EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Georgia: Geneva Talks Show Moscow and Tbilisi Still Far Apart

EURASIA INSIGHT

GEORGIA: GENEVA TALKS SHOW MOSCOW AND TBILISI STILL FAR APART
Molly Corso 10/16/08

European diplomats are downplaying the failure of October 15 peace talks between Russia and Georgia. But Georgian observers believe there is little hope that Tbilisi and Moscow can resolve their problems anytime soon.

The talks, hosted in Geneva by the European Union, the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, never really got started. They collapsed when Georgian and Russian officials could not agree on what role Abkhazia and South Ossetia should play in the negotiations. Russia had invited high-ranking officials from both regions, which have been recognized by Moscow as independent states. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Georgia, meanwhile, brought in the heads of the disputed territories’ Tbilisi-backed governments-in-exile. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Each side accused the other of walking out of the talks. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili charged that the departure of the Russian delegation "once again confirms what kind of people, and what kind of diplomacy we are dealing with." Echoing Saakashvili, Georgian officials routinely describe Tbilisi’s approach as "constructive." For its part, Russian representatives focused on Georgia’s refusal to accord equal status to de facto Abkhaz Foreign Minister Sergei Shamba, and to de factor South Ossetian Prime Minister Boris Chochiyev.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who initiated the original cease-fire proposal agreement between Moscow and Tbilisi, told reporters on October 15 that the communications breakdown was "not surprising."

"The opposite would have been surprising," Sarkozy said during a press conference in Brussels. "It’s October 15, two months [after the conflict]. ? It [the peace process] has begun painfully, I’m sure, but we can’t give up."

Organizers said that discussions would resume on November 18, but, in Tbilisi, some observers expressed doubt that attitudes on both sides would change between now and then. "I don’t think there is any surprise [about] what happened. Now, more importantly is what will be the next step? Will the next meeting in November be the same, or will something change?" commented Koba Turmanidze, a political scientist at Tbilisi State University.

While the delay was expected, Turmanidze continued, it could hurt Georgia’s chances for maintaining international sympathy, or in securing the exit of Russian troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "[Time] is not on Georgia’s side. ... There are many reasons why time is working against us. As long as Russia is in these territories and settles everything as it wants, it is more difficult to restore [the] status quo."

The longer the diplomatic process takes, the more distracted the world will become, he added. "Fewer people [than in August] have time and even the will to talk about Georgia right now," Turmanidze said. "I think Russia will take advantage of that."

Shalva Lazariashvili, a security advisor at the Foundation for Democracy and Development, run by former Georgian parliament speaker Nino Burjanadze, asserted that the setback in Geneva also hurts Russia. He contended that Russia lost an important opportunity to win more support for its recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent countries. "I would say it is no one’s victory," he said.

Editor's Note: Molly Corso is a freelance journalist based in Tbilisi.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.