The second event in a series of three Round Tables Discussions organised by LINKS on the theme “Prospects, benefits and perils of regional interaction in the South Caucasus was held at the Marriott Courtyard in Tbilisi, Georgia on Monday, 2nd of April 2007. The Following is a summary of the proceedings.
(1) The second event in a series of three Round Tables Discussions organised by LINKS on the theme “Prospects, benefits and perils of regional interaction in the South Caucasus was held in Tbilisi, Georgia on Monday, 2nd of April 2007. The meeting was attended by members of parliament from Georgia, diplomats accredited to Tbilisi - including representatives of the Embassies of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the OSCE, UNOMIG and the Office of the EUSR - academics and media journalists as well as NGO representatives
(2) The Chairman of the meeting Marek Resich, South Caucasus Co-ordinator for LINKS, made the opening remarks and explained the work of LINKS. He also gave a brief overview of the South Caucasus Parliamentary Initiative (SCPI) describing its origins, mode of functioning and work. He mentioned that recently SCPI approved an important document on regional interaction at its Dubai meeting in December 2006. Mr. Resich said that the aim of the round table was to stimulate discussion on regional interaction, learn from the experience of the SCPI and present to a wider audience the expert’s report, which is a very tangible output of the work of SCPI. He then introduced the members of the first panel of the round table discussion, composed of Mr. Konstantine Gabashvili MP, Head of Delegation of the Parliament of Georgia to the SCPI and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, Dr. Gayane Novikova, Director of the Center for Strategic Analysis (Yerevan), and Mr. Dennis Sammut, Executive Director of LINKS discussing the topic “Regional Interaction and the process of conflict resolution in the South Caucasus”.
(3) Mr. Konstantine Gabashvili MP, said that the main problem hindering cooperation in the South Caucasus as a region was the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. He hoped that this issue would be resolved quickly. He considered SCPI as one of the elements that was helping towards finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He thanked LINKS as facilitator of the process and the British government as the main donor of SCPI. Mr. Gabashvili said that he believed very strongly that the region would have its conflicts resolved and will enter the path of normal, peaceful and good relations between neighbours. Mr Gabashvili said that the SCPI process was evolving: there were discussions to transform the SCPI process into a South Caucasus Parliamentary Assembly; there was also a deepening of the discussions on areas with a high interest for interaction between the three countries. The establishment of an expert working group on banking, environment and transport and the report they had produced was a good example of this approach. Mr. Gabashvili then explained the rational behind the choice of topics and said that these choices proved to be relevant, as the experts came up with some interesting ideas of interaction, and he cited a few examples of them in the three spheres. He stated that one could build upon the work already achieved by the expert’s report and pursue some of their ideas further. In this light, he said that it was very much realistic to speak about the feasibility of having a “Convention on Environment in the South Caucasus” agreed by all three countries. Mr. Gabashvili finished his presentation by saying that it was important to stress that the three countries of the South Caucasus share many things together.
(4) Dr. Gayane Novikova centred her presentation on the security deficit in the South Caucasus caused by the unresolved conflicts. She argued that as there are three unresolved conflicts, the region presents a great explosive potential which makes regional co-operation very difficult. She then indicated which trends, in her opinion, could be considered as obstacles to the possible interaction between the three countries. She explained that the security deficit came from the attitude of the three countries, the role of the neighbours and of other major players in the region. She argued that the three countries were not displaying strategies conducive towards a prompt resolution of the conflicts. She cited in this respect that the interplay of outside interference, the refusal of the separatist entities to return to the status quo ante, economic blockades, the presence (or not) of dialogue between the countries and the de facto entities was preventing the conflicts of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh to find a speedy resolution, and was adding to the security deficit of the region. Dr. Novikova also explained in detail how the passing of time was influencing negatively the conflict resolution process. She argued that before one could talk about “conflict resolution” one should concentrate more on the “conflict regulation”. She said that the interplay of economic, social, and demographic factors linked to the political will of the parties involved would eventually enable them to reach the final resolution of all three conflicts. Dr. Novikova concluded by saying that in a long-term perspective, the European integration process of the three South Caucasus countries might stimulate positive actions of these countries regarding the resolution of the conflicts.
(5) Mr. Dennis Sammut, Executive Director of LINKS, said that like the previous speaker he also sometimes reflected if in the present pessimistic scenario one could realistically speak of the South Caucasus as a region. Such pessimism is however not sustainable as the reality on the ground is more complex and more subtle than the political rhetoric. Mr. Sammut listed some of the many ways the three countries were inter-dependent, and said that because of daily interactions there was the need for regional mechanisms to be in place. He argued that it is important to articulate regional interaction in pragmatic terms that show that there are tangible benefits for all concerned. Mr. Sammut then stated that the SCPI process has shown since 2003 that it was possible for the three countries to interact with each other despite the current difficult situation. The process has not been easy and without problems. Yet it was important to also appreciate where it had succeeded. He stated that whilst co-operation may not be possible before the conflicts are resolved, particularly the Karabakh conflict, positive interaction is a necessary precondition for conflict resolution. Mr. Sammut concluded his presentation by saying that the South Caucasus needed ambitious plans for regional cooperation. It was through such ambitious and creative initiatives that the region can be catapulted into a modern region able to deal with and benefit from the processes of globalisation. Several such ideas were currently being considered by a Commission of eminent persons under the presidency of the Foreign Minister of Slovenia Dimitrij Rupel. The Caucasus Caspian Commission will be publishing its report in November 2007 and will deal with many of the issues being discussed. Mr Sammut said that one should not underestimate the progress that had been made by the three South Caucasus countries since their independence. Yet he warned against complacency. One step forward was no longer enough for the region to keep abreast of the progress taking place in a number of other transition countries. What was needed was ten steps forward and this was going to require vision and leadership from the governments of the three countries.
(6) After the presentations of the three speakers on this first panel, the floor was opened for questions and comments from other participants. Dr. Kaupo Känd, from the office of the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus, reflecting on the idea enounced by Mr. Sammut, asked if there was such a thing as a “Caucasian Identity”. He explained that his question should be understood in tacking into account the fact that a shared “European Identity” was helping the EU in deepening its integration. He asked if the same could be said about the people of the Caucasus. Mr. Sammut answered first and said that it was possible to speak of a Caucasian identity, but it should be understood in a general sense, in the same way as the term “European identity” is a general concept. Mr. Sammut continued by stating that although it was possible to speak of a Caucasian identity, this element should not be considered as the main driving force that would underpin the creation of a South Caucasus region with more interactions and cooperation.
(7) Mr. Ivliane Khaindrava MP stated on the issue of “Caucasian identity” that in his view the driving force underpinning this concept should be a common pride. He continued by saying that there was no pride shared in common between the three South Caucasian countries and therefore it was not possible to speak about a “Caucasian identity”.
(8) Dr. Kaupo Känd then replied that, in his view, the people of the South and North Caucasus could be proud of many things, not the least that they have very ancient cultures that have co-existed in the region for several thousand years. He then said that he understood the term “Caucasian Identity” as encompassing the North and South Caucasus.
(9) Mr. Konstantine Gabashvili MP replied to the last point made by Dr. Känd and said that one of the founding elements of identity are values. He said that currently there are different values at play in the north and the south Caucasus. Therefore, in his view there was no such thing as common Caucasian identity bringing together the north and the south.
(10) Ms. Keti Tsikhelashvili from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, then said that there was an attempt a few years back to create a South Caucasus identity, being part of the European identity, so that all the people of the South Caucasus could identify themselves in their European identity.
(11) The Maclaren of Maclaren, British Ambassador to Georgia argued that one should differentiate between a “backward looking identity” and a “forward looking identity”. He said that although there were many things to be proud of in the past of different nations, it was often the current and the future projects that the people were feeling proud of. He made a parallel with the European identity and said that it was the very recent history, the last few decades, which was giving the people living in the EU a sense of a common identity. This together with the mobility that the European Union had given to European citizens on the continent. He then continued by saying that should the three countries of the South Caucasus be able to overcome their differences and construct an ambitious future together, this was surely something to be proud of for their people. He said that the South Caucasus should be aiming towards a “forward looking identity”.
(12) Mr. Sammut concluded the first session, by reiterating that in his view, the concept of identity was only an outside layer and it should not be viewed as the sole basis for future cooperation between the three countries. He said that he seconded the view that identity should be “forward looking”.
(13) After a short coffee break the Chairman convened the round table meeting for the second panel discussion entitled “In what spheres is regional interaction in the South Caucasus necessary and desirable?”. The panel was composed of five experts who helped draft the “Report of the expert Group on regional interaction in the spheres of Banking, the Environment and Transport in the South Caucasus” in the framework of the SCPI process, namely Mr George Geguchadze (Georgia), Mr George Sanadiradze (Georgia), Mr George Tsagareli (Georgia), Mr Afil Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), and Mr Ruhulla Aliev (Azerbaijan). All panellists started by making short opening remarks on the report which was available to participants.
(14) Presentations were made first by the three Georgian experts. Mr George Geguchadze said that in preparing the report the expert group had constantly considered the opportunity costs created by the conflicts and their potential resolution. Although the report was more focused on the Karabakh conflict a lot of the arguments could be equally used with regard to the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and there was no doubt in the mind of the expert group that without conflicts there will be faster development in the region. Mr George Sandiradze said that the report addressed the challenges to the environment shared by all three countries. He welcomed the ability of the expert group to deal with such controversial issues as the fires in and around Nagorny Karabakh. He said that SCPI was an exceptional forum that can help realise many important ideas. Mr George Tsagarelli said that the South Caucasus region was slowly emerging out of a tradition of clichéd decision making process based on ideological requirements. The report puts on the table a number of important ideas such as the need for a customs union. Nobody has any doubt that this will help economic growth and future development. The region provides a number of important transport and transit corridors both north-south and east-west. A key and urgent element for the future development was however the need of harmonisation of the legislation of the three countries with EU legislation and he hoped that SCPI could contribute tangibly to this in the future.
(15) Two Azerbaijani experts than made their presentation. Mr Afil Hajiyev mentioned ongoing projects being undertaken by Azerbaijan and Georgia, including the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzrum gas pipeline, as well as the Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars railway. He argued that whilst some may say that Armenia was being excluded from these projects it was also possible to say that Armenia was excluding itself from these processes. Mr Hajiyev said that in preparing the report the expert group had a lot of heated discussions but were able to finally come to a common position. He said that the matrix developed for interaction in the transport field was a realistic one and can be the basis for future interaction in this field but on the other hand one should be realistic in understanding that without a resolution of the conflicts normal regional co-operation was not possible. Speaking on the banking sphere Mr Ruhulla Aliev said that sometimes questions whether regional co-operation was necessary and if so who needs it most. However even in the Banking sphere were Azerbaijan was leading in the region he could see benefit from regional interaction as investors would be more attracted by a larger regional market. He spoke about some of the ideas in the report including that of a South Caucasus Development Bank, a common stock market and a credit register. One could easily see the benefit of these ideas given the right political conditions.
(16) Opening the Questions and Answers session, Dr Kaupo Kand said that the report was important and significant. He asked if the expert group had discussed the proposed Armenia-Georgia-Abkhazia transport corridor. The European Union had promised to support this project as it considered it also important as a confidence building measure in the process of resolving the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. Replying to the question George Tsagarelli said that this was a positive project that worked for Georgia. However it was also part of a package of issues that included political commitments on the part of the European Union that had not been honoured. Following up, Mr Konstantine Gabashvili MP said Georgia is ready for the implementation of this project but the project only made sense if the transport corridor linked into the Russian transport system. At the moment not only this project but the whole of Russia was closed to Georgia – there were no transport communications at all. Russia does not support any steps that help resolve the conflict with Abkhazia because what it wants to do is to use Abkhazia as a lever against Georgia.
(17) Mr Elkhan Polukhov from the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Georgia raised the issue of whether bilateral relations Georgia-Armenia, Georgia-Azerbaijan could be a substitute for trilateral regional co-operation. Replying, Mr Gabashivli said that the three sides needed to engage, even if what they could achieve in this difficult situation was very little. This is where the SCPI process had been a success. It has been an important training school whose benefit will be felt for a long time to come.
(18) Concluding the meeting, the Chairman, Mr Marek Resich thanked the participants and the panellists for their contribution and said that LINKS will be organising a similar roundtable in Yerevan later on in the month.
