EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Saakashvili Travels to St. Petersburg for “PR” Meeting with Putin

EURASIA INSIGHT

SAAKASHVILI TRAVELS TO ST. PETERSBURG FOR "PR" MEETING WITH PUTIN
Molly Corso 6/13/06

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili met with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to discuss their two countries’ long-running feud. Analysts and politicians in Tbilisi believe the meeting will do little to improve Georgian–Russian relations.

The two presidents focused on several issues, including the future of the separatist territory of South Ossetia and Russia’s embargo on Georgian wine and other products. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The talks were originally slated to begin at 8 pm local time, but were pushed back for several hours for unexplained reasons.

According to a broadcast by the Georgian television station Imedi, before heading into their meeting, Saakashvili invited Putin to pay a visit the Georgian capital, saying "Tbilisi is a beautiful city." Underscoring the high level of bilateral tension, Putin replied acidly: "It’s beautiful because of all the Russian investment." In an another sign of the frosty nature of relations, Saakashvili was met upon his arrival in St. Petersburg by a low-level municipal delegation, the Civil Georgia web site reported.

Against a background of deepening tension with Russia and increased support from Western nations, Georgia hoped that a Saakashvili-Putin meeting on the sidelines of the G-8 summit might create momentum for an improved relationship. Moscow also expressed hope for the summit; a Putin aide, Sergey Prikhodko, suggested June 13 that the talks could provide "a positive impulse" for better bilateral ties, the Interfax news agency reported.

Before departing for St. Petersburg, Saakashvili said he would seek "concrete results" from Putin concerning the array of problems between the two countries. "Tough problems have accumulated in the relationship between us and Russia. Our position was always very concrete and directly stated. We are ready to have very close and very constructive relations with Russia," he told the National Security Council on June 3 when he announced the meeting would take place.

Georgian political observers have characterized the St. Petersburg talks as a "PR meeting." Speaking to members of the Georgian media on June 12, opposition leader Levan Berdzenishvili quipped "[T]omorrow’s [World Cup soccer] match between Brazil and Croatia is a more important event. … I do not know what they can talk about. They may agree not to insult each other, but they won’t go any further."

Russia’s role in the ongoing conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia was likely to top the meeting’s agenda. In recent months, speculation has mounted that Moscow might go along with an initiative by South Ossetian leaders to secede from Georgia and join the Russian Federation. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. On June 2, Putin reaffirmed Moscow’s position on the conflict, noting that Russia does not plan to "incorporate" any territories beyond its borders.

According to Georgian Parliament Speaker Nino Burjanadze, Saakashvili’s trip to St. Petersburg offered Russian leaders a chance to demonstrate their sincerity on the Ossetian issue. On June 13, news reports quoted Burjanadze as saying, "there exists a red line for Tbilisi called territorial integrity."

Oksana Antonenko, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, noted one meeting will not be enough to make a difference in the conflict. According to her, it is too early to talk about possible compromises, especially with current relations between the two countries at an all-time low.

Antonenko said right now the two countries are stalemated. "The improvement of relations is necessary. It is a vicious cycle," Antonenko said. "The Russian side wants some other steps before they discuss conflict resolution." According to her, they are looking for "signs" from Tbilisi that relations are improving. "There is very little trust for Saakashvili [in Moscow]," she said. "They don’t believe he can keep his word."

The Georgian side demands progress in conflict-resolution negotiations before they make other moves to improve relations, Antonenko added. "I don’t think Putin is in a position to do anything major," she said. This meeting with Saakashvili was designed to show other G-8 leaders that he is trying to negotiate with Tbilisi. "From his [Putin] point of view, he definitely wants the summit to be nice, civilized but not substantial."

Statements from the Kremlin seemed to support her theory; Prikhodko announced prior to the meeting that no agreements or documents would be signed during the visit.

Tina Gogueliani, a political analyst at the International Center for Conflicts and Negotiations in Tbilisi, doubted the meeting will have any long term significance for Georgia. "I don’t think it means anything," she said. "It is a PR meeting and nothing more. It really can’t resolve the existing tensions between the two countries."

According to Gogueliani, if Saakashvili and Putin were truly committed to improving relations they could have agreed to a meeting at any time and anywhere, not just the day before the start of the G-8 summit. She added that productive meetings call for serious preparations and consultations. "There is not even a plan that Russia or Georgia could offer each other," Gogueliani said. "I don’t think that either side is ready to compromise."

Editor’s Note: Molly Corso is a freelance reporter and photographer based in Tbilisi.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.