Mikhail Saakashvili's victory in Georgia's presidential election was the predictable culmination of November's "Revolution of the Roses," which forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down after more than a decade in power. A more complicated question is what Georgia's northern neighbor, Russia, should expect from the new power triumvirate of Saakashvili, Nino Burdzhanadze, and Zurab Zhvania.
Despite Russia's post-Soviet malaise, it has influenced Georgia's internal development at virtually every turn -- including Shevardnadze's resignation, which was mediated by Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov -- so how it perceives Georgia's new leaders is of crucial geopolitical significance. The three Georgian leaders declare bilateral relations a high priority, and in Russia, too, there is widespread hope that their victory will help repair ties between the two countries.
But there is also concern about the previous occasional anti-Russian statements of this new generation of leaders, and fear that President Saakashvili might launch a military campaign to bring the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back under Tbilisi's rule. As Russia's arch-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky put it, "At least Shevardnadze was still our man," while the new leaders "will flood Abkhazia and South Ossetia with blood."
Although most Russians do not share this view, Russia is obviously concerned with the security threat that it faces from the South Caucasus -- a threat that escalated sharply during Shevardnadze's rule. Most alarmingly, Chechen rebels enjoyed considerable freedom of operation in Georgia, creating supply bases on its territory and receiving medical help in Georgian hospitals before slipping back into Russia.
This support was clearly sanctioned at the highest levels of Georgia's government. The Chechen separatists' leader, Aslan Maskhadov, maintained a mission directly next door to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Tbilisi, and various government bodies had direct contacts with Chechen field commanders operating in Georgia. In the fall of 2001, for example, Georgian security officials provided transportation for the Chechen field commander Ruslan Gelaev from the Pankisi Gorge to Abkhazia.
Georgia's new leaders have opposed such cooperation with the Chechen rebels. So it is to be hoped that they will take Russia's security concerns seriously, possibly providing partnership in controlling Georgian roads leading into Chechnya. For too long, these roads have served as arteries for international terrorism, conveying fighters and financing into Russia from the Arab world and other countries.
But Saakashvili and his allies are all young. Do they have enough experience to guide the country towards political stability and economic prosperity? Their desire to preserve and reestablish Georgian territorial integrity by asserting renewed control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia is understandable, but can they accomplish this goal as peacefully as they won their revolution?
Despite frequent accusations to the contrary, Georgia's viability as an independent state is very much in Russia's interests. Talk of re-establishing the Soviet Union or at least absorbing Abkhazia and South Ossetia has always been politically marginal. But the fact remains that both Abkhaz and South Ossetian leaders have occasionally approached Russia with annexation requests. Georgia's current economic collapse provides little incentive for either of these self-proclaimed independent republics to support reunification.
Similarly, Georgia's inability to manage relations with its only autonomous republic, Adzharia, doesn't inspire much confidence. The Adzhar people consider themselves Georgians, but still have frequent squabbles with the central government, so how could ethnically distinct Abkhazia and South Ossetia feel assured that their relations with Georgia would work out any better?
President Saakashvili seems to understand the necessity of reviving Georgia's moribund economy, which requires, first and foremost, political stability. But he is unlikely to refrain from accusing Russia of stoking tensions with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia was once blamed for arranging earthquakes in Georgia, so it would be difficult to resist accusing it of support for anti-Georgian separatists.
This allegation is as baseless as the temptation to make it is strong. Simply put, it would be suicidal for Russia, having itself just stepped back from the brink of territorial disintegration, to build its strength on the collapse of its neighbor.
Indeed, the Saakashvili administration might complain about Russian meddling, but it is unlikely to try to remove Georgia from Russia's economic orbit. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline -- which will bypass Russia when it is completed -- cannot re-define the country's economic strategy to the extent that Shevardnadze had sought. Instead, Georgia's long-term economic success will depend on exports to the Russian market: neither Georgia's wine nor its fruit is needed in the US or Italy.
Let there be no mistake: Georgia's new leaders face daunting economic, political, and constitutional challenges in the years ahead. But Russia wishes them success. For if they can overcome these challenges quickly, thoroughly, and peacefully, the election of Mikhail Saakashvili will be good news not only for Georgia, but for Russia as well.
Felix Stanevsky is a former Russian ambassador to Georgia. Copyright: Project Syndicate
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic