Since 2008, International Discussions have been held in Geneva, the purpose of which is to ensure lasting security for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the victors in the wars imposed on them by Georgia, and stability in the South Caucasus region.

The next, 63rd round, was held on March 4-5, in which delegations from Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Russia, Georgia, the United States, as well as the Co-chairs of the discussions - representatives of the UN, EU and OSCE - traditionally took part. Part of our society believes that the results of this negotiation process do not meet expectations, and that they are not needed at all. How fair is it to think so?

- Today, the Geneva discussions are the only international format in which we can conduct negotiations. Indeed, a skeptical attitude towards them has formed in our society, since serious political progress has not yet been achieved. However, this does not mean that we should stop working. There are no quick results in diplomacy, especially when it comes to resolving military conflicts. There are still serious differences in positions between Abkhazia and Georgia, and this prevents us from reaching a consensus.

For the Abkhazian side, the key humanitarian issue that requires an urgent solution is the recognition of Abkhazian national passport as a document allowing our citizens to move freely around the world, for example, to receive medical care. This is a serious problem, and Abkhazia constantly voices it to the Co-chairs of the discussions and will continue to insist on the need to resolve it. As for the political aspects, the main goal of the negotiations is to sign a document that will oblige Georgia not to use military force against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which will contribute to a significant reduction in tensions throughout the South Caucasus and serve as a basis for normalizing relations between our countries. Unfortunately, due to Georgia's extremely destructive position, we still cannot agree on the text of the document on the non-use of force.

- What other issues are the participants in the discussions discussing?

– Georgian participants are trying in every way to switch the focus and shift responsibility for their own crimes to other countries, trying to present the situation as if Russia is a party to the conflict. Together with our Russian and South Ossetian colleagues, we are actively countering the attempts of the Georgian authorities to rewrite history. Our position is unshakable – Georgia is the aggressor that unleashed the bloody conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Georgia is the only country that must commit to non-resumption of conflicts by signing a legally binding document on the non-use of force against Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Only after signing such a peace treaty will it be possible to conduct a dialogue with Georgia on further normalization of relations between our countries.

– How was the 63rd round of the Geneva discussions?

– The agenda of the Geneva International Discussions has not undergone any significant changes over the past 16 years, despite the fact that some issues have ceased to be relevant. Unfortunately, any attempts to make any changes or additions to the agenda are not met with understanding by the Co-chairs. Discussions traditionally take place in two working groups: on security and on humanitarian issues. The main topic of the first working group remains the agreement and further signing of an agreement on international guarantees of non-use of force. The second working group discusses issues, the key one for our delegation being freedom of movement around the world for citizens of Abkhazia. The agenda of the second working group also includes the issue of refugees, which we are not discussing at this stage. The fact is that there is a consolidated position of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Russia on the problem of refugees, which is that our delegations refuse to discuss this problem as long as Georgia continues to politicize it in the international arena. In particular, Georgia annually submits to the UN General Assembly a resolution on refugees from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which, in our opinion, is biased and in every way distorts the objective picture of events on this matter. Unfortunately, our long-standing attempts to participate in the work of the relevant UN committees and to provide alternative and objective information on events in Abkhazia, including on the refugee problem, have met with stubborn resistance from Georgia and its Western patrons. Thus, participants in the UN General Assembly are deprived of a chance to receive objective information and are forced to vote for the resolution on refugees submitted by Georgia. The lack of equal opportunities for all participants in the process to highlight the refugee problem at the international level creates serious obstacles to discussing these issues within the framework of the Geneva discussions. As soon as the Georgian side quits to politicize this problem and stops submitting the above-mentioned resolution to the UN General Assembly, the consolidated position of our delegations on this issue may change. However, there are no prerequisites for this problem to be resolved in the near future.

– What is the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (IPRM)?

– This Mechanism is part of the Geneva discussions to resolve conflicts and other current issues in the border areas between Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia. This format was interrupted on our initiative in 2018. The reason was that Georgia unilaterally adopted the so-called sanctions list, which included prominent state and public figures of Abkhazia. Georgia demonstrated these lists at various international venues in which Abkhazia is not allowed to participate. We have repeatedly warned the Georgian participants that if this sanctions list is adopted, the Abkhazian side will suspend the work of the IPRM in response. And we did so. Nevertheless, the Abkhazian side, realizing the importance of ensuring security on the ground, has repeatedly proposed various compromise solutions to resume the work of this format. Unfortunately, we do not see any desire on the part of the Georgian side to resume work within the framework of the IPRM.

– Iraklii Vakhtangovich, the Geneva discussions were suspended for some time. What was the reason?

– The discussions were not held during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Several rounds were postponed. However, all participants demonstrated interest in resuming work, and it was restored fairly quickly, but with some changes that affected the frequency of the rounds. Previously, meetings were held four times a year, and now - three.

– How likely is it that the discussions from Geneva, Switzerland will be moved to another country?

– Switzerland has always allowed holding any international formats, remaining a neutral country that does not participate in conflicts. Unfortunately, today we see how Switzerland is actively involved in a number of conflicts and is losing its status as a neutral state. Our delegation experienced this first-hand when last year the Swiss authorities decided to limit the issuance of Schengen visas to representatives of the Abkhazian and South Ossetian delegations. Previously, our delegations received Schengen visas without hindrance. As it became known, Switzerland decided to join the pan-European anti-Russian sanctions, which we also fell under, since we have Russian citizenship and receive visas in Russian passports. All this leads us and our Russian colleagues to the idea that Switzerland has lost its status as an objective and neutral mediator. This is precisely why there are calls to move the International discussions to another country that will suit all participants in the process. It is important that the authorities of this country do not show preferences in relation to certain participants and maintain neutrality.

– Can this negotiation format cease to exist at all?

– At some point, all negotiation processes come to an end for one reason or another. However, I do not think that our discussions will cease to exist in the near future, since the main tasks, which consist of ensuring lasting peace and stability in the Transcaucasia, have not been resolved.

– What are Abkhazia’s prospects for broad international recognition of its independence?

– In matters of ensuring the advancement of our national interests in the international arena, we largely rely on the assistance and support of Russia, which is our only strategic ally and partner. At this stage, it is quite difficult to talk about broad international recognition of our independence. We live in an era of the formation of a new international system of relations, which will determine the development of not only our region, but the world as a whole. Nevertheless, despite all the difficulties, we continue to work in this direction, which remains the main task of our department – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Abkhazia.

- What events during the Geneva discussions do you remember most?

- The round in which we were close to adopting a joint oral statement on the non-use of force. This was at the end of 2018. Long, multi-hour negotiations were held, during which representatives of the Georgian delegation left the meeting room and contacted the senior leadership in Georgia. After several hours of waiting and negotiations, the Georgian participants again refused to agree on the text of the joint oral statement, citing instructions from the senior leadership. I would like to emphasize that all participants in the process expressed their readiness to adopt this oral statement, but the Georgian delegation once again thwarted this opportunity.

Such examples clearly demonstrate that Georgia is the country that hinders the normalization of relations and creates threats to stability and security in our region.