The twentieth round of international discussions on security and stability in Transcaucasia has finished in Geneva.
How do you assess the outcome of the Geneva discussions?
Alexander Skakov, Candidate of History, coordinator of the Working Group of the Caucasus and Central Asia section under the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Federation:
The attitude to the Geneva process is double. On the one hand any debate - is good and it should be maintained. To expect some breakthrough, even minimal success in these negotiations is unreal; it is a purely technical site, because none of the parties is ready for compromise.
America supports Georgia, following its own interests; it is not ready not only to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, but it is ignoring it as a reality. The Americans are doing their best to maintain a sense in Georgia that its decomposition into parts - is a temporary event and the status quo will be restored. The objectives are clear - to divert attention from the Russian situation with Iran and Syria, to create for Russia a headache on the southern borders, and to use Georgia as a kind of counterbalance to Russia in the Caucasus. So while Georgia and U.S. are not following the reality, but the phantoms and the desire to affect their opponent, in this case Russia, one should not expect any progress in the talks. For the negotiations should be based on realities, but not on phantoms.
Inal Pliev, an independent expert:
The most important result of the twentieth round is the recognition by the international experts, and by the invited co-chairs of the EU and the OSCE of the fact of absence in South Ossetia any occupation. Thus, at a high international level, it was declared that all kinds of statements about the so-called occupation of South Ossetia by Russia are groundless; it is a kind of manifestation of some emotional positions that have no scientific justification of the political right and are very far from reality. Indeed, the interpretation of the term «occupation» is presented sufficiently clear in the international law of The Hague and Geneva Conventions, which contain precise formulations of this concept. None of the signs of occupation is presented in South Ossetia, which was established precisely, clearly and unambiguously in the last round of the Geneva discussions.
Andrew Tadtaev, a journalist:
At the last round South Ossetia has achieved local success - during the information session the independent experts were unable to substantiate the validity of the term "occupied territory" in relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. However, at the Geneva discussions are not signed any binding agreements, and the information sessions and the statements made during these sessions will never become a ban for Georgia and its allies for using this term. Therefore, this success must be developed, not confined to Geneva; the Foreign Ministry should also be involved in this process, similar events should be held at other venues.
In general, the Geneva format is ineffective, 20 rounds yielded almost symbolic results. A common statement about the importance of the discussions as an international platform to some extent is true, but to limit oneself to just this platform – is unproductive.
