“Compulsion to independence recognition” - NATO hurries Georgia in conflicts resolution

The expected accession of Georgia to NATO which declared Anders Fogh Rasmussen during the last visit to the country remains impossible because of existence of not resolved territorial conflicts of the country. And the number of experts argues that president Saakashvili should recognize independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for providing the conditions of the introduction of Georgia in NATO. The secretary general of party “Democratic movement – Unified Georgia” Vakhtang Kolbaya makes comments on situation.

- What do you think of Irina Sarishvili's opinion, the leader of movement “Power to the people” that it would be necessary for Saakashvili to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as it is a necessary condition for the accession of Georgia to NATO and this condition is dictated by the western partners?

It is very difficult question which originates from August events of 2008. Some analysts say that this war was begun because the West can't quickly solve a question of the conflicts. And this war was begun somehow to leave a situation. Though such version looks like something from the fantasy area, any insinuation.

But, in any case, the succession of events says today that such judgment can't be considered as completely improbable. Therefore, as the resolution of conflict is in the deep deadlock now. Saakashvili would hardly decide on independence recognition while, because if he will make it then lose any chances to be in power – he, his party, his system. And if he intends to come to the power through certain time (he can't stand for the third time, but can return again through a certain period), so he loses this chance.

Though it is possible to say that the passion will cease for 4 years, the people will reconcile to an event. But hardly the people will forgive him. Therefore it is very improbable that he will do it. Someone can dare to do that, but not Saakashvili. Though, Abkhazia and South Ossetia became partially recognized states at his time. And the West does everything to strengthen the policy of so-called “involvement without recognition” concerning these regions.

- Can you tell about this policy more detailed?

A number of experts (including your humble servant) from Tbilisi and Sukhumi carry out the research for some years within the project of the international organization “International Alert” “Dialogue through research”. One of the research subjects, carried out in 2011 was called “Deisolation of Abkhazia”. Views from Sukhumi and from Tbilisi were offered by the researchers for judgment. So, the look from Tbilisi looks so (“Prospect of deisolation of Abkhazia in a context of non-recognition policy”): The western community put forward the concept of the new relation in search of an effective approach of the conflicts in Georgia. In order to avoid the confusion, at once we will specify that practically at the same time there were almost conformable formulas both in the academic circles of the USA and in structures of EU– “involvement without recognition” (USA) and “non-recognition and involvement” (EU).

In the first case it is the matter of well articulated concept, in the second we deal with the fragments of possible policy of EU in the future. Despite a fragmentariness of the vision, standing up for the European formula, it has some similar provisions with the first concept (USA): а) “merger” of Abkhazia with Russia admits inadmissible in both cases; b) conflict preservation in the "frozen" condition admits dangerous; and c) resources and policy of the Georgian authorities considered to be insufficient for prevention of the mentioned threats, especially, for conflict settlement.
On the basis of these messages it is offered to remain true to a principle of non-recognition of Abkhazia and, at the same time, to involve it in process of “westernization” of valuable system and practice of management. Differently, it is the matter of deisolation of Abkhazia towards the West that doesn't keep within a framework of an existing isolationist approach of Tbilisi.

Tbilisi and EU preach the policy of Abkhazia “involvement” that, certainly, means the intention of deisolation of it. However, as appears from the carried-out analysis, the direction of deisolation sees from Tbilisi and Brussels not absolutely equally. In the first case it is deisolation towards Georgia, and at the same time towards the West, but through Georgia without fail; in the second – the deisolation directly towards the West, i.e. it is not obligatory only through Georgia.

However, “Bruxelles” approach by definition can't mean the situation maintenance at which the way to the west is opened to Abkhazia and the last will indifferently look at construction of new “Berlin wall” in the Georgian direction. Therefore, the emergence of
“some synergy” is really possible under certain circumstances. Among these circumstances the main are adjustment of the approach to deisolation of Abkhazia by Georgia only “through itself” and adjustment of the policy of complete self-isolation from Georgia by Abkhazia. It is represented that EU will promote similar adjustment in every possible way. Certainly, the Russian Federation can play not the last role in whether it is fated to arise synergies. It is, I repeat, the problem vision by a part of the Georgian experts (A.Gegeshidze “Deisolation of Abkhazia, 2011, April”).

It is not known what it will end. But today there are no signs of conflicts solution, “light at the end of a tunnel”. It would be truly to say that Tbilisi has own version of conflict solution and Sukhmi and Tskhinvali have the own.
Some options of settlement are still possible with South Ossetia. And that through mutual political compromises in exchange for something serious, suitable, first of all, to the Kremlin. But there is absolutely other situation with Abkhazia. Here the genesis of the conflict lies slightly in other plane, in addition it is on the coast, there is special interest to it, the geopolitics and economy are crossed there, however, as well as in case of Georgia as a whole.

In 1992-1993, Irina Sarishvili said being the member of parliament: let's forget a problem of Abkhazia for 10-15 years, we will build own economy. And then we will return to this issue. Her statement then was given a hostile reception indignantly and with the bayonet. But she appeared the seer then. Because 20 years have passed, but things haven't got forward an inch.

But in case of her comment concerning NATO’s role, I can’t agree with her that it would be necessary for Saakashvili to act in this way. If he had any period of time ahead, so he would do that, but hardly he will make mind on independence recognition now. He would agree it, because Abkhazia is “headache” for him and for his system. They can't solve a problem by themselves, and the unresolved problem lies down on their shoulders with heavy burden. Therefore he would be released from this problem, but now he won't do it more. Not only for him – it would be very difficult to take such step to any politician of a presidential rank. Though, there are political leaders in present opposition who said in due time that Abkhazia has the right to independence. Therefore not only Saakashvili can realize this decision.

82% of the population pro voted for the accession of Georgia to NATO on a referendum in 2006. But about 80 % from these 82 % voted in that way because of hope that the issue of the conflicts will be solved by means of NATO. But it turned on the contrary. I was at conference when the representative of Alliance said that NATO is a political organization, instead of military and it won't solve a conflict issue by a military way.

NATO’s position in this sense is accurate - don't hope for us in the solution of the conflicts issue. NATO doesn’t want to have superfluous problems in the person of Georgia, which has two unsolved conflicts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And it would be convenient for NATO if Georgia was without the conflicts. But the authorities definitely feel the mood of the people that the people won't allow such exchange.

- How do you treat the facts of abuses and provocative actions from the staff of the international organizations about which some mass media wrote?

Certainly, probably, that it is not so unclouded there – there is no smoke without fire. But I can’t to argue or confirm. But can tell the only thing with confidence: the transparency of a situation should be in the interests of Sukhumi. And for this purpose it would be pragmatic to allow the mission to monitoring in the territory of Abkhazia. It is very difficult issue. It is the key issue from the point of view of Sukhumi. I understand that there are problems with a legal side of Mission staying in Abkhazia. It concerns a question of independence recognition of Abkhazia by this European structure (and at the same time it can't recognize both territorial integrity of Georgia and independence of Abkhazia and the former South Ossetia of the autonomous republic).

Though, it is unlikely that the described completely corresponds to the truth, however the facts of those or human rights violations take place there. And it isn't surprising in the conditions when “too many cooks spoil the broth”. So we will have this situation still for a long time. And it is necessary to adapt to it proceeding from the reality. As what is the reason to observers from it? As the service goes, there is also a salary. But even if to allow this improbable version, so can be assumed that it becomes for the purpose of pressure upon Sukhumi? Probably, this version is also “invented”, but the situation on borders remains difficult in any case. There are violations there and ordinary citizens suffer from them, first of all.