Opinion: EU candidate status madness is distracting Georgia from preserving stability and democratic development

"There are some misconceptions that Georgia can be transformed into some kind of Eastern European, especially Ukraine. This is more of a pipe dream rather than possible reality. Georgia will not be turned into a South Caucasian variation of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, built on pro-Western Georgian nationalistic sentiments and highly anti-Russian attitudes," writes Archil Sikharulidze for in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "Georgia already has the best possible status-quo where Ukrainians and Russians, Azeris and Armenians, Turks and Armenians live, cooperate and build a better future together. This is what Georgia’s Western allies must pursue as this is the best way to keep Georgia on the “right path”, and is in the best geopolitical interests of Washington as well as Brussels. The best thing Georgia can give the West and the East meanwhile is a land of stability, a gateway to both worlds."

Nowadays, Georgia is in a significant political crisis. The ruling Georgian Dream party is hoping to win the 2024 parliamentary elections while local opposition leaders and elite non-governmental sector representatives are working hard in Brussels and Washington to prove that Bidzina Ivanishvili is the “sole” reason for Georgia’s “fall to autocracy”. Arguably, thanks to the Russian-Ukrainian war those who observe Georgia in the US and EU are more inclined to support radical views in Tbilisi, calling on the government to be more principled in its actions against Russia.

There is a well-embedded view among some significant European and American political actors that the pro-Russian government of Georgian Dream lead by Russian-oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili is fighting against pro-Democratic forces of Saakashvili, the only real political brand among Georgian political opposition. This opinion is however mainly a product of political rivalry and propaganda rather than a real reflection of the situation in the country. 

Unfortunately, all involved actors try to represent political processes in the country according to their own views, values and geopolitical agenda. The worst thing is that Georgian elites in Tbilisi are so focused on pleasing Georgia’s friends abroad that no-one asks what Georgian people really want. Receiving “holy” EU candidate status became an obsession when local political, business, non-governmental and academic elites started really believing that this “label” would save Georgia. Current Georgian elites are simply “gone with Europe” just as they were “gone with NATO MAP” for the last decade, arguing that the only thing that mattered was to receive the membership action plan. Fascinatingly, no-one speaks about this anymore.

But apart from this “candidate status” madness, there are few issues that must be addressed seriously to preserve the stability and democratic development of Georgia.

Western policy in Georgia

First of all, it is dangerous to continue current American and European policy in Georgia. Tbilisi’s strategic allies in the West have managed to contribute to the anti-Western sentiments better than the whole propaganda machine of the Kremlin. Unfortunately, representatives of the Western world in collaboration with local opposition and the elite part of the non-governmental sector currently speak unto the wider Georgian population through threats and allegations. Arguments such as “if we don’t do this the EU will punish us by stripping us of our European future”, are probably the most commonplace for the last few years among mainly Tbilisi-based political and non-political actors.

And, even if this approach might work in Tbilisi where almost all political and non-political actors are directly financed by the same American and European agencies, outside the capital city it is a completely different story. In this dimension, the US ambassador’s aggressive and directives-based rhetoric only leads to irritation and comparison with the Russian Empire and the Soviet-era “namestnik” (deputy) period. It is time for Georgia’s western partners to return to a diplomatic narrative and not to repeat Russian mistakes. 

At the time of the collapse of the USSR, Georgia had the closest ties with Moscow. Its elites were deeply attached to Russia and no-one could have imagined that these ties would have been challenged. But thanks to Moscow’s decision to apply a “carrot and stick” approach, not taking into consideration local mentality, the Georgian people in full cooperation with its elites initially detached themselves rather than simply cutting off relations with Russia. Russian political elites managed to destroy 200 years of Georgian-Russian relations in just two decades.

Thus, there must be a clear understanding that Georgia wants and needs a strategic partnership with the West and not yet another political “stick” disguised as “supervision” from metropoles such as Brussels or Washington. The reason why Georgians are motivated to drift away from the Kremlin, in essence, was and precisely is to break this “metropole-periphery” relationship.

EU communications in Georgia are misguided

One more serious challenge for the EU is its representation among the wider Georgian population. Thanks to deeply misguided communications from EU representatives in Georgia there are, arguably, only two issues that are mainly attached with Georgia’s “EU future”: LGBTQI+ rights and the “save Misha” project.

At some point a citizen of Georgia not well aware of the political processes on the ground may think that the EU is all about conducting annual gay-pride celebrations in Tbilisi, and ensuring the safety, prosperity of Mikheil Saakashvili and his colleagues. And while some once again may try to assure that “gay pride” in Tbilisi is an expression of freedom, the majority of Georgian people cannot understand why former high officials should be “pardoned” and helped to “survive”, especially when some of them were directly mentioned in ECHR judgements as “possible perpetrators” and others even lost cases at the same court.

It is time for EU members to revise the way they communicate with wider Georgian society and stop only focusing on Tbilisi-based elite groups, thinking that they represent the whole nation. After all, Georgia’s non-governmental sector has a profoundly low trust score in comparison to Western investments.

Meanwhile, bringing back Saakashvili and his former allies to political life on behalf of “pluralism”, “media freedom” and other “democratic values” is actually probably the worst scenario for Georgian democracy. Saakashvili and his followers may sound like pro-democratic, pro-Western thinkers, but in practice are characterised by a mainly brute force approach focused on quick modernization via the restriction of freedoms and liberties. For these people freedom of speech and thought is applicable only to those who share their values; for others, there are political, social, economic, academic and other types of persecutions. That is why by the end of the Saakashvili regime there was almost no critical thought on political, media, business, NGO and academic agendas.

Like in the Communist era, the real Georgian by then was a supporter of Saakashvili, his political ideology, and a “fanatic” of NATO/EU integration. Any aberration from this new “dogmatism” was equal to Soviet-era counter-revolutionary activities, resulting in at least “social cancellation”. As famous Russian poet Alexander Pushkin wrote in the Gypsies: “You are not born for the savage life, You want freedom only for yourself.”

One must be careful while pushing the idea of the so-called “right” and “good” Georgians i.e. pro-Western; and all other undesired elements as “agents of the Kremlin”. It will only deepen the political and social crisis in the country. Georgians have already experienced such attempts of political and social cleansings when self-proclaimed “morally superior” groups conducted “trials of dignity”, leading to nation-wide uncontrolled prosecutions and assassinations. The same concept was also promoted by Saakashvili when he referred to all others as “flushed away”.

Georgia will not turn into a South Caucasian variation of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia

There are some misconceptions that Georgia can be transformed into some kind of Eastern European, especially Ukraine. This is more of a pipe dream rather than possible reality. Georgia will not turn into a South Caucasian variation of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, built on pro-Western Georgian nationalistic sentiments and highly anti-Russian attitudes. Furthermore, Georgia is not Ukraine – there will be no new “Euromaidan” or “revolution of dignity”. If it were to happen, it would lead to a civil war that the state has already gone through in the 90s, barely escaping total collapse.

Georgia already has the best possible status quo where Ukrainians and Russians, Azeris and Armenians, Turks and Armenians live, cooperate and build a better future together. This is what Georgia’s Western allies must pursue as this is the best way to keep Georgia on the “right path”, and is in the best geopolitical interests of Washington as well as Brussels. The best thing Georgia can give the West and the East meanwhile is a land of stability, a gateway to both worlds.

source: Archil Sikharulidze is the founder of the SIKHA Foundation, and has a PhD in Social Sciences at GIPA.
photo: 
Mariam Nikuradze/OC Media.
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)