Would Saakashvili's Billionaire Challenger Keep Georgia on the Path to NATO?
The arrival of reclusive billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili on to Georgia's political scene is big news among Tbilisi's pundits, but it's also sparking some curiosity in foreign capitals, as well. Would be continue the same pro-Western, NATO-oriented foreign policy as the current government. To what extent is that orientation dependent on one man, the current president Mikheil Saakashvili?
His public statements thus far give some clue. He suggests a pro-Western orientation but a less hostile attitude toward Russia.
In one public letter, he refers to accusations that he is pro-Russia, as opposed to the pro-Western Saakashvili, but frames it in terms of politics, not foreign policy:
Quite recently Ia Antadze described me without any arguments as a pro-Russian force, and Saakashvili – as an apologetic of pro-western liberal values.
Ok, I will not take offence at whatever Ia Antadze calls me, but how can one see liberalism and pro-western orientation in Saakashvili, who established an authoritarian regime in Georgia? When you have a reputation, when the society knows you as a highly skilled and honest journalist and when you make such conclusions, such action is already equal to a crime.
(His notion that making such a statement is a crime undercuts somewhat his anti-authoritarian stance, but anyway.)
He also says that it was Georgia who invaded South Ossetia, not Russia (and that he advised against it). That is by now a pretty mainstream view outside of Georgia, but is certainly contrary to Saakashvili's take. Here, in the same letter, he's addressing Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili:
It was a year and a half before the August 2008. The very same scenario was being discussed at the time which you put into action in August 2008. [National Security Council Chair Giga] Bokeria was insistently demanding moving the Georgian forces into Samachablo [breakaway South Ossetia], hoping the Russian forces would have stranded aside and let the Georgian army into Tskhinvali without a fight...
I managed to temporarily halt that fatal decision from being made, but you still went through with that scenario later on, and the results we got in August 2008 are quite clear.
In another public letter, he discusses, in the most general terms, his platform, including these statements on security/foreign policy:
To create perspective for restoration of Georgian state’s jurisdiction over Abkhazian and South Ossetian territories;
To start sorting out relations with Russia;
To deepen friendship and integration with the United States and European Union.
He has given one interview thus far, to Reuters, where he also tries to thread that needle:
"I hope to astonish Europe with the level of democracy that I will create in Georgia," he said. "It will be such a real democracy that even Europeans will want to invest in Georgia."
Critics accuse Saakashvili of curbing freedoms and leading Georgia into the war with Russia in August 2008. Georgian forces were routed in five days and Moscow went on to recognise breakaway South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.
Ivanishvili accused Russia of "unheard-of aggression" against Georgia, but said Saakashvili's reckless foreign policy had provoked the conflict.
Writing in Jamestown's Eurasia Daily Monitor, Vlad Socor parses those statements and finds them wanting:
Regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Ivanishvili would try to “create prospects for restoration of Georgia’s jurisdiction” there. He does not elaborate and does not mention Georgia’s territorial integrity. He claims that the Georgian government behaved provocatively toward Russia already before 2008, and it initiated the hostilities in August that year. This line suggests that Ivanishvili will link his regime-change project with false hopes to change Moscow’s position regarding those territories.
On foreign policy overall, Ivanishvili confines himself to one sentence: he would “start sorting out relations with Russia, deepen friendship with the United States and integration with the European Union.” Again he does not elaborate, and does not mention NATO at all. This omission can be read as an implicit statement of his policy.
Although it's not clear that Ivanishvili wants NATO membership, members of Georgia's opposition are arguing that such a prospect would be more likely under Ivanishvili than it is under Saakashvili. After a meeting with State Department official William Burns, Messenger.ge reports:
Republican Levan Berdzenishvili welcomed Ivanishvili’s engagement in politics, explaining that this step would definitely improve the elections. Unhappy with the cooperation between the government and opposition on the new draft of the election code Berdzenishvili doubted that Georgia would enter NATO or EU under Saakashvili’s “eternal governance”. “The US perfectly understands our situation”, Levan Berdzenishvili said satisfied with the meeting.
And at least one anti-NATO politician suggests Ivanishvili is a stooge not of the Kremlin, but of the White House:
Leader of the Labour Party Shalva Natelashvili, however, thinks that if Ivanishvili comes to power, he will lead the country into NATO and that would further disintegrate Georgia. Natelashvili thinks that the US is supporting the billionaire and wants to substitute Saakashvili for Ivanishvili. Analysts believe that the pro-Russia label attached to Ivanishvili is too simplistic an explanation from the ruling authorities. According to the analyst Gia Khukhashvili Ivanishvili is more pro western than pro Russian. For one thing, Ivanishvili named his allies and partners and these were clearly pro-western oriented politicians from the Republican Party and Irakli Alasania.
So, the answer for now seems to be, who knows. But this is going to be closely watched in Washington and Moscow.
UPDATE: Naturally, the day after I publish this, Ivanishvili gave an interview in which he goes into (a bit) more detail about his foreign policy platform. On NATO:
I think we won’t be able to be a neutral state. In the condition of such a weak state, weak economy no one should expect me saying that I will fight for turning Georgia into a neutral state. Of course NATO has been an ideal option for us and we will continue efforts directed towards [NATO] integration.
NATO would have been the best option for our security, but I do not have an illusion that situation will change fast in this regard. I hope that the chance wasted [by the authorities] in this regard for a long period of time will not be lost forever; we should return to this issue.
Strategic partnership with the United States has a huge importance. This country has done a lot for us and we can only be grateful to the United States. We should try to further deepen relations with this country; first and foremost we should be interesting country for the U.S. We can and should do that.
And of course Russia’s factor is important, which is Georgia’s largest neighbor; no one can change it and move [Russia] to other place.
Read the whole thing here.
Joshua Kucera, a senior correspondent, is Eurasianet's former Turkey/Caucasus editor and has written for the site since 2007.
Sign up for Eurasianet's free weekly newsletter. Support Eurasianet: Help keep our journalism open to all, and influenced by none.