Replying to Russia's demand to deprive Tbilisi of offensive arms, Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Bokeria argued that "Georgian territories are occupied by Russian troops."
Photo: AP
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
Vain Success
// Organizers of Geneva talks managed to keep participants at the negotiating table
Yesterday the second round of negotiations for peace settlement in the Caucasus finished in Geneva. The parties to the conflict demonstrated determination to stick to their positions, and the organizers showed quick wit, which helped them avoid the negotiations’ probable failure. Despite the fact that the second Geneva meeting has not brought visible results, its participants have highly assessed it.
Negotiations in Geneva were expected to be unproductive and even scandalous. Ahead of the talks, Abkhaz Foreign Office Chief Sergey Shamba told Kommersant that he did not expect any “breakthrough” from the Geneva meeting. Moreover, according to Mr Shamba, the Abkhaz delegation was going to leave negotiations in case it was not invited to the plenary session. “Our delegation has come to Geneva only because we were given a status equal to that of the rest participants,” Mr Shamba told Kommersant. “They sent us an official invitation, which had not been done last time. The invitation read that eight parties would participate in the Geneva negotiations, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It even read that all participants would have similar ID cards.”
However, the Georgian party suddenly opposed to Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s attending the plenary session as full-right participants. The second round of Geneva talks threatened to be called off. Disagreements were so deep that the meeting’s format was not defined even on the first day of negotiations, November 18. Nevertheless, in the evening Europeans attempted to save face and create at least visibility of negotiations, limiting the talks to working groups’ meetings and cancelling the planned plenary session. Such a format suited all participants, even more so because it didn’t oblige them to make any decisions.
It need be reminded that the Georgian delegation was going to use the plenary session to urge Russian troops’ withdrawal to the positions they occupied before the August war. Also, Tbilisi was going to demand replacement of Russian peacekeepers in the conflict zones with international ones. Georgia did not abandon its plans; however, due to the changing of the negotiation format, Georgia’s representatives had an opportunity to speak “during the working discussion” only.
The Georgian party’s offers concerning replacement of the Russian contingent with an international one were put forward yesterday at the meeting of the group that focused on security issues (the other group discussed the problem of returning refugees); Russia made its own proposals in response. Head of the Russian delegation, Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin suggested “depriving Georgia of offensive arms to ensure confidential relations.” Georgia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Bokeria answered back, “What arms limitations do you mean when our territories are occupied by Russian troops?”
The South Ossetian delegation supported their Russian colleagues, “Why hasn’t Georgia signed an agreement for no use of force yet? Unless this document is signed, we cannot be sure that the scenario, which was carried out in South Ossetia, will not repeat.” Representatives of the Abkhaz delegation stated that the Abkhaz people see only Russia as the intermediary and peacekeeper in their country.
However, it did not prevent head of the Georgian delegation Georgy Bokeria from stating after the meeting that its participants “understand the necessity of introducing international peacekeeping forces to the region.” Underlining that the meeting was informal and “all participants had a personal status,” Mr Bokeria told Kommersant that “only international peacekeeping forces can ensure security in the region and foster returning of refugees.” “Not only has Russia failed to fulfill the basic parametres of the Medvedev-Sarkozy agreement, it still occupies the territory of Georgia,” Mr Bokeria told Kommersant. “The amount of Russian armed forces in this zone has increased threefold. Ethnic cleanings against Georgians are carried out in the occupied zones. There are frequent incidents on the borders, even assaults on European monitors. Therefore, I consider that at this meeting we all were unanimous in stressing the necessity to create a new security format in the region.”
The position of South Ossetia’s delegation was similar to Mr Bokeria’s, only accents were opposite. “We have raised the question of failing to observe agreements for the buffer zone,” head of the South Ossetian delegation Boris Chochiyev told Kommersant after the meeting.” “Georgia is building up forces on the borders with South Ossetia. Unfortunately, EU monitors, who supervise this zone, have no certain mandate, and no one heeds their opinion on that side.” Thus, South Ossetia, along with Abkhazia, sent a clear message that it will oppose replacement of the Russian contingent with an international one.
The discussion of refugees’ problem, which was held by the second working group, appeared no more productive. “We do not intend to open our border,” Mr Chochiyev summarized South Ossetia’s position in this question. “The issue of returning refugees cannot be solved without addressing security matters, first of all, our people’s security.” The stance of the Abkhaz party towards this question appeared no less rigid. “We have been addressing refugees’ issue for 18 years and we can share experience with everybody,” Chief of the Abkhaz Foreign Ministry Sergey Shamba told Kommersant. “We can show how many people have already returned to the Gal area in these years. We can explain our strategy and the way people, who return, adapt in our society. We can explain who returns, and who doesn’t, and why. We are ready to discuss it all. But in this question we proceed first of all upon security of our population, and all participants of the meeting should consider it.”
Nevertheless despite the Geneva meeting’s declarative nature, its participants estimated it highly enough. Especially western intermediaries. “We spent three hours discussing issues, we had coffee together, and had dinner, and nobody has left in a huff, nobody has beaten anybody,” one of the participants of the meeting told Kommersant ironically. “On the whole, the meeting can be considered a success.” Representatives of the European Union also evaluated it highly. “For the first time after the August war all parties met with each other,” EU representative Pierre Morel noted at the briefing. “It was a very productive meeting.” “Finally we began talking business,” special UN envoy for Georgia Johan Verbeke echoed him. “Now the most important step is working out the mechanism of monitors’ work and preventing incidents in the conflict zones.” “The meeting was a success, and we are sure that we will manage to build on it, if Russia changes its position and fosters addressing problems,” Mr Bokeria noted. Russian representative Grigory Karasin, calling the dialogue “tough” in the interview with Kommersant, stated nevertheless that “conversation took place.” At the same time Russian Deputy Foreign Minister reminded that Russia’s main requirement is Georgia’s signing an agreement for no use of force.
Thus, all participants of the meeting are satisfied with its results — each party showed adherence to their principles, and Europe’s peace-keeping image was not damaged. The next meeting in Geneva is planned for December 17-18. However, Mr Morel said that it will be held in the format of a “general discussion” rather than working groups. The EU representative did not specify what format is meant under such wording.
If it is going to be an official plenary session (which is to be held sooner or later to make any decisions), participants of the next stage of negotiations will face the same problem of the status, which became the stumbling block at the first round in October. However, probably the organizers of the meeting will find a new form for it: yesterday’s negotiations showed that the format issue cannot prevent European intermediaries from seeking compromise.
Igor Sedykh, Geneva; Olga Allenova
All the Article in Russian as of Nov. 20, 2008
|
|
|
