An interview with political analyst Paata Zakareishvili

-In your opinion is the growing rapprochment between Russia and Turkey minimizing scenarios leading to regional warfare? Turkey will never take any steps in the region without the knowledge of Russia.

-Of course, this doesn't mean that henceforth Turkey will coordinate its actions in the region with Russia, but, on the other hand, even in relations with its partner, Azerbaijan, Turkey will keep Russia informed in advance. Turkey has interests in the region (the Meditteranean, Near East), and it is unlikely that Turkey, in the Caucasus and on the territories of the CIS nations, will start to compete with Russia.

The possible resumption of hostilities in Georgia is purely a publicity stunt and has no real basis. Russia has already seized what it wanted from Georgia, with the occupation and recogniotion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is constructing military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia without having reached any military coperation pact. Russia has shattered Georgia's so-called "brand name" and, as a result, Georgia can no longer be integrated into NATO, into various European structures, as it could have prior to the August war.

Russia is no longer interested in going to war with Georgia. As to the influence of Russian-Turkish rapprochment on the possibilkity on tehresumption of warfare in Karabakh, both nations are extremely interested to see that such hostilities are not resumed.

In this situation, Turkey is an additional guarantee that it does not. Of course, tyhe motivations of Turkey and Russia regarding the preservation of peace in Karabakh are different on certain levels, but in the final analysis, one overriding interest unites them. Peace is the guarator for the explotation of the Caspian Sea's energy reserves.

-Contrary to your claims, in Georgia, the expectations stemming from Russia's assaults and the war have been fairly clearly expressed by the authorities (let us recount the well-known TV program about the Russian invasion) and in the speeches of many experts.

-The only manner for the Georgian authorities to justify their actions and survive, is to reinforce the perception of Russia as the enemy. Russia is truly a hostile nation for Georgia, however the Georgian authorities inflate that sterotypical perception. Their aim is to rally and unite the public, especially now, before the May 30 elections.

These local elections have a political context since they the new mayor of Tbilisi will also be elected. It is evident that whoever becomes mayor will have a much better chance of winning in the next presidential elections. If you remember that infamous TV program of March 30, it starts off with segments of the electorate not accepting the election results taking to the streets in protest. Russia, taking advantage of the turmoil, invades Georgia.

In other words, with this subject material, the authorities are declaring that the upcoming elections will be fraudulently mainpulated just as in the past. This scenario was manufactured not on the theme of war but rather on electoral fraud. And the wraning about a possible Russian invasion has a long-term objective - to deprive the people the right to come out in protest of election fraud.

-In your view, how can we explain the recent claims being made regarding Georgia becoming a parliamentary nation?

-For about the last year now,the Constitutional Committeee has been drafting a bill on constitutional changes in Georgia. There is a danger that these modifications will give us a new Constitution - the weakening of the presidential administration and the redistribution of power between the executive and thelegislature. If this happens, the Saakashvili  will be given the possibility of being reelected for two more terms.

Yes. he will enjoy fewer powers but he will once again appear before the people as president.Such constitutional changes are not being demanded by the Europeans, rather, they are the initiative of the local authorities.

-How was the participation of opposition activists N.Burdjanadzeh and Noghaiteli, Saakashvili's former allies, during the recent ceremonies marking the 65th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War, viewed in Georgia?

-Publicly, in the press, that ervent received a pretty strong negative reaction. Those two activits keep themselves in the public eye so much (they leave for Ruusia and meet with Putin, the main director of the August incidents), that there is the impression that they are convinced that the puv=blic will back them in the matter.

Their level of self-confidence sometimes appeals to me, even though there actions are short-sighted. They enjoy very low ratings and are not preparing to enter bthe May 30 elections. If we leave for Russia and begin to discuss the issue of getting back the occupied territories (something that Burdjanadzeh and Noghaiteli do not declare outright but clearly allude to), then, with that, you would think we are saying to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, to the whole world, friends, please forgive us, we are not yet a fully constituted nation, we will once again resolve our issues jointly with the Kremlin.

Rather, we should be showing that we are a democratic nation, we should be enticing them to participate in our nation-building process, of taking the country to Europe together. Instraed, we are driving them further into the arms of the Kremlin.

There is no other place in the world where politicians with such low ratings can be received with the top leaders of another nation. I could never picture the possibility that, in the U.S., the same Burdjanadzeh would get to meet with Obama. These two georgians are pinning their hopes on the fact that a pro-Russian orientation is slowly growing in Georgia and that these sentiments will one day grow so large that their dealings with theRussian authorities will boost their ratings.

-Are pro-Russian sentiments growing at the expense of pro-American ones?

-Naturally, the growth of pro-Russian sentiments in a segment of the Georgian populace doesn't mean that there is a love of Russia; it's more pragmatic. It is better to have good relations with Russia than bad ones. Presently, there is greate pro-U.S. sentiment but it is decreasing. This is also a consequence of the August war. The Georgian authorities had planted totally baseless expectations within Georgian society; that the U.S. would help us no matter what. Those expectations turned out to be hollow. Today, in Georgia, one sees a distancing from democratic values, which is something quite regrettable for me.

-How would you evaluate the policies of the current U.S. administration regarding Georgia?

-There is an enpormous difference between the current and former U.S. administrations when it comes to Georgia. The Obama team stands out for its high level of pragmatism. . For George Bush, Georgia became the bait in the struggle against Russia, to pull Moscow out of its lair and to show the world what Russia was capable of doing. Bush subjected Georgia's interests to the McCain pre-election campaign. Obama has separated Georgia from Russia.

Obama's attitude has clealry manifested itself of late. SAfter the recent nuclear summit wrapped up, Saakashvili stayed on in Washington DC for another three weeks, travelling the country, and waiting for Obama to call or receive him. Neither a call nor invitation came. To save face, Saakashvili left the U.S. for Rumania. But he was givenb the cold-shoulder there as well.

From Rumania, Saakashvili flew to Costa Rica. For about one month, the President of Georgia was out of the country, travelling to and fro. He hadn't even declared he was on official vacation. Perhaps the man has nothing left to do in Georgia.

"Region" Research Center