Georgia believes it has three wealthy and powerful suitors, thinking it can marry them all. However, it is more likely to be left with the poorest and most abusive one.
The Georgian government’s erratic and sprawling foreign policy over the past two years has puzzled many. The Georgian Dream administration is quarrelling with the West while also pursuing EU membership. It simultaneously makes concessions to the main opponent of its proclaimed pro-European path, Russia, and is flirting with China.
Passive/Aggressive Dynamics with the West
The criticism from the EU and the US is no longer confined to the corridors of diplomacy. They have publicly questioned the government’s choices and warned it about the consequences of helping Russia circumvent the Western sanctions. The government strongly denies anything is amiss.
Tbilisi also claims to have implemented the reforms set by the EU as conditions for granting candidate status. Georgian Dream Government claims it is ahead of Moldova and Ukraine on technical criteria, and says it is unfair for the EU, especially the European Parliament, to question its commitment.
Yet it turns a blind eye to criticism that the strident anti-Western and anti-democratic rhetoric of senior ruling party and government officials is hard to reconcile with a commitment to European integration. The government dismisses concerns about lagging in aligning with the EU foreign policy and about not doing enough to support Ukraine. It also brushes aside criticism of shortcomings in the protection of minority rights, freedom of speech, good governance and the treatment of the opposition.
Accommodating Russia
The Georgian government is going along with Russian desires and policies – it endorsed restoring direct flights even though all Russian aircraft and companies are sanctioned by the EU. It reaps economic benefits by increasing trade with and economic dependence on Russia. Only recently, and following considerable pressure, the Georgian government has banned the export of certain goods to Russia, including American and EU cars and microchips. Yet, statistics indicate that most such goods flowed from Georgia to Russia indirectly through countries with free-trade agreements with Russia – such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and, to a lesser degree, Armenia.
Russian citizens are free to enter and settle in Georgia, buy property and set up businesses. Migration policies introduced years ago to encourage tourism remain in place as hundreds of thousands of Russians flee their country for extended periods – or for good.
The government has also shown an eagerness to keep the most vocal opponents of the Moscow regime out of the country, criticizing and suppressing anti-Russian protests by Georgian citizens. By contrast, pro-war Russians, some of whom have broken Georgian laws in occupied territories, appear to be allowed in. The recent controversy over the docking in Batumi of the cruise ship carrying Russian tourists and pro-war media personalities was the latest and most visible result of this policy.
Relatively minor but highly symbolic concessions also irk many Georgians. Many new commercial establishments run by Russian migrants do not offer service in the Georgian language, in defiance of Georgian commercial law. Yet no action is taken, fueling public discontent.
Flirting with China
A few days ago, the Georgian government announced a plan to forge a “strategic partnership” with China. In the current international context, this decision seems incompatible with the “strategic partnership” with the United States, which the Georgian leaders have been talking about since 2002 and that was formalized in 2009.
Importantly, the government hinted about potential Chinese involvement in areas particularly sensitive to the U.S. and the EU: investment in Anaklia deep sea port – a highly strategic transit infrastructure – and in 5G mobile communication were mentioned. Georgia will host the Silk Road conference in October – a part of the “One Belt – One Road” initiative, just as Eastern Europe increasingly shuns the Chinese “16+1” project.
Geopolitical Myopia or Protection of National Interest?
So, is Georgia on to something? Has it developed a novel, “creative and innovative” doctrine, with its three-pronged approach to navigating global confrontations, simultaneously engaging with the West, Russia, and China (while also balancing the Russian overreach regionally through its close relations with Turkey)? Can this complex web allow it to act as the lynchpin of the region’s southern and central trade corridors while pursuing a sovereign agenda?
This is what the Georgian government would have you believe. The leaders say they are guided only by “national” interests and pursuing an “independent” policy without blindly following the Western diktat.
In the Georgian government’s lingo, “independent” policy means accommodating the interests of all the major players (the West, Russia, and China). Georgia is equidistant from these poles of power, offering itself as a place where even adversaries can coexist and do business.
This approach may seem attractive and tempting in theory, but it is unrealistic and superfluous.
Firstly, it substitutes the lack of moral ground and principles with notions of ‘neutrality’ and ‘independence.’ This substitution is largely driven by fear, resulting in paralysis and a failure to choose and defend the moral position. As Desmond Tutu wisely observed, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
Not only such is such an approach immoral, but it also lacks the pragmatism that it revendicates: if you don’t stand by your allies in their times of need, how can you expect them to stand by you when your time comes?
Secondly, for this “non-aligned” approach to work, a nation must have considerable strength and resources. Otherwise, the strategy is doomed to failure, at best making the nation an object of ridicule or, at worst, exposing it to the most malevolent forces seeking to exploit its indecision and perceived weakness.
Such a disjointed strategy by a small, vulnerable, and economically challenged country cannot possibly satisfy the national and strategic interests of global powers that are rivals and adversaries. By trying to appease everyone, you risk turning your country into a battleground, if not militarily, then economically and financially.
For example, you can’t have your largest deep-sea port, Anaklia; your 5G technologies, managed by the Chinese, remain economically dependent on Russia (which has occupying military forces within your borders), all the while aspiring to be part of the EU or NATO.
In 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s remark that he made in Tbilisi about the Anaklia port was as blunt as it can be in the “diplomatic world: “…I communicated our hope that Georgia completes the port project. The project and others will enhance Georgia’s relationship with free economies and prevent Georgia from falling prey to Russian or Chinese economic influence. Those pretend-friends do not have Georgia’s best interests at heart.”
For a small country like Georgia, flirting with conflicting global forces is an invitation to complications. Trying to please everyone isn’t a policy or a strategy; it reflects weakness, a lack of guiding principles, and a lack of national political identity.
Some argue that the Georgian government’s ‘three-pronged’ approach is not a strategy but a tactical choice in confusing times. They argue that by balancing the competing interests of the West, Russia, and China, Georgia can secure more favorable terms from all of them. An economic boom, or a reversal of Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are suggested as possible fruits, while the ruling class also continues to formally pursues the EU and NATO integration.
If this is indeed the Georgian government’s approach, it misses a crucial point: Georgia isn’t such an irresistibly attractive prospect, given its economic standing, and geographic and market size. There’s a real risk that the most self-respecting, principled and influential suitor will walk away from a capricious ingenue, leaving her with the least advantageous and scrupulous one.
