Mr. Sergi Kapanadze:

I will be very brief. Of the three things that were mentioned, the first was the timetable of the EU. In addition to what Ms Katsarava said, Georgia right now is in the group of the so-called eastern partners together with Ukraine and Moldova. The programme of eastern partnership only provides for the association agreements, deep and comprehensive free trade agreements and visa liberalisation, but not necessarily for membership. If one asks the question of what comes next, what should come next is for these countries to get a clear membership perspective and then a clear instrument which helps them to integrate into the EU. It is true that the association agreements and the association agenda which we heard about today and the visa liberalisation and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, DCFTA, provide for certain reforms but beyond those reforms we need a certain programme that would be aimed at integration.

There could be different models for that. One of them could be similar to what was the case with regard to the eastern European countries such as the accession partnership type of model or all the others. There are different models for how that could be done. In terms of a timeframe, that is what should be next on the agenda with the European Union. There is obviously the question of whether there should be a regional approach towards the three countries or an individual approach. That remains to be seen. There are different opinions on that but we need to go to the next stage, which together with the reforms also envisages more conditionality and more assistance with regard to the reforms in the agriculture and other spheres.

Reference was made to NATO. That is a very important point. Unlike many countries, including Ireland, we are in a very precarious regional situation where we cannot really afford to be neutral, even if we very much wanted to be. One cannot really be neutral unless everybody around agrees that one can be neutral. That is also a major difference that we have with Switzerland, which is often given as an example of neutrality, but unfortunately that is not possible in our region. To ensure security, we need to be a member of a bigger security alliance or have some kind of bilateral security guarantees, which we do not have. That is why, out of those two options the best option is to seek the integration into NATO, once again, to ensure that Georgia is secure. There is often a misconception that Georgia wants to integrate into NATO to restore its territorial integrity but that is not the case. For us integration into NATO is not about the occupation and the conflict with Russia, rather it is about securing the unoccupied part of Georgia. That is why it is an important goal for us.

Ms Katsarava mentioned in her speech the upcoming NATO summit. Usually when those kind of high level meetings take place, there is always an issue. We have been in the NATO process for the past ten years. We were told that we would become a member of NATO but without a clear timeline. Anytime there is a NATO summit coming up, there is a question of what should be the actual deliverable for Georgia. Those are always the big questions that we have. Whether it is a concrete membership action plan or a concrete statement that Georgia can become a member without the membership action plan, we are seeking the concrete instruments by which we can become a member. That is probably our main issue with NATO.

I do not have much to add to what was said on the Geneva talks but the political will in Moscow, in particular, is an important key to making progress in the Geneva talks. The things that are being discussed are linked to the divergent political positions on the occupation. Moscow considers these regions to be independent states but we consider them to be occupied. Moscow considers that the displaced persons should not return and we consider that they have the absolute right to return under international law. We want and we believe it is the right way to have an international security presence in these regions and Russia is against that. That is why there is no progress because there is such a big difference in the positions on those issues. One way to generate progress there is to generate the political will in Moscow. The best way to generate political will is through first of all assessing the situation as it is and also through the political pressure on Moscow. If one asks us what are the few things we would like to ask of our Irish friends, one of them would be when it comes to assessing the situation in Georgia to assess it as an occupation. That is a word with concrete international legal repercussions and that is very important. As soon as the issue of Georgia is raised at a high level, similar to the situation in Ukraine where there is international involvement at a high level there will be a possibility of more compromise from Moscow. Otherwise, it will be very easy for them to keep the Geneva discussions going for another 50 rounds. I have been the head of the delegation and I have taken part in 21 rounds of talks.

It is a very futile exercise, not because of the round of talks, the structure of the talks or the Georgian side but because of the lack of political will in Moscow.