Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and his military advisors
On Monday, Russia Blog documented the economic pain from the Georgian government's game of chicken with Russia. Now several American foreign policy thinkers are asking what the U.S. has to gain from further conflict in the Caucuses, and leaders of the Georgian opposition are speaking out, telling Westerners that the democratic promise of the 2003 Rose Revolution has been betrayed by the politics of impoverished nationalism.
This week America's Future Foundation and German Council on Foreign Relations scholars Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman published an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune with the pointed title "Let's Get Real". The co-authors of the book "Ethical Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World" call for a major initiative to permanently resolve the conflict between Russia and Georgia over the disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Lieven and Hulsman ask why the West maintains double standards about self-determination for NATO-hosting Kosovo but not for parts of Georgia that host Russian troops and wish to join the Russian Federation. Lieven and Hulsman single out Senator John McCain for criticism, alleging that sympathy for the Georgian cause in Congress has unintentionally fueled Saakashvili's delusion that Washington will bail him out in any confrontation with Russia.
Yesterday the Japan Times newspaper published an article by Georgian opposition leader Igor Giorgadze, accusing Saakashvili's pro-U.S. government of jailing its political opponents. Since few Americans (even those who closely follow world politics) may have the opportunity to read this story, we have decided to reproduce it in the extended post.
Repression Belies Rhetoric in Georgia
by Igor Giorgadze
Japan Times
October 3, 2006
TBILISI -- In recent weeks, leaders of various opposition organizations in Georgia, such as Anti-Soros and Fairness, have been jailed on unfair accusations of plotting a coup on behalf of Russia. But the wave of political repression merely reflects President Mikhail Saakashvili's desperate effort to cling to power.
With popular dissent growing and opposition forces strengthening, the authorities have sought to control nongovernmental organizations and strengthen the security forces. But this will only make mass protests inevitable, ultimately jeopardizing the democratic transition in Georgia that Saakashvili claims to represent.
Saakashvili sees a "Moscow hand" in every challenge to his authority, which could be explained by his government's close alliance with the United States. But the people rounded up in the latest raid against the opposition were originally imprisoned by Eduard Shevarnadze's government, which Saakashvili helped depose in Georgia's supposedly democratic "rose revolution" in 2003.
The latest events clearly indicate that a czarist mentality survived the revolution, reflected in a Byzantine model of political power -- an emperor and his court -- that has as its main vehicle largely unconstrained presidential authority. Before the security forces targeted the opposition bloc that I represent, supporters of educational reforms were prosecuted, while most of the press came under the influence of the government.
Saakashvili claims that the opposition forces that I represent oppose Western values. But we advocate parliamentarism -- genuine separation of executive and legislative power -- in Georgia. And, in supporting the Western model of parliamentarism, we are on the side of Georgia, not Russia. It is strange that Saakashvili, a graduate of Columbia Law School, fails to see the disparity between his own democratic rhetoric and autocratic actions.
Those of us who value Georgia's historical ties with Russia are called, at best, "archaists" and, at worst, "enemies of Georgian independence," as if Georgia would become a Russian colony if we ever came to power. But what separates us from Saakashvili is that we understand that history, geography and economics dictate close ties to Russia.
We simply see no contradiction between that stance and support for Western values. Indeed, even Russia, with all its imperfections, cannot be said to oppose Western values.
The unfortunate paradox in Georgia -- and elsewhere in the post-Soviet world -- is that self-serving pro-Western rhetoric has often led democratic values to be sacrificed in favor of a new dictatorship. When the West actively supports popular revolutions, as in Georgia and Ukraine, the newly established power relies on democratic slogans, not democratic behavior.
Shevardnadze, too, was initially viewed as a symbol of post-Soviet Georgian democracy. As a government minister in 1993, however, I was already hearing CIA officials express concern that a "Mafia state" was being created instead.
First with Shevarnadze, and now with Saakashvili, popular disillusionment reflects not rejection of democracy, but frustration with its continuing absence. Saakashvili is evidently mesmerized by the U.S., and the West in general, but what is the point if there is no independent and democratic political process in Georgia today?
And why, then, is sustaining close ties to the U.S. so desirable, while refusing to dismiss Russia as a partner is regarded as being an agent of the Kremlin? Is the U.S., in contrast to Russia, by definition honest, innocent and high-minded?
There should be no place for such unfortunate double standards. Regardless of what the Saakashvili government claims about his opponents, our political orientation is not pro-Russian, but pro-Georgian. We believe that Georgia should pursue its own interests, which it may share with Europe, Russia or the U.S., but which are nonetheless our own.
We have no interest in merely executing U.S. policy, or in basing Georgia's foreign and domestic policy solely on distancing the country from Russia, as Saakashvili has done.
Thus, pro-Georgian politics should not countenance nationalism. Nowadays, some of our politicians have embraced the slogan "Georgia for Georgians." But nationalism suggests the lack of a coherent conception of Georgia's interests. Georgia's tradition as a multinational, tolerant state, which has been weakened in the last 15 years, must be reinvigorated, because we have no need for enemies against which to define ourselves.
A strong relationship with Russia need not come at the expense of relations with America and the West, and vice versa. Georgia should be neither pro-Russian nor pro-American. It is a small, poor country that desperately needs stability and economic development.
Its model should not be Palestine and permanent battle, but Switzerland and permanent prosperity.
Igor Giorgadze is the head of the bloc of opposition political parties in Georgia.
hi all,
learning about Georgia and trying to understand it
sanctions and cut offs, only do damage...
we dont do that and just keep trying diplomacy sharing
diplomacy sharing is far more democratic....
just a wee thought
artist australia
JHH
Thanks Charles for posting the article. Mr. Giorgadze makes some good points. Nothing will be solved by playing the nationalism card, especially in this part of the world where you have so many different ethnic groups all crammed together. With each ethnic group having such a long memory, pretty much everyone can remember something to be grievous about, with concerns to another ethnic group. Unless you could just erase everyone's memory, it is tough to see how anything will ever improve over the long run. It is definitly a tough nut to crack, this whole nationalism thing.
As far as an answer to Mr. Giorgadze's retorical question:
"Is the U.S., in contrast to Russia, by definition honest, innocent and high-minded?"
Call me a American, reactionary, imperialist, running dog capitalist, but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the answer is "Yes."
Where that blind belief in absolute goodness of USA comes from?? Its wrong by definition and only serves those in power to do whatever they like under the slogans of democracy and human values.
But in particular, do you think that independence of Kosovo is any different from the cause of Abkhasia and Adjaria. Why on the one hand USA supported the Kosovans and in Georgian case clearly stands by Tbilisi? Double standards?
Or maybe because Abkhasia wants to join the RF?
interesting post Charles Ganske,
sometimes I think we just have to have the broader
leadership system....
it seems to certainly slow down the naughty ones...
big grin
here in australia... one has quite a few parties to vote for
and EVERYONE votes....
no system is perfect, but some are definitely better than others....
from the layperson artist
JHH
Are there any articles in support of Saakashvili? It seems rather peculiar that one article and thus a single opinion can represent the voice of the situation. Maybe presenting both sides of the arguement (whether Saakashvili is good or evil, not in absolute terms) would be more fair.
P.S. Personally, I don't support Saakashvili. I just don't believe he can be such a democratic doodle he is being portrayed here.
I'll take Saakashvili over Giorgadze, but the latter does raise some important points. At this stage, it's very clear that neither the Americans nor the Europeans are going to sacrifice diplomatic capital defending Georgia. The US needs Russia's support more than ever in regions that are much more important to American interests than the Caucasus. The main thing that the US, the EU, and NATO seem to be offering Georgia for the moment is a limited guarantee of its territorial integrity. But will they be able or want to aid Georgia in surmounting a Russian blockade?
Speaking of blockades, it looks like Armenia is positioning itself as Russia's most dependable ally in the region. Is this likely to have any effects on the ongoing conflict with Azerbaijan?
"Are there any articles in support of Saakashvili? It seems rather peculiar that one article and thus a single opinion can represent the voice of the situation. Maybe presenting both sides of the arguement (whether Saakashvili is good or evil, not in absolute terms) would be more fair.
P.S. Personally, I don't support Saakashvili. I just don't believe he can be such a democratic doodle he is being portrayed here."
****
That same sentiment should apply to the monopoly accorded to a select group of people who get propped on a center stage to reflect a given view.
Lieven isn't the only game in town. Yet, in some circles, it appears a choice few others besides himself are the undemocratically selected go to sources.
Granted, he's an academic and a good one at that. Still, there're some media people who are getting a disproprtionate nod over talented others as well.
Is it about putting out the best product or a lingering petty cronyism sacrificing such?
In so many words, Giorgadze tells us from his home in Moscow that he and people he supports are not "pro-Russian, but pro-Georgian."
And Saakashvili in Tbilisi is "mesmerized by the U.S.".
Giorgadze tells us that Saakashvili graduated from Columbia Law School.
Giorgadze does not tell us where he lives, nor that he holds the title of "Honorary Officer of the KGB of the USSR".
George Soros . . . . obviously the most dangerous man on the planet. Any man who is routinely accused by the likes of Giorgadze, Bush, Putin and Dennis Hastert must be the root of all evil.
"Let's get real", yes, let's. Putin is issuing warnings about Kosovo. To whom? For what purpose? To "western experts and journalists". And what do our experts and journalists, Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman tell us?
Why, they tell us that those of us that neither live in Kosovo, nor Serbia, nor Georgia, nor Ossetia should take Putin's warning and accept "the future of these disputes will depend chiefly not upon law but upon power."
The article goes to great lengths to pooh-pooh law, especially international law. Naturally the intelligent reader can understand how and why POWER is preferable to law.
What the reader may not understand is how and why "the great 20th-century American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr" would figure in to a discussion about Serbia/Kosovo or Georgia/Ossetia and acceptance of POWER over law.
Of course, the only way Niebuhr does fit in to the authors "Let's get real" approach is if we readers accept Putin's premise in his warning (threat??).
Lieven and Hulsman swallow both Putin's premise of Kosovo=Ossetia and the ability of Putin to carry out the threat.
So Lieven and Hulsman would have us look at the issue in Georgia in Niebuhr terms "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change".
And this is exactly what Putin wanted the "Western Experts" to communicate.
The ethnic tensions in the trans caucus are indeed complicated and bitter, but a return to Pax-Russia in the region shall neither benefit the people there nor the Russian state.
The solution to the problem is not to accept Russian power and dominance in the region, but to demand a solution in scope of the Helsinki Accords.
"Western Experts" would serve us better if they did not so soon capitulate to threats of tyrants (Russian or American).
I support Saakashvili and his presidency in Georgia. It really saddens me to see how the people are humiliating their country with these protests! No other civilized place does this, and if matters are of strong dispute then the only way they can be resolved is by sitting down and having talks and debates. The opposition doesn't even have a plan or an idea how to rule a country and like animals they march around chanting things. If Georgia ever wanted to get into Nato then this would obviously diminish their chances to nothing! You dont see anyone there protesting against Putin in Russia even though he's a complete tyrant! This doesnt mean people should be quiet and scared of the government but must look at the bigger picture, and see the pro's of having Saakashvili - a Georgian president for ONCE respected by other world leaders. What would the opposition do when Russia's tanks went in? Just sit back "peacefully" and let Russia rape us? Would the EU and the US come to aid to other presidents with no allies and no respect?
Or what is the opposition planning to do about jobs and hunger? Give people money and food? FROM WHERE?
The only way a country can rebuild itself is through time and a growing economy and this is done through the builing of buildings, roads, tourist attractions, reasearch development, education, etc. Saakashvili was implementing this and I Saw it with my own eyes. It takes time however, and not everyone will be happy or have a job right away. They sure werent when Shevanadze was the president. People didnt have any light or water, and the only people that walked the streats were criminals, but everyone already has forgotten about this. Saakashvili is passionate about Georga and its future and so far I Don't see anyone else worthy of presidency except him.
If the people continue their actions AGAINST THEM SELVES, Im scared the fate of Georgia is not far off from third world countries. We need to put down our pitch forks like old farmers and start supporting our country like civilized beings. Stop using the excuse that the government came at people in November 2007 with tear gas! This has happened and WILL happen anywhere in the world including UK, US, and Canada, when protesters emerge, including students. Everyone is so much smarter but noone has a plan. I really hope to see Georgia once again united as they were on September 1st without all this political reform for the worse.