TEDO JAPARIDZE: WITHOUT GEORGIANS, ARMENIANS WOULD NOT BE THE SAME AND VICE VERSA
Mediamax
Sept 12 2012
Armenia
Exclusive interview of Georgian opposition’s senior member to Mediamax.
Tedo Japaridze was appointed Georgia’s Deputy Foreign Minister
in August 1991. He served as Deputy Chair of the National Security
Council from November 1992 to June 1994, and as Ambassador of Georgia
to the United States from July 1994 to March 2002. From March, 2002
to November, 2003, he chaired the National Security Council of Georgia.
After the Rose Revolution Tedo Japaridze served as a Foreign Minister
in the new government from November 30, 2003, to March 18, 2004. After
leaving the government service, he was secretary-general of the
Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC).
In 2011, Japaridze was dismissed from the Georgian diplomatic corps
and became the Secretary for International Affairs in “Georgian
Dream- Democratic Georgia” oppositional alliance set up by Bidzina
Ivanishvili.
Mediamax talked to Tedo Japaridze on the eve of the Parliamentary
elections to be held in Georgia on October 1.
– What is your assessment of the current state of Georgian-Armenian
relations? What is going well and what can be further improved?
– Armenians and Georgians have a shared history of centuries. The
need for our good neighborly relations is rather obvious. At present,
our relations seem amiable, more often than not. However, it is
rather obvious that the South Caucasus is not “a region” either in
economic or in political terms. Each state in the region has followed
its own foreign policy trajectory. Whatever we have achieved in terms
of bilateral relations is revocable and fragile.
We are nothing but the sum of our parts, that is, a part of the
world where no long-term political prediction or investment can be
made without considerable risk factors. In this sense, the favorable
climate in our bilateral affairs cannot be taken for granted. By the
way, I said the same to my Azerbaijani friends and colleagues.
National elites of all the states in the region, including Diasporas,
have their own share of responsibility for this state of affairs.
Focusing on Georgia, the Georgian Dream coalition has time and again
condemned the idea that our country presents itself as a “New Berlin
Wall” or a “New Mannerheim Line.” This cannot be the beginning of
constructing a “regional framework” of cooperation. As a country and a
region we are well below our potential. And we should begin to accept
responsibility for this fact.
Georgia is consistently failing to play the role of a “regional
catalyst,” naturally granted to us by virtue of history and geography.
“Realpolitik” dictates that Georgia should become the nesting ground
for an understanding between East and West, the meeting place,
a bridge, for states trapped in a state of perpetual or “frozen”
conflict. Instead, we do our utmost to emerge as a symbol of polarity.
It is from the South Caucasus that the construction of the wider Black
Sea area should begin. We can be more than the sum of our national
parts. This is our vision.
We, Caucasians, are maximalists and I too would love to see more
cooperation and more strategic discourse between our countries and
that should not start or come to the end through the visits of our
leaders. We may have different views and opinions regarding the issues
of security and stability but because of those differences we should
talk more on different levels and not only on political or diplomatic
ones. There’s so much in our history and cultural legacy that unifies
us than divides. We should take care of those immeasurable assets and
human/intellectual capital properly and accordingly. We live in one
of the most dynamic and vibrant regions of the world, we are close
neighbors but we do not know much about our history, culture…
– Some people claim that elites in Georgia are suspicious regarding
Armenia because of its strong ties with Russia and elites in Armenia
are suspicious towards Georgia because of its close relations with
Azerbaijan. What do you think?
– The elite perceptions you have just described are a clear indication
that no bilateral cleavage can be contained. In this part of the world
we will stay afloat or sink together, perpetuate our national misery
or flourish as a region. The only thing we cannot change is geography.
Despite our victories or defeats, whatever we do, we will have to
coexist with each other. And for decades we have taken turns in
Pyrrian victories. In saying “we do not trust Armenian elites,” we
are in fact describing our own mindset. You are right to distrust
us and so are we, because we are in fact mirror images of the same
diplomatic culture that has exhausted this region. Armenia and Georgia
are neighbors with a great deal of shared interests and goals – the
main of them, naturally, are our security and stability as well as our
independence and sovereignty. These components of any capable state
in our region are interconnected, intertwined and indivisible and
no one can benefit at the expense of other. That’s so obvious! While
there may be some suspicion on both sides, there is also tremendous
potential for cooperation around issues like economic development,
peace in the region and the like.
The fact that there is global interest in this part of the world
is both a blessing and a curse. There are gains to be made from
our perpetual cleavages just as there are gains to be made from our
regional consolidation. But, unless we begin to formulate a regional
approach in realistic terms, we will be simply taking turns in
outsmarting each other. God only helps those who help themselves. So
far, we have been wishing our neighbors destruction; and God is
listening to one at the time. Georgia’s economic and political
potential lies precisely in its ability to become the catalyst for a
regional approach to the region’s protracted conflicts. The Georgian
Dream hopes for victories, smaller or greater, that last. In sum,
we must concentrate on making the same wish.
– The issue of the conflicts is another factor that influences
Georgian-Armenian relations. For obvious reasons Armenia supports the
principle of the self-determination and Georgia puts on the forefront
the territorial integrity principle. Do you think this is really
influencing the Georgian-Armenian relations?
– The conflicts influence everything in the region. Until these
conflicts are resolved, which for Georgia means restoring our
territorial integrity, it will be very difficult for the region
to move forward. The principles of self-determination versus
territorial integrity have time and again conflated in every part of
the world that has seen the renegotiation of boundaries: from African
decolonization to the breakup of Yugoslavia. The argument essentially
separates revisionist from status quo powers. There is no “right”
normative argument in this sense; there are arguments reflective
of our national interests and arguments contrary to our national
interests. As a Georgian, I will fight tooth and nail for my nation’s
interests and I expect nothing less from by Armenian colleagues. The
ultimate question is “to what end?
Ultimately, much like in Southeastern Europe, we must come to
regional resolutions. If we resolve our differences in terms of
“Blood and Iron” – as Bismarck once suggested – then we must also
be ready to accept that peace is the continuation of war by other
means. If we opt for this assessment, we must be ready to assume the
consequences. We will be right in our normative argument until the
other side of the equation amasses the power to demonstrate that we
are wrong. Not being in war does not mean having peace. As I said,
the Georgian Dream favors diplomatic achievements that last. We should
focus on what works rather than what is right. And this may just prove
to be the most righteous thing we ever did. No nation was born with
a monopoly of truth. How many wars do we have to sustain before we
come to terms with this simple objective reality?
– What is Georgian Dream’s stance regarding the Armenian populated
region of Samtskhe Javakheti?
– Samtskhe Javakheti (SJ) is an integral part of Georgia. Those
who live in this region are citizens of Georgia. In this scheme,
I am willing to discuss the shortcomings of Georgia in protecting
the rights of its national minorities; I am willing to acknowledge
that there are issues of socioeconomic marginalization. What I am
not willing to discuss are issues of sovereignty. This discussion is
a slippery slope whose results we have all learned in this part of
the world. And if we go down this road, when do we stop?
The Georgian Dream has proposed a series of steps for the regional
devolution of power, so that our national administration is reflective
of our cultural pluralism. Such reforms should be taken irrespectively
of the progress we see in the emancipation of citizens of Georgian
national identity residing in other states in this region; we detest
the notion that Georgian citizens can become hostages to bilateral
negotiations with another country. Much like Switzerland does not
negotiate the rights of its Italian-speaking minority with Italy, we
should be protecting our own citizens irrespectively of how members
of the Georgian minority are treated in other nation-states. Georgia
should protect citizens of Georgia, without prejudice for gender,
color, ethnic or religious affiliation. Ultimately, over the last few
years, I believe that the demands of the local population in the SJ
region have been framed and expressed in precisely these terms. And,
if this is the case, I believe that the Georgian Dream can best
represent them.
If Georgia becomes a state where rule of law prevails and
institutionalized democracy, this will be for the benefit of all
citizens. Meritocracy is a principle that should serve us all. But,
if we were to create a system of national quotas, as in the former
USSR, or nationally composite polities, as in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we
would have nothing but states unable to govern. We need some sense of
national unity; we need tolerance and respect for national minorities;
and we need all this for the quality of Georgian democracy. If all
states in the region moved in a parallel direction in this sense,
this would be a much better region. We should be negotiating “how we
govern” rather than “who governs who.”
It is our view that the Armenian population of SJ, as each citizen
or the representative of the ethnic minorities, should be fully
integrated into the political and economic life of Georgia.
Unfortunately, the authorities try to drag ethnic minority enclaves in
Georgia into political squabbles and intrigues instead of taking care
of their social and economic problems. Bravado is often a way to carve
a constituency by using fear, because building a state where everyone
feels secure actually takes work and a bit of silence. Less drama
and more work will be the difference between Bidzina Ivanishvili and
Michael Saakashvili – more care and attention towards our citizens! No
doubt the State should be strong and capable, but we have for too
long exhausted our state by police work. We need to do something
constructive for the safety of our citizens.
– Armenian churches are collapsing in Tbilisi while the sides are
arguing about their belonging. What Georgian Dream thinks about this
complicated issue?
– Let us be clear on one thing: the multicultural heritage of our towns
and cities are part of our national patrimony. Each time if Tbilisi
fails to honor its own Armenian cultural legacy, it is harming its
own economic prospects as a business and tourist destination; it is
harming the cultural symbols of coexistence that make peace appear a
realistic vision; it is harming our prospects to create a state that
is respected by its citizens.
But I too have a counter-question: how the Georgian cultural and
religious legacy has been treated in Armenia? Do you have any on your
territory? I believe that Azeri, Armenian, Abkhaz and other cultural
legacies present in our country should be acknowledged, honored,
preserved and celebrated. I believe that we should also make room
or hybrid identities: we should not make the choice between being
Armenian or Georgian mutually exclusive. We should stop reacting like
insecure nations competing for who discovered the phone first. We are
countries with rich cultural heritage. We must not see the decay of
such monuments as an excuse to justify our historically revanchist
ideas and irredentist aspirations. We must see the decay of monuments
for what it is, that is, political shortsightedness.
We can make a choice. We can either learn how to see monuments as
evidence of our timeless national coexistence or we can see them as a
promise that “the enemy” has always been present. In the former case,
we will live side by side in mutual respect; in the latter case, we
will destroy our cultural heritage. Because, whether we admit it or
not, being side-by-side is part of who we are. In destroying the signs
of each other’s presence, we are also destroying our own history. We
should perhaps allow our churches to come to an understanding for the
management of specifically religious sites. Being institutions with
an ecumenical appeal, I believe they have proved time and again they
can work more constructively then governments.
Ultimately, the point is this. Without Georgians, Armenians would not
be the same and vice versa. Or at the very least, a lot of good jokes
would not make sense. And many Armenians will stop calling warmly
Tbilisi the City (ДоÑ~@од). The current Georgian government has
pursued a hyper-nationalist policy while employing the rhetoric of
tolerance and diversity. We would invest in historic and religiously
significant places for all citizens of Georgia. Again, there’s so
much that unifies us than divides…
Ara Tadevosyan talked to Tedo Japaridze.
From: Baghdasarian