losing Georgia¶

This is such a fascinating case study in the mechanics of how US imperial interests get laundered through "organic" movements.

For context, the law being met with such backlash, inspiring existential dread over the threat of "losing Georgia" deals with... financial disclosures. https://t.co/5fmsJDdbEp Specifically, it would require NGOs and media organizations receiving at least 20% of their funding from a foreign source to disclose that information or face fines. It is opposed by pro-western groups, because it would reveal the extent of western influence in the country. President Salome Zourabishvili vetoed* the bill, but it was overturned in a 66-0 landslide, and the bill will go into force soon.

*Georgia does not actually use a "veto" system. Instead, the president can either sign a law or return it to parliament with remarks. (Interestingly, the vote to reject the remarks was boycotted by a majority of the 150-member parliament.

Per the Georgian constitution, parliament needs a simple majority to reject a president's remarks on a bill. Those who refused to vote could have upheld the veto.) The bill was championed by the coalition government of Georgian Dream and People's Power -- the latter of which split from the former over "tactical" disagreements, but they are still ideologically aligned. Their primary shared ideology is "Georgian sovereignty." They are eclectic, shifting their positions to match a changing vision of what it means to "make Georgia strong and independent." At various points, they have championed free trade with the EU and bids for accession, while frequently also decrying western influence in the region. They observe -- but do not impose -- sanctions against Russia over the invasion, while also refusing to provide any aid to Ukraine, whom they criticize. They view the west as attempting to do the same with them that they have done in Ukraine, in order to "open a second front." Their foreign policy can best be described as "Don't piss off the two major powers that we want to trade with." Unfortunately, that stance, in and of itself, pisses off the west. Anything other than full-throated anti-Russian dogmatism is a "threat to western civilization." We saw this exact scenario play out a decade ago, in Ukraine, and now we're getting another chance to watch the dynamics of western meddling in action.

It starts with attempts by a smaller country to assert the right to forge its own foreign policy. In this case, that's a simple measure requiring transparency on foreign funding sources -- like the US. (In fact, the US already has a nearly identical regulation, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which has been in force for nearly a century.) "Mass protests" spring up seemingly out of nowhere, largely made up of young, passionate, politically-amorphous "activists," who are organized under the banner of a vague "pro-democracy" movement (democracy being defined as pro-west). The movement is fueled by fervor against a supposed "authoritarian regime" (in this case, Russia, but there have been plenty of similarly astroturfed movements against China, Cuba, etc.) The actual substance of the protests is largely irrelevant, and doesn't need to make sense. This is a particularly striking case, because the only vague connection that can be drawn between the law being protested and "authoritarianism" is the fact that Russia has a similar law (again, so does the US and many other countries). A law requiring financial disclosures of foreign capital investments has literally no bearing on the "liberty" of the vast majority of citizens -- especially students -- so its an unusually flimsy ground on which to stake a supposed "battle for the soul of western civilization." But the aim of these "movements" is not specifically to prevent this or that policy. We can clearly see this from the fact that it was allowed to pass despite the vote to overturn the veto actually having more abstentions than votes. The goal isn't policy; it's mobilization. The visibility of the protests themselves aids in building a larger narrative of "popular discontent" with the ruling government. Regardless of actual public opinion, large protests (organic or not) paint a picture of broad disapproval of whatever the government does. US geopolitical aims are laundered through media and NGOs -- such as the International Republican Institute, to which OP belongs -- presenting "data" and "on-the-ground reporting" that further builds this narrative of mass discontent. Sanctions and interventions tend to follow. Trade deals are ended, investments pulled, weapons find their way into the hands of the "pro-democracy" crowd. Then, hopefully -- for the US -- a coup, to oust this "nefarious pro-Russian regime" that wants to curtail western influence. Right now, it may seem silly that students are crying over a "pro-Russian law" that does nothing except require media operations to disclose foreign funding. But be aware that this is a key component of "the Ukraine strategy." I expect a "pro-democracy" coup in the coming years.