OSCE Chairman on Geneva Talks & Tskhinvali's “Alania Referendum”
INTERVIEW
If Georgia is going to continue to provoke us, we’ll leave the Geneva talks – this was the collective message, or threat (you decide) coming from Russian diplomats over the last two weeks, notably following the condemnation of the so-called elections in Abkhazia by the international community. With the recent name-change “referendum” and “presidential elections” in South Ossetia likely to meet the same fate, the clock might well be ticking on the Geneva International Discussions, which have, since initiation after the August 2008 War, quietly trudged on to an impressive 39 meetings and are approaching the 40th one.
What is the future for the Geneva format and what changes might the Ossetian “referendum” bring? Panorama Talk Show and GEORGIA TODAY sat down with the former Ambassador of Switzerland to Georgia, Gunther Bechler, who is now the OSCE Chairman at the Geneva Discussions.
We’ve heard some alarming statements from Russian diplomats recently, one from the Russian Ambassador to the UN who openly hinted towards suspending the Geneva talks; the latest round was adjourned before finishing as the sides couldn’t reach a consensus. Has the Geneva format exhausted its potential?
I’m one of the co-chairs of the Geneva talks; there’s a total of three: one from the EU, one from the UN, and myself from the OSCE Chairmanship. At the moment, we are planning the 40th round of Geneva talks. It’s a very sustainable and long-term endeavor and it has worked quite well so far compared to other conflicts, where we have no format. Let’s take Nagorno-Karabakh, for example: this situation is much more stable and predictable in comparison. To date, we’ve had different phases. In the beginning, it was very stormy: after the August 2008 War, the parties had difficulties talking to each other. And then there was a phase when they tried to perform well to address a lot of issues in two working groups in parallel – one on security and non-use of force, the other on humanitarian issues, return of IDPs, refugees and so on. And here I must say that, despite all the alarming signs, despite all media statements of all participants, the situation was rather stable. The last round of Geneva talks just a week ago was extremely fruitful; we came close to a non-use of force statement, there are talks between Russia and Georgia about that. We also addressed a lot of issues in the working group that are very important for the local people: humanitarian and environmental issues. We have this problem of diseases in the Black Sea region, with the box tree moth infecting trees and diseases of hazelnut plantations. So, last week, we had a workshop in Vienna dealing with all these issues together: with Abkhazia, Russia and Georgia. It’s a problem-solving exercise; we’ve had our ups and downs and even some threats, but, in general, it works quite well and I think nobody wants to give that up.
The chief benefit of these discussions is an ongoing, even if somewhat stormy dialogue between the sides. However, one would also argue that there is no point in dialogue if neither side is willing to compromise. What success have the Geneva talks brought in this regard?
I would really insist that they work well compared to other formats or situations that lack a formal process. The Geneva talks have a very limited mandate as a result of the Sarkozy-Medvedev agreement: we have two working groups on security and humanitarian issues. As this was linked to the 2008 war, we do not have a mandate for comprehensive peace talks and we do not have the power as co-moderators of the Geneva format. If the participants decide one day to enter a peace process, then this would be the next step, but it would change the format of Geneva. At the moment, you can say it’s a post-conflict format that still reflects the situation from 2008: security, returns, humanitarian issues; the lives of people affected by the conflict. So it’s very much a post-conflict format. However, since we had 39 rounds, you could say that there is something here, that the parties are interested in talking, participating and dealing with concrete issues – problem solving, in short. And this is a value in itself. If we stopped that, we wouldn’t know how to deal with certain issues. There is a conflict, there is no consent among the participants, but this is how we do things in this kind of setting: if you have a conflict, you need to talk. You need to have a dialogue.
On to the Ossetian issue and the so-called referendum on changing its name to Alania. Was it discussed at the Geneva talks and what’s your own take on this issue? Is it a prelude to a wider referendum on joining South Ossetia to North Ossetia and, ultimately, to the Russian Federation?
This issue was not discussed in Geneva and it’s not on the agenda. This is something that is taking place in Tskhinval and is an issue between Tskhinvali and the Russian Federation. It is not on the table of the Geneva talks; here we concentrate on security issues for Georgia and Russia, so Geneva talks are a platform to discuss issues between the Russian Federation and Georgia. The same holds for Abkhazia. This is part of the 2008 agreement brokered by Sarkozy. Concerning the “referendum,” of course, it’s about the name. It seems it has a certain importance for Tskhinvali, to mark and give a signal of a certain independent status. At the same time, you could also say that with this referendum, a future referendum about integration with the Russian Federation or North Ossetia is unlikely.
Why do you think it is unlikely to happen?
It’s an assumption, a prediction. It’s very difficult to say, but with by changing the name of the “Republic of South Ossetia” to the “State of Alania,” they also mark that they are somehow an “independent” state. This is not accepted by Georgia, of course, but it also seems that the Russian Federation supports this renaming and thus would not necessarily support a referendum on integration.
Vazha Tavberidze