Zourabichvili’s statements in Baku
It is difficult to say to what extent this was pre-planned. Nevertheless, it can be said that whatever happened opened the door to sincere talk and the actions that followed, which is sure to result in nothing other than mutual benefit.
What particularly is meant here is open conversation about the problem of conflicts in the region, which took place in Yerevan between President Zourabichvili and leading office-holders of Armenia.
The Georgian President’s visit to Armenia took place after her visit to Azerbaijan, where some wordings in Madam President’s statements allowed Baku to voice the conclusions that Tbilisi was now unambiguously “showing support” for Azerbaijan’s “territorial integrity” in the form desired by the [Azerbaijani President Ilham] Aliyev regime.
In particular, according to the press, in Baku, Zourabichvili told Aliyev: “We restored our countries’ independence almost simultaneously, suffering similar tragedies.” Then, she said that under “similar tragedies” she implied precisely “occupation of territories”. “Occupation lines are open wounds for you, too,” the Georgian president continued, also saying that she was satisfied with the fact that Georgia and Azerbaijan “managed to strengthen their states and develop economies despite occupation”.
Response in Yerevan
The theme was continued in Yerevan and it cannot have failed to be continued. It became known from official information that in the context of regional security, the issue was touched on during the meeting with National Assembly Chairman Ararat Mirzoyan.
“The National Assembly chairman addressed the problems of regional security. Regarding the problem of [Azerbaijan’s breakaway] Nagorno-Karabakh, the parliament speaker emphasised that the authorities of the Republic of Armenia showed support for peaceful settlement of the conflict in the format of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, adding that being a member state of the OSCE, Georgia had joined the settlement [process] in the Minsk Group format. “We should take efforts to make sure that measured and neutral wordings further serve as guidelines in all statements on Nagorno-Karabakh,” Ararat Mirzoyan emphasised. In this context, he voiced concern over the Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Georgian foreign ministers’ joint statement, which was issued on 29 October 2018 and which mentioned only one of the principles of conflict settlement. According to the National Assembly speaker, some wordings, which the Georgian president used during her recent visit to Baku, aroused concern in Armenian society. In this context, the parliament chairman considered the Georgian president’s generalised approach to different conflicts as unacceptable,” an official report of the Armenian National Assembly said.
Zourabichvili effectively ‘denied’ statement in Baku
Indeed, Armenia’s position is absolutely understandable and justified. However, there are also “stumbling blocks”, which have been left on the way of Armenian diplomacy over the past years and completely irresponsibly, too.
For her part, President Zourabichvili responded to this, which was not mentioned in the Armenian official report, but was published by the Georgian Public Broadcaster. According to the Georgian president, cooperation between the parliaments of the two countries on conflict issues was extremely important. “You also mentioned our cooperation on conflict issues and this is extremely important. For our region, these conflicts are probably the factors limiting our joint progress. As you are well aware, there are two occupied territories in Georgia and if we are speaking about the country’s interests , our main and only interest is that our sovereignty and territorial integrity be recognised and not only verbally, but in practice. From this point of view, it is extremely sad that delegations from Nagorno-Karabakh are visiting Abkhazia and ‘South Ossetia’, raising the issue as if these are similar conflicts and finding some symmetry. This is extremely sad and painful to us. We think that this does not demonstrate the benevolence, which should be in relations between our countries,” Salome Zourabichvili responded.
This is an extremely important statement, by which Madam President effectively denied the statement she had previously made in Baku. It follows that according to the statement made in Yerevan, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the conflicts in Georgia are nevertheless dissimilar and there is no symmetry.
In other words, this might outwardly look as a diplomatic “shootout”, but in actual fact, these are quite important statements and to official Yerevan’s and Tbilisi’s credit, they were made, albeit belatedly.
Georgia ‘stabilising factor’ in region
After all, what do Georgia and Armenian want from each other regarding the issue? In fact, not more than what has been documented in their official positions and international developments, and no deviation from all that has officially been documented so far.
At least, since the early 1990s, Tbilisi has maintained a balanced position regarding the recognised parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Armenia and Azerbaijan, and residents of Artsakh [Armenian name of Nagorno-Karabakh] have been able to, say, visit Georgia without hindrance as tourists or develop some other activities, which foreigners are allowed to. The thing is that apart from the fact that there are areas in Georgia densely populated by [ethnic] Armenian and Azerbaijani minorities, Georgia is Armenia’s main link to the outside world and a “lifeline route” for Azerbaijani hydrocarbons. And Tbilisi can have no position other than maintaining a balance and by doing so, taking upon itself the role of the most important stabilising factor in the region.
Armenia expects ‘balanced position’ from Georgia
As for Yerevan, it has never questioned Georgia’s territorial integrity, including Abkhazia and “South Ossetia”, even when “our centuries-old friend [Russia]” switched to open pressure, as this was the case in 2008, when Moscow invaded Georgia, and afterwards. And although Russians managed to persuade [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad to recognise their “independence”, joining the “honorary club” together with Vanuatu and Nicaragua [which also recognise their independence], they failed to do the same even with [former Armenian President] Serzh Sargsyan. Yerevan has never and by no means insisted that Georgia openly take a “pro-Armenian” position and that if this does not happen, we will take steps against it, say, regarding the Abkhazia and “South Ossetia” issues. Understandably, the most “pro-Armenian” policy, which Armenia expects Georgia to pursue, is a balanced position, benevolent neutrality, and extension of bilateral relations in the fullest range – from economy to security. In Tbilisi, they are perfectly aware of this and they have always supported this approach.
Karabakh, Armenia, and Georgia’s territorial integrity
Indeed, occasional official visits from Artsakh to Abkhazia and “South Ossetia” and the shameful practice of “congratulations” on different occasions is a separate story, which undermines relations between Armenia and Georgia, threatening Armenia’s positions, delivering a blow to Artsakh’s interests and international reputation, playing into Russia’s hands, and also giving Baku a reason and an opportunity to push this in relations with Georgia as an argument in support of why Georgia should sign a joint statement on territorial integrity with Ankara and Baku. However, this is a matter of our internal discussion.
Indeed, the reality is that the conflicts are not only different and asymmetric, but also it is just insulting for Artsakh to be considering them as symmetric. It is also extremely noteworthy that during President Zourabichvili’s visit, Acting OSCE Chairman and Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcak also visited Armenia. Apart from official contacts with the Armenian leadership, Lajcak also held an important and useful meeting with Artsakh foreign minister Masis Mayilyan. This is absolutely unimaginable in the case of Abkhazia and “South Ossetia” and this most accurately highlights, where they are and where we are, particularly as our [Karabakh’s] independence has been recognised by seven US states, including California, whose GDP twice exceeds that of our “strategic partner [Russia]”. Why do you travel, say, to Tskhinvali? What do you want to do or prove there? And what do you want to happen afterwards?
We should after all make it possible that delegations from [Nagorno-Karabakh capital] Stepanakert [Xankandi] visit Tbilisi, Chisinau, and Kiev, exchanging congratulations sent from Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, rather than corrupt and criminal outlaws remaining on the Kremlin’s commodity subsistence. Artsakh is an exceptional conflict in the post-Soviet area, which implies an exceptional decision. And this has nothing to do with the territorial integrity of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, which we unconditionally recognise. This has nothing to do with Azerbaijan’s “territorial integrity” Baku-style, which, for its part, has nothing to do with reality and just seriously conflicts with common sense and morality.
And lastly, the Georgian president’s visit to Yerevan has served for Yerevan as an impetus towards finding ways to “stock-taking” their foreign policies, clearing out rubbish, which relations between Armenia and Ukraine are full of and which have a similar vicious origin, leaving Armenia outside brackets in many processes, serving Russia’s exceptionally imperial interests exceptionally at the expense of our state’s reputation and delivering a straightforward blow to Armenia’s interests.
The international community considers the territorial integrity of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova in a single package, which is not subject to bargaining in the context of occupation on Russia’s part. And it is high time to understand that no steps should be taken to allow Baku to squeeze the thesis about “territorial integrity” into the same basket and [help] perceive Armenia as Moscow’s satellite. These conflicts are the most important indicators and there is every reason for agreement on not voting against each other at international platforms (after all, there is an “abstain” button or it is also possible just not to vote), being in keeping with the position of the international community in the case of post-Soviet conflicts and in keeping with the tripartite co-chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group in the case of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict rather than in keeping with the whims of the Kremlin’s and Baku’s kleptocracies.