Restoring territorial integrity: A matter of Russia’s political will or a new constitutional model?
Date: 15 October 2024
The Georgian Elections Observatory (GEO) is a short-term initiative focused on fact-checking pre-election narratives leading up to the crucial parliamentary elections on October 26. What sets this project apart from traditional fact-checking platforms is that it doesn't just address specific claims but examines entire narratives, offering political analysis alongside fact-checking and media analysis. This project is powered by the Fojo Swedish Media Institute in partnership with Investigative Media Lab (IML) and the UG Security, Politicy, & Nationalism Research Center (UGSPN).
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in these stories do not necessarily reflect those of the listed organizations.
The leaders of Georgian Dream assure voters that a new constitutional model is needed to restore territorial integrity. However, the official strategy of the Georgian government concerning the occupied territories presents a starkly different reality. According to the document, restoring Georgia’s territorial integrity is not possible without Russia’s political will. Yet Russian officials consistently remind the leaders of Georgian Dream that the Kremlin has no intention of reconsidering its stance.
One of the key messages from Georgian Dream ahead of the elections is the restoration of territorial integrity. Leaders of the ruling party emphasize to voters that securing a constitutional majority is essential for the country, arguing that it is the only path to reclaiming the Russian-occupied territories of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region.
“In the current circumstances, both domestically and globally, there is a strong chance that we can restore the country’s territorial integrity. For this, a constitutional majority is crucial to implement the necessary reorganization,” said Tbilisi Mayor Kakha Kaladze in August.
Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder and honorary chairman of Georgian Dream, expressed a similar sentiment.
“On October 26, if we secure a constitutional majority, the Georgian Dream team is prepared to transition the country to a constitutional model that will enable us to fulfill our long-standing dream—to see a united and strong Georgia once again!” Ivanishvili stated.
Why has restoring territorial integrity not been possible until now?
The document published on the official website of the Government of Georgia— State Strategy on Occupied Territories: Engagement Through Cooperation—provides an answer to this question.
This official government document states that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation played a pivotal role in fueling conflicts in Georgia, directly participating in hostilities and consistently obstructing international resolution efforts.
“The war between Georgia and Russia in August 2008 illustrated that the primary nature of the conflicts on the territory of Georgia is of an international character,” states the government’s official document.
The strategy further notes that the occupation of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region, along with policies aimed at the annexation of these areas, complicates the reconciliation process between the different peoples of Georgia and the peaceful reintegration of the occupied territories into Georgia’s constitutional ambit.
The comprehensive strategy published on the official government website indicates that currently, 20 percent of Georgia is under occupation, with Russia being the primary aggressor. The document implies that the existence of a peaceful and united Georgia as a neighbor to Russia is not in the Kremlin’s interests.
What do we hear from Russia?
The Kremlin explicitly states that it is entirely unacceptable for Russia to restore Georgia’s territorial integrity. In September, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made it clear that the Kremlin is only prepared to assist in normalizing relations with Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Tskhinvali region as three independent countries.
“They [Abkhazia and Tskhinvali] are neighbors of Georgia, and some form of contact is inevitable. If all parties are interested in normalizing these relations and securing a non-aggression agreement, we will be ready to help,” Lavrov stated.
Other Russian officials have also weighed in on this topic, and Russian media have actively published articles regarding one of the key pre-election promises of Georgian Dream.
One of the latest pieces, titled “Russia Excludes the Return of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgia,” appeared on September 24 on gazeta.ru, a Russian state media website. The article referenced comments from Konstantin Zatulin, first deputy chairman of the committee of the State Duma for the CIS and relations with Russian nationals abroad.
“Before the elections, the ruling party Georgian Dream decided to announce a new approach, specifically an apology to the Ossetians for Saakashvili’s aggression in 2008. This move serves not only international purposes but primarily domestic political reasons. They are attempting to draw voters’ attention to the deadlock Saakashvili created with his aggression,” said the Russian MP.
He further stated that Tbilisi should not expect Abkhazians and Ossetians to be prepared for “unification” with Georgians.
“That train left a long time ago. Abkhazia and South Ossetia will not return to Georgia,” Zatulin asserted.
What do we hear from the occupied regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali?
Georgian Dream’s messages regarding the restoration of territorial integrity were promptly addressed from occupied Abkhazia. The so-called “Foreign Ministry” of Abkhazia asserted that, instead of indulging in stereotypes about Georgia’s territorial integrity and other mythical terms that do not reflect reality, Georgian politicians should prioritize establishing diplomatic relations with Russia.
“As for the potential for any kind of relationship with the neighboring state of Georgia in the future, our position remains unchanged. Georgia should recognize the Republic of Abkhazia as a sovereign and independent state and sign a legally binding document on the non-use of force,” the statement read.
The former de facto leader of the Russian-occupied Tskhinvali region, Eduard Kokoyty, who served as “president” during the August war, responded to Bidzina Ivanishvili’s apology initiative.
At a pre-election meeting in Gori, Ivanishvili stated that he owes an apology to the “Ossetian sisters and brothers.”
“We will surely find the strength within ourselves to apologize for the fact that, in accordance with the task, the treacherous National Movement in 2008 engulfed our Ossetian sisters and brothers in flames,” Ivanishvili said.
According to Kokoyty, “Georgia should recognize the independence of South Ossetia, sign all necessary agreements regarding peace and the non-renewal of hostilities,” and also return the Truso and Gudo valleys.
In Tskhinvali, officials assert that “Georgia has occupied the historical Ossetian lands.”
POLITICAL ANALYSIS
Georgian Dream’s election campaign is increasingly becoming a weird animal which has nothing to do with typical electoral competition, in which competing parties try to trump each other with promises of tangible benefits that voters can expect in the near future. Instead, it decided to completely focus its efforts on two major messages: the first of these sees GD threatening Georgian society with a high chance of war with Russia if other parties win the elections and control the government; and the second demands the regular voter to “provide” blindly a constitutional parliamentary majority for GD in order finally to solve the problem of Georgia’s territorial integrity.
Apart from the absurdity of the situation in which GD, while demanding a constitutional majority, actually never explains why it needs this majority and what constitutional changes it plans, the very attempt to link a positive solution to the problem of the occupied territories with the necessity of changing the country’s constitutional fabric appears not only futile and unrealistic, but impertinent and brazen. During its twelve years of rule, GD never bothered to formulate or offer even a vague formula for the restoration of territorial integrity, in which any general aspects of dealing with the Russian factor or the problems of approaching separatist regimes were made public. Furthermore, the political opposition frequently demanded the ruling party initiate the process of strategy development and consequently was always accused of being too radical and counterproductive. The non-recognition policy adopted by Georgia’s Western partners largely worked because of their cooperation and collaborative efforts to block and minimize the chances of recognition, which would directly result in a global victory for Russian foreign policy aims and cause a diplomatic chain reaction of recognitions.
Thus, if there was no prior strategy developed by GD to solve the territorial problem, and it is not up to the GD government to secure this non-recognition policy globally, the question of why GD raised this topic to the top of their electoral agenda—and why now—becomes critically important. Since seeking a constitutional majority implies a need to change the constitution and is directly linked to the future structure and construction of the state in terms of territory, administration, and normative aspects of state governance, the promise and demand posed by GD—with no follow-up explanation whatsoever—can only mean that a radical change of the formula for territorial organization and unity is being drafted. Given how frequently Russia refuses to withdraw its official decision to recognize the separatist regions as independent states, along with its clear insistence on solving the issue based on bilateral negotiations between Georgia and the separatist regions as equal (independent) parties (states), the possibility of a solution based on a confederacy of independent states becomes a very real option: indeed, the only option. Understandably, the GD is not ready to reveal this to its audience in the run up to elections.