4
POLITICS
GEORGIA TODAY
SEPTEMBER 10 - 16, 2021
Action or Inaction: That Is the Choice. Part 1 ANALYSIS BY VIKTOR KIPIANI, CHAIRMAN OF GEOCASE
T
he modern world is once again faced with the important need to re-analyze the role of the state and its functional components. This matter is particularly relevant to those countries whose claim to exist and whose development rests upon national and historic roots, and will have claims for adjusting to this or the other global order tomorrow as well. Georgia ranks among these countries for reasons that our readers will find perfectly understandable. Given the unpredictability of the current global, international, regional and security context, the following task strikes us as being a very real and practical challenge: how to pursue our development and become a modern country without abandoning our distinguished past or losing our national consciousness and identity. I understand that this topic is so complex that merely mentioning it is not enough, just as attempting to analyse it 'in a single go' (as is usually done in our society) is hardly serious, which is why in this article, which I would refer to as 'thinking aloud', I shall focus upon the more specific and institutional components of this larger question. I think it is no longer debatable that the proper functioning of a country depends on the proper functioning of its state institutions. This explanation is perfectly simple and I could be in this way: in order to neutralize excessive abstractionism and to obtain greater specificity, this or the other subject having statehood status establishes two of the most important links through its own institutional arrangement- on one hand, with its population, and on the other (and at the same time) with its international audience. The state acquires specific assignments and functions by embodying the will of the electorate in formal institutions; and the better the condition of its institutions, the more important and reputable the country and the more competitive it becomes now and in the near future. Since the range of this issue is still too wide for the short format of an article, even if we limit ourselves to institutions, I shall only speak about one specific and very important institutional aspect of our country: the principles that direct the country’s foreign policy. In general, the foreign policy agenda is a topic whose evaluation practically nobody finds too difficult or tiring and which everyone is eager to do. One problem is when people beyond this sphere busy themselves with such analysis, but if you ask me it is much more harmful when this topic is discussed by those who only imagine the 'Foreign Office' as a prospect for employment, careerism, self-promotion or politics. Such an attitude wrecks the foreign service itself and damages its chances of attracting future talent, and as a result weakens the country’s position on the international stage and thereby undermines its domestic affairs. Two important explanations before going into further detail: I have never had any close links to the foreign service. The views I express in this article therefore rest upon my self-inculcated knowledge of foreign policy issues as well as my use of this knowledge in various practical aspects and observations. It is also worth noting that, before presenting these thoughts to the reader, numerous discussions or conversations were held with truly knowledgeable experts in the field alongside much lengthy
Image source: mfa
research and evaluation of international developments. Equally noteworthy is the fact that bringing this issue to the public’s attention was conditioned by the need to identify the current state of Georgia's Foreign Ministry as well as the indicators for its proper restructuring and tangible effectiveness. I will also add here that all my assumptions are purely subjective in nature and that I, as their author, have no claims as to their authenticity or precision. I should indeed be very glad if anything I say is subjected to ruthless criticism. At times like these, it is essential to encourage real and uncompromising discussions of the essence and future of the foreign service, particularly as the latter is the presenter, executor and watchdog of the country’s national and state interests. Many of us talk about the need for such discussions, but these tend to be limited to a single private space and unable to reach the level of public politics. It is difficult to say with confidence who wins by leaving these conversations in the background, but the identity of the losers is clear: every single one of us and the Georgian state itself.
SHALL WE BEGIN? As you already know, processes and events tend to be changeable, and the same goes for specific concepts: constant changes within political formations and social categories, especially considering modern dynamics, also change the essence of this or that concept or notion, completes it and adapts it to the current moment. This is how I imagine my general remark regarding the foreign service, which currently bears the official name of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. I will try to better explain this private matter. In the beginning of this article I used the term 'foreign office' as a kind of barbarism, and this was no accident. The thing is that, along with the image and content of the modern state, the perception of public institutions carrying out state functions also changes. As for Georgia’s foreign ministry, I believe that its current name is not only a Soviet and post-Soviet cliché but that it also digresses from its modern assignment.
This assignment is directly linked to the principles of foreign activity that I will discuss further below, but in this section I will ground the need to change this institution’s name in the following manner: the presence of the word 'affairs' in the title implies carrying out the will of the state. This is undoubtedly the case, and at the time the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Republic of Georgia served exactly this purpose: protecting the state interests of the Soviet Union on the international arena. This was its first and most important mission, at the expense of practically every other task. I think that nowadays even this relatively unimportant and formal issue is linked (at a glance) to another kind of comprehension and approach. I believe that the title of this institution should serve the interests of not only the state but also the personal and business interests of every individual member of our society, particularly as such interests have become so diverse in the modern world and have penetrated significantly more layers or segments of activity. In practical terms, given the complexity of internal and foreign relations, 'Chitadze Street' also has to restructure itself according to the institutions tasks and specialities. Based upon this assumption, I truly believe that the official name should reflect the ministry's real function and everyday meaning; it must become relevant to current times and demands. This is why it would be appropriate to rename this institution from 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia' into 'Foreign Office of Georgia': the latter title is much more capacious and, more importantly, much more relevant to the current agenda and modern understandings.
BUT FOR WHAT REASON? For the benefits, total and real and not half and false: this could be the short formulation of the state-political and public-societal assignment of Georgia’s foreign office. Its existence should not be perceived as a necessity, as of an organization built into the state system as a sovereign attribute, as something we must have just because that is the rule. Nor should the foreign office remain
a mere symbol of mechanical respect for the rules first established by the state and then by the representatives of the institution itself, as well as of a certain pride. Georgia’s foreign office should honestly and unquestioningly justify its existence as the forefront of the Georgian state as well as in the eyes of Georgia’s taxpayers: in the first case, this should be expressed through an uncompromising and competent defence of the country's national interests; whereas in the second, the citizens of our country should feel that the efficacy of their foreign office is tangibly (if perhaps variably) reflected in their everyday lives. It should be mentioned with great pride that despite existing institutional difficulties, faults or challenges, our foreign office has always had and still has many diplomats and specialists responsible for many foreign policy victories and who have honourably and selflessly served and still serve the present and future welfare of our country. Without their professionalism and enthusiasm (and in some cases fanatical devotion to their work), we would obviously not have had any grounds for discussing the institution's future. And now let us move to the contours of the future, whose polyhedral aspects and total unpredictability pose essentially new risks and challenges to the efficacy of the Georgian state, and as a result form in totally new ways assignments or missions that must be accomplished by every one of its institutions. I already said above that the goal of this article is not, and cannot be, to discuss every aspect directly or indirectly linked to Georgia’s foreign service. Such an intention would have been extremely frivolous and irresponsible, since a complete understanding of this topic requires a methodological accumulation of the past and present experiences of experts in this field as well as an extended evaluation of tomorrow’s world; and, as a result, requires an analysis of these two components through the functional and structural prism of this specific institution and in the context of Georgia. This is a very ambitious and pretentious task. Therefore, by publishing this article we honestly wish to encourage public
conversations and to openly begin discussions for a better system for furthering Georgia's state interests on the international stage that would be tailored to our times and challenges, and to identify all those faults or failings that hinder development as well as pinpoint ways to solve the difficulties of problematic points. I hope that such a discussion will take place without delay and, more importantly, that it will result in concrete and comprehensible practical actions and political decisions. For the moment, I will share with interested readers my assumptions regarding what should become the indicator for a fundamental reform of the Georgian foreign service and therefore for evaluating its activity. What would give us a reason to think that the foreign office has changed and established itself as a stable and reliable support for our own geopolitical agenda, our military and economic security, our competitiveness oriented towards the future, our identity and the identity that will unite every single citizen of Georgia? To use a rough analogue, which principles and prominent indicators would grant us the moral right to give the main institutional guarantor of our foreign interests the highest marks?
FACING THE NEED FOR CHANGE And yes, today we are facing the need for change. Yes, it is desirable to make these changes in a calm manner but without procrastinating; systematically, but without demolishing that which already exists; in a studied manner, and not thoughtlessly; thoroughly and not partially and in a propagandistic way; through a real comprehension of institutionalism and not through the adoption of political or conjectural rhetoric; by allowing an uncompromised functional transformation but not by crushing people’s genuine professional and well-earned careers. Achieving this 'eclectic' (at first glance) balance is a complex mosaic and hardly achievable, but we cannot avoid trying if we are to orient ourselves towards achieving real results. To Be Continued in next week’s GT.
