So here’s the most important economic fact of our time. We are living in an age of surging income inequality, particularly between those at the very top and everyone else. This shift is the most striking in the U.S. and in the U.K., but it’s a global phenomenon. It’s happening in communist China, in formerly communist Russia, it’s happening in India, in my own native Canada. We’re even seeing it in cozy social democracies like Sweden, Finland and Germany.

Let me give you a few numbers to place what’s happening. In the 1970s, the One Percent accounted for about 10 percent of the national income in the United States. Today, their share has more than doubledto above 20 percent. But what’s even more striking is what’s happening at the very tippy top of the income distribution. The 0.1 percent in the U.S. today account for more than eight percent of the national income. They are where the One Percent was 30 years ago. Let me give you another number to put that in perspective, and this is a figure that was calculated in 2005 by Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Reich took the wealth of two admittedly very rich men, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, and he found that it was equivalent to the wealth of the bottom 40 percent of the U.S. population,120 million people. Now, as it happens, Warren Buffett is not only himself a plutocrat, he is one of the most astute observers of that phenomenon, and he has his own favorite number. Buffett likes to point out that in 1992, the combined wealth of the people on the Forbes 400 list – and this is the list of the 400 richest Americans – was 300 billion dollars. Just think about it. You didn’t even need to be a billionaire to get on that list in 1992. Well, today, that figure has more than quintupled to 1.7 trillion, and I probably don’t need to tell you that we haven’t seen anything similar happen to the middle class, whose wealth has stagnated if not actually decreased.

So we’re living in the age of the global plutocracy, but we’ve been slow to notice it. One of the reasons, I think, is a sort of boiled frog phenomenon. Changes which are slow and gradual can be hard to noticeeven if their ultimate impact is quite dramatic. Think about what happened, after all, to the poor frog. But I think there’s something else going on. Talking about income inequality, even if you’re not on the Forbes 400 list, can make us feel uncomfortable. It feels less positive, less optimistic, to talk about how the pie is sliced than to think about how to make the pie bigger. And if you do happen to be on the Forbes 400 list,talking about income distribution, and inevitably its cousin, income redistribution, can be downright threatening.

So we’re living in the age of surging income inequality, especially at the top. What’s driving it, and what can we do about it?

One set of causes is political: lower taxes, deregulation, particularly of financial services, privatization, weaker legal protections for trade unions, all of these have contributed to more and more income going to the very, very top.

A lot of these political factors can be broadly lumped under the category of “crony capitalism,” political changes that benefit a group of well-connected insiders but don’t actually do much good for the rest of us. In practice, getting rid of crony capitalism is incredibly difficult. Think of all the years reformers of various stripes have tried to get rid of corruption in Russia, for instance, or how hard it is to re-regulate the banks even after the most profound financial crisis since the Great Depression, or even how difficult it is to get the big multinational companies, including those whose motto might be “don’t do evil,” to pay taxes at a rate even approaching that paid by the middle class. But while getting rid of crony capitalism in practice is really, really hard, at least intellectually, it’s an easy problem. After all, no one is actually in favor of crony capitalism. Indeed, this is one of those rare issues that unites the left and the right. A critique of crony capitalism is as central to the Tea Party as it is to Occupy Wall Street.

But if crony capitalism is, intellectually at least, the easy part of the problem, things get trickier when you look at the economic drivers of surging income inequality. In and of themselves, these aren’t too mysterious. Globalization and the technology revolution, the twin economic transformations which are changing our lives and transforming the global economy, are also powering the rise of the super-rich.Just think about it. For the first time in history, if you are an energetic entrepreneur with a brilliant new idea or a fantastic new product, you have almost instant, almost frictionless access to a global market of more than a billion people. As a result, if you are very, very smart and very, very lucky, you can get very, very rich very, very quickly. The latest poster boy for this phenomenon is David Karp. The 26-year-old founder of Tumblr recently sold his company to Yahoo for 1.1 billion dollars. Think about that for a minute: 1.1 billion dollars, 26 years old. It’s easiest to see how the technology revolution and globalization are creating this sort of superstar effect in highly visible fields, like sports and entertainment. We can all watch how a fantastic athlete or a fantastic performer can today leverage his or her skills across the global economy as never before. But today, that superstar effect is happening across the entire economy. We have superstar technologists. We have superstar bankers. We have superstar lawyers and superstar architects. There are superstar cooks and superstar farmers. There are even, and this is my personal favorite example, superstar dentists, the most dazzling exemplar of whom is Bernard Touati, the Frenchman who ministers to the smiles of fellow superstars like Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich or European-born American fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg.

But while it’s pretty easy to see how globalization and the technology revolution are creating this global plutocracy, what’s a lot harder is figuring out what to think about it. And that’s because, in contrast with crony capitalism, so much of what globalization and the technology revolution have done is highly positive. Let’s start with technology. I love the Internet. I love my mobile devices. I love the fact that they mean that whoever chooses to will be able to watch this talk far beyond this auditorium. I’m even more of a fan of globalization. This is the transformation which has lifted hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people out of poverty and into the middle class, and if you happen to live in the rich part of the world, it’s made many new products affordable – who do you think built your iPhone? — and things that we’ve relied on for a long time much cheaper. Think of your dishwasher or your t-shirt.

So what’s not to like? Well, a few things. One of the things that worries me is how easily what you might call meritocratic plutocracy can become crony plutocracy. Imagine you’re a brilliant entrepreneur who has successfully sold that idea or that product to the global billions and become a billionaire in the process. It gets tempting at that point to use your economic nous to manipulate the rules of the global political economy in your own favor. And that’s no mere hypothetical example. Think about Amazon, Apple, Google, Starbucks. These are among the world’s most admired, most beloved, most innovative companies. They also happen to be particularly adept at working the international tax system so as to lower their tax bill very, very significantly. And why stop at just playing the global political and economic system as it exists to your own maximum advantage? Once you have the tremendous economic powerthat we’re seeing at the very, very top of the income distribution and the political power that inevitably entails, it becomes tempting as well to start trying to change the rules of the game in your own favor.Again, this is no mere hypothetical. It’s what the Russian oligarchs did in creating the sale-of-the-century privatization of Russia’s natural resources. It’s one way of describing what happened with deregulation of the financial services in the U.S. and the U.K.

A second thing that worries me is how easily meritocratic plutocracy can become aristocracy. One way of describing the plutocrats is as alpha geeks, and they are people who are acutely aware of how important highly sophisticated analytical and quantitative skills are in today’s economy. That’s why they are spending unprecedented time and resources educating their own children. The middle class is spending more on schooling too, but in the global educational arms race that starts at nursery school and ends at Harvard, Stanford or MIT, the 99 percent is increasingly outgunned by the One Percent. The result is something that economists Alan Krueger and Miles Corak call the Great Gatsby Curve. As income inequality increases, social mobility decreases. The plutocracy may be a meritocracy, but increasingly you have to be born on the top rung of the ladder to even take part in that race.

The third thing, and this is what worries me the most, is the extent to which those same largely positive forces which are driving the rise of the global plutocracy also happen to be hollowing out the middle class in Western industrialized economies. Let’s start with technology. Those same forces that are creating billionaires are also devouring many traditional middle-class jobs. When’s the last time you used a travel agent? And in contrast with the industrial revolution, the titans of our new economy aren’t creating that many new jobs. At its zenith, G.M. employed hundreds of thousands, Facebook fewer than 10,000. The same is true of globalization. For all that it is raising hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the emerging markets, it’s also outsourcing a lot of jobs from the developed Western economies. The terrifying reality is that there is no economic rule which automatically translatesincreased economic growth into widely shared prosperity. That’s shown in what I consider to be the most scary economic statistic of our time. Since the late 1990s, increases in productivity have been decoupled from increases in wages and employment. That means that our countries are getting richer, our companies are getting more efficient, but we’re not creating more jobs and we’re not paying people, as a whole, more.

One scary conclusion you could draw from all of this is to worry about structural unemployment. What worries me more is a different nightmare scenario. After all, in a totally free labor market, we could find jobs for pretty much everyone. The dystopia that worries me is a universe in which a few geniuses invent Google and its ilk and the rest of us are employed giving them massages.

So when I get really depressed about all of this, I comfort myself in thinking about the Industrial Revolution. After all, for all its grim, satanic mills, it worked out pretty well, didn’t it? After all, all of us here are richer, healthier, taller – well, there are a few exceptions — and live longer than our ancestors in the early 19th century. But it’s important to remember that before we learned how to share the fruits of the Industrial Revolution with the broad swathes of society, we had to go through two depressions, the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Long Depression of the 1870s, two world wars, communist revolutions in Russia and in China, and an era of tremendous social and political upheaval in the West. We also, not coincidentally, went through an era of tremendous social and political inventions. We created the modern welfare state. We created public education. We created public health care. We created public pensions.We created unions.

Today, we are living through an era of economic transformation comparable in its scale and its scope to the Industrial Revolution. To be sure that this new economy benefits us all and not just the plutocrats, we need to embark on an era of comparably ambitious social and political change. We need a new New Deal.

“So far, the 21st century has been a rotten one for the western model,” according to a new book, The Fourth Revolution, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge. This seems an extraordinary admission from two editors of the Economist, the flag-bearer of English liberalism, which has long insisted that the non-west could only achieve prosperity and stability through western prescriptions. It almost obscures the fact that the 20th century was blighted by the same pathologies that today make the western model seem unworkable, and render its fervent advocates a bit lost. The most violent century in human history, it was hardly the best advertisement for the “bland fanatics of western civilisation”, as the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr called them at the height of the cold war, “who regard the highly contingent achievements of our culture as the final form and norm of human existence”.

Niebuhr was critiquing a fundamentalist creed that has coloured our view of the world for more than a century: that western institutions of the nation-state and liberal democracy will be gradually generalised around the world, and that the aspiring middle classes created by industrial capitalism will bring about accountable, representative and stable governments – that every society, in short, is destined to evolve just as the west did. Critics of this teleological view, which defines “progress” exclusively as development along western lines, have long perceived its absolutist nature. Secular liberalism, the Russian thinker Alexander Herzen cautioned as early as 1862, “is the final religion, though its church is not of the other world but of this”. But it has had many presumptive popes and encyclicals: from the 19th-century dream of a westernised world long championed by the Economist, in which capital, goods, jobs and people freely circulate, to Henry Luce’s proclamation of an “American century” of free trade, and “modernisation theory” – the attempt by American cold warriors to seduce the postcolonial world away from communist-style revolution and into the gradualist alternative of consumer capitalism and democracy.

The collapse of communist regimes in 1989 further emboldened Niebuhr’s bland fanatics. The old Marxist teleology was retrofitted rather than discarded inFrancis Fukuyama’s influential end-of-history thesis, and cruder theories about the inevitable march to worldwide prosperity and stability were vended by such Panglosses of globalisation as Thomas Friedman. Arguing that people privileged enough to consume McDonald’s burgers don’t go to war with each other, the New York Times columnist was not alone in mixing old-fangled Eurocentrism with American can-doism, a doctrine that grew from America’s uninterrupted good fortune and unchallenged power in the century before September 2001.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 briefly disrupted celebrations of a world globalised by capital and consumption. But the shock to naive minds only further entrenched in them the intellectual habits of the cold war – thinking through binary oppositions of “free” and “unfree” worlds – and redoubled an old delusion: liberal democracy, conceived by modernisation theorists as the inevitable preference of the beneficiaries of capitalism, could now be implanted by force in recalcitrant societies. Invocations of a new “long struggle” against “Islamofascism” aroused many superannuated cold warriors who missed the ideological certainties of battling communism. Intellectual narcissism survived, and was often deepened by, the realisation that economic power had begun to shift from the west. The Chinese, who had “got capitalism”, were, after all, now “downloading western apps”, according to Niall Ferguson. As late as 2008, Fareed Zakaria declared in his much-cited book, The Post-American World, that “the rise of the rest is a consequence of American ideas and actions” and that “the world is going America’s way”, with countries “becoming more open, market-friendly and democratic”.

A world in flames

One event after another in recent months has cruelly exposed such facile narratives. China, though market-friendly, looks further from democracy than before. The experiment with free-market capitalism in Russia has entrenched a kleptocratic regime with a messianic belief in Russian supremacism. Authoritarian leaders, anti-democratic backlashes and rightwing extremism define the politics of even such ostensibly democratic countries as India, Israel, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Turkey.

The atrocities of this summer in particular have plunged political and media elites in the west into stunned bewilderment and some truly desperate cliches. The extraordinary hegemonic power of their ideas had helped them escape radical examination when the world could still be presented as going America’s way. But their preferred image of the west – the idealised one in which they sought to remake the rest of the world – has been consistently challenged by many critics, left or right, in the west as well as the east.

Herzen was already warning in the 19th century that “our classic ignorance of the western European will be productive of a great deal of harm; racial hatred and bloody collisions will develop from it.” Herzen was sceptical of those liberal “westernisers” who believed that Russia could progress only by diligently emulating western institutions and ideologies. Intimate experience and knowledge of Europe during his long exile there had convinced him that European dominance, arrived at after much fratricidal violence and underpinned by much intellectual deception and self-deception, did not amount to “progress”. Herzen, a believer in cultural pluralism, asked a question that rarely occurs to today’s westernisers: “Why should a nation that has developed in its own way, under completely different conditions from those of the west European states, with different elements in its life, live through the European past, and that, too, when it knows perfectly well what that past leads to?”

The brutality that Herzen saw as underpinning Europe’s progress turned out, in the next century, to be a mere prelude to the biggest bloodbath in history: two world wars, and ferocious ethnic cleansing that claimed tens of millions of victims. The imperative to emulate Europe’s progress was nevertheless embraced by the ruling elites of dozens of new nation-states that emerged from the ruins of European empires in the mid-20th century, and embarked on a fantastic quest for western-style wealth and power. Today, racial hatred and bloody collisions ravage the world where liberal democracy and capitalism were expected to jointly reign.

This moment demands a fresh interrogation of what Neibuhr euphemistically called “the highly contingent achievements of the west”, and closer attention to the varied histories of the non-west. Instead, the most common response to the present crisis has been despair over western “weakness” – and much acrimony over what Barack Obama, president of the “sole superpower” and the “indispensable nation” should have done to fix it. “Will the West Win?” Prospect asks on the cover of its latest issue, underlining the forlornness of the question with a picture of Henry Kissinger, whose complicity in various murderous fiascos from Vietnam to Iraq has not prevented his re-incarnation among the perplexed as a sage of hardheaded realism.

Robert Kagan, writing in the Wall Street Journal at the start of September, articulated a defiant neoconservative faith that America is condemned to use “hard power” against the enemies of liberal modernity who understand no other language, such as Japan and Germany in the early 20th century, and Putin’s Russia today. Kagan doesn’t say which manifestation of hard power – firebombing Germany, nuking Japan, napalming Vietnam – the United States should aim against Russia, or if the shock-and-awe campaign that he cheerled in Iraq is a better template. Roger Cohen of the New York Times provides a milder variation on the clash of civilisations discourse when he laments that “European nations with populations from former colonies often seem unable to celebrate their values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law”.

Such diehard believers in the west’s capacity to shape global events and congratulate itself eternally were afflicted with an obsolete assumption even in 1989: that the 20th century was defined by the battles between liberal democracy and totalitarian ideologies, such as fascism and communism. Their obsession with a largely intra-western dispute obscured the fact that the most significant event of the 20th century was decolonisation, and the emergence of new nation-states across Asia and Africa. They barely registered the fact that liberal democracies were experienced as ruthlessly imperialist by their colonial subjects.

For people luxuriating at a high level of abstraction, and accustomed to dealing during the cold war with nation-states organised simply into blocs and superblocs, it was always too inconvenient to examine whether the freshly imagined communities of Asia and Africa were innately strong and cohesive enough to withhold the strains and divisions of state-building and economic growth. If they had indeed risked engaging with complexity and contradiction, they would have found that the urge to be a wealthy and powerful nation-state along western lines initially ordered and then disordered first Russia, Germany and Japan, and then, in our own time, plunged a vast swath of the postcolonial world into bloody conflict.

History’s long-term losers

The temptation to imitate the evidently triumphant western model, as Herzen feared, was always greater than the urge to reject it. For many in the old and sophisticated societies of Asia and Africa, chafing under the domination of western Europe’s very small countries, it seemed clear that human beings could muster up an unprecedented collective power through new European forms of organisation like the nation-state and the industrialised economy. Much of Europe had first learned this harsh lesson in political and military innovation from Napoleon’s all-conquering army. In the century after the Napoleonic wars, European societies gradually learned how to deploy effectively a modern military, technology, railways, roads, judicial and educational systems and create a feeling of belonging and solidarity, most often by identifying dangerous enemies within and without.

As Eugen Weber showed in his classic book Peasants into Frenchmen (1976), this was a uniformly brutal process in France itself. Much of Europe then went on to suffer widespread dispossession, the destruction of regional languages and cultures, and the institutionalisation of hoary prejudices like antisemitism. The 19th century’s most sensitive minds, from Kierkegaard to Ruskin, recoiled from such modernisation, though they did not always know the darker side of it: rapacious European colonialism in Asia and Africa. By the 1940s, competitive nationalisms in Europe stood implicated in the most vicious wars and crimes against religious and ethnic minorities witnessed in human history. After the second world war, European countries – under American auspices and the pressures of the cold war – were forced to imagine less antagonistic political and economic relations, which eventually resulted in the European Union.

But the new nation-states in Asia and Africa had already started on their own fraught journey to modernity, riding roughshod over ethnic and religious diversity and older ways of life. Asians and Africans educated in western-style institutions despaired of their traditionalist elites as much as they resented European dominance over their societies. They sought true power and sovereignty in a world of powerful nation-states – what alone seemed to guarantee them and their peoples a fair chance at strength, equality and dignity in the white man’s world. In this quest China’s Mao Zedong and Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as much as Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh followed the western model of mass-mobilisation and state-building.

By then European and American dominance over “the world’s economies and peoples” had, as the Cambridge historian Christopher Bayly writes in The Birth of the Modern World, turned a large part of humanity “into long-term losers in the scramble for resources and dignity”. Nevertheless, the explicitly defined aim of Asia and Africa’s first nationalist icons, who tended to be socialist and secular (Atatürk, Nehru, Nasser, Nkrumah, Mao, and Sukarno), was “catch-up” with the west. Recent ruling classes of the non-west have looked to McKinsey rather than Marx to help define their socioeconomic future; but they have not dared to alter the founding basis of their legitimacy as “modernisers” leading their countries to convergence with the west and attainment of European and American living standards. As it turns out, the latecomers to modernity, dumping protectionist socialism for global capitalism, have got their timing wrong again.

In the 21st century that old spell of universal progress through western ideologies – socialism and capitalism – has been decisively broken. If we are appalled and dumbfounded by a world in flames it is because we have been living – in the east and south as well as west and north – with vanities and illusions: that Asian and African societies would become, like Europe, more secular and instrumentally rational as economic growth accelerated; that with socialism dead and buried, free markets would guarantee rapid economic growth and worldwide prosperity. What these fantasies of inverted Hegelianism always disguised was a sobering fact: that the dynamics and specific features of western “progress” were not and could not be replicated or correctly sequenced in the non-west.

The enabling conditions of Europe’s 19th-century success – small, relatively homogenous populations, or the ability to send surplus populations abroad as soldiers, merchants and missionaries – were missing in the large and populous countries of Asia and Africa. Furthermore, imperialism had deprived them, asBasil Davidson argued in The Black Man’s Burden: Africa and the Curse of the Nation-State, of the resources to pursue western-style economic development; it had also imposed ruinous ideologies and institutions upon societies that had developed, over centuries, their own viable political units and social structures.

Recklessly exported worldwide even today, the west’s successful formulas have continued to cause much invisible suffering. What may have been the right fit for 19th-century colonialists in countries with endless resources cannot secure a stable future for India, China, and other late arrivals to the modern world, which can only colonise their own territories and uproot their own indigenous peoples in the search for valuable commodities and resources.

The result is endless insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, wars and massacres, the rise of such bizarre anachronisms and novelties as Maoist guerrillas in India and self-immolating monks in Tibet, the increased attraction of unemployed and unemployable youth to extremist organisations, and the endless misery that provokes thousands of desperate Asians and Africans to make the risky journey to what they see as the centre of successful modernity.

It should be no surprise that religion in the non-western world has failed to disappear under the juggernaut of industrial capitalism, or that liberal democracy finds its most dedicated saboteurs among the new middle classes. The political and economic institutions and ideologies of western Europe and the United States had been forged by specific events – revolts against clerical authority, industrial innovations, capitalist consolidation through colonial conquest – that did not occur elsewhere. So formal religion – not only Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and the Russian Orthodox Church, but also such quietist religions as Buddhism – is actually now increasingly allied with rather than detached from state power. The middle classes, whether in India, Thailand, Turkey or Egypt, betray a greater liking for authoritarian leaders and even uniformed despots than for the rule of law and social justice.

But then western ideologues during the cold war absurdly prettified the rise of the “democratic” west. The long struggle against communism, which claimed superior moral virtue, required many expedient feints. And so the centuries of civil war, imperial conquest, brutal exploitation, and genocide were suppressed in accounts that showed how westerners made the modern world, and became with their liberal democracies the superior people everyone else ought to catch up with. “All of the western nations,” James Baldwin warned during the cold war in 1963, are “caught in a lie, the lie of their pretended humanism; this means that their history has no moral justification, and the west has no moral authority.” The deception that an African-American easily divined has continued, nevertheless, to enjoy political support and intellectual respectability long after the end of the cold war.

Thus the editors of the Economist elide in The Fourth Revolution the history of mass slaughter in the west itself that led to the modern nation-state: the religious wars of the 17th century, the terror of French revolutions, the Napoleonic wars, the Franco-Prussian war and the wars of Italian unification, among others. Mainstream Anglo-American writers who vend popular explanations of how the west made the modern world veer between intellectual equivocation and insouciance about the west’s comparative advantage of colonialism, slavery and indentured labour. “We cannot pretend,” Ferguson avers, that the “mobilisation of cheap and probably underemployed Asian labour to grow rubber and dig gold had no economic value.” A recent review in the Economist of a history explaining the compact between capitalism and slavery protests that “almost all the blacks” in the book are “victims”, and “almost all the whites villains”.

Understandably, history has to be “balanced” for Davos Men, who cannot bear too much reality in their effervescent prognoses of “convergence” between the west and the rest. But obscuring the monstrous costs of the west’s own “progress” destroys any possibility of explaining the proliferation of large-scale violence in the world today, let along finding a way to contain it. Evasions, suppressions and downright falsehoods have resulted, over time, in a massive store of defective knowledge – an ignorance that Herzen correctly feared to be pernicious – about the west and the non-west alike. Simple-minded and misleading ideas and assumptions, drawn from this blinkered history, today shape the speeches of western statesmen, thinktank reports and newspaper editorials, while supplying fuel to countless log-rolling columnists, TV pundits and terrorism experts.

The price of progress

A faith in the west’s superiority has not always been an obstacle to understanding the tormented process of modernisation in the rest of the world, as the French anti-communist Raymond Aron demonstrated in books like Progress and Disillusion (1968) and The Opium of the Intellectuals (1955). Aron believed the west made the modern world with its political and economic innovations and material goals, but did not flinch from examining what this fact really augured about the modern world. As he saw it, the conflicts and contradictions thrown up by the pursuit of modernity had been hard enough to manage for western societies for much of the last century. Industrial societies alone had seemed able to improve material conditions, and bring about a measure of social and economic equality; but the promise of equality, which staved off social unrest, was increasingly difficult to fulfill because specialisation kept producing fresh hierarchies.

Some parts of the west had achieved some reduction in material inequalities, due to a market economy which produced both desirable goods and the means to acquire them; organised labour, which made it possible for workers to demand higher wages; and political liberty, which made the rulers accountable to the ruled. And some western countries had also, however brutally, got the sequencing broadly right: they had managed to build resilient states before trying to turn peasants into citizens. (“We have made Italy; now we must make the Italians,” the Italian nationalist Massimo d’Azeglio famously proclaimed in 1860.) The most successful European states had also accomplished a measure of economic growth before gradually extending democratic rights to a majority of the population. “No European country,” Aron pointed out, “ever went through the phase of economic development which India and China are now experiencing, under a regime that was representative and democratic.” Nowhere in Europe, he wrote in The Opium of Intellectuals, “during the long years when industrial populations were growing rapidly, factory chimneys looming up over the suburbs and railways and bridges being constructed, were personal liberties, universal suffrage and the parliamentary system combined”.

Countries outside the west, however, faced simultaneously the arduous tasks of establishing strong nation-states and viable economies, and satisfying the demands for dignity and equality of freshly politicised peoples. This made the importation of western measures and techniques of success in places that “have not yet emerged from feudal poverty” an unprecedented and perilous experiment. Travelling through Asia and Africa in the 1950s, Aron discerned the potential for authoritarianism as well as dark chaos.

There were not many political choices before societies that had lost their old traditional sources of authority while embarking on the adventure of building new nation-states and industrial economies in a secular and materialist ethos. These rationalised societies, constituted by “individuals and their desires”, had to either build a social and political consensus themselves or have it imposed on them by a strongman. Failure would plunge them into violent anarchy.

Aron was no vulgar can-doist. American individualism, the product of a short history of unrepeatable national success, in his view, “spreads unlimited optimism, denigrates the past, and encourages the adoption of institutions which are in themselves destructive of the collective unity”. Nor was he a partisan of the blood-splattered French revolutionary tradition, which requires “people to submit to the strictest discipline in the name of the ultimate freedom” – whose latest incarnation is Isis and its attempt to construct an utopian “Islamic State” through a reign of terror.

The state under siege

Applied to the many nation-states that emerged in the mid-20th century, Aron’s sombre analysis can only embarrass those who have been daydreaming since 1989 about a worldwide upsurge of liberal democracy in tandem with capitalism. Indeed, long before the rise of European totalitarianisms, urgent state-building and the search for rapid and high economic growth had doomed individual liberties to a precarious existence in Japan. Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia and South Korea went on to show, after 1945, that a flourishing capitalist economy always was compatible with the denial of democratic rights.

China has more recently achieved a form of capitalist modernity without embracing liberal democracy. Turkey now enjoys economic growth as well as regular elections; but these have not made the country break with long decades of authoritarian rule. The arrival of Anatolian masses in politics has actually enabled a demagogue like Erdoğan to imagine himself as a second Atatürk.

Turkey, however, may have been relatively fortunate in being able to build a modern state out of the ruins of the Ottoman empire. Disorder was the fate of many new nations that had been insufficiently or too fervidly imagined, such as Myanmar and Pakistan; their weak state structures and fragmented civil society have condemned them to oscillate perennially between civilian and military despots while warding off challenges from disaffected minorities and religious fanatics. Until the Arab spring, ruthless despots kept a lid on sectarian animosities in the nation-states carved out of the Ottoman empire. Today, as the shattering of Iraq, Libya and Syria reveals, despotism, far from being a bulwark against militant disaffection, is an effective furnace for it.

Countries that managed to rebuild commanding state structures after popular nationalist revolutions – such as China, Vietnam, and Iran – look stable and cohesive when compared with a traditional monarchy such as Thailand or wholly artificial nation-states like Iraq and Syria. The bloody regimes inaugurated by Khomeini and Mao survived some terrible internal and external conflicts – the Korean and Iran-Iraq wars, the Cultural Revolution and much fratricidal bloodletting – partly because their core nationalist ideologies secured consent from many of their subjects.

Since 1989, however, this strenuously achieved national consensus in many countries has been under siege from a fresh quarter: an ideology of endless economic expansion and private wealth-creation that had been tamed in the mid-20th century. After its most severe global crisis in the 1930s, capitalism had suffered a decline in legitimacy, and in much of the non-western world, planned and protected economic growth had become the chosen means to such ends as social justice and gender equality. In our own age, feral forms of capitalism, which after the Depression were defanged by social-welfarism in the west and protectionist economies elsewhere, have turned into an elemental force. Thus, nation-states already struggling against secessionist movements by ethnic and religious minorities have seen their internal unity further undermined by capitalism’s dominant ethic of primitive accumulation and individual gratification.

China, once the world’s most egalitarian society, is now even more unequal than the United States – 1% of its population owns one-third of the national wealth – and prone to defuse its increasing social contradictions through a hardline nationalism directed at its neighbours, particularly Japan. Many formally democratic nation-states, such as India, Indonesia, and South Africa, have struggled to maintain their national consensus in the face of the imperative to privatise basic services such as water, health and education (and also, for many countries, to de-industrialise, and surrender their sovereignty to markets). Mobile and transnational capital, which de-territorialises wealth and poverty, has made state-building and its original goals of broad social and economic uplift nearly impossible to achieve within national boundaries.

The elites primarily benefitting from global capitalism have had to devise new ideologies to make their dominance seem natural. Thus, India and Israel, which started out as nation-states committed to social justice, have seen their foundational ideals radically reconfigured by a nexus of neoliberal politicians and majoritarian nationalists, who now try to bludgeon their disaffected subjects into loyalty to a “Jewish state” and a “Hindu nation”. Demagogues in Thailand, Myanmar, and Pakistan have emerged at the head of populations angry and fearful about being deprived of the endlessly postponed fruits of modernity.

Identified with elite or sectarian interests, the unrepresentative central state in many countries struggles to compete with offers of stability and order from non-state actors. Not surprisingly, even the vicious Isis claims to offer better governance to Sunnis angry with the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. So do Maoist insurgents who control large territories in Central India, and even drug-traffickers in Myanmar and Mexico.

A shattered mirror

Fukuyama, asserting that the “power of the democratic ideal” remains immense, claimed earlier this year that “we should have no doubt as to what kind of society lies at the end of History”. But the time for grand Hegelian theories about the rational spirit of history incarnated in the nation-state, socialism, capitalism, or liberal democracy is now over. Looking at our own complex disorder we can no longer accept that it manifests an a priori moral and rational order, visible only to an elite thus far, that will ultimately be revealed to all.

How then do we interpret it? Reflecting on the world’s “pervasive raggedness” in the last essay he wrote before his death in 2006, the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz spoke of how “the shattering of larger coherences … has made relating local realities with overarching ones … extremely difficult.” “If the general is to be grasped at all,” Geertz wrote, “and new unities uncovered, it must, it seems, be grasped not directly, all at once, but via instances, differences, variations, particulars – piecemeal, case by case. In a splintered world, we must address the splinters.”

Such an approach would necessarily demand greater attention to historical specificity and detail, the presence of contingency, and the ever-deepening contradictions of nation-states amid the crises of capitalism. It would require asking why nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq failed catastrophically while decentralisation helped stabilise Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, after a long spell of despotic rule supported by the middle class. It would require an admission that Iraq can achieve a modicum of stability not by reviving the doomed project of nation-state but through a return to Ottoman-style confederal institutions that devolve power and guarantee minority rights. Addressing the splinters leaves no scope for vacuous moralising against “Islamic extremism”: in their puritanical and utopian zeal, the Islamic revolutionaries brutally advancing across Syria and Iraq resemble the fanatically secular Khmer Rouge more than anything in the long history of Islam.

A fresh grasp of the general also necessitates understanding the precise ways in which western ideologues, and their non-western epigones, continue to “make” the modern world. “Shock-therapy” administered to a hapless Russian population in the 1990s and the horrific suffering afterwards set the stage for Putin’s messianic Eurasianism. But, following Geertz’s insistence on differences and variations, the ressentiment of the west articulated by nationalists in Russia, China, and India cannot be conflated with the resistance to a predatory form of modernisation – ruthless dispossession by a profit-driven nexus of the state and business – mounted by indigenous peoples in Tibet, India, Peru and Bolivia.

In any case, the doubters of western-style progress today include more than just marginal communities and some angry environmental activists. Last month the Economist said that, on the basis of IMF data, emerging economies – or the “large part of humanity” that Bayly called the “long-term losers” of history – might have to wait for three centuries in order to catch up with the west. In the Economist’s assessment, which pitilessly annuls the upbeat projections beloved of consultants and investors, the last decade of rapid growth was an “aberration” and “billions of people will be poorer for a lot longer than they might have expected just a few years ago”.

The implications are sobering: the non-west not only finds itself replicating the west’s violence and trauma on an infinitely larger scale. While helping inflict the profoundest damage yet on the environment – manifest today in rising sea levels, erratic rainfall, drought, declining harvests, and devastating floods – the non-west also has no real prospect of catching up with the west.

How do we chart our way out of this impasse? His own discovery of the tragically insuperable contradictions of westernisation led Aron into the odd company of the many thinkers in the east and the west who questioned the exalting of economic growth as an end in itself. Of course, other ways of conceiving of the good life have existed long before a crudely utilitarian calculus – which institutionalises greed, credits slavery with economic value and confuses individual freedom with consumer choice – replaced thinking in our most prominent minds.

Such re-examinations of liberal capitalist ideas of “development”, and exploration of suppressed intellectual traditions, are not nearly as rousing or self-flattering as the rhetorical binaries that make laptop bombers pound the keyboard with the caps lock glowing green. Barack Obama, who struggled to adhere to a wise policy of not doing stupid stuff, has launched another open-ended war after he was assailed for being weak by assorted can-doists. Plainly, Anglo-American elites who are handsomely compensated to live forever in the early 20th century, when the liberal-democratic west crushed its most vicious enemies, will never cease to find more brutes to exterminate. The rest of us, however, have to live in the 21st century, and prevent it from turning into yet another rotten one for the western model.

• This article was amended on 17 October 2014. An earlier version stated that “No less than the World Bank admitted last month that emerging economies … might have to wait for three centuries in order to catch up with the west”. In fact it was the Economist, analysing IMF data, which said that last month.

link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/14/-sp-western-model-broken-pankaj-mishra

Amendments made to the legislation of Georgia within 2003-2012 were directed to strengthening of Saakashvili and his regime. The political force which came to power through revolution started amending the legislation right away in order to adjust it to its own political interests. The new government made the parliament to make amendments to the constitution in February 2004 whilst the term of office of that parliament had expired in November 22, 2003.

The process of usurpation of power by Mikheil Saakashvili had kicked off and ran at full speed in 2005 after the Prime-Minister Zurab Jvania’s death in mysterious circumstances and in 2008 when the Chair of the Parliament Mrs. Nino Burjanadze established an opposition party.

Democracy during Saakashvilis period as well as legislative amendments were just façade by which the ruling party managed to create imitation of success and reform.Ease of doing business by which the representatives of the former government are still boasting implied only simplified process of registration of an enterprise which meant that establishing a firm was easy but carrying out real business activity – impossible.

Various successful business enterprises that had been established before the revolution were transferred either to the persons being in close relationship with the members of the ruling party or to the state in often cases in the name of the law or via open violence. There is not a few numbers of precedents when detained or imprisoned business enrepreneurs “voluntarily” transferred their own property and companies to the builders of the “beacon of liberty” at late night hours through the aid of one and the same notary. Unfortunately, the businessmen who lost their property in 2003-2012 as well as those people who were persecuted for their political views neither gained back their loss nor received any kind of compensation.

Formation of a repressive machine, which the representatives of the previous government call “successful reform of the police”, deserves to be highlighted separately. In the wake of building “democracy” Georgia became a champion in Europe in terms of the number of prisoners on per capita basis! Virtually there was not a single family throughout the country which did not become the victim of the repressive machine and those, who did not have anything to be deprived of, Saakashvili simply “washed off”; he filled the staff of State Universities with the members of the non-governmental organization “Kmara” (“It’s enough”). Autonomy of Universities became fictitious; members of the “National Movement” remembered them only after 2012 Parliamentary elections when they lost their power and the single hope for keeping jobs for their supporters became the principle of non-involvement of the state.

Statements made by the parliamentary representatives of the “National Movement” on “defeating corruption” are also ridiculous and cynical. Representatives of the Shevardnadze’s government could not even dream about the sums of money that the youth wing of the Shevardnadze’s party embezzled in a very short period of time through various illegal ways after they had come to power for the second time via the “Rose Revolution.” Abolishment of anti-monopoly and other state controlling bodies (including the body controlling safety of imported products) which was motivated as if by elimination of corruption actually served to monopolization of import whilst illegal sums, which were distributed by evading the state budget, became legal excess profit.

Now, after signing the Association Agreement with the EU this issue is still of top importance; without quality control Georgian product cannot have access on European market. Often the reforms brought about by Mr. Saakashvili were based upon such paradoxes, not common sense.

Nowadays citizens have to pay far more to the budget for purchasing public services then they had to before the Revolution. Much talked about electricity which “Misha made available to us”, is also too expensive for the majority of the population. Salaries and bonuses of state officials twenty times exceed to the average pension in the country. Evil practices of the “National Movement” are still being followed. “Today we are the majority and we will decide everything to our liking” – everybody remembers this popular statement of one of the leaders of the UNM. Nowadays, the ruling majority has changed but those of the yesterday’sare still trying to do what they were doing – to decide everything in a manner favourable to them, not to the people!

In 2013-2014 Global Research Center held a number of meetings and seminars in order to obtain assessments on legislative amendments from expert as well as from the persons participating in the events of the period of the “National Movement”.

Gia Meparishvili – Doctor of Law, Full Professor at the Caucasus International University, retired Chief State Advisor of Justice.

Amendments and additions to the Criminal and Crominal Procedure Legislation of Georgia from November 23, 2003 to October 1, 2012

On November 23, 2003 government in Georgia was changed through violance, which afterwards was called a “Rose Revolution”. The revolution left its trail on the constitution, legislation and, inter alia, in the first place, the legislation on the Police, Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia.

After coming to power “National Movement” prolonged 4 year term of the 1999-2003 parliament of Georgia (5^th convene) and numerous amendments and additions were made to the acting legislative acts. The first thing that the illegitimate parliament did was that it made amendments and additions to the Constitution of Georgia on February 6, 2004 on the basis of Constitutional Law and after strengthening the power through Constitutional ways the ruling party started adjusting the legislation to those political desires and ambitions that the young “reformers” had.

Altogether, from February 13, 2003 to October 1, 2012, 92 amendments and additions were made to the Criminal Code of Georgia (Criminal Code of Georgia of July 22, 1999, in force from June 1, 2000) while to the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia of February 20, 1998, in force from May 15, 1999 to October 1, 2010) were made 64 amendments and additions. Further in the same recently amended Criminal Procedure Code (in force from October 1, 2010) 24 amendments and additions were made until October 1, 2012.

It can be said that the world legislative practice does not know a country, which makes principal amendments to the legislative base with this frequency and without proper consideration. Principal changes in regard with the political course in the country are also significant. In this regard Georgia is really exceptional with its “aggressive legislative dilettantism” outcomes of which will be difficult to correct.

It is fair to be noted that the population of Georgia had high hopes that after the defeat of the National Movement in October 1, 2012 elections, the new political power would manage and correct that vicious heritage that the 9 year of the National Movement as a ruling party left to the legislation of the country. Certain steps in this direction have been definitely made though the process is going on languidly and need to be pace up. The present work is an effort of researching the amendments and additions made to the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia throughout 9 years via scientific abstraction. The work aims at identifying the criteria that the legislators used as their basis within 2003-2012 when introducing legislative innovations.

It is noteworthy that any legislative innovation is always based on the the achievements of comparative jurisprudence (the world practice) and legal science. Georgian law makers must have used the experience of the world’s leading countries though the reasonability of Georgian interpretation of this lawmaking is often contentious. The quality of lawmaking activity is so low and the legislative base is so poor that the legislative act in its present form is often questioned. This is what happened in regard with the Criminal Code and 2009 edition of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. The laws on “Operative-Search Activity”, “Police” and “Advocates” are also in poor condition.

Amendments and additions made to the criminal legislation of Georgia throughout 2003-2012 were clearly politically motivated. In particular, large-scale repressive measures were being prepared against the representatives of the previous government (referencing to the high rank officials of President Shevardnadze’s government). First thing done in this direction was the decision on establishment of two legal entities of private law: Institutional Development Fund of the Prosecutor’s Office and “Defense Fund” under the Ministry of Defense of Georgia by adopting legislative acts.

These two Funds served as, let’s say, “Money boxes” in which the property of businessmen and former high rank officials expropriated either via court of law or ordinary state racket were contributed to. The number of the sums mobilized in either of these two funds within 2004-2008 is unknown. We can only suppose that the number of these sums might be measured in billions which were spent by the previous government without any control and neither the legislative government nor the Chamber of Control held any kind of information on the funds.

As the funds were registered in the form of legal entities of private law, the heads of funds did not disclose any information either to media or Parliament members or anybody; the funds, in which flew “voluntary” contributions, functioned under such conditions of “full transparency.”  The circumstance that it is more than 10 months since the change of government in Georgia is also noteworthy; however, nobody could reveal the actual situation in the above-mentioned funds. The only information that we have is that the first Chair of the Institutional Development Fund of the Prosecutor’s Office was Mr. Kote Kublashvili (currently the Chair of the Supreme Court of Georgia). Below we will review the ways through which the funds were filled.

For receiving expected political and economic results, numerous relevant amendments were made to the Criminal Code of Georgia and Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia which, at the expense of human rights, facilitates used repressions and gave possibility of deprivation of as much property as possible. For example, on July 21, 1997 Constitutional Court of Georgia recognized confiscation of property, as an additional form of punishment in the Criminal Code anticonstitutional, as it was in contradiction with Article 21 of the Constitution. Constitutional Court allowed the possibility of special confiscation in the legislations of Criminal Procedure and Administrative Offences. The above decision of the Constitutional Court was absolutely neglected and the new law of Georgia adopted on December 28, 2005 stipulated relevant addition to Article 52 of the Criminal Code of Georgia which made deprevation of property possible even without using special confiscation.

On February 13, 2004 relevant additions were made to the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia which legalized a practice unknown to the countries falling within the Roman-German jurisdiction;the practice was established through the influence of the US legislation. The pactice implies a plea bargain which was interpreted into Georgian legal system in a more repressive and improper way than its well-known American equivalent “bargain on pleaing guilty”.

In particular, first “quick and effective” administration of justice was outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Georiga (Article 151) which was then added plea bargain on guilt or punishment (Chapter XIV1). Georgian surrogate of the American legislation had severe influence on the population of Georgia and gave foundation to establishment of vicious tendencies during pre-trial investigation and administration of justice in the court as well. Plea bargain in Georgia was used virtually for every type of crime so that the victim was not asked almost nothing; after some time the victim was not asked anything at all on the closing of the criminal case with plea bargain. In 2011 thanks to plea bargains, bails and confiscation of property, more than GEL 108 000 000 flew to the state budget of Georgia.

In 2010 the sum was more than GEL 86 000 000. Altogether, within 2004-2011 more than GEL 1 billion was mobilized in the state budget of Georgia through confiscation of property and plea bargain. Sum of plea bargain was further added “voluntary transfers” to the above-mentioned funds made by theaccuseds. We do not know the total sum that flew into the funds. We are afraid that such information may be lost. At the same time the “process of requisition” was largely supported and mass media carried out propaganda of the fairness of the new government compared to the unfair old one.

In 2005, at his annual Parliamentary address, the President of Georgia made following statements: “Zero tolerance to criminals” and “every culprit should be sent to prison.” After this political statement Georgian legislators made a number of amendments and addtions to the acting Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. These amendments were related to introduction of strict criminal policy as a result of which 25 000people (charged prisoners or the prisoners in pre-trial detention), according to thedata of 2012, were sent to prison.

More than 150 000 people were imprisoned and detained for various offences within 2004-2012 whilst the number of probationers was far higher. Introduction of strict criminal policy determined stricter criminal liability in almost every article of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Liability for the crimes commited in the fields of political and economic activities became particularly strict. Comparatively liberal restrainingmeasures (house arrest, transfer under the supervision of police,reconigzance not to leave,and personal bail) were deleted from the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia from 2005.

At the same time area of application of imprisonment, as a restraining measure, became stricter. Only within 2005-2008 period imprisonment, as a restraining measure, was used more often than in any other country of the world. For example, the number of imprisoned within 2005-2006 was more than 70%. Application of imprisonment decreased during the following period but bail amount increased and reachedterrible numbers. All the above mentioned took place in a country population of which is socially vulnerable, where the minimum salary is the lowest and utility bills – one of the highest. Such recklessness and absolutely unsubstantiated strict criminal policy resulted in further impoverishment of poor population and emerging of so-called “private hypothecators”.

These so-called “private hypothecators”, who issued loan agreements with very high interest rate to private persons, mostly accepted immovable property, especially residential apartments and commercial areas, as mortgages. Fiscal policy carried out by Georgian commercial banks also became merciless. Often accused persons had to encumber their property with mortgage either with “private hypothecators” or with commercial banks, and as they could not pay back the necessary sum they lost their property. The main reason why they took loans from banks and private hypothecators was bail and plea bargain.

According to the August 1, 2013 data, more than 200 000 people who lost their property either with private hypothecators or with commercial banksare registered in Georgia. The problem is apparently bearing political nature. It’s difficult to say how this acute problem will be decided. This is what we yield from reckless and strict criminal policy on which no one wants to take responsibility today. It is important to highlight that very often with the purpose of obtaining the money necessary for plea bargain relevant divisions of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs acted as mediators between the banks and the accuseds.

Currently, numerous applications are registered at the Prosecutor’s Office and its territorial divisions, and investigations have started on them. Initial data of such investigation and rulings on several cases reviewed in court is terrible.

Strict criminal policy has also resulted in the introduction of the rule of cumulative sentence copied from American criminal legislation. This legislative innovation made  possible such imprisonment termsthat had never been in criminal practice before (for ex: based on the law of December 29, 2006, the highest term for imprisonment was 40 years in case of application of cumulative sentence) without bringing about any relevant measures in the penitentiary system. It is noteworthy that the maximum term of imprisonment in the criminal legislation of Georgia at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union did not exceed 15 years.

One more dark side of strict criminal policy: Georgian legislation for administrative offences stipulates imprisonment for 90 days (paragraph I of Article 31 of the Criminal Offences Code of Georgia (in force from July 17, 2009) and for violation of public order in court and disrespect towards court – imprisonment for 60 days (paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 85 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia). Maximum terms for administrative offences in Georgia at the time of dissolution of the Soviet Union was 15 days while plea bargain related to depreviation or restriction of liberty was not specified at all.

Soviet legislation set forth warning, dismissal from courtroom, charging administrative fine for undue performance of plea liability and violation of order in court. If the crime was commited during a case hearing in court, materials would be transferred to the Prosecutor for investigation and the case was transferred to another judge for its review on merits.

Thanks to the legislative innovation introduced by the “National Movement” the victim judge who is reviewing another case can sentence 90 days imprisonment to a particular offender. Fundamental principles of modern law are violated: person is depriviated of liberty without proving his/her culpability, victim is the one who sentencesand what is the most important – ruling issued by a judge shall not be further appealed (?!). It should be noted that such legislative disorder is still in force.

Law of July 27, 1993 of Georgia on the Police is the first legislative act in adoption of which I have participated. The law was adopted at a hard time under hard circumstances and I would like to underline with content that it has successfully resisted time. At the same time I would like to note that such reckless and often illogical amendments and additions were made to this law within the recent 5-6 years, that it has actually lost its initial intention and nowadays it is one more sample of aggressive legislative dilettantism.

As you may be aware, political will and desire of the ruling elite in the first place is reflected on laws and the Law of Georgia on the Police could not have been spared from it too. The amendments and additions mentioned above clearly prove it. I would like to review them in more detail.

In not a very distant past, on September 24, 2010, a number of amendments and additions were made to the law of Georgia on Police. These additions and amendments were followed by diverse reactions from people. Part of the public at large, especially those who supported the government, liked the above-mentioned legislative innovations, another part had acute reaction on them. A discussion on what type of state was Georgia, resumed: what was the arrangement of the state we were living in: legal or police?

In particular, they were going to legalize facilitation of the process of stopping, detention,search in urgent cases and other activities, which did not have either scientific or social substantiation (see weekly newspaper “Versia,” December 2-3, 2009). It seemed that everything was said and disclosed back then. However, not everything was the way, we wanted to be. Let’s pay some attention to new “legislative diamonds”. On the basis of the above-mentioned amendments and additions:

1. The task of the police is: “Carry out preventive measures with the purpose of prevention of violation of law and suppression of crime. Identification and investigation of such actions, searchand detention of the persons accused as well as development of the strategy and tactics for fighting the crime” (Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the law).

Dear reader, have you understood anything? Personally me – nothing! And I am sure there are a lot who are in my state. The role of the police in the part of development of the strategy and tactics for fighting crime is especially ambiguous.

1. “If dealy poses threat to the life and health of a person, police officer is authorized to enter residential aparemtns of people, on the territories and premises of enterprises and organizations (except for the premises of diplomatic representations, Consulates and international organizations that enjoy diplomatic immunity) to prevent crime or/and detain a person who committed the crime or who is convicted for committing the crime” (sub-paragraph b of paragraph one of article 9”.

It seems as if everything is clear in this passage and should not be contentious; the police should have this right; however, this unharmful legislative passage was distorted after making new amendments to it – imperative liability of the police on notifying the Prosecutor’s office within 24 hours on their entrance to the residential area or other property of citizens necessitated by urgency in order the prosecutor’s office to apply to the court for determining the lawfulness of such action is deleted.

This “tiny”, “insignificant” detail was omitted by our legislators! Now, let’s realize what may happen in such case and how each of us can protect ourselves from illegal actions of the police. By the way, the fact that such legislative innovation contradicts to the Constitution of Georgia and the norms of International Law is not of less importance, too.

On one more legislative blunder: a so-called “reasonable doubt” is introduced to the Law of Gorgia on the Police in case of which use of the rule stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia implying the right of stopping and frisking of a person (Article 19).

Reader must be interested in the so-called “reasonable doubt” and how our police are planning to stop citizens and frisk on the basis of it. I should say from the very beginning that here we are dealing with the legislative “Gordian knot” and let’s try to unravel it. According to the above-mentioned amendments, policeman is allowed to stop a person if there is a reasonable doubt on possible commitment of crime by the person (?).

Term of detention is the necessary term for either confirmation or annulation of the reasonable doubt (do you understand anything?). Do not smile at it; our state is not funny at all! Let us follow the wording and I promis that you will not be smiling any more: policeman is allowed to carry out frisking toensur his/her safety if he/she has reasonable doubt. If, during frisking, emerges any further basis for search, authorized person shall carry out search in accordance with the rule established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia (paragraph 4 of Article 19).

And here we are! But do not be afraid, according to paragraph 5 of the same law, the citizen “stopped and searched” has the right to appeal stopping and frisking in court according to the place of stopping within 5 days term and demand compensation (paragraph 5 of Article 9).

My sarcasm has the grounds and I am going to prove it: in 1993 edition of the law the wording was absolutely different according to which a policeman was authorized to search a persons ID if there were enough data on commiting crime or administrative offence by that person. As for the detention of a person, police officer was authorized to act so only in the cases stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code.

Now, let’s go through the difference between the expressions: “enough data” and “reasonable doubt”. “Reasonable doubt” is not typical for Georgian and European legislation. It is a criminal procedure institute characteristic for the countries belonging to the family of common law and it has nothing to do with the legislation on the police.

Let us not forget the fact that according to the new Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, police officer is neither a party nor a participant in the criminal procedure. A question arises: if, according to the legislation in force, a policeman is not a participant of a case, why was considered in this regard in the law on the Police?

Now, let’s review the term “enough grounds”, removed from the law. It was an assessment category and quite a solid court practice, as well as special literature, getting familiar with which would clarify the concept of the legislation (for example: if a policeman became an eye-witness of a crime or an administrative offence or an eye-witness or a victim notified a policeman about a crime or an administrative offencethen a decision on the searchof an offender is made based on relevant photo and description, etc). The term is used quite successfully in European, especially of the Eastern European police legislation.

As for the new term “stopping”, it is absolutely uncomprehensible. The law stipulated quite broad discretion of interpreting this term, which is very dangerous and Georgian society will definietely reap its results. Pay attention to the language of the law: the term stopping is the reasonableterm necessary either for confirmation or annulation of the reasonable doubt. Then, how long can that term last? The law does not mention it at all! In this part too, the Georgian legislation creates many awkwardnesses and openly contradicts not only to the Constitution of Georgia and the Human Rights Convention of Europe, but with the court practice of Strasbourg Human Rights Court.

Let’s pay attention to another formulation of one of the passages in the law which is as it follows: “In case of reasonable doubt a policeman shall be authorized to carry out friskingon the clothes of the stoppedperson to ensure his/her own safety. If frisking gives grounds for further examination, an authorized person shall perform it in accordance with the rule established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia.” It seems that a policeman is authorized, including in case of absence of operative data and evidence, to stop and frisk any person randomly.

What are we dealing with? An investigative action? No, a policeman is not a participant of the procedure. By the way, friskingwas the part of investigative action before October 1, 2010 and only investigator and prosecutor had the right to carry it. As for the Administrative Offences Code of Georgia, it does not set forth checking but it sets forth frisking and seizing of an item (Article 248) and only of the person, who have commited an administrative offence. As for frisking, it is not set forth in a new Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia neither as an investigative action and nor the procedure of carrying it out is mentioned in the law.

And about one more “awkwardness”: amendments made to the law on the Police do not stipulate any type of guarantees for protection the rights and freedoms of citizens. For example: a policeman is authorized to carry out ramndom check of a person of his/her opposite sex (?) Well, the law does not prohibit it. In addition, the right of the person stopped – to appeal the action of a policeman in a court under whose jurisdiction falls the place of his/her stopping and examination – is very interesting too as long as it is just a legal fiction and nothing more! What will a detaine and frisked person appealthe action of the policeman or the act which the policeman drew up? A policeman is not required to draw up any act on such action and appealing against the action of a policemanis doubtful and almost impossible. Well, the world legislation does not know any such action so far.

Opponents of the above reasoning may say that the world police activities know such practice, for example: why are we checked before boarding a plan or any other public transport? What are the rules and regulations that guid the police in such cases?

To those people I would answer: safety of citizens is ensured by the security service of that particular air transport and it must be so. By the way, the relevant legislation stipulates these procedures in detail. The police only participate in conducting these procedures in order to prevent violation of public order. In cases when it is necessary to check either a passanger or luggage on security, we are dealing with absolutely another case which has nothing to do with the situation which the law of Georgia intends to regulate.

On July 17, 2009, amendments and additions were made to Article 12 of the Law of Georgia on the Police which refered to the regulation of the use of special devices in the police activity. In particular, the list of special devices (handcuffs or other means of restraint, rubber batons, tear gas, sonic weapons, devices for demolition of barriers and stop vehicles, armored cars, special paints, police dogs and horses, electro shock devices), which was comprehensive was further added: pepper gas (?), acustic device (?), non-leathal weapon (including non-lethal missile (?)) Well, how do you like the Georgian?

Adoption of the above-listed amendments and additions was not accidential at all and it had quite an acute ground. The issue was on the devices used by the Georgian police for dispersing protest demonstration on Rustaveli Avenue and Rike on November 7, 2007 (acustic radiowave weapon, non-lethal (non-combat) special sevices “AL6” and “FN303”, by which special missiles are fired for dispersing demonstrations). The same happened on May 6, 2009 for dispersing the rally in front of the Tbilisi City Police building.

Non-leathal weapon used by the Georgian police damaged health of tens of people, including of three citizens – severely (they lost eyesight). As it turned out, the police illegally used special devices as the Law of Georgia on the Police did not stipulate the list of such devices. Scandal snowballed and, as it should happen in any legal state, such action of the police should be assessed relevantly after proper investigation. However, the Government of Georgia neither investigated the cases nor raised the issue of accountability of anyone at all. Justification of such actions from the Government of Georgia was quite “convincing” – as if everything, what happened, was within the frames of law and the international law and legislation of East European countries stipulate the right to use such non-lethal devices!

As it seems we have to go through the issue in more details: “AL6” and “FN303” belong to special police devices and police divisions in many countries use them for suppressing unrest, group vandalism or in other cases of mass disobedience of law.

The way of using of these special devices is simple – special missile (bullet) which is a mass of rubber or plastic substance treated by a certain technology – is fired from relevant devices which resemble an ordinary weapon very much. Such missile (bullet) does not cause death (lethal result), does not mutiliate or severely damage the victim. In the countries where the use of such and similar devices is allowed, the rules of its use are regulated very strictly. Particularly, by-laws prohibit the use of such special devices at night and under the conditions of poor vision; use of such devices against women and children is prohibited; firing to the direction of head and the parts of the body which may be lifethreatening is prohibited, etc.

I want the reader to understand the fact that despite the devices are widely used across the world, there are countries which prohibit the use of so-called “non-lethal missiles (bullets)” as the practice shows that their use is often followed by significant deterioration of health.

According to the July 27, 1993 Law of Georgia on the Police, the police is not authorized to use rubber or plastic bullets. Based on paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the same Law a policeman shall be authorized to use physical force and compulsion, special devices and service firearms in the cases and according to the rule stipulated by this law. In Article 12 of the same Law is given a list of every special device that the police are authorized to use and which can be further added other devices only on the basis of the Law. The list does not set forth the use of rubber or plastic missiles (bullets) though it is quite long and contains rubber batons, tearing gas, electro shock device, etc.

In 1993 the third convene Parliament of Georgia showed discretion and did not authorize the police to use rubber and plastic bullets in the first Law of Georgia on the Police though there were deputies who insisted that the list of special devices (Article 12) should not be comprehensive and the right of its extension should be given to the Minister of Internal Affairs in Agreement with the Minister of Health. The majority of that Parliament firmly defended its position.

As for some opponents who say that the Police was legally authorized to use so-called rubber or plastic “non-leathal missiles (bullets)” and refer to Article 13 (?!) Law of Georgia on the Police for substantiation of such arguments. Article 13 of the Law of Georgia on the Police refers to the right of use of firearms by the police (!). Neither “AL6” nor “FN303” belong to firearms. Both of them are special devices and the rules of their use are absolutely different from the ones of firearms; however, it is not so in the Georgian legislation.

Georgian legislation justified the measures carried out against civilians on November 7, 2007 and May 6, 2009, though they did it on July 17, 2009 (!!!). Reader should assess this action. One thing is undisputable – such actions go beyond the frames of legal state.

On December 2005 legislative innovation was made to paragraph 2 of Article 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. The paragraph stipulated the rules on reviewing the evidences on crime. The innovations authorized investigators and prosecutors to start preliminary investigation on the basis of anonymous evidences while before the innovation anonymous evidences did not represent the basis for filing a criminal lawsuit and such evidences were counter-checked only within the frames of operative-search measures (with covert methods, without summoning and interrogating a person providing such evidences).

Moreover, majority of that Parliament adopted the innovation with acclaim. After a very short time the innovations caused discontent within public and consequently the Parliamentarian majority compromised: “An investigator and prosecutor shall be authorized to start preliminary investigation on the basis of anonymous evidences. Criminal persecution against a person only on the basis of anonymous evidences shall be inadmissible” (?!) At first sight it seems that we are dealing with an absolutely insignificant amendment, which specified and improved the previous wording. But, this is at first sight…….

Trouble of Georgian businessmen was not groundless – was there anything disguised in the legislative “innovation”, which would harm business and, human rights, indeed? Sadly their fear did not turn out to be groundless: after introducing the above-mentioned legislative innovation, terrorizing of business started and Georgian reader possibly remembers the fact that the first business enterprise which was harmed by the innovation was fast food restaurant “Nikala.”

The terms “anonymous” from Greek means a document without signature, without title, identity of an author of which is unknown.

During the Soviet era when particular persons appealed either the Union or Republican Council, partisan or law enforcement bodies for years with unsigned statements and complaints with the purpose of revenge or other wicked intentions, commissions established for counter-cheking the facts state in letters held ad hoc verifications, spent plenty of time, resources.

Most of anonymous statements did not turn out to be true. Unique “professional anonymous informers (squealers)” characteristic only for the Soviet system emerged during the 30s’ – 70’s of the previous century. These informers spoilt quiet lives and damaged nerves of many conscientious people.

In order to eliminate such malpractice, by the Order of February 2, 1988 Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR considered written application of a citizen anonymous if the application did not contain data on the identity, work place, educational institution or actual address of the author of the letter and the application was not subject of further processing.

Inadmissibility of reviewing anonymous tidings is still considered as one of the most important democratic achievements of “perestroika”.

Article 3 of the Law of December 24, 1994 on “The Rule of Reviewingapplications, complaints and appeals registered in state institutions, enterprises, establishments and organizations (despite their organizational-legal form) prohibited review of anonymous letters. The approach of secondary acts (General Administrative Code of Georgia, Law of Georgia on Police, and Organic Law of Georgia on Prosecutor’s Office) currently in force is clear towards this issue.

It’s clear that during investigation of some of the criminal cases either police or investigator has to verify authenticity of certain anonymous evidences. Often either victims or eye-witnesses have to hide their identity with the fear of possible revenge from the people who commited that particular crime. That’s why the majority of findings of criminal case are anonymously kept by law enforcement bodies.

It has been proved that due and professional examination and scrutinization of anonymous evidences are often decisivein a criminal case which is difficult to unravel quickly.

There is a well-approved, wise and human rule on covert verification of operative-search measures of anonymous evidences in order not to restric human rights with ungrounded interrogations, search, and entering into their place of residence and other procedural or investigative actions without reliable evidencesat hand.

Was the restoration of obsolete rule on reviewing anonymous evidences necessary in the Criminal Procedure Code?

I should say with all the responsibility that it was not necessary! But happened what was the most feared. The true reason of such amendment became clear as soon as the legislative innovation entered into force. As they say: “there is no secret that will not be revealed”…..

Georgian businessmen have been speaking about groundless recketing of various trade, financial or industria objects on the basis of anonymous data. When search and other investigative actions are carried out only on the basis of anoynous data business climate becomes poor.

Now, as for a “big concession” made in part 2 of article 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, according to which “criminal persecution against a person shall be inadmissible only on the basis of anonymous data.” The above-mentioned wording is just a fiction and nothing more and here is the reason why: Criminal Procedure Code stipulates the analoguous rule and the “concession” did not contribute to the human rights protection at all.

According to Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia the basis for charging (i.e. for starting criminal persecution) shall be the unity of the evidences that are enough for reasonable presumption that a certain person commited the crime. The evidences shall by all means be meeting strict, imperative requirements of law, according to which “evidence shall be considered invalid if it is obtained from a person who cannot specify the source, location, time and circumstances of obtaining the evidences provided by him/her” (Sub-paragraph “d” of part one of Article 11 of the former Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia).

Sadly, this vicious norm was neither neglected in the new Criminal Procedure Code of Georgi which entered into force on October 1, 2010. In particular, paragraph 3 of Article 101 of the new Code highlights that the investigator shall be authorized to start preliminary investigation on the basis of anonymous evidence. Criminal persecution against a person only on the basis of anonymous evidence shall be inadmissible. We think thatcomment upon theabove-statement is useless. What was unacceptable from scientific, comparative jurisprudence and common sense point is acceptable now, as it is the political will.

According to theLaw of December 20, 2005, part 3 of Article 161 of the old Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, which prohibited carrying out operative works with detainees in pre-trial facility, is deleted.

This minor change actually destroyed that general spirit which was in the old Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. Ground of the right of the accused – to testify voluntarily without any physical or mental coercion, freely talk about every circumstance known to him/her and not to respond to the questions that reveal him/her in commiting a crime – guaranteed by the International law, Constitution and Criminal Procedure legislation, was shaken.

Practice which existed in the operative-search service but condemned was now given a green light and within the frmaes of legislation.

The main purpose of so-called “processing”of an accused in a pre-trial detention facility is obtaining information secretly about the crime at hand or another crime which the investigation and operative service did not know about. Blackmailing, beating-torture, degrading treatment, homosexual attempts or intimidating with using such intercourse was often behind such “processing.” “Processing” which is regulated on the basis of secret acts, was carried out by confidants (covert agents) recruited by operative employees, the major part of whom were so-called “criminalauthorities”. After such “processing” the accused was more “sincere” at the interrogation by the investigator and gave confession voluntarily.

Deletion of part 3 of Article 161 from the old Criminal Procedure Code created was in material disagreement with part one of Article 5 of the 1950 Convention on Human Rights (ratified by the Parliament of Georgia), which prohibits obtaining confession from an accused through deception, violence, blackmailing and violation of these rights is considered as brutal violation of fundamental human rights.

Carrying out operative work with the accused under pre-trial detention is also allowed by the legislation of European countries and the US. However, such work is carried out by operative services of prisons with the purpose to avoid escape of, violence against, sedition of and other anti-law activities by prisoners. Such service has nothing to do either with the police or investigative bodies. Operative services of prisons do not work on the crimes that have not been opened.

Pragmatic East European countries established very effective mechanism even in this system; the mechanism allows protection of public security as well as protection of human rights.

In not a very distant past we were the part of the society which had to live and work in a country with so-called “preskhati” and “press detention facilities” (deriving from the word “press,” “pressing”). These were the facilities where investigation managed to obtain confession from an accused and open a crime via this very operative activity.

How did the Georgian society, especially human rights defenders, lawyers and politicians, meet this legislative innovation? They did not express their opinion! Everyone kept silent. No one can dream in their worst dreams what could have happened if such legislative innovation had been made before the “Rose Revolution”. You should have seen how our foreigner “inspectors” and Georgian politicians would react upon it.

Unfortunately, the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia which entered into force from October 1, 2010 and the new Code on Imprisonment still left the issue open. So the police are authorized to carry out operative work in detention facilities for opening a crime and it is doing it quite intensively.

Statistical data on the crimes registered in Georgia and opened crimes needs to be highlighted too. Achievements can be observed but saying that Georgia has the best indicators in this term across the Europe and the world is too excessive. Criminogenic situation in Georgia is quite difficult especialy in the part of the crimes commited on the basis of self-interest and drug related crimes. Below is the data published in special editions which will make real situation evident.

(SeeTable #1, #2, #3)

Note:

1. Registered is the crime if it is registered by the state and is conferred registration number right after the investigation had started;
2. Premeditated or unpremeditated crimeis considered less severe if it is punishable with no more than 5 years term by the Criminal Code;
3. Premeditated crime is considered grave for which maximum term of punishment does not exceed 10 years by the Criminal Code; accidental crime is considered grave for which the Criminal Code stipulates more than 5 years term;
4. Premeditated crime is considered especially grave for which the Criminal Code stipulates imprisonment for more than 10 years or life imprisonment;
5. Unraveling of crime– when the person who commited the crime is identified and considered accused.

A lot is written about the absence of independent court in Georgia and it should be mentioned that the situation is not enviable. Here I would like to present statistical data on the number and percentage of acquittals. Acuittals show the level of independence and impartiality of Georgian courts while reviewing and ruling on criminal cases.

Such percentage in East European countries is significantly high. For example, according to the 2008 data, courts in the US made 42,5% acquittals out of every 100 criminal case; courts in England – 58%; Germany – 32,4%; acquittals made by the courts of the Russian Federation was 2,9% in 2005 while the data decreased in 2008 and was 1,5% – 1,4%. In 2011, the number of acuittals made by the common courts of Georgia was 0,01% (!).

I would also like to present another type of data which is very interesting and requires thorough consideration. It is clear that the population of Georgia lost trust towards its government, especially towards common courts. Georgia is the leader in the number of lawsuits (in consideration with the number of total population of the country) filed in the court of Human Rights (Strasbourgh) among the EU countries.

Statistic Data of Crimes Registered in Some of the Countries of Europe (2009)

Separate Statistic Data of Crimes Registered in Europe, Total Number of Crimes and % Indicator of Opened Crimes

Acquittals in Georgia

Number of complaints filed in the European Court of Human Rights

Kakha Kakhishvili – Head of the “Center for Election and Political Technologies”

From year to year election code in Georgia was actually adjusted to those political subjects who either governed the country or were partly represented in the government and put their own interests in the election legislation. I think that before the elections of November 2, 2003 the law was intentionally developed in a manner to make large-scale protests possible against those elections or to annul the results of elections; otherwise holding elections was impossible according to that law. OSCE prohibits making amendments to the election legislation at least one month priori to the elections in order the election candidates to have the opportunity and prepare in accordance with the regulations established by the election code.

In regard with that election code, we were not dealing with onlyamendments but the code was fundamentally changed just couple of months before the elections and such new procedures were introduced that the officials of the election administration were not supposed to know and closely observe them. In particular, it was back then when the rule on using electoral ink was first introduced. It was the very first election after introducing that rule and now we see that talks are going on deleting this rule from the Code as it is not useful and only creates obstacles and increases the number of complaints as the staff of the election administration is not learned in this procedure till this day whichcauses delays during elections! Now you can imagine the situation in this regard 10 years ago, when the incompetence of the election administration staff caused lines of people in front of election districts.

Moreover, the Election Code did not authorize the Central Election Commission to abolish the decisions made by the people appointed immediately by it. Central election administration could be presented in the court, as a party. It was only authorized to appeal against the results of the district election commission if it did not agree with it. However, the Code was not very clear either in this part: one Article stated that the District election commissionhad to send the wrap-up documentwithin three days while the second Article stated that the Central Election Commission may appeal aginst the wrap-up document of the District Election Commission within two days after it is issued; pay attention: not “received”, but “issued”; the above wording created special case. The above-mentioned fact was well-known for the chairs of every district election commission. Central election commission could not appeal against any wrap-up document which it received, even those which evidently contradicted the rules established for drawing them up as the term had expired.

We even wrote a long letter to Mr. Lado Chanturia who was the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Georgia back then and asked him to elminiate the inaccuracy, as the Central Election Commission had wrap-up documents where the number of voters and ballot papers did not coincide but we could not abolish such wrap-up documents as the legislation did not allow us to do so. The Chair of the Supreme Court responded that it was impossible; however, he partially annulled the election results after several weekswhich did not fall under his competence as the constitutionality of elections was to be established by the Constitutional Court. Even more, the Supreme Court exceeded its legal power by reviewing the suit as it was not authorized to do so; it even stated on one of the ballot papers out of three placed in one envelope that it was forged.

I would like to add post factum that, beside the fact that the supreme Court exceeded its authority and reviewed the case which belonged to the competence of the Constitutional Court, the Central Election Commission in the court was represented by a person who was not authorized to express the position of the Commission in the court by the Chair of the Commission. After the Rose Revolution that person became a member of the Central Election Commission … later he/she was the Head of the LEPL State Regulation Agency for Medical Activities… By the way the people who were committing such illegal actions became opponents of National Movement and somehow, do not remember the illegal actions they took part in.

Despite the fact that 10 years have passed since then we still have problems related to voter lists and the powers who were actively protesting against voter lists back in 2003, cannot regulate this problem even now as the issue related to the accuracy of voter lists derives from one big systemic problem. In addition, you may be aware that the Articles in the Election Code which regulate use of administrative resources and participation of government representatives in elections were often amended and adjusted only to the interests of the government.

If you take a look back to the amendments made to the Election Code from year to year and analyze them, you will observe that the ruling party was making analisys based on every previous election. In particular, if, for example, 300 complaints were registered at one election, the complaints, problematic issues and reasons causing these complaints were analyzed in order to avoid them in the future and the regulation related to the complaint was deleted from the Election Code. They did it in order to decrease the number of complaints artificially. For instance, one of the complaints was about the case that a favour cannot be done to an election candidate. The article related to this issue was deleted from the Code and what was prohibited by the Code and represented grounds for complaints became possible by making legislative amendments to the Code.

Moreover, during Saakashvili’s period the Parliament of Georgia went even further and made a decision which allowed officials to participate in pre-election campaign. Ministers, deputy ministers, heads of executive bodies, governors were no more bound by the election legislation and regulations and got involved in the election process without violation of the Election Code. Their involvement in the pre-election campaign implied using state cars, telephones and other means which they should use at work. Even deputies were allowed to get involved in the pre-election campaign and use cars on the balance of the Parliament for this purpose.

During the last parliamentary elections the government and the opposition even disputed whether the Minister of Internal Affairs should have the right to participate in the pre-election campaign. It was absolutely shocking when a part of non-governmental organizations stated that the Minister of Internal Affairs could participate in the pre-election campaign on the ground that the Minister is a political figure, not a police representative. As we know, participation in a pre-election campaign is prohibited for a policeman by the Constitution, the Law of Georgia on the Police and by the Regulation approved by the President and governing the police activity and its involvement in a pre-election campaign. Nevertheless as it turned out, all this applied only to anordinary policeman and not the Minister who brings about the policy of the Ministry.

And here we are… for example: the Law on Local Self-Government states that a head of executive body is an ordinary economist who is appointed upon the consent of the relevant city council. To conclude, the Law on Local Self-Government says that the head of executive body is an ordinary official who should not have political goals and the basis for his/her appointment should be the vision on the development of municipality. At the same time, the Election Code stated that the head of the executive body is a political official who has the right to participate in pre-election campaign. We had to deal with such absurd cases in regard with the election code.

In 2003 candidates who participated in the elections could appoint their lawyers at Legal department which meant that every candidate who had a representative and member in the Central Election Commission could appoint one lawyer at the Legal Department of the Central Election Commision. Legal Department of the Central Election Commission had two employees; the rest were appointed by election candidates. Parties requested the Commission to send their lawyer to the court hearing of their lawuit. They wanted the position of the Commission and their lawsuit to coincide. From year to year the Election Code was losing the regulations and goal for which the laws are adopted as it should be regulating specific areas of activity, competences and authority of various people. In this case the Election Code became a regulation only for major oppostional parties as the governing party had absolute freedom of action.

Today we want to know whether the environment for holding elections has improved. It has improved in terms of the political will of the government, as it is not to win elections by using administrative resources and influence voters and other candidates through the Constitutional Security Departmen, other special divisions and Prosecutor’s Office; however, there is another problem: the majority of today’s Parliament actively criticized the Election Code of Georgia for five years. Moreover, even an “eight” was established (Union of opposition parties) and major part of it, which is in the government today, disagreed with the National Movement on the rules of composition of election administration, review of election lawsuits, election procedures and, inter alia, voters lists.

They have done nothing at all to eliminate those flaws to say nothing of the election system as a whole which is the subject of criticism of not only our political parties but Council of Europe and EU have made multiple statements on it, when the principle of equality of votes and the principle of the value of vote are not observed. You see that the rules of staffing the election administration have not changed and currently it is composed of two governmental parties. One of them is the “Georgian Dream” which holds the leverages of the Prime-Minister and the Government and the other is the “United National Movement”, which holds the leverages of the President’s administration, the President and most of local self-government in Georgia.

Based on the above-stated, Georgian parliament did not even think about amending election administration rules. Current Chairman of the Parliament Mr. David Usufashvili, who was in the oppositionback then, had good proposals, including establishing separate arbitrage for the election related lawsuits. These proposals were documented within the frames of the “Eight”; despite the fact that Mr. Usupashvili is currently the Chairman of the Parliament, he has not remembered his own proposals implementation of which he was requesting when he was in opposition of that government. Currently the election code is absolutely adjusted to the interests of a ruling party and I think that the parties that turned out to be in the government are content with the fact that the leverages that the “National Movement” had given them are in their hands. They do not think to change the election code at all.

Election threshold was a subject of criticism for a very long time. It has always been a problem; 30% threshold for majoritarian elections is favourable for the government as administrative resources make success possibleunder 30% threshold conditions. Let’s review by-elections. Governmental candidate Kordzaia in Nadzaladevi, received 39%, non-parliamentary opposition minus the “National Movement”. Who are we implying in this case? – Kakha Kukava, Chitishvili and others. They received 49%; non-governmental candidates, candidates of non-parliamentarian opposition received 49%. The number does not include candidates from the “National Movement.” Thus, Tamar Kordzaia received 39%, 10 or 12% – National Movement and 49%, which does not include the votes that the “National Movement” received – non-parliamentary opposition.

That’s why the 30% threshold is not fair: candidate, who received 39% of votes, becomes a deputy. What would be the situation like under the conditions of 50% threshold? Kordzaia received 39% of votes, Kukava went on the second place in terms of the votes received; as neither of them would surpass 50% threshold second round of elections would be appointed, Kordzaia would probably receive Davitaia’s votes but with a very low percentage, though, at the same time the electorate of non-parliamentary opposition, who did not support neither the governmental party nor the “National Movement” would vote for Kukava and he would become a deputy. That’s why the threshold is not raised to 50% (before the local self-government elections “Georgian Dream” raised 30% threshold to 50% – auth.)

The most important issue is the 5% threshold established for proportional election system; the threshold is very high compared to the Post Soviet countries and the countries similar to us. The threshold is high because for 9 years the ruling party permanently tried to destroy every other political party in the country, only a few parties have the resource to participate in elections and one of them is the “national Movement” as it has strong partisan structure established for years, definitely by using budget resources, as it owns number of offices and not a few of the members of their party receive salaries from the state budget. Under such conditions 5% threshold is artificial, which enables only two major actors to enter the Parliament; in consideration of the above-said we cannot have diverse Parliament, where the deputies would be presented in accordance to the votes they have received and not to the amount of money they have spent for that particular elections.

To summarize, these are the general problems plus the problematic formula of counting votes. Various formulas give various number of winner deputies. We use the formula which actually makes winning of election for the candidates from ruling party possible. The world knows several methods of counting votes while Georgia uses the worst of these methods.

One more issue: election system. We have mixed election system when the Parliament is composed of the deputies from both majoritarian and proportional lists. Such system is used in the Post soviet states as it gives more opportunities to the governmental party to be in majority permanently. Moreover, we have the election system which enables the governmental party to be in majority even if it does not surpass 5% proportional threshold and win only majoritarian elections. This is the situation in terms of elections in Georgia; a party may not surpass 5% threshold because of absence of support from voters but if it has rich and powerful candidates in the regions,who are supported by state resources, it can enter the Parliament with majority.

Q: In the beginning you said that making amendments to the election code is inadmissible just couple of months before elections; elections are held every year in Georgia, when should the Code be amended then?

Kakha Kakhishvili: well, we do not have one and the same elections every year. I think it was possible to work on the draft law of Parliamentarian elections during Presidential elections. I think that the problem with us is that opposition parties protest situation not because that situation is unfair, but because it is not fair particularly to them. If we had a third party with the leverages at election administration, it would never criticize the rule of composing of that election administration. This is the problem.

Take close observation to what is going on. Generally, politicians consider that the Election Code is the document that they can talk over. They do not think that it is the document based on which we directly elect high rank officials; they think that it is the document with which they regulate the rules of their game. That’s why whoever happens to be with the leverages through which the rules of the game can be changed, changes only the part that is not acceptable personally for him/her. To conclude, the threat that the Election Code and the rule of composition of election administration will not change in the nearest future is very high.

Tamaz Imnaishvili – Head of analytic Center of the General’s Club of Georgia, Expert on Military-Political Issues, Vice-Colonel of Reserve

Transformations in the fields of Defense and Security

After re-gaining independence Georgia had to face challenges and threats. It started establishing state institutions which is a necessary condition for a democratic state. Unlike the countries of the Warsaw Pact armed forces of which needed only restructuring, Georgia had to start building up its armed forces from scratch. Georgian armed forces started formation on the base of the officers trained according to the old Soviet system. The model of defense and armed forces that the Soviet Union had, turned out to be unacceptable and the Ministry of Defencee had to bring about reforms.

Tasks and objectives of the Armed Forces were defined at the very beginning of the reforms. First of all it was highlighted that the military policy of Georgia was of defensive nature and does not claim territories with other states.

Its tasks were defined as follows:

1. Ensure defense of state borders from aggression;
2. Ensure unity of the state;
3. Prevent any attempt of changing state institutions via force;
4. Define the threat of war;
5. Participate in the measures intended to elimination the results of disasters;
6. Participate in peacekeeping operations;
7. Carry out military cooperation.

Georgia started cooperation from 1992. The principal priorities of cooperation implied getting closer to and partnership with NATO. In 1992 Georgia was acceptes as a member of the NACC. In 1994 it became the member of PFP partnership for peace. In 1995 Georgia joined the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). In 1996 Georgia involved in Individual Partnership Program (IPAP).

In 1999 Georgia involved in international peacekeeping operations of NATO (Kosovo, Iraq, Afganistan).

From 2014 Georgia has been involved in peacekeeping operations under the aegis of the Council of Eurpe (Central African Republic, Mali).

Within the frames of military-educational cooperation relations were established with the USA, Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, Turkey, China, Hungary, Ukrain and Russia.

Altogether, Georgia has established military-political relations with around 40 countries of the world so far.

Until 1998 Defencee structure had been developing similar to the Soviet-Russian system; since 1998 started implementation of the reforms which stipulated moving onto NATO standards.

In 2001 a so-called “White Book” was developed, which was the principal guide book for the Georgian Armed Forces and which defined tasks, functions and structure of the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces as well as the priorities of the reform.

After coming to power in 2004, National Movement transformed the Ministry of Defence into Civilian-political structure.

It was one of the most important steps on the way to compatibility with NATO. Ministry of Defence was formed as a state-political institution.

From 2006 the Government started development of documents, which approves defence priorities and defines its tasks and objectives on legislative level.

The documents are as follows: National Miliatry Strategy, Threat Assessment Document, Strategic Review Document, Vision of Minister, etc.

Within 2004-2014 the National Strategy has been approved and adopted three times: in 2006,2010 and 2014.

Comparative analyses of all three documents show changes in terms of priorites in the field of defence.

The priorities in terms of tasks and objectives of the Armed Forces in 2006 and 2010 are: defense,deterrence and prevention, readiness; participation in international operations.

Defense implies defense of state sovereignity and territorial integrity in order the adversary not to take strategic advantage during hostilities and consider that waging will be related to high casualties. This is the task ofdeterrence and prevention.In consideration of the fact that Georgian Armed Forces is few in number compared to its potential enemy, it should ensure that the enemy does not succeed till the international community and partner states get involved in the conflict.

Based on the above-mentioned, tasks and objectives of Armed Forces implied complete readiness for hostilities and waging of war for defending sovereignity of the state and territorial integrity.

The tasks stated in the National Military Strategy approved in 2014 are absolutely different. The main task in this document is deterrence.

One of the passages from the text reads as follows: “The aim of deterrence is to avoid possible military aggression through developing combat-effective Armed Forces that are adequately manned, equipped and trained. Effective deterrence measures shall make a potential adversary consider an attack unfeasible or not worth the cost of the advantage that could be gained”.

It is clearly visible from the text that the main task of the Armed Forces is not deterrence of an adversary by hostilities and defense of territorial integrity. At the same time, the Strategy specifies that a well-prepared reserve and principle of total defense is one of the main mechanisms for fulfillment of deterrence objectives. However, how the reserve should be manned if we are moving to professional army and what are the principles that the total defense is based upon, we do not know yet.

All three documents of the Strategy state that the Armed Forces are not means for foreign policy, though, at the same time the taks of armed forces increase in international peacekeeping operations through the three documents and currently the army is virtually the means for implementing foreign policy.

The objective of around 30 military trainings held during the recent 12 years was only performance improvement of anti-terrorist operations.

Documents of the National Military Strategy of 2010 and 2014 directly state that Georgia does not have the means of defense and the means of defense is the involvement of international community.

In the combat preparation plans it is known (though unofficially) that in case of hostilities combat tasks of the Georgian Armed Forces cover only 7-14 days period with the hope that international community and partner countries will intervene.

Strategic review document is a several year plan of development and reform of the Armed Forces.New document (adopted in 2013) define budget parameters for the years 2013-2016. Average 65% of the budget is spent on protected articles, 23% – on international operations and only 12% is spent on education, development, construction, procurements, research-science in the military field.

However, the priorities identified in the documents issued by the Ministers of Defence are the same: education, equipment with modern arms and development of infrastructure.

It was noted above that the Ministry of Defence was transformed into state civil institution, though the General Staff is still in an uncertained condition and it does not have its place among the state institutions. During Shevardnadze’s period Commander-in-Chief was the Minister of Military Defence. He was the member of the Security Council and was conferred (at least formally) relevant authority of a Commander-in-Chief.

As a result of the reforms carried out by the “National” movement Chief of General Staff became the Commander-in-Chief, thus the number one military figure of the country; however, National Movement dismissed General Staff from the composition of Security Council, deprived it of the legislative mechanisms of exercising its authority and it cannot carry out its functions and tasks during wartime.

2008 August war clearly showed that neither on legislative level nor actually Commander-in-Chief of General Staff was not the force who directed hostilities; the legislative base is still legitimate.

This factor demonstrates two main postulates of the vision of the government in the fields of defence and security. Waging a war with the purpose to defend the country is not the main priority of the government and the armed forces does not have the objective to conduct hostilities to defend the state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

After Georgia has become the member of CEF or verification Treatment, the number of armed forces was defined based on the quotas stipulated by that Treaty – no more than 1% of total population of the state. According to that quota Georgia is authorized to have 44 000 militaries. Aviation, armour and weapons with caliber wider than 85mm. have their quotas. Georgia has never had neither manpower nor equipment or arms even close to the maximum amount established by the Treaty.

Note: Every neighbor state of Georgia exceeds the number of quotas established for them.Russia left the Treaty in 2008. The number of the defense structure of Georgia is one and the same – 37 thousand in the Law on “The number of armed forces” during the last decade. However, according to the 2017 planes of the Government, Georgian Armed forces are moving to the format of professional army and the number of manpower decreases to 19 thousand militaries (unofficial data).

Nowadays Georgia virtually does not have Marine fleet. It was abolished by the order of President Saakashvili in 2009. The base of the fleet was transferred to MIA as a Marine-Patrol Fusion Center.

After the Ministry of Defence sells (according to the statement made by the Minister Alasania) one big part of tanks, helicopters and aircrafts, Georgia will not have military aviation and heavy armours which can carry out hostilities on an operative level. Losses inflicted to the Georgian Armed Forces in artillery during the August war have not been reinstated and only 40% of nowaday’s artillery base is functioning properly (unofficial data).

Structure and tasks of the Armed Forces has been subject to cardinal changes since 1998. General Inspection was established at the Armed Forces in 1999 the main purpose of which was control and monitoring over combat readiness. From 2004 the task of General Inspection was changed and it does not have the function of checking combat readiness; it is more of a punitive structure inside the defence structure than a controlling one. For carrying out the above-mentioned function that the General Inspection was deprived of a Department for Monitoring over Combat Readiness was established in the beginning of 2014.

Military police within the Armed Forces of Georgia was established back in 1993. The main task of the Police was to ensure order within its structure, carry out control and monitoring over it. By 1999 the Police was abolished and the function of monitoring was transferred to military commandents. From 2004 Military police was restored and it was imposed the functions of MIA in addition to the ones mentioned above.

At the same time it was authorized to extend its competences beyond the structure and spread it over civil sector. Legal framework of the Military Police has not changed since 2007 and was given more legitimation in a number of cases. It has become more of a punitive structure than a mechanism for ensuring order and control.

As a representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is registered at civil service as a so-called “secret employ” since 2005, representative of the Military police is sent to every separate division and structure of armed forces. Both are carrying out the functions of control.

If during Eduard Shevardnadze’s periodcounter-intelligence service implemented its functions in accordance with the world-wide approved methods and its conclusions were only of recomendative nature for the Heads of the Ministry of Defence, National Movement introduced the practice when a sub-agency of MIA – Counter-intelligence Service actually defined the cadres policy of the Ministry of Defence and its conclusion was an important and obligatory document.

On the background of statements of the leaders of NATO and its member states made before the Walse Summit, giving MAP to Georgia and NATO-s enlargement are not planned. Picturing international community and partner countries as one of the main aides in the National Military Strategy of territorial integrity and sovereignity, leaves unanswered questions and contains priorities inadequate to the ways for fulfillingobjectives.

The institute of Commander-in-Chief of the state and its effectiveness largely defines the effective use of armed forces for defending territorial integrity and sovereignity of the state.

As a rule, in every state Commander-in-Chief of a country is the head of executive government who is elected. Only in the countries of constitutional monarchy this position is held by anointed monarch.

In case of Georgia, Commander-in-Chief is President who is a political figure elected by universal elections and it is defined by the Constitution. Though, after the October 1, 2012 elections, under the new Government, we have the following reality:

The first person and Commander-in-Chief of the country is the president, though the head of the executive government is prime-minister who is not elected. On the basis of organic law, decisions and regulations adopted by the Parliament, all the mechanisms and instruments necessary to fulfill the functions of a Commander-in-Chief have transferred under the competence of prime-minister.

In this case we are facing a legislative collision. We have a Commander-in-chief who does not have legislative base and mechanisms to exercise his powers and, on the other side, we have the head of executive government who actually has all those mechanisms that a Commander-in-Chief can use during war.

There is a Security Council the objective of which is to assist the first person of the state and Commander-in-Chief in exercising his authorities but does not have the relevant mechanism for it; and also there is a Council for Management of Security and Crisis under the President which is not authorized to act as a Security Council by the Constitution but holds every instrument for carrying out authorities identified for the Council by the Organic Law.

The situation is the weakest link of the state during force majeur and the constitutional collision will always be the heel of Achilles until the amendments are made to the Constitution and the form of governance that we actually have is defined.

Mindia Ugrekhelidze – Chairman of the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1990-1999, Judge of the Human Rights Court of Europe within 1999-2009

-         What was the legal policy that the state was implementing for years and what type of constitutional amendments did it carry out within 2003-2012 that negatively influenced the situation in the country?

-    I would like to start review from a comparatively distant past as right after Georgia re-gained its independence the Government took efforts to move the country to democratic rails. It should be mentioned that it was a very difficult process. Though, I should highlight one important thing – justice was liberated from the dictatorship of the Kremlin. A very important event happened – a so-called “abridged constitution” – law on state power several articles of which stipulated the issues of circumscription of authority, rule of law and a number of other issues, essential for every rule of law state – was adopted. However, all this was temporary; the real reform started along with the development of a new Constitution. Adoption of a Constitution established many guarantees. A law on constitutional court was adopted; the functions and competences of general, constitutional and supreme court were separated. A law on general courts was adopted. All this happened before 2003….

As for 2003, after the new Government came to power they publicly and openly violated the Constitution. Total power was transferred to the hands of the President. All this happened openly. I was in Strasbourgh when one of the high rank officials showed me a draft signed by Saakashvili which stated that every judge must be fired – and below, in brackets – except Kemularia. History does not know such precedent. The Constitution was a terrible, autocratic document, where the total power was in the hands of one person. It was abnormal and it was a crime.

Those who tried to protest it were silenced immediately. For example, I can remember Mr. Avtandil Demetrashvili tired to contradict all the above-mentioned but he was immediately dismissed from his work at the Council of Justice and then influenced him so, that later he was in service of this and similar illegalities.

-    How did the amendments influence judges?

-    The rights of judges were rudely violated when they were dismissed from work without any grounds. It’s true that if a judge accepts bribe he/she should be punished but only after proper investigation of the case. This was not the case, the case was that the Government needed jobs to emoply its supporters. Judges were dismissed to vacate places for the political powers favourable to the Government or for their supporters.

Massive dismissal of judges served to exectly this goal. It should be noted that neither the Council of Europe nor the US spoke up against the injustice. They might have contradicted the government but not as much as it was necessary and Saakashvili did what he wanted to do and even Shevardnadze could not resist the actions of the youth wing of his party “Citizens’ Union” (“Moqalaqeta Kavshiri”). It should be noted that the late Zurab Jvania was to be blamed as much as Saakashvili in this regar.

They shook the authority of a judge. All these ran against the basic principles of 1985 on the independence of Court and their invariability. This was not a reform; these were the amendments which served to personal interest of a certain person.

-    You were a judge of the European Court for Human Rights; from that prospective could you tell us whether the amendments were compatible with international standards and other legal aspects.

-    No, they were not compatible at all; litigation cases that were filed to the European Court of Human Rights reflected the actual situation very clearly. Finally, instead of verdicts and rulings we received information on what type of case was reviewed and what was the sentence.

-    Did the government take the opinions of public and lawyers on various reforms into consideration?

-    The Government did not consider anything at all; on the contrary, they did not even react and respond to your advice. They were carrying out the policy that was favourable to them and were not interested in anybody’s opinion even slightly as their goal was to take full control over every process ongoing in Georgia in order to avoid anyone like Bidzina Ivanishvili. Due to such legal malpractice, political processes were not going on at all as there was only one power, which would do whatever it wanted to and neither law nor court would create any barriers to it.

Such was the situation and that’s why I consider that Ivanishvili’s arrival at the political scene implied saving of the political process despite the fact that he did not have any political experience. Currently I think that the government should adopt laws that will ensure restoration and establishment of justice.

Manana Kobakhidze – Vice-speaker of the Parliament of Georgia, Human Rights Defender, Advocate

-    How did the amendments made to the laws and the Constitution by the Govenrment within 2003-2012 influence the development of various fields in Georgia?

-    After the change of government in Georgia in 2003, the role of the Parliament was diminished and the functions of the President – increased. This amendment transformed the country into a super-presidential republic and the President – an autocrat. President was the ruler of all rulers who made both the Parliement and the Government to act the way he wanted them to. Moreover, Saakashvili even ran Government sittings and determined its working process himself.

In addition, the President took over the functions of constitutional control which previously was the function only of a constitutional court. President had the opportunity to dismiss parliament and form a new government. President could change ministers so that the Parliament would not, could not interfere as it did not have any mechanisms for it. Amendments made within 2003-2012 upset the balance among legislative, executive and judiciary powers.

The country had a serious regress in terms of criminal policy; zero tolerance was announced and then further reflected in legislation. In particular, as you know the principle of merger of sentences was abolished in the Criminal Code. Severity of sanctions was too obvious and the terms of punishments calculated on the basis of the principle of cumulating sentence exceeded the terms of punishment established in any European country. As a result, Georgia became the leading country in temrs of number of prisoners on per capita basis. We had 30 000 prisoners and 300 000 people were released on probation. So-called “procedural agreement” was developed in a very malignant form and was directly related to filling up the state budget.

People were forced to confess the crimes they had not committed. Court did not even review proceduralagreement. According to these amendments judge was left only the function of a notary and he/she only verified the process of concluding the agreement which implied serious restriction of a defense.

The rights of victim were minimized almost to zero. Victim could not appeal against the conditions of procedural agreement; consequently he/she was absolutely vulnerable.

Legislation was concentrated on a very high amount of sanctions of property. Sanctions became even stricter in all directions and human principles of criminal law became less important. The balance between committed crime and punishment was lost.

As for the freedom of media, it seemed as if we had a law on the freedom of expression; however, if we take a look at the activity of the National Communication Commission we will find a lot of violations there, including related to the Public Broadcaster. The previous government was attempting to give priority only to the meadia means which it wanted to and give licenses to the persons who were in friendly terms with the government. By the way, all this is given in the investigation document of the interim commission of the Parliament which was headed by Mrs. Tina Khidasheli and a serious work was done to this direction.

I can’t review the Labour Code just briefly which authorizes employer for doing everything. Employer, without any grounds and reasoning, could fire an employee; by doing so employer seriously violated human rights. Such actions from employers resulted in that a lot of people lost their jobs. The law did not ensure accomplishement of those social and labour guarantees that everyone should be authorized to enjoy. Fortunately we, the new government, changed the situation and adopted a new Labour Code. In the Code we increased the mechanisms for protecting women’s rights – the length of maternity leave increased to 6 months and payment for a leave – to GEL 1000.

-    Why the government did not want to carry out the human rights oriented legal policy?

-    The government chose the policy of terror and intimidation to gain control over the population. The government interfered in every field. They dismissed people from work indiscriminately, including those from academic circles and called some of them “washed off” – coinage of the term shall be entrusted to the President.

The government wanted to fill the vacant places at school, academic institutions with the cadres selected by them in order to have control over the intellectual part of the society.

Media, independent institutes, court were all politicized and under the influence of executive government. It is not only my assessment. Various competent organizations, including experts of the council of Europe, EU and the representatives of Department of State of the US think so, too. They criticized the situation in regard with the Court when the number of acquittals was almost zero and cases were not appealed to higher instances.

-    What was the preventive factor for advocates to carry out their professional liabilities?

-    There were a number of norms in the Criminal Procedure Code that prevented advocates from accomplishing their professional activity properly. For example, accused had to write appeal complaint. If an accused who was in prison, did not write a complaint, advocate was not authorized to appeal the case in the court him/herself. It was an artificial barrier as an accused might have been transferred to another penitentiary facility within or outside the city and the terms for submitting complain were restricted. The situation was extremely hard when the case was to be appealed within couple of hours.

Cases when advocate were not allowed to see accused,especially if he/she was tortured and beaten and the signs were visible, were frequent. Prison administration did everything within its power to prevent advocate from seeing his/her client for several days.

In addition, meetings of an advocate and his/her client were tapped. Surveillance cameras and bugs were discovered in the rooms of some advocates which was violation of every legal standard. They eavesdropped the conversation of a prisoner and his/her advocate and if they did not like anything from the conversation they made the conditions for the accused even more severe. They revenged for what the accused told his/her advocate. Cases when an accused had to refuse the service of his/her advocate were not rare.

Previous government created a lot of problems to advocates. Around 200 advocates were imprisoned with various forged charges, including charges on fraud when criminal offence could not be identified in that particular case. Moreover, if a client had any kind of claim against his/her advocate, he/she could file a civil lawsuit but the government used all such cases for institutional persecution against advocates. Even Stalin did not imprison 200 advocates.

Eka Beselia – Chair of the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee, advocate within 2003-2012

-    What was the legal policy that the government was implementing within 2003-2012 and how did the constitutional amendments influenced human rights?

-    Constitutional amendments during Saakashvili’s period were the whim of one man and served only to political interests of the members of National Movement. We remember how the previous government adopted the amendments hastily as a result of which they broke the balance among the branches of the government.

-    Did the government consider public opinion on negative results of reforms?

-    The government did not consider any opinion, including not of a Venice Commission. Only now, when they are in minority and opposition, they remembered the existace of this Commission.

-    What was the triggering factor for the fact that Georgia was the first country throughout Europe in terms of the number of prisoners?

-    National Movement scrupulously observed strict criminal policy and Georgia held first place in terms of number of prisoners thoroughout Europe. Court was politicized and there was not a single institution which could protect human rights.

-    According to the amendments planned to be made to the Administrative Code of Offences limit of administrative imprisonment will decrease from 90 to 15 days. Why did this amendment become necessary?

-    Previous government increased this term to prevent political opponents from the ongoing processes. Existing term of administrative offences does not comply with international standards. I welcome this amendment as it would be important step forward in terms of human rights protection.

Shalva Shavgulidze – First Deputy Chair of Legal Issues Committee

-    What were the legislative amendments that the government implemented within 2003-2012 and which made the situation in terms of human rights protection even harder?

-    As Georgia became the member of the Council of Europe in 1999 legislative reform started to be implemented. We based our legislation on the jurisdiction of the Court of Europe and it was harmonized with the European legislation step by step. It can be said that from 1999 to 2003 was a good period for law enforcement and justice. From 2003 government started adoption of such legislative amendments which took us far from European standards and we received legislation characteristic for dictatorial state.

In particular, principles of equality of parties and competition were ignored; thus, prosecution was given huge advantages at the expense of decreasing rights to the defense party. Interest of a victim was absolutely ignored; institute of procedural agreement, approved both in the US as well as Europe, was introduced; however, the goal of such agreement should be administration of effective and fair justice quickly. In Georgia’s case procedural agreement became the means of cashflow to the state budget.

In addition, maximum limit of fines was not determined. Imposing unproportionally high amount of fines on people shall be inadmissible and unacceptable. It is difficult to talk about everything within one interview, but to cut it short, legislative amendments carried out within 2003-2012 took our legislation and justice further from the European ones. We contradicted European standards and it was reflected in the rulings returned by the European Court against Georgia. Almost every case was lost by the state in favour of plaintiff.

-    How much did the government consider international standards and a number of legal aspects while making amendments?

-    Government did not take anything into consideration. All the above mentioned – degradation of our legislation – was further added following negative elements: the court was no more independent, it was under the control of executive power. The government established a rule for staffing the Council of Justice by itself. Council of Justice is a body which is responsible for control of the court and thus the court was fully under control of political leadership of the country via the Council of Justice. Government also used such malpractice as falsly blaming crime on people, secretly putting drugs and arms and as a result we received a very bad legislation, absolutely incompatible with European standards which made the population of the country lose hope that justice would be served.

Government turned the court and justice into punitive bodies; they were not the institutions that should distribute justice any more. This way the Government was trying to maintain control over people. However, such attempts are always destined to fail and none of the governments across the world could maintain such repressive regimes. All this would remind you a repressive regime of the 37s’ with the only difference – within 2003-2012 people were not sentenced to be shot.

All the above-mentioned was followed by its logical results: injustice that was brought about in the name of justiceturned out to be unacceptable for the public. This injustice was one of the main reasons why people, the voters did not vote for the previous government on 2012 Parliamentary elections.

-    Amendments are planned to be made to the Code of Administrative Offence. A draft, one of the authors of which, among others, is you, has already beend submitted to the Parliament for further examination. Amendments imply decreasing the term of administrative imprisonment from 90 to 15 days. What was wrong with the old 90 days?

-    Reason for the amendment is that we want to bring it closer to European standards. As imprisonment is the most rarely used means in Administrative procedure, financial and other types of sanctions should be used and imprisonment should be extreme measure. The previous government introduced 90 day term for administrative imprisonment. As a rule the government used three months imprisonment in an abusive manner against the freedom of expression. To put it simply, they detained people at opposition demonstrations and sentenced then two or three months’ imprisonment. That’s how they prevented the people unfavourable to them from participation in pre-election campaigne.

If a person deserves three months pre-trial imprisonment, then the criminal law should be applied and a person should not be kept in three months pre-trial detention with the charge of simple offence. 15 days is approved term and it has been practiced for years. If an administrative offence achieves the point where other types of financial and restraining measures is not necessary and imprisonment is not essential means, then 15 days imprisonment is absolutely normal; this way a person will analyze that his/her anti-social behavior was so unacceptable that he/she was placed in a detention facility for 15 days.

-    As for the other amendment, Code of Administrative Offences does not stipulate the obligation of explaining his/her rights to offender right after detention. Approval of amendments implies that any law enforcement officer shall be obliged to explain the rights to the person detained right after detention. Why has making such an amendment become necessary? What rights were violated?

-    A person was explained his/her rights only after a report on his/her detention was drawn up. Drawing up a document at the sight of detention is not necessary; it may be drawn up after a certain time from detention, when a person is already sentenced which might take much time. Consequently, a person should be explained his/her rights right after detention; he/she should know his rights in order to use them effectively. Previously, the report was drawn up in the Police division after obtaining testimony from a detained person; thus, the person could not use his/her rights. The only goal of these amendments is to help a detained person to know his/her rights.

Nino Burjanadze – Leader of the “United Democrates” Party

-    You were the Chair of the Parliament of Georgia until 2008. Majority of experts negatively assess the amendments made to the legislation from 2003. These assessments also refer to you as you were the Chair of the legislative body and you are a lawer by profession. What’s your assessment of the situation?

-    As for the legislative amendments, I have been reproached for them many times; I think I partly deserved these reproaches and, in some cases, I took responsibility on more than I should have.I think those who are aware of Parliamentarian life, know that the Chair of the Parliament, who does not have a team and cannot influence political decisions, is very restricted within his/her powers. By the way, the words of current Chair of the Parliament Mr. Davit Usupashvili couple of months ago, expressed what I have said above very clearly. Mr. Usupashvili said: “Why are they criticizing me? I am a Chair of the Parliament but I have the right to vote only once.”

However, I can remember that it was Mr. Usupashvili himself, his spouse, his party-membersblaming everything on me, Chair of the Parliament who had less functions back then, than Mr. Usupashvili has now and had that one vote on which Mr. Usupashvili is referring to.

I was absolutely against adopting constitutional amendments in February-March 2004, which gave indefinite authorities to Saakashvili. I was completely alone then. Neither the public, media, nor the Parliament supported me. Those amendments entailed many other negative amendments later on. However, I can tell you that there were number of regulations that I supported; for example, articles on procedural agreement and probation, which we added to the Code and supported its adoption; however, there was no political will with which we could make use of good amendments in a positive manner.

I was glad that we had adopted such a human norm. I think that when a person has an option to pay fine to the state budget and avoid imprisonment this way, well, even at least at the expense of using the finances of his/her family is ideal. This way we could save a lot of people from imprisonment.

This article is approved as the most human in any democratic country. It’s natural I could not calculate and imagin that in the hands of the National Movement this amendment would be used solely for filling the state budget and for enslaving people when people were literally tide to the gates of prison with theprocedural agreement. Any type of activity, either political or civil, represented threat for them.

-    Which was the most unacceptable legislative amendment except for the constitutional one?

-    There were a lot of such amendments. For example, I protested decreasing the presidential age to 35 years at Shevardnadze’s as well as Saakashvili’s period. I was the only person prostesting such amendment and people around considered that I was doing so because I was against some, uncertain person becoming a president. There were many attempts to relate my sincere and competent statements to personal interests while I did not own any media means, did not have non-governmental sector under my control and did not have a team in the Parliament. Saakashvili, and not only he, started winning over whoever were my supporters. Right after Saakashvili came to the Parliament, he offered my supporters either favourable business opportunities, or sent abroad for working or offered jobs in executive government and left me without a team. I also protested decreasing the age of judges and the amendment which later was the cause of establishing the same vertical in the Court system. I think those statements that Burjanadze was not protesting this back then is not serious; public did not react adequately onwhat I was protesting loudly.

There was another legislative amendment towards which I had a firm position on. It referred to financing media. I invited the representatives of all meadia means of Georgia. Instead of supporting me on the allowances of their taxes and freeing them from taxes, they separately stated that the amendments did not pose problem for them. It turned out that I was the only person who saw this problem.

Mariam Tsatsanashvili – PhD of Law, Professor, Parliament secretary of President before 2003

-    Did the legislative amendments carried out within 2003-2012 guarante exercising independent and fair justice?

-    It can be said that justice was not independent at all. It was only the government who had a number of legal mechanisms to control. That’s why the court system was completely bound by the government.

It should be noted that the amendments made in the first place were reflected on the right of ownership. People could not protect their property. The issue of relation with commercial banks became important and notaries could register an apartment of an owner on their name. It was a very difficult process; people were deprived of their property. Giving priorities to banks by the government resulted in the situation where a citizen was not valuable subject in civil relations. This is the reason why so many people have lost their residential aparments.

As for the Criminal Code, article on the principle of cumulative sentence and procedural agreement, the Govenrment used it directly for trading with people. If you paid money they would set you free; otherwise – put you in jail.

-    What caused the low number of acquittals on criminal cases?

-    Acquittals on criminal cases were not ruled almost at all. You can see it by yourself if you go through statistics. As the court and government were interrelated it implied that if the case went for court hearing then it would be decided the way the government wanted it to be decided despite a person accused was innocent or not. There were a few cases when the judge ruled acquittal for which the judge was punished. Judge who would make anunfavourable ruling and unacceptable for the government would lose his/her job.

-    Why did not the government consider public opinion?

-    What the government wanted was to stay in power permanently, establish authoritarian regime and breach the public and government, which, I should highlight, they managed quite perfectly.

Gela Nikoleishvili – Advocate, Humand Rights Defender, Member of the Parliament within 1992-1995

-    What are the specific problems that the legislative amendments within 2003-2012 entailed in the country?

-    In terms of legislative amendments the wrost was introduction of the principle of cumulative sentence. Based on this principle the court sentenced 15-20 years instead of 2-3 years. That’s why we had 25 000 prisoners while before introducing the above-mentioned amendment there were from 5 to 10 000 prisoners. In addition, longterm dates for prisoners was virtually abolished (which was restored only recently).

Court sessions were closed and using a voice recorder became impossible to say nothing of a video camera. Amounts of fines imposed on advocates reached catastrophic indicators. The amount of fine which had varied from GEL 50 to GEL 500 before reached to GEL 5 000.

-    Why did the government act so?

-    Human rights is a field which you can regulate the way you want. National Movement, like Communists and any anti-democratic regime, believed that if they did not established zero tolerance for any type of crime, not increase the number of prisoners, not sow fear in the public would not be able to establish public order. However, it is noteworthy that they have established order. They imprisoned people for every minor misdemeanor and the conditions were intolerable in prison. They were treated brutally. Everybody knew what was going on in prison and tried not to be sent there.

It is possible that the part of the total population of the country be imprisoned and for the other part be order. Actions of the government described above are acceptable for them.

-    As an advocate what do you think, what  rights of advocates were restricted?

-    I can say that after the “Rose Revolution” the conditions for advocates became more difficult in terms of practice rather than theoretically. For example, law does not stipulate that a prosecutor should have decisive word for every judge; however, we know that when it was about restrictive measure and prosecutor requested imprisonment and advocate – bail, judge granted the request of a prosecutor in every hundred cases out of hundred. The same happened while ruling a verdict of guilty. Witness who would try to say the truth at the court hearing would be sent to prison immediately with the motive of changing the testimony while the same witness might have testifyied differently because of beating, pressure or threat; because of this witness became the hostage of his/her own testimony. Under such circumstances advocates had just formal functions.

I cannot say that the situation has changed dramatically after the change of government; however, better tendencies can be witnessed. Not because they have become kind… judges and prosecutors are the same but the policy of the government has changed. Judges are no more requested to unconditionally grant prosecution’s demand and consequently, the number of rulings in favour of bail instead of restrictive measure has exceeded 50%. The percentage rate of acquittals has also increased. It does not imply that the situation is perfect but positive tendencies are clearly visible.

Zaza Khatiashvili – Chair of the Bar Association of Georgia

-    What were the legislative amendments that the government implemented within 2004-2012 and which prevented advocates from fully carrying out their professional activities.

-    The country was sustaining regress in every field, including legislative. Functions of a judge were restricted maximally; prosecutor became dominant. Thus, the introduced legislative amendments were repressive, repressive state mechanism was established. Human rights violation happened on a massive scale though the court was bound by the government and when the case went to court judge could not return independent, impartial ruling.

A new Criminal Procedure Code entered into force in 2010. According to article 111 of the Code advocate was not authorized to apply to the court on implementeation of investigative actions –withdrawal of evidences and search. Withdrawalof evidence was considered requesting information. For example, I can remember one case when advocate was Mr. Levan Samushia who was defending a person detained in Batumi with the charges of robbery. The defendant was saying that he/she was in Tbilisi at the time of robbery and was requesting withdrawalof the list of phone calls made by him/her on that day which would prove that he was in Tbilisi at the time of robbery.

When the advocate applied to the court and wanted to withdraw information from the company of mobile communication “Geocell”, judge told him that it was considered take out of information and according to article 111 he was not allowed to it.Thus the right of an advocate to withdraw information was absolutely restricted. It was terrible and I would like to say that the same is going on today.

Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights and Freedom establishes standard on equal rights of prosecution and defense parties in the process of interrogation of witness which further establishes the principle of competitiveness and equality. However, Georgian advocated cannot enjoy these rights. Prosecutor has more rights than an advocate.

The history of European countries does not know the situation that was in Georgia during recent years. During 9 years of Saakashvili’s period, 152 advocates were judged. World history does not know such massive scale of persecution of advocates. All of them were charged with criminal liability and what is important, all of them were sentenced.

When I was appointed as a Chair of Bar Association, 111 advocates were imprisoned. I appealed to the International Observatory of European Advocates and according to their conclusion practicing of advocate’s profession in Georgia was announced risky. They said that law profession was completely degraded in the country and advocates are practicing their functions under fear. Such conclusions were not written even on Lukashenko.

It can be said that the only positive event during the previous government was adopting law on press and freedom of expression which granted broader rights to media. It is noteworthy that the law was truly revolutional which protected the rights of journalists and attached highest importance to freedom of expression.

-    However, media was prohibited to make audio and video records at criminal processes. What were the problems that this restriction caused?

-    After Sandro Girgvliani’s case when people already knew about our court system, the government prohibited video recording at court sessions. They did it because of Girgvliani’s Vazagashvili’s, Gamtsemlidzi’s and other people’s cases as these cases became publicized and people saw what was actually going on in the court system and the aggression against the government increased. That’s why the government abolished the institute of a victim. Victim was not authorized to appeal against a case.

Prohibition of audio and video recording at court sessions resulted in faking reports. Very often judge wrote what prosecution wrote in its accusatory statement in the report instead of what the witness was saying.

The goal of the government was formation of a police state. Via massive violation and ignoration of human rights the government wanted to strengthen repressive state mechanism to have the population under permanent fear.

Lia Mukhashavria – Human rights defender, Advocate, Head of non-governmental organization “Human Rights Priority”

-    What were the amendments made to the Criminal Code within 2003-2012 that had negative influence on human rights?

-    Government announced zero tolerance and strict legislation policy. In 2006 when the President of Georgia and the Chair of Supremen Court announced zero tolerance, it was clear and impending that the legislation would be changed relevantly.

Consequently, principle of cumulative sentence has changed which brought us to catastrophic number of prisoners in the country. In addition, the court ruled the most severe sentence to an accused; for example, if an accused had to be sentenced from 3 to 5 years court sentenced 5 years, maximum term for the crime. Probation was hardly applied and restraining measure was always imprisonment. Every other measure in the criminal process except bail and pre-trial detention was abolished.

-    As for advocates, on the background when almost all of your clleagues stated that the number of acquittals ruled by the court was almost zero, what functions were left to advocates?

-    Introduction of the institute of procedural agreement stipulated simply attendance of an advocate at the court session. Advocated was merely a witness while a judge was a notary. Thus, advocates, especially those highly qualified advocates who were working on criminal cases, saw that they could not influence the criminal case and help their clients and, so many of them moved to civil and administrative fields. It is worth mentioning that the situation is changing step by step.

-    Why did the government need to carry out such amendments? Why did not it introduceamendments concentrated on human rights protection?

-    The government had a very simple objective – terrorize people; it can be said that it had achieved that goal. Georgia became a totalitarian state where the government did everything to have the population in terror, fully control the public and prevent people from expressing any type of protest. Thus, it is natural that all the above-mentioned was adequately reflected on legislative amendments and carried out in practice.

-    However, government was always proud of the police reform….

-    Yes, the government was proud of that reform but they used the policemen as witnesses when they imprisoned people absolutely illegall with political motives with the charges of resistence to the police. Police became political weapon of the government and it was very tangible.

Valeri Gelbakhiani, Member of the Parliament of Georgia within 1999-2008, Leader of a non-governmental organization “Our Georgia”

-    During recent years opposition was repeatedly requesting making fundamental amendments to the election code. What was the reason for this protest? What were the legislative amendments that the government carried out wthin 2004-2012 which later had negative influence on the condition of oppositional parties and election environment?

-    It can be said that election legislation is a second in terms of importance after the Constitution as the process of formation of government depends on it. Government had monopolized control over election administration. It was the first restriction of human rights, when the ruling party was in advantageous state and the rest political parties were in unequal situation. The first discrimination was adoption of that law.

Introduction of the concept of qualified parties was also discriminatory. The parties which had surpassed minimum threshold in either Parliamentary of Presidential elections were called qualified whil the rest were deprived of every right. This was on the background when every political party was requested by Constitution and the law to submit 25 000 signatures confirmed by voters to the Central Election Commission. These signatures proved that the party was qualified for participating in elections. However, the above stated ground was not considered and the parties were not considered qualified.

Advertising time-limit of broadcast for parties, which costs two-three million during pre-election period, should also be mentioned. However, dominant parties were given five million allowances while these parties had their own financial resources.

It was followed with the law on the Chamber of Control (known under this name back then), which was further strict for those political parties, which were considered unqualified. These parties had to submit a report on a weekly basis on the amount of money they had received as transfers, how did they raise financies, was that property legitimate, what did they spend money for and so forth… to leave everything else alone, plenty of time was wasted only on collection of these documentation, which had negative influence on election campaign. Quality of freedom was restricted and control mechanism on oppositional parties was increased.

Such inconsistent attitude, discriminative gradations violated constitutional principles, according to which everyone shall be equall. Constitution prohibits discrimination on every type of discrimination; however, the law directly violated the constitution and unfortunately the law is still in force.

-    What amednments did the government implement in civil legislation?

The government had right on everything and it was not only in dominant and advantageous state, but did not recognize any liability as well. Instead, natural and legal entities were imposed every types of liabilities, their rights were restricted and procedural and so-called “material” legislation established total inequality. Appealing a case in higher instances was pointless. No one can remember even a single precedent when a cassation appeal was reviewed by the court. It was direct restriction of constitutional right of a person. Article 42 of the constitution stipulate that every person shall have the right to appeal to the court for protecting his/her own rights and freedoms and these rights shall be guaranteed; however, people were deprived of these rights.

A principle was adopted which stipulated that complaint must be allowed on any instance, whether cassation or appellation. Thus, the investigation requested from complainers that the review of a case shall bear an important function for the development of judiciary. Thus, the Supreme Court is legally requesting from people to prove that their case is important for the development of judiciary. Why is the state imposing this liability on people? People are meant to be going to higher instances for protecting their rights and interests. I think that such harsh attitude towards the interests of citizens in private legal relations was one of the biggest discriminations ever practiced in the field of civil law.

We have joined to the Convention on Human Rights and Basic Freedoms which states that any illegal ruling or decision shall be considered as abuse of authority from the state and every thus affected person shall be subject to counter-protection and restoration of his/her freedom. However, even a single example of upholding this part of the Convention cannot be observed neither before 2012 nor under the new government.

Parliament of Georgia adopted a ruling on 200 political prisoners, but which of them received compensation? Which of them was considered as a victim of justice? Who was punished for all this?

If both, acting and previous governments knew that they would be held responsible for what they commit they would not act so.

-    So, it seems that the main problem is the impunity syndrome which entails other grave problems.

-    Yes, the problem is that the state does not want to observe the liabilities undertaken by the Constitution.

We do not have labour legislation. There are approximately more than hundred conventions regulating the labour field which envisages Georgia among others but you cannot name a single convention that Georgia has complied with.

Law on enforcement which was adopted during Saakashvili’s period is still in force. According to the law, an enforcer is authorized with indefinite powers. When, by the court decision, money is withdrawn from an account, 6-7% of that money belongs to the Bureau of Enforcement. The law entitles notarys to make a decision by themselves, without court while Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia directly stipulates that the right of ownership shall be inviolable and depriviation of property for public need shall be admissible only in the cases directly stipulated by the law, with the court decision. However, the law on enforcement makes fundamentally different statement – a notary, without a court decision, can issue a bidding document for enforcement of any obligation set forth by agreement and bring property to a bidding arranged by the National Bureau of Enforcement without informing an owner of the property. Selling property without a court decision is direct violation of Constitution.

Thus, it is difficult to review a separate case of violation on the background of a vicious legislation; let’s leave alone criminal law where we can find a lot of violations. Everything was directed towards violation of human rights in the state.

Irakli Petriashvili, Chair of Trade Unions of Georgia

-    Mr. Petriashvili you protested the acting labour code quite often. What is the most unacceptable statement in this Code which affected an employee?

-    In 2006 the government adopted a labour legislation which was completely unilateral as it granted indefinite rights to an emoployer while establishing only obligations to the employed; it made an impression as if the objective of birth of every employee was to serve an employer.

Government was lying when stating as if it was observing European norms and standards. Actually, the acting labour code was violating every European standard. Employer and employee did not have communication, work overtime was unlimited, employer was allowed to request an employee to carry out as much work as the employer wanted and then dismiss him/her.

Article 37 of the labour code entitled an employer to terminate labour contract with an employee without any grounds only according to his/her good will.

-    Mr. Petriashvili, there must have been cases when employed applied you, as a Chair of Trade Unions of Georgia, with complaints. What type of complaints did they have with employers?

-    What I have mentioned above created serious problems. In addition, unlimited work time was also problematic. According to article 37 of the Code, employer was free to terminate labour contracts and dismiss employees. People were fired because of establishing trade unions and unfortunately these people could not find justice. In this case even the Court and its lack of independence were not problematic as the source of the problem was labour code according to which an employer was in a favoured condition.

-    Can you remember a case of punishing an employer for violating the rights of an employee?

-    No, I cannot. We punished employers when we went on strike. Where the staff was strong and resisted pressure, we achieved our goal. Despite the blackmail that the power structures and state officials were carrying out against us, we still managed to achieve success and concluded even commercial agreements with employers though such cases were very rare.

-    Why did nothing change during that 9 year despite your protest and the protest from the public? Why did the government want to have such a Code? Why did not it want the Code which would protect the rights of employees? What was their interest in this case?

-    Government was saying that establishing any type of regulation to an employer, businessman or investor would create unfavorable climate for them. However, it was only a statement. Actual reason was that the representatives of our government wanted to prove to American Republicans that inculcating the ideas that Republican neolibertarians and every other neolibertarian have about neolibertarianism was also possible in Georgian reality; the previous government carried out certain experiments on its own people.

Today I am surprised to hear the representatives of previous government saying that signing an Association Agreement with EU is their merit. They are telling us to remember who were working on this issue and they are implying Levan Ramishvili, Giga Bokeria and Vato Lejava while these are the people who have always been saying that Europe is a Socialist-Communist world, full of Arabs and Moroccans, that Georgia should quit thinking about Europe and stirve for the countries of opportunities like America, Singapore and Dubai. The Dubai and Singapore advertised by them is not Europe either in terms of Geography or economy.

-    Certain amendments were made to the Labour Code after arrival of the new government. Are these amendments enough to better the situation?

-    First that these amendments are not enough and second, they are not even implemented. We may have a better Code but only in the form of a Code. They are not actually practiced. People cannot make use of them.

The only positive event is that the approach has changed and the people who go on strike are not battered with batons and imprisoned as the government does not interfere with the relationship of an employed and employer in favour of an employer. A lot of issues have been regulated through dialogue but this is not a result of the Code, this is a result of the environment where employed have felt freedom.

Kakha Kukava, Leader of a political party “Free Georgia”

-    What did the constitutional amendments, made within 2003-2012 by the government, resulted in?

-    In 2004 after the arrival of a new government number of constitutional amendments was carried out. The amendments resulted in losing balance between the branches of government. It should be mentioned that the government was criticized by international organizations for adopting these amendments.

Based on constitutional amendtments, let’s call it, an anti-court reform was carried out which completely infringed independence of the court; the court was actually subjected to Prosecution.We rememeber that judges received direct indications from the Prosecutor General on the verdicts to return.

In addition, merging of the Ministries of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of State Security also violated human rights as the whole operative power was in the hands of one body. Indefinit authority was given to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the bodies which balanced it – either Public Defender or Parliament or other bodies – were merely shams.

Altogether, all these very much resembled to the system of governance of the Soviet Union in the 20s’-30s’ and which is generally characteristic for authoritarian countries. This type of governance is called a police state and we can remember the amendments that the government made to the Police Law of Georgia which referred to “reasonable doubt” and allowed illegal detention, search and examination of people only on the basis of “reasonable doubt”.

-    According to lawyers, problems derived also from frequently amending the Constitution…

-    Making amednments to the Constitution so often is definitely unjustifiable to the countries where constitutionalism is a tradition. The difference between the constitution and other laws is that the Constitution shall be basis to every other law and consequently it should be firm.We know that as many amendments were made to the Constitution of the US within 200 years as Saakashvili made to the Georgian one within 9 years. The fact that every whim of government was reflected on the constitution vilated it.

-    You mentioned a whim, how much did the government consider public opinion, opinion of opposition and lawers while making amendmants?

-    The government never considered anybody’s opinion. We should also mentione the fact that the constitutional amendments were adopted in exactly the form they were initiated. Constitution, as well as many other legislative acts, becomes the subject of concensus in many countries. For example, we know that even Barack Obama cannot make amendments to the Constitution of the US in the form he wants to. He has to agree any amendment not only to the opposition but to other influential public groups too. However, Georgian government has never observed this procedure. We, the opposition wanted our notes to be properly reflected in the constitution; however, minority report has always been unacceptable for the government.

-    The institute of procedural agreement,through which quite high amounts of money flew to the state budget, was the subject of criticism for years. What were the problems that derived from procedural agreement?

-    Procedural agreement was an institute unfamiliar to the legislation of Europe which was copied from the US. It was copied to Georgian legislation in a very bad form. It should also be mentioned that the American institute is not much respected inEurope. However, the procedural agreement was the form of trade in Georgia. Justice did not have functions. Accused, instead of finding evidences and think of defending themselves, were trying to find an advocate who would profitably trade with the prosecution. Principle of competitiveness of parties which is approved in democracies lost meaning in Georgia.

Lali Aptsiauri – Advocate, Human Rights Defender

-    What was the criminal policy that the government was carrying out within 2003-2012and how did the amendments influence the situation in the country?

-    Criminal policy did not exist in the country. Judge returned a verdict in accordance with the opinion of high rank officials. Documents, whatever it might be, even a blank page, presented by the prosecution, court considered as necessary and returned a verdict of guilty. I cannot even think back what we have undergone.

I can say with all the responsibility and each ruling and criminal case also confirms that that from 2003, from the day when National Movement came to power, people were judged and punished according to the opinion of a certain high rank official.The problem was not much related to legislative amendments, as the amendments would not go beyond European standards. Fundmanetal change of any article and turning into a harsh law would definitely be visible for the internaltional community and that would be restrictive for the government. That’s why everything was in normal state at a glance, human rights were protected but everybody knew what was actually going on.

Around 400 000 people were brough to court during the period of National Movement. According to the data, actually the whole nationa was criminal. This happened because legal policy did not exist and we were beyond legal frameworks.

-    Advocates even expressed their protest by holding a demonstration. What were advocates’problems?

-    The government started institutional persecution of advocates on massive scale. Advocates were blackmailed and by the amendments carried out during recent years of National Movement, rights of an accused and an advocate were equal. Even back at Shevardnadze’s period an advocate needed sanction from the Supreme Court to conduct search and it was granted very rarely, only in special cases. The situation changed during the period of National Movement. Despite of all the above mentioned, I think that even under such legislation, under such hard conditions, a qualified lawyer could carry out his/her activity successfully if the court had been fair; however, no one was interested by the qualification and professionalism of a lawyer. The result was still zero even if an advocate submitted aboundance of evidences. The core problem was that the court was not independent.

I was voicing this problem from the very first day when National Movement came to power in 2003, though, as you see, without any result. You might remember that on January 9, 2004 in West Georgia, in particular Kutaisi, people protested detention of a person as the police secretly putweapon to 104 old woman. They did it by mistake and it was at that time when the government first used force against its population who protested the fact; people who were chased by Special Forcesto subdue their fair protest had to escape to forest.The goal of the government was to inculcate fear in people and control the public and they did it for 9 years. I rememeber the time when stout man whispered during visits in the prison. I told them to hold their heads up, to say hello to me; they were not even allowed to speak.

The government was boasting that they filled the budget and that they had success; today, when businessmen are allowed to speak it becomes clear how the government filled the budget. Nothing worked in the country and the state budget was filled with money received from procedural agreements. It is inadequate when the court judges a person to pay GEL 6 mln as a bail. Such precedents are not observed even in highly developed countries where the salary is EUR 5-10 mln. Was imposing such amounts of money as a bail in a country population of which was trying to cope with the level of subsistence adequate from the government? That policy left half of Georgia without a place to live in.

Shalva Khachapuridze – Advocate

-    What were the constitutional amendments implemented by the government within 2003-2012 which negatively influenced human rights?

-    In February, 2004 newly elected president Saakashvili implemented revolutionary amendments to the Constitution and turned the Constitution in force from 1995, which was assessed as fundamental for the development of a yound democracy by foreign experts, into a tyranious document. The constitution was an American model of Parliamentary governance which ensured independence and balance of all three branches of government. President was not allowed to dismiss parliament; formation of an executive government and control over its activity was a full prerogative of parliament. Constitutio of Georgia, in particular article 52, guaranteed freedom of expression for a deputy, his/her imunity which, on its turn, guaranteed high quality of freedom for opposition. Independence of court was guaranteed by the composition of Supreme Council of Justice. Quality of freedom of the press, a so-called fourth government, was not far from the standards of any other democratic state. After the constitutional amendments of 2004, formation of executive government became the prerogative of President; President was also responsible for dismissal of Parliament. According to article 73 of the Constitution, President was authorized to get involved in the activities of Parliament. According to the amendments, government ordered draft legislations; Parliament was not authorized to adopet a law on its own initiative or make an amendment to legislation. Consequently, Parliament became a political hostage as long as if it did not adopt the law initiated by the government, it was possible that President would dismiss it according to articles 51 and 81. Guarantees of constitutional protection of a deputy were abolished and, according to the amendments, consent from the Parliament was no more necessary on starting a criminal persecution against a deputy which gave authority to investigative bodies to interrogate a deputy as a witness, suspect or under any grounds, even for expressing his/her opinion freely. The above-mentioned amendments rudely violated basic democratic principles of government arrangement, which implies separation of authorities and which is recognized by the constitution. Such categoric assessment of violence over constitution leaves an impression of partial approach; that’s why I would like to indicate that there is an equivocally negative conclusion of the Venice Commission with the President Mr. Gianni Buquicchio whose authority is unquestionable, on the amendments made to the constitution of Georgia. Government started territorial arrangement with these amendments. As you know, Autonomous Republic of Ajara was established on the basis of Karsi Agreement and the undersignee state was the guarantor of protection of the Autonomy. President Saakashvili showed immeasurable aggression against the leadership of the Republic right on the day of his election. The situation became so tense that the leader of the Autonomy left his position and fled to Russia. In 2004, the Parliament of Georgia adopted a constitutional law on the Constitution of Autonomous Republic of Ajara. New constitution replaced the old one and the population of Ajara was deprived of the right to elect the head of the government and the right was granted to the President of Georgia. Representative body of the Government of Ajara was deprived of the right of self-governance and it was functioning only formally. Activities of the government of Autonomous Republic were so restricted that it could not make an independent decision.

Institutional reform of court did not respond to structural-organizational compliance of constitutional and territorial units of state arrangement. As for the law on common courts, administrative-territorial entities were functioning in the first instance court though later the institutional system, which is currently functioning, was established – criminal court of first instance was moved to administrative centers of districts and regions, which is at least 100km far from the population. As legislative and executive branches of government were actually subject to political intersts of a ruling party, Council of Justice was granted unprecedented authorities as a result of legislative amendments. Court was under the control of advisory body of Justice. In 2005 council of Justice considered staffing of Supreme Court with the same composition illegal after which two judges had to leave their positions; it should be mentioned that both judges were of best qualification. It is also noteworthy that the government was intentionally carrying out such policy.

-    Why was the previous government acting so?

-    The aim of the government was to have the population under fear. The result of this was that the number of acquittals ruled by the court was zero. As a result of constitutional amendments role and function of prosecution and the system of arrangement of administrative state changed. According to the 1995 constitution, Prosecution was not within the composition of executive government and was the part of justice system, thus in the hierarchy of independent court system, which carried out supervision over the legality of criminal cases. After the amendments, supervising body became an investigative body itself. These constitutional amendments clearly prove that the government policy was directed towards centralization of executive body and gaining control over independent court. At the end of 2005, National Association of the US conducted a search on the reform carried out in Georgia and it established that only two out of 30 issues to be examined responded to the principlesof democracy. Court was located in a finely arranged building though negatively carryied out functions imposed on it. The assassments of annual reports of International Institutes of Human Rights Protection and US Department of State were almost the same as the one mentioned above.

-    You mentioned restriction of rights of judges, what about advocates?

-    The institute of advocate was practically abolished in Georgia. Judge could sentence probation only through the motion of a prosecutor.

Assessments made available here by the Global Research Center cannot claim veracity and cannot review all the fields of state and public. Violance in the name of law which took place within 2003-2012 in revolutionary scales and brutality needs to be fundamentally investigated. Global Research Center hopes to make the full picture of lawmaking terror of those 9 years in the future.

However, except for the legislation there is a practice for its use which was also in poor condition within 2003-2012. People who died under Saakashvili’s regime are dead and nothing can be done with it, but the research is necessary to prevent repeating of bad history. Political prisoners should be fully rehabilitated, people who were actually robbed should be returned their property – this is the most important challenge for “Georgian Dream”.

Government should always remember that there is no peace withour justice!

The Center offers articles and researches by Georgian and foreign experts as well as the stenographs of meetings, seminars and conferences. The Center hopes to broaden the scales and spectrum of its activity.

From March to May, 2014 Global Research Center held a number of expert meetings and conferences. Expert conclusion was prepared by the Center back in May. However, we did not think it appropriate to publicize it before the local-self government elections with the intention to avoid speculations on it. Now, when couple of days is left before signing the Association Agreement, a question may arise – what will the expert conclusion change? Our objective is to direct the attention of the Government of Georgia towards several problematic issues, as signing the Agreement is the start, not the finish, of the process.

The first and most important problematic issue is that the new government, similar to the old one, politicizes the issue of Association Agreement too much and sows excessive expectations in population. Informatinal policy of the Government, which results in illusions as if Georgia will have visa-free access to EU countries and after some time we will be accepted to EU is beyond criticism. These illusions may become the source of great disappointments.

None of the high level conference or team of experts can completelyreview, assess and calculate the results of all the aspects of this thousand page document. Before signing the document review of separate aspects, short and long-termrisks, and threats by governmental agencies and scientific-research institutions (by the ones that still exist), then harmonization of approaches and opinions by the most important institutions (government, Academy of science, Trade Unions, Parliament)would have been better. Unfortunately the developments did not take the above course.

The Association Agreement is the most extensive, comprehensive and complex document that has ever been prepared on cooperation of Georgia with international organizations and institutions. It imposes certain institional frames, rules of conduct to not only the representatives of almost every branch of the Government of Georgia, but ordinary members of the Georgian public, entrepreneurs, businessmen, and public servants as well…. This is not a declaration of commitments taken only by the Government of Georgia. This is a document defining certain model of conduct for Georgian society. Another issue is how much the public itself realizes these imposes and how much it is ready to accept them.

After the Agreement enters into force, the governmental programs, documents and declarations which have been adopted during recent years by either former or acting governments of the country (at least five such documents were prepared, including three by the acting government of the country: 1. Pre-election program of “Georgian Dream” (2011); 2.Action-plan of the Government of Georgia (2012); 3. Draft of socio-economic development strategy of the country – “Georgia 2012” (February, 2014) require serious revision as the significant number of provisions of these documents are not in compliance with the spirit of the Agreement.

Unfortunately, as it has become known, works on separate aspects of the Agreement by the bodies of executive government in accordance with their competences have not been carried out. Only consultations in governmental institutions with the experts of relevant EU institutions and organizations – who were directly involved in preparation of the document from the EU side were held. In other words, Georgian side did not take material part in the preparation process of the Agreement. The document was presented “ready-made” by the EU first for initialing and now for signing. To compare: the unrest which started in the Ukraine in November, 2013 was the result of getting familiarized and realization of similar document.

The fact that Russia did not cause any problems before signing the Agreement should be considered as a success of Georgian diplomacy (under the conditions of absence of diplomatic relations – the success should be attributed personally to Mr. Zurab Abashidze); however, there are no guarantees (or we are not aware of them) that Russia will not put embargo to its market which it had partially opened for Georgia. In October, 2012 modelling of economic effects resulted from the Agreement was carried out according to the ordered of the EU Commission. 1,7% growth for short-term and 4,3% growth forlong-term of GDP and 9% growth for short-term and 12% growth for long-term of export is predicted according to the research.

To compare: only in January and February of 2014 compared to the same period of the previous year export increased by 23% which was mostly a result of opening of Russian market.

The list of products given in Annex II – B grabs attention. These are the products which are exempt from customs duty though are taxed by a so-called “market-access price” while exported.

The tax aims at equalling the price of Georgian products with the European ones as Georgian product is cheaper than European. To put it in simple words, apple from Gori, Georgia should not be cheaper than apple from Spain.

The list includes technically all fruits and some of the vegetables grown in Georgia. In particular, the list covers: tomato and cucumber, almost all types of citruses grown in Georgia, grapes, apple, pear, peach, apricot, cherry, sweet cherry, plum, etc. which create profile of our agriculture.

We often hear from the representatives of the government that signing the Agreement opens doors of more than 500 million markets of Europe for Georgia. However, we should consider how much the country is ready for this and how much Europe supports us in entering their markets. Gaining foothold on new economic spaces and not only realization of its product on these markets, but formation of legislative, investment and business climate as well, is important for the EU.

Nowadays, EU is one of the important, though not the most important trade partners for Georgia. As of 2013, EU is responsible for 26.7% of foreign trade turnover of Georgia. In addition, import exceeded export three times. To compare: CIS is responsible for31.5% of foreign trade turnover of Georgia. Covering export with import with EU is around 1.5% lower than with the rest of the world. Altogether covering export with import on average is 36.9%, with EU – 26.8% with the rest of the world except for the EU – 41.1%.

Currently Georgia is responsible only for 0.6% of foreign trade turnover of EU. However, EU is cautious about ending up uncontrolled export on the markets of EU from Georgia. These measures of precaution are related to commercial interests of protecting domestic market of EU, as well as to prevent ending up products from a third country via Georgia or from a country with whom EU and International Community has economic sanctions on the territory of EU.

Thus, hoping that Georgian product will conquer European markets is exaggerated. Except for the mechanisms of protecting own markets, our current potential to gain foothold on EU market is too weak considering the fact that agriculture is the weakest part of Georgian economy. Labour capacity in this field in Georgia 60 times and more legs behing the same European indicator.

The third fact is thatdomestic consumer market of Georgia is almost 4/5 occupied by the imported goods and the number one task is not exporting but “Reconquista” of domestic consumer market – promotion of domination of local products on domestic agricultural market. For example: the Agreement allows 4.4 thousand tones of cattle meat and 0.5 thousand tones of poultry meat on EU market. However, the share of local meat in the consumption by Georgian consumers is 36% and more than 60 thousan tone of meat is exported annually.

Taxes (customs duties) on imported goods is low in Georgia and the amount of money mobilized in the budget of Georgia through such taxes is GEL 90 mln annually – around 1.2% of current budget revenues. Consequently, after signing the Agreement with the EU, in consideration of foreign trade turnover volume and structure, decrease in budget receipts will be around GEL 25-30 mln. Its compensation will be possible through export increase which exceeded USD 400 mln in recent years and profit tax received from this significantly exceeds the possible decrease in the budget from the reduction of customs duties on the goods imported in Europe.

The data on stimulation of economic increase and economic development in the country given in the Agreement require verification. For example, the authors of the document predict increase of GDP by 1.7% in the short-term prospective and by 43% in the long-term prospective after concluding the Agreement. Th authors predict increase in export by 9% and 12% and import – by 4.4.% and 7.5% respectively.

However, the research does not say anything about the synergy factor, which may be caused by the increase of possibilities and demands. During the last 8 years (years 2006 – 2013) export in Georgia  has been increasing annually by 16.5% on average while export increased by 15.7%. It seems that the rate of export will decreas after the Agreement and import will remain the same.

Based on our assessment, increase of product quailty (and, consequently bringing them closer to world standards) will result not only in the increase of GDP, but also in actual increase of export in EU by 1.5 – 2 times on average, thus by USD 300-600 mln, which will be equivalent of around 2% increase in the country.

In addition, we consider the hopes on exporting Georgian products to EU “immediately” and in huge amounts exaggerated. Currently the EU market is structured, full of products and quite protected for the new actors to manage access, win foothold and gain significant segment of it. It somehow resembles to the expectation that the previous government of Georgia had towards the Chinese market in terms of exporting Georgian wine while actually the 1.5 billion consumer market of China bought only 10% of that Georgian wine in 2006-2012 which the 143 million consumer market of Russia bought only during 4 months of 2006.

For this reason, 500 mln consumer market is generally interesting and attractive for Georgian economy, though gaining foothold on it implies playing with the same rules, meeting quality and supply conditions, overcoming very high level of competition towards which the Georgian side still has much to do.

But if direct economic effect on European market will not be made by tangibel export of Georgian products, then what will be the benefits that the Agreement is supposed to yield generally for the economy of Georgia and specifically for Georgian customers?

One of the visibel results of the agreement will be facilitation of visa regime, as well as increase the quality of Georgian local agricultural products, ensuring more possibilities for small and medium enterprises, improving availability of european education and increase of energo-efficiency in the field of electric power and ensuring development of renewable energy resources and all these on the background of enhanced legal backdrop and rule of law, transparency of activities and responsibility of any institute, service and public servant.

At the same time, in the long-term the Agreement may be reviewed as a main motive not for securing foothold on European market and promoting export from Georgia, but for producing and establishing Georgian national product which meets the requirements of European standards on domestic market and for replacing imported goods with Georgian products.

A logic question arises – is not establishing all these standards a prerogative of the government of Georgia? What are the hindering factors to carry out this policy without EU Agreement?

The third section of the Agreement is dedicated to freedom, security, and justice. Article 15 of the Agreement refers to cooperation in the fields of emigration, refuge, and border management. All the three areas require regulation in Georgia; the EU is far more interested in decreasing the number and control of migrants from developing countries. In such situation interests of both parties concide and cooperation in this field will most probably be effective.

For decreasing the flow of migrants the EU will have to assist Georgia in a way which will result in the decrease of the number of people who would want to immigrate. Thus, Europe should try and make preventive measures on local level which means that it EU should make substantial contribution to Georgia’s economic and scientific development to prevent the people having labour and intellectual potential from wanting to go abroad. If the processes do not go this direction, illegal migration to Europe will take on such scales that readmission processes will not be effective.

Another problematic area for Georgia is flow of migrants into the country. Most part of migrants come from developing countries of Africa and Asia. For them Georgia is a so-called “transit” country for migration to Europe. Due to the fact that migration from Georgia is related to quite complicated procedures and is often hindered, significant part of migrants illegally stays in the country.

Because of the fact that the previous government of Georgia had approved visa-free regime with almost half of the world, part of foreigners who entered Georgia and who are going to emigrate to Europe, represent danger and Georgia, independently from itself, poses threat to Europe and promots movement of unconventional forces to Europe.

Within the frames of cooperation in this field visa regime may be reviewed and the welcoming fact is that making amendments to the rule of granting citizenship to foreigners is already being reviewed. Cooperation in this direction is a serious step forward in terms of enhancing security. Interest of Europe in this regard is high and taking preventive measures in Georgia which would cost it far cheaper and would be more effective would be more appropriate for Europe.

Another field in the above-mentioned article is border management. Since re-gaining independence Georgia has not carried out demarcation of borders with none of the neighboring countries. From the USSR we have inherited properly demarcated borders only with Turkey. The field is quite problematic for Georgia. Claims of Azerbaijan on Davit-Gareja monastery complex, uncertain situation in Samtskhe-Javakheti at Armenia-Georgia border and the most difficult situation – border issues with Russia – this is the current situation of Georgia in terms of borders.

Back in the years when Mr. Davit Tevzadze was the Minister of Defense, two battalions called “Monadire” (Hunter) were established in Svaneti and Khevsureti under the aegis of the Ministry. The battelions were composed of local population. These battalions were commited to carry out several tasks. During the process of completing the tasks it became clear that the results were far important thanexpected. First of all the sections of borders where these battelions operated were protected.

Attempts of crossing the border from the North Caucasus to both directions (Svaneti and Khevsureti) by Russian armed units as well as by unconventional forces were recorded several times. However, all these attempts were unsuccessful. Local population returned to border zone (their family members and local population, who had left their houses and moved to low-lands), started cattle-breeding and villages became lively again. Returning of families to such places resulted in the decreased number of attempts of crossing borders illegally and misappropriation of property. As they say, sacred place is never deserted. If you abandon a place others will come and occupy it.

Due to the fact that there are no demarcation lines between Georgia and Russia and the previous Government dismissed these battalions which resulted in deserting these places, Russia virtually took around 3-4% of the territories near Abkhazia and South Ossetia after the August war, in 2008. Neither the previous government nor the new one is protesting this fact. Consequently cooperation in this field is a good opportunity for minimizing the risk of losing territories.

Article 18 refers to fight against narcotics. International organizations consider Georgia as one of the serious transit countries for narcotics. Abuse of office by high rank officials of previous government and taking this illegal busiuness almost to the state level during the years of National Movement in the Office, made the territory of Georgia almost the present to the drug cartel. New government will not be able to handle the drug related problem alone.

The Agreement aims at sharing European experience in this field, rendering practical assistanceand taking preventive measures on the territory of Georgia. Though there are assumptions that if Georgia is not active in this direction Europe would not show high interest. The amount of goods entering the EU from Georgia is not big. The EU special services can carry out control over it within the perimeters of the EU borders which will be practically useless for us. On the contrary, load on Georgia, as a transit country will increase even more as there would not be a serious controlling force operating on the territory of the country.

Articles 19 and 20 refer to joint cooperation in the fields of money laundering and fight against terrorism. At first sight it seems as if Georgia is protected from terrorist attacks and the risk of terrorist attacks and emerging terrorist organizations is low; however, the thereat is that Georgia is a key transit country for exporting terrorism.

The fact that the number one killer in the world, Ruslan Papaskir (from the North Caucasus), nicknamed “zoons”, had Georgian passport issued during the period of National Movement and he used the passport worldwide, represents Georgia as a country supporting terrorism.

The fact that there are several conflict regions around Georgia should be taken into consideration. We are facing the serious trend of unconventional forces becoming active which is reflected on Georgia too. EU has a huge informational and hi-tech base, well-trained special services amd serious funds for fighting against terrorism. On the basis of this Agreement the area of fighting against terrorism broadens and Georgia falls under the responsibility of it.

One of the consistant parts of threat arising from unconventional forces and weapons is the movement of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiologic material on the territory of Gergia. Creation and use of a so-called “dirty bomb” is a question of time and the main goal of the modern world is minimization and prolongation of this threat in time. Despite the fact that Georgia is not a nuclear country, movement of these materials on the territory of Georgia is quite active and it creates a serious threat.

We should remember that Physical Institute of Sokumi which produces radiological material, actinoids and lantanoids is not controlled by international organizations. This is the institute, where the material intended for nuclear weapon is produced. And there is Lugari lab in Tbilisi. Despite the fact that the lab is one of the most protected labs in the EU, threat of terrorist attack is still substantial. In case of terrorist attack the results will go beyond the region and will turn into sub-regional. This is a huge challenge for our government. Interest of Europe in this field is very high and assistance from the EU and taking preventive measures on the territory of the country can be an effective means of minimization of the threat of terrorism and unconventional arms.

Minimization and neutralization of the threats is a task of vital importance for Europe. Georgia is quite weak against them. Thus, taking preventive measures on the territory of our country and assistance of Georgia in this regard implies achieving the goal for Europe. It can be said that us in this fieldwe are more important for them than they are for.

The most discussed topic recently is EU-Georgia Association Agreement.

Diversification for a market is very good, especially when EU market is not an ordinary one; it is a market of the richest 500 million people of the planet. The question is, how much ready are we for this market, what is the benefit that we expect or will receive from the Agreement and will signing the Agreement trigger political-economic processes, that instead of improving our poor economy, deteriorate it?

Let’s review the conditions of the Agreement.

From the very beginning I would like to emphasize that I will not be discussing the topics such as standardization, European norms of sanitary and phyto-sanitary, etc. which, as you might be aware, are problematic in our country. I would like to discuss the Agreement only in fiscal direction.

First of all, it is noteworthy that customs duties are abolished within this Agreement, which is good.

The fact that the country will not have to pay customs duties while exporting its product and importing from abroad will result in the decrease of prices (let’s consider that accumulation of less amounts of money in the budget due to abolishment of customs duties will be compensated at the expense of the increased goods turnover), is welcoming. The fact that imported high-quality goods, because of its low prime cost will overwhelm our domestic production is not problematic at this stage.

Well, it will not overwhelm anything as there is nothing to overwhelm. But…. and there emerge many “buts”. As you know friendship is a bilateral type of relationship. Especially, when one of the friends is far stronger and insists to be your friend the intention should be proved by actions.

The list of products, exempt from customs duties, but at the same time taxed by the “market admission tax” while exported, given in the Annex II – B attracts attention.

The idea of the tax is that as Georgian product is cheaper compared to the one produced in the EU, will equal to the price of products on their internal market. In plain words, apple from Gori, Georgia should not be cheaper than the apple from Spain not to “oppress” it.

The list actually covers all the fruit characteristically grown in Georgia and some of the vegetables. Namely: cucumber, tomato, almost every type of citruses, grapes, apple, pear, peach, apricot, cherry, sweet-cherry, plum, etc. Unfortunately pineapple and banana cannot be grown in Georgia due to climate conditions. All the above listed products create profile of our agriculture. This is the Agreement we are going to sign.

As it is known, economy is the base of everything. Ignoring and putting this postulate on the second stage inflicted us a huge damage in the ‘80s. We should not make one and the same mistake twice.

According to surveys currently the number one problem in Georgia is unemployment. The country should be trying to solve this problem in the first place. For finding a solution to this problem as soon as possible, we should analyze the structure of the population of Georgia.

In Georgia the number of village population is high. According to the data provided by Geostat last year, 47% of the whole population live in village. This is especially high indicator. If we want to achieve tangible progress in terms of decreasing unemployment level on the backdrop of the above-given data, model of economic development, intended, in the first place, for involvement of this segment of population should be developed, which should be viable in economic terms and have development prospective.

Based on the above-stated, I consider that it is good, when the government helps its village population through various projects; however, it is not even near to enough. Establishing processing plants for agriculture products and obtaining stabile market for the processed product is necessary. This must be the main economic message for overcoming unemployment, which, on its part, is fully harmonized with the development of small and medium business.

The problem is clearly visible.

Due to Georgia’s current economic development, natural conditions, structural peculiarities of the population, lack of qualification of workforce and other factors, no other option exists. However, one main problem emerges here – the problem of sale’s market.

For developing any direction in economy, sale’s market is necessary. The Government should support national producers in gaining foothold on the export market. The State should ensure admission to and maintenance of sale’s market.

At the end of the ‘80s, selling of every factory in parts started in the country. We have squandered away everything. Economy was not developing. We have also lost the qualified workforce. The country had to import everything. Subjective factors causing the above mentioned, and the people interested in such developments, is another topic of discussion. Though the facts remain to be facts. In 2013, import equaled to USD 8 billion, whereas export was USD 3 billion, plus in this export USD 700 mln.accounted for re-exporting automobiles. Such is the situation that we are having today. Though, from the end of 2013 and starting of 2014 export has revived in the country. We should pay attention to this fact as it is further considered below.

In October, 2012, by the order of the European Commission, modeling of economic effects triggered by the above mentioned Agreement was conducted in the country. According to the research, increase of GDP by 1,7% in the short-term and by 4,3% in the long-term, as well as increase of export by 9% in the short-term and by 12% in the long-term is forecasted.

I think that the fact, that in January-February, 2014 only, export increased by 23% compared to the previous year, speaks itself. The increase is caused by the export on Russian market.

As we can see from the above stated, even the economic effect calculated by European experts does not have surprising effect, when the expectation of people is absolutely different.

Though, as I have mentioned above, generally, diversification of the market and gaining admission on a market of such magnitude and potential is a positive fact. This is unquestionable. But, there is one threat.

The possibility that signing the Agreement will result in problems of exporting our products to Russian market is high, which is bad. It is unfair though real. It was exactly ignoring reality which put us in the current state.

The unfortunate fact is that by today’s condition, if we want development of agriculture and its connection to the relevant processing industry, in order to create employment, it is impossible without Russian market.

So, what shall we do?

Should we not sign the Agreement?

The question should not be put this way. At least, today. This is a political issue.

In parallel with signing Association Agreement between Georgia and EU, the Government should conduct active dialogue with the government of Russia. Otherwise, we may end up in a very hard economic situation as the thesis: “implementation of Association Agreement will yield specific benefit to the citizens of Georgia”, is only an illusion.

In consideration of the Agreement conditions, current and potential future situation in the country and many other factors, it is only desirable.

The European market is totally imbued with the product that creates export profile of Georgia. Plus, on many types of such products tax for equaling the price of our product with theirs is added and there is lack of awareness on our product on Euro-market, etc.

Thus, if we leave alone the product which they did not release from the price with the reason of protecting their own product and look back at, let’s say, wine export from Georgia, we will clearly see that this reviving sector will get back to stagnation and crisis if Russian market closes for it. For example, in 2013, right after partial opening of the Russian market, 44% of the total export of wine went to the Russian market and it was only the beginning.

Thus, the decision on signing the Association Agreement, especially in its current form, cannot be equivocal.

It should be emphasized that the Chapter IV: Trade and issues related to Trade, is unequal for the parties. To leave all the rest alone, the Agreement sets restrictions only for Georgia.

Based on the all above-stated, if we lose the most “important” market in attempting market diversification, it will put us in more difficult situation than we are in today.

To summarize, everything depends on the Government and it is natural that they should bear responsibility in directing general policy of the country.

MamukaChkheidze, Economics expert.

On 27February Global Research Center conducted a seminar on the developments in Ukraine.Participants of the seminar were the following experts: Soso Tsintsadze, Ramaz Sakvarelidze, Soso Archvadze, Valerian Gorgiladze, PetreMamradze, Zaza Firalashvili, Nana Devdariani, representatives of The Club of Young Political Analysts- Irakli Ubilava and Giorgi Mdivani, as well as journalists.

Petre Mamradze: like all of us, I have also been observing the situation in Ukraine for many years and since 1992 very closely due to its importance. The situation resembles to the condition of other post soviet countries, when society is not ready, civil society is not developed enough to control the authority on daily basis.

As you know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, people see it-even without control, i.e. without daily connection and feedback, people see, the wrath accumulates, then breaks out and therefore revolution takes place in this or that way; new government comes into power and everything starts over.

Countries of Latin America have undergone these processes for many times, with relevant consequences so to speak.I have told in my speeches, if you buy fresh meat even of the best quality and put it without a fridge and see it after 60 days, you will see that it is stinking. Nobody is surprised by this; however when they find out that a political group, after coming into power 2-3 years later becomes extremely corrupted, have toilet seats worth€ 360 000,  they are surprised by this fact-but not by the previous one. This works as the law of thermodynamic in physics.

I want to remind you that Yanukovych was prime minister in 2004 and after rigging the elections (the main thing is that the population perceivesit as rigged), the orange revolution took place. As for Russia’s role, it is enough to remark that president Putin has repeatedly congratulated Yanukovych on his presidency. When everything was over, the President Putin claimed that he was misinformed.

Nana Devdariani: he had the right information, but would not assume that Ukraine would go to the third round.

Petre Mamradze: then, as you know the government of Yushchenko-Tymoshenko was not as good as to prevent people from making other choice, though with small difference Yanukovych got 49% and Tymoshenko-44%, as far as I remember. i.e. they still voted for Yanukovych. Can you imagine the attitude of Ukrainians towards them? Moreover, Ukrainians have told me that Tymoshenko for them was the symbol of elite corruption.

Today, this woman is out of jail as a heroine and declares right after leaving prison that she will fight and etc. Furthermore, when Yanukovych became the president, he appointed his son’s, Aleksandre’s brotherhood on key positions and the governance of “predatory”, as it is called inside or outside the Ukraine and the results of which is evidenthad started. Ukraine has foreign debt of $ 49 billion. The assets of Yanukovych and his family are estimated $ 12 billion. I do not make up the numbers, you can verify.

Azarov has fled to Paris, while he used to tell Ukrainians that they did not need Europe. He fled there, where number of companies is incorporated on his wife and the turnover of each company amounts maybe not to billions but millions – certainly. I have had the contact with Ukrainians these years, not tight but constant and with other experts as well.

This was seen entirely in eastern Ukraine and Kharkiv, where I worked for 3 years as a physicistin the world center; physical-technical Institute of Kharkiv, where the first cyclotron of Europe was made in 30-ies. Landau and other famous scientists worked there. I know Kharkiv and everything around it; it is an organic part of Russian military industrial complex.

In western Ukraine, they also saw that there is such a level of corruption and government. I agree with everybody and it has been written by experts for many times that a declaration made by Yanukovych last year, one week earlier signing the Association Agreement that he would not sign it, was just an excuse, a spark, similar to throwing a match in a gunpowder barrel. There were people for whom the symbol, Association Agreement, was valuable.

It is true that Syria has also signed it, but it did not reflect in it much, Turkey also signed it 50 years ago and 30 other countries and etc., there was a symbol in it.The factthat Yanukovych has openly stated: -Putin ordered me and that’s why I can’t sign,was a great challenge and started what should have started.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: Neither Azerbaijansigns it, but it does not mention Russia, Yanukovych has peached on him.

Petre Mamradze: If Alyev leads this national line in Azerbaijan, we have our Azerbaijanian way. Yanukovych was telling Ukrainians for 2 years that he was going to sign it….. Why was he promising then, who was pulling him on the tongue?!

Nana Devdariani: If anyone has read the interview of Sergei Glaziev, he directly says- when asked Ukrainians if they are aware ofwhat they are signing, Ukrainians said that the agreement generally, was good. When they have thousand-page document translated and read, not only Yanukovych but members of economic team were surprised to have agreed on this.

Now I would like to draw a parallel with our current condition. When Premier Gharibashvili had a dinner with Jose Manuel Barrosso, after the end of the dinner he joked-we have broken all records, we have gone through everything regarding the agreement within one dinner. This means that Gharibashvili did not have any questions regarding thousand-page document. Gharibashvili made a statement on business conference, several days ago, that they would take protective measures and support local entrepreneurs that directly contradict the agreement.

This is impossible under the terms of the agreement; however the core countries have their own, multi-billion agriculture on subsidy. The agreement directly tells you that you can not do it, but you keep saying that you can, not because Gharibashvili opposed the EU, but he really believes that he can, i.e. our government does not have any questions regarding theagreement.

Petre Mamradze: No; as you are aware of my working experience, I would like to tell you that even Vaclac Klaus, the Czech Prime Minister and then President,one of the leading economists of Europe, who worked with the Monetary Fund very closely, was setting the terms and that the other party was grateful for it. You knowitsconsequencesin Czech Republic.

I witnessed, here in Georgia, our economists and officials told Monetary Fund and the World Bank that they would act correspondingly to what they would write or give them. However good people and specialist are working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but actually there is no political will or view for this and don’t be surprised as Gharibashvili is 30 years old and he has beaten every record in terms of age and experience… The average age of Premier in Europe is 56 years, 2 times more than in Georgia – 30. I will get back to Yanukovych; he has been promoting the Agreement for 2 years, like Misha-Map and NATO.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: this was flattery image of Yanukovych towards his pro-European population; we don’t have such attitude in the population. So this is flattery for National Movement. When you make political decision, you shall make it based on the reason, shall not you? There – in the Ukraine – the motive was to appease population while here-Nationals.

Petre Mamradze: Let’s get back to the Ukraine, position of Yanukovych and total corruption…

Nana Devdariani: 2 weeks ago, European Commission released rowdy report on the scales of corruption in the EU …..

Petre Mamradze: corruption is estimated € 12 billion.

Nana Devariani: this is catastrophic level of corruption; on this background, corruption of Yanukovych is not worth mentioning. It is easy to cause outrage in population. I remember foolish photos of Rustavi 2, when they posted them before the “Rose Revolution”, as if Shavardnazde bought a palace in Baden-Baden. It is obvious that it was fraudulent. It is a matter of technology, as corruption is in Europe and the US as well.

Now, I am looking for the real reason, what causedthe events on Maidan. Initially, when people cameout against government, it was understandable, neither people in modern history shall want government. I see when someone is furious because his /her kids are starving when governments have golden toilet seats.

I really don’t get another thing – bringing such examples – but actually we know that this was the response to the statement of Yanukovych-what will you do when my country is under the crises and Europe replied:nothing, do whatever you want. What I want to say is that we have lost the point, what all this started about and how did it end. And I have another question; we have been told repeatedly for a year about cohabitation and why don’t they ask for it there?

Petre Mamradze: It is completely clear why they did not ask for it. Cohabitation is requested for the following reason: many leaders of the West and US hadturned blind eye and had not made any public statement against Saakashvili and his regime, back then.

This was that time; I underline that, when the most influential organizations of the West, e.g Human Rights Commissioner of Europen Council, Thomas Hammarberg, Nobel Prize Laureate and others wrote about what was going on in Georgia.

Has anyone Rasmussen, or Hillary Clinton, or others come out and publicly said that they doubt? When it is written that acquittal in Georgian court is -0.01%, when in the Soviet Union during Brezhnev it was 23%.

Soso Tsintsadze: and what can we do with it? When Nixon handed the list of political prisoners to Soviet leaders during Soviet Union it was 25 men; and we have already released 200.

Petre Mamradze: why did Misha name Clinton a scary woman? Citing-don’t think that she is scary woman; because “the scary woman” told the Prime Minister Gilauri in Washington in 2008: this is your last elections. If you declare that you win, we will say that you have usurped the authority, as you can not win without using repressions and administrative resource.

I don’t justify it of course. After that, when Saakashvili was shouting out, that he was pro-western, he was offering free cannon fodder as much as they wanted. Developments took such a course that, when the US Deputy Ministerof Defense arrived here three years ago, Misha publicly announced that he is offering America, Georgia to be the transit route for NATO supplies to Afghanistan.As you know, Russia is the transit route and 90% of cargo passes through there.

When asked by the reposrters, what would be his answer to Misha’s offer, he said-I told your president that at first he shall appeal to Pentagon with similar suggestion and then talk.You can thus evaluate the quality of irritation.

I am saying that what Yanukovych did was the last spark. I want to add that, actually, as per the assessment of their best experts and political analysts, EU has made thecascade of grave errors towards Ukraine. On this background, Mr. Yanukovych bargains. The fact that Yanukovych is Putin’s man is a myth.

Soso Tsintsadze: he is a man of money.

Petre Mamradze: he is a man of money. Is Rinat Akhmetov now Putin’s man? Or group of Donetsk who took billions? Oligarchs could not allow Yanukovych flatter the oligarchs of Putin. It was excluded.

The former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency said the day before yesterday that what happened in Ukraine is “just internal crises of the Ukraine” and we should not claim in America that everything is in hands of Russia and etc. I am not stating that Russia has nothing to do with it, as it actually does, but this mansaid in terms of influence.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: the author of the project is Russia….

Petre Mamradze: It is not indeed.

Nana Devdariani: however, I can directly tell you my personal evaluation is that I can barely recall such cynical, direct intervention as it was in Ukraine from the West, this was peak.

Soso Tsintsadze: we have gathered here now as people claiming to be political experts or the audience of noble woman gymnasium? This is politics. Is it not the direct interference in Syria? It is everywhere. The main thing is that this strategy of Russia succeeds in one of the largest countries of Europe, Ukraine with 46 million population, as in Georgia. Russia has not invented anything creative yet.

It is the same; it will probably adopt a law to simplify admittance to citizenship, start conffering passports, as in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is time to forget about Yanukovych, He will go somewhere, live and won’die of hunger. If within 1 week at most, the problem of Crimea won’t be resolved, Sevastopol is there. Petre was right when he said, not organically interrelated but it is same as to cut off upper part of the human body and leave lower part.

This is the military-industrial complex; firstly the advanced technologies- the overall Russia’s fifth generation helicopters are released with Ukrainian nodes and engines. The rocket constructor factory in Dnepropetrovsk was the largest in the Soviet Union; Kuchma, who was the hero of Socialist Labor, was its general director.

Interference in the affairs of other countries has always been taking place. Israel did the same and so did Napoleon and Georgian kings, whenever they could and were capable of. Let’s say frankly, Russia has been acting the same way, not that Russia won’t give in but can’t, it is ruled out.

Thus, some officials of Europe were still stating within last 3-4 days, that it can not be solved without Russia and we shall get used to it, but how can we accept it on the background of our stupid dimplomats, that neither problem is resolved in Post Soviet area without Russia.

Nana Devdariani: The latest information that comes from Europe:in Europethey have started to realize and speak loudly that their main mistake was when they made the Ukraine face the alternative-EU or Russia.

Soso Tsintsadze: were notwe made to face it? Let us draw our conclusion, domestic. There was a letter in “Guardian” recently, whereBrzezinski is talking about “Finlandization” of Ukraine.

You can either trample me or burn but I think that this issue is the most optimal for Georgia, but not ideal of course. Georgia won’t be able to accept better one.  We all have been to Finland, what was it like even during Soviet Union, classical capitalist country.  Freedom of speech, press, demonstrations, travelling to Europe, freedom in Parliament and etc…

But at large conventions-the oath of loyalty of Russia. This was the politics similar to what Nazarbayev is conducting today. Have you seen Nazarbayev’s project of Euroasian Union? I will also sign this project but Putin did not even want to discuss it. Thus we have to find something, think of something; the rest is lyrics, folklore- how much Yanukovych has stolen and so on. I call for being pragmatists.

I know very well what the Association agreement is. 17 pages out of 1000 pages are only allocated to prohibiting criticism of sexual minorities. If they have right, why don’t I have the right to say that I don’t like it?Well, if I come out on May, 17 and say that I don’t like it do I have to go to jail?

The 1000 page document will be published later this month. It was in English but the report of Tagliavini also was in English. Tell me, who has read it from the beginning to end? From where does the European values start? Here is the simple thing, let’s say traffic rules on the street.

You are driving on Rustaveli avenue and some old, young, girl, kid, woman will run across you….once we were in Brussel, the street was empty so we head for and crossed it. The red lightwas lit and the car was not coming everybody stood and waited but we looked around, as we are used to and only after that we crossed the street.

Our Prime Minister comes out and says terrible thing- what can we do, our law did not ban our officials to buy car for 200,000! If you state that you are going towards European values, laws do not forbid everything in Europe but values and morals do more.

So, while we have such attitude that everything is permitted unless law prohibits, we can not talk about any European values. How can it be written in law for instance that Paata Zakareishvili has larger car than house.

That’s the way how, we shall start with; by introducing the values in our life before we become EU members; you shall remember statement of Peter Semneby, after he got fed up, that nobody will let you near to Europe for 30 years and to NATO_never. Very thin stratum of officials is formed here, whose personal well-being is linked to the process.

Of course, Alasania and Petriashvili prefer to travel to Paris and Brussels than in Moscow. 70% of the income of our authorities is traveling allowances. They have enormous travel allowances approved by the parliament; every country of the whole Europe does not have such huge provisions for business travel like they have. They make € 2000-3000 from each business trip and will you be able to persuade them? This is that very thin stratum that will hang you on the tree and accuse you of Russian espionage.

Now I am telling you what will happen in Scotland at summit; they won’t give us any MAP and the Premier reassured us that we won’t be given MAP but something else; just like Gia Baramidze said when he arrived from Bucharets and told us that we were not given MAP but something better. I have spent half of my life in the country where I was told that the next generation will live in communism, now I am cheated that the next generation will live in NATO, but neither Alasania nor any other believe this and want to convince us.

Do you know what the way out is? When Ukraine confronted the west with alternative, they put their hands in their pocket. It did not give $ 3 billion to Belarus that time and gave to Russia.  Now it was not giving $ 15 billion to Ukraine and today offers € 20 billion adding that- it is a prepayment and more will come from America.

Believe me, finally people will say that 70% is in favor today, and thenafter another 2 summits in NATO 50% will remain and the number will keep going down, it won’t go up, that is the process; and another thing, if we are in difficulty and asked to tighten our belts, let government do the same. But today this people look at the photos that are spread everyday, Alasania sitting with “bow tie” as an English lord in fashionable hotel, where one 1 cup of coffee costs € 50 and for them looking at it this amount is a month pension.

More motives are required to why we are sending troops to Central Africa. Has Ban Ki-Moon asked all countries that there is a genocide and send them? I don’t understand, why American soldier in Afghanistangets $ 7-8 thousands and Georgian soldier $700? Why, life of our soldiers is so much cheaper? We are 3 million and they are 140 million, political correctness forbids this.

Besides, there are many problems in our country. Recently, I was in Guria; people forgot about famine and everything and all they worry about is mosques. This fact reminded me of deceased Bismarck, why he was in favor of uniting Austria and Prussia; Austria was catholic and Prussia- protestant, however both people were German.

Bismarck believed that religious difference is stronger than ethnic unity; add the fact that we are dealing with Islam, the only religion which is the architect of state. There is no let’s say Catholic Republic of Poland but there is Islamic Republic of Iran. These are the issues, challenges and threat that country face. The fact is that Russia can not concede Ukraine and yet should not lead the Ukraineto the point to promote separatism.

Petre Mamradze: I will say one thing, during the interview of Victoria Nuland with the ambassador, where he says, excuse me “Fuck You”, meaning more like ignore; however, the main thing is that everything is scheduled, how Klitschko shall act, Yatseniuk and etc. what is more important, George Pinman, that you all are familiar with, writes an excellent article that this is a brilliant move of American Diplomacy, absolutely necessary after that stagnating condition as the circumstances in which the plans of Putin are today and dynamic of its implementation, such involvement is essential, it will change balance.

I want to move on what is happening in Ukraine, since Yanukovych started brazen deal with Putin and EU, this caused both parties, primarilyEU, not to have a deal with Yanukovych. Meanwhile, default is expected in Ukraine in March.

As for eastern Ukraine, let’s take Donetsk, Donbas, vitally important modernization of local economy has not been launched yet. As an example, there are still open-hearth furnaces, which are no longer used even in Africa. They have not moved on oxygen convertible furnace yet, therefore labour productivity is 5-6 times lower than in the world. Energy consumption on per ton of molten steel is 3-4 times higher than in theworld. The entire pool, several million people, who has nothing else left to get by, even not vegetable gardens, exist only by the fact that they still work there, another thing is how they work. We have one symbolic mine in Georgia, Tkibuli, which is a drop in the ocean and since the collapse of the Soviet Union we have been thinking on how to help it for so many years and etc.. The same is true in Ukraine, nothing has evenstarted there. The point is that neither International Monetary Fund nor The World Bank will give such amount of “cash” to Ukraine, it is excluded.

American experts write that Putin can directly give the “cash” to eastern Ukraine and win time, but what then? Enormous region with its millions of population, which depends on those unprofitable enterprises; what do you want to do under the current conditions in 2014; here is the problem- after the dissolution of the Soviet Union modernization, actual-comprehensive reforms not only has not been conducted but even started, in Ukraine lik in Georgia. We are saved that we did not have heavy industry.

Nana Devdariani: we have destroyed what we had…

SosoTsintsadze: one perspective for us that can be advantageous is that Russia will be forced not to leave Ukraine alone on the money of West but pay despite its will. 2% economic growth of Russia has already been reduced to 1.8%; the Minister of Finance yesterday stated that they might need to reconsider it.

Russia simply won’t have money for Abkhazia and South Ossetia that will result in resentment.Let’s say 70% was spent in South Ossetia and half in Abkhazia were they stealing less here? This could work in our favor, as Russia won’t be able to buy loyalty.

Petre Mamradze: grave errors of the revolution are evident. You should be enemy of Ukraine and its people to abolish the status of Russian language. There is harsh reaction in the West and US.  Brzezinski is talking about “Finlandization” as necessary, that Ukraine shall forget about NATO and any other block, which might be irritating for Russia, as he knows what is going on.

In this respect, it is hard to expect that today’s Rada will summon its mind and wisdom and conduct the policy that Ukraine needs and won’t allow the split. No one says that eastern Ukraine will announce and enter Russia but 2 Ukraine and in addition seperate Crimea is complete reality, the threat is very high.

Soso Tsintsadze: why was it necessary to abolish this law?

Nana Devdariani: Do not forget that Nationals came into power…

Petre Mamradze: Bendery used to shoot even those who had a Jewish in the family in 1946-47.

Soso Tsintsadze: one retired KGB man told me that the last Bendery was destroyed in 1959. The Ukraine is actually split, now it is necessary not to finalise the process legally.

Petre Mamradze: rumours are spread in the West that the Ukraine is in need of elections, which may balance Rada. Actually, there is no such power in the world nor West or Russia or inside Ukraine that can unite Ukraine.

Vaka Gorgiladze: basically, I agree with you that recent developments in Ukraine are provoked by the West. The fact that one cultural nation does not exist is fiction. No matter, if we say that the Ukraine is one nation with its cultural traditions and self-conciousness, this is not so. Thus there are fights between symbols; there is Banderas and here is Lenin.

The irony is that the boundaries of modern Ukraine are drawn by Stalin and Lenin. On the one hand, the West Galicia destroys those who created it within modern borders. The interesting fact is not that the West intervened, but that Russia shunned publicly interfering with the internal affairs of Ukraine. Here is kind of complex and Russia was trying to clean up the situation behind the scenes.

I also agree with you that Russia won’t give in the position, as it will weaken Russia and the same will happen in regard with EU, but if Russia can not tolerate it, there are several options of resolving it: first of all it is passports. In case of Crimea, even passports are not required, as it is autonomy and this government and therefore any act published by ithas been illegitimate for 3 months.

There is one problem, Calicia is passionate, the west Ukraine with its ideology is energetic charge of Maidan, and nobody there asks anything to Yatseniuk or Klitschko. In this sense, the only country that maintains influence on them is the US. At that time when Berkuts were captured they addressesed opposition leaders with a request but in vain.

Afterwards, Ministry of Justice contacted the US Ambassy only after their efforts Berkuts were released.  That is key driving force which can create problems to Russia in Kharkiv where both Maidan and anti-Maidan stand. Ability of self-organization in east Ukraine is very low.

If they fail in self-organization, in terms of the same passportization to have the right to intervene legitimately, then there is a threat that Russia might be dragged into the war, on the continent. I actually can’t understand why it’s ok for Europeans.

It’s not Abkhazia or South Ossetia but nation of 46 million people, who is well organized and has army; neither theRussian speaking population are in good conditionin Crimea; for instance now Tatars run supporting actions in Kiev, this is 300 men and 10% of Crimean population. As you know, any revolution is created by energetic minority.

As usual one extremist feeds the other; such strange decisions are made; there was no need to abolish the Charter, Russian language is already there, you took away the language of Hungarians, Romanians, Belarus where many ethnic minorities live as it is multi-ethnic country. The second mistake was making decision on banning Russian federal channels.

They can not accomplish it. All this together with what happened in west Ukraine, I mean possible attack on Russians in Synagogue may become reason for Russia to enter the troops. Thus the circumstance is much tensed. Representatives of our government has to talk with them, Peskov makes a statement and Margvelashvili says that it is not serious and he can not answer him and his press secretary makes a statement, then Putin makes a statement and Alasania says that there is no point in negotiations.

One of the initiatives shall be specific, one of the blocks – political. This is Ukrainian lessons for us, Russia won’t tolerate it.Possible scenario might be on escalating confrontation and drawing Russia into war. Shot of Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo will be just tale if anything erupts there. Any scenario is very bad for us. Thus they shall go and meet them and everything what Putin tells them shall be public.

Irakli Ubilava: the fact that they are abolishing Russian language in Ukraine, isn’t a kind of attempt to incorporate east in west?

Vaka Gorgiladze: Yesterday, Stepan Bandera Society released a statement that their obsession is not Russophobia but they are against Empire, they want Ukrainian people to return their native language, identity, culture and etc.At the same time, intellectuals of Lvov declared that this is not right when we bother Kharkiv and Dnepropetrovsk with the Galician way of life, but this does not change the situation.

I would compare it with Latvia; there are 2 communities – Russian speaking and Latvian; it is the same here though conflict in terms of symbols of culture is much harsh, as Bandera is completely unacceptable for east.

Nana Devdariani: Why is all these acceptable for Europe?

Vaka Gorgiladze: The Europe put up with somethings, as the saying goes “the end justifies the means”.  This is well organized and mobilized geopolitical struggle. They do not go to Maidan and say that they will participate in forming the government.

We don’t trust either Klitschko, or Tymoshenko or Yatseniuk, as Ukraine has always been corrupted and the system was designed by Tymoshenko and Lazarenko; yet there are still many obstacles inside and we will see how it is resolved.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: there is another version; whether is it possible that if topic of redistribution is not developed enough for today, can it be developed for tomorrow?

Vaka Gorgiladze: yes it is possible. There might be an agreement between Russia and the US. We see that America is leaving Central Asia and moving to the basin of Pacific Ocean, so the main competitor is China and not Russia. By the way, the issue of South and North Korea has become more actual, they are setting commission of unification, and they have reconciled relatives; reportedly repressions that Kim Jong-Un is holding are addressed against Chinese lobby.

Japane asks for amendments in its constitution and strengthens the army, therefore if it leaves chaotic situation here, the same as Syria and Afghanistan,the latter is already a headache for Russia; Russia was proposing NATO a base in Ulianovsk as well as simplifying logistics.

So it shall not be excluded. There are revanchist statements in Romanian media that Ukraine is collapsing. Accession of Moldavia is resolved. Do you remember the statements of Lavrov and Putin that techtonic shifts and geopolitical wars are expected, thus what is happening is tricky.

We shall definitely find out some ways with Russia. It directly offers us to visit and negotiate. Nobody has called from here in Moscow even on wire entanglements, there is communication vacuum. Not talking in this situation is idiocyto put it midly. Our elite is corrupted and do not assume responsibility. Russia is offering to settle the matter now but if it is switched to hot phase and moves on the occupation, nobody will negotiate but enter directly.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: there are two options: either Russia brings in the army and tell us-here is your Abkhazia and South Ossetia but stop moving towards the West; although Georgia is completely unprepared for this version, will population refuse to Europe? In this case the population can wash away the political elite. This scenario is suitable for Russia, if it fails to maintain some leverage in Ukraine in other ways and start war.

Then it will enter here too. With this proposal it will be the bird of peace and will no longer need to spend money on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia has financial problems, there do not seem any better prospects; Abkhazia and South Ossetia are political and financial burden with no profit. Putin smiled, said compliments to our athletes there, invited for negotiations, i.e. he is more active than we. This passivity, which is the result of idiocy and not comlex consideration, might turn out to be useful as it may lead Russia to some versions of compromise.

As for interference with signature, it will put it before us and once again tell us to stop. We have been whipped so far and now it would be more difficult to refuse. He is inviting us for negotiations and had sent a message to Burjanadze back then that any topic can be discussed.

Nata Tsereteli: so Mr. Ramaz, you deem that this warm compliment from Putin was the signal that Abkhazia and Ossetia….

Giorgi Mdivani: Is it possible that cue of Putin largely conditioned the meeting of Obama and Gharibashvili, or attendance of Obama at the meeting?

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: it is not excluded.

Irakli Ubilava:on Putin’s cue Margvelashvili said that we would negotiate and consult with west community.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: Margvelashvili’s statement does not have political wight. In my viewIvanishvili was not going to America; he did not want to offend Putin. Ukraine has helped the meeting of Obama and Gharibashvili; he is meeting with Moldova i.e. got involved in post Ukrainian process

Vaka Gorgiladze: in Ukrainewe have seen apparently active, well organized and mobilized minority and if we draw parallel which political force is capable of accomplishing such thing in 2-3 years time?

Irakli Ubilava: I was reading an article on American Sociological Research which was held in January, several days ago and as per the research 21% supported Yanukovych.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: theperson but political policy is another thing.

Vaka Gorgiladze: it is not accidental that the same day Russian media reports that Saakashvili is guilty for the murder of Zhvania; thetopic is very urgent in Western media as well; however “Asaval-Dasavali” has been writing about it for so many years and today I just smiled at all this. However this became more topical after the speech of Saakashvili. As for Olympics, it was truly triumphant and even the western media notes it.It might be recognized as the best of Winter Olympics.

Another problem is Sevastopol, where Kiev directlyappointed the Mayor. There are problems in Dnepropetrovsk as well, where there is the whole military arsenal. If the conflict is be protracted, it won’t remain local; theoretically Romania might also express territorial claims, it is extensively circulated in media and elite. As for Turkey, it will intervene regarding Crimea at the level ofstatement.

Nana Devdariani: there are talks that Ukraine refused on nuclear armament after the collapse of the Soviet Union and called upon that the guarantors of the territorial integrity of Ukraine are Britain, the USA and Russia. The Europe also stresses that the problem can not be solved without Russia. Merkel and Putin agreed that it is inadmissible to split the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Vaka Gorgiladze: it is too late, as when Russia and Yanukovych were offering Europe to let Russa be observer too, 5 months ago, Barosso declared that Russia had nothing to do with it.This will be reflected very badly; the share of Ukraine in European economy is nothing, but the scale….

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: one more issue; such denunciations are not made without reason; is it possible such plane to be real; Russia was “pressing” EU to unite the European and Euroasian Union; it goes with Russia. When Yanukovych said that Russia was disturbing him, he demanded EU and Russia to talk,apparently creating the field to Putin for conducting this policy. The Europe still refuses; will the same issue be raised this time?

Vaka Gorgiladze: then this will be geopolitical failure of America. What Bzezhinski was saying was that reintegration of Ukraine within Russian space would cause unification of European and Euroasian space and this is the greatest threat that America faces; and minimal threat would be close partnership between Russia and Germany.

If you don’t accept this type of agreement, the space won’t have competitor considering that the Europe with its united economic or human resources exceeds American and yet next year there are referendums of Scotland, Catalonia and Basque.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: Europeans feel that they can not cope with Russia without America, so American factor is remarkable.

Zaza Firalashvili: there is one thing, not only shallwe learn from the events in Ukraine. I think, Ukrainians also have to consider some things from our recent past, as they are in nationalism-revolutionary phase, in which we were and it brought nothing good to us.

They also might have to go through the same history, as they are facing problem of elaborating moderate, golden mean and political filigree technic. It is doubtful that they have such leader, thus I expect further escalation of the situation. It is not just the problem of Ukraine and geopolitical space; I think we are entering the state of Cold War.

America still has a lot of tools to work on Russia, so these processes won’t end in 2-3 months or even 2 years time; we are entering another phase. The issues, which were forgotten are put forward, the same predictions about the collapse of Russia. As for the situation we are in, unfortunately I have to say that we don’t have such leader eitherin opposition or in government, who could maintain golden mean and let God send him to us.

Unfortunately, government in our country isstill determined by Saakashvili; he is the balance factor as well as the one setting agenda to such an extent that they have almost assigned the initiatives of attitude towards the development of Ukraine to national movement. In this regard, the speech of President in Parliament was carrying some significance and it became clear that there is a certain position in the government and their approach to the noted issue is not determined just by taking, let’s say, apple to the Russian market.

As for the messages of Putin, you shall talk to him without any hope. Russia is the post-Byzantine world, why was Byzantium destroyed? For the same reasons why Russia may collapse.

Irakli Ubilava: I will also touch the problem of Ukraine and consider it in geopolitical context, as I deem that this is the main problem, even though there might have been internal problems as well. Let us recall “the Grand Chessboard” of Bzezinski, which directly prescribes that if we take Ukraine from Russia, it will become only Asian Empire and might be collapsed due to war against Muslim World. Broadcasting companies and experts in ourcountry are stating that everything is Russia’s fault.

What Russians do in Ukraine and in any other country is pure counter strategy. The same situation was in our country in the ‘90s: toppling down the statues of Lenin, civil wars in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The same is taking place in Crimea today. I think that collapse of Ukraine will be very bad for us too, as its current boundaries and are legally recognized are the ones existed within the Soviet Union.

When the latter was collapsed, we were legallyrecognized within these borders. Suppose that Ukraine is split in two parts, which is likely to happen, if it is also legally finalized then will we eventually lose Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: there will be a serious precedent. Taking eastern Ukraine will be very beneficial for Russian economy; it does not need to take Abkhazia and South Ossetia, apart from the fact that it has weapon there and will leave them to the bases there, in other ways it is just burden. Will Russian economy withstand so many burdens? Consequently, it is not unilateral that the Ukraine will be split.

Irakli Ubilava: in Anglo-Saxon geopolitics control of sea is considered to be the most profitable. Therefore, I think that the main target of America in terms of geopolitics is Crimea, in order to shut the pass of Russia to Black and Mediterranean Sea. The reaction of Russia will be similar in terms of promoting separatism in Crimea.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: if Russia promotes separatism, then it shall support it financially as well and how can it manage?

Irakli Ubilava: continental Empire is a bit different from Anglo-Saxon Empire, for them military strategy is primary and economic factor has always been secondary.

Ramaz Sakvarelidze: we say that what was happening in past will always happen. We were not expecting that Putin would built the Empire on economy and one more thing, Ukraine is not Putin’s ambition, however its loss will be bad for Russia.  Putin is targeting its economic empire to the Europe andthe case is about seizing it.

Irakli Ubilava: the last speech of Putin was clear ideological construction against nationalism-postmodernism.He tried to create some kind of alternative, with the words of Berdiaev, formulate what the conservatism is and etc. it made serious impact on certain circles of intelectuals in the US. It has serious affects onright-wing thinkers of France and Italy. Therefore, there are some ideological moments as well.

Nana Devdariani: there are circles of society in Europe who explicitly does not approve and won’t approve Putin but he is quite popular with some political class. Today, ideological moment is ahead than military strategy, including those that are considered unacceptable to Western values. This is already the counter-thesis; this is an alternative. If you pay attention and talk only through geopolitical categories, in terms of strategy, nothing will come, as it is already determinant?

Zaza Firalishvili: Russia has left a few ways to maintain the unity of the body; permanent territorial expansion or some kind of an idea around which the body will be tied. Economics do not have blood vessels. Abkhazia and South Ossetia has a symbolic meaning for it, energetic and not so much of territorial. This symbolic expansion has rouse the empire, brought energy. When did the communist revolution take place in Russia? When Russia was the fastest developing country in Europe, economic factor did not lead to regrouping the interests in other direction.

ირაკლი უბილავა: უნიპოლარულობისკენ სწრაფვა აქვთ ანგლოსაქსებს და ამერიკელებს ამ შემთხვევაში. იქაც ორად იყოფა აზრი, იზოლაციონიზმი და მხოლოდ საკუთარი ინტერსებიდან ბრძოლა. თუ ამერიკელებმა მონროს დოქტრინაზე დაიწყეს მუშაობა, იმის გათვალისწინებით, თუ  რამდენი ჯარისკაცი იღუპება ერაყსა და ავღანეთში, ადგილობრივმა ამომრჩევლებმა, შესაძლოა, მოუწოდოს ხელისუფლებას იზოლაციონალიზმისკენ.  თუ უკრაინის მეზობლად ევროპაა, ჩვენს შემთხვევაში  უკან თურქეთი დგას. აქ როგორ წავა შემდეგ უკვე ურთიერთობა? მათ სტამბოლში უნდათ დედაქალაქის გადატანა, იქ ხვდება ელჩებს პრემიერი. ამ მიმართულებით, მგონი, სამუშაო გვაქვს საქართველოში, რა პრობლემის წინაშე შეიძლება დავდგეთ  10-15 წლის შემდეგ.

Irakli Ubilava: in this case Americans and Anglo-Saxons have aspiration towards unipolarity. Opinionsare split into 2; isolationism and fight only for their own interests. If Americans begin to work on the Monroe Doctrine, considering how many soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan,local voters may urge the authority for isolationism.  If Europe is the neighbor of Ukraine, in our case Turkey stands behind us. How the relationships go afterwards in such case? They want to move the capital in Istanbul, the Premier meets with the ambassadors there. I think we also have a work in this respect: what problem might we face after 10-15 years.

Soso Archvadze: when we talk about lessons, it means not only to receive information but what we confront and what shall we do to minimize any negative result of exogenous effect. Consider 2 ways: first, Ukraine remains whole and the second- it falls apart. Before talking about collapse, there are 2 options in case of unity as well: ambitions of Russia are satisfied or completely ignored; if satisfied then it gains more energy, if not – the risk is increased.

If the ambitions are not met than it can be used against Georgia as the weak point. Therefore the risks in both cases are high. Obligation of our government is to talk about it; this refers to the maintenance and development of the nation’s identity, its survival. Population shall not be morally degraded along with taking care of the statehood.

As for the collapse of Ukraine, after Russia announced embargo in 2006, the Ukraine became the second-place partner for Georgia and the annual turnover amounts to $ 800-900 million. More than half of import is agricultural products and the other half military-industrial, as reported. Imagine the threat that Georgia faces from the military aspect, in case ofsplitting theUkraine.

The market will lose the same food product which accounts for 55% and trigger the inflation. Large part of export from Georgia also comes on Ukraine. If the situation messes up where will we export our products? The volume of export from Georgia is more than total amount of 28 EU countries, thus the market of Ukraine is very important for us and its loss therefore will be very unprofitable.

Not to mention the fact that Ukraine’s break-up will set a very bad precedent, Russia will unbind the hands and foot in other directions as well and international law will turn into empty piece of paper.

If there are any deterrent factors of behavior everybody acts the way they want. Laws of Jungles will come to the front line; the argument of power and not the power of argument.The government is obliged to completely eliminate the increased risks or at least ensure its minimisation.

Giorgi Mdivani: I shall touch upon the economic aspect. We depend on Post-Soviet market in terms of export and the Ukraine dramatically relies on Russian market, which accounts for 80%. I had a meeting with the supporters of Maidan and asked them if they paid attention to economic issues, because if a country is economically strong it seizes the political power.

They told me that they don’t care about anything except for the freedom of Ukraine. In my view, it is the reckless attitude from their part. I think that both Georgia and Ukraine need protectionism. Any developed country, which has good indices and is in favor of diverse alliances, use them. This alliance is established with the purpose of limiting development potential of other countries.

Let’s take “Toyota” for example: in the beginning of 20th century “Toyota” was going bankrupt over 30 years, with such horrific pace that even the State did not have a chance of subsidizing and the last wave was when Japan still granted the subsidy; after that Japan passed a law according to which the tariff was higher on foreign cars in order to support locals.

We actually need protectionism. We have very poor trade balance with EU countries, when export accounts for 20% and import-60% this signals economic occupation of the country, therefore local business will turn out in unequal terms. We will be in the same situation as Romania and Bulgaria, stretching our handsbegging.

In addition, Switzerland has held the referendum as per which, work places for EU citizens are restricted. Bulgarians were not allowed to grant work visas in Britain for 7 years, after it became the EU member country; however EU does not state such thing.

The fact that standards will be introduced after the Association in EU and vague membership is clear, but who prevents sovereign state from introducing the same production standards or etc. This service exists even today, formally though and does not perform its job.

It is not necessary to become EU member in order the government to assign specific institute to do its job properly and therefore, abide by the standards of food industry. Similar control mechanisms were set even during the Soviet-Union. Today many ofthe meat product companies won’t pass this control.

This can be done without integration processes. My viewpoint is that both Georgia and Ukraine necessitate protectionism. As for the Eurasian Union, the survey shall be held on the expectations in case of European integration,mathematical prediction and the theory of probability shall be engaged. Nobody has done such thing neither in Ukraine or here. Take the example of Belarus, its rate of economic growth is so high that 50% of European countries would envy.

First and foremost I would like to thank Ms. Nino as I think that these types of discussions are very fruitful as we are reviewing crucial topics.

I will try to formulate basic theses shortly. In the first place, when talking about strategic option, we have to separate what we want and what we can from each other. These are two different things.
In the first place, the question is: what we want or what we wanted while making this strategic choice. It happened so that when this unrest started in Georgia back then in the ‘90s about the strategic choice that Georgia had to make, I was related to this issue in a certain way as I was working at the State Apparatus. I recall contradiction of opinions, various views that were expressed back then.

I cannot say that we had a variety of choices. One of the versions was that a new political space, CIS had been established, where Russia had had hegemony and our option was to join that space. I can clearly remember the rallies on Rustaveli Avenue even before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, protesting the rumors as if NATO troops were about to enter the country.

The issue of declaring neutrality was also considered. We soon arrived to the conclusion that declaring neutrality was unrealistic, not only based on the historic experience, but also because of the fact that neutrality cannot be unilateral. It should be a big international treaty; however, there were not even theoretical preconditions for it nor back then neither now. There were two geopolitical centers, either to the East or to the West.
I would like to point out one more thing – when the Soviet Union dissolved even the West did not clearly know as to what happened on this territory. They knew that there was a territory with a large number of troops stationed on that territory as well as nuclear arms; there were certain countries, nations already having conflict between one another and several hot points.

Thus the West was not ready for making special decisions and formation of CIS space was on the background of, so to say, silent consent of the West. Actually, Russia had a certain type of carte blanche to establish its own rules of game
Baltic states can be considered as an exception; though in the ‘90s, when the Baltic states started talking about their wish to become members of the NATO the first reaction in Washington was – “are you nuts?” It’s not a rumor. I have this information from the officials of the Baltic foreign bodies. These people proved that they are not nuts and their choice is absolutely realistic. A deal as if the Baltic states were supposed to enter the NATO and we were supposed to remain outside it, did not exist.
Another thing is why we chose exactly this route. First of all, Russia itself played a crucial part as the politics in regard with the Caucasus and approach towards the Caucasus states, was not well established within the Russian specter, having in mind the former Soviet countries. To take a look at the relationship with the countries neighboring Russia you cannot name a country with which Russia does not have serious problems.

It was characteristic not only for the Yeltsin’s Russia but for the Putin’s Russia as well. There are several centreswhere decisions are made, for example: in 1994, Ramaz remembers this visit of Yeltsin to Georgia, when Yeltsin apologized Georgian people for what the Russians did in Abkhazia; however this apology did not affect anything as when Yeltsin departed to Russian the same things continued to happen in Abkhazia. The same thing is happening today, right? On the one hand we are conducting a certain type of dialogue, Abashidze-Karasini but before the meeting within this dialogue format the occupation line is shifted. There are a lot of such examples.

Thus Russia’s policy is characterized by this incoherence, which entailed serious fears in Georgia and I can say that – the fact that Russia did not make any kind of interesting proposal to us largely determined Georgia’s strategic choice.

What was the determiner of this choice. When you are choosing and ideal, you are trying to reach that ideal. For example, if you have a hero either from literature or a movie, you try to become like your hero. The question is very simple: who do we want to be like? What kind of a country do we want to be? The country like Russia was in the ‘90s or the West as it was in our imagination and stereotypes in the movies or in Hollywood. We thought that the West is good and choce it as our ideal. However neither then nor now have we the comprehensive idea on the Western values but generally this is what we have been arguing about – Democracy, Free economy, Private Property and etc.

All the above mentioned values are highly protected in the West and that’s why we made the West our ideal. Besides, it was the the West, not Russia, which provided serious assistance either in terms of food or social security or educational and etc. Credits flew from the West which determined logical linkage.

Now, let’s review the issue of our capacities and abilities. This is a bottleneck situation. If we take a look at our aspirations, I think that the strategic choice was absolutely correct and nothing has changed in this direction in the Russian Federation. I completely agree with Mr. Soso in the part that the essence of the Eurasian Union, Customs Union and even the Organization of Collective Security and etc. shall be thoroughly explored.

For example, everybody knows that issues related to the above-mentioned unions are studied in the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Italy; however neither of the above listed states are planning to join any of these unions. Still this issue needs to be examined and studied.

Now let’s shortly review what the Russian Federation was and is offering. I worked on this topic during the time when I lived in Georgia as well as during my stay in Moscow for quite a long time, until 2008 and I had a very close relationship with the research centres operating there.

There are three basic schools determining these approaches. As for theories, they are quite a lot. But the reason I started talking about these three schools is that their approaches are used in the real policy-making by Russia. Actual politics took its various parts from these three schools and they are being implemented.

Geopolitical school, representative of which is Mr. Dugin, is not widely famous. It talks about a certain type of a Russian island and one of its rising point is that Mr. Dugin considers peter the First as the destroyer of Russia as, according to him, Peter mad Russia divert its course of natural development. He is talking about creating a certain type of an island, an imaginary one. Russia considers its surrounding states, including the Ukraine, Georgia and etc. not as independent states or nations and societies but as territories – which is capable of what.
For example, according to this school the Ukraine is a barn of bread; it is its function; South Caucasus is a bridgehead, Georgia is a key for example, for establishing relations with Turkey. Thus this school considers only geographical territories: it is not interested in the needs of the local society or interests of that particular country and etc. The most interesting thing, that this school states, is that these peripheries (territories) should have relationship only with the Centre, which is Moscow and only after receving permission from the Centre they may have interaction with the World beyond this island. In addition basic idea of this concept is that these peripheries are supposed to be feeding the Centre.

The second school is more related to the so-called “Soft Power” concept, the concept the most vivid representative of which is Mr. PyotrShenderovski. Basic formula of this school is that Russia should have influence on these territories. We encounter centre and peripheries in all three schools. According to the concept of the second school it should implement its power in the elites – referring to political and business elites, to integrate them with the Russina world, not Russia – with them. Formula of this school, related with the “Soft Power,” is “speak as Russians say” equals to “think as Russians think” and to “act as Russians act,” this is where the concept “Russian World” is derived from.

The third school is a cultural paradigm which Mr. Putin refers to when talking about the system of common values, space of common values and in such case we have to make use of migrational flows for some purposes. For example, people from Tajikistan are good at construction, plus they construct at low price; Armenians are good at trade; Georgians are good at medicine, music and dancing… we need to divide people this way. The most important determinative in this case is that we should not allow taking hold of any sector by representatives of any nation, or monopolise the sector as it becomes hazardous for the centre.

To sum up, all the three schools have the approach according to which the centre wants to take more than deliver and cares less about giving opportunity of development to these states. From it start the fields of exclusive influence as functioning of the thecentre without the fields of exclusive influence is impossible. It is not my personal opinion; there are a lot of researches about the topic that Russia constantly needs something new as it is institutionally undeveloped country.

If we take, for example the surveys by the World Bank, we will see that gas extraction by “GasProm” on the territory of Russia is decreasing; however “GasProm” assets increase at the expense of gas extraction on other territories. it is because that gas mine is characterized by getting old as a living organism after some time. Getting old implies that gas becomes full of impurities. Purifying from these impurities require new technologies. The company prefers using new territories, other mines to purchasing new technologies due to the current situation in Russia.
It can be explaind by the fact that investments are made for the long-time prospective, with the goal to have gain returns from it within. let’s say, 10 years but when you are not guaranteed whether you will stay on the same position for 10 years, then making a long-term investment is irrational; thus this company prefares to work in Turkmenistan, Kazakhistan and so on than to develop and improve its own.

In a nutshell,  relationship with Russia is a vast topic and the ongoing processes within Russia should be explores, as Mr. Soso noted it. However, these approaches determined that when you are not offered anything and you still accept it – I don’t know whether it is because of Holly Wood, you have it in your sub-conscious and you are striving to achieve the Western standards. Plus, you receive a serious financial aid from the West. If we look back at those relationships that we had with NATO, European Union, the first treaties that we signed, aids that we received in the beginning we may conclude that it was the opportunity for use for building a state. Another issue, to go back to where I started from, is what are our capacities for it.

This is the point where problems start. The number one problem, in my opinion is, that Georgian society gives too much confidence to friendship. However we forget that friendship needs to be bilateral. There is no unilateral friendship. A true friend shall come and help me whenever I am in need. In most cases we understand ”help” as a friend coming and doing whatever one shall be doing himself. This is the approach that the West will never understand and always tells us: – I cannot do whatever you are supposed to be doing. I can give you advice, give you money, render, for example, methodical assistance, train specialists for you and etc.
Another problem that we are facing is in the educational field. In this particular case I am not referring only to knowledge of some particular subjects. I imply general civil education and perception of the general situation existing in the country. When we are talking about civil society, can we define it? Does the civil society itself understand the essence of civil society? Currently we have the reality when one particular political power, I don’t want to name it, proclaims that accession to NATO is a request from the society; then another political power states that they do not want to be accepted at NATO as it is the request of the society.

Third political may appear who would declare that their position is neutrality as it is the request of the society and it seems that every political power has its own supporting society, each of them is fulfilling their request and we are living in parallel worlds where we do not understand each other. This is the basic problem. Look at our politicians.Forexample, let’s take their meeting with voters. Every political power has its supporters. This is our basic problem…

Mr. SosoTsintsadze: A politician has its own team with high qualification.

Mr. TengizPkhaladze: That’s why we need to take reality when we are living in an imaginary parallel world, where everybody speaks on behalf of  the name of people. When we are talking about a strategic choice, the problem is not what strategic choice we made, the problem is how much we used this strategic choice. Was it possible to do more through the opportunities we had by means of relationship with NATO or EU and etc? It is the most important issue. I think we need to look back to our past actions and find out where we made a mistake.

Now, let’s discuss the most important problem for us, a traditional question – how can we have be accepted at NATO and at the same time, maintain good neighbourly relationships with Russia, resolve conflicts and etc. I would like to review several examples: For a small country, it is important to pursue its ideals and strive for creating a state that the country considers ideal.

The rest, however depends on the fact that the developments in the world at some point opens a so-called “window of opportunities.” For example, Mrs. Nino must remember 1999 when a “window of very important opportunities” was open for Georgia, referring to OSCE Summit in Istanbul. I think Georgia has not achieved such diplomatic success yet, as we managed and resolved some important issues back then.

We managed and reached an agreement on strategic energo-projects and the most important – on which a lot of people then skeptically said that it would never happen – Russia signed a document on withdrawal of troops from Georgia. I understand that it was Yeltsin’s Russia, it was the period when default had newly happened and etc. but suchcataclizms regularly take place across the world. During the Putin’s Russia, we finalized these negotiations. A wave of NATO’s enlargement took place during Putin’s Russia when Baltic states were accepted to NATO. It was the period when neither of the states, Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia, had negotiations with Russia on border issues. It was only in 2007 when Latvia managed and signed an agreement with Russia on border issue. Lithuania had the same problem.

A friend of mine who is a Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, was telling me that when in 2002, during his period as a Minister of Defense of Lithuania, Russian military forces were withdrawn from the territory of Baltic states, there were a lot of mined territories. There were some other contentional issues as well related to property. My friend was telling me that Mr. Sergey Ivanov did not arrive in Lithuania for discussing these issues. But a decision in 2002 on the accession of Baltic states to NATO, in 2004 Mr. Ivanov called himself to my friend and told him: -“You are becoming members of NATO and let’s close this issue.” However difference in this case is that this issue can be resolved in a manner beneficial for us, while on the other hand, it actions for resolving this issue can be reckless.

If Baltic states managed to explain to Russia that their Western orientation does not threaten Russia, why cannot we explain it? In this case a lot of things are dependent on diplomacy, reasonability and other factors. But the most important is that we shall not miss a moment of the above mentioned “window of opportunities” and if at that very point the country is not ready to make a right decision and choos a right direction, then it has to wait for the next change as a small country does not have an opportunity to create and establish geopolitical reality.

And the last, conclusive issue: the most important issue for a state like Georgia, foreign and internaly policy, building of the state and all the rest depends on education. I am charmed with what the Estonians did. I remember, when in the second half of the ‘90s Estonians focused on the field of education. A lot of other states, including its neighbouring ones, ridiculed it, saying: It is better to start developing other things than institutes. However, Estonians proved that raising the intellectual elite able of creating sciencecapable products.

We do not have natural resources that we can live on, meaning oil, gas and etc. We do not have the territory where we can start large-scale industry. We are in a reality, where we have conflict zones and are in a volatile field. There is a saying: when yourrivel is stronger than you, the scope of your actions should pass the borders of its imagination. I also agree with the opinion that was mentioned here that a small country has the least right of making a mistake. I agree with the opinion that China might not be interested what is going on somewhere but we have the reality, when China knows the developments in Georgia very well while Georgia does not have knowledge of the situation in China. Thank you.

Nana Devdariani: Generally it is unusual a Presidential Candidate making a report at a workshop and thus, I would like to thank Mrs. Nino Burjanadze that she found time during this pre-election campaign period.

Nino Burjanadze: Thank you very much. In consideration of the audience attending this workshop, I would like to say very shortly, in the form of a thesis, what I regard important. In the first place, I want to underline that I mostly agree with what Mr. Tengo said. in this case I listened it as a lecturer to a student. As he concluded his speech with the importance of the field of education, I consider making comment on it necessary.

One of the most important that shall be included not only in a program of a presidential candidate but also in his/her priorities, what shall be most important is the educational field.

Frankly speaking, I do not think that this issue can be resolved only through distributing free textbooks. The most important priority for us should be the content of those textbooks. We all agree that distributing these textbooks free is important but I would still say that free textbooks should be given only to those children who are in need of this.

Level of education is important, including during implementation of foreign priorities as long as playing on patriotic feelings is easy. The emotion what Tengo mentioned in his speech: becoming bold with the hope to enter NATO, this emotion is easier to be triggered in sincere, patriot. though less educated people. However, it is more difficult with educated people, who will have many questions.

I think, the ruling political power in our country transformed the educational system so that not to be raised educated generation as they did it in regard with elimination of social stratum with average income. Let’s take a Law on Plea Bargain as an example, which literally destroyed half of the population of Georgia. However, frankly speaking, I was one of the happiest persons when we were approving this law as it is one of the civilized, human laws that the Parliament may approve but use of this law is another issue. I could not really imagine that this law would be used for terrorizing hundreds and thousands of families. My opinion in regard with this law was that we had to approve it. I could not understand why should we send a person who does not endanger society to prison. On the other hand – it is a sense of responsibility in a person when he/she gives financial commitment to his/her family because of his/her incorrect/illegal action.

If the person thinks soundly, he/she will not commit the same crime or illegal action. How can a state use a noble law for cruel intentions.

As for foreign priorities, I think that asserting that we are not a pro-Russian power and are not planning to make Georgia province of Russia, is unserious….. I can assure you that this will be one of our mottos. We are true pro-Georgian power the main objective of which is implementation of interests of Georgia and considering interests of Georgia in the first place.

It is also understandable that we cannot imagine ourselves on a, let’s say, separate island, which nobody touches. Georgia is not a state out of geopolitical and geostrategic space and we shall consider the reality around us.

We are asked: Do you think that Russia will concede Abkhazia and Ossetia and its interests in Georgia, our answer is that we do not have expected it from Russia and we all understand that Russia is one of the super-states and big players, especially in this region. It will always remain a state that has serious political interests not only in its surrounding region but further regions as well and it will always try to accomplish its interests. It is normal. We don’t need to look at it with history. However, we need to try to make such rational steps that will disable Russia to make such actions that benefit only its interests.

It is, definitely, is not simple though a 1999 OSCE Istanbul summit was mentioned here as an example. I was participating in the negotiation process and attended signing of the Istanbul Declaration. I would never have imagined even one week before that such document would be signed. We thought until the very last moment that it would not be signed, but it did not happen. Georgian diplomacy did a great job then though we don’t think that it’s only our merit. We made wise use of that political moment then. Such approach shall become main rising point of our politics. We should not hit the wall that we know, will destroy us; we need to either find a roundabout or another way.

I reckon that we have quite serious prospectives of relationship with Russia. There are a number of directions where Russian and Georgia interests differ. It is, in the first place, peace in the Caucasus region. I disagree with the people who say that we have to wait a bit longer, Russia will dissolve and and everything will be in its order. When I was in the power Iused to tell them that dissolution of Russia with the form they were dreaming of, would cause such cataclisms throughout the World that may ignite such fire that we will never be able to escape. Thus dissolution of Russia is not in our interest. Russia being stabile and controlling its own territory is in our interest. Chaotic situation is not in our interest.

Chaotic situation and volatility on the Russian border is completely unacceptable in the North Caucasus. One of the important factors, on which negotiation with Russia may be based on, in my opinion, is our common interest of stability in the Caucasus region. In this regard we have quite serious mechanisms of cooperation; I also don’t think that either they will give us or we should give them something as a gift. Diplomacy and negotiations is the process from which we may benefit with serious positive results.

I also differ with the opinion that Russia is interested in opening its market for us; however it is a very important issues and we need to take rational steps in this direction as well. One of the serious issues will be so-called “Eurasian Union” as well. I can tell you that Georgia’s joining this union is not obligatory, while discussing this issue some very interesting details, denoting how economically profitable joining this Union might be for the member states. However, making decision about joining is only up to us.

I would like to point out one thing: We should not equivocally reject either NATO, or Eurasian Union. We need to analyze the situation and consider which organization with and which direction to cooperate and make a decision only after it. You might pay attention to the TV show with Mr. David Paichadze, when he posed a question of neutrality in an intriguing manner. Neutrality is an ideal position for the country like Georgia, if we can achieve neutrality at all. By the way, I had the same position in regard with neutrality when I was a Chairperson of the Parliament of Georgia. Another issue is how much it is possible. Neutrality cannot be a negative postion.

Even in the middle of Europe, let’s take Switzerland and Austria, neutrality was an achievement for them.

I think my position is quite clearin regard with NATO. I would be fine if we were NATO member country and used the chance that the Baltic States used back then. However we lost that chance. This is the fact that we have to accept. We lost this chance several times. First in 1995,  then in 2000 in 2005 and in 2008 as well. I think that it is actually unachievable. We should call everything its name. Today we are facing a choice: either NATO or our lost territories.

NATO is not going to accept us. My major is international law and I am well aware of regulations, documents, international practice and internal negotiations. Nobody is going to accept us in NATO when there is a Russian military base on the territory on 40 min drive from Tbilisi. We have to either refuse it or we do not have the prospective to be accepted to NATO. Besides, Mr. Tengiz Pkhaladze mentioned the issue of borders. The actual circumstance is that we have resolved the border issue only with Turkey. It is a Soviet period border. We have unresolved border issue with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia and if a process of serious negotiations does not start and political will to direct this process correctly, we will be in a very disadvantageous position.

As for participation in ISAF type of operations, in my opinion we should be participating but I think we should be receiving not only support but serious dividends for the country as well. In particular, starting from salary: if a US soldier receives $ 10 000, Gerogian soldier should not be receiving $ 700. It should be giving us serious political dividends not only mere statements supporting territorial integrity of Georgia. It is a negotiation process which should be used properly.

I agree with Mr. Ramaz Sakvarelidze on the issue that we have neither internal nor foreign policy. Foreign policy does not exist. The ruling party is repeating the statements of National Movements and. I beg apology, they are doing it in quite untalented manner. I don’t really understand why visits to Brazil, Argentina and Japan are priority. These are not priorities of our country’s foreign policy. Diminishing the number of staff in Ukraine, unresolved fate of negotiations with Kazakstan, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Armenia…. it all means that we do not have foreign policy at all.

Irakli Ubilava: I cannot recall any country where the US Ambassador attends the Security Council sittings.

Nino Burjanadze: When I was in the ruling party it did not happen.

Rusa Mumladze-Avaliani: You are saying that you cannot recall non of the cases?

Nino Burjanadze: When Mr. John Bass was appointed as an Ambassador I was not in power any more. Such things did not happen neither in the period of Mr. Richard Miles or during Shevardnadze’s period.

Irakli Ubilava:In regard with amendments in the Constitution… I remember that these amendments were finally decided when Mr. Norland went to the Parliament….. Can we still talke about independence after such example?

Nino Burjanadze: In my opinion, in the best case this is a restricted sogvreignity, which is quite well-known status in the international law. I canot recall not a single case US Ambassador attending the Security Council sittings when I was in the government. I cannot either remember what was said about May 26 as if FBI representatives were sitting and watching and assessing whether the punitive action was well or badly planned. I want to tell you that the Government was far more independnent during Saakashvili’s period than it is today.

I remember when in many cases Giga Bokeria, Saakashvili objected to the position of the US President when their opinions did not coincide. In regard with “Imedi” TV Mrs. Condolisa Rise called three times and said that it would be better if we opened the TV. I was acting President then. I talked to her twice and tolde her that if would be better if she called Saakashvili personally as my orders were not fulfilled. Neither the Prosecutor’s Office nor the Governors.

Now the representatives of the former government members make statements that the acting government shall not be making legislative amendments without first receiving the Venice Commission conclusion. I remember that in 2010, when the Government made amendments to the Constitution, Mr. Gilauri was in the US in an official visit. He and Mrs. Hillary Clinton were on TV where Mrs. Clinton recommended not to adopt the amendments without prior conclusion from the Venice Commission as there were serious problems in the draft.

Despite this they voted the amendments the next day and adopted it. We had the situation when the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the Russia-Georgia war was the citizen of Russia and he was calling me a Russia’s spy…. Well, he did not dare it then; he started it later.

Question: Shall Georgia resinstate diplomatic relationships with Russia?

Nino Burjanadze: We have to take that course. We cannot and should not restart diplomatic relations. Our steps should be responded with the relevant steps from them. We should not accept anything unconditionally.

Georgia needs modern comprehensive doctrine on national security.

Condition that we inherited from the previous government is alarming for the internal as well as foreign threats of the state.

Revealing the threats the the country is facing, sharply denoting the goals of the country and defining actual mechanisms for achieving these goals is necessary.
In order to ensure the country’s security policy preparation of relevant conceptual base, covering priority strategic interest of the country, principles of international law, relevant transparency of security policy in consideration of legitimit interests of partner and neighbouring countries, coherent implementation of the state policy and provision of relevant staff is necessary. Georgia’s independence and sovereignity is significantly weak currently. The country cannot plan and implement its sovereign policy.

Prestige of the Government of Georgia and the positions of the state as a whole on the international arena have deteriorated. Russia is shifting the conflict zone borders within the territory of Georgia. There is a military presence of a foreign state and quasi-states on the territory of Georgia. Demarcation and delimitation of state frontiers with three neighbouring states have not been implemented yet.
Instead of being formed as an object of international relations system Georgia should be formed as its subject. Our basic principle iun the field of security should become preventive diplomacy. With the purpose of improving the country’s security avanturism in international relations should be inadmissible. Georgia should become a space of generalizing interests of big states instead of becoming a shooting ground for their interests. Deepening relationship with NATO should not be directed towards legitimate interests of a third country; it should be serving to improving to strengthening security in the region. Normalization of relations with Russia is necessary.

Georgia should not encourage threats to Russia’s national security. Georgia should make the existing relationships closer with neighbouring states. Georgia’s actions should be directed towards establishing peace and stability in the region.

Current state of relations with Russia is absolutely unclear; there is no strategy and an “action plan” for normalizing relations. Unresolved steps from the Government in this direction make the fake-impression of warming relationships with Russia while at the same time, a new “border” appears in the middle of our territory.

Initiating a large-scale negotiations with Russia is necessary (including not only about opening their market for Georgia product but on acute issues as well). Seps towards abolishing visa regime with Russia for Georgian citizens should be made. Russian market should be open broadly and in a stabile manner for Georgian product. On its part, optimal usage of Russian market will give significant incentive to the economy of Georgia and development of Business enterprise within the country.

We need to start large-scale negotiations with Russia about restoration our country’s territorial integrity. We need to manage that Russia played positive role in regulation of the conflict with Abkhazia and Ossetia.  It should result in honourable return of IDPs to Abkhazeti and Samachablo. Through carrying out coherent policy we will return Abkhazia and Ossetia; Russia should be assured that Georgia is not the enemy and peace and stability in the Caucasus is the number one priority for Georgia as well.