Author: Adrine Hakobian

Given these circumstances and the context of the Karabakh conflict, some ethnic Azerbaijanis residing in Georgia protested against the opening of the monument. They demanded that the local government remove Mikhail Avagyan’s bust, but residents of Bughasheni and some ethnic Armenian citizens of Georgia oppose the demand.

Is it possible to defuse the situation and if it is, how? What should the Georgian government do to emerge from this complicated situation in both short and long run? Can the seething passions be a manifestation of some other problem? How is this phenomenon linked to the events unfolding in the region? Netgazeti tried to find answers to these questions with specialists working on problems of the Armenian-Azerbaijani and other conflicts.

No-win situation

Former Minister of State for Reconciliation and Civic Equality and expert in conflicts Paata Zakareishvili told Netgazeti that there is only one way of regulating the conflict: The local self-governance body should remove the bust. He believes that the central government and security services should talk with the local government and the local government should realise that “they made a very bad mistake”, solemnly opening the monument. This step “damages stability in the region to a certain extent”, so “they should make a painful albeit comprehensible decision” – they should remove the bust.

Can this step anger the ethnic Armenian community and, correspondingly, lead to a further aggravation of the situation? Arnold Stepanyan, the chairman of the Multinational Georgia NGO, who works on issues of integration, told Netgazeti that such a threat exists. Therefore, he believes that “we should search a way out in a long-term rather than short-term perspectives”.

Although he deems it indispensable to search for a way out in the long-term perspectives, Zaur Xalilov, the executive director of the Civic Integration Fund, does not share this opinion. He told Netgazeti that this step would not anger the population, if you explained to them that “although he was a native of your village, this man [Avagyan] was fighting for the interests of another country against the territorial integrity of yet another country”.

Paata Zakareishvili also tends to this opinion: “It is necessary to do some work to prevent tensions. There are self-government bodies, councils… It is clear that if someone just goes and removes the monument, it will cause tensions. It is necessary to do some work”.

Xalilov believes that it would be logical to move the bust to Avagyan’s grave or a private land plot, in other words, not to leave it in the public space. However, Arnold Stepanyan thinks that in both cases – whether the monument is left intact or removed – “we will have one or the other community offended, which does not mean that the problem will be resolved” and “moving the monument to another place is not going to be a way out either”.

Caucasus House Executive Director Vano Abramashvili said that removing the bust “is going to be neither simple nor correct against the existing background”. In his opinion, erecting monuments to the opposing side [Azerbaijani fighters born in Georgia] [square brackets as published] was not a way out.

‘No to new monuments’

None of our respondents likes the idea of erecting a monument to a person, who fought for Azerbaijan in the Karabakh conflict, this time in an Azerbaijani community.

Paata Zakareishvili told Netgazeti that “this will further aggravate the situation” and Arnold Stepanyan said that at least one such memorial already existed in a village in [ethnic Azerbaijani-populated] Marneuli District, but “we should renounce this practice of an artificial balance”. In addition, he said that this would not satisfy the Azerbaijani community, because they came to a protest rally under to slogan “No to separatism”.

“The problem must be resolved only through dialogue,” Vano Abramashvili said and explained:

“The Georgian government should approach this issue first and foremost from the positions of self-criticism, because this throws a serious shadow on Georgia’s position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is necessary to make a clear statement that Georgia’s major objective is to maintain and build peace in the region. On this basis, it is possible to start dialogue with the ethnic Azerbaijani and Armenian population and civil society should also become involved in it, if necessary, in the shape of ‘civil commissions’. It is important not to hush this problem, because this will only deepen the conflict.”

Way out – political responsibility

Talking with Netgazeti, former Minister of State Paata Zakareishvili proposed that parliament adopt a law that will put symbols of other countries under control.

“At the moment, it is up to the local self-government whether to have a monument or not, but I believe that parliament should adopt a decision at the legislative level that symbols reflecting the merits or certain positions of other countries be put in place on Georgian territory in coordination with a political body,” Zakareishvili said, giving an example of naming the right embankment of the Mtkvari River after [late Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev, erecting a sculpture of Ronald Reagan, and so forth.

Zaur Xalilov also welcomed this initiative. “When it is a question of issues that can produce such results, of course, it is definitely the central government that should make a decision”.

However, unresolved problems still remain beyond such a legal regulation. For example, according to Xalilov’s observations, the opening of the monument proper on the one hand and on the other, “such an aggressive attitude towards the erection of a monument to a person, who fought in Karabakh” by the Azerbaijani community shows that “ethnically Armenian and Azerbaijani citizens of Georgia do not regard themselves as our country’s citizens politically and socially and do not identify themselves with this country.”

‘Manifestation of symptoms’

Vano Abramishvili’s view of this issue is as follows: “What happened is a manifestation of a problem that has accumulated for years, as communication between the central government and local self-government bodies is quite weak. This problem is even more acute in regions populated by ethnic minorities”.

According to Abramashvili, “none of the governments have proved to have sufficient political will to make the participation of the ethnically Azerbaijani and Armenian population an important element in the process of reinforcing Georgia’s statehood”.

Both Zaur Xalilov and Arnold Stepanyan focus on the lack of the integration of ethnic Armenian and Azerbaijani citizens, emphasising the need in working with them.

“These people live in the information spaces of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Russia. They watch their [TV] programmes and read their news and they know little about what is happening in Georgia,” Stepanyan explained.

He said that in addition to this, they have little experience and practice of participating in political life: “We cannot speak about discrimination now like it used to be years ago. For example, you will not be denied a job, ‘because you are Armenian or Azerbaijani’. This is no longer reality. However, when we speak about involvement in politics, it is a fact that representatives of ethnic minorities do not occupy, so to say, ‘prestigious’ social niches,” Stepanyan said.

“One way or another, it follows that both communities are now sides, passive sides. However, some of them are also active,” he said and added that “some of our citizens from both sides participated in the armed conflicts” both in 1988-1994 and the confrontation resumed in April 2016.

Regional dynamic

After [Armenian Prime Minister] Nikol Pashinyan came to power following the Velvet Revolution in Armenia, some specialists in the international media and Caucasus issues point to new chances of the two countries to finally start the peace process. Direct meetings between Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers are being held and at a glance, it seems that the official aggressive policy has weakened at least to some extent.

“Given what we can see on the surface, this really seems to be true. Azerbaijani journalists were officially allowed to visit Armenia just recently. They seem to be taking first steps and agreeing on something. When we speak about this incident [unfolding around Bughasheni] [square brackets as published] in this case, it is part of the [anti-peace] [square brackets as published] campaign. It was ‘top news’ in the Azerbaijani press. However, in this case, it was rather the population of Azerbaijan that was the target. They were told: ‘Can you see what Armenians are doing? They are still erecting monuments’. Of course, someone does not like reconciliation and this someone is Russia,” Arnold Stepanyan said.

Zaur Xalilov said that in this case, the main question is as follows: What are we doing to prevent this conflict from spreading to Georgia?

Between the rock and hard place

Paata Zakareishvili said that Georgia “cannot remain fully neutral”, because it holds a clear-cut position [in support of] Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, which is correct, but it “is trying to be a balancing side in this issue”. However, Stepanyan voices concern: “Everything is moving in the direction of the aggravation of the situation between communities [residing in Georgia] [square brackets as published] and community leaders, including by means of provocations”.

Zaur Xalilov explained that these events showed us “one more fundamental problem”. “The oral agreement that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict should not expand to Georgian territory is being violated. The balance is broken and Georgia becomes obliged to turn into a side, which is a big trouble”.

According to Arnold Stepanyan, “there are people, who implement Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s interests. These people work within the communities and are quite popular too. In the meantime, Georgian society and the political elite are not doing anything to win these people over, because no one pays attention to them”.

Stepanyan believes that “in the long run, at least one thing that should be done is that these two countries should fail to move this conflict to Georgia”. “Their national interests are clear, but we are going to suffer in this manner,” he said.

“Both communities residing in Georgia live in the areas that are strategically important also for Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is a transit route for both. Therefore, it is logical for them to want to have levers. They have two objectives at the time of conflict: To at least prevent any obstacles from emerging on this transit route and at best, be able to block the transit route for the rival. Both depend on this road and it is important for them to work on these issues. However, this damages us,” Stepanyan said.

“There are three prominent countries in the region and two of them are at war with each other. It is natural that the third country should be trying to hold a position that is as balanced as possible. It has various strategic interests in both countries, but it should try to have a balanced policy on domestic problems and not to allow its own actions to aggravate the situation that is already aggravated,” Paata Zakareishvili said.

What should Georgia do?

Zaur Xalilov said that “you cannot react to everything post-factum. This is a problem that should have been prevented”. He said that “anti-Armenian sentiments are already there, Armenophobia can be heard from the media, and so forth. It will be terrible, if you add fuel to this”.

“We have worked for years, held training courses and seminars, and worked with local self-governance bodies. We want these young people to turn towards Georgia… If we do not want to have these people integrated, we will have enclaves. But we have already gone through this period, when you arrived in those regions and found no one, who could speak the official language [Georgian], the currency did not circulate there, and people ran around with flags of a neighbouring country in their hands. What are we reverting to? We want young people not to have conflicts with each other, we invite them to meet, we invite them to make friends with each other and we invite them to do things together. We take them to other regions to enable them to familiarise themselves with each other, establish personal contacts and have common stories. Such provocations against this background are not, to put it mildly, morally justifies,” he said.

Therefore, Xalilov believes it is important to confront problems that are not on the surface. Arnold Stepanyan shares the opinion:

“In the long run, we should work with people, particularly youths. If they are Georgian citizens, they should pay attention to the development of their country. They should feel that they are Georgian citizens and think about Georgia, not some other countries. I also mean involvement in conflicts outside Georgia and support [for the sides in the conflicts].”

He went on: “I think the involvement of the state should be more serious than it is now. These people should pay more attention to patriotism at schools. Patriotism should not be only something written on a sheet of paper. It should be reflected in actions”.

According to Abramashvili, “none of the governments have proved to have sufficient political will to make the participation of the ethnically Azerbaijani and Armenian population an important element in the process of reinforcing Georgia’s statehood”.

“It is due to this that the central government is unable to feel how sensitive and important these problems are, problems that emerge from time to time. Many justify this by meagre resources, but ultimately, everything is explained through political will. Unfortunately, the fact that this problem is topical cannot be felt in the current political agenda.”

The staff of the Ministry of State for Reconciliation and Civic Equality wrote to Netgazeti on this issue that “the politicisation of external sensitive issues and conflicts in the domestic context and in relations between Georgian citizens is unacceptable”.

The ministry of state said that it was important that “representatives of our society and citizens irrespective of their ethnic and religious belonging and political affiliation … act first and foremost in accordance with our common civil responsibility. We are sure that peaceful coexistence and the development of this country through our consolidation are the main concern for our population and we will resolve all problems from this angle in the future”.

“Numerous state programmes that are aimed at integrating ethnic minorities have been in operation in this country for many years now and we plan to do more. Our objective is to have representatives of ethnic minorities, particularly youths, more involved in every sphere of our country’s life. We have very many active and highly-qualified Armenian and Azerbaijani youths, who are in good command of the official language in addition to their native languages. The door in public service is open for them due to the newly-developed trainee programme. We will go on with it and promote very many exemplary people, who will contribute to strengthening our country, establishing peaceful coexistence, and maintaining and reinforcing years-long traditions.”