In early April, the US State Department made an unprecedented decision against Georgia, imposing sanctions on four Georgian judges. We asked experts to assess the consequences of this move and whether they expect it to continue.
Laura Thornton, Senior Vice President, Democracy, German Marshall Fund:
It’s a new decision for Georgia, but not an unprecedented move by the State Department. So far, the international community has met Georgia’s democratic relapse with a bucket full of carrots but no stick. Given the size of the country, Georgia has always received tremendous attention and investment. Much of this is due to Georgia’s greatest asset – its democracy. In a delicate and undemocratic region, Georgia has been a shining beacon and a trusted ally.
In recent years, however, the government has squandered this fortune. As I and others have written, the Georgian Dream government’s messages and actions have revealed a departure from both the West and democracy. DG leaders have insulted EU and US leaders and diplomats, served as a channel to bypass sanctions to help Russia, failed to demonstrate minimal support for Ukraine, threatened civil society and the media, failed to reform the judiciary and state Resource and Security Abuses Election Control Services. The DG leadership knows full well that adopting the democratic reforms needed to join the EU family will force them to compete on a level playing field – and thereby threaten their power – and therefore transform the country into so-called “non-aligned”. “ Territory drives.
The US approach has been one of conviction, investment and commitment, but the democratic situation continues to deteriorate. The introduction of the Foreign Agents Act was the last straw, and now the US is applying a different kind of pressure with sanctions.
The consequences are unknown. The DG government can dig in and keep pounding on the West and attacking democratic actors within, leading to further backsliding and autocratic consolidation, or it can reassess its life choices and embark on the path of reform. I am not convinced that sanctions against judges will exert sufficient pressure. The Achilles heel is probably the wealth of Bidzina Ivanshvili. If the sanctions reach him, there could be a change of direction. In the meantime, it’s up to the Georgian people to vote for democracy in 2024. That will be more consequential than all sanctions.
Laura Linderman, Atlantic Council
I would say that the sanctions are an accurate reflection of the judges’ complicity in corruption. I would take this move by the US government as a warning that the growing anti-Western rhetoric in Georgia is being taken seriously and that these statements have practical consequences. The move also suggests that American involvement, attention and assistance are not guaranteed or entitlement.
Tortnike Sharashenidze, political scientist
We can expect new sanctions. I don’t see the US sanctioning ruling party MPs for representing a constituency of, say, the Georgian people. I wouldn’t expect personal sanctions against Ivanishvili either. This could be seen as crossing an imaginary red line. More importantly, there is a fair chance that such sanctions will not result in regime change (if that is the US goal) or a major compromise on behalf of the ruling party. Instead, it could lead to a serious deterioration in bilateral relations. However, we can expect sanctions against some Georgian businessmen close to the ruling party. However, it remains to be seen what the consequences of sanctioning the judges will be. Only after that can we make some bold predictions.
Paata Gaprindashvili, Director of Georgia’s Reforms Associates (GRASS)
The US decision to sanction four Georgian judges unfortunately damages Georgia’s image, although it is a logical consequence of years of developments in Georgia, particularly in its judicial system. In its recommendations, the Venice Commission highlighted the problem of corporatism in the judiciary and reiterated its position in the recent Opinion on the recent planned reforms. According to the Venice Commission, the Supreme Judicial Council should not allow judicial corporatism to serve the personal interests of one group of judges to the detriment of others. The Venice Commission again identified the elimination of corporatism in the Supreme Judicial Council as one of the key recommendations to be included in the comprehensive reform of the Supreme Judicial Council.
The ensuing disinformation campaign, claiming that the US wants to interfere in Georgia’s internal affairs and take control of the Georgian judicial system, only exacerbates the tense situation in bilateral relations. Using the same logic, the Venice Commission and other international bodies can also be accused of actions aimed at controlling the Georgian judiciary, and to speak of such a global conspiracy is ironic, to say the least. The goal of the strategic partners of the USA and Georgia is to strengthen the judiciary in Georgia. Your efforts in this regard are primarily in the interests of the Georgian people.
Sanctions against Georgian judges were not the starting point, but the unfortunate and logical continuation of calls for the Georgian government to address the problems in the judiciary. Prior to this decision, the Venice Commission underlined the problems existing in the judicial system and made appropriate recommendations. The EU Commission also identified these problems and called for reforms in the judiciary as part of the 12 priorities that are essential to gaining EU candidate status. If the issue of judicial independence is not properly addressed, there could be further consequences.
Similar/Related
