Dmanisi Incident: Echoes of nationalism

***

- Elman bey, do you think the conflict between Svanis and Azerbaijanis in Georgia's Dmanisi district is just an ethnic event or does it have political reasons?

-It would be biased to assess the Svanis attack on Georgian Azerbaijanis as an ethnic or political event. In order to claim that the issue has an ethno-political tone, we need to present facts about the activities of the Svanis at an ethnic level and arguments that support the use of these activities for political purposes. However, in the political history of Georgia, we do not find any facts about the high ethnicity of the Svanis. Looking briefly at the USSR, if before the mid-1930s a multi-ethnic policy was introduced, then since the mid-1930s a super-ethnic policy was introduced. In this context, most ethnic groups living in Azerbaijan were called Azerbaijanis and ethnic groups living in Georgia were called Georgians. According to statistics, at the 1926 census Georgians made up just over 50% of the population, but in subsequent years this rose to 80%. This was primarily due to the complete Georgianisation of the Georgian sub-ethnic Svanis. That is, if there was an ethnic fight between Georgian Svanis, the target should be super-ethnic Georgians, not Azerbaijanis. In my view, the main factor behind the Svanis attack on the Georgian Azerbaijanis is not ethnic discord, but looting. Our compatriots living in the region also confirm that most Svanis are prone to a life of crime. As for the political side of the story, we can make assumptions about it, but if we analyse it, we do not see that this version has strong arguments.

- Some experts call this incident, as well as recent events around the Keshikchidag temple complex, the result of Russian propaganda and provocation. Some experts link this latest development to the post-war processes of the 44-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. According to them, the opening of the Zangezur corridor was a source of anxiety for Georgia, which has been a transit country for the region so far. Which version do you think makes more sense?

- In fact, versions about the political nature of what happened are interesting because of the Russian factor. Russia has both electoral and bureaucratic resources in the post-Soviet geography. It has been repeatedly confirmed that Russia has carried out military-political coups in post-Soviet geography with its bureaucratic resources and fomented ethnic conflicts with its electoral resources. For example, it can be reasonably argued that Russia instigated a border conflict between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan a few days ago. Moscow realises that it has lost the soft power race with China in the region. The response was a provocative intervention involving the two resources mentioned above. From this point of view, given the proximity of Georgians to the Russian Church, we can say that Russia's electoral resources in Georgia are sufficient to carry out such activities, and even at the expense of bureaucratic resources, strengthened during the Ivanishvili government, it is capable of significantly straining Georgian - Azerbaijani relations. However, given the new geopolitical situation and Russia's active involvement in ending the 44-day war and normalizing post-war Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, Moscow's involvement in the incident appears to be the weakest possibility. Frankly, if the opening of the Armenian-Azerbaijani communication is a manifestation of Moscow's will, the question of the Kremlin's interest in sabotaging the process through Georgia on the ethnic map will remain unanswered. Open and closed reaction from Georgian officials to the process may seem reasonable, because of the opening of a new transit line in the Caucasus is damaging Georgia's interests.  But if we analyse the issue in depth; Firstly, the prospects for normalising Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are not very promising. Secondly, the new transit-communication corridor will be fully controlled by Moscow, which cannot be an alternative to the Georgian route of official Baku. It is worth noting that the transit through Georgia is a real alternative to accessing the open sea, bypassing Russia. In this sense, the corridor through Zangezur would actually be a "new Russian road", which, although it looks economically viable, cannot be a strategic alternative. Of course, Georgian officials can also analyse these realities. And they understand that a possible new transport corridor would not seriously threaten Georgia's transit capacity. Moreover, deterioration of Georgian-Azerbaijani relations would lead to political and economic pressure from Turkey on Georgia, which would deliver a crushing blow to Georgia's national security and strategic interests. Good relations with Turkey protect Georgia from becoming a vassal of Russia and expand its integration with the West. In this regard, a good level of Georgian-Azerbaijani relations is also a sensitive issue for the West. In short, despite the fact that Georgian nationalist behaviour sometimes complicates the situation, I do not think it is reasonable for the Georgian authorities to not only promote, but even ignore events that will worsen relations with Azerbaijan. I believe that the reaction of official Tbilisi to the events committed by the Svanis will be adequate. The incident will not be allowed to spill over to the ethno-political level.

- There was a time when the slogan 'Georgia for Georgians' dominated. Now many of the steps taken by the "Georgian Dream " remind the authors of this slogan. What is the reason for the government's silence on the repression of Azerbaijanis and other ethnic groups in Georgia?

- This is a complication of Georgian nationalism. Georgian society is a highly national-religious society. However, geopolitical realities force the Georgian authorities to limit these inadequate views to some extent. Although Shevardnadze, Saakashvili and Ivanishvili sometimes benefited politically from Georgian nationalism during their rule, they were sometimes silent and sometimes reluctant to the way other ethnic groups were treated, but they did not allow inter-ethnic clashes to occur as they did during Gamsakhurdia`s time. Although they did not prevent these unpleasant attitudes, they did not let them get out of hand. Nationalism is the scourge of the whole world. The Caucasus is in fact the region with the most active interethnic conflicts. One has to get used to the fact that such events sometimes flare up and go down. The main thing is that the events do not become bloody. Georgia, as the most ethnic country in the Caucasus, should pursue a more active and sensitive policy on this issue.

- The Georgian government's silence on such issues raises suspicions that it is also on the agenda of Georgia, the Georgians, the government and the political class. If so, will Georgia have problems in the future?

-If the nationalistic sentiments of the society are high, it is natural that it is reflected in political programs. But I think political realities have polished such views. Georgian politicians are doomed to curb the problems they create with their nationalist rhetoric through their official policies. Otherwise, it is a historical reality that nationalist politics leads any country to the abyss. To claim that Georgia's official policy is moving in this direction is unfounded. As noted above, Georgian nationalism is manageable despite its consequences.

- Should the government of Azerbaijan respond to the events against Azerbaijanis in Georgia or should it be seen as an internal affair of Georgia?

- The term "internal affairs" of countries is amorphous. If what happens in any country affects the sensitive interests of other countries, it can no longer remain an "internal affair". Any incident involving Georgian Azerbaijanis is a sensitive issue for Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani state is responsible for the security of lives and property of Georgian Azerbaijanis. So there is no right to remain unanswered as to what happened. Official Baku should maintain intensive contacts with Georgian officials, receive detailed information about the incident and take real measures to ensure the safety of the Azerbaijani population.

- What should the Georgian government and Azerbaijanis living there do to ensure that there are no problems against Azerbaijanis in Georgia?

- The Georgian government should thoroughly investigate the incident. I have no doubt that the officials know the details of why and how  the incident happened. The incident is not sudden, it is not the first time. First of all they should eliminate the reasons of worsening of criminogenic situation in Georgia. If the incident is ethno political, they must take resolute steps to prevent the conflict from reoccurring and find a durable solution. As far as local Azerbaijanis are concerned, it is important to be cautious here in the first place. However, this does not deny the right to self-defence. They should work intensively with the Georgian government. They should activate official Baku through the Azerbaijani embassy.