BREAKING: EU-Georgia Parliamentary Association Committee

On June 8th, 2023, the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Association Committee (PAC) met for its 12th session at the European Parliament in Brussels. Members of the European Parliament and permanent delegations of the Georgian government and parliament attended the session. Head of the Georgian Parliament's European Integration Committee, MP Maka Botchorishvili, and the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Association Committee Chairperson, MEP Marina Kaljurand, led the session. Both made statements, as did many other speakers, beginning with MP Marina Kaljurand.

MP Marina Kaljurand said, "There is no point in hiding that the relations between Georgian authorities and the Western partners, and notably with the European Parliament, have been quite stormy and I can even say chaotic, in the past year," when referring to the questions around journalist safety and media freedom in Georgia, plus the treatment of former President Mikheil Saakashvili. She further acknowledged that 89% of Georgians strongly supported EU integration.

Later she stressed that Georgia is behind Moldova and Ukraine in key areas, further highlighting the weariness of all foreign parties involved or interested in the success of EU-Georgian relationships, saying, "[We know they] are tired of hearing office holders and members of the ruling party claim about our so-called efforts to drag Georgia into opening a so-called "second front" against Russia. This is a Kremlin propaganda textbook. This is not true. We do not wish that for Georgia and the Georgian people. None of your friends have ever wished to drag you into another bloody war. We remember the war of 2008."

She then discussed public actions and addresses made by the Georgian ruling party members and their anti-Western rhetoric, explicitly calling out various instances. Yet she offered an olive branch at the end of her speech, saying, "My advice is not to blame others. Look into the mirror and see what you can do better."

MEP Maka Botchorishvili offered an equally diplomatic tone to her comments. However, her words were more confrontational in that they blamed the lack of praise by the EU for creating division in Georgia. She said the country needed to see more recognition of efforts rather than highlighting deficiencies and requesting improvements. Yet she did add, "We also know that much needs to be done by government and society as well, but we cannot achieve anything alone, without trust-based partnership and cooperation with the EU and its institutions, including the European Parliament."

Many others gave speeches and discussed the agenda for cooperation between Georgia and the European Union. Of specific note was the progress made in implementing the 12 recommendations previously set by the European Commission. Speakers provided input and insights into the Georgia-EU Association Agreement as well.

But the statements raised the question of whether Georgian reforms indeed are incomplete and superficial. Or, put another way, if no one says you're doing a bad job, does that mean you're doing a good job?

The elimination of free press and intimidation of journalists and protestors by the ruling party of Georgia has arguably been taken to ensure no one says, "You're doing a bad job." And in the context of this, are those positive reforms and steps which have been made genuinely sustainable? Or are they built in a closed ecosystem?

Because if changes have been implemented in a controlled environment, they will be unsustainable when left to the complexities of an independent and democratic society. One has to look no further than the changes Stalin implemented in the Soviet Union to see a clear example of this. No homeless people or criminals were in the street, and no one complained because those who did found themselves in a prison camp. But the average citizen didn't know about this. For a time, they thought the world they lived in was perfect. So, why would anyone complain unless they were bad people?

These examples are not made to compare any political party in Georgian to the Soviet regime but rather to highlight a well-known example of what happens when reforms are made in a controlled environment. Changes to the controls can and do have disastrous impacts on society at large - which is part of what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. These same factors may lead to significant, if not total, failure of the Russian Federation and its goals. After all, one can only control an environment if one also owns the media and voice of the people occupying the controlled space.

But there has never been a time when more people were more connected than today. Georgia is also connected and not a controlled space. While there have been and continue to be efforts by various factions to control the information available in the country, they have largely failed. Intelligent observers are immediately aware of bias between news outlets supporting opposing political factions, and one report can be drastically different than another - depending on who the reporting media agency wants to be seen favorably.

But the issue of regional security is of greater complexity than media and local politics. It requires viewing events through a finely focused lens and one broad enough to encompass the larger issues many may be unaware of. By way of example, Levan Karumidze, First Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on European Integration, highlighted a topic close to the hearts of all Georgians, irrespective of their political affiliation.

He addressed the issue of Abkhazia and Samachablo (South Ossetia or the Tskhinvali regions for those unfamiliar with the local preferred term). He pointed out the long-standing requests from Georgia to better align EU financial aid programs with the status of these Russian-occupied regions, specifically by withholding support from countries that chose to recognize the independence of either Abkhazia or Samachablo. Yet, the EU consistently ignores all such requests.

Because of this inaction on the part of the EU, the voice of Georgia is artificially limited, according to Karumidze, because, as he said, "Georgia does not join the statements about the countries that have not recognized the independence of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali regions, thus trying to minimize the risks of recognition."

And he is correct. While there are many valid arguments from the EU and Western sides about Georgia's failure to adhere to certain EU conditions, there are also long-standing failures from our EU and Western partners in fully supporting issues important to the people of Georgia and their shared independence. With the Russian war of aggression raging across Ukraine, it is only logical for us to look at the Georgian regions occupied by Russia and ask when the EU will take more proactive steps to support a unified Georgia.

In summary, both sides bear a degree of fault. Arguing one or the other has done the greater wrong ignores the more significant regional security issue. So long as Russia remains a threat to democracy, partners of Georgia should take all necessary steps to minimize the damage done to the region by Russian influence. Regarding diplomacy, Georgia is happy to support our sister nations of Moldova and Ukraine on their path to EU membership. However, we are not unaware of our long-term status as an example of the damage Russia can do to democracy in developing nations.

Russian interference constantly threatens national and regional security in the Caucasus Region. While the number of these threats may depend more or less on the ruling political party, the fact remains of their constancy. Only when the EU and Georgia can bridge the gap between what is and what could be will the threat be more effectively mitigated. Until then, the possibility of Georgia failing to meet EU requirements will remain a real threat to security in the region.

Source: European Parliament