Four years ago, Georgia and Russia fought a brief but significant war. Georgia lost the war in less than a week as Russia consolidated control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, territories recognized by most countries, including the U.S., as legally part of Georgia, but now under Russian occupation. Although the war ended less than a week after it started, it is still extremely central to domestic Georgian affairs as well as to U.S.-Georgia relations. Today, Georgia is approaching a battery of elections, for parliament in 2012 and president in 2013, that will not only have tremendous bearing on that country's future, but on the U.S. role and position in the region for years to come. These elections are, to a substantial extent, occurring in the shadow of the Georgia-Russia War of 2008.
In the years since the war Georgia's government has lost its identity as one led by bright-eyed democrats seeking to build a European style democracy deep in the heart of what used to be the Soviet Union. Instead, the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili has become another semi-authoritarian regime relying upon selectively enforced and crafted laws, media repression and harassment and intimidation of political opponents in order to hold on to power.
This approach has until recently worked well for the United National Movment (UNM), Georgia's ruling party, in recent elections from 2008-2010, but this year is different. For the first time, the UNM's main opponents have the resources to fight back. This is due to the presence of Bidzina Ivanishvili, Georgia's richest man who the New York Times recently described as moving from "Philanthropist to Public Enemy in Georgia." Ivanishvili has brought together a coalition which includes leading Georgian diplomats, former Rose Revolutionaries who broke with Saakashvili as he moved away from democracy, and others.
The Georgian government has long benefitted from support from the west, particularly the U.S. This support has included ample foreign assistance and loans as well as a willingness to overlook Georgia's many shortcomings with regards to democracy and human rights. The latter issue is extremely important to the Georgian regime because strong U.S. pressure linked to meaningful consequences would make it very hard for the UNM to continue to commit the kinds of violations and abuses that they clearly believe are necessary in order to hold on to power, particularly as the election approaches.
Given the growing awareness in the west of Georgia's shortcomings with regards to democracy, Georgia's leaders have retooled their strategy, focusing less on seeking to present themselves to the west as democratic and more on their reputation as a bulwark against Russian influence in the region. This approach includes efforts to describe Ivanishvili, a billionaire who made money in Russia, as a Russian stooge. Not surprisingly, nobody in the Georgian government was concerned about the provenance of Invanishvili's fortune, or had any doubts about his loyalty to Georgia, when he was using his money to voluntarily purchase boots and other equipment for the Georgian military, build Georgia's infrastructure or provide budget support to the national coffers. The irony that a government which, according to the official EU report and most analysts allowed itself to be provoked into a very damaging war is now accusing somebody else of facilitating an increase in Russian influence, appears to be lost on the propagandists in the Georgian government.
Nonetheless, the Saakashvili regime's credentials as a strong anti-Russian force, on the surface, are very strong. Saakashvili has steadfastly stated he wants Georgia to be part of NATO; the Georgian government's rhetoric is consistently strongly anti-Russia and pro-west; the government has, with a fair amount of success, launched a diplomatic campaign to have countries, including the U.S. refer to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, regions lost to Russia in 2008, as "occupied territories" and takes every possible opportunity to denounce Russian activities. Moreover, much of this rhetoric is appropriate. Russia presents a serious and profound threat to Georgia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are currently de facto Russian colonies. Russian ambition in the former Soviet Union is something that should be taken very seriously.
Accordingly, Saakashvili's rhetoric tells a very clear anti-Russian story, but if the Georgian government were to be judged by outcomes, rather than rhetoric, with regards to Russia, a very different story would emerge. Regardless of its intentions, the Georgian government has delivered a set of outcomes that are in Russia's clear interest in the region. After being in power for more than eight years, Saakashvili and his government have seen roughly 20 percent of Georgian territory ceded to Russia for the foreseeable future, allowed Georgia's NATO and EU aspirations to become little more than a pipe dream, have presided over very difficult economic times in Georgia, a country now besot by joblessness, inflation, and a debt problem which will become more serious in the next few years.
The Georgian government uses fear of Russia as a sharp political tool, accusing almost all domestic political opponents, as well as many international critics, of being Russian spies, stooges and the like. Even pro-western opposition politicians with strong ties to the U.S. and Europe have been attacked in this way. Georgia is a country where talk of Russian plots is common, but it is interesting to explore what a Russian plot in Georgia might have looked like.
Imagine that if, in late 2003, the Russian government had been able to send somebody to be president of Georgia, while secretly pursuing Russia's interests. This, of course, did not happen, but if it had, the president would have been charged by his Kremlin masters with losing territory to Russia, making sure that Georgia would not get into NATO, ensuring that Georgia's economy stayed weak and keeping the country polarized. That president might have also been asked to weaken American credibility in the region and to try to make the U.S. spend as much money as possible in Georgia. Saakashvili is, of course, not a secret Russian plant, but all of this has happened in Georgia during his tenure as president.
The next time Saakashvili tells the west that Russia is his sworn enemy, smart western policy makers would be wise to ask with enemies like Saakashvili, what does Russia need friends for. On a more serious note, the U.S. should avoid being drawn in by the Georgian government's anti-Russia rhetoric alone and consider more seriously what Russia has gained in Georgia under Saakashvili's watch, as well as benefits, for the U.S., of a different approach to Georgia, the ruling regime, fair elections and democracy in that country.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Is Saakashvili a KBG's "plant" or not? His famous grandfa was KGB's high ranked officer.KGB is eternal, without retirement and genetical!
Thanks and all the best
I left Georgia in 2012 and since then keep a very close look what is going on in my country. you’ve done very good analytical work. I came to the same conclusion 3 years ago but from another side. When one takes a closer look at political tensions within Georgia and statements of Russian Foreign Office (RFO), you can see as soon as situation becomes critical for Saakashvili (and his rating plummets), the RFO steps in and makes statement like ‘we will be happy to cooperate with a new government in Georgia which overthrows Saakashvili regime’. Immediately starts working the rule that my enemy’s enemy is my friend and whole nation get united around ‘beloved’ Saakashvili. When Mr. Ivanishvili openly entered the politics I said that if (ignore ‘if’ as I am sure about it) Russia supports Saakashvili they’ll not be quiet. And I was right, immediately before election tension started rising across the border and I am sure we’ll hear a couple statements from Kremlin.
Dear Mr Mitchell thanks for proving that I am not the only one who can see who is real Saakashvili. I can go on and on proving that Saakshvili plays Russian game. Comparing to you I can go further and say that he is either mad or works for Russia.
By the way, since November 2003, after the rose revolution, I try to explain to my American colleagues and friends that Mr.Saakashvili is one more Fidel . Of course, nobody agreed with my opinion, but nowadays their positions step by step have become to change.
Mr. Saakashvili like his political "twin- brother" Mr. Putin are political "grandsons" of Josef Stalin
and they both do everything that "rebranding" the former Soviet Union during their presidency.
Since 2004 I am known as a Russian agent in Georgia, because I'm teacher of Russian language and literature and specialist of Russian poetry of "silver" ages (Akhmatova, Tsevetaeva, Mandelstam....)
After years I have understood finally why we have no Mandelstam's street in Georgia and Russia, because Osip Mandelstam wrote an "ode" to Stalin and soon he died into his way the Stalin's "labor" camp something like GULAG... So political "grandsons" of Stalin like really are
Misha & VVP really do everything that people like Mandelstam, Pasternak won't be known to young
generation. In our country they are only Russian poets, by the way both are Jews.
"Enough espresso mashines, it's time for build a kitchen in Georgia" said one of American participant of the program Teach and Learn in Georgia and we agree with him absolutely
Very Truly Yours,
Gocha Goguadze
Chairman and Co-founder
International Youth Association TIP
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19160605
Amnesty International is “concerned that the authorities are failing to protect the opposition supporters and journalists from what appears to be politically targeted violence.”
Saakashvili supporters resort to intimidation and lies, smearing Mr. Ivanishvili reputation.
Let's keep public informed about the incoming election. Personally, I left Georgia, Tbilisi, long, long time ago, but am still interested in its well being ))
Thank you, Mr. Mitchell
Your attitude towards Saakashvili is pretty clear. But coming back to the topic "Who Is Really Doing Russia's Bidding in Tbilisi?", you're leading us towards the conclusion, that Saakashvili is the best person to conduct Russia's policy in Georgia.
You can think so for some reasons, but why should we believe it as well?
I mean, should Russia be content with Saakashvili being the leader of Georgia, and allowing everything they can dream of, why are thy attempting to replace him? Putin meets Georgian politicians and publicly declares that relations between Russia and Georgia will improve after elections i.e. when Georgians elect someone else but not Saakashvili.
Many opponents of Saakashvili say this is a cover game. Ok, it might be. But there is a very simple thing opponents can do - slam Russia for supporting Saakashvili. Just announce loudly, that all these problems come from Russia, because they are interested to keep Saakashvili in power.
What do we hear instead? We hear that only opposition is able to normalize relations with Russia, strengthen economic ties etc. But the question is - why will Russia cooperate with opposition which isn't doing Russia's bidding? According to you, Russia won't and relations will go worse..
I think you are making a number of salient points, but to readers not familiar with the former Soviet space I think you understate Georgia's achievements.
That they are repeated a lot in certain circles does not make them less true. Georgia has its flaws, but for all of them it has made the greatest progress, and created the biggest space for precisely the type of contest we are seeing now. The type of challenge that Ivanishvili is presenting to the government would be unthinkable in all other post-Soviet states, save the Baltics. Moreover, the Georgian anti-corruption reforms remain a spectacular demonstration that there is an alternative to the oppressive hell that is the reality in most post-Soviet states.
And yes, lots to do, but let's not suggest that Saakashvili is Lord Voldemort. I am all for a nuanced discussion, and let's base it on evidence. Speaking of that, I would prefer discussion with people who appropriately identify themselves as I have done.
Georgia was one of the most criminalized states in the former Soviet Union and during the last "Shevardnadze Era", which you consider as better compared to current situation, Organized Crime was ruling the country. Carjacking was just too common and guess where all stolen cars were forwarded to? Yes, to South Ossetian Region, controlled by Russian Forces. Now you can leave car in the street for week and nothing happens!!
Drugs were so widespread, that used syringes were seen in every corner, in every part of country. Now drug dealers are jailed.
Schools had no central heating. All children had to bring wood when coming to the school, to heat classrooms. Now, if children catches cold in the school because of central heating non-working, director is likely to be sentenced..
Some people sees all these imprisonments as violations of human rights, but many think that criminals should be jailed...
And regarding the freedom of press and television - While during Shevardnadze period there was only one opposition channel Rustavi 2, nowadays there are 3 of them - Maestro, Kavkasia, 9th Channel. and 95 % of printed media backs opposition.
It's not perfect for sure, but reality is really different from what you are trying to describe. And Ivanishvili himself has no record proving that he will be less autocratic then Saakashvili.
BTW in that part of the world there is only one nation more hated than Russians and that are Georgians thanks to a man Sakashvilli called the greatest son of mother Georgia i.e. Josif Stalin (Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili) and his other georgian henchman Lavrentiy Beria (Lavrenti Pavles dze Beria) and his treatment of local population.
BTW good documentary series by BBC part dealing with Georgia:
Putin, Russia & the West part 3 - The War:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLc_b5xgb6Y