Conflicts from the Perspective of Nationalism: Case of Georgia

Abstract

Georgia is a country, with two existing conflicts. The majority of the population thinks that conflicts emerged in the last century. It is believed, that the problem is only political and related to the geopolitical condition. We fully agree with the position according to which the current political conflicts between Georgians and Abkhazians and Georgians and Ossetians has been provoked by Russia in the beginning and moreover for the end of the twentieth century. But, now we try to observe these conflicts from the perspective of Nationalism. According to the current theories, development of such collective-cultural identities, like ethnic groups and moreover the nations depend on many sensitive aspects. Except for economic, political and territorial issues, the most important is faith of common myths and symbols. The birth of nationalism, on which the formation of nation is based, is closely related and even inspired by the cultural conceptualization. In such time the strong feeling of authenticity and therefore neediness of separating from the other ones becomes inevitable. In the 18th century, cultural movement, which aroused in the Kingdom of Kartl-Kakheti, contained important ethno-cultural messages, according to which the Georgian unity sharply was divided from the others. In 19th century Ilia Chavchavadze, the founder of Georgian Nation, tried to rethink and shape new identity perception. However, since 1921, after the sovietization Georgian nationalism entirely was concentrated on the ethnical and religious moments. In the presented paper, considering the historical past, we will try to under- stand the modern challenges faced Georgian society.

Full text

Scanned with CamScanner

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES
CONTEMPORARY
EURASIA
International Journal of Eurasian Geopolitics
EDITED BY RUBEN SAFRASTYAN
VOLUME VII (1, 2)
YEREVAN 2018

PUBLISHED BY THE DECISION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL
OF INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES OF NAS RA
EDITOR IN CHIEF:
Ruben Safrastyan,
Prof. Dr., Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of
Armenia (NAS RA)
EDITORIAL BOARD:
Vahram Ter-Matevosyan, Dr. Phil., Assoc. Prof, Institute of Oriental Studies
NAS RA
Lilit Harutyunyan, Assoc. Prof, PhD, Institute of Oriental Studies NAS RA
Gohar Iskandaryan, Assoc. Prof, PhD, Institute of Oriental Studies NAS RA
Levon Hovsepyan, PhD, Institute of Oriental Studies NAS RA
Nazeli Navasardyan, PhD, Institute of Oriental Studies NAS RA (Assistant Editor)
Mushegh Ghahriyan, PhD, Institute of Oriental Studies NAS RA (Assistant Editor)
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD:
Alexander Krylov, Dr. of Science (History), Primakov Institute of World Econ-
omy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Bulat Sultanov, Dr. of Science (History), Institute for International and Regional
Cooperation, German-Kazakh University, (Kazakhstan)
Jaroslaw Turlukowski, PhD, Assoc. Prof, Institute of Civil Law University of
Warsaw (Poland)
Matthew Crosston, Prof., PhD, Senior Doctoral Faculty, School of Security and
Global Studies, American Military University (USA)
Michael Akerib, Prof. Dr. of Science (Marketing and Strategy), Rector of Swiss
UMEF University (Switzerland)
Nurlan Namatov, Prof. Dr. of Science (Law), Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland
The current issue of the “Contemporary Eurasia” VII (1, 2) is devoted to the
ongoing developments and processes in the Eurasia and their impact on the re-
gion. The volume includes analyses of the security issues, key political develop-
ments and transitions in the Middle East and Caucasus.
The publication may be of interest for social scientists, experts and students.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the
authors and do not necessarily refl ect the offi cial policy or position of the ed-
itors, the editorial board, the advisory board of the Journal or the Institute of
Oriental Studies.
ISSN 1828-3948
© Institute of Oriental Studies of NAS RA 2018

3
CONTENTS
SECURITY ISSUES IN EURASIA
ARTSRUN HOVHANNISYAN
ASIA-PACIFIC THEATER IN FOCUS: COMPARISON OF WEAPONS
SYSTEMS OF NEAR-PEER COMPETITORS, CURRENT ISSUES ...........4
TINA KHARATYAN
THE MILITARY DOCTRINE OF AZERBAIJAN: ASSESSING THE
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AND POLICY IMPLICATION ...............21
HRANUSH DERMOYAN
THE 2016 COUP ATTEMPT IN TURKEY: A RESULT OF
CHANGING CIVIL-MILITARY BALANCE IN TURKEY ......................... 41
LIANA HAYRAPETYAN
RADICAL ISLAM IN RUSSIA: THE CASE OF TATARSTAN ..................61
THE ARAB WORLD IN TRANSITION
ARAKS PASHAYAN
SAUDI ARABIA-QATAR. FROM COOPERATION
TO CONFRONTATION ................................................................................80
GOR GEVORGYAN
THE NEW STRATEGY OF THE U. S. MIDDLE EAST
POLICY AND EGYPT ..................................................................................90
MUSHEGH GHAHRIYAN
THE KURDISH FACTOR IN IRAQ-GULF
ARAB STATES RELATIONS .....................................................................100
SOUTH CAUCASUS:
REGIONAL CONFLICTS AND CHALLENGES
LILIT GALSTYAN
RUSSIA AND THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT:
SPOILING THROUGH MEDIATION? ...................................................... 114
ZURAB TARGAMADZE
CONFLICTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NATIONALISM:
CASE OF GEORGIA ...................................................................................133
KRISTINE MARGARYAN
AZERBAIJAN’S INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
......................................................................................................................146
AUTORS LIST .................................................................................................167

133
ZURAB TARGAMADZE
CONFLICTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
NATIONALISM: CASE OF GEORGIA1
Abstract
Georgia is a country, with two existing confl icts. The majority of the population
thinks that confl icts emerged in the last century. It is believed, that the prob-
lem is only political and related to the geopolitical condition. We fully agree
with the position according to which the current political confl icts between
Georgians and Abkhazians and Georgians and Ossetians has been provoked by
Russia in the beginning and moreover for the end of the twentieth century. But,
now we try to observe these confl icts from the perspective of Nationalism.
According to the current theories, development of such collective-cultural
identities, like ethnic groups and moreover the nations depend on many sensi-
tive aspects. Except for economic, political and territorial issues, the most im-
portant is faith of common myths and symbols. The birth of nationalism, on
which the formation of nation is based, is closely related and even inspired by
the cultural conceptualization. In such time the strong feeling of authenticity
and therefore neediness of separating from the other ones becomes inevitable.
In the 18th century, cultural movement, which aroused in the Kingdom of
Kartl-Kakheti, contained important ethno-cultural messages, according to
which the Georgian unity sharply was divided from the others. In 19th century
Ilia Chavchavadze, the founder of Georgian Nation, tried to rethink and shape
new identity perception. However, since 1921, after the sovietization Georgian
nationalism entirely was concentrated on the ethnical and religious moments.
In the presented paper, considering the historical past, we will try to under-
stand the modern challenges faced Georgian society.
Keywords: Nationalism, Nation, Identity and History of Georgia.
Introduction
As we know, any type of community has a bouquet of values on which
is their collective intellectual being is based. In case of nationalism, the
sentiments like this covers with many diff erent, but interconnected mo-
ments, which makes ideological fundament for the shaping of national
1
The work is a part of the project (DO/351/1-10/14) Georgian Identity: Historical Aspects
(18th century), sponsored by Shota Rustaveli National Foundation 2013-2014 Doctoral pro-
gram grant.

CONTEMPORARY EURASIA
134
feelings and any shifting or changing within can lead to signifi cant fl uc-
tuations of national body and even destruction of the political system.2
Especially, in those cases, when above-mentioned attachments have been
formed La longue durée.
One of the strongest ideas in Georgian nationalism is the feeling and
belief that during the many centuries Georgians lived together with others
without any confrontation. The most extensive expression of this attitude
is the unity of the Caucasian people, formed by Leonti Mroveli3 in the
11th century.4 In the Soviet time, that became the main stronghold for the
Georgian national conception. After the controversy between the Geor-
gian-Abkhazians and Georgian-Ossetians, the equilibrium based on this
faith was broken. Today, the political crisis created by military actions
threatens the idea of Georgian statehood.
In this paper, we would like to fi nd some answers and clarify how and
when the confl icts began in Georgia? What was the real reasons behind
them? Does it truly have only political origins or we can fi nd ethnical and
cultural roots?
We are trying to do this by observing several notes preserved in Geor-
gian texts about Abkhazian and Ossetian peoples, e.g. in The Description
of the Georgian Kingdom by Vakhushti Bagrationi. This source is also in-
teresting as it was created in the eighteenth century in parallel with the
revival of the cultural movement.
Actuality
The main challenges to the modern Georgian society are confl icts in
Abkhazia and Shida Kartli, so-called South Ossetia. The 1990s, when it
escalated into an armed controversy, the confl ict became a watershed in
relationships between the Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians. Howev-
er, the topics about history of Abkhazia and Shida Kartli/South Ossetia
were not a novelty for the Georgian historiography. Important questions
are still unanswered. From the view of traditional perspective historians
and politicians simply could not explain the reasons of the confl ict.
According to absolute majority of the assertions, the confl icts are arti-
fi cially provoked, that was and is unambiguously associated with the de-
2
When we determining the nationalism, we rely upon A. D. Smith’s interpretation. Anthony
D. Smith, Nationalism.Theory, ideology, history, (Polity Press, 2001), 5-35.
3
Leonti Mroveli was 11th century Georgian chronicler.
4
Simon Kaukchishvili, The Georgian Chronicles. The text established on according to all
main manuscripts by Simon Kaukhchishvili, volume, I. Sakhelgami, (1955), 3

ZURAB TARGAMADZE
135
sire of Russia to create unstable environment in the region.5 Any more or
less cognizant person knows about negative traces of the northern neigh-
bor in aggravation of the confl ict. But, now we would like to know, was
there particular ethno-cultural diff erences among Georgian, Abkhazian
and Ossetian people, which had appeared earlier than the Russian factor
would have a decisive signifi cance.
However, after the confrontation, it became necessary reviewing the
existing narratives. The works of the pre-confl ict and post-confl ict pe-
riods, diff erfrom each other with their spirit. If before, the main goal of
the researchers, despite several centuries of ethnical and political divi-
sions, was to underline the sole of the people who lived in Georgia,6 since
1990s, because of the desire to penetrate into the essence of the confl ict,
they started to acknowledge the confl icts as a historical fact.
Ethno-cultural attitudes
Georgia is one of those countries that are distinguished from the others
by its ethnical and cultural diversity. It is signifi cant that despite the con-
fl icts, this diversity is still considered as a strong side of Georgian society
and culture. Thus, it turned out that the fact, which they consider as an
expression of humanity, tolerance and solidarity of society is understood
as violence by the ethnic minorities. From the retrospection of near past,
it is diffi cult to say unequivocally, what provoked the confl icts: the third
power, very specifi c and habitual view of the past by the historians, or
ambitions of the politicians. The thing we can be sure in is that the abyss,
developed between these peoples after the military confl icts in the 20th
century becomes deeper. The above-mentioned reasons, which should not
aggravate the confl ict, were just the external factors and not the internal
ones and without understanding the essence of the problem it will be im-
possible to solve the confl icts.
5
Jemal Gamakharia, From the history of Georgian-Abkhazian relations, (Tbilisi: Sabchota Sa-
kartvelo, 1991), 127; Gaprindashvili, M, Giorgadze, G, Giunashvili, J, Kacharava, I, Lomtatid-
ze, K, Lominadze, B, Lortkipanidze, M, Melikishvili, G, Muskhelishvili, D, Nachkhebia, G,
Zhordania, O, Sidamonidze, Q, Surguladze, A, Tsaishvili, S, Dzidziguri, Sh, Khoshtaria-Bros-
set, E, Jorbenadze, B., For the distortion of the Georgian-Abkhazian relations (Answer “to au-
thors of Abkhazian letter”). (Tbilisi: Metsniereba 1, 1991.), 47-48; Teimuraz Mibchuani. On
the bloody footprint of Abkhazian separatism, (Tbilisi: Publishing GPI 1994), 37, 58-59; Anzor
Totadze,. The Ossets in Georgia: Myth and Reality (Tbilisi: Universali, 2008), 3-5, 9-10. ac-
cessed at: http://darbr.webs.com/OSETI_latinuri.pdf; Lavrenti Janiashvili, “Historical writing –
inspiration for the Ethnocentrism stereotypes” in Occupied Akhalgori district and Dynamics of
Georgian-Ossetian relations, ed. by Jalabadze, N, Burduli, M, Janiashvili, L, Mgebrishvili, L,
and Pirckhalava, E, (Tbilisi: Publishing Geoprint 2015), 53, 56-59; Manuchar Guntsadze, “Os-
setian Rebelion in Shida Kartli in 1920 according to Georgian Press,” Georgian Source-Studies
XV-XVI, (Tbilisi: Universali, 2013/2014): 40-42, 55-57.
6
Davit Darchiashvili, “Akhaltsikhe Georgian Jerusalem,” Reconstructions of History#1, 8-52.
Tbilisi, (2015): 10.

CONTEMPORARY EURASIA
136
Before we analyze the sources provided directly by Vakhushti, we
want to notice one circumstance, in particular, that absolute majority of
historical sources, among them Life of Kartli,7 acknowledges cohabita-
tion, important military, political and cultural connections between the
Georgians, Abkhazians and Ossetians. But, what does it mean? Maybe,
this and other facts such as dynastic marriages and, that the rank of an
Abkhazian king took the fi rst honorable place among the titles of the
Georgian kings, only prove, that keeping the balance and political con-
juncture was important in the period of the Kingdom of Georgia too.
Thus, stating, that e.g. ethnical group living on the territory of Ab-
khazia was Georgian or on the contrary, was not ethnically Georgian, but
they necessarily would became Georgians infl uenced by the domestic cul-
tural environment;8 also, giving a special importance and improper per-
ception of migration processes, which could caused changing of demo-
graphic picture (much more on the territory Abkhazia than Shida Kartli)
in the 17th and 18th centuries, while discussing about the illegitimacy of
the demands of ethnical minorities,9 sounds not serious and intensifi es the
confl icts.
The point is that, when the Georgian we-group had cultural and polit-
ical hegemony and the attitude of the Abkhazian ruling elite and among
them of the Ossetians in the North Caucasus were unambiguously loyal
towards the Georgian king, they did not pose a problem. The ethnical is-
sue has arisen since the disbandment of the Georgian Kingdom and was
extremely aggravated in the 18th century. That is one of the reasons why
we mainly fi nd positive messages in the old versions of the Life of Kartli.
What was changed in the 18th century? It was the period when the
Georgian cultural and in general, socio-economic life started to revive.
The learned men commission was established whose duties were to gath-
er Georgian historical documents and old versions of Life of Kartli, for
correcting and editing them according to the modern standards. In 1709,
Vakhtang VI (ruler of Kartli in 1703-1714, king in 1716-1723) founded
printing-house, which should help propagation of these new ideas.
The work of this movement did not slow down in the following peri-
od too. On the contrary, it should be said that over time, the movement
became more and more serious. It was obvious that the fi nal goal of the
leaders was to unite Georgia. An introduction in The Description of the
Georgian Kingdom by Vakhushti Bagrationi (1696-1739) is exactly evi-
7
Life of Kartli is the name of principal compendium of medieval Georgian historical texts,
natively known as Kartlis Tskhovreba.
8
Mibchuani, On the bloody footprint, 15.
9
Mibchuani, On the bloody footprint, Ibid., 12.; Janiashvili, “Historical writing – inspiration
for the Ethnocentrism stereotypes,” in 68-70.

ZURAB TARGAMADZE
137
dence of his goals, to create the annals in order to introduce a real history
to the Georgians and thus develop allegiance, common memories and val-
ues system in the country population.10
In the second half of the 18th century, this movement had a wider
scope in the united Kartli and Kakheti.11 Erekle the Second (King of Ka-
kheti in 1744-1762, king of the Kartli and Kakheti in 1762-1798) even
aimed to set a system of common values in all strata of the society by
developing the primary and secondary educational systems (also, by reg-
ulating the legislation and promotion of the socio-economic life), where
the history of Georgia and the Georgian literature were taught together
with other subjects. In 1790, signing the Iverians12 Union Treaty points
out that the political and cultural elite absolutely agreed with the main
postulates adopted by Vakhtangi and Vakhushti. It should be said, that in
the Treaty, where the common origin of Georgians and a historical desti-
ny are underlined, was signed by all the rulers of Georgian kingdoms and
principalities with the exception of Abkhazia.
So, in the 18th century, the Georgian elite tried to revive the feeling of
the common destiny and collective memory icons. They wanted to create
a common valuable system between the Georgians.
In parallel to discussing the meaning of history and memory, Vakhush-
ti Bagrationi made his own defi nition of the Georgian unity. He special-
ly underlined the fact that despite the breakdown into separate kingdoms
and principalities, partitioned Georgia was and still remained united from
the historical and cultural point of view. The mentioned fact is corroborat-
ed by the following:
If you ask any Georgian or Imerian, Meskhian, Heretian or Kakhetian:
“what is your origins?”, they answer “Georgian” immediately. They share
a common book and the language, created by the king Parnavaz I and
when asking the same people: “which language and book do you know?”
– They answer immediately: the Georgian one. They will not say: “the or-
igin, language and written language of Imerians, or Meskhians, Heretians
and Kakhetians, but of the Georgians.13
As we see, Vakhushti determinesthe initial and main feature of the
Georgians. The most importantmarkers are the ethnical origin, language
and alphabet. It is evident from the text that Vakhushti emphasizes the
10
Vakhushti Bagrationi, The Description of the Georgian Kingdom. The text established accord-
ing to all main manuscripts by Simon Kaukhchishvili. ( Tbilisi: Sabchota Sakartvelo), 2, 4.
11
Kartli and Kakheti are the historical and ethnographic regions of the Georgia. After the de-
cline Georgian Kingdom, fractured into several kingdoms and principalities, among them
were kingdom of Kartli and Kakheti.
12
Iveria is a self-name of the Georgians into the old Georgian language.
13
Bagrationi, The Description of the Georgian Kingdom, 291-292.

CONTEMPORARY EURASIA
138
issue of religious unity as well.14 It is obvious that the main goal of the
author is to identify those characteristics that will help to diff erentiate the
Georgian ethno-cultural we-group from the other ones. That is why he
uses the well-known and most sensitive markers, language and religion
as well. The fact, that he exactly knew what he said, is testifi ed by that he
especially underlines the issue of the Mengrels and Svans,15 and points
out that they were the historical and inseparable family members of the
united Georgia, when determining the meaning of a common language
in order to avoid any misunderstanding.16 As for the Abkhazians and Os-
setians, Vakhushti especially points out that none of these peoples have
any ethnic or genetically relations to the Georgian community, unlike the
Mengrels and Svans, and that they do not belong to the Georgian lingual
and cultural group and do not have distinct religious unity with the Geor-
gians. Here is what Vakhushti says about the Abkhazians:
…thieves and robbers, they travel on the sea by the boats, meet the
boats of the Ottomans and the Laz people, govern Odishi and Guria.17 But
rather they are in battle cowards. They are greater resistance and brave in
the sea warriors.18
Also, he specially outlines the fact that “they have their own language,
but rather Georgian language knows only nobility”.19 About Ossetians he
writes the following:
They eat little food in their own country because they are satisfi ed
with the food and water. But when paying a visit, they are greedy of food.
They do not feel brave in the wars, as they are afraid of the armies. But
rather they are brave and secretly creep to armies at night, ill-bred and
fool, free and proud of their own country, they are modest and speak
wisely, thieves, deceitful and greedy, acquisitive, libertine, captive buyers
sell them abroad.20
As for the knowledge of the language: ‘only the leaders and the walk-
ers in Kartli and Racha,21 are speaking Georgian language...’ (Bagrationi,
1973, 639).22
14
Ibid.,15, 25.
15
Mengrels and Svans are Georgian subgroups. They speak the Svanian and Mengrelian lan-
guage and are mostly bilingual. These languages belong to the Kartvelian language family
too.
16
Bagrationi, The Description of the Georgian Kingdom, 783, 788.
17
Odishi is the name of historical part of west Georgia and another name of the Mengrels prin-
cipality. Guria is one of the historical and ethnographic regions of Georgia.
18
Bagrationi, The Description of the Georgian Kingdom, 785-786.
19
Ibid., 786.
20
Ibid., 637.
21
Racha is an old Georgian historical and geographical region.
22
Bagrationi, The Description of the Georgian Kingdom, 639.

ZURAB TARGAMADZE
139
Naturally, Vakhushti mentions the positive facts about the Abkhazians
and Ossetians, but mostly about their external physical characteristics and
not about the qualitative, cultural and ethnic characteristics, which could
have a positive infl uence on formation of the mood of Georgian community.
It should be noted, that Vakhushti was the representative of the Kartli
ruling dynasty, whose avowed goal was to restore the united statehood of
Georgia. In this period, many important and pragmatic steps were taken
both in the foreign and internal aff airs. The Description of the Georgian
Kingdom by Vakhushti was the text, which could and even should have
become a textbook for the political leaders of the kingdoms and principal-
ities of Georgia in the future.
When the author underlines his own task to develop unifi ed conscious-
ness, especially such emphasis about the issue of ethnic minorities, he
makes us think that the goal of the author was to limit the Georgian eth-
no-cultural space, where as we can see did not leave the place for Ab-
khazians and Ossetians. Considering the above mentioned facts, we mean
establishment of printing house, forming educational system and so on,
we think, that the cultural movement, which has been developed during
the 18th century, at least for the last decades of the century, overgrown to
nationalism.
As for the next periods Ilia Chavchavadze, in his lifetime referred as
father of Georgian nation, developed the concepts which were used in
18th century too. The diff erence was, that if in the e18th century elites
were more faithful to these ideas, in the second half of 19th century,
thanks to the printed media, they became public.23 That time was dis-
tinguished by even the fact that, if in the early period, especially for the
beginning of the genesis of the ideas of Georgian nationalism, this ideas
were focused on the ethnic, religious and cultural unity (and it must be so
at this time), later for balance, Ilia Chavchavadze installed the idea of the
common historical past into the core of Georgian nationalism.24
On May 26, 1918 by establishing the Democratic Republic of Geor-
gia, essentially a new stage started in the history of the Georgian national-
ism. The existed situation was interesting from various points of view. By
foundation of the state, the Georgian nationalistic project was put to the
test. Also, it was interesting that the privilege of foundation the state fell
to the Mensheviks wing of the social-democrats. Especially, on the back-
ground of the strained nationalistic sentiments and regional political con-
23
Aleksandre Gabisonia, “Formation of the Georgian National Discourse,” Identity Studies #4,
(2012): 70-71.
24
Mariam Ckhartishvili, Ketevan Mania, Coverage of the Process of the Georgian National
Consolidation in print Media: Georgians as Readers of Iveria, Volumes IV, part. I. (Tbilisi:
Universali, 2011), 539.

CONTEMPORARY EURASIA
140
ditions, propagandizing international ideas by the leaders of a sovereign
state would be at least politically disadvantageous. That is why the regu-
lation of processes was made free. An irony of fate, even for the Menshe-
vik government, the main goal became the independence and the main-
tenance of national unity.25 Even in this case like the 1801, the forming
process of Georgian nationalism canceled Russia’s invasion.
Military attack with ethnic minorities in 1918-1921, and then soviet-
ization of Georgia, the process of shifting from the ethnical concepts to
the civic stopped. After the loss of independence, actualization of ethnical
sentiments was expected.
The Georgian writer, who became a victim of repressions in 1937, by
his novel Jako’s Lodgers, published in 1924, responds to the events de-
veloped in Georgia in the twentieth century. In the novel Jako’s Lodgers,
the author demonstrated the two sores of the nation – the last off spring of
the feudal aristocracy, the prince Teimuraz Khevistavi outcasted by the
revolutionary Epoch and the Ossetian Jako, full of predator’s energy and
with an evil soul,26 who stole his own property and even wife. Jako as
a predator was not just a literary character, he represented the common
image of an Ossetian settler with consciousness of a Georgian man. The
novels by Aleksandre Kazbegi are also full of negative messages towards
Ossetians. An Ossetian is represented as a dissembler and liar, a person
who is an antagonist and can take liberties of doing things that are unac-
ceptable for a Georgian person.27 The same author enlivens the character
of an Ossetian captive and kidnapper seller – Makhameta, in his novel
Elguja. 28
It is interesting that in this period we fi nd the literary compositions
written about the Abkhazians and Abkhazia, where in contrast to the Os-
setians, relatively positive messages are given. On the one hand, it should
have been caused by that policy of the right of motion’s to self-determi-
nation, which had a great scope in the Soviet period and excluded the
ethno-national confrontation and on the other hand, by a long-term his-
torical experience, propelled them peacefully solved inherent problems.
As for the evidently negative attitudes towards Ossetians, it should have
been caused by the especially complex migration processes in the 19th
and 20th centuries.
25
Zurab Targamadze, “Georgian Interpretation of a National Issue,” Georgian Source-Studies
XVII-XVIII, (2015/2016): 238.
26
MIkheil Javakhishvili,“Jakho’s Lodgers,” Georgian soviet novel., (Tbilisi: Merani, 1985),
9-10.
27
Aleksandre Kazbegi,“Tsitsia”. Stories and Novels, volumes 2, 2:67-163, (Tbilisi: Sabchota
Sakartvelo, 1962 b), 125,127.
28
Aleksandre Kazbegi, “Elguja”. Stories and Novels, volumes 1:44-195, (Tbilisi: Sabchota
Sakartvelo, 1962 a), 47.

ZURAB TARGAMADZE
141
Confl icts and nationalism: pre, soviet and post soviet period
Georgian nationalism is characterized by a lot of stigmas, understand-
ing of which is impossible without realizing it. But the question is – Is it
possible to answer the questions, contents of which are not dictated by
the needs of a modern life, by reconstruction of the past? Probably no! At
least, possible multitude answers often off er us completely new explana-
tions, which are adjusted to the present tense, instead of describing past
stories objectively. Especially, when the truth we are striving to gain is at
odds with dormant ideas of our own imagination. Those imaginations are
becoming real in parallel with this or that threat having a national charac-
ter. After passing, it is lost back into a deep memory. The dialogue in the
form of questions and answers, is determined by the content of the ques-
tions. For this reason, needed answers are impossible to fi nd neither by
historians and politicians nor by ordinary people.29
Although the 18th century is the period when the historically formed
conceptions became bricks for developing of nationalism, the visions of
modern Georgian regarding: others, gender, age, traditions, ancestry,
past, mourning, happiness, birth, death, the West, the East are totally con-
nected with a Soviet narrative and what they have in common with the
same categories, historically shaped in Georgian’s outlook, is only the
fact that they are distorted copies of true ideas. Thus, this is a society with
a bifurcated consciousness in the imagination of which there are actually
confi rmed memory-defi ned icons and symbols formed on Georgian his-
torical grounds on the one hand and on the other hand, those symbols are
parts of a Soviet history as well and accordingly, they dwell in Georgians
consciousness as Soviet icons too. Twenty-fi ve years of independence
was not enough to overcome this resistance.
Reproduction of the nationalism ideas in Soviet Georgia, despite the
fact, that the central government had announced the nationalism as a
chauvinistic and a reactionary, did not stop. Reasons for that, with other
factors as well, was strongly defi ned cultural identity of Georgian unity.
During the Soviet times national ideas were transformed and unlike the
concept, developed by Ilia Chavchavadze, which referred to ethnic and
cultural movements, but eventually was directed towards the formation of
a general social consensus:30 feeling of the ethnic and cultural preferences
has become central and uncontested.
29
Georgian society, is still not released from Soviet mentality, has blurred visions about its own
culture and history, which is becoming even more blurred by public eff orts of collective re-
fl ection.
30
Ckhartishvili, Mania, Coverage of the Process, 104.

CONTEMPORARY EURASIA
142
In exchange to the party functionaries commitment to the Soviet pol-
icy, denationalization and plenty of practical examples of a particular
progress in this regard, Georgians received a myth about their own elit-
ism. Popularization of this myth especially helped unnatural mixing of
the civil self-consciousness, which itself was due to the development of
the Media opportunities at this period, with ethno-cultural conceptions. In
reality, at the expense of those compromises, were carried out dismantle
and falsifi cation of Georgian national ideas.31
It should be noted that this process accidentally was helped by the
Georgian historians. Despite the fact, that the majority of factual and
chronological discussions regarding various issues of Georgian history in
the Soviet Georgian historiography refl ect historical reality, the context,
where those ideas dominated and articulated, created and still creates arti-
fi cial barriers for understanding historically established ideas of Georgian
nationalism. In turn, neither Ossetian nor Abkhazian historians were dis-
tinguished with their balanced position.
The way, which stimulated Georgian ethnic nationalism in the Soviet
period, as we have already mentioned, passed through belief of its cul-
tural elitism and uniqueness. On the one hand, this fact comforted a hu-
man soul, who had lost independence and on the other hand, it played on
its pride.32 Soviet narrative reached the compatibility of multicultural and
multiethnic environment with the principles of elitism, through margin-
alization of a national tradition of Georgian tolerance, hospitability and
respect for foreigners. That is why Georgians stunned by the progress of
processes today, cannot clarify its essence and absolutely sincerely cannot
understand the reason of the ‘ingratitude’ Abkhazian and Ossetian people
show in exchange for the favor they expressed over the centuries.
The fundamentals of the belief of Georgian ethnic group, as a sort of su-
per-ethnie, shall be searched in a deep historical past, still in the 10th centu-
ry. When term Georgia serves as a sort of social-cultural purpose together
with its ethnic and political meanings.33 However, during the Soviet era, at-
tachment and faith with these ideas became much stronger and what is the
most important, they were transformed into a new idea of the Soviet home-
land and were perceived on an organic level. So much so, that the trauma
caused by Russia’s starting the invasion of Georgia in 1801 and collapse of
Soviet Union in 1991, turned to be equally destructive for Georgians.
In 1990s the breakage of Soviet Union, the ideas of nationalism start-
ed to grow up in parallel to the national movement and gaining the inde-
31
Targamadze, “Georgian Interpretation of a National Issue,” 232.
32
Ibid., 232, 237.
33
George Anchabadze, “Principal Stages of Ethnical Development of the Georgian Nation
from Ancient Times to the Phase of National Formation,” Identity Studies #1, (2009): 60.

ZURAB TARGAMADZE
143
pendence. Formation of a new national narrative was conducted in a form
of patriotic spirit and protection of home territories, its historical borders,
the idea of autochthony of Georgians and faith to it, including the claim
that the others had not been there. Thevast majority of these slogans were
well known for a Soviet version of Georgian nationalism too, but now
they came to life and started real action. In parallel, the Soviet myths about
Georgian – Abkhazian and Georgian – Ossetian idyll, were still existing.34
Keeping the faith, that they have nothing to fi ght with Abkhazians, Osse-
tians and anyone,hashelped to overcome complex of late nations.
So, we should not be surprised that the confl icts are perceived diff er-
ently in a modern Georgian community and that there are contradictory
opinions parallel to each other. You can meet people, who categorically
deny the basis of ethnic confrontation. They believe that those are the
processes, which are clearly externally managed. However, it is interest-
ing that when the same people are asked to characterize, for example, Os-
setians, Abkhazians or even other ethnic minorities according to specifi c
features that are salient only for those ethno-cultures, it becomes diffi cult
to select positive evaluations, which will indicate the narrator’s sincere
benevolence. We can fi nd controversial discussions in modern studies as
well. For example, one of the Georgian authors, who discusses the history
of Georgian – Abkhazian relationship, despite his claim that the contro-
versy is inspired by the third force only, points out at the end of his book:
We cannot say that there were no conditions – political, social-eco-
nomic, religious and others for the controversy of Georgians and Abkha-
zians, which became a fact at the beginning of this century and subse-
quently deepened.35
Today does not have any signifi cance what kind of political, cultural
and genetic transformations were experienced by Abkhazians and Osse-
tians really. The fact is that the political claims of Abkhazian and Osse-
tian people, though, in our opinion they do not have any objective basis,
are established on such historical and ethno-cultural concepts.
In 1993, a signifi cant part of Georgian society opposed the nostalgia
of a big Russian brother and a better life, activated as a result of a coup,
civil confl ict and economic collapse, with a radical understanding of na-
tionhood. In such conditions, the issue of ethnic minorities took on the
role of society unifi er again. We can say that all the variations forming the
34
M. Gaprindashvili, et al., For the distortion of the Georgian-Abkhazian relations 3, 68; Ga-
makharia, From the history of Georgian-Abkhazian relations, 131; Totadze,The Ossets in
Georgia: Myth and Reality, 5, 35. (accessed at: http://darbr.webs.com/OSETI_latinuri.pdf
and others.
35
Gamakharia, From the history of Georgian-Abkhazian relations, 132.

CONTEMPORARY EURASIA
144
Georgian nationalism were unsuccessful and even for the end of the 20th
century, as it seems is not still enough near to its civil form. The Qualita-
tively new and the most important stage for the Georgian nationalism was
the Rose Revolution in 2003, when nationalism as a political idea began
to grow up. Processes, which began after this event, are still going.
Political line of the Georgian nationalism is examined by the Russia
– Georgia war in 2008, after what completely diff erent agenda has been
formed. If Russia used to play the role of a neutral party formally, this
time its overt military intervention in the sovereign territory of Georgia
meant to enter into an open and direct confrontation.
However, in our opinion only now Georgia was given the chance to
fi nish its establishing as a state–nation. Western political values and shar-
ing of them on the civic level, its connection with the faith of our future,
gave us the chance to solve and clarify our problems with peace of mind.
Conclusion
As we have already mentioned, there are numerous literature on
confl ict issue: books and articles are still written, conferences and pub-
lic meetings are conducted, and confl icts are discussed in everyday life.
Nowadays the most important intellectual challenge is understanding of
the basis of the confrontation. Clarifi cation of the essence of the confl ict
is signifi cantly related to the research of Georgian nationalism issues. As
we have seen, its perception is entirely linked to historical challenges.
Such research requires a careful and detail study of the issue; therefore
the present article doesn’t complete the deal with the theme. On the con-
trary, it may cause additional questions and interest, which requires to be
newly researched more and more materials.
However, what we can say from our standpoint? It is obvious that
since the nineteenth century Russia has played a negative role in the re-
lation of ethnic groups, living in Georgia. However, belief of Georgian
society that the problem is externally generated and it has only a political
character is not entirely true. Vakhushti Bagrationi’s Description of the
Georgian Kingdom, also the revived characters through the literature and
verbal icons among the people, shows that at least, since the last decades
of the eighteenth century, when the postulates of cultural movement be-
comes as an ideas of nationalism, Georgian narrative due to some kind of
ethno-cultural reasons absorbs negative messages towards Ossetian and
Abkhazian population. Ethno-cultural authentifi cation, which primarily
aimed to highlight the unity of Georgians, continued in the 19th century,

ZURAB TARGAMADZE
145
but at this time more emphasis was on historical-cultural moments and
has outlined to the civil ambitions.
For the 20th century, the issue of nationalism can be divided into sev-
eral phases: 1. In the Soviet period Georgian ethnic nationalism was en-
couraged, connected with the sense of elitism; 2. In 1990s, after acqui-
sition of independence and subsequent military confl ict, ethno-cultural
elitism is replaced by patriotic ideas and ideas of protection of homeland
borders, in Georgian nationalism, which was prompted primarily by the
wish of building a democratic society; 3. Rose Revolution became some-
thing like turning point for Georgian nationalism from the transforming
the old Georgian nationalistic ideas to the new and strong feeling of polit-
ical identity.
And fi nally, Russia’s negative role in aggravation of Georgian con-
fl icts cannot cover the fact that the Abkhazian and Ossetian people have
shared their propaganda, and although, they were acting according to the
Russian policy, today this choice is their national position. Although the
aforementioned issues are studied on a continuous basis, the sooner the
ethno-cultural prejudices are identifi ed, the sooner Georgians will know
what they want and where they are going.

167
AUTHORS LIST
Artsrun Hovhannisyan, PhD
Military analyst, The main fi elds of his research include military strategy, theory of
wars, military warfare, future wars, military technologies and global armament trends.
Tina Kharatyan
MA in Political Science and International Aff airs, American University of Armenia.
Main fi eld of research is the IR fi eld focusing on politics in the South Caucasus and Arme-
nia-Azerbaijan relations particularly.
Araks Pashayan, PhD
Leading research fellow, Department of the Arab Countries IOS, NAS RA. Main fi eld
of her scientifi c interests are Saudi Arabia, political Islam, Islamic factor in regional and
international aff airs, Armenian communities of Arab countries.
Gor Gevorgyan, PhD
Assoc., Prof., Senior Research Fellow of the Department of Arab Countries at the In-
stitute of Oriental Studies, NAS RA. Main fi elds of his research include domestic and for-
eign political issues of Egypt, Arab–Israeli confl ict and the Inter-Arab relations.
Hranush Dermoyan
MA in Political Science and International Aff airs, American University of Armenia.
Main fi eld of research is the Turkish coup attempt of 2016, its diff erences from previous
coups and similarities, civil-military relations theories and their peculiarities in the Turk-
ish case.
Liana Hayrapetyan
MA in Political science and international aff airs, American University of Armenia.
The main fi elds of research are the foreign policy of Russia, confl icts of the Middle East,
security dynamics in the Caucasus.
Zurab Targamadze
PhD student at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. Sphere of his interest is
Georgian ethnic and national identity in medieval and modern period.
Mushegh Ghahriyan, PhD
Research Fellow at the Department of International Relations, Institute of Orien-
tal Studies, NAS RA. Main fi elds of his research are the Kurdish issue in Iraq and other
countires of the Middle East, modern history of the Arab countries.
Lilit Galstyan
MA in Political Science and International Aff airs. The main fi elds of her research are
the Armenian foreign policy, the confl ict over Nagorno-Karabakh, the South Caucasus,
the Kurdish issue in Turkey and the Israeli-Palestinian confl ict.
Kristne Margaryan
MA in Political Science and International Aff airs, American University of Armenia.
The main fi eld of research is International Relations with the emphasis on South Caucasus
region and Armenia-Azerbaijan relations.

CONTEMPORARY EURASIA
International Journal of Eurasian Geopolitics
VOLUME VII (1,2)
EDITED BY RUBEN SAFRASTYAN
Sպագր թյ նը՝ օֆսեթ: Չափսը՝ 60x100 1/16: Ծավալը՝ 10,5 Sպ. մամ լ:
_____________________________________________________________
Sպագրվել է «ՎՄՎ-ՊՐԻՆS» ՍՊԸ հրատարակչ թյան տպարան մ
Հասցեն՝ ԱզաS թյան 24/11, հեռ. 28 54 28
E-mail: vmv_print@yahoo.com
www.vmv-print.am

Scanned with CamScanner