“When the Azerbaijani authorities take such steps and begin work on a Georgian church without notifying at least the Ministry of Culture, the Azerbaijani side made a mistake. However, I think there was a lack of caution on Georgia’s part, and we received a very unpleasant response. It would have been much more appropriate for the Patriarchate to have brought the issue to the government and for the two governments to discuss it with each other,” EU policy researcher Kakha Gogolashvili said on PalitraNews’ program "Day's Newsroom" while assessing the issues surrounding the Kurmukhi Church located in Azerbaijan.

According to Gogolashvili, if countries want good relations, they should not bring every issue to television and escalate tensions, because between states that are still in the process of consolidating their institutions and have not even resolved their delimitation issues, many things can become sources of conflict.

“Probably, everyone made mistakes here to some extent. First of all, in Azerbaijan’s case, regardless of whether there is a treaty framework or some international agreement between us establishing rules of conduct concerning Georgian cultural monuments or Azerbaijani cultural monuments in Georgia, there is simply morality, goodwill between countries and an obligation to notify the other side.

“Accordingly, when the Azerbaijani authorities take such steps, begin work on a Georgian church and do not coordinate it or notify at least the Ministry of Culture, the Azerbaijani side is certainly making a mistake. That is my view, and no one will convince me otherwise.

“Likewise, instead of the reaction that followed from the Georgian Patriarchate, it might have been much more appropriate for them to have brought the issue to the government and for the governments to talk to each other. It is not impossible that the statement was provocative. There are countless reasons at any given time for us to create a conflict with each other - Gareji was a very good example.

“If countries want good relations, they cannot put everything on television and escalate tensions. There are many potential causes for this in such circumstances. States are still in the process of consolidation - when you do not have demarcated borders, it means you are still at a stage of state formation, and diplomacy must be at the forefront, together with caution.

“I think there was a lack of caution on Georgia’s part here, and we received a very unpleasant response. Therefore, it is better to view Azerbaijan’s statement now as quite harsh, but we should not consider it absolutely wrong or as if Azerbaijan is taking something away from us, because legally, it is correct,” Kakha Gogolashvili said.

Regarding other issues, in connection with the 33rd year of the fall of Sokhumi, the analyst also focused on the issue of Georgia’s occupation and the policy of the central government, saying that expressions of remorse are completely inappropriate from a political perspective.

“From a human and public-morality perspective, the path of remorse is very important. Legally and politically, however, we genuinely do not have to apologize, because everything was systematically done to pit Abkhaz against Georgians and Ossetians against Georgians. This was the policy of an empire - not only the Soviet Empire, but even earlier. From a legal standpoint, Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region are, of course, part of Georgia, and this needs to be resolved.

“The logic of Georgian Dream leads in the direction of ultimately preparing everything for the signing of a non-aggression pact with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Under international law, signing such a document means recognizing that the other party has the authority to enter into an agreement. In other words, you recognize that it can conclude an international agreement with you and that it is a subject of international law.

“This concerns international perceptions and attitudes. When the international community sees that Georgia has concluded some kind of interstate or quasi-interstate agreements, it practically amounts to recognition that they have a legitimate right to govern that territory.

“Ultimately, the main problem is that proposals for agreements and relations in this form are being made solely with the aim of maximally hindering any Georgian attempt to regain these territories and making it easier for pro-Russian forces, and subsequently Russia, to legitimize these territories.

“Even recently, Georgia’s response to various violations of international law concerning Georgia has been very rare, whether it is the holding of elections or other matters. There is very little reaction, and this fits into this policy.

“This policy benefits only Russia, because the less Georgia responds, the more international partners will believe that Georgia has come to terms with the situation and that these territories do not belong to it.

“I am not opposed to easing the conflict, resolving it or developing human relations. But if this serves to legally legitimize the seizure and appropriation of Georgian territories by another force, then, of course, such measures cannot be accepted,” Kakha Gogolashvili said.