“ARMENIZATION” OF THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL LIFE IN GEORGIA?

28.03.2013

“ARMENIZATION” OF THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL LIFE IN GEORGIA?

Sergei Minasyan
PhD (in History), Head of the Department of Political Researches, Caucasus Institute

On January 17 official visit of the prime-minister of Georgia Bidzina Ivanishvili to Armenia took place. This was the second regional visit of a new head of the Georgian government after a resounding and unexpected for many victory of the opposition at the parliamentary elections in October; at the end of the last year Ivanishvili visited Azerbaijan. Unlike Baku, where new head of the Georgian government was expected with some kind of alertness and distrust (in December Ivanishvili stated that he had doubts about reasonability of Baku-Akhlkalaki-Kars railway financed by Azerbaijan going through Georgia bypassing Armenia), Yerevan expected Ivanishvili with emphasized interest.

The expectations of the Armenian authorities were connected with both promises given by Ivanishvili concerning the resolution of many imperious problems, which are, for example, connected with the Armenian population living in Samtskhe-Javakheti region and openly declared readiness of the Georgian government to improve the relations with the main military and political ally of Armenia – Russia. One may say that the expectations of the Armenian authorities from the meeting of the Georgian prime-minister and Armenian president and prime-minister were generally realized. Moreover, visit of Ivanishvili to Armenia took place in such a positive atmosphere which is so non-typical for many post-Soviet countries (including the visits of Saakashvili and his prime-ministers) that involuntarily thoughts about the feasibility of too optimistic development of the Armenian-Georgian relations came forward.

During his visit Ivanishvili also met the Head of the Armenian Apostolic Church Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II. At the meeting the issues of reclaiming some of the Armenian Churches confiscated in the soviet period and then not returned to their former owner were discussed. For quite a long time this issue had not been solved; Saakashvili’s government did not dare to take over this issue, which had been complicated after the Georgian Orthodox Church offered a challenge for some Orthodox churches on the territory of Armenia. During his meetings with both secular and church leadership of Armenia, the Georgian prime-minister offered a new, in his opinion, compromise solution. He stated that he was ready to initiate reconstruction of these churches in a short time at his own expense (despite their belonging) unless a joint Armenian-Georgian commission would define their belonging. Ivanishvili said that the Georgian side would agree with any decision of the commission and as he stated in his interview to the Armenian office of “Radio Liberty” he had received an impression that the Armenian side was also ready for such steps.

Though the offer made by the Georgian prime-minister may arouse new problems and disputes (e.g. according to what projects and in compliance with what church and architecture traditions the reconstruction of the churches should be implemented before final defining of their belonging), nevertheless, it demonstrates a distinct readiness of the Georgian prime-minister to find political (compromise) decision of this inveterate problem leaving a negative mark on bilateral interstate relations.

During his visit Ivanishvili responded in the same way to the issues regarding the problems of the Armenian population of Samtskhe-Javakheti. Underlining that he was very grateful to the Armenian population of that region which for the first time in the history of Georgia mostly voted for the opposition, he promised that he would never forget his promises made during the electoral campaign and he would do more than he promised in Samtskhe-Javakheti. In response to the request of the Catholicos of All Armenians, Ivanishvili also promised to consider the issue of discharging of the Armenian political activist from this region Vahagn Chakhalyan, arrested and convicted under the Saakashvili governing. As later Ivanishvili told he redirected this issue for the solution to the Minister of Corrections and Legal Assistance Sozar Subari. Soon after that the developments around Vahagn Chakhalyan, though for a short time, appeared in the spotlight of the political life in Georgia.

Let us remind you that the activist of “United Javakhq” movement V.Chakhalyan was arrested on June 21, 2008 in Akhlkalaki. In the opinion of some local activists this happened in consequence of the actions of the then Georgian authorities which tended to secure “just in case” situation in Javakhq populated by the Armenians two weeks before initiating combat actions in South Ossetia and decided to neutralize the activists of the local youth socio-political movement. In spring 2009 Chakhalyan was convicted under rather disputable articles for 10 years of imprisonment. In the years to come a number of Armenian NGOs, including ones from Diaspora, tried to appeal against the decision of the Georgian court and in 2012 the case was considered in the European Court.

The situation changed after the change of the regime in Georgia. The amnesty proclaimed by new Georgian authorities was also spread upon Vahagn Chakhalyan who was released free at the end of January 2013. After setting free Chakhalyan had a phone conversation with the Catholicos Garegin II and in Tbilisi he was received by the ambassador of Armenia to Georgia Hovhannes Manukyan and Head of the Georgian Dioceses of the AAC Vazgen Mirzakhanyan and after that he returned to his home town Akhlkalaki.

This event induced overreaction of the incumbent president Mikhail Saakashvili and former prime-minister and a person responsible for power structures Vano Merabishvili. Saakashvili called this step criminal and vicious for republic and compared Chakhalyan with former Abkhazian leader Vladislav Ardzinba. Saakashvili also accused Chakhalyan of espionage in favor of Russia and stated that if the authorities had put Ardzinba behind the bars just like they did it with Chakhlyan the developments round Abkhazia would have gone in quite different direction. At the same time Saakashvili in his statement made a mention of the Catholicos of All Armenians and this was taken as something rather ambiguous by the Armenian Dioceses in Georgia so that it came out with special critical statement in the address of the incumbent president.

At the same time Minister of Corrections and Legal Assistance of Georgia Sozar Subari also criticized M.Saakashvili’s statements and even accused the incumbent president of lie and mentioned that Chakhalyan could be included in the amnesty declared by the Georgian parliament. According to the argumentation of the Georgian minister a question arouses – if Saakashvili accused Chakhalyan of espionage why he was not accused under the articles mentioned by Saakashvili when the later was governing. The similar comment was made by Chakhalyan.

During next several days the incumbent president and his adherents from currently oppositional “United National Movement” criticized the decision of new authorities to amnesty Vahagn Chakhalyan. At the same time it was more than obvious that it was rather connected with an aspiration to use this event as a kind of information reason to criticize new authorities of Georgia headed by Bidzina Ivanishvili than with an irrational aspiration of Saakashvili to turn Chakhalyan into his “personal enemy”. But one should mention that many Armenians in Georgia take Saakashvili’s aforementioned statements (including rather disputable accusations of “Armenian separatism”) with at least vigilance and concern. In their opinion this may cause both heating of ethnic tension in Samtskhe-Javakheti and intensification of negative attitude towards Armenians all over Georgia.

However, the attempts to critically use “Armenian issue” in the domestic political rhetoric by Saakashvili, which can be taken ambiguously if desired, were used by the incumbent president not only in connection with “Chakhalyan case”. During Ivanishvili’s visit to Armenia the incumbent Georgian president in his speedy manner came out with tough reaction. On January 18, 2013 at a specially summoned briefing Saakashvili said that the statements made by Ivanishvili in Yerevan “do not take into account geopolitical and strategic interests of Georgia”, and they “are in only Russia’s interests” and that opening of the railway through Abkhazia “will become anti-state, criminal, anti-Georgian, anti-national and corresponding to the occupant’s fundamental interests step”. Saakashvili still continues making such statements...

In fact this caused a situation when against the background of ideological and political crisis in the opposition between the prime-minister and president the issues connected with both Armenia and Armenian population of Georgia, including “Chakhalyan case”, to a large extent has become an indicator of the political opposition in the domestic political struggle for authority in Georgia.

Moreover, currently the term “Armenization” has become to some extent denominative in the ideological estimations of the prospects of foreign political positioning of Georgia. Saakashvili and his adherents warn that improvement of the relations between Georgia and Russia will bring to its “Armenization” (using this term with negative coloring). And his opponents, as prime-minister Ivanishvili said in his interview to the Armenian office of “Radio Liberty” in Yerevan, bring as an example the policy of Armenia, which managed to establish and maintain good relations simultaneously with Russia, U.S., E.U. and even Iran.

But at the same time it is obvious that in case if such a tendency of “multi-level” use of the “Armenian factor” in domestic policy of Georgia continues, it may be fraught with danger of negative perception of the Armenians in Georgia and Armenia at least by some circles inside the Georgian society.

“Globus” analytical journal, #3, 2013

Return

Another materials of author