The Ongoing David-Gareji Conflict

Interview

The Azerbaijani edition ‘Echo’ published an article entitled “State Border: Azerbaijan came to an agreement with Russia, but as for Georgia...” The article was read with great interest both in Azerbaijan and Georgia, especially when one journalist, Azerbaijani political scientist and analyst Fikret Sadikov, stated: “If the Georgian side wants to continue close relations with Azerbaijan (in terms of ensuring the energy security of the Georgian people), Georgia should think about compromising on the David-Gareji issue.”

To find out just how much the Azerbaijani side will try to use the energy issue when negotiating the delimitation of the border, we spoke to Fikret Sadikov himself.

What are your arguments? What kind of compromise does Azerbaijan demand?

I don’t represent the official side of Azerbaijan, I’m an independent political scientist, and what I said is my personal opinion. Moreover, I’m not an expert on the delimitation of borders, but for years I’ve been following the negotiations between Azerbaijan and Georgia as an analyst. It's no secret that there are bilateral relations between Azerbaijan and Georgia which are beneficial for both sides; we are strategic partners and we have the same position on many issues. I’ll say more: stability and security in the South Caucasus largely depend on the close relationship between Azerbaijan and Georgia. Therefore, when such a difficult, arguable issue as the delimitation of the border between Azerbaijan and Georgia is put on the agenda, it seems to me that some experts exaggerate the problem and attribute great importance to it. I do not exclude that there are some forces who gain from tense relations between the two countries. I think this is not such an urgent, immediate issue that should worry Georgians and Azeris at this moment.

Who do you mean when you talk about external forces?

I mean those present neither in Georgia nor in Azerbaijan. I can tell you it frankly - perhaps in Armenia they would be interested in a similar scenario, namely, the worsening of relations between Azerbaijan and Georgia. They’re not happy about the development of our bilateral cooperation, that we are strategic partners.

Davit Gareji's issue is a very important one for Georgia, even without external intervention.

I have no doubt this is the case. I know this issue is of great importance for Georgian society. I am only saying that those who know all this can use it for their own purposes and further aggravate this issue.

Doesn’t what you wrote “aggravate” relations? Your comments in Georgia were viewed as political blackmail - compromise concerning David-Gareji issue or you’ll lose your gas...

I meant a bilateral compromise. I did not say the Georgian side should make concessions. I said in a clear and open context that we could have a bilateral compromise, taking into account our good neighborly relations, because we are connected by these large energy projects. As for what this compromise should be, I will once again state that I’m not a border demarcation expert, so I cannot say ‘give us this and we will give you that.’ The experts should decide on this. And I'm just saying that taking into account close and friendly relations between our two states; we could make a bilateral compromise.

Your article also focuses on the fact that the David-Gareji monastery complex is considered by Azerbaijani scholars as the cultural and religious heritage of the Albanian state. What historical sources and arguments are there that confirm this assertion?

I prefer to rely on the opinion of scientists when it comes to such issues. I may think to regard this monument to be Albanian, Georgian, and even French, but I cannot say to be an expert in this field. I trust the historians and researchers from both the Georgian and Azerbaijani sides.

How so, when they have mutually exclusive opinions?

I will repeat what I said in the interview: “The good neighborly relations between our states give us the luxury not to have to worry about such issues. Let the historians continue arguing and maybe they will manage to reach a final conclusion. Let them share their thoughts; let it happen over long periods of time. And when both sides bring their last argument, then let’s think about who might make a compromise.”

The Azeri-Georgian Commission has been doing this for more than 20 years, but no progress is visible

So, they should take a closer approach. There is no other way. Georgia says one thing, we say another, but the fact is that we should seek compromises. Both sides should concede something.

Perhaps it is equally as important to consider the responses of Georgian and Azeri citizens to potential compromises and concessions

To find out what people think about, perhaps we should conduct a social survey. However, I understand that people tend to support those who make a decision acceptable to them. I don’t think this is a question to be resolved through a universal referendum. This is an issue needing resolution by experts- scholars, historians, and so on. They should sit and discuss the problem.

Do you think people in our republics will be satisfied with a consensus achieved by historians, which might contradict their beliefs?

We should not succumb to emotions. People, if they believe and trust their own scientists, must also accept their views. If the scientists come to a specific compromise following negotiations, I think people should trust them. Is it not better than having fruitless negotiations for 20, 30, 40 years, and accusing each other? We must trust our scientists and do all that is necessary for our specialists to come to a reasonable compromise and agree on something. They should not argue in vain. Both sides should cite facts, historical data and arguments to prove their opinions. We can also involve international specialists who are trusted by both parties. Both sides should remember that we cannot let ourselves deteriorate in relations for just a few kilometers of land on which there are important historical monuments. If these scholars fail to come to an agreement, then other scholars should take their place.

And if this decision, on the contrary, only exacerbates the situation?

That’s today’s reality. The fact is, we’ve been trying for a few years now and we cannot progress or solve this problem. All other issues are practically resolved, but we fail to negotiate on this 30% of the border. But that does not mean we should leave this issue or not talk about it. On the contrary, we must bring historical facts, documents, etc. We can talk about it all in a civilized manner; good neighborly relations of our countries and people prove it. This issue should be resolved through negotiations - there is no other way. Whether it takes 25 years or 30, the negotiations are the only way.

Vazha Tavberidze