Paata Zakareshvili: “Discussions between Tbilisi and Sukhumi and Tskhinvali are mediated by the media”

Interview by Georgy Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza

The State Minister of Georgia for Reconciliation and Civil Equality has told Vestnik Kavkaza about the development of the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian dialogues.

-    Mr State Minister, you have recently suggested starting a direct dialogue with the authorities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia without Russia’s mediation. What format did you mean by that and why do you think it will be more useful than the current “Geneva format”?

-    In my opinion, direct communication with Georgia is useful and important for the Ossetians and the Abkhaz to solve the issues that touch them. To give you a concrete example: recently, we set free Marek Dudaev, which had been the object of the Ossetians’ demands for a long time. In turn, the Ossetians have liberated Teymuraz Jerapov, au citizen of Georgia who was in jail in Tskhinvali. But it wasn’t the result of direct negotiations, it was mediated. If we had communicated directly, the liberation of both men could have taken place earlier.

Contacting each other through third countries has made many issues become frozen. When the Ossetians have any questions or propositions, they communicate them via the TV or newspapers. But that’s not the way to solve the problems. That’s what I’m talking about. So we discuss many issues, but the discussion is not direct, it is mediated by the media as well.

-    Does that mean that there are no direct official contacts?

-    I mean than there are no contacts on concrete issues. For me, it’s not the format that matters, it is the way of discussing concrete topics. For instance, it’s been a year since we proposed providing natural gas to the Akhalgor region of South Ossetia. And we can’t propose it directly, as the Ossetians are reluctant to communicate directly, so we have to propose it via the media, since there are no other channels for direct discussions of important issues and topics. Of course, they read it all and use the same channel to communicate that the price isn’t right for them. But where was the discussion of the price, so that they could agree or disagree with it?

Speaking of Marek Dudaev: we liberated him unilaterally, without agreeing to anything. If we had had direct contacts, we could have agreed beforehand, telling them that we are letting Dudaev go. And they, in turn, could have answered that they were releasing Jerapov. Thus, we get some responses for our unilateral measures. But it always takes too long. That’s why I suggested: if we have contacts via the air, the TV, the newspaper and agencies, why don’t we establish the same kind of contacts directly?

We have accomplished  many mutually-beneficial deeds, but we could have done much more if the contacts had been direct. Besides, it would have taken us much less time.

However, our Ossetian counterparts have many problems. They need people released or found, but we can’t discuss everything in Geneva, for it is a Georgian-Russian context, i.e. a Georgian-Russian format.

-    You offered Abkhazia to use Georgian communications when Russia partly closed the border with Abkhazia due to the Olympic Games. But the Abkhaz authorities refused even to consider your propositions, which a representative of the Abkhaz Foreign Ministry called “an absurd attitude”. How would you comment on this?

-    Well, actually everything is okay there. Public statements are often different from real actions. In this aspect, everything is okay. I’m glad to say everything is going as planned.

-    So would it be right to say that the Abkhaz have already embraced your offer?

-    I never said that. That is your assessment and interpretation. I reserve you the right for such assessments.