Some controversies over Armenia’s voting against Georgia in the UN

As it is known, 17 countries voted against the resolution on the refugees' right of return to the places of their original dwelling in the UN about a month ago. Among these 17 countries there was Armenia. Some analysts explained Armenia’s position as Armenia’s reaction to Georgia’s refusal to take into consideration Armenia’s plea for support on the Karabakh issue. It is obvious that since the beginning of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia adopted a strictly neutral policy and had no intentions whatsoever of changing its neutrality. On the other hand, it could be down to Russian pressure on Armenia in the voting process. But, whatever reasons were behind Yerevan’s voting against Georgia, it caused discontent and irritation among the Georgian population and, in particular, among the refugees and IDPs who are the victims of these conflicts.

The Georgian authorities simply ignore this fact without commenting at all. However, the media, including analysts, continue to comment on this decision. Some have assessed this as a hostile step taken by our closest neighbour and some people even complain as to why an official explanation was not demanded.

Despite the fact that Armenia is Russia's strategic partner, Tbilisi maintains very good relations with Yerevan. The Armenian authorities also realise the importance of preserving good relations and, despite some differences in their positions, there are attempts from both sides to sustain good relations, particularly in economic matters.

Voting against the Georgian resolution, which was still adopted by the UN, in reality caused a feeling of disappointment in Georgia, although it is understandable that the resolution was not agreed to by Russia. There is a feeling in Georgia that Yerevan could have conducted itself in a better way if it abstained from voting at all, rather than voting against Georgia. Some opposition forces in Georgia try to use this situation to criticize and attack the official Georgian position. They bring up the fact that the Georgian state even agreed to open Zemo Larsi custom checkpoint with Russia, mainly for the purposes of transporting cargo to Armenia. Another point is the construction of the motorway connecting Armenia with Adjara on the Black Sea coast. Analyst Mamuka Gvadzabia, while commenting to Akhali Taoba, said that the Georgian state has been taking generous steps towards Armenia for the last 20 years, even though Georgia did not gain at all from the opening of Larsi Checkpoint. Georgian dissatisfaction increased upon the news that, during the recent celebration of the Tskhinvali puppet regime of its ‘independence’, Karabakh's so called president participated in it, confirming that he would not have dared to travel to Tskhinvali without Yerevan’s consent. The Georgian media recalled that, in simile circumstances, during the Georgian-Russian war in Abkhazian territory in 1992-93, there was formed a so called Bagramian battalion in support of the separatists which was particularly aggressive against Georgian ethnicity.

IDPs also think that the Georgian authorities should have reacted more seriously towards Yerevan's position and some even called for the blocking of Larsi checkpoint for a short period to symbolise Georgian disenchantment. Of course, such sentiments and feelings are not beneficial for either of the sides. Neither Yerevan nor Tbilisi will benefit from this as friendly and neighborly ties between the two states have long existed and should be preserved more carefully.