Georgian president pays 'familiarisation visit' to Armenia
[Dubnov] Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili's visit to Armenia in the present capacity of president of Georgia does not seem to be an event of global historic importance. Nevertheless, quite rapt attention was focused on the visit. Why? And what can we now say about the importance of the meetings?
[Iskandaryan] Well, the visit hardly had a global historic importance, of course. This was a so-called familiarisation visit. Salome Zourabichvili paid her first visit to Baku, which is quite understandable on the whole: Baku and Ankara are Georgia's main partners in the trade and economic spheres. Azerbaijan is an important country for Georgia. Due to the peculiarity of the region and the [high] degree of connectedness of problems within the region, it would not have been very polite, to put it mildly, to visit Baku and not to visit Yerevan. In my opinion, there will also be a visit to Turkey. As regards the agenda, according to the Georgian constitution, Georgian president generally has limited powers and this was a visit, which had to be paid. She mainly had a meeting with Armenian President [Armen Sargsyan], whose formal powers are as limited as hers. This was a representative visit.
As regards the attention this received… Well, in general, Georgia is an important country for Armenia. Georgia is our immediate neighbour. About 70 per cent of Armenian goods turnover goes via this country. This is the country, which Armenian exports go to and in significant amounts for Armenian standards, too. This is the country, from where imports come to Armenia, and so forth. In other words, we are neighbours. Some statements, which were made during the visit, also received attention. However, to say that the result… Well, it was said that border delimitation, which has not been completed so far, had to be finally completed. All necessary words were used.
[Dubnov] In other words, if I got you right, what we have to deal with is a kind of listing of problems and issues existing between Georgia and Armenia and in general, this was just done in quite an expressive manner.
[Iskandaryan] Not even so: Listing problems is something to be done by prime ministers. Really serious problems, which are between the two countries and which need to be resolved, are dealt with on a permanent basis and in this regard, constant contacts are maintained. And this is certainly done at the level of real heads of state, in particular, by prime ministers of the two countries.
Georgian president's representative functions not formal
[Iskandaryan] This is an extremely interesting example in relations between Armenia and Georgia. There are not many examples of the kind all over the world. Over the period of independence of one or the other country, i.e. over the period of almost 30 years, Armenia and Georgia have effectively been torn to different sides of the trench due to almost all foreign aspects and different orientation models: Georgia positions itself as effectively unambiguously pro-Western, while Armenia positions itself as pursuing a complimentary, i.e. multi-vector policy; Georgia has ethno-political conflicts, while Armenia has a conflict over [Azerbaijan's Nagorno-]Karabakh. In this regard, Georgia feels apprehension, because the situation is opposite. Relations between Russia and Armenia are quite benevolent, while Georgia has just no diplomatic relations with Russia. Moreover, 10 years ago, which is a short time according to historic standards, Georgia had war with Russia, and so forth. And against this background, Armenia and Georgia have always managed to find ways of making relations between them quite decent, moreover quite successful.
Indeed, there are problems between the neighbours and this does not concern only border delimitation: In Georgia, there is an ethnic Armenian minority, which is quite large, and there are problems, which are related to the church property, education, and so forth. However, we have always managed to cut corners, always maintaining quite decent relations. Incidentally, this visit was also indicative of this: As I have already mentioned, they spoke about border delimitation. They spoke about trade, the volume of energy, using each other in different formats, trade between Iran and Georgia, which is conducted via Armenia, as Armenia is located between Iran and Georgia. However, to begin with, all these problems are not central for the region, to put it that way, and at the same time, it was impossible for the presidents to avert these problems.
On the other hand, there are problems of cooperation, say, in transport and energy spheres and they are serious, because there arise problems sometimes literally in the sphere of geography: The Verkhny Lars checkpoint [on the Georgian-Russian border], which is closed from time to time because of geographical and natural reasons; energy problems, which need investments; and problems in relations between different economic spheres. Georgia can somewhat use Armenia for cooperation with the [Russian-led] Eurasian Union. Armenia can use Georgia just in geographic terms to enter the European market, which is impossible otherwise: Figuratively speaking, Batumi and Poti are also Armenian ports. There arise problems, which are related to transport communications. However, this is probably not the level of presidents. This is more or less settled in the ordinary course of business.
[Dubnov] In other words, we can suppose that Salome Zourabichvili's status is quite suitable to send some signals, which Salome Zourabichvili actually did during her visit. Is that right?
[Iskandaryan] Without any doubt. You have found an extremely good wording. In Georgia's and Armenia's cases (particularly in Georgia's case), presidents formally have precisely representative powers. However, due to her personality, biography, and diplomatic background, including her French diplomatic background, she is not carrying out these representative functions only formally. That is why I think that opportunities of the kind can be used.
Georgian president's wording turned into acceptable story
[Dubnov] This makes some of the pronouncements, which she made during her visit, even more interesting. In this connection, I would like to go back to the beginning of our conversation [when we were speaking] about Georgia's preferences. Georgia usually says that it has to and it is obliged to take somewhat equally distant positions in the region. However, as you have said, it is not quite clear how it should do so, as all Georgia's main interests lie within relations between Tbilisi and Baku, rather than those between Tbilisi and Yerevan, which are built as if following the residual principle. I cannot recall Georgian leaders to have so openly voiced during their official visits grievances against the Armenian side against the background of her complementary wording during the visit to Baku [phrase as published].
[Iskandaryan] Indeed, Ms Zourabichvili's personality probably also played its role here and this was not the first case, when she felt at ease in her pronouncements. Normally, they do not say something of the kind or if they do, this happens in a different format, not in places of the kind and not during official visits, to put it that way. What I imply is the statements, which were effectively made about the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. In this case, everything is clear: Georgia's position is absolutely determined, because Georgia has problems related to the regions, which it considers as its own and which are not under Georgian jurisdiction: I imply [breakaway] Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The situation with Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh republic is about the same. And that is why words of the kind are often used in Georgia. It is a different matter that they are usually said outside Armenia.
In what way can the situation be remedied? This has been remedied or handled in this way for about 30 years. This has already been said in the presence of the Armenian president. However, this did not cause in Yerevan any counter-reaction, [as they think that] these conflicts cannot be compared. This wording [implies that] these are different [conflicts] and countries develop attitudes to the Karabakh conflict and the Ossetian and Abkhaz conflicts in different manners. It does not even matter how true these [attitudes] is: This is so and this is not so in different spheres. However, a wording of the kind makes it possible to turn the situation into what is called a well-known phrase from a film: "Nothing personal", [which] helps to find a way out of the situation. In other words, "the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the one hand, and the Abkhaz and South Ossetian conflicts must not be compared," Armenian government officials say. Armenia chooses not to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. The process around Karabakh continues within the frameworks of the OSCE Minsk group. Georgia is one of the member countries of the OSCE and in this context, it is possible to avert the situation by diplomatic means.
[Dubnov] What reaction did statements of the kind receive in Armenia? Did they cause anger or dissatisfaction? The thing is that apart from what you said about the mutual ability to smooth things over, relations between Georgia and Armenia are traditionally filled with apprehension.
[Iskandaryan] Had there been no apprehension, there would have been no need in smoothing things over. Indeed, problems do exist. They are mentioned from time to time. There is some irritation in both Tbilisi and Yerevan. However, what I say is that, thank God, there is a well-established tradition of somehow trying to resolve them, which prevents all these problems from turning into some extremely serious format and some deadlock. What attitude did they display in Armenia? They displayed different attitude. In the press, they certainly wrote [about this]. There was an interview with Parliament Speaker (Ararat) Mirzoyan, in which Mr Mirzoyan said that he was puzzled about some wordings used by Ms Zourabichvili. I would not say that the press focused rapt attention. It seems to me that the story was turned into an acceptable one, because everyone in Armenia realises the form of relations between Armenia and Georgia and the problems in them on the one hand, and Ms Zourabuchvili's powers on the other.
Things to remain 'as they are'
[Dubnov] Can this imply that Tbilisi can really change its positioning in the region in some way?
[Iskandaryan] I do not think so. This is not in Tbilisi's interests. It has not been by accident that Armenia and Georgia have managed to find ways for cooperation for so many years. This is not because they are so kind, intelligent, tolerant, and merciful. This has been determined by the situation. In general, there are quite serious risks. Neither of the sides wants to sour their relations. In Tbilisi, Yerevan, and even in Baku, Moscow, and Ankara and so forth, they certainly understand the importance of maintaining the existing balance in the region. I do not think that things of the kind can be upset as a result of some words used by someone at some point. I think that things will remain about the same as they are.