Interview
Ambassador Marek Szczygieł: Russian Federation fails to fulfil its international obligations
The Mission started its monitoring activities on 1 October 2008, beginning with oversight of the withdrawal of Russian armed forces from the areas adjacent to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Mission’s mandate consists of stabilisation, normalisation and confidence building, as well as reporting to the EU in order to inform European policy-making and thus contribute to the future EU engagement in the region. What difficulties does the mission experience in carrying out their daily activities and what are the challenges imposed by the COVID pandemic, on these and other pressing issues Europetime talked to Marek Szczygiel, Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Georgia. _what is the key issue you are focusing on when submitting your reports? The role of the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia is indeed to observe the security developments along the Administrative Boundary Lines (ABL) with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which our monitors do through daily patrols in the areas. On such patrols, EUMM monitors also engage with local communities and stakeholders to get their perspective on the current situation and how it affects their lives. They also observe the activities of security actors in the areas and ‘borderisation’ features. All these observations are then analyzed, compiled and sent as reports to EU policy-makers and Member States. Our Mandate is valid within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia. However, the Russian Federation fails to fulfil its international obligations including under the EU-mediated 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement, notably to withdraw its military forces from the territory of Georgia. We continue to be denied access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia and this constitutes our greatest challenge in fully implementing our Mandate. We have to rely on alternative ways to collect information, including information that is available online in open sources, but a presence on the ground and direct engagement with local actors would without doubt allow us to monitor and report more accurately on the security, humanitarian and human rights situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. _The Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism meetings have resumed, after 5 month break. Parties discuss events and incidents, raise issues of concern on the general security situation and the conditions for the civilian population. During the last meeting the Georgian side raised the issue of illegally detained citizens. As a conflict prevention specialist, how do you view the effectiveness of this mechanism and the prospects for resolving existing issues? As one of the two co-facilitators of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (IPRM) meetings in Ergneti, I believe that these meetings are essential in maintaining stability on the ground, defusing tensions, and building trust between the participants. The format allows direct discussions on very concrete issues faced by conflict-affected communities on both sides of the ABLs, such as specific detentions cases or freedom of movement restrictions. In fact, the IPRM is currently the only format that focuses specifically on local needs, and all participants often stress publicly the importance of this mechanism. Past IPRM meetings contributed to the release of detained persons for instance and to solving other practical issues, like irrigation. I look forward to continuing our work with the OSCE to co-facilitate such discussions and to contributing to confidence building. I would also like to highlight the EUMM-operated Hotline here, as another effective tool that has been used successfully over the years to facilitate humanitarian action, manage incidents, and build confidence. In 2020 for instance, the Hotline was activated over 2,820 times mainly to discuss crossings motivated by medical reasons, followed by exchange of information related to detentions, agricultural issues and “borderisation” activities. _You are Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Georgia, starting from March, 2020. Unlike your predecessors, you had to work during coronavirus pandemic. How would you assess the year in view of challenges and achievements? Yes, on 15 March, I celebrated my first anniversary as the Head of EUMM Georgia. This past year has been unusual and challenging in many ways for everyone, but I think that we all demonstrated resilience and ability to swiftly adopt to new circumstances. At EUMM, we had to quickly adapt our work, switching to teleworking arrangements whenever possible but always maintaining a visible presence and our core activities on the ground, including at both segments of ABLs. Of course, I wish I had been able to meet more often, and in person, with my team and our interlocutors but video calls helped, and I am looking forward to resuming more regular physical meetings and face-to-face contacts as soon as the situation permits. I am also grateful for my colleagues’ commitment in implementing our Mandate during such difficult times. At the political and strategic level, travel bans, and other precautionary measures have meant only one round of Geneva International Discussions in 2020 instead of four usually, but the Co-chairs managed to meet in December and will meet again on 25-26 March. IPRM meetings in Ergneti could not be regularly held during the winter, but they have resumed in March and we are already planning for the next one in April. At the local level, communities affected by the conflict have been hit harshly by the pandemic itself and its spilled-over consequences. The prolonged closure of so-called Controlled Crossing Points with Abkhazia and South Ossetia has further impeded their freedom of movement for instance and worsened their personal socio-economic or health situations. The Mission is acutely aware of these challenges, and together with other stakeholders, we will seek to address them through our available formats, including at the IPRM meetings and through our reports to EU Institutions and Member States. _EUMM is mandated to cover the whole territory of Georgia, within the country’s internationally recognised borders, but the de facto authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia have so far denied access to the territories under their control. What do you think should be done to bring this issue forward and what could be the possible solutions to the current challenges? As mentioned in a previous question, this lack of access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia constitutes the greatest challenge in implementing our Mandate. This is why EUMM, EU Institutions and EU Member States, continue to call on Russian Federation to allow an unrestricted access to those two regions.
We need Anaklia project not only as a port project but also as a geopolitical corridor - Batu Kutelia
The first steps and statements of the new US administration on Russia have raised expectations that America will be stricter and more uncompromising in relation to democratic principles and autocratic regimes. This may be a new opportunity for Georgia to consolidate its aspirations on the path to the Euro-Atlantic alliance, but more and more criticism is heard from friendly and strategic partner countries towards country immersed in the internal political crisis. Georgia's current geopolitical position and relationship with the new US administration, as well as its interests in the so-called regional alliance initiatives were a topic of an exclusive interview of a former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to the United States, former Deputy Secretary of the National Security Council of Georgia, Vice President of the Atlantic Council of Georgia, Batu Kutelia with Europetime. - According to US President Joe Biden, the US is working to hold Russia accountable for the aggression in Crimea. We would like to know if there has been a similar message from American leaders in recent years that they do not only condemn the annexation and recognize the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but the United States seeks to hold Russia accountable. The Biden administration has also made a number of important statements regarding Georgia, though not as specific. In your opinion, what do these messages of the American President mean? First of all, these messages from the new US administration are very important. It is often said that the main test of the Biden administration will be Russia and its policy towards Russia. With regard to Russia, the test of Biden's policy lies in what position the United States will take on what Russia has done over the past 12 years. The reality given as a result of abuse of Obama’s reset policy by Kremlin is also part of that period. Including what happened in Georgia and Ukraine. Biden's policy is entirely in response to the aggressive revisionism of Russia, which Putin openly and explicitly began in 2008 with his military aggression in Georgia. The new US administration policy is not only to contain Russia, but also to drive it away, which Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken and other members of their team have repeatedly mentioned in various contexts. The issue of Ukraine is fundamentally important for the United States, because in addition to the fact that the annexation of Crimea violates the principles of international norms, this territory is also very important from a geostrategic point of view for the United States. The purpose of the annexation of Crimea by Russia was to make this area a zone of exclusive rights and influence of Russia. This is a challenge to the Biden administration. He will continue the distribution of these areas of influence if he has a foreign policy based on values, where it will be important to adhere to international norms and free choice of countries. That is why the United States needs Georgia as a strategic partner in this foreign policy equation. So far, every single step taken by the new US administration has been correct. It will be interesting to see how this translates into a concrete policy in terms of foreign policy, and when the foreign policy team is fully approved, then we will see more specific steps in this regard. -As for the US attitude towards Georgia, what are the concrete results, actions and steps to increase the level of US support? In addition, how can Georgia benefit from the example of specific projects? There are already two specific issues here. When we talk about supporting Georgia, we are talking about what direction Georgia will take. Will Georgia be a country worthy of US support, as Biden’s declared foreign policy priority is a democratic agenda and support for democracies? The idea of a Democracy Summit serves just that. If Georgia remains a democratic country and does not move to informal governance and authoritarianism, then, of course, it will have a different degree of support from the United States. - In the context that you are talking about, will the recent developments in Georgia affect the quality of US support? Is the fact that the United States has imposed sanctions on several individuals in Saudi Arabia, its biggest ally in the Muslim world, a clear message that the Biden administration treats values and national interests equally, unlike the Trump administration? And does this reassure us that no one will turn a blind eye to Georgia if democracy is weakened? The given situation is not static. In a very short period of time, it will become clear whether we will remain on the positive agenda of America or become an authoritarian state like Belarus. Therefore, theoretically, if we continue the path which is the open will of the Georgian people - to be a Western European democracy, then naturally, now is the best moment for Georgia, because supporting democracies is an openly declared task of the Biden administration. There are ongoing debates on several issues in American foreign policy, that is, whether pragmatic interests are more important than value components and how we can find the right balance between the two. Biden's stated policy is that democratic values are paramount and that US needs partners to ensure them. Biden said in Munich that now is a historic moment. In this new historical moment will Georgia become America's strategic democratic partner in the region? There are few such countries around. This determines the US policy towards Georgia. Will all its political resources and agenda be spent on stopping Bidzina Ivanishvili and Russian-style kleptocracy, or, conversely, on Georgia's integration into NATO? That’s exactly what choice we are facing now. What will happen depends on how the processes will develop within the country; on the other hand, on the failure of Georgian government to actually formulate Russian-type authoritarianism and ruin its strategic partnership with the West, as can be seen in the statements and open criticism we hear from international partners today. In your opinion, does the government team have such a human resource that can firmly maintain and develop the process of European integration? I mean people who can have any leverage to turn the data created today into positive one, both in making decisions within the team and gaining the support of international partners? Lately, my American friends and partners have been asking me the same thing extensively. I wish I had a positive answer to that. Unfortunately, the anatomy of the formal governance of this government and the levers seized by the state almost rules out the existence of such independent political actors. We can see this on the example of previous prime ministers. As soon as either of them tries to acquire a slightly more independent and pro-Western profile, they automatically and instantly end their careers in an uncertain situation based on Bidzina Ivanishvili's pro-Russian vision. However, there is a reverse logic here as well. I think that such actors may appear in the ‘Georgian Dream’ team. Not because they believe in ideology, but because of pure pragmatic views, if the United States and the European Union will have a proactive policy in Georgia. If we recall, this was the case during Shevardnadze's time, when the United States already had a declared policy in Georgia and the region, in terms of security, including energy security (Baku-Ceyhan project, assistance in resolving the situation in Pankisi Gorge). After the emergence of open American interests, pro-Western sentiments in Shevardnadze's government team automatically increased. There were very few pro-Western, idealistic politicians and actors then. These openly expressed and fixed interests prompted many actors to act pragmatically according to motivation. Therefore, if there is an active American policy, then such politicians will emerge as well. Leaving Georgia on the NATO integration agenda will be a very strong lever to stop Ivanishvili's kleptocratic system prone to informal rule and strengthen democratic interests in the political spectrum and society as well. -The President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, has said that if Georgia wants, it can join the common platform for the reconstruction of Nagorno-Karabakh. Earlier, the creation of a six-nation platform in the region was also discussed by the President of Turkey and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran. The creation of a new transport corridor in Karabakh connects these five countries. Is it in Georgia's interest to be involved in a common platform for the reconstruction of Nagorno-Karabakh, and what is the West's position on this platform? It’s better to be involved in any negotiations when there are favorable positions. If not, it is better not to get involved at all. If there is an authoritarian government in Georgia under the informal rule of Bidzina Ivanishvili, the rest of the world will criticize us and say that we are no longer a democratic country and we have no European future. In such conditions, entering any type of format means that we will not be able to protect the state interests. The only strength of Georgia is that we should be a beacon of democracy in the region and therefore have the support of the West and the United States. We can participate in such a tandem in any format, but when we are criticized for our democratic backdown, our position will be weak; naturally, this format is absolutely unprofitable for Georgia and will not bring us any benefits. What I say at all international forums is that Georgia should not be identified as a South Caucasus country. We should not even be part of the distribution of some regional balance of power, but a country of the European type in the Eastern Black Sea region. The South Caucasus is not a single geopolitical region for many reasons. The Black Sea is a more geopolitical entity. Therefore, our task should be for Georgia to identify itself as a European country in the Black Sea region. This South Caucasus identification contributes to the Russian logic that this is the sphere of influence of Russia and powerful states, and they will shift the balance according to their interests. Being a European Black Sea country is the strategic vision we need to have. But today in Georgia's foreign policy there is no similar vision, and moreover, the country and the country's interests are led against it. -As for the Karabakh platform, should Georgia be involved or not and why? Due to many specific factors, we need to maintain good relations with both neighbors - historical, economic, political. It is important that Georgia positions active neutrality on the Karabakh issue, not passive. Active neutrality means that we must be the mainstay of Western interests in the region. We often say that Georgia should be more than just Georgia with its democratic European, Euro-Atlantic integration. It must shift the balance in its favor with respect to neighboring states. We can not position ourselves with money, economy or armed forces alone to achieve national goals if it is not part of the unified strategic vision I talked about above. This active neutrality means that our moral superiority in the region should increase so much by democracy and good relations with the West, that in the same six-format, something is not distributed in the region at the expense of our interests. _Does the creation of the Six Platform mean a direct strengthening of Russia's influence in our region? Not six, but five already. We are lucky our Foreign Ministry stated that Georgia would not get involved, although in the context of an institutionally broken foreign and security policy this statement does not guarantee that the opposite will not happen. - However, in December 2020, the President Salome Zurabishvili had a different position on this format and spoke about the initiative in a positive context? What Salome Zurabishvili said in December was disadvantageous. I think she said this not on her own initiative. It was simply an attempt by the government to test the reaction - the international and domestic response was very acute. By the way, this was also a case of enjoying the moment. Before the new US administration could formulate a new foreign policy, there was an attempt to ‘push’ the idea. This is not a new idea - in 2008, (Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkish Foreign Minister) the war was just over, when this idea was first voiced by Turkey. Russia has always tried to micro-regionalize its foreign policy. This type of regionalization is disadvantageous for Georgia, the only thing that is most important for us at this stage is the European democratic identification and not the status of an authoritarian South Caucasus state or any other hybrid regime. When we say that we want to identify ourselves as a geopolitically European type of country, this is not a declaration alone. This should be accompanied by specific actions and relevant projects. For example, if we look at specific projects, this is one of the most important moments - in addition to energy security and the southern corridor, there is also the issue of the logistics corridor. In order for this logistics corridor to be effective, it needs a ‘grand strategy’, which must include Anaklia. Anaklia not only as a port project but as a geopolitical corridor. ‘Strategic Connectivity’ should be the main idea by which we acquire a geopolitical function.
Ben Hodges: I have no doubt that the Kremlin is supporting these actions in a variety of means
‘I have no doubt that the Kremlin is supporting these actions in a variety of means…’ EuropeTime spoke to Former commander of the United States Army Europe, Lieutenant General and the Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), Ben Hodges. According to him today’s actions were, unfortunately, a huge step backward for Georgia. ‘Today’s actions represent, unfortunately, a huge step backward for Georgia. I am very concerned with how the Govt is using such force and violence to attack the headquarters of an opposition party and to arrest the leader of the opposition party. This is not what I’d expect from a liberal democracy that seeks stronger ties with the West and membership in NATO. I do hope that anyone who has been injured today is able to recover quickly. I have no doubt that the Kremlin is supporting these actions in a variety of means...it’s their normal approach, to destabilize and create distrust and prevent the emergence of free, prosperous civil society on their borders...because they don’t want their own citizens to see how much better life can be when young people are allowed to make choices and when freedoms are protected through a free media, fair elections, and a multi-party Parliament. This is why transparency is so important...to prevent individuals from being able to have outsize illegal or inappropriate control over what should be governmental processes. I hope that the Biden Administration, and others, will speak out quickly, loudly, and clearly to say that we expect our Friends in the region who aspire for strong ties to the West, to avoid the use of force and to ensure transparency in any cases resulting from today’s actions. I also hope that the Biden Administration will work hard to develop a long-term strategy for the greater Black Sea region that encompasses diplomatic and information and economic assistance and cooperation with all of our friends and Allies in the region...that will help develop the institutions of liberal democracy there as well as help improve the economic prosperity of all people there. This is key for the young people of Georgia and other nations in the region...to help them fulfil their potential’. - Said General Hodges.
Luis Navarro: The US is putting Russia on notice that it will be more assertive and supportive of Georgia’s Western aspirations
"I think that, that the US is putting Russia on notice that it will be more assertive and supportive of Georgia’s Western aspirations",- said Eurasian Program Fellow for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Luis Navarro in an interview with EuropeTime. Navarro thinks, US will be more assertive and supportive of Georgia’s Western aspirations. "In combination with Pres Biden’s conversation with Putin, that the US is putting Russia on notice that the it will be more assertive and supportive of Georgia’s Western aspirations. But the Administration is likely to be more vigilant about backsliding on Georgian democracy as well",- Navarro told Europetime.
French Ambassador: If you ask me about the necessity of a strong Western presence in South Caucasus, I emphatically reply yes
Relations between France and Georgia, ‘Amilakhvari Dialogue’, the Georgian-French military cooperation, ongoing processes in the region, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Georgia’s EU prospects, Russian factor and ‘Georgia vs Russia’ case, a landmark judgement of the Strasbourg Court in favor of Georgia were the topics of the Europetime interview with the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the French Republic to Georgia Diego Colas. _Mr. Ambassador, thank you for the interview. First of all, how would you assess the relations between France and Georgia? Could you also briefly tell us what the format of the Dimitri Amilakhvari dialogue is intended for and what specific steps have been taken within this format in the relations between the two countries? I believe that the relations between our two countries are as close as they have ever been. As we are about to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the day when the French government welcomed the government of the first Republic of Georgia and offered it refuge after the Soviet invasion, this is only fitting. As you point out, our bilateral strategic dialogue bears the heroic name of Dimitri Amilakhvari, a famous Georgian prince but also one of the greatest heroes of the French Foreign Legion. This special format of dialogue has been created by Presidents Macron and Zurabichvili in February 2019 and was formally opened by Ministers Le Drian and Zalkaliani in Paris in December 2019. It covers political dialogue, defence and security, migration and internal security, economy and investment, as well as education and culture. Much of what we planned to do at that last meeting has been implemented. We now need to plan a new meeting to decide on future projects as well as on the further development of the existing co-operations. _What does the existing Georgian-French military cooperation include and how does France help Georgia to enhance its defense capability? We think that it is very important that French and Georgian soldiers train together, operate together and are in capacity to fight together. This strengthens Georgian capacities as well as the security of both countries, as we are thereby better able to stand shoulder to shoulder to face any threat that the future may bring. For this reason, we are proud to welcome Georgian soldiers in our best military schools and to organise French language classes for armed forces personnel in Georgia. Also, our soldiers are operating together in the Central African Republic, the Georgian armed forces being deployed to ensure the protection of European military instructors. This is a unique opportunity to deploy troops together and to gain valuable experience of difficult conditions as well as of inter-operability. There are many other areas of close co-operation. An example is mountain infantry training. Since 2006 and the creation of the Sachkere Mountain Training School, we have been special partners. Last September, in a joint exercise, French and Georgian instructors trained French and Georgian troops jointly, including by going to the very top of Mount Kazbeg, taking me along too! This was a great success and we are looking forward to future joint activities. Another example is air defence, where we are in charge of NATO’s cooperation. It is to cover the air defence segment that we proudly take part in NATO’s exercises in Georgia. The recent conflict in South Caucasus has highlighted the importance of a solid and sovereign air defence. _How would you assess the current developments in the region, the Nagorno-Karabakh peace agreement and the role of Turkey and Russia in these processes? Generally, I do not believe that it is in the interest of Georgia that the South Caucasus region become an area of strategic competition. It risks derailing the important efforts undertaken by all Georgians to become more European. And therefore, the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, in addition to being a horrible war, is also a matter of worry for those who care about the fate of Georgia. It would be much better for the principles of reform and co-operation to be allowed to guide Georgia’s relations with the outside world. This is what Georgia’s friends want for Georgia and also what we understand to be Georgia’s wishes. Such principles are key to the success of Georgia’s orientation towards Europe. I have great respect and admiration for the determined, strongly held, tenacious strategy followed by successive governments of Georgia with a view to bringing this country closer to Europe and the West, ever closer to liberal democracy resting on solid law-abiding institutions. I believe that this is the logical development of a deep cultural and historical proximity. To succeed, this strategy needs to concentrate on reforms and cooperation, and outside strategic competition can only be an unhelpful distraction in this regard. Such a strategy will be successful if it translates into a fundamental transformation of the country, its laws but also the practical implementation of these laws, its business culture, more generally its approach to an inclusive society. France, the EU, other member states of the EU, the US also, we are all keen to do our part to help this strategy be successful. _Given the developments in the Caucasus region, do you think it would be desirable for the West to be more present and more active in the region and have a clear position, particularly with regard to Russia? I emphatically reply yes to the necessity of a strong Western presence in South Caucasus. And I add that this is for South Caucasus, and not for or against anybody else. I believe that a country has the right to decide what path of development it wants to take, and that no one should prevent Georgia and us from building a very intense partnership if we both want to. We should also acknowledge that the degree of engagement of the European Union, the EU member states, and the US in Georgia is already quite unique in the world. This translates in very strong political support, in the deployment of the EU monitoring mission, in considerable financial and technical assistance, in visa-free travel to the EU as well as a comprehensive free trade agreement and in a great number of co-operations. Many countries also deploy naval forces at regular intervals in the Black sea to strengthen the security of the region. This includes France as we frequently take part in this effort. So, no one can doubt the strength of our commitment to the region. Regarding Russia, I want to add that, in general, I believe that EU member states are stronger in foreign policy when they manage to agree on clear messages. This is, in my view, largely the case when it comes to relations with Russia. We all regularly make clear our support for democracy in the region and in particular for respect for the rule of law in Russia itself. We have repeatedly underlined our strong support for Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in its internationally recognized borders, for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, for progress towards democracy in Belarus. We have expressed our expectations in no uncertain terms regarding the situation of Mr Navalny. The question is also, once we have a position, to decide what precise objectives we set for ourselves and how we set about to meet them. In my view, it is not a policy to simply refuse any sort of contact as a way to make our displeasure known, and then to deplore that nothing changes. _Does France, as the leader of the European Union, support the issue of EU enlargement? As you know, Georgia is going to apply for EU membership by 2024, will the economic crisis caused by the pandemic or any other factor affect the decision? The EU does not have a single leader, it is one of its many beauties. But indeed, we in France are keen to be a voice helping shape its decisions and its path towards the future. Regarding the possibility of future enlargements beyond the Western Balkans, this is a discussion that remains to be had within the EU. However, whatever the outcome of such a discussion, a country can always aim to transform itself, its State and society into a truly European polity and count of our help to achieve this. The ultimate price is not to be member of this or that Union, it is to be really, at heart, a European nation. Helping Georgia achieve this objective, which we know is dearly held by a great majority of the country, is the essence of everything we do in Georgia. _On 21 January, the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber issued a landmark judgement in the inter-State case concerning the armed conflict between Georgia and the Russian Federation in August 2008 and its consequences. The ruling clearly concludes that after 12 August 2008 the Russian Federation, exercising effective control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, violated several provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights. How would you assess this decision? I believe that this judgment is a great success for Georgia and, as a former French agent to European courts, I congratulate the legal teams that helped the Court investigate this question in full as I measure the extent of the work done to reach this result. I have read the entire judgment and I think that it is even better for Georgia than the first impressions I had when reading the press summary and the operative part. The main Georgian submissions were nearly always accepted. There remains the issue of equitable satisfaction to be decided, for which the Court has set a delay. It is important for facts to be established and for the extent of violations of the ECHR to be determined by the Court that is competent to do so. The implementation of the judgment also offers an opportunity to start addressing the many issues that are still outstanding. I hope that this process will help the Geneva International Discussions find a new dynamism towards full implementation of the 2008 cease fire agreement by all parties concerned, including Russia. Only then could we be in a position to conclude that this conflict is at last finding a path to resolution and that this important obstacle to better relations with Russia is lifted.
What is the purpose of the Iranian Foreign Minister's visit to Georgia?
As part of a regional tour, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is visiting Tbilisi. Prior to that, he paid a visit to Azerbaijan, Moscow and Armenia. At a meeting in Moscow, the foreign ministers discussed issues of bilateral Russian-Iranian cooperation, as well as issues on the international agenda, including the situation in the Persian Gulf, the resumption of negotiations on the JCPOA nuclear deal and the situation around Nagorno-Karabakh. Relations between Moscow and Tehran will not depend on the ‘whims of the United States, which is trying to harm the partnership between the two countries by imposing illegal sanctions. Our relations are developing based on the interests of the two countries and two peoples, and we build our plans without looking back to any third party," Lavrov said during a joint conference with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. It should be noted as well that during his visit to Moscow, the Iranian Foreign Minister expressed his desire to start negotiations with the new US President on the renewal of the nuclear agreement. Javad Zarif urged the United States to lift sanctions against Iran and resume talks. Lavrov said at the meeting that the rescue of the nuclear deal is one of the most pressing issues, and Russia and Iran are interested in its full implementation. According to Iran’s top diplomat, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is Tehran and Moscow's concern. We thank Russia for a Russian-brokered ceasefire deal, which ‘led to a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities in Nagorno Karabakh, and hope that this agreement will lead to the establishment of lasting peace and friendship in the Caucasus region’, Zarif said During a visit to Baku on January 25, the Iranian Foreign Minister told Azerbaijani media that under his regional tour he was going to discuss the initiative to create a 3 + 3 format platform for six countries for regional peace and development cooperation. The six-nation initiative includes Iran, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. „I held extensive and very fruitful conversations in Baku on bilateral ties and regional cooperation’. The key to sustainable peace’ lies in ‘inclusive regional arrangement, which include ‘transit corridors benefiting all’, Zarif wrote on Twitter. The initiative to create a ‘Six Platform’ in the Caucasus Region was put forward by the President of Turkey in December 2020 after a meeting with the President of Azerbaijan. „We talked with Azerbaijan about the possibility of creating a platform with the participation of six countries - Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Georgia and Armenia. This will be a good cooperation for the development of the region“, - Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a news conference in Baku. Before arriving in Georgia on January 27, after a visit to Yerevan, the Iranian diplomat tweeted that they had ‘agreed on further strengthening bilateral ties and regional cooperation’ with Armenia ‘turning old rivalries into newer synergies’. However, Zarif did not specify whether he meant ‘a six-country platform“. What does a six-country regional cooperation platform mean, and whether it is in the interests of Georgia to create any kind of alliance with Iran, Russia and Turkey? Europetime spoke to Zurab Batiashvili, Research Fellow at Georgian Foundation for Strategy and International Studies about this issue. According to the analyst, after a new war in Karabakh, Iran would like to take part in a new security structure, which, in their view, can be formed around the Caucasus. However, there are several problems here. As for the 3 + 3 alliance plan, the first problem is that these countries, in many cases, do not have diplomatic relations with each other. For example, Georgia does not have diplomatic relations with Russia due to the occupation of our territories. Armenia also does not have diplomatic relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. In this respect, Iran is the only country that maintains diplomatic relations with every country in the region. This is due to the fact that, unlike Russia, Iran is relatively less involved in the Caucasus. That’s why Iran is now trying to take advantage of the situation and talks about economic relations. However, there are serious problems in terms of the economic union as well, as the US has imposed very tough sanctions against Iran’, Zurab Batiashvili told Europetime. According to the analyst, it is hard to imagine Iran economically cooperating with the three Caucasian states, when sanctions do not even allow it to transfer funds, in fact, the sanctions do not allow to develop trade relations with Iran. According to Zurab Batiashvili, this is a problematic issue that can really be resolved only if Iran-United States relations are settled. „Therefore, I think that the creation of a 3 + 3 union of these 6 countries is more at the level of Iran's desire, and it won’t actually be able to do anything. As for the visit of the Iranian Foreign Minister to Georgia, I do not think that the very fact of the visit will displease the American side. Such visits are not sanctioned. Meetings and negotiations with all the neighbors are necessary, because they are in your region, and besides, there are many issues related to transit that need to be discussed’, - Zurab Batiashvili said. In December 2020, Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili mentioned the Caucasus Platform while speaking about the Karabakh conflict and regional security at the opening ceremony of the annual meeting of the heads of Georgian diplomatic missions abroad – ‘Ambassadors’ Conference 2020’. „The prosperity and development of the whole region depend on peace and stability. At the same time, we know that everyone was involved in achieving this goal in resolving Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, all the facilitators, except for us. It is very sad. The historical role of Georgia in the Caucasus has always been and still is an opportunity to bring everyone together. That is why I am deeply convinced that Georgia can be neither passive nor secondary to the initiative of the Caucasus Platform,’ - Salome Zourabichvili said on December 21, 2020. The President of Turkey announced the ‘Caucasian Platform’ initiative on December 10, 2020. The statement of the President of Georgia was followed by a critical assessment by former US Ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly. „How can a Georgian President congratulate an agreement that locks in another Russian occupation in the Caucasus and locks out the West?’ - Ian Kelly posed on his Twitter account. When asked by Europetime, whether Iran's proposal to create a union of six countries is in the interests of Georgia and its Western partners, Zurab Batiashvili, Fellow Researcher at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies answered that it is in the interests of neither Western partners, nor of Georgia. „Any format of the union, where our western partners are not represented, is not favorable for Georgia first of all. Because we have so many times witnessed what it means to stay face-to-face with Russia. In my opinion, this alliance is not in Russia's interests either, because Russia does not want to share its privileged status, that every state in the Caucasus is trying to achieve. Consequently, it is not in Russia's interests to increase the influence of Iran and Turkey in the Caucasus region. As for the other states, cooperation with Iran will be problematic for them as well. Sanctions do not allow any deeper cooperation with Iran. ‘Therefore, the creation of any union in the Caucasus region with the involvement of Iran is problematic and less feasible“, - Zurab Batiashvili said. Ben Hodges, Former Commanding General of US Army Europe, Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies, at Center for European Policy Analysis spoke to Europetime about Mohamed Javad Zarif's visit a few days ago. I am convinced of one thing – ‘the United States needs a strategy for how it looks at the entire greater Black Sea region, which demonstrates US commitment to stability there, including in the South…Personally, I do not see any good news coming from increased attention and presence by the Kremlin and Iran in the area.’ The Iranian diplomat will leave Georgia on January 28.
Ben Hodges: The US needs a strategy for how it looks at the entire Black Sea Region and which demonstrates US commitment to stability there
Former commander of the United States Army Europe, Lieutenant General and the Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), Ben Hodges sees the 5G-Security Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Georgia as an important step in strengthening coordination and building trust. What will this bring to Georgia and will it guarantee investments and closer ties with NATO? In addition to this issue, in an interview with „Europetime“ Ben Hodges also assessed the messages of Anthony Blinken, that "Russia is particularly aggressive towards countries that are not united under a single security umbrella. Can we think that the new US administration will facilitate and accelerate Georgia’s accession into NATO? Will Georgia be able to respond with dignity to the big challenges and stakes that its partner countries may be placing on it? ‘Europetime’ also spoke to Ben Hodges about the Iranian Foreign Minister's planned visit to Georgia and other issues. _General Hodges, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the United States and Georgia on the development of fifth-generation wireless communication networks - 5G security. It was said that this will make Georgia “part of a clean network”. What will this bring to Georgia and will it guarantee investments and closer ties with NATO? Having a secure network in which we are confident is important to planning and coordination, and building trust. _The US Deputy Secretary of State stated that the United States plans to open DFC - "Development Finance Corporation" in Georgia. An initiative was also expressed to draw up a business plan for the United States and Georgia. Does this also mean the launch of a US-Georgia free trade agreement, and can this be seen as a message that the US is entering a new phase in its relationship with its strategic partners under the new administration? DFC is e recent improvement in how the US Government brings us investment sources to nations where we believe investment helps improve stability and security as well as prosperity. This would be a very good step by the USA for Georgia. _The new US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at the Senate hearings what you have repeatedly stated in an interview with us that ‘Russia is particularly aggressive towards non-NATO countries that is to those that are not united under a single security umbrella. This can be seen from why Russia does not attack NATO members’; so, can we regard this statement as a signal the new US administration will facilitate and accelerate the process of Georgia's integration into NATO? That is certainly my hope. It is a good sign that President Biden’s nominee to be our next Secretary of State has spoken so clearly about this. And I hope that the Biden Administration will push hard for Georgia’s accession into NATO. But we’ll need to get strong support from Germany, France and the UK as well. Good that Turkey is already a strong advocate. _The vision and plan of the new US administration for the Middle East - Iran, Syria and Afghanistan are important. Will the United States support the reduction or complete withdrawal of NATO peacekeeping missions from Afghanistan? I don’t know, but I do believe three things: #1 we should not pull out in such a way that the Afghan Government is left too exposed. #2 the US should withdraw in a measured and careful way that has been closely coordinated with all of our allies and partners in Afghanistan – in together, out together. And #3 we should not stay in Afghanistan if we are not serious about dealing with Pakistan and its tolerance of a safe haven for the Taliban there within sovereign Pakistan territory. _It has recently been reported that the Iranian Foreign Minister will pay a visit to Georgia as part of his regional tour. Before that, he will hold meetings in Moscow. What do you think might be the reason or issue of a sudden visit of a high-ranking Iranian official to Georgia? I don’t know, but the US needs a strategy for how it looks at the entire greater Black Sea region and which demonstrates US commitment to stability there, including in the South Caucasus. I don’t see any good news coming from increased attention or presence by the Kremlin or Iran in the area. _Readiness for NATO membership means, first of all, a high degree of democracy and the rule of law. Taking into account all the above, if the pro-Western forces in Georgia are not consolidated and young qualified people are not raised, will the country be able to adequately respond to the big challenges and stakes that its partner countries may be placing on it? This is for the people and government of Georgia to decide. I’m concerned that the government seems to be ‘backsliding’ a bit in its commitment to democracy, transparency, and desire to join NATO. I can see the influence of the Kremlin here. But nothing good for the young people of Georgia will happen if the Government of Georgia chooses a path away from further western integration.
Luis Navarro commented on Bidzina Ivanishvili's statement of quitting politics
„Given Ivanishvili’s informal governance, it is difficult to assess what his declaration means. His prior resignation from the role of PM and party Chair in 2013, only meant his public withdrawal. His new “dream” of a non UNM opposition to the current govt suggests he is still very interested in politics“, - Luis Navarro, about Bidzina Ivanishvili quitting politics. „His resignation from the post of Prime Minister and party chairman in 2013 meant only leaving the post in public. His new "dream", of "National Movement" not to be an opposition force against the government, indicates that he is still very interested in politics. So we will see in the future how he handles the events“, - said Luis Navarro. So I think we will have to see how he defines this declaration in due time - stated Navarro in an interview with Europetime. Bidzina Ivanishvili, the head of Georgia’s ruling party said on Monday he was quitting politics.
General Ben Hodges: without Anaklia and similar projects, Georgia will most likely be seen as just a part of the South Caucasus, under the influence of Russia and Iran
Former US Army Chief of Allied Land Command Lieutenant General Ben Hodges points to the need for Georgia to hold a public national debate on the country's strategic security. According to Hodges, this approach should include building societal resilience to resist the Kremlin influence and disinformation, as well as corrupting influence. "The Government of Georgia should acknowledge that Russia is interested only in domination of the South Caucasus," said Hodges. Given all the facts that have happened through Russia's direct or indirect intervention - conflicts, cybercrime, interference in elections or its role in hybrid wars - is it time for the West to develop a more unified policy and approach? Is the security of the Black Sea and Georgia the most important lever for this, and could this particular lever be granting MAP to Georgia and Ukraine, „Europetime“ spoke to Ben Hodges on these and other issues. _Mr. General, to sum up the year coming to an end, what do you think, the year full of challenges and crises has changed and what need has it shown us in terms of NATO and EU policies? That is, have these crises increased the need for a consolidated and coordinated policy, the prospects for the expansion of alliances (NATO, the EU) or, vice versa, they have created the trend for a more balanced and cautious policy? Georgia Should of course be in NATO already. But Georgia must decide for itself that it really wants this... And it must also have a public national debate about its own strategic security... it must be a whole of government approach.. And include building societal resilience to resis Kremlin influence and desinformation and corrupting influence. At the same time, the USA demons trate sustained strategic interest in Georgia, in the South Caucasus and the greater black sea region... To demonstrate to the Kremlin that this is ipmortant for us and that we will protect our friends as well as our interests. _You mentioned in an interview with our publication that Russia recognizes only force and, in general, the policy inspired by the motto "Do not irritate Russia" has repeatedly convinced us that it is wrong. In your opinion, given all the facts that have occurred through Russia's direct or indirect interference - conflicts, cybercrime, interference in the elections or its role in hybrid wars, is it time for the West to develop a more unified policy and approach? Is the security of the Black Sea and Georgia the most important lever for this, and could this particular lever be - granting Map to Georgia and Ukraine? Government of Georgia needs to acknowledge that Russia in interested only in domination of the South Caucasus for its own interest. What good has come to Georgia for its attempts to cooperate with Moscow these last 30 years. Are the young people of Georgia better off because of anything that Moscow has offered to do to help Georgia? All I can see is that 20% of Georgia is occupied by Russian troops and that now Russian troops are also in N-K/Azerbaijan as well as in bases in Armenia. And it seems to me that the Government of Georgia is too willing still to yield Kremlin pressure. Allowing Russian `Piece keepers` to fly thru Georgian airspace into Armenia is hard for me to understand. And the recent embrace of the so-called `Caspian Platform`, By the Government of Georgia is another puzzling step that undermines Georgian soverignty and gives the Kremlin even more influence in the Region, Along with Iran. Why is this good for Georgia? But is also Highlights the failure of USA to demonstrate sustained, strategic interest. So we are on the sidelines now. _The Government of Georgia states that the cooperation between Georgia and the United States has never been at such a high level as it is now. If this is the case, do you think the request of the Georgian government to the United States will be enough to increase the rotational forces in Georgia and strengthen the strategic infrastructure even in the format of partnership and training? Our embassy in Tbilisi has worked very hardand they continue a long line of distinguished American diplomats who have served there. But the us Georgia resist more fully the Kremlin`s influence. I do hope that we can improve in this area and that the Government of Georgia will also improve. I would particularly like to see us Government and Government of Georgia doing more to improve opportunities for private investment... And that will require a change of attitude in the Government of Georgia and in the Parliament. _The development and expansion of ports in Georgia is of strategic importance. The ongoing processes in the region have clearly shown us the significance of the Anaklia project and foreign investments, which is a guarantee of both security and development. In your opinion, will the good will of the Georgian authorities be enough to bring the project back on the agenda? No, Not at all. I have Heard several statements from Govt of Georgia that Anaklia is a priority...But nothing has actually been done. So, I am not impressed at all that the Government of Georgia Really wants this port. But to me it would be such an obviously valuable asset for Georgia and would enable Georgia to finally become the portal between EURASIA and EUROPE, to firmly integrate Georgia into Europe and Become a logisticts hub to which Europe and the USA would invest significiant resourses... But that`s exactly why the Kremlin and Kremlin Sympathizers oppose it. Without Anaklia and similar international connecting projects, Georgia Will most likely, Unfortunately, Be seen as just a part of the South Caucasu (under the influence of Russia, Turkey, and Iran) VS being considered a European country with large, Regional impact. Only the Kremlin really benefits from that...For sure the young people of Georgia will not.
Hubert Knirsch: Germany has a leading role in the active cooperation in the framework of the Substantial NATO-Georgia Package
„Georgia has the potential to build a stable democracy and a market economy that works for all of its society. This is why there is no other country that sees an equal measure of Western presence and Western assistance“, - German Ambassador to Georgia said in an interview with ‘Europetime’. Hubert Knirsch spoke to ‘Europetime’ about relations between Germany and Georgia, the prospects of Georgia's accession to the European Union, and Germany's alliance on the path to Euro-Atlantic integration for Georgia. _Mr. Ambassador, thank you for the interview. First of all, how do you assess the Georgian-German relations? We are also interested in your assessment of the existing Association Agreement between Georgia and the EU, which includes the possibility of establishing free trade relations. To what extent has the country been able to adopt and use this resource? Georgia and Germany have many things that bind them together - as one example, I want to mention the tradition of Georgian students and scholars going to Germany, which continues very strongly in the present era and which is increasingly being reciprocated by Germans coming to Georgia. Our economic relations are already very good, and we focus on how to use their broad potential. The Association Agreement gives us a good framework for that, but it is for German and Georgian entrepreneurs and managers to identify opportunities and to set up concrete business projects. I see that Georgia is making progress in diversifying its exports. German cooperation helps to improve vocational education in Georgia, which I believe is necessary to boost economic opportunities in the country. _By 2024, Georgia plans to apply for EU membership. Do you think that the problems caused by the pandemic and the economic crisis could hinder the issue of EU enlargement? It is always good to have one´s eyes on the future, even in an acute crisis situation. To me, the immediate future will be filled with the work of bringing Georgia closer to the EU, in a practical and concrete way. This means approximating legislation, setting up administrative capacity that can apply rules and standards which are close to the European ones and also, not to forget, to increase trade, improve economic activity, raise the standard of living and social cohesion. All these things are necessary to bring Georgia forward on the European path. _In an interview with ‘Europetime’, the former commander of the US ground forces, Lieutenant General Ben Hodjes said that Germany should be the largest US ally, and that Germany's support for Georgia on the path to Euro-Atlantic integration is also important. What can you tell us in this respect? I was happy to meet General Hodges here in Tbilisi a while ago. This is a man who speaks out strongly in favor of Euro-Atlantic partnership, a friend of both Georgia and Germany. The cooperation with Georgia that he advocates is actually very strong, and a large number of NATO countries make active contributions to it. To a great extent, this takes place in the framework of the “Substantial NATO-Georgia Package”, in which Germany has a leading role. _If we look at the current processes in the region, as well as the domestic political processes, do you think that West should be more present in the region and should have a clearer position on a number of issues, particularly regarding Russia? It is an important foreign policy goal of Western countries to see a good development in all of Eastern Europe. The countries that have already joined NATO and the EU are examples of what is possible. And Georgia has the potential to build a stable democracy and a market economy that works for all of its society. This is why there is no other country that sees an equal measure of Western presence and Western assistance.
Ben Hodges: I do hope that Georgia`s opportunity to join Nato will be Accelerated and Biden administration will increase rotational forces in Georgia
In an exclusive interview with „Europetime“, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the former commander of US ground forces, summed up the results of the NATO Ministerial and said he hoped Georgia's integration into NATO would be accelerated, and under the Biden administration, the US would increase its rotational forces and infrastructure in Georgia. He also noted that he couldn’t imagine a strong NATO without Turkish participation, leadership and contribution. _General Hodges, The NATO Ministerial has now ended and as it’s become known that a new version of the substantial package has been approved for Georgia. That is, support is growing. How would you evaluate this decision? It was also said that the Allies will try to find more practical ways to help. Do you think this practical way would be Georgia’s immediate integration into NATO as you have already stated previously? I do hope that Georgia`s opportunity to join Nato will be Accelerated. This is important as it is a key part of the competition in the greater black sea region. When we show we care about a region we also need to find a way to gain the initiative in the black sea region. Offering map to Georgia and Ukraine will help do that. The Kremlin does not need provocation... It does what it wants and then tries to blame others... A continuous false narrative. Actually, it is better to be strong, to take the initiative... The Kremlin only respects strenghth and despises weakness. _In an interview with „Europetime“, you have repeatedly stated that it is time for the West to become more active in relation to Georgia and the region in general. The events of Karabakh have made the need for this even more obvious. In your opinion, if the issue of granting a Map to Georgia is really on the agenda, will it be a kind of „awakening“ for the West? What Would be more of an awakening for the west, would be for Georgia to take the necessary steps to make itself much more attractive to international private investment... Getting large business investment from Germany, Netherlands, France, UK and the US will cause those nations to pay much closer attention to Georgia`s security...And of course that`s the last thing the Kremlin wants to see. _You stated that Turkey should be the main strategic partner for US in the region. Given the balance of power in the region after Karabakh Peace Deal and the fact that Turkey is a NATO member, do you think it is time for Western cooperation with Turkey to become even more intensive? Yes of course... I don`t even want to imagine NATO without strong turkish participation, leadership and contributions... We have to rebuild trust between our nations as well as between Turkey and Europe. _In your opinion, will the US-Georgia bilateral relations move to a more important stage under the Biden administration, in particular, will the US increase its rotational forces and infrastructure in Georgia? I hope so. I do believe that the Biden administration wil be firm in dealing with the Kremlin and that it will see the black region as strategically important... I`m anxious to see who will be our new secretary of defence and who will fill the second and third tier positions within dept of state and dept of defence... Those will be important signals about which direction the Biden administration will take. _In your opinion, will the issue of the Anaklia Project be raised, especially since the foreign ministers of NATO member states are discussing the issue of Black Sea security? This is such an important project...And I`m disappointed that the govt of Georgia has thus far prevented or at least is has not helped with this development... If the govt of Georgia really wanted this port then it would be under construction. I think that there is too much Kremlin influence here. _To sum up Pompeo's visit, do you think this visit contained more of a message that America is here and has not gone from the region? We have great diplomats who work in our embassy in Tbilisi... And they need the support of the secretary of state...So visits are important. But we have to do this on a consistent basis. _The new configuration and balance of power make the fate of the important transit corridor in Karabakh that connects Europe with Eurasia unclear. What role can Turkey play here as a NATO member? I hope that Turkey will Find a way to ensure that these Russian `piece keepers` in N-K are not there for long. I suppose that`s a possibility. I`d like to see Turkey open its border with Armenia as a sign of good will, to provide economic relief, and to help demonstrate its role in protecting Armenian citizens. Armenia Should Seriously reconsider its reliance on the kremlin for its security... It was clear from the beginning that the Kremlin was going to allow Armenian forces to be crushed in N-K... and they were not prepared militarily. Yes Armenia still allows Russian troops to be based there. Armenia needs a much more reliable friend. Perhaps the USA and Turkey and Georgia can help there.
It is a shame that the US government failed to play an active role in ending the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Matthew Bryza says
"The agreement reached to end Nagorno-Karabakh definitely shows the sign of a lack or much lower US level of activity and interest in the South Caucasus," Matthew Bryza, a former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, said in an exclusive interview with "Europe Time". He recalls the period of working at the White House when he spent a long time preparing the background information and talking points for President George W. Bush's meeting with the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Robert Kocharian and Heydar Aliyev. Bryza says that then the issue could not have been resolved without the US, and it is a shame now that the United States has failed to play an active role. According to him, during the clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia in July, it was clear that the United States and France were not going to play an active role in helping to bring down tensions between the two sides. As Matthew Bryza said, these countries were not fully active. As a result, Russia and Turkey took over the role. In the end, it was decided that peacekeeping forces from Russia and Turkey would be deployed on the ground-a fact that the American diplomat called very important, for he believes that Turkey, as a NATO member and NATO’s second-largest army, on Azerbaijani territory, will help to counterbalance Russia. The Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Agreement, which was signed on November 10, is based on principles proposed by the Minsk Group in 2007. He said the United States, Russia, and France helped Azerbaijan and Armenia in the negotiation process, which had been preliminarily agreed upon by their leaders, but subsequently, they had failed to finalize all the details of the basic principles. As a former spokesman for the Bush Administration stated, the version of this agreement provided for the return to Azerbaijani control of all seven Azerbaijani districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that Armenia was then occupying; in exchange, Armenia would gain an "interim legal status" and eventually a final legal status that would be determined by a vote of the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh. Bryza noted this could not and would not have happened without US participation in the past.".. But it is a shame the US is not active now, in the present, in mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. " In an interview with Europe Time, Matthew Bryza mentioned Mike Pompeo's visit and said that the United States’ message is to help strengthen Georgia's democracy at the same time. He believes that the government, opposition, and NGOs should work together in this direction. During Mike Pompeo's visit, US Ambassador to Georgia, Kelly Degnan, explained to journalists why the Secretary of State did not meet with the opposition. She said that everyone, in particular the opposition, needs to do hard work after being elected to participate in parliamentary life and focus on the reforms they want to work on, especially on electoral reforms. As the Ambassador noted, the Secretary of State believes that it is important to use the mechanisms of democracy that exist and work on their improvement. The latter is the most important factor for US officials. According to Matthew Bryza, both US Ambassador Kelly Degnan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo realize that the latter's decision not to meet with the opposition was quite unpopular with the Georgian opposition. It was like Mike Pompeo was meeting with NGO leaders. He added, however, that the stay of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philip Reeker in Tbilisi to meet the opposition was a particularly important step, as was Mike Pompeo's meeting with Georgian NGO leaders. To summarize, the message from the United States is to help strengthen Georgia's democracy. America believes that the government, the opposition, and NGOs should work together in this direction. I don’t know what the purpose was of Secretary Pompeo’s visit to Georgia, but I always think, under all circumstances, it is great for the US Secretary of State to visit Tbilisi to underscore that despite the political crisis and the deep polarization between the opposition and the government, the United States wants to help the Georgian people strengthen their democratic institutions. At the same time, the visit underscores the United States' enduring support for Georgia's efforts to deepen its ties to NATO, "the US diplomat said.
Tengiz Pkhaladze: Hodges'message is a timely topic for expert circles prior to Pompeo's visit
Prior to Mike Pompeo's visit to Georgia, an interview granted by Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, Former Commander of the US Army to “EuropeTime” has been the main topic of discussion in the media.Several experts consider Ben Hodges' statement on increasing the infrastructure in Georgia as a timely emphasis. “EuropeTime” also spoke to TengizPkhaladze, an Associate Professor at The Georgian Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA). _Can we consider this statement as the main message before the visit of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Georgia?What form do you think discussions on the strengthening of the infrastructure in Georgia can take? Generally,the increase of Infrastructure in Georgia is in our country’s strategic interest, so let’s not hinge this on the American infrastructure alone.We need to strengthen our infrastructure, which can be important and interesting for our strategic partners. Many things should be considered here, but our ports are of special importance and in this context, the Anaklia project should not be suspended as it is even more important in light of recent developments. The Anaklia project amplifies Georgia’s importance for the East-West corridor. So, the Anaklia project, and every other project, which are in the center of attention including from our US partners should be strengthened”. _Tengiz Pkhaladze strongly hopes that the Anaklia project will be revived soon. “The Secretary of State has repeatedly mentioned the importance of this port. We just have to remember again that, although USA talks about it, it doesn’t mean it should be an American port. It is a Georgian port and we have established this before now. The Anaklia port will strengthen Georgia and the US is ready to help. So, we have to consider that it is firstly in our strategic interest and then, in the interest of our partners. Ben Hodges speaks of the need to strengthen civilian as well as military infrastructure in Georgia - in this context, it is important that our path and strategic choice is towards a North Atlantic Alliance. Georgia is a country that aspires to NATO, and does a lot for it. “It is crucially important for us to have Infrastructure, that will be suitable, at this point, for the alliance.This will firstly increase our security and defensive ability and for this, it is important to use a multifaceted format, which includes Georgia-NATO relationship and Black Sea Security Program, alongside other bilateral relationships, specifically, between the US and Georgia in the field of defense and security”.TengizPkhaladze explained further. Pkhaladze also commented on Hodges's message and explained that, "Before Pompeo's visit, we should consider the interesting pieces of advice from the expert community, who are of course abreast of the security situation in Georgia,and the position of the Black Sea and Europe. They must have also considered Georgia’s role in the big picture, and their deep understanding of the US’ national interests.In fact, this is a very timely focus for those in the analytical circles, and it would be good if they pay attention to it and try to use and sell it as much as possible”. It is also important to discuss the expectations from Mike Pompeo's visit, but, we can only assume that the two topics which will be of utmost importance on Pompeo's visit are: 1. The context of security in our region and in this context, the huge significance of Georgian-American relations. 2. The democratic development of Georgia as this is the central topic upon which our relations are premised. “It is not only important for us to remember what we should expect, but it is equally important for us to envisage what we can offer, what sort of initiatives our government should have, and the kind of visions behind these initiatives. There are some comments that are focused on Pompeo being the Secretary of the outgoing administration, but we shouldn’t examine these issues from that angle, as American politics works differently. We should always remember that inheritance is crucial to politics of the USA”. It is public knowledge that the last country where Pompeo would stop on his visit to Europe will be Georgia, before the Secretary of State will proceed to Israel. “Clearly, the emphasis of Pompeo’s visit will be made on security issues and the main focus will be Middle East and Asia, but,given the events which have taken place in our region, it is understandable that Pompeo plans to stop his Europe leg of visits in Georgia. These facts once again prove that he is concerned about the safety of our country”. Tengiz Pkhaladze, finally submitted during the interview that NATO integration is a multifaceted format and it does not depend solely on US-Georgia relations, but if Georgia develops bilateral relations and move to another level in the field of security, it will affect Georgia’s NATO integration as well.
Hodges' call on the US to increase infrastructure and rotational forces in Georgia will lead to a logical decision - Zurab Batiashvili
The United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo does not have a scheduled meeting with Turkish State officials. This was made known at a briefing by State Department officials on the US secretary of State’s visit. „After France, Pompeo will visit Turkey, where he’ll have a brief visit and an opportunity to meet with His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I. He will also meet with the apostolic nuncio to Turkey, Archbishop Paul Russell, and tour the Rustem Pasha Mosque. Secretary Pompeo is going to use these opportunities to discuss religious issues and, as you know, promoting the unalienable human right of religious freedom and fighting religious persecution is a key priority for the administration and for Secretary Pompeo. He’ll also of course in all the stops have an opportunity to meet with our ambassadors and staff from our missions, embassies, and in Istanbul the consulate general”, - State Department officials announced at the briefing. Political experts believe that the visit of the US Secretary of State is an interesting one, particularly if one considers the list of countries included in this tour. As we know before arriving in Georgia, Pompeo will be visiting France and Turkey. Israel, the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are lined up next after Georgia. "EuropeTime" spoke to ZurabBatiashvili, an expert and researcher at the Rondeli Foundation about Mike Pompeo’s visit, and other issues centered on the Karabakh and the new reality in the region: It is important to note the significance of Joe Biden’s emergence as President-elect of the United States. When Biden served as Vice President of the United States, he dealt directly with many issues, and even during his recent electioneering, Biden made statements that does not indicate a good development in Turkish-American relations. Now, if you consider the fact that an American high-ranking official is visiting any country, and there are no officials to meet him, you would understand that this signals a really unprecedented move from Turkey. One after the other, these movesraiseanticipationsof the possibility of further strains on the relations between the two countries. Pompeo’s visit is scheduled at a time when conflicts within the Caucasus are extremely tense, as the second war in Karabakh just ended. These conflict are in fact, signs of Russia’s re-emergence on the scene. Relocating US military components or even re-establishing them will be an appropriate response to the situation since it is not possible to tea up with NATO. Without these support, the situation will spell doom for Georgia and every action we take in pursuit of Europe might be in vain. _The fact that two leaders are unable to meet, may shed some light on the attitude and relations between both countries. What are the fundamental issues upon which the non-alignment of the USvisions and Turkey’s interests rest and cannot be reconciled? There are too many fundamental issues between Turkey and the US and the difference in their visions stem from these fundamental issues. These differences have been in place even before the fall of the Soviet Union, but Turkey did not pose a threat of the similitude of the Soviet Union. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Turkey started handling politics independently, slowly but distinctly, and this was even more noticeable during Erdogan’s reign. Now, when we talk about Turkey-America, we talk about the differences between them, and this begins with the Syrian conflict. Turkey supports the opposition, but the Americans support the pro-Kurdish forces, which Turkey views as a terrorist organization and a threat to itself. The same is with Syria and with Greece as well, where the EU and USA both support Greece. There are also similarities, when we take a look at the purchase of the Russian S-400, Turkey was officially kicked from the F-35 program, a modern fighter jet, which Turkey was intending to buy. Turkey has however developed means to manufacture it and this move has raised sanctions which have already matured in the US Senate. These sanctions stopped Trump from acting for a long time as he had a close and personal relationship with Erdogan. Biden is not going to stop these sanctions, especially since Biden has declared support for Greece and the Syrian Kurds. There are and there will be too many issues in which the visions of the US and Turkey will not coincide. _You stated that the solution will be the re-location of military components to Georgia. A few days ago, General Hodges, in an interview with our publication, said that it would be good if the US increased infrastructure and rotational forces in Georgia. Is this some sort of message before Pompeo's visit, especially in light of the new reality in Karabakh? Even in America, Georgia’s needs are clear and inevitable. When such reasoning begins, it means that the situation is maturing and they may have come to some decision. It may not be NATO, but it may result in the deployment of a US base in Georgia. The deployment of some military contingent, or some components, which are included in the security guarantees is bound to happen. If there is an American base here, it will be a huge factor for Russia. _What impact can the new reality in Karabakh have on Georgia's transit potential? The new reality will impact transit potential, but only slightly. The road that is being discussed between Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan does not even exist yet, because it first needs to be designed. The second issue is how Armenia and Russia are willing to agree. On one hand, we have Russia’s agreements, and on the other hand, we have Russia’s fulfillment of the agreement. If this is the way to connect not only Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan, but also Turkey and Azerbaijan, with Turkey, and with the rest of the Turkish world, I doubt Russia will agree to that. Russia has lots of ways to disrupt this process and there is a possibility that money and resources spent there will be wasted.
Ben Hodges: I’d like to see the USA increase its infrastructure in Georgia, especially to support rotational forces and strategic air lift
_Dear General, in your interview regarding the Karabakh conflict, you said that you considered the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the region to be the worst-case scenario. How will you assess the current situation? I’m glad to see an end to the fighting and killing, especially of civilians. I’m glad that Azerbaijan, with Turkish support, has decided against overreaching. I hope that the agreement will last and that both sides will respect the agreement. But I think there are other nations who could have provided a peace-keeping force instead of the Kremlin. I would consider the Russian forces which are deploying there today to be more like occupiers rather that peace-keepers… similar to what they have in Transdniestra, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They are actually “piece keepers”. _What changes do you think this will lead to in the region? What will be the influence of Turkey and Russia in the Caucasus, in what ratio and with what perspectives? Turkey has demonstrated an ability to influence its region as well as showcase the high level of modernization of some of its capabilities… And the quality of training and advising it has provided to Azerbaijani Forces. But I can’t tell yet what the long-term implications are for Turkey in the region…They certainly seem to be trending positively at this point from a Turkish perspective. Perhaps Turkey will use this for a responsible, positive approach to improving stability and security in the region… And for doing more to counter Kremlin aggression in the rest of the Black Sea Region. _What fate awaits the important routes and corridors that run through these areas and connect the West and the East with this new configuration?And what will all this bring or change for Georgia as a country with a transit corridor? In general, how does this new 'order' affect it? This is the key strategic question… Will the new circumstances help or hinder development of the Aze-Geo East West corridor that connects Europe and Eurasia… the only such corridor for gas, telecommunication and air travel that doesn’t go thru Russia or Iran. Having Russian ground troops there as occupiers is not likely to be very helpfulThe significance of the Russian bases in Armenia, close to Georgian territory, has gone up and so Georgia and its partners, like the USA, should pay attention to this. I’d like to see the USA increase its infrastructure in Georgia, especially to support rotational forces and strategic air lift, as well as maritime presence… this is part of great power competition…demonstrating that this region is important to us and that we’ll invest in diplomacy, information, and private economic investment as well as continuing security cooperation.
Hodges on Karabakh conflict: “This is potential proxy conflict between Turkey and Russia”
Despite a Russian-brokered truce agreed on October 10, fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan has continued. Armenia and Azerbaijan have accused each other of violating humanitarian ceasefires in Nagorno-Karabakh. Ben Hodges, former commander of the US Army in Europe hopes that the conflict can be resolved as soon as possible via negotiations. “I hope that the conflict can be resolved as soon as possible via negotiations. This is a potential proxy conflict between Turkey and Russia that needs be resolved. I anticipate that the Kremlin step in soon. And it seems that Turkey is making some sort of agreement with Russia re Turkish troops in Syrian in order to mitigate Kremlin reactions in Nagorno-Karabakh. We are seeing a new development in the use of drones as a key part of warfare. The Armenians seem to be slow in adapting to this. So we are all going to need to pay attention to this and figure out how to take advantage of this technology ourselves and to develop capabilities to counter these capabilities. We also need to develop our capability to avoid detection, not only from visual detection, but also from detection of thermal signature and electro-magnetic signature,” Hodges told the Europetime. As he said, “it is important that Azerbaijan not to overreach so that the Kremlin doesn’t step in.” “But avoiding overreach and hubris is always difficult when things seem to be going well,” Hodges added. As for international involvement in the process, Hodges said that the United States should always step forward to help with conflict resolution. “The United States should always step forward to help with conflict resolution. But we really need to work closely with our allies, especially Germany. Germany is our most important ally and is probably the only government that can influence Kremlin behavior. The U.S. should work closely with Germany on conflict resolution here as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Belarus,” he told the Europetime. According to him, one of the worst outcomes of this entire situation would be Russian “peace keepers” in Nagorno-Karabakh. “This region is key, because it is the only East-West route that bypasses Russia and Iran. So, if Russian “peace keepers” end up there, it could disrupt East-West air traffic, energy distribution and telecommunication routing,” he added. When asked, about major infrastructure projects on the Black Sea in Georgia, such as the port of Anaklia, the construction of the Batumi port terminal (which is carried out by direct investment from the United States) and the Russian resistance to these projects, Hodges said: “Russia does not have right to determine what is best for Georgia. Only the people of Georgia have right to make that decision, regardless of what the Kremlin thinks is best.”
