in the post-Soviet space
1
October 30, 2015
We discussed already
October 2, 2015
Current status of the frozen conflicts in the South
Caucasus, different intensity and different methods
and tools of mediation
The conflict Georgia - South Ossetia
The conflict Georgia – Abkhazia
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
2
October 16, 2015
Involvement of main stakeholders (EU / USA,
Russia), different approaches and interests
Mediating role of the EU and USA, forms of
cooperation
Types of the EU involvement
Role of Russia, specifics of Russian approach
Forms of involvement of the UN and OSCE
3
We discussed already
Main tools used by the EU and International
community for solving the conflicts in Georgia
4
Conflicts in Georgia
EUSR for the South Caucasus and the crisis in
Georgia
Geneva International discussions, participants,
preparation of individual rounds
The civilian monitoring mission (EUMM) in
Georgia, genesis and its basic objectives, the
concrete experience
Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism
(IPRM) examples of response to concrete security
and humanitarian situation at place, stabilizing
impact on the situation
5
Mediation tools in Georgia Conflicts
6
Conflicts in Georgia
The EU Special Representative for the South
Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia
7
EU Special Representative
The European Union currently has nine Special
Representatives in different countries and regions of
the world.
The EUSRs promote the EU's policies and interests in
troubled regions and countries.
8
EU Special Representative
They play an important role in the development of a
stronger and more effective EU Foreign and Security
Policy and in the Union's efforts to become a more
effective actor on the world stage.
They provide the EU with an active political presence
in key countries and regions, acting as a “voice” and
“face” for the EU and its policies.
9
EU Special Representative
The EUSR for the South Caucasus and the crisis in
Georgia was mandated to support the following
policy objectives:
to contribute to a peaceful settlement of
conflicts in the region (by promoting the return of
refugees and internally displaced persons and through other
appropriate means)
to support the implementation of such a
settlement in accordance with the principles of
international law
10
EU Special Representative
to engage constructively with main interested
actors concerning the region
to encourage and to support further
cooperation between Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Georgia, and, as appropriate, their
neighbouring countries;
to enhance the Union’s effectiveness and
visibility in the region.
11
EU Special Representative
help to prepare the international talks held
under point 6 of the settlement plan of 12
August 2008 -“Geneva International
Discussions” (including on arrangements for security
and stability in the region, the issue of refugees and
internally displaced persons, on the basis of
internationally recognized principles)
any other subject, by mutual agreement
between the parties.
12
The Geneva International discussions
13
Geneva International Discussions
The Geneva International Discussions address the
consequences of the 2008 conflict in Georgia.
They are chaired by the EU, the OSCE and the UN.
Representatives from Tbilisi, Tskhinvali and
Sukhumi, as well as Moscow and Washington take
part in the discussions.
14
Geneva International Discussions
The co-chairs of GID:
 The EUSR for the South Caucasus and the crisis in
Georgia Ambassador Herbert Salber
 Representative of the UN Secretary General for
Georgia Ambassador Antti Turunen
 The Special Representative of the OSCE
Chairperson-in-Office for the South Caucasus
Ambassador Angelo Gnaedinger
15
Geneva International Discussions
After the cessation of the UN and OSCE missions in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, respectively, following
the August 2008 Russo–Georgian war the Geneva
process is the only platform bringing together all
stakeholders to discuss security-related issues and to
work on the humanitarian needs of the conflictaffected
population.
There have been 33 rounds of talks in Geneva since
October 15, 2008.
16
Two Working Groups:
Working Group I on security issues
Working Group II on humanitarian issues
+
Information sessions
Geneva International Discussions
Preparation of the GD round
Field trips
Coordination with the US, UN and OSCE
The main topics
Information sessions
17
Geneva International Discussions
Field trip ahead of the 32nd round of the
Geneva Discussions
18
In the week of 8 June, the EUSR for the South
Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia, undertook together
with the UN and OSCE Co-Chairs of the Geneva
International Discussions (GID) a visit to Georgia,
including to Sukhumi and Tskhinvali.
The visit was followed by Co-Chairs' consultations in
Moscow, held on 16 June. The purpose of the visits was
to prepare for the 32nd, GID round, scheduled for 30
June and 1 July 2015.
19
Field trip
In all places, the Co-Chairs assessed with interlocutors the
possibilities for maintaining the GID process on track in
the context of a series of complicating developments,
including
(i) the signing of the Russian-South Ossetian "Treaty on
Alliance and Integration" coinciding with the
previous GID round,
(ii) the continued refusal of the Abkhaz and South
Ossetian participants to discuss IDPs and refugee
related issues as long as Georgia continues to bring
the issue to the UNGA where the former cannot
participate .
20
Field trip
Protests being particularity disruptive at June
GID rounds, when the UNGA resolutions are
regularly adopted (at the June 2014 GID
round, the Abkhaz and South Ossetian
participants walked out shortly after the
opening remarks and the session had to be
closed); this year the UNGA resolution was
passed on 3 June.
21
Field trip
A response to the UNGA resolution by the Abkhaz and
South Ossetian participants was therefore expected in
the upcoming discussions, but its nature and intensity
was yet to be seen.
While Abkhaz df Foreign Minister Chirikba told the
Co-Chairs that they had not yet decided whether they
would participate or not in the next GID round and
would take their decision upon consultations with the
South Ossetian and Russian participants.
22
Field trip
The South Ossetian participants expressed
commitment to the GID, including to the next round;
and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Karasin stated
clearly that the GID are necessary to ensure stability
and security on the ground and they would therefore
participate without question.
23
Field trip
Following the disruption of the 31st GID round, there
was a clear understanding on the part of the Co-chairs
as well as all participants that the possibilities of
overcoming differences with last minute choreographic
deals had reached its limits.
The Co-Chairs stressed the need to put an end to
systematic disputes over the agenda and modalities of
the GID rounds, which are largely motivated by
considerations over the status issue, and which prevent
from holding substantial discussions.
24
Field trip
They explained about their proposal to adopt a more generic
agenda for both Working Groups, which would allow all
participants to bring topics of interest and relevance to the
table, but that no vetos on topics introduced by other
participants would be accepted.
Furthermore, co-chairs introduced the idea of basic ground
rules giving them more authority in the conduct of the
debates and committing the participants to abstain from
imposing time limitations or participants’ walking out. The
Co-Chairs suggested that the proposal could be discussed
during bilateral consultations at the next GID round and
would be implemented not before the 33rd GID round in
October 2015.
25
Field trip
Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister Dondua, who was
the first to receive the proposal, showed scepticism
about the proposal, asking for additional time for
internal Georgian considerations on how to make the
GID more results oriented.
In Sukhumi, df Foreign Minister Chirikba welcomed
the principle of introducing changes in the agenda and
overall modalities of the GID and agreed to contribute
to the exercise. At the same time, and upon his
understanding that any change to the current
arrangements would require a consensus among all
participants, he expressed doubt that the formula of an
open agenda could work. 26
Field trip
In Tskhinvali, Mr Djoev advocated in favour of the
existing agenda, which, in his view, makes it explicit
that the non-use of force issue is the priority topic.
Russian DFM Karasin supported the idea of a generic
agenda, while cautioning that some participants might
consider curtailing their right to walk out as limiting
their right to "freedom of expression".
27
Field trip
Overall, all counterparts stated that the situation on the
ground was stable and calm. While concerns were raised
about military exercises on respective sides, no incidents were
reported that could have threatened the stability.
Co-chairs took the opportunity of the concerns voiced about
military exercises to remind participants about the
information session held during the last round of GID on the
subject of threat perceptions. It was suggested that a more in
depth discussion on threats perceived by participants could
be held in WG 1 on security issues during the upcoming
round or thereafter. Furthermore, participants agreed to
continue the process of drafting a joint statement of
participants on non-use of force during the next round.
28
Field trip
The EU and OSCE co-moderators of WG 2 on
humanitarian issues used the visit to Abkhazia for
holding consultations in the Gali District with a special
focus on health issues, including medical evacuations,
and on the issue of language of instruction in schools.
All interlocutors, including df FM Chirikba, agreed
that medical evacuations are important and generally
work, but that their modalities could be improved.
29
Field trip
A case of a young boy’s untimely death in Gali in May
due to a complicated health condition illustrated the
vulnerability of conflict-affected populations whose
access to health care is not always optimal, and whose
socio-economic and political calculations often
compound each other. The meetings indicated to the
co-moderators that the fatality was not caused by
freedom of movement restrictions, even though the
boy did not have relevant crossing documents.
30
Field trip
Contradictory information was provided regarding the
Abkhaz policy vis-a-vis the Georgian speaking schools
in the lower part of the Gali District (under de facto
legislation Georgian as language of instruction is not
allowed, but in practice Georgian has traditionally
been used in these schools).
At a local level, all interlocutors including the local de
facto administration informed about a recent decision
to impose Russian as the language of instruction in
these schools, which could potentially lead to a
significant part of the population leaving the region.
31
Field trip
However, df FM Chirikba denied that this been
decided. He stated that a debate was currently ongoing
in Sukhumi regarding the possibility to have more
courses in the Russian language and the need to find
alternatives to text books from the Georgian side,
whereas the Georgian language would continue to be
tolerated.
32
Field trip
All interlocutors confirmed that the announced plan to
grant the population in the Gali District the status of
"Foreigners" and to issue resident permits is
stagnating.
As a result, more and more inhabitants in the Gali
District do not hold any documents, which creates
additional difficulties for their possibilities to cross the
administrative boundary line (ABL).
33
Field trip
In Sukhumi, df FM Chirikba reiterated his protest
against the involvement of the Tbilisi-based Abkhaz
government-in-exile in the Geneva Discussions, and its
interference in administrative matters in the Gali
District and warned that he would challenge the
participation in the GID of representatives from this
structure.
34
Field trip
In Tskhinvali, the Co-Chairs held a meeting with df
President Tibilov, who explained that the overall policy
of South Ossetia was based upon the obligation to
provide the population with security, which, he
insisted, is a fundamental right.
He stressed that Tskhinvali was willing to develop good
relations with the Georgian side, as a neighbouring
country and upon security guarantees.
35
Field trip
He explained that developing such relations would
require achieving progress on commitments to the
non-use of force and an agreement on the delineation
of the (administrative boundary) line.
Only then could flexibility be introduced in the
crossing regime.
36
Field trip
In addition, he called for progress on the search of the
fate of the missing persons and for a release of
detainees on an all-for-all basis and insisted that no
progress should be expected on any other issues as
long as these demands are not met.
37
Field trip
From Tskhinvali, the Co-Chairs travelled to Akhalgori
through the recently built direct road (which evidently
required significant RF investment).
They held meetings with the local df administration
and visited a newly refurbished hospital, which was not
operational due to an obvious lack of specialised
medical staff.
38
Field trip
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
(July 2015)
39
The 32nd round of the Geneva International
Discussions (GID) was held on 1 July 2015 against the
backdrop of the recently adopted UN General
Assembly resolution on IDPs introduced by Georgia on
an annual basis.
The June GID rounds have traditionally been turbulent
due to protests over the resolution by Russian, Abkhaz
and Ossetian participants: the GID round just a year
ago was disrupted already after 40 minutes.
40
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
Expectations for the current round of discussions were
therefore relatively low. In a surprising turn of events,
the 32nd round of GID did not only go undisrupted, but
in fact saw a more lively and engaged exchange than in
recent months.
41
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
This can be attributed to a sense of crisis around the
process following an explosive disruption in March and
a subsequent strong push by the Co-chairs to revise the
working methods by introducing a more generic
agenda;
the clear aim of the Russian Federation to ensure a
stable process in a turbulent neighbourhood;
as well as the gradually increasing intent of the
Georgian participants to bring a more positive agenda
to the discussions.
42
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
Discussions focused on perceived threats due to e.g.
the establishment of a NATO training centre in
Georgia as well as increased Russian Federation
military exercises;
the perceived isolation of Abkhaz due to many EU
member states reservations to issue visas to Abkhaz
holders of Russian Federation passports;
recently published reports on the human rights
situation in the breakaway regions; education and
health care related issues in Abkhazia as well as
environmental issues.
43
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
The disrupted 31st round of GID in March had
reinforced a sense of crisis in the process which has
been prevalent since summer 2014 and resulted in
proposals of the co-chairs to review some of the
working methods of the GID, in particular by moving
towards a more generic agenda for the discussions;
the latter was perceived by participants with unease,
potentially resulting in an effort to show that the
current arrangements suffice and do not need revision.
44
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
Furthermore, the Russian Federation Deputy Foreign
Minister Karasin clearly indicated his wish to ensure a
smooth functioning of the GID and will have
communicated this to Abkhaz and South Ossetian
participants.
Finally, Tbilisi is currently reviewing its approach to
breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; a
leading figure in this process is David Dondua, the
Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister and chief negotiator
in the GID.
45
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
The Abkhaz and South Ossetian participants
continued to refuse to engage in a discussion on
returns in the GID as long as Georgia insists on
bringing the resolution on IDPs to the UN. They left
their seats vacant in Working Group II during this
agenda item. However, a Russian participant remained
in the room and thereby allowed the proceedings to
continue.
46
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
Heated exchanges on a number of other issues gave the
co-chairs the opportunity to underline to all
participants that it was more productive to engage in a
discussion, make one's position understood and listen
to counterparts than to boycott the exchange.
While it is uncertain whether this message will impact
on the behaviour of the participants in the longer-run,
this round of GID saw a more substance oriented
exchange than previous rounds.
47
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
In Working Group I, the security situation on the ground was
assessed by all participants as overall relatively calm and
stable with no serious incidents having occurred that could
have a destabilizing impact on the situation.
The work of EUMM and the IPRM in Ergneti and the hotline
were praised as important for ensuring stability and avoiding
escalation of small scale incidents.
All participants flagged the importance of resuming the IPRM
in Gali and talks to this end continued between the Georgian
and Abkhaz participants supported by the co-chairs.
48
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
In follow-up to an information session focused on
threat perceptions during the 31st round of GID, cochairs
called on participants to review their own
perceptions of threats and bring these into the
discussions.
Participants started engaging in this discourse and
while initial responses were predictable – ranging from
the establishment of a NATO training centre in
Georgia on the one side to increased Russian
Federation military exercises on the other – this
exchange has the potential to over time address some
of the more substantial underlying perceptions of the
conflict. 49
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
Regarding the joint statement of participants on nonuse
of force, a further drafting session was held.
While all participants continue to highlight non-use of
force as one of their priorities in the context of the GID,
there continues to be little progress in moving forward
on this issue due to the conflicting narratives about the
nature of the conflict as such.
50
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
Several issues were raised by participants in both
Working Groups.
The Abkhaz participants made a strong point by
calling upon the EU to support opportunities for
travels of residents from the entities to the EU,
independently from its non-recognition policy and
irrespective of the place where travel documents were
issued.
51
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
They shared their perception that the Abkhaz are
subject to "collective punishment" at Tbilisi's behest,
and stressed that isolation was counterproductive.
Abkhaz participants went as far as considering counter
measures against EU officials traveling to Abkhazia for
a period of time.
The Georgian participants expressed readiness to look
at pragmatic formulas for facilitating travel with
apolitical purpose.
52
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
The Russian, Abkhaz and South Ossetian participants
strongly criticized the recent initiative by Georgia to
issue and distribute within the OSCE quarterly reports
on the "Human Rights Situation in the Occupied
Regions of Georgia" and warned that such a step would
have a negative impact on the work of the GID.
Similarly a recent report published by the United
States State Department on the Human Rights
situation in Georgia was strongly criticized as biased
and uninformed by above participants.
53
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
The debates in Working Group II were held in an
overall relatively constructive atmosphere and revealed
a willingness to achieve progress on a number of issues.
A reason for the substantial discussions was also that
the co-moderators, who had recently held more in
depth consultations in the Gali and Akhalgori districts,
could report on their findings.
54
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
Instead of embarking on mutual accusations over their
respective divergent assessments of the developments,
the participants commented on the co-moderators'
reports on various aspects of the humanitarian agenda,
and their recommendations.
55
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
This step towards increasing monitoring of the
humanitarian situation on the ground was highly
appreciated and provided a good basis for addressing
concerns with regard to health (including medical
evacuation), education (including language of
instruction, curricula and access to schools), residence
and crossing permits and regimes (including existing
gaps), and water-related issues (including irrigation
water through the large Tiriphoni channel).
56
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
Georgian and Abkhaz participants continued to hold
consultations on ongoing concrete undertakings in the
field of cultural heritage, including bilaterally at
experts level in the margins the meeting of Working
Group II;
during this meeting Georgian participants provided
further archive materials to the Abkhaz. The South
Ossetian participants shared their views that steps
should be taken (initially by Russian experts), to
protect and further explore the Kudaro Paleolithic site
complex (located in the Kvaisa District).
57
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
In addition, the participants expressed interest in
jointly revisiting environmental and environmental
heritage issues.
The Abkhaz participants asked for expertise and
support in their quest to eradicate the box tree moth
(Cydalima), an aggressive pest that risks destroying
hundred year old buxus forests native to Abkhazia;
the Georgian participants called for measures aimed at
restricting the extraction for construction purposes of
sand and gravel from the Black Sea coast.
58
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
The co-moderators are discussing with participants the
details of possible interventions to address these
issues, and find ways of cooperating across the conflict
divides.
59
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
As expected, the South Ossetian and Abkhaz
participants walked out from the Working Group II
under the agenda item "Returns".
However, the presence of a Russian participant made it
possible to avoid a disruption of the meeting, and a
short exchange on IDP related issues followed during
which the UNHCR detailed some findings of their
survey on the intentions of the displaced populations.
60
32nd round of the Geneva Discussions
61
Field trip ahead of the 33nd round of the
Geneva Discussions
In the week of 7 September 2015, the EUSR for the
South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia, undertook,
together with the UN and OSCE Co-Chairs of the
Geneva International Discussions (GID), a round of
consultations in Tbilisi, Tskhinvali and Sukhumi, in
preparation for the 33rd round of the GID, scheduled
for 6-7 October 2015.
62
Field trip
In Tbilisi, the Co-Chairs also met with the new Foreign
Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili. The Minister highlighted
the continued importance of the GID for Georgia and
confirmed that Deputy Foreign Minister Dondua will
remain the chief-negotiator on the Georgian side. The
visit to Georgia was followed by consultations with
Deputy Foreign Minister Karasin, held in Moscow on 15
September 2015.
63
Field trip
Consultations with all interlocutors made clear that
there is a fair chance for more constructive discussions
within the framework of GID.
Difficult and politicized issues like disputes over the
agenda were not any more as virulent as they had been
before.
Consultations were clearly dominated by substance,
not tactical considerations.
64
Field trip
In Tbilisi, DFM Dondua explained ongoing efforts
within the government of Georgia to consolidate a new
approach to conflict resolution.
He mentioned that a number of proposals, designed to
stimulate direct dialogue with the entities, were under
consideration.
65
Field trip
He stressed the need to secure stable GID rounds and
to promote more opportunities for informal bilateral
discussions in their margins. He expressed the view
that Sukhumi was interested in such a bilateral
dialogue, but that steps would be needed in order to
stimulate Tskhinvali's engagement.
66
Field trip
In this respect, he informed about ongoing
consultations with the Interior Minister on a possible
release of Georgian, South Ossetian and Abkhaz
detainees on an all-for-all basis and on a renewed and
promising investigation into the fate of the three
missing Ossetian youths that had vanished in the
aftermath of the 2008 conflict and have since been a
continued issue of discussion in both the IPRM and
the GID.
67
Field trip
DFM Dondua expressed the view that the best way to
secure a stable GID round at this stage would be to
continue with the current agenda and to discourage
disturbances by the Abkhaz and South Ossetian
participants under IDPs and refugees issues, which had
been the reason for several disruptions of recent GID
rounds.
68
Field trip
The security situation was overall assessed as relatively
calm and stable with the exception of the tension in
July and early August around the erection of additional
"border signs" on the South Ossetian administrative
boundary line.
69
Field trip
All interlocutors praised the work of the IPRM which
had been convened for an extraordinary meeting. DFM
Dondua as well as the leading South Ossetian
participant in the GID, Mr Djoev, expressed
appreciation for the Co-Chairs' active involvement in
passing messages between Tbilisi and Tskhinvali and
for the way the EUMM had handled the tension.
70
Field trip
In follow-up to discussions during the previous two
rounds of GID the Co-Chairs handed over a food-forthought
paper with the aim of launching a broader
discussion on threat perceptions in order to gradually
move to a more substantial discussion on the factors
undermining long-term stability and improving
transparency on real or perceived threats.
71
Field trip
On the issue of non-use of force it was agreed to
foresee a further drafting session on the draft
statement of participants, while it is increasingly
becoming apparent that a more political discussion on
the matter is required if remaining differences on the
topic should be overcome.
72
Field trip
The leading South Ossetian participant in the GID, Mr
Djoev, offered the Co-Chairs a short field trip to Java,
located on the Trans-Caucasian Highway, in between
Tskhinvali and the Roki tunnel. The visit gave the CoChairs
an opportunity to see new settlements, small
blocks of flats and groups of cottages in places where
there had been before Georgian villages.
73
Field trip
The EU co-moderator of Working Group 2, together
with an OSCE colleague, used the opportunity of the
Co-Chairs' visit to Sukhumi to undertake a visit to
different schools in Abkhazia attended by ethnic
Georgian, Abkhaz, Russian and Armenian children.
In preparation for the next GID round, the comoderators
discussed with the pedagogic staff ongoing
challenges of instruction in a multi-langual
environment.
74
Field trip
Interlocutors in Tbilisi had raised strong concerns that
the ongoing introduction of the Russian language in
eleven formerly Georgian-language schools located in
the lower part of the Gali District was being
implemented in an excessively radical way, without
proper resources and leaving only a few hours of the
Georgian language being taught as a subject (not
language of instruction).
75
Field trip
Interlocutors in Tbilisi had expressed their fear that
this could lead to some Georgian families deciding to
re-settle on Tbilisi-administered territory.
Interlocutors in Gali suggested this causes great
problems to teachers and children, none of whom have
a sufficient command of Russian.
76
Field trip
While reiterating that the introduction of the Russian
language was aimed at promoting the necessary social
integration of the ethnic Georgian population, df
Foreign Minister Chirikba promised to the Co-Chairs
to discuss possible shortcomings in the
implementation of this policy with the decisionmakers
concerned.
77
Field trip
Df FM Chirikba also agreed to brief the participants at
the next GID round on the plans to distribute new
Abkhaz passports and residents permits, for which
Sukhumi has just received from Moscow forms. In
Tskhinvali, Mr. Djoev confirmed that a draft law on the
status of foreign residents was under preparation.
78
Field trip
These are important developments as they promise to
provide clarity to ethnic Georgian residents living in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia on their status in these
entities, and their rights; the lack of such clarity has
caused much insecurity among these populations over
the past months.
79
Field trip
In all places, the Co-Chairs handed over four draft
discussion papers laying down basic principles for
discussions in the Working Group 2 on
(i) missing persons,
(ii) the promotion of crossings,
(iii) the facilitation of mobility and human contacts,
including beyond the region, and
(iv) IDPs and refugees.
80
Field trip
The Co-Chairs suggested that comments on these
papers on sensitive issues could be discussed first in a
bilateral format and later collectively with all
participants during the next GID round.
In Moscow, DFM Karasin showed readiness to engage
in these discussions, provided that they do not
diminish space for talks on more hard security issues
like the non-use of force.
81
Field trip
At the last GID round the Abkhaz participants had
asked for urgent assistance on an ecological issue: the
quick expansion of the box tree moth (Cydalimas) had
infested and seriously damaged unique forests of box
trees in Abkhazia.
The EUSR-team had provided over the summer
assistance by a Swiss-based Belgian scientist.
82
Field trip
The expert accompanied the Co-Chairs on their travel
to Sukhumi and carried out assessments of the
infestation on the ground.
Next expert-consultations might take place in the
margins of the next GID round.
83
Field trip
All interlocutors reiterated their interest in pursuing
discussions on cultural heritage. In this respect, they
welcomed the Co-Chairs' intention to invite a
UNESCO expert for an information session at the next
GID round. In continuation of the bilateral GeorgianAbkhaz
consultations on archives in the margins of the
Working Group 2, participants also welcomed the offer
to invite an expert on archives.
84
Field trip
In Sukhumi, df FM Chirikba handed over to the CoChairs
comments on the Second Quarterly Report of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia on the
Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Regions of
Georgia.
He stressed his intention to respond at the next GID
round to what he characterized as groundless
accusations.
85
Field trip
86
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
(July 2015)
The 33rd round of Geneva International Discussions
(GID) was held on 7 October 2015.
Discussions took place in a constructive and
substantive atmosphere with frank and open
exchanges that proceeded despite persistent divergent
views.
87
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
Participants discussed security-related issues and
assessed the overall situation on the ground as
relatively calm and stable. They recalled, however, the
tensions in July/August over the erection of
demarcation signs along the South Ossetian
administrative boundary line (ABL):
Participants thanked the Co-Chairs for their effective
mediation and EUMM for objective reporting on the
issue.
88
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
An exchange on the joint statement on non-use of
force took place with limited progress due to
continuing different narratives on the conflict.
A broader discussion on threat perceptions allowed for
an open exchange of perceptions and - at least partially
- responses from other participants with the aim of
dispelling concerns.
89
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
Freedom of movement, both across the ABL as well as
externally was discussed in a controversial manner and
largely from a confrontational status-related
perspective; attempts to bring in pragmatic approaches
in the interest of the affected population were only
marginally accepted.
90
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The participants welcomed the continued good
cooperation in the meetings of the Incident Prevention
and Response Mechanism (IPRM) in Ergneti and urged
for the resumption of the Gali IPRM.
Regarding humanitarian issues, participants reviewed
a number of key topics relating to the humanitarian
situation on the ground.
91
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
Among others, they substantively discussed issues
relating to multilingual education and languages of
instruction in Gali schools, freedom of movement and
mobility, missing persons, environmental and cultural
heritage.
92
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The issue of IDPs and refugees was also raised. In this
regard, the Co-Chairs reiterated their appeal to
participants to engage constructively on all agenda
items in the future.
93
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
While the round could be completed without
disruption, Abkhaz and South Ossetian participants
left the room during the agenda item on returns,
refusing to take part in the discussion in the context of
the GID as long as Georgia continues to table the
resolution on IDPs in the UN GA where they have no
possibility of making their voice heard.
94
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
An information session was held for participants on
the issue of protection of cultural heritage with a
presentation by an expert from UNESCO on the
subject.
95
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
Substantive discussions proceeded in a
constructive atmosphere with frank and open
exchanges taking place despite divergent views that
persist.
It was positive to note that there was a more intense
exchange across the table, and in particular the
Georgian participants led by DFM Dondua, aimed at
coming up with concrete responses to issues raised by
other participants.
96
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The security situation was assessed as overall relatively
calm and stable, although recent months have seen an
increase in incidents along the ABL as well as an
increasing number of Russian-led military exercises in
the broader region.
The importance of restraint and avoiding low level
incidents to spiral out of control was underlined.
97
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The events around the appearance of additional
demarcation signs along the South Ossetian ABL in
July/August were extensively discussed and perceived
as provocation by the Georgian side, while the South
Ossetian and Russian participants considered the
counter-demonstrations on the Georgian side of the
ABL as provocation and risk to the security along the
ABL.
98
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
While the new signs still are on the South Ossetian
side of the ABL and the ABL itself therefore was not
moved, approximately 55 hectare of agricultural land
that was cultivated by Georgian farmers up to the
summer was now out of reach to them.
99
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
Co-chairs praised the responsible behaviour of security
actors in calming down the situation and avoiding an
escalation.
In this context, the Incident Prevention and Response
mechanism (IPRM) and the hotline were highlighted
at instrumental in ensuring stability.
Similarly, the continued disruption of the IPRM in the
Abkhaz theatre was seen as a critical shortcoming and
co-chairs called on participants to find a compromise
to resume the IPRM’s work.
100
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
A discussion commenced on threat perceptions, a
notion that had been introduced by co-chairs to
reinvigorate the debate on security and possible
mechanisms to improve security and stability on the
ground.
The aim of this approach is to move towards more
transparency and information sharing on the perceived
threats.
Several participants actively engaged in this debate,
highlighting perceived threats, e.g. military exercises
on the other side, the NATO training centre
established in Georgia.
101
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
Inter alia, a public health laboratory in Tbilisi was
highlighted as a threat by South Ossetian participants
and the Georgian side used the opportunity to explain
the work of the laboratory and invite the South
Ossetian participants to visit and get a personal
understanding.
102
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
A further drafting session on a joint statement of
participants on non-use of force was held with
participants.
While limited progress was made, the positions
continue to be far apart due to the different narratives
on the conflict:
103
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The Georgian side sees the conflict as a RussianGeorgian
conflict and aims for a non-use of force
declaration from the Russian Federation;
while the Russian side sees the conflict as between
Georgia and Abkhazia/South Ossetia and calls on
Georgia to commit not to use force against Abkhazia
and South Ossetia.
104
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The Georgian participants announced the willingness
to engage in a discussion on the simultaneous release
of detainees by the Georgian, Abkhaz and South
Ossetian participants with the intention of taking this
up in a side-meeting on the margins.
105
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The status of the Georgian population in Gali and
Akhalgori districts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia
respectively continued to be discussed with
uncertainties regarding their status, their freedom of
movement across the ABL as well as other rights raised
by participants in a confrontational, status-focused
approach;
106
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
South Ossetian and Abkhaz participants especially
highlighted their perception of the ABL as a state
border. Calls from the co-chairs to look for pragmatic
solutions, leaving status issues aside in the interest of
improving the conditions of the affected population
went largely unheard.
107
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The co-moderators visited schools in Abkhazia in
September to explore language education issues in
schools frequented by Georgian, Abkhaz, Armenian
and Russian children there.
The round saw a heated debate on issues of
multilingualism and cultural and identity
maintenance, as well as approaches to language of
instruction complexities.
108
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The co-moderators appealed to de facto Abkhaz
authorities to uphold relevant international standards
and stressed that it was important to ensure education
had to be provided in a way that is effective and
accessible.
109
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
A set of operational conclusions was agreed on in
Working Group on humanitarian issues to organize an
information session on the subject of multilingualism
and multilingual education, ideally with the
involvement of international expertise;
to explore possibilities for a Georgian-Abkhaz
exchange on the issue in a smaller more operational
format of a working group between the rounds; and
work on supporting local methodological and teaching
capacities, including by a UNICEF/EU-funded project.
110
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
An in-depth discussion also took place about
humanitarian aspects of crossings. Co-moderators
welcomed the positive dynamic that has been in place
regarding medical evacuations.
They stressed the need to ensure evacuations also in
cases of genuine emergencies where patients do not
hold relevant documentation.
111
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
They also stressed that it was important to ensure
access to land in areas where signs and obstacles to
movement have been raised (especially in South
Ossetian context). There was a debate about school
children crossings – and the need to facilitate their
movement so as to ensure access to education of choice
(especially in the Abkhaz context).
112
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
A highlight of the round was also a meeting that took
place in its margins between Georgian and Abkhaz
participant on archive issues, facilitated by the comoderators.
This was a fourth in a series of such
meeting and this time, participants further deepened
practical cooperation. Georgian colleagues brought
over copies of a number of significant archive materials
and copies of rare books that the Abkhaz had
requested during the past round. They agreed to plan a
broader meeting in the margins of the December
round with the involvement of local experts from both
sides.
113
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
Furthermore, the follow up to a request made by the
Abkhaz participants during the 32nd round of GID
regarding the box tree moth, a pest that has infested
Eastern Black Sea coastal forests, were discussed. In
order to address the issue on the ground an EU-funded
European expert was engaged, who travelled to Tbilisi
and Western Georgia and to Abkhazia in September.
114
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
He helped the participants assess the infestation and
develop strategies in response to the pest. In the
margins of the round the expert met with Georgian
and Abkhaz colleagues to further his discussions with
them and a plan was agreed to organize an expert
meeting in the margins of the December round, with
the involvement of Abkhaz, Ossetian, Russian and
international experts. This broader meeting would
have the ambition to share experiences and views on
the issues, and to explore options for practical
cooperation.
115
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
An information session was held for participants on
the issue of protection of cultural heritage with a
presentation by an expert from UNESCO on the
subject. The topic of the session developed on previous
work on cultural heritage, were the focus has been
mainly on material cultural heritage, including
monuments and artefacts.
116
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
The session also highlighted the importance of
intangible cultural heritage, a concept that was of
interest to the participants in the context of the debate
on languages and education. Participants agreed to
explore options for inviting experts associated with
UNESCO to support their work on monuments of
shared cultural patrimony.
117
33rd round of the Geneva Discussions
118
The EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia
119
EU Monitoring Mission
An unarmed civilian monitoring mission of the
European Union.
Deployed in September 2008 following the EUmediated
Six Point Agreement which ended the
August war.
Head of Mission: Ambassador Kęstutis Jankauskas
Mission current budget: EUR 18.300.000
Contributing states: all EU Member States
120
EU Monitoring Mission
Former Heads of Mission:
 Mr. Toivo Klaar, September 2013 - December 2014
 Ambassador Andrzej Tyszkiewicz, July 2011-June
2013
 Ambassador Hansjörg Haber, October 2008-April
2011
121
EU Monitoring Mission
The Mission’s tasks are:
 To ensure that there is no return to hostilities;
 To facilitate the resumption of a safe and normal life for
the local communities living on both sides of the
Administrative Boundary Lines (ABL)with Abkhazia
and South Ossetia;
 To build confidence among the conflict parties;
 To inform EU policy in Georgia and the wider region
122
EU Monitoring Mission
Ever since Mission deployment it has been patrolling day and
night, particularly in the areas adjacent to the ABLs with
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The mission has around 200
monitors from various EU Member States working on the
ground.
Headquarters are in Tbilisi and Field Offices in Gori, Mtskheta
and Zugdidi.
Mission´s mandate is valid throughout all of Georgia. However,
the de facto authorities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have so
far denied us access to the territories under their control.
123
EU Monitoring Mission
124
EU Monitoring Mission
 The EUMM provided a ‘security chapeau’ to the
entire EU engagement in the field.
 This has added a dimension of leverage (albeit not
decisive) to mediation and dialogue at other levels.
 With a very limited mandate and no access to
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the EUMM succeeded
in being perceived as the major guarantor of
security vis-à-vis Russia in the area.
125
EU Monitoring Mission
reporting
The situation in Georgia (GE) along the Administrative
Boundary Line (ABL) remained relatively calm during
September 2015. One alleged (non) shooting incident was
reported near Ioncha village in South Ossetia (SO) on 23
September, when a man was injured.
The Mission's assessment of the incident, based on
information available, was that the injury was most likely
not the result of shooting. The incident was heavily
publicised by the SO side to accuse the GE side of crossABL
violence.
126
The Mission is unable to verify when and by whom this sign
might have been removed.
There was no hotline activation regarding this removal.
According to the TAT side, 153 persons from TAT lost access to
58 ha of land in SO during this summer because of continued
borderisation activities.
EU Monitoring Mission
reporting
127
Of some significance is the indication of a special
operation conducted by joint Russian Federation (RF)
Border Guard (BG) and ABK de facto police units to
prevent uncontrolled ABL crossings in the
Khurcha/Nabakevi area.
EU Monitoring Mission
reporting
128
The beginning of the school year has brought
changes in the language of instruction in the Gali
district, at the expense of Georgian-language
education. The Mission monitored the freedom of
movement of schoolchildren in both theatres and
concluded that no major impediments were in place
to cross the ABL.
EU Monitoring Mission
reporting
129
Both de facto “Treaties” between the breakaway
regions and the RF continue to be implemented, the
major development being the announcement by the
RF Deputy PM that nine agreements between the RF
and SO would be signed pursuant to the socioeconomic
provisions of the de facto ‘Treaty on
Alliance and Integration’ by the end of the year.
EU Monitoring Mission
reporting
130
Head of EUMM visits Moscow on September 2015
The security situation on the ground in Georgia, along the
ABL with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, was discussed.
Issues of borderisation, freedom of movement, access of local
population to agricultural land as well as military exercises are
raised and discussed as are practical issues such as interaction
in the field between security actors.
Commitment of all sides to use the existing instruments such
as the IPRM meetings and the Hotline was stressed in order to
maintain stability and predictability on the ground.
Head of EUMM visited Moscow last time in 2011.
EU Monitoring Mission
reporting
131
Incident prevention & response mechanism
(IPRM)
132
Incident prevention & response mechanism
 The role of the IPRM is in building confidence
between parties and addressing the concerns of
conflict-affected communities in a pragmatic
manner.
 Monthly meetings are co-facilitated by the Head of
the EU Monitoring Mission and the Special
Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-office for
the South Caucasus.
133
Incident prevention & response mechanism
The main goals are:
 to review the current security situation along the
Administrative Boundary Line (ABL) discuss safety
measures intended to avoid any misunderstandings
regarding agricultural and other works as well as
patrolling in the vicinity of the ABL.
 to exchange information concerning the situation of
prisoners and missing persons. Problems caused by
the installation of fences and other obstacles for the
local communities are usually raised.
134
Incident prevention & response mechanism
135
Incident prevention & response mechanism
On 23rd September 2015, the 58th meeting under the IPRM
took place in Ergneti, co-facilitated by the Head of the EUMM
in Georgia and Ambassador Angelo Gnaedinger, the Special
Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office for the
South Caucasus.
136
Incident prevention & response mechanism
The security situation was assessed as stable, and specific
incidents along the Administrative Boundary Line (ABL) were
discussed. Constructive discussions were held especially
regarding access to land for local farmers; it was agreed to
keep this issue under review. Participants committed to
increase vigilance and to intensify the exchange of relevant
information in relation to wildfires on both sides of the ABL.
The next IPRM meeting will take place on 29th October.
137
Incident prevention & response mechanism
SO participants notified the Incident Prevention and
Response Mechanism (IPRM) meeting of 23 September of
impending military exercises in the Znauri district. RF troop
movements from ABK were reported during the period, which
were assessed by EUMM as being related to the Ukrainian
and/or Syrian contexts.
138
Let's wrap up the lecture
139
Today we discussed
Main tools used by the EU
and International community
for solving the conflicts in Georgia
140
Next lecture
Main tools used by the EU and International
community for solving the conflict over
Nagorno Karabakh
Role in the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group on
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
its basic objectives
frequency of meetings, the main issues a track
record in conflict resolution
the perspectives of other development