Grigol KATAMADZE: “Bucharest should be a turning point for Georgia”
Grigol Katamadze, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Georgia to Ukraine, will soon complete his term in Ukraine. The Georgian ambassador witnessed the Orange Revolution and thinks that it was justified, just like the Rose Revolution in Georgia.
What role should the opposition play in Georgia, and is it possible to restore constitutional monarchy there? Why is Georgia not going to miss out on the chance to join NATO? These are some of the main questions raised in The Day ’s interview with Ambassador KATAMADZE.
Mr. Ambassador, many critics of the “colored revolutions,” the Orange one in Ukraine and Rose one in Georgia, say that these events failed to deliver the goods. What do you think about post-revolutionary developments here in Ukraine and in your country?
“I think the critics are wrong because what happened in your country and mine was an expression of the will of the Georgian and Ukrainian peoples. And I think that if this had not happened and these events failed to deliver the goods, the critics would have nothing to criticize now. It seems to me, therefore, that one should stop criticizing and instead look very closely at ongoing processes in our countries. I’ll be talking about Georgia, and I am far from thinking that things are ideal there — far from ideal. Still, much has been done in this short period of time, and if we had kept to the same pace since the day we restored our political independence, Georgia would now be a prosperous country. I would advise critics to wait a bit and see in a couple of years that Georgia will definitely be one of this region’s prosperous countries. If they want to have a better idea of what is going on in the country, I would advise them to travel around Georgia, mingle with the people — not just officials but the opposition and ordinary people — and only then pass judgment.”
The attention of the world media was riveted recently by the story about ex-minister Okruashvili, who initially accused the president of Georgia of plotting the murder of an important Georgian businessman, but after a brief spell in custody, withdrew his accusations. Some Georgian oppositionists even rushed to announce that Georgia is now purging itself of the revolution. What is your view of these events?
“I would like to make the following comment on the ex-defense minister’s story and set the record straight. When I heard the accusations that Okruashvili made in a well-known TV interview, I thought: why did the minister not resign four years ago, when he was given the instructions that he could not follow because this went against his nature? Why didn’t he take this step? If he had quietly resigned without slamming the door and making comments, I would believe him today. If he had said that he was resigning for such and such a reason and was making this statement...Now I want to put it bluntly: we should not make the same mistakes that we made at the dawn of our independence. I don’t want to draw parallels, but if Georgians had taken the same stand about all that was going on in the early 1990s, we would not be having the problem of territorial integrity now. We would have no problems either in South Ossetia or in Abkhazia. But when hotheads began smashing everything, this brought about the present situation, when we are trying to smooth things out and unite the country.
“Naturally, every country should have an opposition. The stronger it is the better for the country and the government. But my idea was as follows: in a situation where we are facing a serious problem, and the country is divided and has no territorial integrity, the opposition should live according to slightly different principles. The opposition should be in contact with the government and say: you are making a lot of mistakes, we are taking note of all this, but we are not going to rock the boat right now. Because it is of paramount importance for us to resolve two crucial problems once and for all: the unification of the country and restoration of its territorial integrity, and the acquisition of full-fledged membership in the North Atlantic alliance. After this we will sit down with you and lay out all our objections. But first we should unite in order to achieve these goals. Unfortunately, the truth is that many politicians begin to flout their country’s interests just to satisfy their own ambitions and private interests.”
But the impression is that in your country the opposition also favors accession to NATO.
“There are no differences between the government and the opposition. But when there are more and more signs of internal destabilization, there is a growing danger that the countries that support Georgia will have second thoughts. I would not like the NATO member states that wholeheartedly support Georgia to harbor any doubts because this will indefinitely delay the prospects of our membership.”
Mr. Ambassador, do you think the Patriarch of Georgia was right in calling for the restoration of a constitutional monarchy in your country? Can this promote stability?
“The Patriarch of Georgia enjoys tremendous trust and respect among the people. I am not prepared to comment on whether it is effective and necessary for Georgia to restore a constitutional monarchy. But I think that the viewpoint expressed by the patriarch in the heat of political passions was timely. Many people picked up on it. Moreover, parliament resolved to hold a debate on this. I cannot say whether it is necessary to restore a constitutional monarchy. I think it is a rather lengthy process not only to bring up a monarch but also to change the political system. The truth is Georgia did have a monarch, and the Georgians never overthrew him. But this was a very long time ago. I think society should prepare itself for the restoration of a monarchy. And this will probably take more than just one decade to arrive at that point.”
With your permission, let’s get back to NATO. You said that NATO members wholeheartedly support Georgia’s accession to the alliance. Can the unresolved, smoldering conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia be an obstacle to your country’s entry into NATO?
“At first we were afraid that this could be an obstacle. But NATO has highly appraised our efforts to revive the country and restore territorial integrity, as well as our plans for a peaceful settlement in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. For example, two years ago a meeting of OSCE ministers in Ljubljana approved Georgia’s plan for South Ossetia, and Russia supported our idea, too. We were given a clear signal that NATO member states gave their 100-percent support for our vision, plans, and steps aimed at a peaceful resolution of these conflicts. This means that the existing problem in no way hinders our acceptance of the NATO Membership Action Plan. I think we will manage to resolve these problems before we become full-fledged members.”
In other words, your country expects to be offered the MAP during NATO’s Bucharest summit in April 2008?
“Yes, the Bucharest summit should be a turning point for Georgia. And this decision will not be aimed against any third countries. It will be intended for Georgia and the countries with which our state has tense relations. It will be clear once and for all where Georgia is. This is our current goal, and we are doing our utmost to achieve it. And we are not going to miss out on this historic chance. This is Europe’s third opportunity to have its final say about Georgia. The first opportunity was in the mid-18th century, when Georgian public figures tried to knock at the doors of Europe. The second was in the early 20th century, when Georgia existed as an independent state for three years. Europe could have helped Georgia escape ‘Sovietization.’ But they couldn’t do it. Now we have a third chance. Never before has Europe been so unanimous in supporting us. On the other hand, Georgian society has reached a consensus about Euro- Atlantic integration.”
Speaking of Ukrainian-Georgian relations, what do you think of Kyiv’s efforts to help Tbilisi resolve the frozen conflicts?
“We are not exaggerating when we say that Ukraine plays a very important leading role in the region. And this role is going to increase with every passing year. Naturally, it helps us that Ukrainian leaders always raise the question of conflict resolution at international forums and top-level meeting, including bilateral ones. We clearly want these steps to be more active as far as the solution of this problem is concerned. As for a peacekeeping mission, in Abkhazia for example, Ukraine has said it can take part in one. But it is difficult to do this without a UN mandate. That’s why nothing depends on Ukraine in this connection. If the UN Security Council does not approve this decision, it will be difficult to carry this out. The Security Council should reach a consensus, too. I think that, by all accounts, active cooperation between our countries in the political, economic, military, and humanitarian fields is also helping Georgia stand firmer on its two feet. This in turn enables us to speak more loudly about the place we deserve to occupy in the world.”
Do you think it’s possible to intensify cooperation within the GUAM framework and make full use of the free trade area established by the members of this regional organization?
“There is already a free trade area within the GUAM framework, but it has only worked effectively in the past year. After the trade agreement was signed, each of the member states was supposed to follow certain domestic procedures. Unfortunately, it is impossible to synchronize this process so that the four countries’ parliaments simultaneously ratify the adopted document. This is why it took each country several years to complete this procedure. Then the agreement came into force. I must say there is some progress in the development of trade and economic relations within the GUAM framework. GUAM trade has in fact doubled in the past two years. This organization has also mapped out some interesting projects, for example, a project to improve cargo transportation. It is about standardization and establishing single pass-through customs tariffs for railway and highway carriages. This is a dynamic process, but it is impossible to solve all the problems overnight. I think what will speed things up is the fact that the GUAM secretariat has been working for several months in Kyiv. This body comprises professional diplomats, who are dealing with these matters. I think that any new undertaking, like a child, finds it hard to take its first steps. And in order to walk freely, one should actively intervene to resolve all problems that crop up. This is in fact what the secretariat is going to do. Once the first, second, and third problem has been overcome, no others will emerge, and as a result the GUAM economy and other sectors will work more effectively.”
Mr. Ambassador, what legacy are you leaving to your successor, who will be representing Georgia’s interests in Ukraine? Which of your achievements in Ukraine is the source of greatest pride to you?
“One of the greatest achievements is that our relations have considerably intensified in the past three years. The bar has been raised high in our bilateral relations, and in absolutely different spheres. I can give you an example from the commercial and economic field. When I assumed my ambassadorial office seven years ago, there was a $47-million trade turnover. By the end of this year this indicator will reach $0.5 billion. If you recall the interview that I gave your newspaper six years ago, you will see that I said that in the next three to four years our countries would surely reach a trade turnover of $0.5 billion. And now I will say that in another three to four years we will definitely approach the $1-billion mark. There is every objective condition for this, first of all, a very intensive political-level dialogue, including on the presidential level. Our presidents are constantly consulting on various regional and international matters. I don’t think it will be any exaggeration to say that the Year of Georgia in Ukraine was an unprecedented event in the history of our country. Before the Year of Georgia, Ukraine had the experience of holding the Year of Ukraine in Russia and Poland. It is very symbolic that, after holding its year in Russia and Poland, Ukraine’s two very important partners, your country hosted a year of a country that is not simply a strategic partner but an ally of Ukraine. I think your readers will agree with me that the Year of Georgia in Ukraine was interesting and intensive. Of course, much more could have been done. But taking into account existing possibilities, I think it was very interesting. I believe we spared no efforts to make the older generation remember Georgian culture and spirituality and to instill this in the younger generation. So I think that much has been done in this field, too. I would like to take this opportunity to express once again my deepest gratitude to Dmytro Andriievsky and Ihor Voronov, the sponsors of the Niko Pirosmani project, which was launched after the Year of Georgia ended in Ukraine. It would have been impossible to carry out this very important project without their help. The most interesting thing is that Pirosmani ‘visited’ Ukraine again, after an absence of 75 years. It is very important both for the coming generations and the current young generation that a monument to Taras Shevchenko was unveiled in Tbilisi in March 2007 during the Ukrainian president’s visit to Georgia. Three months later, Kyiv saw the opening of Shota Rustaveli Park and the Shota Rustaveli Community Center. It is easy to say, you know, but behind all this is the tremendous work of a huge number of people, and I am sincerely grateful to everybody who supported these projects. I could probably say much more, but I will leave it to my successor.”
Do you know him?
“I do. It is Merab Antadze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. On Oct. 25 we will be launching the book Ukraine-Georgia: Bridges of Friendship, which was published this year. So I am leaving a book with a clean page on the table. I think my successor has a good groundwork laid by the first ambassador, Valery Chechelashvili, and my predecessor Malkhaz Chachava. I also tried not to let my predecessors down and continue their efforts to strengthen the foundation on which our relations rest. And I think Mr. Antadze should go further and keep pace with these dynamic relations. I think this is quite possible. He is a highly professional diplomat, one of the ‘elders’ of Georgian diplomacy from the very first moment when the foreign ministry of independent Georgia was established. He is a very decent and charismatic personality. I think he will find a proper place among Ukrainians and fit in very easily.”
What are you going to regret leaving behind in Ukraine? What are your feelings on the eve of leaving our country?
“It is easy to answer this question. I fell in love with Kyiv when I first visited it in 1979. Since then I have never parted with it, no matter whether I happened to leave or arrive. First of all, I am not leaving alone but with my wife. It is common knowledge that she is Ukrainian, so I will always have a part of Ukraine with me. So I cannot say that it is hard for me to leave your country. But even if it were really hard for me, I know that I can always come back to Kyiv.”
Mr. Ambassador, what are your plans?
“I haven’t made any definite decision. The foreign minister of Georgia has invited me to become his deputy. I’ll be back in Georgia on Nov. 2, and then it will become clear what sector — the economy, investments, humanitarian policies, or law — I will have to be responsible for. I will work in the sector assigned to me.”
