AK: You
mentioned the Eastern Partnership's (EaP) three countries; therefore, I would like to ask you about the Associated
Trio (Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova). Is it still existing “in concert", or became
three separate solos? In general, what would you say about the importance of
this format for Georgia?
LD: The history of the EU's
enlargement demonstrates that its interest is increasingly focused on regions
rather than individual countries. Therefore, it is critically important for
Georgia to remain involved in the Black Sea basin countries' integration
process. This is one of the main reasons why Georgia should make maximum efforts to get the candidate status this year to avoid creating the risk of distancing itself from the relevant regional context. That is why I believe that this challenge is of greater geopolitical implications than taking another step on the path to
integration. Besides, I think maintaining the Trio and its actualization is
essential for all three countries and the EU, as it can bring many political
and practical benefits for all parties involved. Of course, the current problems
between the Georgian and Ukrainian governments negatively affect the efficiency
of the format as well.
AK: I
cannot help asking you about the political situation related to the initiation
of the "Foreign Influence Law" by the parliamentary majority. How
much damage do you think the passage of this law would do to the country and
its European aspirations? In general, what risks do you see, taking into
account the political processes developing in the country after drafting the law?
LD: The draft law's withdrawal
allowed Georgia to prevent additional harm, which would have been irreversible
in case of its adoption and would affect heavily the relationship with the EU
and the internal situation. Also, there are still risks of harm if the policies
that the ruling party is pursuing today towards the civil sector, including the
rhetoric it uses, are maintained. The EU is, in the first place, a political
actor, and it will not assess the government policy only according to the laws
adopted. Of course, statements and actions by the government are also duly
considered. I also believe that the problem of this draft law and other
processes related thereto should not be discussed solely within the EU
integration context. Any policy that divides the public into foreign agents, patriots, and betrayers does nothing to solve the problems of our citizens and severely weakens the country against the challenges it faces in many directions, including security. Our country has seen the dire results of such a policy, and we do remember
where it can lead us. Everybody must give proper thought to this issue.
AK: Following
the withdrawal of the draft law by the parliamentary majority, we have heard a
number of diverse initiatives by the opposition, including calls for snap elections.
Do you think the opposition will be able to reach a consensus on this issue?
And what specific steps may be taken by the opposition today to support the
country in its quest for candidate status?
LD: The interest that united the
young people and a large part of general public participating in the protest
was rather explicit. In the first place, it was related to protecting the
country's European future. The increasing focus falls on the special role of
young people in this effort, which is indeed indisputable; however, this
process also threw light upon the huge gap between the youth and the political
actors - a problem that, albeit to different extents, plagues both the government
and the opposition. Judging from this and many other reasons, the opposition
parties should not have high expectations for support by the public -
especially by the youth - concerning the political protest expressed in the
streets that go beyond the issues of Georgia's EU integration. Diverting public
attention from the EU candidacy to any other topic will be a great mistake.
Moreover, this pressing issue merits immediate and considerable attention and
effort from the entire civil sector and the opposition parties. The analysis of
the ongoing political events makes me think that, in case of appropriate and reasonable steps, there is greater chance of achieving progress on the EU's 12 recommendations than several months before.
AK: What
are the grounds for your opinion? What are the recent changes that back your
judgment?
LD: Firstly, the increased citizens’ confidence that
open expression of their views and a high level of civic involvement may bring
concrete benefits to the country. Of course, this is mainly due to results
achieved with regard to the draft law. Despite its inflammatory rhetoric, the government
must have also better understood the political price of an action that is
publicly perceived as a barrier to the EU integration process. No one [from the
ruling party] admits it, though it is indeed difficult to believe otherwise.
The political embarrassment that some majority members experienced when they
had to reject their draft law, I suppose, will make them show greater
consideration in similar circumstances. While this may not be true of everyone,
the position taken by a small number of MPs is enough to make a difference in
some situations. This is what I think, regardless of the recent announcements
that those several MPs who disagreed with the majority are now leaving the
parliament.
Further, it is also
noteworthy that the scale of civic engagement concerning the Foreign Influence
Law sent another very explicit message to the EU about the European aspiration
of our citizens, and these messages are supposed to have a relevant impact on
the clarity of the EU's current and future political messages to Georgia's government.
All this considered, the opposition's statements that seek to replace this
pressing issue with other less relevant topics on the country's political
agenda are very much in line with the government's intentions. It is also
important to note that no specific outcomes can be achieved by simply setting
and maintaining priorities. Plunging into a whirlwind of mutual allegations,
which is usually more about surging emotions than the actual content, will
never come to any good. The potential for achieving the result will increase if
the government has to respond to the consolidated position of the civil and
political sectors, supported by a majority of citizens. No signs of this are
present today. The inconsistency of actions of the greater part of the opposition,
as well as their announcement of unrealistic plans and the subsequent failure,
puts the government in great comfort and triggers increasing nihilism in the
society.
AK:
Many people in Georgia – and, in fact, abroad – are very much
concerned about Georgia's Western orientation and prospects of Georgia's
engagement with NATO and the EU. Do you think the country's strategic vector
may change? If yes, do you think this is the result of 'short-sighted' internal
political conflicts, or a part of a big game?
LD: Our aspiration to become
fully-fledged members of Western institutions stems from deep historic roots;
it is connected with the extremely challenging path the country had to go
through and issues of vital importance for the country's future. Thus, I am
always careful with any assessments in this regard; however, there is something
I feel sure of - the level of confrontation that exists currently between the
ruling party and our strategic partners negatively impacts the process of
Georgia's Western integration and stimulates multiple concerns both within and
outside the country. Notably, Georgia's internal political process is now
almost entirely connected to the country's international agenda, and, of
course, statements made by the government regarding those topics often serve
internal political purposes. Also, the government frequently emphasizes the
importance of caution in light of the war in Ukraine, sometimes quoting this as
a reason for the worsened relationships with the strategic partners. Although
it is impossible not to share the government's concerns with the importance of
caution, I am sure it is achievable without damaging the country.
On the surface, it is
possible to assume that the government is trying to avoid integration-related
reforms, which it views as substantial threats to its power and authority.
Citizens in Georgia have manifested great support for EU integration, and the events
of March 7-9 serve as ample evidence that any attempt to consolidate power,
which endangers the country's national goals, poses risks to both the government
and the country's welfare.
AK: You
served as Georgia’s ambassador to NATO. Is it correct that Georgia used to be
much better prepared to joining the Alliance then Ukraine or Moldova, in terms
of technical preparedness, military standardization, etc?
LD: First, I would like to note
that Russia's invasion of Ukraine significantly impacted NATO's actions and
plans. NATO revised its objectives on the Eastern flank, prioritizing the
protection of the allies and, at the same time, putting military support for
Ukraine on its agenda. This step may be assessed as a change in paradigm, which
triggered the significant geopolitical shifts we are now witnessing. A year and
a half ago, it was almost impossible to imagine that Germany would provide
Ukraine with tanks in the war against Russia. The process also led to inviting
Sweden and Finland to the Alliance. These countries always remained partners
and had not officially expressed any interest in membership despite their
military capacities. Notably, Sweden and Finland have their unique geopolitical
context and a very different history of relationships with NATO, which does not
permit any apt comparison between their experience and Georgia's integration
dynamic.
AK: If you were in power,
what would be your first free decrees? Generally, if there is anything that
you would like to add for our readers, the floor is yours.
LD: In the view of the major
problems the country is currently facing, I think it is more a matter of
changing the political position than issuing decrees. I believe the country's political agenda is
the biggest problem, which is largely dominated by radical narrative.
Given the challenges and
threats the country faces, it is essential to unite the society in achieving
its security and foreign policy goals. In this process, all sides of the
political spectrum have their role, and unfortunately, we see problems from
both the government and the opposition. Of course, the government's
responsibility in this regard is unique and incomparable. Unfortunately, the
steps taken by the government contain serious risks. Today we see that the
topics we mentioned (security and foreign policy) have become not the main
subject of unity but confrontation.
Apart from security issues,
the country faces multiple challenges in many other directions. I believe the
full accomplishment of the EU's twelve recommendations would lay a solid
foundation for achieving tangible progress in many fields. This concerns not
only our national goals at the international level but also the overall
improvement of the political environment and the solution to the most critical
problems our citizens are confronted with. Issues like corruption, independence
of the court, pre-election environment, efficient functioning of state
institutions, etc, affect not only our European aspirations but also everyday
life in Georgia.
I think it would be
particularly beneficial if all political actors with any role in the current
discussions around the EU recommendations spoke more actively about the direct impact
their full implementation can have on our citizens.
It also has to be mentioned
that the efficiency of the dialogue format in the political process –
especially given the high level of polarization – does not depend solely on the
strength and credibility of the arguments provided during the discussions. The
process usually proves most fruitful if supported by active civic
engagement.
Finally, despite the many
problems that our country has gone through, we have achieved significant
success at all stages of our recent history. Ongoing political events endanger
those results that cost great effort and the work of generations of public
servants and politicians, including those from the ruling party. The country
needs a political process in which all changes will be associated with
maintaining the progress achieved as a foundation for building a better future.
Thus, building on the achieved progress is the formula our politicians (both
the government and the opposition) should focus on. The more citizens see a
proper understanding of this by politicians, the better it would be for the
political forces themselves and the country.
Thank you once again!
No comments:
Post a Comment