[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1438-E1439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CURRENT SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JIM McDERMOTT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 2012, I introduced H.R. 
4258, the Republic of Georgia Democracy Act of 2012. I introduced this 
bill in response to the growing acts of repression by the Government of 
Georgia against the Democratic opposition there in the run-up to the 
October 2012 parliamentary election.
  After reviewing reports from the region and meeting with members of 
the opposition, I became worried that the parliamentary election would 
be viewed as illegitimate if the situation did not change.
  I offered H.R. 4258, which threatened termination of the tens of 
millions of dollars the United States gives Georgia each year in 
assistance--including millions for democracy promotion--in the event of 
illegitimate elections, in an attempt to demonstrate to the ruling 
regime the cost of stealing the election.
  I regret to report that the situation is getting worse.
  The United Nations, Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe (OSCE), and the European Union have all raised concern. Even 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has publically called for free, 
fair, and competitive elections, but the Georgian government does not 
seem to be listening.
  For more than two decades, successive administrations and my 
colleagues in Congress have worked hard to expand democracy in the 
post-Soviet world. We did so believing that the former Soviet states 
would be more stable and more economically prosperous if governments 
were more responsive to the will of the people.
  This is especially true in Georgia, where the United States has 
invested considerable financial resources and political capital in an 
attempt to create a model democracy in a complex region.
  These investments are now at risk. The Georgian government is 
succeeding in creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear, 
handicapping the opposition's ability to operate and access the media 
and voters, and taking steps to ensure victory before election day.
  The United States can ill afford to stand aside and watch democracy 
in Georgia unravel.
  If another round of illegitimate elections occurs, there will be more 
instability, including the possibility of peaceful protests and a 
violent government response, which has been the historic norm.
  This would threaten key American interests, including democracy 
promotion, energy security, stability in the Caucasus, relations with 
Russia, and operations in Afghanistan.
  I have included a recent article that highlights the Georgian 
government's efforts to repress the democratic opposition. The article 
from the Economist notes that only 38% of Georgians think their country 
is a democracy and that this election could be on course to a political 
crisis.
  If things continue on their current track, there are few scenarios 
where this election will be seen as legitimate.
  The United States should take steps now to prevent a potential 
political crisis that would arise just before the U.S. presidential 
election. I would encourage the Obama Administration and my colleagues 
to communicate clearly to the Georgian government the importance of 
free, fair, and competitive elections and that Georgia's relationship 
with the United States cannot survive a stolen election or subversion 
of democratic principles.
  Like a canary in the coal mine, I will do my best to continue to warn 
my colleagues of this looming disaster and provide regular updates. I 
hope the United States acts before it is too late.

                  [From the Economist, Jul. 13, 2012]

                     Georgian Politics--Blood Feud

                           (by G.E. Tbilisi)

       Georgian democracy in trouble? The government claims that 
     the ``Russian-influenced opposition'' could subvert Georgia's 
     parliamentary elections in October this year. In contrast, 
     Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of Georgian Dream, an 
     opposition party, complains of systematic discrimination at 
     the hands of an increasingly authoritarian regime. New 
     polling results show that only 38% of Georgians think 
     that Georgia is now a democracy, compared with 49% in 
     February.

[[Page E1439]]

       Georgians may have too pessimistic a view of their own 
     country. As a recent pre-electoral assessment from the 
     National Democratic Institute (NDI) points out, Georgia has 
     implemented several key democratic reforms in recent years. 
     New institutions ensure the accuracy of the voters' list or 
     regulate party financing. Amendments to the electoral code in 
     late 2011 and early 2012 introduced a raft of positive 
     changes although the failure to redraw electoral districts 
     (which range from 6,000 to 158,000 voters) means some votes 
     are worth less than others. Recent ``must carry'' provisions 
     will improve opposition parties' access to the media by 
     obliging cable providers to transmit all television channels 
     with news programmes during the sixty-day campaign period. In 
     all, the ``2012 electoral process is more formalised and 
     regulated compared to past elections'', the NDI concludes.
       Even so, the dark side of Georgian politics, which Thomas 
     de Waal has likened to ``a blood feud'', has been all too 
     evident since Mr. Ivanishvili entered politics in October 
     last year. Georgia's richest man remains without Georgian 
     citizenship, an absurd situation of which most of his 
     compatriots disapprove; the sooner that is resolved, the 
     better. The Chamber of Control stands accused of levying 
     disproportionate fines on the Georgian Dream movement, which 
     Mr. Ivanishvili has refused to pay. (It has responded by 
     seizing some of his assets). And before Parliament adopted 
     the must carry provisions, Channel 9, a new television 
     station co-owned by Mr. Ivanishvili's wife, and Global TV, 
     the only broadcaster that carried it, suffered from almost 
     continuous harassment.
       Both sides continue to vilify each other, complaining of 
     harassment, improper campaign spending, attempted bribery of 
     state officials and abuse of administrative resources. A 
     debate in the European Parliament on 4th July about Georgian 
     politics reached similar extremes. As punch-ups during 
     Georgian Dream campaign meetings in the central Georgian 
     villages of Mereti on 26th June and Kareleti on 12th July 
     suggest, it could get nastier still.
       Yet Mr. Ivanishvili's political awakening has also awoken 
     Georgian voters. Huge, peaceful rallies have taken place 
     across the country, far beyond anything seen in recent years. 
     Many more Georgians (75%) now plan to vote in October's 
     elections than intended to so in September last year (51%), 
     polls show. And the political debate is increasingly focused 
     on issues that matter to ordinary Georgians, not just 
     personalities.
       Georgian Dream unveiled some of their plans in May: cutting 
     utility costs, investing in agriculture, free universal 
     health-insurance and increased pensions. Vano Merabishvili, 
     the former interior minister who became prime minister in 
     late June, announced the government's four-year post-election 
     programme shortly after taking office. He too wants to boost 
     pensions, provide universal health-insurance, and invest in 
     agriculture. Mr. Merabishvili has also set up a new ministry 
     to tackle unemployment (roughly 34% of Georgians say they are 
     unemployed, compared with an official rate unemployment rate 
     of 16%), and promises to provide each family with vouchers 
     worth $600.
       Does Mr. Merabishvili's appointment indicate that Mikheil 
     Saakashvili, the president, is unlikely to become prime 
     minister once his term in office expires in early 2013? As 
     one of the few big beasts of Georgian politics, Mr. 
     Merabishvili would certainly be hard to shove aside. At any 
     rate, slightly more Georgians would oppose such a job-swap a 
     la Putin than would approve of it.
       Reassuringly, 55% of Georgians surveyed think the elections 
     will be well conducted, and only 21% fear falsification. But 
     there is little room for complacency. Mr. Ivanishvili has 
     said that if he has any evidence of vote-rigging by the 
     authorities, he will call for street protests. For most 
     foreign observers, and many Georgians, that would be a step 
     backwards. Yet 27% of those polled say he would be justified 
     in doing so. Come October, that sentiment could matter.
       While most Georgians are focused on who will win, Georgia's 
     allies say the credibility of the electoral process is key. 
     As the NDI states, ``further development of democratic 
     institutions and practices offer the best chance for western 
     integration and for long-term prosperity and stability.'' 
     With the political temperature likely to rise further in 
     coming months, Georgia's politicians would do well to bear 
     that in mind. Will they?

                          ____________________