BLOG

For many partners, we were not seen as an independent political and cultural space but rather as part of the post-Soviet region, viewed almost exclusively through the prism of Russia. We, Georgian diplomats, had to invest considerable time and effort explaining who we were and where we came from: that we were not a U.S. state, but a Black Sea country; that we neither wrote nor spoke Russian, but had our own language and unique alphabet. Perhaps the greatest revelation for many was that we were not a distant pagan tribe but an ancient Christian nation.

This is worth recalling because, at the turn of the century and in the decade that followed, high-ranking officials visiting Georgia considered it an honour to be received by Patriarch Ilia II. It soon became almost customary for visiting delegations to request such an audience. His Holiness never hesitated and welcomed all who wished to meet him, not just Orthodox or Christian guests, but people from all countries, international organisations, and faiths. As a Foreign Ministry official, I accompanied delegations to meetings with the Patriarch on several occasions. To be clear, these were not just courtesy calls or photo opportunities. They were real diplomatic meetings where pressing topics for Georgia’s security and global politics were discussed in depth.

The Patriarch spoke of Georgians as a European people and of Georgia as a European state. He emphasised that, through our faith, history, culture, and values, we had always belonged to Europe, and that only the distortions of history had separated us from our natural habitat. He would cite examples of Georgian monarchs’ efforts to build ties and secure alliances with European monarchies and stress that the time had come for Georgia to fully integrate into Europe.

Alongside Europe, he always spoke about NATO. He believed that the security of a small country like Georgia, situated in such a volatile region, could only be ensured through NATO membership, and that Georgia should therefore be admitted into the Alliance.

His deepest pain and concern were Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region. It was evident that he experienced these issues as a personal wound. I cannot recall a single instance in which he did not ask the guest to mediate with Russia, so that Moscow would help us regain control of those territories.

It is also worth noting that when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepared visits by foreign delegations, we circulated talking points to all the relevant agencies, outlining the issues deemed appropriate for discussion. I may be mistaken and will not generalise, but I do not recall ever preparing talking points for the Patriarch. In truth, even if I had, I could hardly have expressed them better than he did himself.

One episode from that time illustrates this particularly well. In 2001, while serving as Ambassador to NATO, I attended a weekly ambassadorial meeting where the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Spanish MP Rafael Estrella, was a guest. He presented a report on the Assembly’s activities over the past year and, among other issues, referred to visits to various countries, including Georgia. At one point, he remarked: “We had many interesting meetings in Georgia, but I would especially like to highlight one that left an indelible impression on me—the meeting with the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, Ilia II. I was so impressed by our conversation that I wished I had foreign policy advisers as experienced as those advising him.

After the meeting, I approached Mr Estrella to thank him for his kind words. I told him that, to the best of my knowledge, the Patriarch had no specially assigned foreign policy advisers and that everything he had discussed reflected his own personal views. He found this difficult to believe but asked me to convey his remarks, along with warm regards, to the Patriarch. When I later told this story to His Holiness, a faint smile crossed his face.

Much is being written today about the Patriarch and his legacy, and in the years to come, even more will be said and written. For my part, I would simply note that he played a significant role in representing the newly independent Georgian state with dignity on the international stage, articulating the country’s strategic interests and helping shape the image of Georgia not as a Russian backyard, but as an independent European state. He did so with a clarity and persuasiveness that often surpassed many politicians.

One might argue that in a secular state, each institution should remain within its own domain, and legally this is, of course, correct. Yet throughout Georgian history, the clergy has often assumed broader responsibilities in times of national hardship. Over the course of his half-century of service, Ilia II did not confine himself solely to ecclesiastical duties. At critical moments for the country, he was actively engaged in the political and diplomatic sphere. His personal charisma, rooted in a profound and genuine love for people, often proved more effective than even the most carefully prepared diplomatic arguments.

Tomorrow, we will lay Ilia II to rest. What concerns me today is that we must not allow the era he helped shape to be buried with him. As the Georgian poet Nikoloz Baratashvili wrote: “The striving of my restless soul will not have been in vain.” I hope that this will also be said of Ilia II and of the era he shaped for us as a nation.

21 March 2026