Ossetia do not exist anymore, in fact, they are completely demolished. In your opinion, how can this problem be solved? - First of all, this problem should be solved by those ones who caused it, and these are neither Ossetians nor the authorities of the South Ossetia. With hindsight, no fewer Ossetian villages had been burnt out. The topic of fifteen Georgian villages that were burnt out is being widely discussed in the Media. But I would like to say that three out of those fifteen villages were situated in the Georgian enclave and were 100 percent inhabited by the Ossetians which were burnt out in the 90s. And it is absolutely wrong to consider them Georgian ones. I would like to add that the Ossetians did not burn the villages based on ethnic characteristics but the military bases were being destroyed. The ex-Akhalgori region is now under the jurisdiction of the South Ossetia. Could you name at least one household burnt there? There are also villages Karsman, Sinagur in the region of Djava. They consist of 100 and 60 percent of Georgians respectively. None of the households have been damaged there. Archnet is a village situated a kilometer away from Nul and Avnev. Nul and Avnev were burnt though there are still two families residing there. However, Archnet, which consists of 40 percent of Georgians, had no households set on fire and the people still live there. Therefore, there is no room for talking about ethnic hatred. And even more, there are Georgian families, Toroshelidze, Gvritishvili, Chikhladze, who still huddle together with their Ossetian relatives. They come from the burnt out Georgian villages and they happened to be unneeded by anyone. They are unneeded in Georgia where they are considered betrayers, since they are not willing to abandon the South Ossetia and are willing to live where they used to. The Government of the South Ossetia has not coped with accommodation for burnt-down people in Tskhinvali yet. I hope that the Ossetian authorities will start restoring their houses, yet, there has been nothing said on this topic. It came to me as a surprise that those Georgian families decided to stay in the South Ossetia. I am planning to raise this issue, but frankly, I do not know what will be the outcome of this. I hope that the authorities will be sensible enough and the houses of those who stayed in the South Ossetia will be restored as well. Speaking of those ones who are now on the Georgian territory… Time should pass… But I do believe that each human has the right to live where he was born. One of the aims of our party is to put everything back under the law. And these issues should not be discussed apart from the problem of the Ossetian refugees who fled from Georgia. - You are one of the founders and active members of the South-Ossetian and Georgian Civil Forum. Do you keep in touch and have meetings with your Georgian colleagues? What has been done by you after the war conflict of 2008 within the framework of this forum? Do the civilians of the South Ossetia show interest towards a dialogue with Georgia? - We can say that the Ossetian sector shows no interest in cooperating with the Georgian party. Georgia is something very distant and remote for the majority of the South Ossetians. I try to look a bit more thorough at this issue. The South Ossetia is adjacent to Georgia by three quarters of its border, and only one quarter of the South Ossetia boarders with Russia. That is why it is vitally important for the South Ossetia to regulate relations with Georgia. That is one of the reasons I’m engaged in it. And, yet, I would strongly like to emphasize that I am one of the people who by all means support the independence of the South Ossetia. However, I do believe that we must regulate the relations with Georgia and the sooner it happens, the better. I’m not into closed border… - It is being said that the South Ossetia is turning, or has already turned, completely into a big Russian military base. According to the Russian authorities saying, the number of the bases built in the South Ossetia may turn it into a mere military adjunct? - As far as I know, there are approximately three thousand Russian troops in the South Ossetia. There were two regiments dislocated in the South Ossetia before the USSR collapsed; one aviation regiment and the other one – field-engineering, the number of troops of both is in an approximate equality to the present one. This did not lead to the South Ossetia losing it identity, considering the fact that the Ossetians used to serve in the same regiments. And if they used to be concentrated in Tskhinvali, now they are dispersed along the whole border – Kvaisa, Leningorskiy and Znaurskiy regions, as well as Tskhinvali itself. I do not see any danger in it. This is a question of the Ossetian dignity whether they will be able to improve their culture, preserve self-identity, and Russia does not interfere with it, at least I do not see any signs of it. The Russian militaries represent a greater security in the mind of the Ossetian people than the promises by Saakashvili, Georgian authorities, European and International institutions. This means that in the past twenty years the South Ossetia was convicted that the promises can be broken. In August 2008 just two hours before the military actions began, Saakashvili had announced that there would be no actions…. Europe and even more the USA support Saakashvili, and therefore, the South Ossetia does not trust them. That is why the majority of the Ossetian people would rather be a part of Russian military bases than become a part of Georgia. The South Ossetia is psychologically disposed exactly in this way. There is another thing. The intellectuals would like to revive our Republic which lost its statehood in the twelfth century. And, I do not see Georgian government’s good-will concerning this matter. Their actions have brought us to the present situation. - What is your opinion on the strategy proposed by the Georgian Government at the beginning of this year concerning the conflict zones – “The Participation by means of cooperation”, the purpose of which is to resolve the conflict by means of peaceful approaches? - I am not well aware of it. But constantly repeated by the Georgian Government term ‘the integration’ makes me feel tense. There has to be an equal partnership. I also think that there should be a law on the boarder, there should be legal border-crossing points, and the civilians ought to have the opportunity to communicate. This all has to be done on an equal basis. I am not fond of the closed border, and, therefore, I raise issues concerning its opening; and the authorities take advantage of this by accusing me of pro-Georgian attitudes of mind. This is a typical political speculation. There is a border between Russia and Japan, but this does not mean that Russia will surrender the Kurile Islands. Russia is not going to surrender them, and, yet, the Japanese visit Russia and vice versa. In my opinion, the border should be legalized at least from the Ossetian side. The Georgian side is not willing to do so yet. When I enquire the Ossetian authorities on why there is no law on border, they can’t give me a clear answer. I hope that the law will finally be passed by the Ossetian Parliament and my pretensions will finally be gone. For now there are only unendorsed border crossings both from our side and the Georgian one, people are arrested… No one really needs this, this causes extra tensions. - As far as I know, there are several dozens of the citizens of Georgia being imprisoned in Tskhinvali Prison, the Ossetian side claims that the Ossetians are being kept in Georgia. To your mind, how should this issue be solved? - If I had my way, I would exchange all imprisoned ones according to the principle ‘all for all’. This would be a sign of a good will from the both sides. There are several sentenced to life Ossetian guys in Georgian prisons, they were accused of terrorism. I know those guys – Marek Dudaev, Zasseev… Those people should not be ranked as terrorists, they should be at least reckoned as the prisoners of war. Georgia does not admit this fact, which builds up more tensions. Georgia could give them amnesty as an exception. There are many ways of solving the problem of convicts. If only the authorities showed the will, the problem would be solved. Annexation to Russia is needed neither for Russia nor for the South Ossetia - The head of the South Ossetian Government is now a citizen of Russia, Vadim Brovtsev, there are some other Russian officials in the Government. Doesn’t it seem to be a sign of Kremlin’s pressure on the South Ossetia? - The Russian officials have been invited by the Government of the South Ossetia and it is usually explained that there are no qualified specialists in the Republic. It appears to me that this case should be seen from a bit different perspective: there are a lot of specialists of the Ossetian ethnicity in Russia and we should attract them actively. I would say that this was neither dictated by Russia nor imposed, it was purely Ossetian initiative. If I was asked, I would prefer the ethnic Ossetians to be invited in order to preserve the national balance. And, generally speaking, people are satisfied with the Brovtsev’s performance. - Eduard Kokoity has recently been claiming about the possibility of the South Ossetia joining the composition of the Russian Federation. What is the attitude towards this in the South Ossetia? Are there supporters of the independency and returning to the jurisdiction of Georgia? - Let’s begin with the ending. I am not aware of anyone who would like to return back to Georgia but, more likely, there is such kind of people, these are the residents of Leningorsky region. Over the past 20 years this region has been integrated into Georgia. The people in this region are under unenviable circumstances and, it is very unlikely, that anyone would talk about it openly. The referendum was held in the South Ossetia which showed that the majority supports the independence. The annexation to Russia is needed neither for the South Ossetia nor for Russia. The main vector will always be oriented towards Russia, but later to Georgia as well. Personally, I am a great supporter of the independence of the South Ossetia and our political party will always keep to this direction. There has been a huge brain leakage from the South Ossetia over the past 20 years. And if we run a survey in the streets, it is quite likely that there will be more supporters of the annexation to Russia. However, if the people are explained what the independence means, then the idea of being independent will be supported by all with a very few exceptions. - What is the present situation in Akhalgori like? What are the conditions of the residents, who, as you have mentioned have lived in Georgia for the past 20 years, are now under the jurisdiction of Tskhinvali? - I do not have much information from there. But I do know that they have retained the freedom of moving back and forth. A lot of people have left the region but no one impede their return. As far as I am concerned, doctors and teachers are already assigned salaries. Of course, there are problems, for instance, irrigation of agricultural fields or electricity supply. The residents are gradually getting used to living there. But I would like the Ossetian authorities to pay more attention to the region. There are now talks about the possibility of creating a free economical zone in Leningorsky region. If this is done, it will be beneficial for both Georgia and the South Ossetia. I am sure, however, that this zone will be blocked by the Georgian government. The economical zone of this kind had been functioning in Ergneti until it was liquidated by the enforcements of Mikhail Saakashvili’s Administration. And the price for recognition - The Russian human right activists, Valeria Novodvorskaya and Konstantin Borovoy, visited Tbilisi in the end of February. According to Novodvorskaya saying, Russia is planning a new military aggression against Georgia. How do you think, is there a possibility of military actions recommencement between Russia and Georgia, including the territories of the South Ossetia? - I am not as informed as Novodvorskaya or Borovoy. I assume that this claim is their current political state of affairs. I do not see any sense of Russia doing so. Russia has paid much for the recognition of Abkhazia and the South Ossetia and keeps paying. It is not a secret for anyone that Russia could seize Tbilisi as well in 2008, however, did not do so. I don’t think that Russia needs a new war. And the South Ossetia is the least interested body, since we can be used as the stage for the military actions. I hope this won’t happen. - Eduard Kokoity has not once given publicity to the pretensions towards Georgia, especially, concerning the territory adjacent to Truso Gorge. Don’t his pleads seem to be a sign of the future possibility of military clashes? - You should ask about this Kokity himself. Even at the times of Russian Empire it was 100 percent populated with the Ossetians. Today, the Gorge is deserted, no one lives there. The most part has moved to live in the North Ossetia. Even before the August conflict the South Ossetia had been raising the issue of interchanging these territories for Leningorsky region. It is not simply a region for the Ossetians, there are Ossetian sacred places. There is one of the three most important sanctuaries of the Ossetian people in the village of Taranzhelos. I would compare it with Ararat Mountain for Armenians, you can see it, but you cannot touch it… I think that this issue could be regulated in a sensible way. But I do not like militant announcements. It’s clear, that there will be no military enforcements from the South Ossetian side, and they should not be taken. - After August 2008 Russia achieved the withdrawal of OSCE observers from the region. Nowadays, the international community suggests the return of the observers to the South Ossetia and Abkhazia. How do you think, will the international monitoring be useful in these regions and why Tskhinvali is against it? - We are talking about the creditworthiness. The observers had been present in the South Ossetia for many years as a result of which the known things happened in 2008. But I do believe that the more observers we have in the South Ossetia, the better it is for our country. This is my personal subjective opinion. However, the Ossetian authorities do not share my point of view. I haven’t a faintest idea of the Russian authorities’ point of view. The observers in the South Ossetia should make people trust in them. It’s not like this now. - Would you like to add anything to what has already been said? - I would like to say that if Georgia wants to have normal relations with the South Ossetia, it has to accept the South Ossetia as an equal state. Let’s live on equal terms, friendly, and without any pretensions to one another. I do understand that the Georgian politicians are the hostages of their own ambitions. But who has been interfering with them to solve the problem peacefully in 20 years’ time? No one. Nevertheless, they decided to resolve the conflict by means of implementing the military force. The South Ossetia is the least to blame. Georgia has always been declaring its attribution to European values. The European Union was created on the basis of a good will, and none of the states were annexed by force, on the contrary, everyone was asking to join the EU. Now, we have to talk about revival of some relations, about restoration of trust, and then time will tell… A good will and unwillingness of a war are the key points. The fact that Mikhail Saakashvili refuses to sign a non-aggression and non-use of force pacts seems to be very indicative. This fact causes tension and deprives the forces who would like to run talks with Georgia of the supportive arguments. Irakli Chikhladze, for newcaucasus.com