2018年-查塔姆研究所_How_to_Get_a_Georgia-Russia_Dialogue_4页_112kb

Georgia-Russia Dialogue: A Summary

Core Content

The REP Programme Paper 05/10 by Neil MacFarlane examines the challenges and potential pathways for initiating a dialogue between Georgia and Russia. The document highlights the ongoing conflict as a critical issue for European security, with unresolved tensions posing risks of renewed hostilities, economic hardship for Georgia, and deepening isolation for the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The paper argues that a meaningful dialogue is essential not only for regional stability but also for broader international cooperation, particularly in areas such as Iran, non-proliferation, and security architecture reform.

Main Points

• Serious Confrontation: The conflict between Georgia and Russia remains one of the most significant threats to European security. Without a resolution, there is a risk of war, economic damage, and humanitarian crises.
• Unresolved Issues: The conflict has left Georgia with a large internally displaced population, while the trade embargo has crippled its economy. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, now de facto independent states, are increasingly dependent on Russia.
• Challenges to Dialogue:
  • Political Obstacles: Georgia views direct dialogue with Russia as politically risky, given Russia's past invasion and occupation.
  • Technical Obstacles: Determining who should be at the table is complicated, as both Georgia and the breakaway regions have different perspectives.
• Informal Dialogue as an Alternative: Informal discussions involving academics, civil society, and political figures could serve as a stepping stone towards more formal talks. These could focus on areas of mutual interest such as transport, energy, and migration.
• Need for Respectful Participation: For informal dialogue to be effective, it must involve respected and representative figures from both sides. In Georgia, such participation is difficult without government approval.
• Concessions as a Pathway: The paper suggests that Russia could make strategic concessions, such as:
  • Full implementation of the EU-mediated cease-fire agreement.
  • Allowing the EU Monitoring Mission to operate on both sides of the contact line.
  • Reducing the number of Russian troops in the breakaway regions to pre-war levels.
• Regional Perspective: Broader regional discussions involving all Caucasian states could help dilute the intensity of the Georgia-Russia dispute. However, this approach may also introduce other unresolved issues like Nagorno-Karabakh and self-determination in the North Caucasus.
• Georgian Leverage: Georgia holds significant leverage in dialogue with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as it is the primary gateway for international engagement with these regions. This could encourage the breakaway states to seek more autonomy.

Key Information

• Author: Neil MacFarlane, Associate Fellow at Chatham House and Lester B Pearson Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford.
• Date: 17 November 2010.
• Conclusion: There is currently little hope for a productive dialogue between Russia and Georgia. If Russia is interested in dialogue, it should be initiated through strategic concessions. If not, third-party efforts may be futile. The paper also suggests that focusing on dialogue between Georgia and the breakaway regions, with Russia as an optional participant, may be more effective than including Russia as the primary party.

Recommendations

• Encourage informal dialogue involving non-state actors to build trust and momentum.
• Promote regional discussions to broaden the scope of dialogue beyond the bilateral conflict.
• Advocate for Russian concessions in areas such as cease-fire implementation and troop reduction.
• Highlight Georgia's role as a gatekeeper for international engagement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, potentially increasing their incentive to engage in dialogue.

Final Thoughts

The paper emphasizes that while direct dialogue with Russia is politically difficult for Georgia, a shift in approach—focusing on regional cooperation and Russian flexibility—could pave the way for a more constructive and sustainable resolution of the conflict.