RUSSIAN DFM KARASIN'S REPLY TO LETTER FROM U/S

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 005532

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/25/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR OSCE GG RS
SUBJECT: RUSSIAN DFM KARASIN'S REPLY TO LETTER FROM U/S
BURNS ON SOUTH OSSETIA

REF: A) STATE 80906 B) MOSCOW 5458 C) MOSCOW 5375

Classified By: Minister Counselor for Political Affairs Kirk Augustine.
Reason 1.4 (b, d)


1. (C) The Russian MFA on May 25 passed to us without comment
a written reply from DFM Grigoriy Karasin to the May 19
letter U/S Burns sent him on South Ossetia (Ref A). The
letter echoes the principal arguments Karasin made during his
May 23 conversation with the Ambassador (Ref B). We
understand from the MFA that the text of the letter will also
be delivered through the Russian Embassy in Washington. An
unofficial Embassy translation follows in para 2.


2. (C) Begin text:

Dear Nicholas,

Thank you for your communication of 19 May, in which you
share your concerns with regard to the state of affairs in
the Georgian-Ossetian resolution and the role of Russia in
that process.

On the whole, our goals and approaches coincide in the desire
to facilitate the creation of conditions that would secure a
peaceful, non-violent resolution of conflict situations and
prevent new bloodshed in the Transcaucasus. Toward that end
we are prepared for constructive cooperation with all
partners, including the United States.

I think it unfortunate that, as one may infer from your
letter, there is a tendency in Washington to rely on
assessments based on one-sided and often distorted
information. It appears that in the State Department a quite
influential lobby is making itself felt, at whose instigation
an algorithm of actions aimed at the unambiguous -- and
uncritical -- support of "its people" in Tbilisi is taking
shape.

I will not get into polemics on the whole list of charges
brought up in your message, as that would require a more
thorough discussion. I want, however, to make some comments.

Assistance to South Ossetia in the socio-economic sphere by
the North Ossetian region is in complete conformity with the
Russian-Georgian Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation
and Reconstruction of the Economy in the Zone of the
Georgian-Ossetian Conflict and Return of Refugees of 23
December 2000.

It (the Agreement) provides specifically that Russia and
Georgia will support the initiative of
administrative-territorial institutions, enterprises and
organizations to assist the South Ossetian side.

The rebuke with regard to the participation of Russian
citizens in the government of South Ossetia is, in my view,
groundless. Russian citizens have the right to work where
they desire as, incidentally, do citizens of other democratic
states, including the U.S.A.

Our people would not understand the Government of Russia, if
it -- in the era of democracy -- dictated to citizens where
to live and work. One would think that a similar ban on the
part of our partners in the West would justifiably be subject
to criticism. As far as I know, many members of the South
Ossetian government who came from Russia possess in one way
or another roots or kinship relations with the Ossetian
people who, by the way, do not divide themselves along
geographical lines.

Residents of South Ossetia are in fact acquiring Russian
citizenship and, accordingly, document themselves with
Russian passports. However, this process did not begin only
recently, but rather immediately after the withdrawal of
Georgia from the USSR, i.e., fifteen years ago. Moreover,
many South Ossetians acquired Russian citizenship during the
military phase of the conflict between Tbilisi and
Tskhinvali. I would stress that the acquisition by residents

SIPDIS
of South Ossetia of Russian citizenship took place and is
taking place in strict accordance with relevant Russian
legislation.

It struck me as somewhat strange that the letter contained no
recognition of the clear progress that has been achieved in
recent months on a Georgian-Ossetian resolution. I have in
mind above all the significant results of the two recent
sessions of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) in Vladikavkaz
and Tskhinvali (incidentally, you also did not favor the JCC
itself with a mention).


MOSCOW 00005532 002 OF 002


We evaluate the work of the Commission positively, and that
evaluation is shared by Georgia, the OSCE and EU. In
particular, it is a positive sign that in Tskhinvali working
groups of the JCC were formed for the elaboration of a joint
program of action to resolve the Georgian-Ossetian conflict,
and a list of projects was agreed for the socio-economic
rehabilitation of the zone of conflict, which will be
presented for consideration at the Donors' Conference in
Brussels.

Incidentally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that the Georgian side stubbornly refuses to adopt, jointly
with the South Ossetian side, a declaration in which might be
fixed mutual security guarantees and obligations on the
non-use of force (the initiative for such a document was, as
is well known, promoted by the OSCE). I am convinced that
such a declaration, signed at a high level, would be an
important confidence-building factor between the sides, and
would facilitate the creation of the psychological and
political context necessary for real progress in a
resolution. I suppose that our colleagues in Washington
might wish to recommend to their Georgian partners a more
constructive and flexible approach to this issue.

Such a document on the non-renewal of hostilities is highly
relevant and applicable to the Georgian-Abkhazia resolution,
where we have also noticed positive steps as a result of the
session of the Coordinating Council held on May 15. Apropos
of the potential for Russian-American cooperation on the
problems of the conflicts in the Transcaucasus, the unity of
our approaches is symbolized in the issue of the prospect for
prolonging the mandate of the UN Secretary General's Special
Representative for Georgia H(eidi) Tagliavini.

In conclusion, I would like to stress the following. We are
convinced that Russia and the U.S.A. are capable of joint
efforts to make a substantial contribution to reinforce
peace, stability and security in the Transcaucasus. However,
we must act in that direction in conditions of positive
mutual understanding, and not through mutual rebukes and a
negative tone. As you may be able to imagine, we, too, have
our own issues with the United States and its not entirely
impartial policies in the region (for example, Washington is
hardly unaware of deliveries of weapons to Georgia by some of
its NATO allies).

With regard to the agenda of the G8, I would like to say that
as far as I am aware, there are no plans to touch in this
format on issues of Transcaucasian conflicts with the
exception of Nagorno-Karabakh. In that regard I was
extremely surprised that this question was raised in your
letter.

I think, Nicholas, that we have accumulated enough themes for
a detailed discussion in Moscow in early June. Let us
resolve to seek mutually agreeable approaches based on
objectivity and taking each other's interests into account.

With respect
/s/

G. Karasin

End text.
BURNS