Georgi Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi, exclusively for VK
The Washington Post, one of the leading U.S. newspapers, published an editorial article titled "Georgia's government takes a wrong turn". It is noteworthy that this article was authored by the Editorial board and reflects the opinion of, perhaps, the publishers themselves. The authors sharply criticized the government of Ivanishvili for authoritarianism and attempt to revenge on a team of Mikhail Saakashvili, as well as for "selective justice" in respect of his colleagues.
The article caused a major stir in Georgia; it was just one manifestation of a general trend, visible in the West. A new government came to power a few weeks ago, but faced with a wave of harsh criticism - the leading American and European resources are increasingly publishing articles in the same spirit.
Bidzina Ivanishvili prefers to brush aside and explain these publications with "the machinations of lobbying firms hired by the president." But one thing is when the article is published as an advertisement even in the most prestigious journals. This was a strategy of Saakashvili and even Ivanishvili himself a year ago also concluded million-dollar contracts with several American and European lobbying companies. However, editorial article in the "Washington Post" suggests that things are much more serious, and to explain it with the machinations of lobbyists would be an unforgivable simplification.
In fact, the first steps of Ivanishvili caused confusion among the expert community in the U.S. and Europe, contradicting with their stereotypes of Georgia and the former Soviet Union. For example, the Washington Post draws a parallel with Ukraine and Yanukovych, and this is not the only resource that stresses similarities between the current president of Ukraine and Georgia's new prime minister. The very idea is formed like this: "The democratic governments of Ukraine and Georgia had fair and transparent elections. They honestly admitted defeat. The new forces which came to power immediately arrested Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine and associates of President Saakashvili of Georgia".
Indeed, the general prosecutor's office arrested several members of the inner circle of Saakashvili, including former Defense Minister Bachana Akhalaia and Chief of Staff Giorgi Kalandadze. The charges, by and large, are ridiculous - beating soldiers for disobeying orders. In Western countries, it is also considered a crime, or at least serious administrative offense, but it's not a reason for imprisonment of an acting chief of staff or a former defense minister.
Moreover, the prosecutor's office was threatening with arrest to Vano Merabishvili, the leader of the pro-presidential (and now oppositional) party United National Movement. And although the new government keeps saying that Merabishvili became a chairman of the party just a month ago, before that for 8 years he directed the Interior Ministry, where he "mangled a lot of wood", in the western perception, it does not matter. Today Merabishvili is the leader of the opposition party and his possible arrest is seen as a politically motivated repressive act.
The threats against another powerful person in the team of Mikhail Saakashvili - Tbilisi Mayor Gigi Ugulava - are interpreted in the same manner. And unlike Merabishvili, Ugulava was elected to this position by hundreds of thousands of Tbilisi residents, so the authorities' attempts to dig under the elected mayor is also perceived negatively, reinforcing the stereotype of "repression."
The perception of Western media immediately reflected in the opinions of key western politicians. This is not surprising, given how important public opinion is in shaping policy in the West, in particular the position of the powerful groups behind media resources. The Washington Post, like the French Liberation, which also published a critical article, are resources with very serious influence. As a result, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen clearly accused the Ivanishvili government of "politically motivated arrests" and the Deputy Secretary of State Philip Gordon, while in Georgia, called Ivanishvili to avoid "selective justice."
Similar reaction was provoked by the financial check on "GPB", which is run by a close friend of Saakashvili Giorgi Chanturia, as well as attempts by the government and its supporters to block local authorities, where the majority belongs to the same pro-presidential party, that is (in the Western perception) oppositional.
Perhaps it was this wave of criticism that led to the breakdown of Ivanishvili's working visit to the U.S., scheduled for late November. Ivanishvili himself said that the visit was only postponed, but, in his own words, "the talks about the timing of the visit will begin in 2013." That means that he cannot say firmly whether the visit will take place at all, but merely refers to the possible date for this meeting.
So what is the reason for such a negative perception of the new government in the West? It is not so much the fact that the U.S. and Europe are supposedly very concerned that the foreign policy of Georgia can switch from pro-Western to pro-Russian course. In fact, after a five-day war, the policy-makers in the West recognized many geopolitical realities. But Ivanishvili does not play according to the rules accepted in the West and, more significantly, does not speak the language it understands. Not in terms of speaking fluent English or French but the general style of behavior. Saakashvili always subtly took this into account and carefully observed that his actions remained within the stereotypes prevailing in the West.
Finally, the situation around the government of Ivanishvili includes the Russian aspect: the Russian media and expert community as well, in general, are not too positive about the first steps of the new government. Moscow suggests that it is waiting for concrete steps from Ivanishvili, clearly referring to the restoration of diplomatic relations, non-aggression treaties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, less declarative course to join NATO, and other seemingly minor step, such as to close the museum of occupation in Tbilisi, to withdraw the recognition of the Circassian genocide, to resume broadcasting of Russian TV channels. Moscow makes it clear that a real dialogue, including the return of Georgian products to the Russian market, is possible only after the fulfillment of at least some of these requirements.
But the fact is that Ivanishvili simply cannot do anything of this without the risk that his political opponents at home would increase their positions. Thus, the head of the government is in a difficult situation, when on the one hand, he loses the support of the West, on the other hand, he cannot establish a real and productive dialogue with Russia. Given the resources and threats of small Caucasian country, it is the worst and most dangerous situation of all.
