Sixteen years ago, Russia fought a brief war against the Black Sea nation of Georgia. Earlier in September President Joe Biden marked the anniversary, announcing that the United States “remains steadfast in its support of Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.”
However, to Biden, sovereignty properly understood does not include resisting America’s wishes. He explained that “we remain committed to the Georgian people and their Euro-Atlantic aspirations [emphasis added].” He sharply criticized the “Georgian government’s anti-democratic actions, exemplified by the Kremlin-style ‘foreign agents’ law and Georgian government officials’ false statements, which are inconsistent with EU and NATO membership norms [emphasis added].”
This was further amplified last week when the U.S. announced a raft of sanctions on two Georgian officials and more than 60 individuals in the former Soviet state over human rights abuses and anti-democratic actions — all stemming from the fallout and protests of the government’s passage of a controversial foreign influence law.
“The United States remains deeply concerned by the ongoing anti-democratic actions of the Georgian government, which are incompatible with membership norms of the European Union and NATO,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said Monday.
“In addition to the passage of the so-called ‘foreign influence law,’ we have also seen the Georgian government repeatedly violently crack down on Georgian citizens who protested that law.” Politics has been unsettled since the October 2020 parliamentary election, which the opposition refused to accept despite observers finding it to be basically free and competitive. Although demonstrators hoisted the banner of democracy, Georgia Dream has won three straight elections going back to 2012.
Nor is passage of a “foreign agents” bill inherently undemocratic, let alone “Russian inspired,” as the Biden administration charged. The new law only requires groups to disclose foreign funding if the contribution accounts for a fifth or more of their budget. By its own terms “this Law regulates the registration of an entity as an organization pursuing the interest of a foreign power and other issues related to the transparency of the activities of an organization pursuing the interest of a foreign power,” and “may not restrict the activities of an entity registered as an organization pursuing the interest of a foreign power on the basis of this Law.”
However, the State Department insisted that, “The draft legislation poses a threat to civil society organizations whose work benefits the lives of everyday citizens of Georgia.” The European Commission’s “Venice Commission” concluded: “Being designated as an entity pursuing the interests of a foreign power under the Law has serious implications as it undermines both the financial stability and credibility of the organizations targeted as well as their operations. … The persistent and stigmatizing obstacles concentrated in the hands of the state create a chilling effect.”
Alas, allied accusers have little credibility. Noted Serge Schmemann of the New York Times: “while Americans and Europeans are ramping up the pressure to take down Georgia’s bill, they might take a look at their own ‘foreign agent’ legislation to ensure that it never becomes weaponized for political reasons.”
But it is too late, at least in the US. The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires agents of “foreign principals”— defined as foreign governments, political parties, entities, and people — to register. Engaging in political or PR activities, collecting or spending money, and representing foreign principals to the U.S. government make one a foreign agent, subject to FARA’s registration, disclosure, and record-keeping requirements.
The law firm Covington & Burling warned: “FARA is written so broadly that, if read literally, it could potentially require registration even for some routine business activities of law firms and “FARA has no de minimis threshold. It can be triggered by even the slightest activity that means any one of the statutory triggers.”
As for Georgia, one suspects Tbilisi’s target is U.S. and European support for de facto regime change. Of course, Washington doesn’t put it that way. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller echoed Biden: “We are deeply concerned that draft legislation introduced into Georgia’s parliament will derail Georgia from its European path and harm civil society organizations improving the lives of Georgian citizens. We urge the government of Georgia to advance its EU aspirations.”
Allied governments are funding groups to attain a particular policy end. This is not new: U.S.-backed groups active in the Balkans have studiously favored liberal and Eurocratic parties over traditional and nationalistic ones, no matter how democratic the latter.
Is the Georgian legislation overly broad and badly designed? Perhaps, but many of the arguments against the legislation are self-serving. Contended a European analyst: “If the government claims to be concerned with how dependent much of Georgian civil society is on foreign funding, it could make more local funding available.” So Tbilisi is to blame for not subsidizing its critics?
In any case, legislative imperfection hardly justifies cutting off aid and restricting visas, and halting EU accession discussions, as the U.S. and EU have done, respectively. One could make the same critique of plenty of laws in Washington, Brussels, and capitals of the EU’s 27 member states. Could the law be misused, as it is, apparently, in the U.S. as well as Russia? Certainly.
Indeed, the Georgian Dream government deserves criticism, having forcefully cracked down on protests. Last month Human Rights Watch warned: “Georgian authorities have yet to demonstrate that they are conducting effective investigations into a spate of violent attacks on civic and political activists over recent months …. Impunity for these attacks risks encouraging further political violence and instability in the run-up to the country’s parliamentary elections in October 2024.”
Moreover, the government is threatening to ban the major opposition party, Saakashvili’s United National Movement, and other opponents as well.
For these actions, as well as abuse of any other laws, Tbilisi should be held accountable. Nevertheless, Western states should stop attempting to dictate other nations’ internal politics. Biden’s paean to Georgian sovereignty is disingenuous. Washington respects the independence of other governments to the extent that they act as Washington desires.
Indeed, the U.S. has been the world’s busiest election meddler: a Carnegie-Mellon study detailed how America had intervened in other nations’ elections 81 times between 1945 and 2000.
And despite the attacks on the Georgia Dream government for not joining Kyiv in adopting an anti-Moscow position, the former has successfully defended Georgian sovereignty. Observed the Quincy Institute’s Anatol Lieven: “Rather than a desire to follow Moscow, Georgian policy in fact reflects what CIA Director William Burns has called the ‘hedging middle,’ subservient neither to Russia nor the West, and determined by the official view of what constitutes Georgian national interests.”
The opposition complains that the government might make concessions to Russia. However, Tbilisi’s policy has been far more effective than Ukraine’s. Georgia remains free, even profiting from business with its overweening neighbor. Adapting to reality seems a small price to pay for not just survival, but independence, peace, and prosperity.
Obeying allies’ demand to help contain Moscow would leave Georgia to pay the price, as it did in the 2008 war, when it forlornly waited for American support. And as has Ukraine, with allied governments refusing to enter the conflict despite having rejected accommodation and compromise that might have forestalled the ongoing war.
Ultimately, the solution to improper behavior by the Georgian government lies with the Georgian people. With an October election pending, even one of Tbilisi’s sharpest critics says that the opposition should make its case to domestic voters, not foreign governments. Washington should remember John Quincy Adams’ admonition for a young America to avoid becoming “the dictatress of the world,” when “she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
