Remarks by the President at the Paris Peace Forum

11.11.2021 Remarks by the President at the Paris Peace Forum

President Salome Zourabichvili took part at the "Age of Unpeace: Preserving international cooperation for a more peaceful future" panel of the Paris Peace Forum, along with H.E. Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. The panel was moderated by Ambassador Jean-Marie Guéhenno.

Mme. President, your country has experienced firsthand what the assertion of world power can mean and it has a strong interest in preserving a rules-based order. For a while, the United States looked like the ultimate guarantor of such an order but that is less clear now, especially for Europe as the United States seems more focused on Asia. The Europeans are expected to play a greater role. What are your expectations in that regard?

First of all, let me salute you all and tell you that I am very glad to participate in this panel and I want to welcome Vice-President Borrell.

I see this topic as very actual as we might see it as a question of what we can expect from the United States, although for Georgia, we were the country that really marked the end of an era in which a number of rules were imposed for everyone.

With the 2008 war in Georgia, we left the world of international rules and saw a world where the strongest can rule, can change borders, can impose its occupation on a territory that had been internationally-recognized as part of another country. All of this has put into question all the norms in which we lived and since 2008, we've seen that the United States have acted more verbally, while action has come from Europe, from President Sarkozy, whose intervention de facto stopped the conflict, even if it could not reverse the results of the conflict, including occupation.

So, 2008 is a time that is extremely important because it is followed by Syria, by Ukraine in 2014 and it's the beginning of an international community that doesn't react any longer to violations of international law. After that, we see that the rules of disarmament are no longer respected as well. We are in a world where we don't know anymore the rules of the game.

At the same time, and to answer your question: the United States are effectively turning toward Asia and is implicitly telling Europe to play its part in this region, which is part of the European continent, and to solve conflicts. If we look a little back, Jean-Marie remembers like I do that in the crisis in the Balkans, the Europeans not only let the Americans and NATO handle the military side of the conflict, but also the diplomatic part, which was essentially led by Ambassador Holbrooke. Today, this isn't as much the case, or I would say not the case at all. So for Georgia, we have our eyes turned toward Europe more, and still toward NATO as it represents this alliance between Europe and the United States, but conscious following Afghanistan (where we were present with the United States as one of the proportionally largest contributors).

The withdrawal from Afghanistan shows us that it has also consequences for our region and that our region is really becoming a zone under the responsibility of the EU. So we'll come back to what that means to the EU, which I would say has the face all the challenges nowadays, but I first would like to let you all speak, but I'll definitely come back on what this all means for the EU and for us.

The whole question of the relation with Russia is a question that haunts Europe because we want at the same time to defend our values and at the same time to build a cooperative world and so all of us are interested in your views on what is your vision on relations with Russia, on this big neighbor that you have, this big neighbor that all of Europe has.

Well, for Europe just like for us, we are facing a Russia that respects no longer the old rules of the game, those same rules that it took part in framing itself during Helsinki. These are the principles of international law, the rules of disarmament. And we now face a Russia that is affirming itself with all the weapons at its disposition: we see Wagner forces deep into Central Africa, we see the very recent use through Belarus of migrants as a weapon, meaning that this situation isn't just a simple migratory crisis but the use of migrants as a real weapon of destabilization for European countries.

International order doesn't exist anymore and what's between proper Europe and Russia is a whole terrain, which includes us, that is wide open to destabilization and to these challenges made by the new Russia. The main question we're asking ourselves now is whether Europe will be content with its multi-year policy of sanctions, which is a lacking response. Sanctions are a response, but not enough as we see to influence, to change, to make Russia think or pull back.

This means that policy must be more global.

I must add that just like Georgia was in 2008 a testing ground for Russia, who started since then to rearm itself, the Caucasus today is a little like a testing ground for the European Union, for what it can do its policy toward this neighboring region and toward Russia. We saw this year a new engagement of the European Union in the political stability of Georgia. President Charles Michel came three times within six months and directly involved himself for the stabilization of the country, to get the country out of its crisis.

We also saw, even though late as the war and ceasefire had already happened, a sign of willingness by the EU to take charge in mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is indispensable because the region is part of Europe and this conflict cannot be left alone to Russia, Turkey or other powers.

So what do we do in the Caucasus? Direct confrontation with Russia isn't the way to go and it is not a European way, nor is it a way for which Europe either has the military power or political will. But Europe must show that it is a present actor and won't let itself be replaced.

There are a lot of discussions today on which format to adopt, what grand infrastructure projects can be envisioned across this region, which is a region of communication between Europe, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and Asia. This region today cannot be the exclusivity of any power, be it Russia, Turkey, Iran or anyone else, no matter how meritorious their claims or having regional interests may be. None of these powers have the economic capacity to lead these grand infrastructure projects.

The only one with such power is Europe. So Europe, besides this economic power, must prepare a vision for itself, a vision of stability in the region, and an understanding of what makes it strong today. Europe's strength comes from the idea of great political projects. It had one grand project that worked extraordinarily well, which was the Enlargement. Today, we don't know whether this project is stopped or questioned, but anyways, it isn't shown the same political will and needs to be revisited or at least supported by other immediate projects until Enlargement becomes once again a vision of ensemble for the EU.

To be present here (just as in Ukraine, as the debate on what the boundaries of the Mediterranean world are is the same), Europe must regain self-confidence, which is very difficult at a time when it is contested by all these challenges we're seeing, be it terrorism, cyberattacks, narcotics, or migrants (both as a weapon and as a real crisis weakening European societies). Facing these, we need a Europe that can rediscover its values.

There is also a problem between the US and Europe. We don't know if consensus still exists in Washington, but Europe must once again become the carrier of its values. American liberalism, to some extent, has provoked Europe's internal crises, identity crises. European nations do not have the same vision on what are European history and identity and Russia plays on these divisions and presents itself in a completely illegitimate manner as the defender of classical European values.

This is why Europe must replace itself at the center of these values of liberty, solidarity, individualism and humanism, which aren't really the same as the American "politically correct", which itself can seem a bit foreign to the different European cultures.

So there's a great lot of work expected from Europe by its neighbors for which stability is directly linked to Europe's self-confidence.

How can Georgia's dilemma of balancing various imperatives considering its geopolitical situation be addressed? With America, with Europe, with Russian diplomatic exercise? How in this configuration should Georgia play its cards to ensure its sovereignty and safety and security?

I think it's clear since the 2008 war that nobody is going to come to war for Georgia.

The fact that Georgia managed, despite this difference between weak and strong that existed during and since the war, to keep its European orientation is its main victory. If Russia's goal by occupying Georgian territory and militarily entering Georgia was to "Finlandize" it, to prevent it from making its own strategic choices, it failed to achieve this goal.

As I've already said, the only perspective is proximity to Europe, but an Europe more engaged that understands that even if Russia uses today all negative means as tools, Europe has other capacities. These other capacities include technological innovation, economic vitality, human resources that go hand-in-hand with initiative and free markets. In the future, there will come a time of reconfiguration because only raw power is not enough, but at that time will also come the time for negotiation.

Europe has until now chosen dialogue and that dialogue is more often than not one of weak with strong, with Europe not knowing too well what it even wants from such a dialogue. We must go from dialogue to real negotiation, by underlining where the red lines are, where the interests are, where weaknesses and strengths are and in such a difficult but equalized negotiation, we are with Europe. We will never be somewhere else but on Europe's side.