4
POLITICS
GEORGIA TODAY
JUNE 25 - JULY 1, 2021
Handling the Occupation – a New Framework OP-ED BY GIORGI ARZIANI
P
rotracted occupation of Georgian territories has caused a sort of depression, which manifests itself in a peculiar intellectual paralysis: many do not see any possibility to turn things around and find refuge in abstract thinking about a better future. A vivid example of such inability to deliver a rational response to the occupation of Georgian lands and a split in our societies is the benevolent dream that someday borders will no longer exist, conflicts will fade away, and freedom of movement will come without any legal friction. In fact, this narrative is as impractical as it is risky; it is infused with laziness of imagination, and only reinforces the defeatist attitude towards the injustices and hardships brought to our communities by an unauthorized foreign military presence. The inability to see an opportunity for Georgia to revive territorial integrity is framed by the subjective feeling that time brings only negative changes and the younger generation turn numb to the problem. However, contrary to such interpretations, time only further reveals the disturbance of Russia’s imperial policies, while younger generations are coming into power and rejecting the impotence of those who came before them. In fact, the grievance against occupation and lost communities is undergoing a revival, suffice it to recall the growing number of fiction, art, news media outlets that attract
active public engagement even in such an extremely saturated media environment, or the growing number of articles produced in academia and by think tank influencers. The absolute majority of this output is created by younger generations. More than that, many young Georgians collaborate in rapidly growing grassroots communities in an effort to pave a way out of the bad equilibrium brought by Russian occupation. Instead of futile daydreaming, they employ methods of scientific anticipation and strategic thinking about alternative future scenarios. One such idea, created by yours truly, is a comprehensive analytical cube that systematizes the issues of de-occupation and reintegration of Georgia under one framework. It schematically unites five properties and characteristics (dimensions) of any activity that can be executed. It systematizes the answers to the following questions: who, government or civil society, should be responsible for activities aiming at de-occupation and reintegration of Georgia; at what level, international or domestic, should these activities be executed; how these activities should address the gap between the internationally acclaimed legal norms and the conflicting perceptions of historical fairness; should these activities be centrally organized or decentralized; and, an insight borrowed from the financial markets regulatory approaches, what regulatory models should be used: a rules-based or goals-based approach. The choice of a specific regulatory model influences the incentives and allocation of risk, and has important
implications for the coordination of actions between numerous governmental and non-governmental actors. The distinction of the models is that a rulesbased approach is rather prescriptive and provides the actor with exact guidelines for the actions, while a goals-based approach is more flexible, as it focuses rather on the outcome, while leaving broader discretion with regards to the means of the actor. The scheme is illustrated by several examples that aim to make it easily understandable. The idea behind this analytical cube is to formalize our thinking about the most pressing problem of Georgia and assist with the intuitive visualization. What differentiates these new grassroot communities from previous generations is that they reject the so-called ‘new reality,’ and their work is empowered by one insight: the chance for the de-occupation of Georgia will inevitably come, however, one should be ready to take the chance. The future does not simply happen: it is created; allies will help, but there is work that should be done by us, and, to my joy, I see that a new generation is coming into power, a generation that has a vision, has power and has will.
MEP Marina Kaljurand on Why Georgia’s EU 2024 Bid is Unrealistic Continued from page 1 There are many reasons for that. One is that some member states, mainly Western European member states, think that the enlargement of 2004 was too much for the EU, that we had not yet been able to absorb that enlargement when another happened with the joining of Romania and Bulgaria. I think to some extent, there is also some fatigue with the Eastern Partnership, because what I hear here in Brussels is how come we have assisted for so many years since 91, almost for 30 years, and the countries are still in the process of reforming or democratic reforms? How come the Baltics did it in 10 years and these guys can’t do it in 30 years? These are the emotions are in Brussels. This is the reality. And in this reality, I think it’s important to be frank and open. I am saying that there is a very slim chance that Georgia will get accepted in three years, and I think the Georgian people deserve to hear it openly, because the EU is not exactly renowned for clear answers; it’s sometimes difficult to understand what the EU bureaucracy means. In Estonia’s case, we were assisted by Fins and Swedes, who were telling us what the EU means when it says something. Now Georgia is being assisted by the Baltic countries, Poland and so on. The EU is not ready to repeat the European perspective for Eastern Partnership countries, something that was so clear six years ago. “Enlargement is a hugely complex political decision that needs consensus. And I do not see that consensus in the EU. And that’s why I think Georgian people deserve to know the feelings in Brussels today. And as I said, though, my personal views are completely different.
THE IMPRESSION IS THAT THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP IS SLIDING DOWN THE EU
AGENDA – WHAT DO YOU THINK HAS HAPPENED? There are also questions like why are we dealing with Eastern Partnership today, when we have much more important questions for Europe, from migration, terrorism, climate, digital challenged, not to mention the pandemic? Somehow, I think there is not much knowledge about the region in the EU. There are 705 members of parliament, and I think that if I stopped any one in the corridor and asked what the capital of Georgia was, not many would be able to answer. And not many would be able to say, for example, which are the Eastern Partnership countries, or which are the countries of the South Caucasus. Unfortunately, that’s reality. I see that I, as the chair, and a former foreign minister, and as a friend of Georgia and Eastern Partnership countries, it is my duty to bring it to the agenda. And I’d like to assure you that it will be on the agenda in the EU, no question about that. The EU will continue its policy of non recognition of occupation of Georgia’s territories, but I’d like to be realistic about expectations. And I always advise Georgian politicians to manage the expectations of the people, not to push them too hard. If you remember the visa freedom for Georgia, you were ready much before your counterpart Ukraine, but, for political reasons, we all had to wait for Ukraine to catch up, and then you got your visa freedom. That’s the reality. You were ready. You did not get it, because there was no political consensus. And the same goes with memberships and all other political questions. We in the Baltic countries are friends. We know Georgia. My advice is to talk more to those countries who are skeptical. Introduce your country, the policies of your country, your aspirations; raise awareness. When we were acceding to the EU and NATO, nobody wanted us
there. Nobody. We wanted to join the club. And we had to do much more than let’s say Finland to join. Before joining, when we were asked to do three things, we did five; when we were asked to do it by Monday, we did by the Friday before. We were making all these reforms, not only for the sake of the EU, but for the sake of our own people, hoping that maybe one day there would be a window of opportunity. And we were lucky, we got our window. The window for the Georgian people will come at some point. I don’t know when, but it will come. And that means that Georgia has to continue with the reforms, not for the EU, but for its own people, and wait for the right political momentum once it comes. It should be 1000% ready to take advantage of that.
REFORMS ARE ALL GREAT TO HAVE, BUT THERE ARE ALSO EXTERNAL FACTORS AT PLAY. CHIEF AMONG THOSE IS THE “KREMLIN FACTOR.” HOW MUCH OF A ROLE DO YOU THINK IT PLAYS IN EU DECISIONMAKING WHEN IT COMES TO GEORGIA AND UKRAINE? It plays a role, but I would say less so than five years ago. Relations between the EU and Russia are at the moment at their the worst since the end of the Cold War. But they are very frank and open. I think that the visit of President Borrell to Moscow, and the humiliating press conference after the visit made it very clear that we cannot be partners with Russia. When Lavrov was humiliating the EU’s values, principles, cooperation, it was to some extent eye-opening. It doesn’t mean that the EU is not going to have relations with Russia, we will and we will continue cooperating in fields we find mutually acceptable, but I think that today, Russia’s influence on decision making in the EU is smaller. Of course, you shouldn’t forget it took
us a couple of months to introduce sanctions against Lukashenko just because one or two countries stopped it. And we see the same when we discuss our foreign policy towards Russia. There are one or two countries who always reject the common position, and who want to have closer ties with Russia and so on. Despite that, I think that Russia has less influence on the EU today. Besides our different political views, we’ve been able to introduce sanctions against Russia from 2014. And we’re still keeping them, seven years on. And it’s a big thing. Yes, I agree that sanctions should be better targeted, and they should be better targeted to those whom Putin is protecting, the circle around him, people who are supporting his regime, people who are working for his regime. It’s difficult, but I think the targeted sanctions against specific economic sectors are right. And targeted sanctions against specific personalities are also right, even if we do not get a result quickly.
YOU MENTIONED THE NEED TO RAISE AWARENESS OF GEORGIA IN THE WEST, TO TALK MORE WITH THE SKEPTICAL COUNTRIES, TO CONVINCE THEM TO SEE OUR PERSPECTIVE. WHAT VENUES AND CHANNELS DO YOU THINK ARE AVAILABLE THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN EXPLORED ENOUGH? Well, I think Georgia is doing it pretty well. At least, I’ve never seen lobbies of any other country visiting Brussels as often as Georgians do. What I would suggest to charm the skeptics is to introduce Georgian culture. Coming from a small country myself, Estonia, I know it isn’t easy to represent a small country. I always had to start with what Estonia is, where Estonia is. So I know how difficult it is. But it’s doable.
WHAT WAS YOUR SELLING
PITCH FOR ESTONIA? It depended on the audience. For me, one of the pieces was always Skype. Because Skype was invented by Estonia. So yes, we might be on the periphery of Europe, but we put the Skype sign there. You have to say something that creates interest, that they can relate to, and then you can go into the details. But you have to be prepared, as it depends who the audience is. In talking to Spanish or French diplomats or MPs, for example, wine would be a relatable topic. When I organized the Arvo Pard concert in Washington, DC, I would argue that Mr Pard won more hearts for Estonia in 15 minutes than diplomacy did in 10 years. So you have to be smart. Georgia is a small nation like we are, so it has to find its own pearls. Who is your Bono? You need to find one and use it as a calling card.
IN MAY, THERE WAS THE TRILATERAL SIGNING BY UKRAINE, MOLDOVA, AND GEORGIA ON CREATING THE TRIO GROUP, WHICH WILL BE TASKED WITH PROMOTING THE THREE COUNTRIES IN THE EU AND THE NATO. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS INITIATIVE? I think it’s a very good idea. And it’s not only to promote the three countries, but also to encourage and promote better cooperation among the three. It’s what Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, did. We’re always competing with each other but it’s a friendly competition. We are much stronger as a region, as a united force. So, I’m a strong supporter of regional cooperation. The three coming three together makes a stronger voice than one country. And that’s also my advice to Georgia. It’s a good thing to do, to cooperate in all the fields where it finds it useful to work together to advance common European aspirations.
