[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GEORGIA'S PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION: HOW
FREE AND FAIR HAS THE CAMPAIGN BEEN, AND
HOW SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RESPOND?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
[CSCE 112-2-10]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.csce.gov
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-192 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
HOUSE
SENATE
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Chairman
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER,
New York
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland,
Co-Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
MARCO RUBIO, Florida
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
MICHAEL H. POSNER, Department of State
MICHAEL C. CAMUNNEZ, Department of Commerce
ALEXANDER VERSHBOW, Department of Defense
[ii]
GEORGIA'S PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION:
HOW FREE AND FAIR HAS THE
CAMPAIGN BEEN, AND HOW SHOULD
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RESPOND?
----------
September 20, 2012
COMMISSIONERS
Page
Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 1
Hon. Steve Cohen, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 3
WITNESSES
Sec. Thomas Melia, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State.... 4
Dr. Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian
Studies and International Energy Policy, Heritage Foundation... 16
Dr. Mamuka Tsereteli, Director, Center for Black Sea-Caspian
Studies, School of International Service, American University.. 18
Dr. Archil Gegeshidze, Senior Fellow, Georgian Foundation for
Strategic and International Studies............................ 21
APPENDICES
Prepared statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith.................. 30
Prepared statement of Sec. Thomas Melia.......................... 32
Prepared statement of Dr. Ariel Cohen............................ 34
Prepared statement of Dr. Mamuka Tsereteli....................... 38
[iii]
GEORGIA'S PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION:
HOW FREE AND FAIR HAS THE
CAMPAIGN BEEN, AND HOW SHOULD
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RESPOND?
----------
September 20, 2012
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Washington, DC
The hearing was held at 12:30 p.m. in room 2255, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith, Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, presiding.
Commissioners present: Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman,
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and Hon.
Steve Cohen, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
Witnesses present: Sec. Thomas Melia, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor, U.S. Department of State; Dr. Ariel Cohen, Senior
Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and
International Energy Policy, Heritage Foundation; Dr. Mamuka
Tsereteli, Director, Center for Black Sea-Caspian Studies,
School of International Service, American University; and Dr.
Archil Gegeshidze, Senior Fellow, Georgian Foundation for
Strategic and International Studies.
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Commission will come to order.
And good afternoon to everyone. Thank you for being here.
I want to welcome all of you to our hearing on Georgia's
parliamentary elections, which is now only 11 days away. The
campaign has brought Georgia to a crossroads. It is the most
crucial event in Georgian democracy since the Rose Revolution
of 2003.
At that time, everyone will recall Georgians responded to a
rigged election with a peaceful protest. It was a great moment
in Georgian history, the first of the color revolutions. The
Rose Revolution brought Mikhail Saakashvili--I've said it a
million times--and his team of Western-oriented, modernizers
into office. Hopes were high in Georgia that Saakashvili
strengthened the state and launched many reforms.
Russia's 2008 invasion and occupation of the Georgian
regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia failed to topple the
president, and our country has strongly supported Georgian
sovereignty. Vladimir Putin's invasion was yet another
revelation of his cynical brutality.
As an aside, I would note that I was in Georgia in the days
following that invasion working to affect the return of two
girls--daughters of one of my constituents--and, as it turned
out, several other young people who were caught behind Russian
lines. And I was deeply impressed by the courage and the
determination that I encountered in every Georgian that I met.
That brings us to the present moment. Only a year ago,
President Saakashvili's ruling National Movement seemed poised
to easily win the October 2012 parliamentary election over a
fragmented opposition. But in October of 2011, a man by the
name of Ivanishvili began to unite elements of the opposition
into a new coalition that posed a serious challenge.
Mr. Ivanishvili is a multibillionaire and thought to be a
newcomer to politics--and though he was such a newcomer, he had
vast resources. The government quickly stripped him of his
citizenship, and the parliament passed campaign finance laws
that limited the use of his assets.
At the same time, the instruments of the state, budget,
police and security services began to be deployed against the
party and its supporters, though to what extent is a matter of
dispute. Consequently, the election campaign has raised very
serious questions about Mikheil Saakashvili's reputation as a
reformer.
I'm sure we'll hear from our witnesses to what degree his
government has institutionalized genuine democratic governance
as opposed to the appearance of it. I don't mean to prejudge
this question. It is a difficult one that our witnesses are
outstandingly qualified to grapple with.
But the main questions we'd like to hear our witnesses
answer touch on the conduct of the campaign, specifically the
opposition's charges that the Georgian state has targeted
Ivanishvili and his supporters through harassment,
intimidation, beatings, selective enforcement of the law and
violations of freedom of assembly and expression.
If substantially true, that would be terribly sad. It would
indicate that the Rose Revolution had gone bad. At the same
time, Ivanishvili and his coalition have been targeted as
working on behalf of Russia. The Georgian government sometimes
seems to paint the conflict not as one between two political
parties but between the Georgian state and its foreign enemies
trying to subvert it. We certainly need to hear your thoughts
on that as well.
I do believe that members of this Commission will have open
minds on all of these questions and that each of your
testimonies will be an important aspect in informing Congress
and our own government on the conduct of the Georgian election
campaign, now in its last days.
We are fortunate to have some outstanding witnesses who
will speak to this, but before doing so, I'd like to now yield
to my friend and colleague, Mr. Cohen, ranking member, for
comments he might have.
HON. STEPHEN COHEN, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our panel and interested
parties.
I look forward to the testimony and the edification, for I
will be traveling to Georgia with, I believe, Congressperson
Kay Granger and Dreier to monitor the elections. I am certainly
concerned about elections all over the world--including in my
home city of Memphis, where they're probably worse conducted
than maybe they are in Georgia and other places. And maybe
Georgia is going to be a great experience, and I'll learn
something to improve Memphis. But I look forward to observing
and participating, and hope that the people of Georgia will
have a free and fair election and elect the person who is,
indeed, the winner of the contest.
And with that, I yield back the remainder and just look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Before going to our first panelist, I'd like to point out,
and would not want to fail to mention, the terrible scandal
that broke yesterday in Georgia concerning gross abuses in
prison. Videos have emerged that reveal the most horrifying of
tortures, including the sadistic rape of men by prison
officials. The Georgian minister of corrections has resigned.
Individuals have been arrested, and the government has pledged
to punish all those responsible and to uproot this problem.
I welcome those actions and promises, but I also would note
the statement made by the national security adviser who said,
quote, ``We as a government made a grave mistake when we did
not properly evaluate the signals coming from the ombudsman and
other civil society groups about the systemic problem in the
penitentiary system.'' That is a telling admission. It's
precisely the systemic nature of this abuse that evokes the
greatest concern because it raises questions about the nature
of Georgia's state's relationship with its citizens.
I'd like to now introduce our very distinguished first
witness, Thomas Melia, who is the deputy assistant secretary of
state, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. He is
responsible for DRL's work in Europe, including Russia and
Central and South Asia, as well as worker rights issues
worldwide. In addition to heading the head of U.S. delegation
to several OSCE meetings, he is the U.S. co-chair of the Civil
Society Working Group in the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential
Commission.
Mr. Melia came to DRL in 2010 from Freedom House, where he
was deputy executive director for five years. He had previously
held posts at the National Democratic Institute and the Free
Trade Union Institute at the AFL-CIO. He also has a Capitol
Hill experience having served as senior elective assistant for
foreign affairs policy for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Secretary Melia has just recently returned from a visit to
Georgia, so will provide, I think, some very fresh impressions
as to what is going on there. Secretary, the floor is yours.
SEC. THOMAS MELIA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU
OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cohen, for being here today
and for this invitation.
Before I get into the Georgia discussion, I just want to
say how pleased we are to work on a daily basis with the
Commission and the staff in advancing a shared agenda and
promoting human rights and democratic values across the OSCE
region. I will be going to Warsaw next week for the human
dimension meeting and look forward to working with your staff
and others there in this regard, as we have so often in the
past.
In this context of a shared, continued objective of
strengthening democracy in the OSCE region and in advance of
Georgia's October first parliamentary elections, President
Obama, Secretary Clinton and other senior U.S. officials have
highlighted the importance of such a truly democratic electoral
process for Georgia in our regular dialogues with the
government--in our strategic dialogue, which means high-level
meetings here and in Georgia; most recently at the highest
level, when Secretary Clinton visited Georgia in June.
Last week, President Obama and Secretary Clinton sent to
Georgia an unusual interagency delegation that I was privileged
to lead that included senior officials from the State
Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, the
Department of Justice and the Department of Defense to
demonstrate that there's a broad interest in these elections in
Georgia, just as there is a very broad and deep relationship
being built out between the United States and Georgia.
Our delegation went to Georgia to highlight the importance
of a democratic process that produces a parliament that
reflects the will of the Georgian people. I was delighted that
our newly arrived ambassador, Richard Norland, had just been
confirmed and arrived, joined most of our meetings in his very
first week in country.
We met with a range of senior government officials, the
prime minister and other ministers, election commission
chairmen, the head of the special audit office as well as with
political opposition, NGO election observers, journalists and
others.
The message that we conveyed privately in each of our
meetings was identical, and also identical to what we've said
in public: The United States supports the Georgian people's
aspirations for a free and democratic process. We do not favor
any particular party or candidates, and the United States looks
forward to close cooperation with whichever leaders the
Georgian people choose. Conducting these imminent elections
with integrity will be critical to helping Georgia advance its
Euro-Atlantic aspirations. They will also be essential to a
democratic transfer of power next year as the parliament
elected in October will, at the start of the next presidential
term, will select a new prime minister who will have enhanced
powers under the constitutional revisions that will take place
at the end of this president's term, when President
Saakashvili's successor takes office.
Domestic and international perceptions of fairness of the
campaign environment, including adherence to the rule of law,
media access and transparency and the impartial adjudication of
election-related disputes will be important indicators of
Georgia's democratic development.
I would like to highlight today, as I did in Tbilisi last
week, the importance of several fundamental principles that
featured in all of our conversations in Georgia and all of
which are essential for a meaningful electoral process. First
and foremost is the importance of a level playing field. It is
essential that the political environment is conducive to
serious participation in the campaign by all the major parties
on equal terms. We welcome some steps by the government--
through the Interagency Task Force on Elections, most
conspicuously--to address reports of politically motivated
firings. For instance, they issued a statement early in the
summer urging all government agencies to discontinue any
layoffs until after the election. This for the stated purpose
of removing the concern that, in downsizings currently underway
in the Georgian government, that personnel associated with the
political opposition would be disproportionately affected--that
had been the concern, that it was people associated with the
opposition that were disproportionately losing their jobs as
teachers and government employees at all levels. While such
reports of politically motivated firings have decreased
recently since the IATF announcement, concerns remain regarding
the levelness of the playing field, including some alleged
harassment of certain activists for their participation in the
opposition coalition, some reports of blurred boundaries
between state institutions and the ruling party--for example,
some public servants using government resources for campaign
activities--and the alleged use of administrative resources
particularly outside the capital, such as the use of public-
service announcements that seem to be for the benefit of the
ruling party.
Nevertheless, although there have been some shortcomings,
it is clear that, largely due to the substantial financial
resources that have been available to the main opposition
coalition, this is the most competitive election in Georgia's
history.
The second principle is about rule of law and due process.
In our meetings with the Georgian government and the various
political parties, we stressed the importance of ensuring that
the campaign and election laws are applied equally and
transparently, and that all participants are held to the same
high standards of conduct as spelled out in Georgian law.
While almost every party, including the ruling United
National Movement, has been penalized for campaign finance
violations, the state audit office has devoted the most
significant part of its attention to the opposition coalition,
Georgian Dream. Although there are some anecdotal and
substantial indications suggesting that Georgian Dream may well
have spent substantial amounts of money in violation of the
campaign finance laws, the lack of transparency in the state
audit office's procedures and due process deficiencies raise
doubts about whether the law has been enforced equally vis-aa-
vis all parties. That the recent director and deputy director
of that state audit office last month became ruling party
parliamentary candidates while the current director of the
office is a former member of the ruling party member of
parliament, this exacerbates the concerns about the partisan
nature of the investigations being undertaken by the state
audit office.
We recognize the challenges on all sides of complying with
and enforcing a new set of campaign finance laws and urged the
state audit office--we did meet with their new leadership--to
emphasize transparency and due process as it continues to
improve its work. We urged all the political parties to
participate constructively, follow the law scrupulously and to
pursue their political goals through the ballot box.
The third principle is respect for fundamental freedoms,
respect for peaceable protests and freedom of assembly as a
hallmark of a democratic society, and the government holds a
particular responsibility to protect and uphold those freedoms.
We heard last week that the political parties we met have
generally been able to travel the country, hold rallies and get
their messages out to the voters with whom they meet. In our
conversations, we also urged all parties to renounce violence
and avoid provocations, especially on election day, election
night, during and after the ballot counting and on the morning
after.
The fourth principle is equitable access to media. We
applaud the electoral reforms enacted late last year that
expanded the access of all parties on equal terms to the mass
media during the 60-day campaign period. More recently, we were
encouraged to see the implementation of the so-called must-
carry legislation during the campaign period, and we strongly
support its extension through the post-election complaints
process and beyond.
At present, however, the two nationwide broadcast
television networks are distinctly pro-government--Rustavi 2
and Imedi--while two regional stations are mainly pro-
opposition or at least consistently critical of the
government--Maestro and Kavkasia. Continuing efforts to promote
wider access to a diversity of opinions and media outlets would
reflect fundamental values that democracies share.
The fifth principle that we emphasized in our meetings is
constructive engagement. We have every expectation now, based
on both the opposition's commitment to us that they reject the
use of violence and the government's commitment to us that its
security forces will be scrupulously professional, that
election day and its aftermath can unfold peacefully. We
certainly hope this will be the case. After October 1, all
parties will need to work together constructively in the new
parliament to advance Georgia's democratic and economic
development. They should conduct their campaign in that spirit.
Finally, we call on all participants to promote an
electoral process that the Georgian people may judge as free
and fair. We commend the work of the domestic and international
observation groups, including principally the OSCE ODIHR
mission that is currently in Georgia to help ensure the
election process is transparent and consistent with
international standards and reflects the will of the Georgian
people. The pre-election situation is dynamic, and we are
monitoring developments very closely. Your Commission's
attention to the upcoming election is helpful.
Again, thank you for holding this hearing. We look forward
to continuing to work with the Commission, and I'd be glad to
answer questions.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your
testimony--very comprehensive--and for the fine work you and
the department are doing, not the least of which is trying to
get both sides to absolutely commit to no violence day of and
day after, especially day after, which is what I think we're
all most concerned about.
So thank you for that. And you do believe those commitments
are ironclad as much as they can be?
Sec. Melia. I believe they told them to us, and we will
continue to reinforce the fact that we have all agreed on this.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you--you know, that video that did
surface about the harsh treatment of inmates, could you comment
on that? I mean, that seems to be a very dark insight that
caught a lot of us by surprise, certainly me.
Sec. Melia. Well, let me make three quick points about
these videos about mistreatment in the prison system.
First is that I haven't seen the videos, but the
descriptions I've heard of them are pretty gruesome and
horrific. And so we're appalled by them. And our embassy has
been engaged with the government and with others there in the
hours--it's just been since yesterday that this arose very
intensively.
Second is that it is not surprising. In our annual human
rights report that we published this year about the calendar
year 2011, we summarized in the executive summary three large
problems. The first one is continuing abuse of people
incarcerated in Georgian prisons.
So this is an ongoing problem. It's been clear to us for a
while. We have raised it with the Georgian government, and it
has been part of our--not only our most recent report, but for
the last several years.
Mr. Smith. But this went beyond even what the report would
indicate. Right? It seemed to me to be--
Sec. Melia. Videos always bring a new texture to
allegations of abuse. And so it seems even more horrific than
we had realized.
But let me say that the initial response from the
government seems to have been--what's the right word--President
Saakashvili has reacted quickly and I think in the right way to
change the minister of the prison--the minister overseeing the
prisons has been changed this morning. The new minister is the
human rights ombudsman who has a sterling reputation in looking
after these issues. He's one of one of these that has raised
the problem of conditions in prisons in the past. If he has--if
he is given the power to clean up the act there, he really is
empowered to take steps to improve the conditions of
incarceration in Georgia's prisons, this could be one of those
moments that, you know, where a horrific incident leads to
improvement in a system.
The other thing that's interesting is that, although
there's already been some back-and-forth between the parties
about who's responsible for leaking the video and whether--how
real the problem is and so on, it's worth noting that Mr.
Ivanishvili, the lead of the opposition, also came out this
morning in both a previously scheduled meeting with our
ambassador and in a public statement--called for calm among his
supporters, calling for them not to turn this into a reason
for, you know, more public street action in response to the
government's responsibility to maintain the prison system.
So I think both President Saakashvili and Mr. Ivanishvili
have, today, stepped up and done the right things, done the
responsible things, as responsible people sometimes do in
moments of crisis.
Mr. Smith. Are you convinced--one of your main points,
obviously, was access to media. Does the opposition and the
government, do they all have close to equal access or equal
access?
Sec. Melia. Well, as I mentioned, there are a number of
broadcast networks. There's cable television. There's online
news services. It's uneven in its--it has been uneven in its
reach around the country. The two main national stations that
have the most reach across the country tend to be pro-
government, echo the government party's views on things. The
principal broadcast stations that are friendly to the
opposition or at least critical of the government tend to be
regional stations and don't have the reach in the country.
There is also cable television and other means.
The must-carry legislation which had been urged upon the
government and that we had urged that they adopt last spring,
they did, so that all the different news providers have access
to the cable networks of the others so that, at the moment, up
and through election day, there is more diversity in the
carrying of cable news and political discussion.
The point I made in my testimony is that now that it's been
established that the basic cable infrastructure can be opened
to the various political points of view, why stop it on
election day? Why not continue it at least through the end of
the official election process? The official election process,
of course, doesn't end on voting day. It ends when the results
have been tabulated, when disputes have been resolved and when
the elected officials assume their offices. That's when, you
know, the election monitor's guidebooks tell you should
conclude your observation.
And so we think that, since there may likely be protests
and complaints on the day after the election, that that
process, which is part of the election process, should be
accessible to all the viewers in Georgia as well. So we've
urged that that be carried through at least through the
immediate post-election, post-election day period and more
generally.
There is a question about whether the legislation that was
enacted earlier in this year that facilitated that which did
stipulate that this must-carry period would end on election
day, whether that means that it must stop on election day or
whether it could continue if the providers see fit. So we're
encouraging the providers to see fit to--
Mr. Smith. Are you satisfied that the mechanism for
resolution of disputed ballots is up to, you know, standards
that would be universally recognized?
Sec. Melia. Well, the system on paper----
Mr. Smith. There will be disputes, obviously.
Sec. Melia. ----is the proper one. We met with the election
commission chairman whose prior career has been as a CPA and
auditor for major international firms. So he knows about lining
up the numbers and tallying them accurately. And he's
approached his work, I think, in the spirit of a good CPA.
And they've set up systems, and one of the innovations in
this election that wasn't as true previously is that they will
announce incremental election results as they come in from
around the country in real time. And they will post them on
their website, and they will make them available on screens
that will be in the main hall of the election commission
building.
And those of us who have seen elections in the post-
communist world over the years, that is one of the best
practices so that--and one of the concerns in previous Georgian
elections has been a bungling of election results. Prior
election chairs had decided to kind of wait and, every hour or
two, they would post election results. And that led to some
suspicions that some finagling might be going on while the
results were tabulated but not yet released.
So what the chairman has committed to doing--and he says
this is part of his publicly announced process--is there will
just be a rolling emissions program where everything will be
posted as soon as distribute-level election results come in.
And that is the best practice. So it can work properly.
Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you three final questions, and
then I'll yield to Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Ivanishvili's citizenship, when it was revoked and
reinstated through the constitution, what was our take on that
at the time? And are we satisfied that--was it pressure that
caused a reversal? Why did that happen?
Secondly, with regards to the chamber of audit that
targeted the Georgian Dream by imposing large fines, are those
claims plausible?
And finally, do you believe a sufficient number of election
monitors are about to be deployed to ensure that, you know,
when the judgment is made by the OSCE and others that it was
free and fair--if that is their judgment--that there will have
been enough coverage of the election balloting posts?
Sec. Melia. On the last point--let me go in reverse order.
On the election observers, there will be a lot of election
observers there. There's a domestic network there, ISFED
[International Federation Election Systems], that's been
trained and has operated through previous Georgian elections.
They are up and running around the country. They've produced
some preliminary reports on what they are hearing and seeing.
The long-term observers from ODIHR are on the ground now.
That mission is led by Nicolai Vulkanov, a Bulgarian, who
previously was the number two in ODIHR for 10 years; I mean,
has run election observer missions across the OSCE region. He's
as good as they come. I have a lot of confidence in his ability
to manage all the political turmoil that will be around him and
come up with as straight an assessment as is possible.
So there will be--and there are a number of other--NDI and
IRI have been deploying election missions and will have some
there around election day. And there are a number of others
sort of less famous perhaps but other NGO efforts that are
underway to monitor the election process. So I think there will
be a lot of information available and, you know, my view has
always been the more observers, the better. They may not all
agree with each other, but it's the same principle as having--
you know, more newspapers, the better. You don't learn all the
same things from different newspapers in this town, for
instance. But if you have multiple sources of information,
you're more likely to get closer to the truth.
So I think there will be a lot of observers. We'll have a
lot of information between now and election day and on the
morning after. Typically, the U.S. Government and the European
Union wait until after the ODIHR and other major delegations
offer their considered assessments, preliminary assessments on
the afternoon after the election before we opine. We definitely
want to wait to see what all the people on the ground say
before we weigh in. That's our general policy, and I think it
will be respected here.
There are other delegations from the OSCE parliamentary
assembly, NATO parliamentary assembly and others that will be
there. There will be a lot of observers.
On the question of the citizenship for Bidzina Ivanishvili,
that's a complicated, torturous story. The way it's played out
is very unusual. I mean, a lot of things about the Georgian
election and political process are distinct. And I think they
have arrived at a place where he's allowed to participate. He's
clearly become a major political force in Georgian politics. I
don't know that it's helpful to comment on the circuitous route
they got to get to this point, but he's there. He's in, and he
can participate as he wants to.
I'm sorry. The second--
Mr. Smith. Georgian Dream.
Sec. Melia. Oh, well--oh, the enforcement of the laws and
the finance laws. Well, you know, the record is clear, when
Ivanishvili announced that he was going to get involved in
politics and launched Georgia Dream--just about a year ago now;
in October, I think, last year--he represented a significant
new element in Georgian politics. At about that time, soon
after that, new campaign finance laws were enacted and new
powers were signed to this state audit agency, the chamber of
control. And it has been vigorously enforcing the campaign
finance laws.
The government officials and the audit office say that most
of the money and, therefore, most of the potential problems in
campaign finance, are associated with Georgian Dream.
Therefore, it is natural that most of their investigation
should focus on potential and real problems associated with
their adherence to the campaign finance laws.
Others say that it's been selective implementation--
Mr. Smith. What do we say?
Sec. Melia. Well, it's clear that--well, I'll make two
points. One is that it's troubling that the leadership of this
office--they were leading the office from last year from the
turn of the year through the summer. The director and the
deputy director turned up last month as parliamentary
candidates for the government party. That creates a perception
of lack of-- disinterestedness in the process. The fact that
the new chairman of the office is a former member of parliament
for the government party adds to that disquiet. It might have
been better to have a retired law professor or another CPA or
somebody like that to do this kind of job. But it is what it
is. So the way that the appointments were made to that agency
have created a political cloud over its operation. The fact
that it has been very vigorously enforcing rulings and
investigations mainly against the Georgian Dream speaks for
itself, I think.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Ambassador--Secretary--
Sec. Melia. I haven't become an ambassador yet.
Mr. Cohen. Yeah; I realized that quickly. Mr. Secretary,
I'm unfamiliar with the Georgian process. What type of
equipment do they use to vote on?
Sec. Melia. That's a good question. Paper ballots? Check
the box? Count them up at the end of the day?
Mr. Cohen. So what should an observer be looking for?
Sec. Melia. That might be a longer conversation we could
have in your office if you like before you go. But generally,
you know, there's the environment around the voting booth.
Mr. Cohen. Right.
Sec. Melia. I mean, if the voting booth is the epicenter of
election day and, in the ideal scenario, an informed voter goes
into a booth and, confident that his vote is secret, casts the
ballot in the way he prefers, how do you get to that point?
You get to that point through a series of reinforcing
measures. How do you get the informed voter? That goes to the
media question. Are the candidates and the political parties
able to get their message out to all the voters they are trying
to reach? Is the interested vote able to access all the
information he wants about the choices before him? So the, you
know, information environment leading up to election day is
critical.
Is the process fair? Will the votes be counted accurately?
That goes to how the election commissions are appointed, who's
going to be--
Mr. Cohen. All that is over and beyond what I will be able
to observe in that day.
Sec. Melia. Right.
Mr. Cohen. I mean, am I going to, you know--are they going
to be taking votes out of their pocket and--
Sec. Melia. Well, among the allegations of potential ways
in which the vote counting might be skewed are that people will
be suborned or bribed or persuaded to take pictures on their
cell phones of this ballots to prove that they marked them the
correct way that somebody told them to, whether it's their boss
or their neighborhood, you know, block leader or whoever.
There's rumors afoot that, you know, people--there will be
cameras, you know, monitoring people; that people will be given
inducements to vote one way or the other. Some of that you
might be able to see or hear about. Much of it you may not be
able to see as a casual observer not speaking the local
language.
Mr. Cohen. Yeah. It's going to be tough not speaking
Georgian. I mean, I can speak with a drawl, but I don't think
that'll work.
Sec. Melia. This is a different kind of Georgia. Yeah.
Mr. Cohen. Yeah.
Sec. Melia. You can tell a lot though. You can tell a lot
as an experienced political person yourself. You can walk into
a polling place, and you can tell whether there's an atmosphere
of anxiousness, fear, concern.
Mr. Cohen. Do they have any rules about how many feet you
have to be away from the ballot area with distribution of
literature or wearing of paraphernalia in the voting--
Sec. Melia. They may well. I don't know what the numbers
are, but I'm sure that there's specified. And that'll be part
of the briefing material that you would have if you're part of
the OSCE.
Mr. Cohen. Yeah, there will be a briefing. And if you have
any other information, I'd be interested.
Sec. Melia. There are issues about, for instance in this
partial context, it's perhaps more important than whether
political party agents can be out in front of the polling place
is where the police and other security forces might be. And
this is one of the emerging things that we're watching because
we want to avoid a situation in which there's some effort to
provoke confrontations around the polling place. At some point
in the recent past, some members of the opposition have said
that they want to make sure their people are poised to defend
the ballot from miscounting or otherwise. And that sounded like
crowds might be gathering at polling places during the
counting, and that might lead to some provocations with police
or members of the other party. We did talk to the minister of
interior that oversees the police, and we've urged them to be
responsible in managing any crowds, any demonstrations that
arise. And they're alert to that. There have been political
demonstrations in the past that have led to larger violence and
larger confrontation.
And so they're aware of that. And some--you know, our
government and some European governments are providing training
on crowd management, riot control, things like that.
Mr. Cohen. Do they have, like we have, the rights for both
parties to have observers?
Sec. Melia. Mmm hmm.
Mr. Cohen. They do have that.
Sec. Melia. They will be there.
Mr. Cohen. And do both parties have the rights to be
present to count the ballots?
Sec. Melia. Yep; they will be. And just to be clear,
there's at least three. There's another major party that will
be a significant player in the race, the Christian Democratic
Movement. But the UNM and the Georgian Dream are the two larger
ones consistently in the polling that's been done. But this
Christian Democratic Movement is not insignificant, either.
Mr. Cohen. Has there been any polling that you have been
privy to that you can discuss that gives you an indication of
how the likely voters would vote?
Sec. Melia. There is--there's a lot of polling that's been
going on, some of it by NDI and IRI, our American party
institutes that are on the ground there. Each of the campaigns
has commissioned polls and selectively publish them when they
seem politically useful.
There's a--in this political environment, there's a major
discussion about how to allocate undecided voters or people who
decline to express their preference. The various pollsters have
adopted different techniques for allocating the undecided to,
you know, make assumptions, you know, based on their political
skills about where those voters might go on election day. So
that has led to some competing narratives about where public
opinion is in Georgia. So that's all--there's a lot of that
publicly available that can be--
Mr. Cohen. What are the NDI and IRI--the Republican polls
say?
Sec. Melia. They have generally showed that the government
party remains the most popular; that the Georgia Dream rose in
popularity as the year went on. And the most recent ones that
were published in August showed a dropping away of the Georgian
Dream so that the gap between them and the government party was
widening in the last month.
Mr. Cohen. What is--what are the issues that have been
raised in the campaign?
Sec. Melia. Well, the polling shows that what voters mostly
care about--and this will not be surprising to you--is jobs and
the economy. And the campaigns, in different ways, have spoken
to that with their different plans.
So that--you know, Georgia, like any other country these
days, those are the major things that voters say they want the
campaigns to speak to. And they have done that in their way.
They've had their public debates, the public forums. As I said,
the campaigns are able to get out and around, and they are
campaigning.
Mr. Cohen. And so the must-carry law--which I had not heard
that term--from where I am from, I would think that would
involve, you know, side arms. Fortunately, it's not what it is.
[Laughter.] Or photo ID, which is not such a wonderful--but
what do they have to carry? I mean, is there a--is each station
given equal time, each network, each broadcast or whatever or
equal time to buy, equal opportunity?
Sec. Melia. I don't think it's--well, there's campaign
advertising. There's purchased advertising space on billboards
and radio and television. But there's also--because of the
generally aligned nature of the different networks, the
question was whether they could--they would be obliged to carry
other--the other camp's version of the news and discussion
shows.
So I don't think there's a--again, maybe I'm--I don't think
there's a financial implication to that. I think it's just a
requirement that they carry the other side's--
Mr. Cohen. And with the advertising, has one side--is it
unlimited amount of TV and radio, or did these laws limit how
much one could spend?
Sec. Melia. I can't speak to the details of that. I'm
sorry, Congressman.
Mr. Cohen. And do you know what the ads are like? Are they,
you know--the two sides--is it just we'll get more jobs and we
need more jobs? Or is it, Jane, you ignorant--
Sec. Melia. I did not see a sampling of the campaign
advertisements, I confess. That's a good question. If I were
smarter, I would have done that last week.
Mr. Cohen. Do you have any--the Georgia Dream--which I have
to think about the American dream and that's one of our lines.
Is--do you have--give me some impression of what--if the
Georgian Dream is successful in the election, what they would
bring to a difference in the Georgian government and how that
might affect our relations with Georgia.
Sec. Melia. Most of the analysts of the campaign platforms
that I have seen, including our embassy reporting, say that
there are not significant differences in the way they describe
what they would do for the economy, for the jobs and so on.
Whether the Georgian Dream would adopt a notably different
foreign policy or have a different kind of relationship with
the United States, that's a contested item. When I met with Mr.
Ivanishvili at the start of last week, he spoke very
passionately about his commitment to Euro-Atlantic integration,
to Georgia's aspirations for NATO membership and E.U.
membership, for a continuing strong relationship with the
United States.
So others will say that that represents some dissembling,
that he would change Georgia's foreign policy. But, you know,
we have no way to know what that would mean in the end. We
can't predict what the foreign policy would be in a Georgia
Dream-led parliament or government.
What we know fundamentally is that we want a government
that the Georgian people have elected. That's been our focus in
this process. It's not our job to parse their stated or
presumed policy inclinations down the road. That's for the
Georgian people to decide.
Mr. Cohen. As I understand it, he--was he from Russia?
Sec. Melia. He's a Georgian born, Georgian--well, citizen
in the end and spent much of his adult life in Russia making
his fortune.
Mr. Cohen. In that area? How did he make his fortune?
Sec. Melia. Banking, money management, things like that.
Mr. Cohen. Banking. The American dream. [Laughter.]
Sec. Melia. He left Russia a few years ago. He's been
living in Paris for a number of years before he returned to
Georgia more full time essentially a year, year and a half ago.
So he didn't come straight from Russia is my point. He moved
out of Russia six or eight years ago, went to Paris, France,
and was there and then he came back to Georgia.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Just two brief questions to follow up or to
conclude. Regarding cyber subversion by--of Georgian Dream and
do we have any information as to who might have done that?
What's the origins of it? And secondly, with the Kavkaz 2012
military exercises, is that intended in any way to affect the
outcome of the elections?
Sec. Melia. We've recently heard the concerned expressed
about some cyberattacks on Georgian Dream computer sites and
computers and so on. I don't know the details of that. This has
just recently come to my attention. And we've asked for more
information--
Mr. Smith. Could you get that back to us too as you get
that?
Sec. Melia. Sure, I can follow up----
Mr. Smith. That will be very helpful.
Sec. Melia. ----in the days to come if we learn anything
conclusive or interesting about that.
So we've heard the allegation, but we don't know what to
make of it honestly. As for the Russian and CSTO military
exercises, there is one under way in southern Russia to
Georgia's north and one under way in Armenia. My understanding
is that the Kavkaz 2012 Exercise, the principal one that's
happening in the Russian Federation to the north, has been long
planned. We certainly knew about it long ago. In fact, it was
planned before the election date was clarified.You're well
familiar with the Georgia-Russia dynamic, but we have also
encouraged the Russians and their partners in those military
exercises to try to avoid anything that could be interpreted as
provocative. We shall see.
Mr. Smith. Is there, Secretary, anything you want to add
before we conclude?
Sec. Melia. No. Just that I'm glad that some members will
be able to visit Georgia around the election. That will add to
our collective wisdom, and we can revisit where we are in the
days after that. And I would look forward to hearing your
readout from your visit there.
Georgians in the government and in the opposition are among
the best friends the United States has anywhere in the world.
And I think we're reminded in the last week that we should
cherish that. So we go into this with a strong sense of
partnership with Georgia as a society and as a country and
mindful of the important accomplishments of this government
and, also, alert to some of the things we'd like them to be
doing better going forward in strengthening their democratic
systems and, as part of that, moving along that trajectory
toward consolidation with NATO and E.U. and the Western
alliance.
Mr. Smith. Secretary, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Sec. Melia. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I'd like to now welcome our second panel to the
witness table, beginning with Dr. Archil Gegeshidze, who is a
senior fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and
International Studies where he lectures on globalization and
development as well as providing training in policy analysis at
GFSIS. Prior to joining GFSIS, he was a Fulbright scholar at
Stanford University.
Dr. Gegeshidze worked for the Georgian government from 1992
to 2000. During that time, he was assistant to the head of
state on national security and chief foreign policy adviser to
the president.
We'll then hear from Dr. Ariel Cohen, who is a senior
research fellow for Russian and Eurasian studies and
international energy policy in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for International Studies at the Heritage
Foundation. A commentator in great demand, he covers a wide
range of issues including economic development and political
reform in the former Soviet Republics, U.S. energy security,
the global war on terrorism and the continuing conflict in the
Middle East.
Dr. Cohen's book, ``Russian Imperialism: Development in
Crisis,'' came out in 1996 as well as in 1998. He also co-
authored and edited ``Eurasia in Balance'' in 2005, which
focuses on the power shift in the region after the September
11th attacks. He has written nearly 500 articles and 25 book
chapters.
We'll then hear thirdly from Dr. Mamuka Tsereteli, who is
the director of the Center for Black Sea-Caspian Studies at the
School of International Service at American University where he
teaches classes on international economic policy and energy and
security in Europe and Central Eurasia.
He frequently speaks about the international relations in
the Caucasus and the Central Asia political-economic
developments, energy security and country risk analysis. Dr.
Tsereteli serves as the president of the America-Georgia
Business Council and the president of the Georgian Association
in the United States of America, USA. He is a board member of
the American Friends of Georgia, the Georgian Reconstruction
and Development Fund, the Business Initiative for Reforms in
Georgia and the American Academy of Georgia.
Dr. Tsereteli previously served as the economic counselor
at the embassy of Georgia in Washington covering relationships
with international financial institutions, U.S. assistance
programs and business initiatives. Dr. Cohen, if you could
proceed first.
DR. ARIEL COHEN, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW FOR RUSSIAN AND
EURASIAN STUDIES AND INTERNATIONAL ENERGY POLICY, HERITAGE
FOUNDATION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, the staff, for
doing a terrific job day in and day out on a number of issues
that I follow, including on Russia.
Mr. Chairman, I am covering Georgia since '93, so it's
almost 20 years. I've been in the country many times, wrote a
monograph about Russia-Georgia war. I've also been an election
observer in Russia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and other
countries. So it is, indeed, an important election that we're
facing that will define not only who and how rules Georgia but,
also, it will be crucial for U.S.-Georgian relations.
Georgia is a geopolitical centerpiece in that part of the
world. President Saakashvili developed a policy of Georgia
building on the policies of his predecessor, Eduard
Shevardnadze, bringing Georgia away from the Russian sphere of
influence and building a strong relationship with the United
States. His challenger, the Georgia Dream Coalition head,
billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, has deep ties to Russia.
Ivanishvili built his 6.4 billion [dollar] fortune, as was
mentioned before, in the opaque Russian business world,
primarily in banking. And jokes aside, Russian banking is not
the same as American banking.
So this year, we found out that Mr. Ivanishvili sold the
majority of his assets to business people who are directly and
closely connected to the Kremlin. Transactions like that do not
happen in Russia without an explicit approval and blessing from
the Kremlin.
The rhetoric of this campaign is far from courteous. The
Ivanishvili-led opposition is not mincing words. Its leader
called Saakashvili, quote, ``son of a dog,'' and quote,
``professional liar,'' unquote. In Russia and many neighboring
countries, such language would earn the opposition leader a
jail term or worse. Not in Georgia.
In fact, recent media monitoring that was already discussed
by Deputy Assistant Secretary Melia also found that the press
coverage--printed press--is pro-opposition. When they did
content analysis on photography, President Saakashvili came out
with more negative coverage in terms of pictures, whereas radio
was neutral and TV channels are polarized. As was mentioned,
the national channels being more pro-government and three other
channels being pro-opposition.
There are serious accusations against the government ruling
party and the government practices. Georgia Dream accused
United National Movement, led by Saakashvili, of abuse of
office, firing supporters of Georgia Dream from their jobs and
other transgressions. It also claims that a small group of
cronies surrounding Saakashvili holds Georgia in an iron grip.
If so, it is difficult to understand why IRI and NDI polls
demonstrate about 20 percent lead for the UNM but 55 percent
against Georgia Dream, 35 percent. And Georgia Dream is not
lacking for money.
So the electorate in these elections have a real choice.
After all, the ruling party took Georgia through a disastrous
war with Russia in 2008 and a deep economic crisis. Georgian
voters may have had enough of perennially active Saakashvili
who is currently moving the parliament to Kutaisi, second
largest town in the country, and relocated Georgia Supreme
Court in a coastal town of Batumi. But this is not what the
poll data showed.
In addition, speaking of poll data, the pollsters who work
for the ruling party are accusing opposition of manipulating
polling results projecting much higher numbers than the
Western-funded polling.
So what I see comparing to other places I did election
observation and having been in Georgia not too long ago in
summer is a highly competitive election which is an achievement
in itself. Let's not forget the Georgian political system as we
see it is functioning only for nine years, and the Soviet rule
ended 20 years ago.
Horrible information came yesterday and day before, I
believe, or yesterday and today about abuses in the Georgian
prison system. The recent revelations of systemic torture
horrified Georgians and foreigners alike. Such horrors should
not be tolerated, especially in a country which aspires to
integrate into Euro-Atlantic institutions. However,
unfortunately, such despicable abuses happen everywhere. As we
remember from our own Abu Ghraib scandal, in a number of U.S.
prison systems recently in Alabama and Michigan where court
settlements were reached involving hundreds of claimants, and
in a country like Albania which is a NATO and E.U. candidate.
It is encouraging that the Georgian leadership promised an
impartial investigation leading to a comprehensive reform. We
should not expect anything less than that. But looking broadly,
by the standards of the former Soviet region, these are, as I
said, highly competitive election with access not just to the
media but also with reports of tens of thousands, hundreds of
thousands of people attending rallies for the ruling party and
for the opposition.
The Georgia voters are informed and will have an
opportunity to exercise their vote, and having election
observers on the ground is extremely important and crucial. And
I do have confidence in the ODIHR and OSCE observers doing
their job. And we should wait for their reports.
Unlike many countries where anti-American sentiment is
rising--including Russia, Iran, Turkey--Georgia is truly
different. President George W. Bush has a street named after
him in the Georgian capital. Oil, gas, commodities and finished
goods worth hundreds of millions of dollars move through
Georgia on a daily basis. Its geopolitical role, alongside the
Black Sea, is a budding oil and gas which Azerbaijan and the
Caspian is crucial. [Unclear sentence] In case of a scenario,
vis-aa-vis Iran, Georgia is also going to be geopolitically,
very, very important.
We heard about the maneuvers--the maneuvers by the Russians
that led to the war in 2008 may create an intimidating effect
if they occur before the elections as planned.
We are at a determining point, and in the recent years, in
this country, in this city, in this administration, focusing
blindly on democratic process, excluding all other our national
interest had become somewhat of a fashion. We're seeing the
results in the Middle East.
The previous U.S. administration and the current one
encouraged elections in Gaza that brought Hamas to power,
encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood to contest seats in Egyptian
parliament under the previous regime, encouraged the elections
that brought the Muslim Brotherhood administration in Egypt
with the results in the long term that may be severely
detrimental for American national interests.
Clearly, Georgia is no Egypt. Saakashvili is no Mubarak.
Georgia, one hopes, would rise for the occasion and conduct
elections with minimal violations, let alone violence. And let
me quote the former assistant secretary of state and my boss,
Kim Holmes, quote, ``Free and fair elections are indispensable
to democracy. You can't have democracy without them, but
neither can you have democracy without an even greater
commitment to the values, institutions and customs that make it
work.'' And I believe that Georgia is in the process of
creating these commitments to values, institutions and customs
that make it work.
As I said, the democracy in Georgia started 20 years ago
when the Soviet Union collapsed. So far, observer missions from
OSCE, IRI and NDI seem to report the elections are on track. We
should expect their reports. We should definitely hold the
current Georgian government's feet to the fire expecting
reasonably conducted elections by European standards. However,
we should not face an either/or choice or focusing exclusively
on elections or pursuing American interests.
That's a false choice. Mr. Chairman; hopefully, the U.S.
can learn from our recent mistakes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much. Dr. Tsereteli, if you
would, proceed.
DR. MAMUKA TSERETELI, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR BLACK SEA-CASPIAN
STUDIES, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to be a witness on
this Commission. I would like to submit my written statement
that I also submitted for the record. Thank you. I think timing
of this hearing couldn't be more appropriate. The streets of
Tbilisi as well as social media is filled with demands and
facts reflecting on the developments related to prison abuse.
Citizens of Georgia ask questions how something like that could
be happening in the country that has European and Euro-Atlantic
aspirations, that is known for its tolerance and the cordial
human relationships.
Unfortunately, the videos only prove what was said many
times by some people and, also, was reflected by the U.S.
Department of State annual reports on human rights. I don't
think that we fully appreciate here in this room the magnitude
of events unfolding in Georgia at this point.
Georgia's prison system as well as its pre-trial detention
mechanism is an important factor in Georgian political,
economic and social life which impacts the daily lives of
thousands of Georgians and their decisions about how they deal
with the government as well as on how they approach elections.
There is a failed state in Georgia. Some government
officials assessed prison abuse as a systemic problem. And they
are correct. But this is moral failure as well.
Georgian society is shocked by the facts of abuse of power
and maybe cover-up that involve high-level officials. It
demands full-scale investigation.
This abuse can only happen in an environment of unchecked
and unbalanced power such as exists in Georgia today. This case
increases importance of upcoming elections.
I think it's good news that, despite responding to this
crisis and street events, both government as well as opposition
called on calm. And the opposition, in particular, called
against unplanned street events.
Georgia made visible progress in creating functioning state
entities in recent years reducing regulatory burdens,
developing critical infrastructure and eliminating bribery and
bureaucracy. These are distinct achievements, and the Georgian
people as well as the government deserve credit for those
achievements.
But those achievements also raise the bar for expectations
for Georgia. Georgia is facing difficult security challenges,
but it can only meet those challenges if it has national
consensus on major issues affecting the country. The Georgian
population has expressed multiple times in referendums and
polls its desire to join transatlantic and European security
and economic institutions. Achieving those strategic objectives
require internal stability, but stability can only be achieved
if political process creates an environment of broader
political representation in the government.
Leaders all around the world, heads of state, international
institutions, U.S. politicians, leadership of NATO, friends of
Georgia see the upcoming election on October 1st as an
important milestone in building Georgia's democratic statehood.
Many have called on Georgia to make certain that voters have an
opportunity to express their free choice and, once they did it,
to make sure that the results of elections are respected by all
the participants of political process.
In recent years, the Georgian political scene has been
completely dominated by United National Movement of Georgia, or
UNM, the party of President Saakashvili. The UNM has won
constitutional majority in the parliamentary elections of May
2008 which has, de facto, created one-party rule in Georgia. In
fact, Georgia has been ruled by UNM with no significant
opposition since 2004. Moreover, developments after 2008
elections effectively eliminated debate and political
collaboration from the Georgian scene. This has led to many
harmful internal and external decisions by the Georgian
leadership which has responded to criticism by frequently
suppressing opposition with excessive force. One-party systems
do not represent the electoral mood in Georgia.
I would focus very briefly on some of the things that, in
my opinion, the United States Government should do in order to
support free election process in Georgia and then, hopefully,
we'll have some questions and answers.
I think U.S. should stay actively engaged in Georgia as an
important observer and facilitate the development. Success of
Georgia is essential for U.S. strategic interests in the
broader Middle East and Central Asia region, but it's also
essential for stability--broader stability.
I think U.S. should entertain frank, public discussion
about the state of democracy in Georgia. Georgia has made some
progress, and the current government has done good things for
the country. But narrative that stresses Georgia's liberal
credentials need to be recast in light of some significant
democratic shortfalls. Monitor closely unfolding details of the
current prison crisis and investigation.
I think the U.S. needs to establish strict conditions and
benchmarks for the Georgian government to ensure the elections
are held in a free environment. Election monitors from the U.S.
Government will be very useful. U.S. needs to collaborate
closely with the intergovernmental commission on election
process violations. I think this Commission is doing positive
job--positively contributing to the process.
The U.S. should communicate to the Georgian leadership that
if there are doubts about legitimacy of the elections, the U.S.
will not recognize its results. Plan to hold another
congressional hearing after the elections to review progress
and announce this in advance to the elections. The U.S. needs
to monitor developments after the election as well. The
election process may not end by the night of October 1st. It is
possible that the results of the election in several districts
will be disputed and recounts may be requested. In order to
avoid confrontation, it is important that there is a process of
mediation through OSCE or other monitoring groups where the
U.S. will be a participant.
I think we need to mount--the United States needs to mount
an effort to review the state of Georgia's media ensuring
access to alternative sources of information throughout the
country. Insist on immediate release of satellite dishes
confiscated by the government, advising any international
representatives to the Georgian National Communication
Commission, and then closely monitoring its operation will be
positive steps.
Georgia has potential to become a democratic state and
full-fledged member of the transatlantic family of nations.
Their potential needs to be accelerated and deepened. The
upcoming elections need to be seen from that perspective.
Proper conduct of elections will get Georgia closer to that
goal. Mismanagement of the elections may throw Georgia back for
several years or maybe even decades.
In the--[light? inaudible]--of the challenge to Georgia,
John Stanick [sp]--wrote it is magical place, Georgia, and it
becomes dream like the moment you have left it. And the people
are magic people. It is true that they have one of the richest
and most beautiful countries in the world, and they live up to
it. The Georgian people are capable of deciding the right path
for their future. Free and fair elections will give them that
opportunity.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Doctor. We'll now go to our last, Dr.
Gegeshidze.
DR. ARCHIL GEGESHIDZE, SENIOR FELLOW, GEORGIAN FOUNDATION FOR
STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Mr. Chairman, other members, professional staff, thank you
very much for this wonderful opportunity to share with you some
of my observations on the situation around elections in
Georgia. Excuse my academic style of presenting since I come
from academia and this is my very first time testifying before
you.
Well, I will start with a very short overview of the past--
of the democratic transformation which Georgia has gone
through, then I'll try to characterize also shortly the state
of affairs in and around the elections, what the electoral
environment looks like. And then I'll also try to share with
you some my observations, but very general--not as specific as
Dr. Tsereteli presented--some of my observation on what the
West in everyone and the United States in particular should do
in order to facilitate a free and fair election process in
Georgia.
The first point is that Georgia's record of democratic
transformation is controversial. On the one hand, the country
is freer than the immediate neighborhood and demonstrates, at
times, spectacular success at institutional modernization. The
government was able to liberalize the economy, attract
increased foreign direct investment, improve revenue
collection, curb elements of small-scale corruption in the
public services, streamline inefficient administration,
legalize the shadow economy, reduce crime, provide
uninterrupted energy supply and rebuild roads and other
infrastructure. Among the most important and spectacular
successes of the new government has been the overthrow of the
autocratic leader of Adjara previously defined these central
governments.
On the other hand, the overall quality of democracy
promotion raises concerns. Georgia's political development
since the Rose Revolution can be measured in various ways, but
the Freedom House course indicates an obvious stagnation. What
actually happened was that all power went to the executive
body, and the legislative and judicial benches became their
perfunctory appendages. Power and the political regime thus
became associated with the president. Currently, political
institutions that provide pluralism and competition are
manipulated by the ruling elite for one reason, to maintain and
expand political power. Critics of the government point at
serious setbacks in terms of institutionalizing checks and
balances, eventually leading to serious misconduct.
Further, the existing constitution substantially weakens a
legislative body, thus disabling it in its exercise of
oversight functions. Also, as the executive dominates the
political landscape, it increasingly coerces the judiciary,
curbing its independence. Additionally, the state intervenes in
the independence of the media and brutally abuses property
rights.
Georgian democracy has always been hostage to either
security concerns or power struggle, and this continues over
already 20 years. This is the reason why the Georgian reforms
in the sphere of democratic transformation were either one-
sided or inconclusive. While the emphasis during the reforms
was put on strengthening the state, little attention was paid
to building and strengthening democratic institutions and
improving human rights. Independent judiciary, rule of law and
media freedom are the most renowned cases of absence of will on
the part of the government to reform. One of the recent
examples of the inconclusive nature of reforms is Georgia's
penitentiary system which accommodates one of the highest per
capita numbers of prisoners in the world.
Apparently, the government preferred coercion and
intimidation as a method of managing the overcrowded prisons
over modern and civilized standards. The terrible videos we
have seen last days prove widespread and systematic torture at
the prisons.
From a moral standpoint, it is a big shame for Georgia.
From the political standpoint, both domestic and international,
it may have far-reaching consequences for the government as
well as the country and its image. None of the elections held
since independence had been simultaneously free, fair and
competitive. The cleanest of all is the--is considered the
October 1990 elections--still Soviet Union--conducted with
little violence during the campaign and no evidence of overt
interference with the polls and which brought to power the
nationalist and anti-communist political forces.
Against this backdrop, the most disputed election since
independence has been the presidential election in January
2008. Critics hold that Saakashvili had illegally used
budgetary and administrative resources to secure victory with a
narrow margin over the opposition candidate. Similar
allegations were made about the unfairness of the general
elections the same year.
Although the international observer missions gave
legitimacy to the outcome of both events, subsequent official
reports admitted massive irregularities at all stages of the
election process.
This time around, the picture is mixed. On one hand, the
pre-electoral environment is competitive and pluralist. Also,
there are some welcome novelties such as the new election code,
intergovernmental commission that operates under the National
Security Council, voters list verification commission must
carry rules that obligate cable operators to carry TV channels
with news programs during the campaign period, improved format
of public debates on the national public TV, et cetera.
On the other hand, some of these novelties are far from
perfect. For example, must-carry rules have not been timely or
properly enforced across the country. Not all recommendations
by the Venice Commission have been incorporated in the election
code. Also, the prisoners who have committed minor crimes were
given electoral rights. However, in the light of the recent
scandal over human rights abuse in the penitentiary system,
serious doubts arise as to whether the inmates will be able to
make free choice at the ballot boxes.
Inversely, overwhelming majority of Georgians living
outside the country who are perceived to be critical towards
the government are practically deprived of the right and/or
possibility to vote.
While competitive and pluralist, the pre-electoral
environment is too polarized. Reports, for example, from
Transparency International, inform us about numerous cases of
intimidation of opposition activities, physical reprisals
against opposition supporters, detention and arrest on
political grounds, selective use of legal resources against the
opposition by imposing disproportional sanctions, pressure on
businesses that support opposition, use of public resources for
political and electoral process.
Apparently, the dominant feature of the post-Rose
Revolution period wherein the ruling party faced a fragmented
opposition has made it relax and has taken it by surprise by
Georgian Dream, the newly emerged opposition coalition. As the
ruling party dominates at all levels of state governance, it is
difficult to differentiate the governing political team's
activity from the electoral activity of the ruling party. Given
the circumstances, the opposition coalition faces a state
rather than the party as a competitor in the elections. The
state portrays the Georgian Dream as an enemy of state by
accusing of being Russia's fifth column and a retrograde force
aiming at sending Georgia back to dark and corrupt past. For
most of the public, groundlessness of these accusations is
obvious. Nobody believes.
Meantime, witnessing all these twists and turns, the public
remains deeply distrustful towards the electoral process, and
this is the main disadvantage and deficiency of the electoral
process.
As Georgia remains a primary target of Western assistance,
some argue that future assistance programs should be more
carefully structured. It is believed that, with Georgia being
the success story of Western democracy support, too big a share
of the assistance package has gone to the government without
requiring accountability on spending. Also, the strong
political and financial support for Georgia's democratic
development after the Rose Revolution has backfired to some
extent since it has not been backed up by clear benchmarks for
reform.
One such benchmark definitely is these elections. Fair
assessment of the whole electoral process has a crucial
importance for Georgia's future development. Sadly, though, in
the past, there have been instances of premature assessment by
international observers that have paid lip service to Georgian
democracy as well as to the West's reputation in Georgia and
the wider region.
One of the most notorious cases has been a statement by a
co-chairman--coordinator of the short-term observation mission
which said that the 2008 presidential elections in Georgia was
a triumphant step of democracy. Given the extremely polarized
environment, we need to avoid such statements and assessments.
More so, the international arbiters--monitors need to change
the criterion of evaluation and, instead of basing their
judgment on the comparison with the past electoral process,
they have to assess how far or how close those elections are
from those in Western democracies.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Doctor.
We do have a vote, so we do have to make our way to the
floor in a couple of minutes. But that said, I'll just ask a
couple of questions and yield to Mr. Cohen who will ask a
couple of questions.
And I think your point about having a follow-up hearing is
a good one. We will do that, and it will be done in a very
timely manner. So thank you for that, Dr. Tsereteli.
Let me just ask a couple of questions. You know, the wealth
issue which has arisen many times--and, Dr. Cohen, you
mentioned it--$6.4 billion you've talked about. You know, even
in this country, there's been an ongoing fractious debate about
how much an individual should spend, how much can be spent on a
campaign. Part of it was settled in a Supreme Court case known
as Buckley versus Valeo, and it's pretty much unlimited by the
individual candidate towards his or her campaign.
In my own state, Senator Corzine spent over $60 million for
a U.S. Senate seat. I mean, astronomical amount of money, but,
you know, our laws allow that to happen.
And I'm wondering if there is such a check and a balance on
all that and, you know, both sides have valid points. Maybe you
want to speak to the issue of having huge amounts of money and
being able to essentially buy a campaign. But I know there are
limits. So maybe you want to speak to that. Where will
Ivanishvili take Georgia? I mean, Dr. Cohen, you seemed to
speak most about that and cite a number of concerns. And I
would appreciate it if you'd elaborate on that very quickly.
And then what our overriding concern has to be is free and
fair. Do you think this will be a free and fair election? Or
are the checks and balances already baked into what will be an
election in 11 days? Or do you think we have reason to be
deeply concerned?
I wish I had more time. And Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I suspect that the biggest issue which I would like a
response to is where you think the Georgian Dream would be--if
they're successful, where they would take the Georgian
government different than where it's been and what the
relationship would be with Russia in terms of how that might
affect relations with the West.
And, also, the gentleman mentioned human rights and how you
see human rights as being permitted by the present government
and what differences might exist if the Georgian Dream were
successful in their election. And what do you foresee for the
election? Has it been--on the conditions to date as far as
advertising, as far as enforcement of laws and restrictions
that may have been imposed, has it been fair?
Dr. Cohen. Gentlemen, excellent questions. All demonstrate
your deep interest and expertise.
Real quick, on the issue of personal wealth, let us make a
comparison. Six point whatever billion dollars is more--if my
calculations are correct--more than a half of Georgia's GDP per
annum. So it would not be comparison with Mitt Romney's meager
250 million [dollars]--meager in comparison to Bidzina
Ivanishvili. It won't be a Ross Perot. It would be a guy or a
gal with a pocket $7 trillion deep. People like this don't
exist on Planet Earth.
And there is a culture of bypassing official channels of
financing in case of Russian oligarch, which Mr. Ivanishvili,
whether he holds Russian citizenship or not, comes from a
political culture of oligarchs. There's a modus operandi of
cash. And, you know, if the Georgian government is successfully
tracking that, good luck. If they don't, then they can't.
But I bet you dollars to donuts, you cannot think about
this campaign only with official figures. Probably on both
sides, but especially when you have one big, deep pocket.
In terms of direction, I think this is a strategic
question, and this is something I'm grappling with and not a
lot is said about that. And that is that whether we like
Saakashvili or not, he never studied in Russia--he studied in
Ukraine and in Colombia--he spent his formative years in
Georgia and in the United States. And he built his movement
more or less in his image in terms of getting a lot of Western-
trained people around him.
Georgia Dream, on the other hand, has a Russian oligarch--a
former Russian oligarch--as its head, has some first-rate
diplomats--Ambassador Japaritza [sp], Ambassador Irakli
Alasania--which I don't doubt their professional quotas. But
that movement also has components that are deeply
nationalistic, traditionalist, embedded with the church. And
the Georgian Church, parts of it, are embedded with the Russian
Orthodox Church and, in some cases--[inaudible]--and anti-
Semitic.
So I do have concerns about that as well. And the rhetoric
about distancing or slowing down the process of NATO
integration was a signal. The rhetoric by Mr. Ivanishvili about
opening Russian markets, getting closer to Russia are
understandable because traditionally, for decades and
centuries, Georgia did export fruit, wine--fruit, wine, mineral
water--to Russia.
But orientation is not the same as the United National
Movement which is staunchly pro-European. They are aspiring to
bring Georgia into the E.U. You and I can wonder why would you
want to join the E.U. at this point, but that's their choice.
Human rights, clearly, there is a place for improvement as
we witnessed in the prison scandal. I'm not a computer geek.
I'm not a computer expert. I cannot tell you what is the
significance of these recent accusations that they were
planting malware on the computers. I think somebody needs to
look into that. But in terms of human rights, there's always,
in every society, a place for improvement of individual rights
of privacy, of penitentiary system. No question in my mind that
things can be done better in Georgia.
Mr. Smith. To be totally fair to our other two
distinguished witnesses, Mr. Cohen and I are going to have to
leave in about two minutes. There's only five minutes left on
the vote. But we will leave this open. Michael Oakes will stand
by. And then all of your comments will go not record, and then
we'll--without objection, we'll do it that way because I want
to hear from both of you. We both want to hear from both of
you. So please proceed as long as you'd like.
Dr. Tsereteli. First of all, accusations of Georgian church
being--similar? Connected? [inaudible]--somehow to Russian
church is absolutely wrong and false. And I just don't want to
go into that discussion.
There are individuals who may be like individuals from the
Georgian government, maybe like individuals from opposition
maybe, but saying it to the entire church, which is most
probably one of the bases of stability in Georgia for the last
decades, I think, is very wrong.
About the wealth of Mr. Ivanishvili and money and politics,
during the elections in 2010 in local elections, mayoral
elections, Mr. Alisania spent about hundred times less than
incumbent mayor of Tbilisi, Mr. Ugulava--hundred times. The
difference was hundred times.
So talking about money coming into politics sounds like not
very relevant. Although I personally do not support large money
coming into politics. So there is a limit of how much each
party could spend. And I think government is very efficiently
pursuing these limits to restrict money spending into Georgian
politics.
Onto the issue of future of Georgia. As my colleague and
friend, Ariel, mentioned, Mr. Ivanishvili, from the time he
announced his participation into politics, said that he's
relying--he's basing his political group as a core group on Mr.
Alisania's free Democrats and the Republican Party who's also
known for its protestant credentials.
So I think, by that, he expressed his [Protestant?]
orientation from the beginning. And I--we may again have some
people in his coalition, like in the government, who are
willing to maybe change a little bit of the course of Georgia's
development. But I don't see major challenges in terms of
progress and orientation to Georgia. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, at the conclusion of Mr.
Gegeshidze's statement, the hearing will be adjourned. But
again, this will all be on the record, and I thank you.
Dr. Gegeshidze. OK. Thank you.
All right. Well, regarding billions in the election
campaign, yes, I also would not support big money participating
and being used in the election--in the election process. But
this is the given fact, the reality.
And I think that Ivanishvili's billions are less evil than
the benefit which are the plurality and competitiveness that
these elections do have compared to the situation wherein
Ivanishvili wouldn't have been because Georgia does need higher
quality democracy, higher quality electoral process. We, at
last, need to graduate the very first class of democracy such
as electoral democracy because all our previous elections have
been contested, and it's already 20 years.
But still the trust in the public towards elections are
very weak, very low. And this is very bad for Georgia. And if
not Ivanishvili's appearance, then we would not have this
competitiveness and, if you wish, certainly, intrigue in the
process.
Regarding Russia, well, going deeper into analysis with
this Russian origin of a person who has made his fortunes there
mean? I don't know. How many American businessmen have made
their fortune in Russia or Polish or Estonian or Belgian
businessmen because Russia was a huge country in the '90s, and
everybody, if not lazy, would go there and make money. So this
guy also made his money.
But what about the Minister Bendukidze who also made his
fortune in the '90s but was brought back by this government as
the minister of economy and not a single word against his
Russian origin was ever mentioned by the government. Sorry?
[Off mic exchange.] Yeah. Well, so I would consider this a very
weak argument, if it is at all an argument in this discourse.
Human rights. Well, the elections are usually--and everywhere,
both here and in Georgia--about politicians running for the
seats in the government, promising and voters listening and
believing or not believing. So I cannot judge to what extent
the--Ivanishvili's government, if it happens to come to power,
will be more effective in observing human rights because I have
not had a chance to test that.
But if one assumes that the human rights record in today's
Georgia is very poor--very, very poor--and there are almost no
improvement since the Rose Revolution, and the recent days have
demonstrated again where are we standing in that regard, I
would believe that at least that if Ivanishvili comes to power,
human rights will be at least no worse than what they are
today, if not better.
Well, I think I'll, to save our time, stop here.
Staffer. Ladies and gentlemen, as you've all heard,
Chairman Smith and Congressman Cohen had to leave to go and
vote. They will not be able to return. So we will adjourn this
hearing. However, as the chairman said, he's planning to hold
another hearing after the election, and, of course, there will
be a public notice about when that will be. In the meantime, I
would like to take this opportunity to thank all of our
witnesses, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Welcome to our hearing on Georgia's parliamentary election, which
is now only eleven days away. The campaign has brought Georgia to a
crossroads; it is the most crucial event in Georgian democracy since
the Rose Revolution of 2003.
At that time, Georgians responded to a rigged election with a
peaceful protest movement. It was a great moment in Georgian history,
the first of the color revolutions. The Rose Revolution brought Mikheil
Saakashvili and his team of western-oriented modernizers into office.
Hopes were high in Georgia as Saakashvili strengthened the state and
launched many reforms.
Russia's 2008 invasion and occupation of the Georgian regions of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia failed to topple President Saakashvili, and
our country has strongly supported Georgian sovereignty. Vladimir
Putin's invasion was yet another revelation of his cynical brutality.
As an aside, I would note that I was in Georgia in the days following
that invasion, working to effect the return of two girls--daughters of
one of my constituents--caught behind Russian lines, and I was deeply
impressed by the courage and determination I encountered in every
Georgian I met.
That brings us to the present moment. Only a year ago, President
Saakashvili's ruling National Movement seemed poised to easily win the
October 2012 parliamentary election over a fragmented opposition.
But in October 2011 Bidzina Ivanishvili began to unite elements of
the opposition into a new coalition that posed a serious challenge. Mr.
Ivanishvili is a multi-billionare and though a newcomer to politics,
has vast resources. Saakashvili's government quickly stripped him of
his citizenship and parliament passed campaign finance laws that
limited the use of his assets. At the same time, the instruments of the
state--budget, police, security services--began to be deployed against
Ivanishvili's party and its supporters, though to what extent is a
matter of dispute.
Consequently, the election campaign has raised questions about
Mikheil Saakashvili's reputation as a reformer. I'm sure we'll hear
from our witnesses to what degree his government has institutionalized
genuine democratic governance as opposed to the appearance of it. I
don't mean to pre-judge this question; it's a difficult one that our
witnesses are outstandingly qualified to grapple with.
But the main questions we'd like to hear our witnesses answer touch
on the conduct of the campaign: specifically, the opposition's charges
that the Georgian state has targeted Ivanishvili and his supporters,
through harassment, intimidation, beatings, selective enforcement of
the law, and violations of freedoms of assembly and expression. If
substantially true, that would be terribly sad; it would indicate that
the Rose Revolution had gone bad.
At the same time, Ivanishvili and his coalition have been tarred as
working on behalf of Russia. The Georgian government sometimes seems to
paint the conflict not as one between two political parties but between
the Georgian state and its foreign enemies trying to subvert it. We
certainly need to hear your thoughts as well on this.
I believe the members of this commission have open minds on all
these questions, and that your testimony will be important in informing
Congress and our government on the conduct of the Georgian election
campaign, now in its last days. We are fortunate to have been able to
assemble such outstandingly qualified witnesses.
At this point I would remind everyone joining us today, whether in
the room or through Web case, that all parties in the political process
have to behave responsibly. At the same time it is the responsibility
of the government--which controls the apparatus of state--to create the
conditions for a free and fair election.
Before concluding, I cannot fail to mention the terrible scandal
which broke yesterday in Georgia, concerning gross abuse in prison.
Videos have emerged that reveal the most horrifying tortures, including
the sadistic rape of men by prison officials. The Georgian minister of
corrections has resigned, individuals have been arrested, and the
government has pledged to punish all those responsible and uproot this
problem. I welcome those actions and promises. But I also note the
statement made by the national security advisor who said: ``We as a
government made a grave mistake when we did not properly evaluate the
signals coming from the Ombudsman and other civil society groups about
the systemic problems in the penitentiary system.'' That is a telling
admission. It is precisely the systemic nature of this abuse that
evokes the greatest concern because it raises questions about the
nature of the Georgian state's relationship with its citizens.
Prepared Statement of Thomas Melia, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of
State
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify on Georgia
today. Before I do so, I would like to thank you, the other Members,
and the professional staff of the Commission, for promoting
implementation of OSCE commitments by all participating States. We
appreciate your dedication and ongoing engagement.
Mr. Chairman, in advance of Georgia's October 1 parliamentary
elections, the United States has been promoting a democratic electoral
process diplomatically and through technical assistance. President
Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other senior U.S. officials in Washington
and Tbilisi have highlighted the importance of such a democratic
electoral process for Georgia. In my testimony today, I will focus on
last week's trip to Georgia of a senior interagency delegation I was
privileged to lead.
Last week, President Obama and Secretary Clinton sent to Georgia a
senior interagency delegation including senior officials from the State
Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the
Department of Justice and the Department of Defense. Our delegation
went to Georgia to highlight the importance of a democratic electoral
process that produces a parliament that reflects the will of the
Georgian people. I was delighted that our newly arrived ambassador,
Richard Norland, joined most of our meetings. We met with a range of
senior government officials and political party leaders, including
opposition parties. We urged the Government to implement Georgia's
election laws in a fair, impartial and transparent manner, and urged
all political parties to fully participate in the process while abiding
by the law. We also met with NGO election observers and media rights
advocates.
The message that we conveyed privately in each of our meetings was
identical: the United States supports the Georgian people's aspirations
for a free and democratic process. We do not favor any particular party
or candidates, and the United States looks forward to continued close
cooperation with the leaders the Georgian people choose.
The upcoming elections are critical to helping Georgia advance its
Euro-Atlantic aspirations. They also will be essential to a democratic
transfer of power next year, as the parliament elected in October will
appoint a Prime Minister who will gain considerably strengthened powers
pursuant to constitutional reforms that will take effect when President
Saakashvili's successor takes office. Domestic and international
perceptions of fairness of the campaign environment, including
adherence to the rule of law, media access, transparency, and the
impartial adjudication of election-related disputes, will be important
indicators of Georgia's democratic development.
The long term work of building a vibrant democracy does not begin
and end on election day. I would like to highlight the importance of
several principles that we featured in our conversations in Georgia,
all of which are essential for a meaningful electoral process.
First is the importance of a level playing field. It is essential
that the political environment is conducive to the full participation
in the campaign by all parties on equal terms. Although there have been
some shortcomings, it is clear that there is a competitive campaign
underway. We welcome steps by the government through the Inter-Agency
Task Force on elections to address reports of politically motivated
firings. While such reports have decreased recently, concerns remain
regarding the levelness of the playing field, including alleged
harassment of certain activists for their participation in the
coalition, reports of blurred boundaries between state institutions and
the ruling party, and the alleged use of administrative resources,
particularly outside the capital.
The second principle is about rule of law and due process. In our
meetings with the Georgian government and the various political
parties, we stressed the importance of ensuring that campaign and
election laws are applied equally and transparently, and that all
participants are held to the same high standards of conduct as spelled
out in Georgian law. While almost every party, including the ruling
United National Movement, has been penalized for campaign finance
violations, the State Audit Office has devoted significant attention to
the opposition coalition Georgian Dream. Although there are some
anecdotal and circumstantial indications suggesting that Georgian Dream
may have spent substantial sums of money in violation of the campaign
finance laws, the lack of transparency in the State Audit Office's
procedures, and due process deficiencies, raise doubts about whether
the law has been enforced equally. That the former director and deputy
director of the State Audit Office are now ruling party parliamentary
candidates, while the current director of the office is a former ruling
party Member of Parliament, exacerbates these concerns. We recognize
the challenges on all sides of complying with and enforcing a new set
of campaign finance laws and urged the State Audit Office to emphasize
transparency and due process as it continues to improve its work. We
urged all the political parties to participate constructively, follow
the law scrupulously, and to pursue their political goals through the
ballot box.
The third principle is respect for fundamental freedoms. Respect
for peaceful protests and freedom of assembly is a hallmark of a
democratic society, and the government holds a responsibility to
protect and uphold those freedoms. We heard last week that the
political parties we met have been able to travel the country, hold
rallies, and get their messages out to the voters with whom they meet.
In our conversations we urged all parties to renounce violence and
avoid provocations.
The fourth principle is equitable access to media. We applaud the
electoral reforms enacted late last year that expanded the access of
all parties on equal terms to the mass media during the 60-day
campaign. More recently, we were encouraged to see the implementation
of the so-called ``Must Carry'' legislation during the campaign period
and we strongly support its extension through the post-election
complaints process and beyond. Continuing efforts to promote wider
access to a diversity of opinions and media outlets would reflect
fundamental values that democracies share.
The fifth principle that we emphasized in our meetings is
constructive engagement. We have every expectation, now, based on the
opposition's commitment to reject the use of violence and the
government's commitment to us that security forces will be scrupulously
professional, that election day and its aftermath can unfold
peacefully. We certainly hope this will be the case. After October 1,
all parties will need to work together constructively in the new
parliament to advance Georgia's democratic and economic development.
They should conduct their campaigns in that spirit.
Finally, we call on all participants to promote an electoral
process that the Georgian people judge as free and fair. We commend the
work of the domestic and international observation groups, including
principally the OSCE/ODIHR mission that in Georgia, to help ensure the
election process is transparent and consistent with international
standards and the results reflect the will of the Georgian people.
The pre-election situation is dynamic and we are monitoring
developments closely. Commission attention to the upcoming election is
helpful. Again, thank you for holding this hearing. We look forward to
continuing to work cooperatively with the Commission to advance
internationally accepted human rights standards throughout the OSCE
region.
And with that I'd be happy to take your questions.
Prepared Statement of Dr. Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow for
Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, Heritage
Foundation
Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, Secretary Melia, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Ariel Cohen. I am Senior Research Fellow, Russian and
Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy at The Heritage
Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and
should not be construed as representing any official position of The
Heritage Foundation.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.
The forthcoming parliamentary elections in Georgia, which will take
place on October 1, are crucial to U.S. interests in South Caucasus,
Black Sea and the Caspian region. They are crucial because two powers--
Russia and Iran--would like nothing better than to see President
Mikheil Saakashvili and his party defeated.
President Saakashvili's principal challenger is the Georgia Dream
coalition, headed by a billionaire named Bidzina Ivanishvili with deep
ties to Russia. Ivanishvili built his $6.4 billion fortune in Russia's
opaque business world. This year, he safely sold his holdings to
businesspeople that enjoy excellent ties with the Kremlin. Such highly
sensitive business transactions never happen without the Kremlin's
blessing. In Russia, business is politics and politics is business--as
some less fortunate denizens of the Russian business Olympus, such
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who has been in jail for 10 years, know well.
While Saaskashvili is considered the most pro-American leader in
the former Soviet Union--and perhaps one of the most pro-American the
world--Ivanishvili has never criticized Vladimir Putin. He promised to
restore relations with Russia, and to reopen Russian markets to Georgia
wine, fruit and mineral water, after Russia punitively excluded
Georgian imports. He even promised to return to Georgia territories
Russia occupied in the war of 2008--a highly unlikely notion.
Saakashvili has been working tirelessly to bring Georgia into NATO,
while Ivanishvili and his people said that NATO enlargement will not be
a priority. This is understandable if they want to prioritize relations
with Moscow.
The rhetoric of this campaign is far from courteous. The
Ivanishvili-led opposition is not mincing words: its leader has called
Saakashvili the ``son of a dog'' and ``professional liar''. In Russia
and many neighboring countries, such language would earn the opposition
leader a jail term--or worse. Not in Georgia.
In fact, recent media monitoring report funded by the EU/UNDP found
that President Saakashvili received more negative photo coverage in the
Georgian newspapers; the print media was generally supportive of the
opposition, while radio was neutral, and TV channels were polarized,
with a somewhat more pro-government slant.
Ivanishvili's Georgia Dream coalition has accused the ruling United
Democratic Movement, led by Saakashvili, of abuse of office, firing
supporters of Georgia Dream from their jobs, and other transgressions.
It has also claimed that small a group of cronies surrounding
Saakashvili holds Georgia in an iron grip. If this is so, it is
difficult to understand why the Georgian Dream trails the United
Democratic Movement by 20 points: 35 percent to 55 percent according to
one recent poll.
After all, the ruling party took Georgia through a disastrous war
and a deep economic crisis. Georgian voters may have had enough of the
perennially active Saakashvili, who is currently moving the Parliament
to Kutaisi, the country's second largest town, and relocated Georgia's
Supreme Court to the coastal city of Batumi--but that is not what the
poll data show. In addition, speaking of poll data, it appears that the
opposition consistently manipulates their polling results, projecting
higher numbers than independent polls commissioned by IRI and NDI
suggest.
Since 2003, Georgia has boldly progressed from a failed post-Soviet
state to a growing, modern and more prosperous country. The current
Georgian administration was successful in eradicating petty corruption
and establishing an astonishing precedent in the Caucasus and the
former Soviet space: Georgia is the only country in the region where
officials practically do not take bribes.
A successful police reform; an anti-corruption sweep; streamlining
of government bureaucracy; rural electrification and gasification; and
construction of roads; all make the ruling party still an attractive
choice for Georgia. So does Saakashvili's vision of Georgia integrating
into Europe and NATO.
Clearly, not everything is perfect. The recent revelations of
systemic torture and abuse horrified Georgians and foreigners alike.
Such horrors should not be tolerated, especially in a country, which
aspires to integrate into Euro-Atlantic institutions. However,
unfortunately, such despicable abuses happen everywhere, as we remember
from the Abu Ghraib scandal.
It is encouraging that President Saakashvili, Prime Minister Vano
Merabishvili and other leaders took upon themselves to investigate, and
the Minister responsible for jails had resigned immediately. All
friends of Georgia, including in the U.S. will eagerly await the
results of an impartial investigation and a comprehensive prison reform
Mr. Saakashvili promised.
What we see in Georgia is a real political process. The opposition-
affiliated TV stations took a lead in exposing the prison scandal--and
probably gained some political dividends in the process. Georgians are
a very emotional people, who take their feelings very seriously. Some
of the accusations sound dramatic.
However, there are several daunting questions concerning these
elections. First, why Mr. Ivanishvili decided to fight these elections
not only in Tbilisi, not just in Kutaisi, Batumi, in Svaneti and
Adjara--but around the world. He is he taking his message to Washington
and Brussels, besmirching his President and his government.
According to Washingon Post, Mr. Ivanishvili decided that it is
important to spend a reported $300,000 a month on an A-team of the most
expensive lobbyists in town. For what purpose? Isn't the Obama
Administration already imploring the Saakashvili Administration to
``democratize'' and not to ``over-militarize'' Georgian security, as
one senior State Department official put it?
The effective ban on supplying Georgia with defensive weapons
systems, such as anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, even M-4 rifles,
goes far enough to placate Mr. Obama's Russian ``reset'' partners. Is
further de-legitimization of the Saakashvili government in Washington
by the opposition leader really necessary for the victory of Georgia
Dream or for the future of U.S.-Georgian relations?
Is this PR campaign by the opposition in Washington just an
preliminary ``artillery barrage'' before Mr. Ivanishvili takes a
million of his supporters to the streets, as he promised? Can the
Russian army interfere to ``restore order'' in Georgia if massive
street demonstrations occur and someone calls for Russian troops to
march in? Will they?
Hopefully not.
What is at stake? These elections are crucial to the future of US-
Georgian and US-Russian relations, as well as for the overall stability
of the region. President Saakashvili has built upon the efforts of his
predecessor, Eduard Shevardnadze to extricate Georgia from the Russian
sphere of influence and move it West. Russia does not like his approach
at all. And it may not like Mr. Ivanishvili, if he ever comes to power
in his country. Unless, of course, he is doing exactly what the
Russians are telling him to do. Abandoning the dream of joining Europe
and NATO, and joining the Moscow-led Eurasian Union--with Belarus and
Kazakhstan--may be an approach much more palatable to--and perhaps
dictated by the Kremlin.
Under Saakashvili's leadership, Georgia has become an important and
close ally of the United States. Georgian soldiers have fought side by
side with their American brethren in Iraq and Afghanistan. Georgia is a
crucial transportation hub for the resupply and evacuation of ISAF and
other American forces in Afghanistan. The country is the most pro-
American in the former Soviet Union bar none: in its foreign affairs as
well as in promoting democracy and economic freedom within its borders.
Among Georgia's neighbors, especially in Russia, Iran, Armenia, and
Turkey, anti-American sentiments are growing. Just this past Tuesday,
September 18, 2012, Moscow announced that it is shutting down US AID
operations throughout Russia. So much for the hallowed ``reset''
policy.
Georgia, however, is truly different. President George W. Bush has
a street named after him in the Georgian capital. Oil, gas, commodities
and finished good worth hundreds of millions of dollars move through
Georgia on a daily basis. Georgia's geopolitical role alongside the
Black Sea and abutting oil- and gas rich Azerbaijan on the Caspian, is
crucial. Georgia is an energy and transportation corridor that connects
Central Asia and Azerbaijan with the Black Sea and ocean routes
overseas--for oil, gas, and other commodities. It is a part of the
ancient East-West corridor. It is also a part of a North-South axis,
which Russia and Iran would love to control.
Russia, Georgia's most important neighbor, is unhappy with
Georgia's pro-American orientation. Moscow's designs against Georgia
are a threat to peace and democracy in the region, as its 2008 war with
Georgia demonstrated. Moscow would like to threaten the Baku-Tbilisi-
Ceyhan Main Oil Export Pipeline; as well as a planned TANAP gas
pipeline via Turkey and the new railroad from Azerbaijan to Turkey.
Russia's current goals are to annex the Georgian territory it
occupied during the 2008 war to the secessionist enclaves of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia, which Moscow already controls. The United States and
members of the European Union do not recognize the legitimacy of this
occupation, as Secretary Clinton has repeatedly stated.
Moscow would exacerbate ethno-religious conflicts in the region,
including in Nagorno-Karabakh, a flashpoint of tensions between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, and seeks to re-establish its ``sphere of privileged
interests''--speaking bluntly, a sphere of influence.
If a pro-Russian regime is established in Georgia, it will bring
the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Erzerum
[Turkey] gas pipeline under Moscow's control. It will allow Russia a
land re-supply route for Armenia, its Commonwealth Security Treaty
Organization ally, and, under a certain circumstances, a land bridge to
Iran via Armenia. These scenarios are being actively discussed in the
Russian media.
Georgia is also an important in view of the rising threats of
Iran's nuclear program. Georgian airfields may play a role in a number
of future scenarios involving Iran, thus rendering Georgia's domestic
politics vital to the success or failure of the West's effort to
prevent the Iranian regime from acquire nuclear weapons. If government
sentiments inside Georgia were to change, such as through the rise of a
pro-Russian government, the geopolitical picture in the South Caucasus
and the Black Sea region would fundamentally change.
Crucial Elections. The elections this year are therefore a
determining point: will Georgia remains pro-American, pro-Western, and
pro-democratic under President Saakashvili, or will it change its
orientation under Bidzina Ivanishvili's coalition. Do the Western
countries realize this?
While the Georgia Dream coalition attracted first rate diplomats,
its component members often are anti-Western, xenophobic and anti-
Semitic. Their foreign policy will be different than that of the
current government.
In recent years, blindly worshiping democratic process, especially
elections, and disregarding American geopolitical goals has become
somewhat of a fashion, including in this Administration. The U.S.
vociferously supported elections in Gaza which brought Hamas to power
despite the warnings from the Palestinian Authority and the Government
of Israel.
It cheered when The Muslim Brotherhood won contested seats in the
Egyptian parliament during the Mubarak Administration. It urged the
pro-American Egyptian rulers to quit quickly, disregarding the
predictable outcomes for U.S. power and influence in the Middle East.
As Kim Holmes, The Heritage Foundation Vice President and the former
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations wrote,
Egypt isn't yet a democratic society. At best it's ``pre-
democratic.'' Its willingness to embrace elections may yet open
up the political system to democracy. But it lacks the
democratic values, institutions and customs that would ensure
future elections are more than a choice between anti-democratic
forces seeking to claim, or hold onto, power.
Of course, Georgia is not Egypt and Saakashvili is not Mubarak.
Georgia, one hopes, would rise for the occasion and conduct elections
with minimal violations. Again, let me quote Kim Holmes:
free and fair elections are indispensable to democracy. You
can't have democracy without them. But neither can you have
democracy without an even greater commitment to the values,
institutions and customs that make it work.
However, let us not forget that this country's democracy is only
nine years old, and Soviet authoritarianism only 20 years ago it shed.
Thus far, observer missions from OSCE, IRI and NDI seem to report that
the elections are on track and we should calmly expect their reports.
We should definitely hold the current Georgian Government feet to the
fire, expecting reasonable conduct of elections by European standards.
However, we should not face an either-or choice of focusing exclusively
on elections, or pursuing American interests to the exclusion of our
commitment to democratic values.
Hopefully, the U.S. can learn from our own recent mistakes.
____________
The Heritage Foundation is a public policy, research, and educational
organization recognized as exempt under section 501[c][3] of the
Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported and receives no funds
from any government at any level, nor does it perform any government or
other contract work.
The Heritage Foundation is the most broadly supported think tank in the
United States. During 2011, it had nearly 700,000 individual,
foundation, and corporate supporters representing every state in the
U.S. Its 2011 income came from the following sources: Individuals = 78%
Foundations = 17% Corporations = 5%
The top five corporate givers provided The Heritage Foundation with 2%
of its 2011 income. The Heritage Foundation's books are audited
annually by the national accounting firm of McGladrey & Pullen. A list
of major donors is available from The Heritage Foundation upon request.
Members of The Heritage Foundation staff testify as individuals
discussing their own independent research. The views expressed are
their own and do not reflect an institutional position for The Heritage
Foundation or its board of trustees.
Ariel Cohen, L.L.B., Ph.D., is a leading expert