The face-to-face meeting of the Russian and Georgian presidents was eagerly anticipated, in hopes that it might help soften the relations between the neighboring countries. At a joint press conference, the visiting president appeared friendly and the host president seemed quite welcoming.  However, behind their diplomatic smiles the tension was evident, as was their uncompromising positions on key issues.

The meeting, which was to start at 8pm on June 13, was delayed until 11pm, and but the time the two presidents launched the press conference it was already midnight.  Speaking to journalists, they described the talk as ‘fairly open’ and ‘very useful’, with Putin hailing the mutual desire to break the deadlock: ‘Together with [Saakashvili] we have agreed that Georgia and Russia should make steps to achieve standardization of our relations and improve bilateral ties.’ Saakashvili thanked his Russian counterpart for hosting him and said that numerous problems which had built up in Russian-Georgian relations had sparked concerns in Georgia. He blamed the problems on lack of coordination and expressed willingness to ensure future cooperation.

The meeting between the Georgian and Russian leaders, the third in sequence, was initiated by Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili against a quite grim background. In mid-spring, responding to Georgia’s veto to Russian membership in the World Trade Organisation, Russia banned Georgian wine and mineral water Borjomi, the country’s main export commodity to Russia, on the pretext of law quality and falsification.

Tbilisi condemned the move as politically motivated and went on pushing a sensitive issue of withdrawal Russian peacekeepers from its conflict zones. Georgia’s breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, stand firm to keep Russians as major supporters of their secession. On June 2, saluting the results of the Montenegro referendum, Putin reiterated his popular stance to apply the principle of universality in resolving Georgia’s frozen conflicts, this time far more vigorously. This actually served as the last straw for the Georgian government and Saakashvili made a phone call to Moscow. The phone conversation resulted in invitation to St. Petersburg, where the audience coincided with the 10^th International Forum.  

‘There are unresolved problems and aggressive separatism in the Caucasus which is not in the best interests of neither of the sides. And consequently, we are hopeful for Russia, which at the OSCE Ministerial [in December 2005] supported the Georgian peace plan concerning South Ossetia’, Saakashvili said to journalists, and stressed the importance of Russia's commitment to solve Georgian conflicts, which he said topped the agenda of the bilateral relations.

Putin noted that he and Saakashvili had discussed ‘acute problems’ related to ‘frozen conflicts’. However, he did not seem to retreat, citing the Chechnya referendum in 2003 under Russian administration as a ‘democratic way’ to solve problems: ‘At that referendum, a large majority of Chechen people voted for the constitution and confirmed their desire to remain within the Russian territorial and constitutional framework. We should ask what the people’s opinion is’. 

Saakashvili reminded Putin that 300,000 Georgians had been expelled from Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the early 1990s, indicating that administering a referendum without including Georgians from the conflict zones would not give a real picture.

Commentators concluded that the meeting behind closed doors must have been conducted in a tenuous atmosphere. Saakashvili was most direct in speaking against Russian policy to back separatist regimes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia: ‘We will not allow anybody to seize our territories… We have nothing to concede, not a single meter of either Abkhazian or South Ossetian territory’. He went on to slam Russian policy in the conflict zones: ‘Russian officials are being appointed there, for instance, in South Ossetia, and are in charge of those territories…International law calls this nothing but annexation [of Georgia].’

One focus of the press conference was economic ties, which Putin noted as developing in ‘a very positive way’. According to him, in 2005 Russian investments in Georgia increased fivefold, and remittances reached upwards of 1.5 billion USD. With this information, Russia stressed the fact that Georgia is becoming progressively dependent on the Russian-based decisions concerning economic issues, for which Georgian government is constantly criticized by its opponents. In the press release following the St. Petersburg meeting, the Georgian National Bank refuted the Russian claim, saying that only around 300 million USD was sent from Russia annually by Georgian expatriates. However, this does not change the fact that Russia remains a major investor and trade partner for Georgia, at least until it finds real alternatives.

Georgian winemakers in Georgia, and perhaps fans of Georgian wine in Russia, were most concerned with the issue of Georgian beverages. Putin said that the topic was not on the agenda, but he promised to lift the ban as soon as the ‘problems related to falsification’ were solved.

Something on which Putin commented to the press with irony was a question regarding Aslan Abashidze, ex-leader of Georgia’s Autonomous region of Adjara. Abashidze is currently wanted by Interpol. Back in 2004, Abashidze went into exile to Russia when post-Revolution leadership of Georgia gave him security guarantees. Putin said: ‘I had no idea that Abashidze was wanted’, recalling his consultations with the Georgian side two years ago that if Russia gave asylum to Abashidze, Georgia should not ask to extradite him later.

Assessments of the meeting vary considerably in Tbilisi. While some Georgians take pride in Saakashvili’s statements voiced in Putin’s hometown, others fail to see any headway. Parliamentary Chairperson Nino Burjanadze commented: ‘The fact is of particular importance, as Georgia has expressed all its positions and Georgian president spoke openly about our priorities, which are territorial integrity and political course'. MP Giorgi Bokeria also hailed the event: ‘Georgia has long waited for a president with the courage to make any statement at any level and any circumstances with the persuasion, openness and patriotism that the Georgian president did in St Petersburg.’

Oppositionist parties, however, are quite modest in their evaluations and believe that for President Putin the meeting was just a far-reaching gesture prior to the G8 summit. The summit is scheduled in mid July and will be conducted under Russian chairmanship. MP Davit Saganelidze of the opposition New Rights faction told GT:  ‘[At the summit] the west most likely will rebuke Russia  for having  no dialog with its neighbors where the situation is growing tense. After this meeting [in St Petersburg] Putin will be able to say he is entering the phase of a dialog, thus strengthening his position at the summit’. 

Asked how strongly Georgia expressed its position in Russia, Davit Zourabishvili, another opposition MP from Democratic Front faction commented: ‘Our president has performed emotionally - in his usual style, while Russian president seemed more reserved. This was all. I do not think something special has taken place… Nothing concrete has been stated by our president – neither about withdrawal from CIS nor about [withdrawal of Russian] peacekeepers. What will Georgia do besides refuse to compromise its territorial integrity? Nothing has been mentioned about this.’ 

Neither does Moscow seem optimistic about the outcome of the meeting. On June 14 Russia’s popular news agency RIA Novosti covered the meeting, which it said, ‘failed to lead to a breakthrough.’

On June 16 the same agency carried an analytical article by Aleksey Makarkin, Deputy General-Director of Russian Center for Political Technologies. In the article called ‘Russia and Georgia: start of short-lived thaw?’ he concludes that logics of the escalation between the two countries contradict geopolitical reality saying ‘Georgia, however strong its establishment is willing, can not escape from Russia.’  He underestimated Georgia’s efforts towards European structures, indicating that neither EU nor NATO would accept Georgian membership as far as it has two unresolved conflicts on its territory.  ‘It is one thing to welcome  stable Poland and Check Republic into the European Union and it is another – to accept a country with two unresolved conflicts, the government of which is incapable to control Sokhumi [capital of Breakaway Abkhazia] and Tskhinvali [administrative center of South Ossetia], he mentioned. Here the Georgian government can cite the example of Cypress joining the EU despite its unresolved conflict in Northern Cypress. And it is also a fact that Georgia’s membership efforts are clearly appreciated in Europe. 

The author of the controversial article suggests one positive outcome of the meeting could be settlement of the issue of Georgian beverages alone, the quality of which, according to him, will likely be put under strict surveillance. And in response to this, as Russian expert hints, Georgia will have to give up consultations about leaving the CIS. Makarkin predicts: ‘The thaw which could start following the Georgian President’s visit to St Petersburg, unfortunately, will not last long. It will probably be followed by a new phase of escalation, which in time may be followed by the next thaw’.

With its economic presence in Georgia on the rise, Russia is unlikely to stop its pressure. The St Petersburg meeting has demonstrated this clearly, serving as a symbolic illustration by both sides to resume a dialogue. In fact, the meeting illustrated how far apart Georgian and Russian views have grown concerning Georgia’s key problems, thus leaving no room for optimism.

Maia Edilashvili

ChechenCenter.info