In recent weeks, leaders of various opposition organizations in Georgia, such as Antisoros 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 NGOs 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 US.
But the people who were 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 is 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.
Thus, 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 US 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 US so desirable, while refusing to dismiss Russia as a partner is regarded as being an agent of the Kremlin? Is the US, 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 US, but which are nonetheless our own. We have no interest in merely executing US 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 the US and the West, and vice versa. Georgia should be neither pro-Russian nor pro-US. 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.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
RSS