[Senate Hearing 117-10]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-10
BOLSTERING DEMOCRACY IN GEORGIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND
REGIONAL SECURITY COOPERATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 23, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-406 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
Jessica Lewis, Staff Director
Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND
REGIONAL SECURITY COOPERATION
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland MITT ROMNEY, Utah
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire............ 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 2
Johnson, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin................... 4
Prepared Statement........................................... 4
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 13
Kent, George, of Washington, DC, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European
and Eurasian Affairs........................................... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
McDonald, Kara, of Washington, DC, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.............................. 10
Prepared Statement........................................... 11
(iii)
BOLSTERING DEMOCRACY IN GEORGIA
----------
INSERT DATE HERE deg.TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Europe and Regional
Security Cooperation,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-106 and via videoconference, Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Shaheen [presiding], Murphy, Van Hollen,
Risch, and Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Good afternoon, everyone.
We are going to go ahead and begin because we are in the
middle of votes, which I think many of you know. And we have
voted, I think on the first vote. I assume the other committee
members have. And so we will recess when the second vote is
called, go vote, and then come back.
So this is a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on Europe and Regional Security. It will now come to
order. I am delighted to have Ranking Member Johnson here with
me and we are very excited to hear what our witnesses have to
say about the crisis in Georgia. Thank you both for being here.
Given the nature of the hearing where some of us will be in
person and some of us will be virtual, we are going to do
questions by seniority and work to accommodate all the members,
whether they be virtual or in person. The purpose of today's
hearing is to engage with our witnesses about the current
situation in Georgia to better understand how the United States
can support a democratic resolution to the current political
standoff. Georgia has come a long way in a relatively short
period of time, as I think we would all agree. It has worked to
establish and strengthen its democratic institutions. The path
has not always been straight, but the overall trajectory has
been positive.
I had the honor of traveling with the Ranking Member of the
full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch, to
Georgia in 2012 to observe their elections when Georgia Dream
took over as the ruling party. The election was notable for its
peaceful transfer of power, which is critical to any democracy.
And since that 2012 election, Georgia's democracy has been
tested, but it has generally been strengthened and deepened.
Georgia has also demonstrated a desire to join the European
community. It has affirmed its desire to become a member of
NATO, something that I have supported and continue to support.
And as co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, this is
exactly the path that we want for new democracies and there is
bipartisan support in the Senate for this route for Georgia,
but unfortunately the situation facing Georgia today is a
critical one, the resolution of which could either recommit the
country to democracy or row the efforts of many years.
Now while the organization for security and cooperation in
Europe has reported that the 2020 elections were, and I quote,
``competitive and administered efficiently despite challenges
posed by the COVID-19 pandemic,'' it also emphasized the need
for election reform, which I urge the Georgian Government to
undertake with expediency. It is not enough to hold an election
that meets the threshold of legitimacy. Democratic elections
must have robust mechanisms in place to resolve disagreements,
mechanisms that are seen as fair by all participants in the
democratic process.
The United States has long been an ally of a free and
democratic Georgia and this remains the case today, but that
important relationship is dependent on Georgia's commitment to
strengthening the institutions of democracy. And just to be
clear, Georgia's commitment to democracy must be demonstrated
through the actions of all Georgians, whether they are in the
Government or the opposition. So it is imperative that the
Government takes steps to ensure an independent judiciary and
to work with all opposition parties to find a negotiated
resolution to this crisis.
We know that a truly democratic country must be responsive
to the will of the people, but a successful democracy also
needs to function and address the needs of its citizens. And
right now, given the current impasse in Georgia, the only party
who is winning is Russia. Russia thrives from disorder and
chaos and every day that members of opposition sit in jail is a
victory for Russia. Every day that Georgian Parliament seats
are empty is a disservice to the people of Georgia and a
victory for Russia.
That is why I am surprised and disappointed that all
parties have allowed the current crisis to last so long. And
today I will call on both sides, all sides actually, as we
think about the two major parties and the other parties who are
not in power, to put aside short-term political interests to
instead look to the strengthening and perseverance of Georgian
democracy.
I hope this hearing will provide better clarity on how the
United States can assist our ally, Georgia, to fulfill its
democratic goals and solidify the representation of the values
its people hold. I look forward to the testimony of our
distinguished witnesses and to hearing your perspective on this
important topic.
Now I would like to turn to Ranking Member Johnson for any
opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Shaheen
Good afternoon, everyone. This hearing of the Senate Foreign
Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security will come to
order. Thank you all for being here today, and I would like to extend
particular thanks to our witnesses, who we will hear from shortly. I
would also like to thank Ranking Member Johnson for agreeing to have
our first subcommittee hearing to address this important topic. Given
the nature of this hearing, with some of our members present and some
virtual, we will do questions by seniority and will work to accommodate
all members whether they be virtual or in person.
The purpose of today's hearing is to engage with our witnesses
about the situation in Georgia and to better understand how the U.S.
can support a democratic resolution to the current political standoff.
Georgia has come a long way in a relatively short period of time. It
has worked to establish and strengthen its democratic institutions. The
path has not always been straight, but the overall trajectory has been
positive.
risch/shaheen election monitoring trip
I had the honor of traveling to Georgia in 2012 with Senator Risch
to witness Georgian democracy in action. We were there as part of a
delegation of election monitors to oversee Georgia's parliamentary
elections. That election was notable for the peaceful transfer of
power, a necessity for any democracy. Since that 2012 election
Georgia's democracy has been tested but it has also deepened and
strengthened.
georgia and eu/nato membership
Georgia has also demonstrated a desire to join the European
Community. It has also affirmed its desire to become a member of NATO,
which I continue to support. As a co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer
Group, this is precisely the path we want for new democracies and there
is bipartisan support in the Senate for this. But the situation facing
Georgia today is a crucial one, the resolution of which could either
re-commit the country to democracy or erode the efforts of many years.
2020 election results
While the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) has reported that the 2020 elections were ``competitive and
administered efficiently despite challenges posed by the COVID-19
pandemic,'' it also emphasized the need for election reform, which I
urge the Georgian Government to undertake with expediency. It is not
enough to hold an election that meets the threshold of legitimacy.
Democratic elections must have robust mechanisms in place to resolve
disagreements--mechanisms that are seen as fair by all participants in
the democratic process.
u.s. expectations
The U.S. has long been a friend and ally of a free and democratic
Georgia--and this remains the case today. But that important
relationship is dependent on Georgia's commitment to strengthening the
institutions of democracy. But to be clear, Georgia's commitment to
democracy must be demonstrated through the actions of all Georgians,
whether they be in the Government or opposition. So it is imperative
that the Government take immediate steps to ensure an independent
judiciary and work with all opposition parties to find a negotiated
resolution to this crisis. We know that a truly democratic country must
be responsive to the will of the people, but a successful democracy
also needs to function and address the needs of its citizens. Amid a
pandemic and a struggling economy, we cannot lose sight of the fact
that the Georgian people are suffering--the failure of the country's
politicians to decide on a way forward isn't helping.
russia
At present, only one party is winning: Russia. Russia thrives from
disorder and chaos. Every day that members of the opposition sit in
jail is a victory for Russia. Every day that Georgian parliament seats
are empty is a disservice to the people of Georgia. This is why I am
surprised and disappointed that all parties have allowed the current
crisis to last so long, and I call on all sides to put aside short-term
political interests and instead look to the strengthening and
perseverance of Georgian democracy.
expectations of hearing
It is my intention that this hearing will provide better clarity on
how the United States can assist our important ally, Georgia, to
fulfill its democratic goals and solidify the representation of the
values its people hold. I look forward to the testimony of our
distinguished witnesses and to hearing their perspectives on this
important topic.
I now turn to Ranking Member Johnson for his opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
I think I will save all of us time by asking to have my
opening remarks entered into the record and just associating
myself with your comments. I really could not agree more and I
am really pleased that you decided to hold this as your first
hearing as Chair.
Now, unfortunately, we have traveled the region. We have
seen that I always call the belt of democracies around Russia
trying to break free from the legacy of corruption and just
trying to escape I will call them the charms of Russia. And it
is so important that all parties, the opposition, the governing
party, come together and realize that it is in their best
interest, all of their interest, for Georgia to settle these
disputes and get back to the hard work of governing, the hard
work of democracy. Georgia is just an example of so many of
those countries in the area and this is a perfect first hearing
under your Chairwomanship.
So I also want to thank the witnesses for your service to
this country and for testifying before us today. So with that,
I will turn it back over to you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Johnson
Georgia is a valued, dependable, and strategically significant
friend and partner of the United States. These strong relations are
highlighted in the 2009 U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership,
which outlines the four pillars of our relationship: democracy; defense
and security; economics and trade, and cultural exchanges. Over the
last two decades, Georgia has contributed to the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq and remains the fourth largest overall and largest per capita
troop contributor to the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan today.
Thirty-five Georgian soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice fighting
alongside the United States, and we should never forget this faithful
support. Since regaining independence from the Soviet Union in the
early 90's, Georgia has set an example for the region with progress in
fighting corruption and developing modern state institutions. It has
made Euro-Atlantic integration a top national priority despite Russian
efforts to undermine progress. The United States supports Georgia's EU
and NATO ambitions and condemns Russia's continued illegal occupation
of the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
This close relationship colors our hearing today. The United States
knows all too well that democracy can be messy, especially so in
relatively new democracies. No system is perfect, but the United States
and Georgia share the goal of strengthening our democracies and
improving public confidence in our elections. Georgia's constitutional
reforms leading up to the 2020 elections were considered a commendable
step towards strengthening its democratic institutions; many, but not
all, of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's
(OSCE) recommendations were implemented.
The October 31, 2020 elections, while complicated by the ongoing
pandemic and not without issues, were largely deemed a success, with
international observers calling them competitive and respectful of
fundamental freedoms. The aftermath, however, has proven more
problematic. Unsatisfied with aspects of the election, the largest
opposition bloc, led by the United National Movement (UNM) party, chose
not to accept the results and declined to take their seats in
parliament. The situation was exacerbated when Georgian authorities
arrested UNM leader Nika Melia in February in connection with charges
from 2019 that have been widely criticized as politically motivated.
Melia's recent arrest, coupled with the political impasse in the
aftermath of the October 2020 elections, have caught the world's
attention. The U.S. and EU can provide a forum for dialogue, but we
cannot solve these issues for Georgia. While the Government and
opposition may disagree for the moment on how to resolve their
differences, it is crucial for Georgia's future progress that they find
a solution.
I would like to thank both of our witnesses for being here today,
and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Johnson, for those very nice comments and also for pointing out
something that I think it is important for Georgians and for
everyone who is looking at our view about what is happening in
Eastern Europe to know, and that is that there is very strong
bipartisan agreement for how to move forward, so I think that
is an important message from today's hearing.
We will now hear from our witnesses and I am going to
introduce both of you and then we will ask you to go in the
order in which I introduce you.
First, we will start with the Honorable George Kent. Mr.
Kent has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs since September of 2018. In this
capacity, he oversees policy toward Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and of course, most important for this
hearing, Georgia. Previously, he was Deputy Chief Admission in
Kiev, Ukraine, and he also served as the Senior Anti-corruption
Coordinator in the State Department's European Bureau.
Since joining the Foreign Service in 1992, he has served in
numerous countries including Poland, Uzbekistan, and Thailand.
Given this background, he clearly has extensive knowledge about
Europe and we look forward to his testimony today.
Also, appearing with Mr. Kent is Deputy Assistant Secretary
Kara McDonald. Ms. McDonald has served as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor since
July of 2020. In this capacity, she oversees the Bureau's work
on Europe, South and Central Asia, and the Multilateral and
Global Affairs Teams. Prior to her current position, she served
as U.S. Consul General Strasberg and Deputy Permanent
Representative to the Council of Europe.
From 2015 to 2017, she was Director of Policy Planning and
Coordination in the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs Bureau. And she previously served as Deputy Chief
Admission in Moldova. She has also worked around the world
including Haiti and Romania.
Ms. McDonald, we are also excited to hear from you about
democracy in Georgia.
So, Mr. Kent, would you begin?
STATEMENT OF GEORGE KENT, OF WASHINGTON, DC, A CAREER MEMBER OF
THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU
OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Kent. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking
Member Johnson, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting us here today to discuss our policy
goals regarding Georgia, our efforts to bolster democracy and
counter Russia's destabilizing actions in Georgia, and the
challenges posed by recent developments.
I would like to start, Chairwoman, by thanking you for your
sustained interest and involvement in Georgia's success and
your role, along with Senator Risch, as election monitors in
that landmark election in 2012 that you described with a
peaceful transfer of power. I would like to associate myself as
well with your opening statement which I thought was a powerful
reiteration not just of bipartisan support, but I think of the
views held by many here in Washington. I would like to thank
the Committee and others in Congress for the generous support
for U.S. policy and programming towards Georgia.
The United States has helped Georgia make real strides over
the years in advancing democratic reforms and economic
development, as well as in defending itself against Russian
aggression. Georgia recovered after the 2000 war with Russia
and with our support, has built resilience to continued
aggression. Russia uses its occupation of 20 percent of
Georgia's territory, economic leverage, cyberattacks, and
disinformation to sew division and distrust and to try to force
Georgia to abandon its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
The United States uses diplomatic engagement, assistance,
and strong public messaging to push back against malign actions
and to enhance the prospects for positive change. We strongly
condemn the ongoing Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia, and we support Georgia's sovereignty and territorial
integrity within its internationally recognized borders.
Georgia remains the United States' key strategic partner in the
South Caucuses and an important partner in the wider Black Sea
Region. Georgia has been a steadfast partner of NATO, and we
continue to support Georgia's choice to pursue NATO membership
and closer ties within the Euro-Atlantic community.
Efforts to bolster Georgia's western orientation are
particularly critical in the aftermath of last year's intensive
fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. The deployment of Russian troops
as peacekeepers to Nagorno-Karabakh now means that Russia has
``boots on the ground'' in all three South Caucasus countries.
Russia, Turkey, and Iran seek to further increase their
influence in the region. Georgia fears being hemmed in by or
cut out of competing infrastructure in other development
projects as a result. We are exploring ways the United States
can support greater cooperation among the South Caucuses
countries while preserving their sovereignty and freedom of
action.
While Georgia faces such challenges from outside actors, it
also faces serious internal challenges as you have described.
With U.S. assistance to bolster its efforts, Georgia has made
significant democratic gains since independence. However, we
agree that Georgia still has real work to do in strengthening
institutions and democratic norms. Georgia's current political
crisis is concerning both in terms of democratic development
and the potential for increased vulnerability to Russian
maligned influence.
Chairwoman, as you already quoted, the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe assessed the first round of
parliamentary elections as competitive with fundamental
freedoms respected, but they also noticed that the blurring of
line between ruling party and state reduced public confidence
in some aspects of the process. Unfortunately, most of the
opposition boycotted the new Parliament, even though polls
indicate a majority of Georgians who voted for the opposition
want the elected MPs to take up their seats, as you also
pointed out.
The February 23rd arrest of opposition leader Melia
intensified the crisis. Melia's arrest represented a step
backward for Georgian democracy. Both the ruling Georgian Dream
party and the opposition have failed to act on opportunities to
deescalate. This is a pivotal moment in Georgia's democratic
development. As Georgia's strategy partner and friend, the
United States must speak frankly when Georgia's leaders,
especially in the ruling party, seem to be drifting from the
path chosen by the people of Georgia.
Integration into the west is a challenging road that
requires a clear and unflinching commitment to shared values,
democratic norms, and institutions with integrity that are
foundational to a functioning democracy. Our Ambassador, Kelly
Degnan, has worked tirelessly with EU counterparts over the
past year to help Georgians move forward. Georgia's political
leaders must summon the political will to resolve this crisis.
The responsibility for success or failure rests squarely with
them. Failure by the ruling party and opposition to reach
agreement would imperil Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
The Administration looks forward to working with you in
Congress and our European allies and partners to help identify
further opportunities to support Georgia's democratic
development and success. I look forward to answering your
questions after my colleague has spoken.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Kent
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Johnson, distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss our
policy goals regarding Georgia, our efforts to bolster democracy and
counter Russia's destabilizing actions in Georgia, and the challenges
posed by recent developments in Georgia and the South Caucasus region
in general.
I would like to start by thanking you, Chairwoman Shaheen, for your
sustained interest and personal involvement in Georgia's success over
the years, dating back at least to 2012, and your role as an election
monitor in a landmark election that led to a peaceful transfer of power
in Georgia. Bipartisan Congressional interest in and support for
Georgia have been the reliable bedrock for the United States' policy
and programming.
I would also like to thank this Committee and others in Congress
for their generous support for U.S. policy in Georgia. Our diplomatic
engagement, policy advocacy, and assistance programs in Georgia have
helped the country make real strides over the years in advancing the
democratic reforms and economic development its people aspire to, as
well as in defending itself against Russian aggression. Nine years
after the 2003 Rose Revolution, Georgia modeled a peaceful transfer of
power after the 2012 elections you observed, Chairwoman.
Since Georgia's independence nearly 30 years ago, the United States
has aimed to help Georgia succeed as a prosperous democracy able to
defend itself and contribute to collective security. The billions in
assistance the United States has provided since 1992 has made a huge
difference in Georgia's transition from a newly independent, former
Soviet republic to a free-market democracy eager to contribute to
collective security in both the regional and global contexts. While
there is much work to be done, much has been accomplished, often in
close partnership with the United States.
U.S. economic assistance fosters a rules-based business
environment, supports the implementation of Western business and trade
standards, and increases opportunities for U.S. businesses. These
efforts are critical to increasing Georgia's ties to the West and
decreasing its economic reliance on the Russian market. Georgia ranks
seventh in the World Bank's 2020 ``Doing Business'' ratings and has
effectively eradicated low-level corruption.
Georgia recovered after the 2008 war with Russia and, with our
support, has built resilience to continued aggression. Russia uses its
occupation of 20 percent of Georgia's territory, economic leverage,
cyber attacks, and disinformation to try to force Georgia to abandon
its Euro-Atlantic aspirations and to sow division and distrust.
Russia's attempts to control and exploit the Georgian regions of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia through borderization, arbitrary detention
of Georgian citizens, restrictions of movement, and other measures
threaten European security. They also endanger the lives and culture of
people living in these Georgian regions.
The United States is using diplomatic engagement, assistance
programs, and strong public messaging to push back against malign
actions and enhance the prospects for positive change. We remain
committed to supporting Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity
within its internationally recognized borders.
We strongly condemn the ongoing Russian occupation of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. The United States is an active participant in the Geneva
International Discussions to address the consequences of the 2008
conflict in Georgia. We continue to call on Russia to fulfill its
obligation under the 2008 ceasefire agreement to withdraw its forces to
pre-conflict positions, and also to reverse its recognition of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia.
On top of U.S. security assistance, U.S. programs work to enhance
economic opportunities in communities close to the Administrative
Boundary Lines (ABL) with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and promote
confidence-building among people on both sides of the ABL, civil
society groups, and the Georgian Government.
These activities support the Georgian Government's peace plan,
which aims to reduce the isolation of the people of the occupied
territories and their dependence on Russia. More broadly, Georgia's
Government has taken important steps to integrate marginalized
populations into Georgian society, including ethnic and religious
minorities.
Outside of its borders, Georgia remains the United States' key
strategic partner in the South Caucasus and an important partner in the
Black Sea region. Georgia has been a steadfast partner of NATO,
contributing more to the NATO mission in Afghanistan than a number of
alliance members. Georgia has deployed approximately 850 troops to the
Resolute Support Mission (RSM) in Afghanistan, fights without caveats,
and has seen 32 soldiers killed in action, and more than 290 wounded.
In support of the pledge made at the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest,
and reiterated at the 2018 Brussels summit, we continue to support
Georgia's choice to pursue NATO membership and closer ties with the
Euro-Atlantic community. U.S. security assistance to Georgia reinforces
these goals and promotes U.S. national security priorities by building
Georgia's capabilities to deter Russia, increasing Georgia's
interoperability with NATO, and enabling Georgian troops to partner
with us in coalition operations.
In recognition of Georgia's significant contributions to
international security, Georgia is one of NATO's first Enhanced
Opportunity Partners and holds a regular dialogue with NATO on the
reforms needed to meet NATO's performance-based standards, as well as
the values undergirding the alliance. At the April 2019 NATO Foreign
Ministerial, Allies agreed to a Black Sea Package that also focused on
increased cooperation with Georgia and Ukraine. In 2020, NATO approved
an updated package of measures to further help build Georgia's defense
capacity and its interoperability with NATO. NATO Secretary General
Stoltenberg hosted recently appointed Prime Minister Garibashvili March
17 reviewing the relationship and the road ahead.
Efforts to bolster Georgia's Western orientation are particularly
critical in the aftermath of last year's intensive fighting in Nagorno-
Karabakh. The deployment of Russian troops as ``peacekeepers'' to
Nagorno-Karabakh now means Russia has ``boots on the ground'' in all
three South Caucasus countries. Turkish and Russian troops now jointly
man a cease-fire monitoring center in Azerbaijan.
The 3+3 regional platform proposed by Russia, Turkey, and Iran
seeks to take advantage of this new dynamic to further increase
Russian, Turkish, and Iranian influence in the region. Georgia fears
being hemmed in by--or cut out of--competing infrastructure and other
development projects as a result. We are currently exploring ways in
which the United States can support greater cooperation among the South
Caucasus countries while preserving their sovereignty and freedom of
action.
The United States welcomes Georgia's successes thus far and wants
to see Georgia continue on its path to a more robust democracy, with
governing institutions that demonstrate integrity, have the capacity to
counter Russian and other malign influence, and will allow it to
achieve the European and EuroAtlantic aspirations of its people.
While Georgia faces challenges in the region from outside actors,
it also faces serious challenges within its own institutions and body
politic. Georgia has real work to do in strengthening its democracy,
both to meet the demands of its citizens and to stand as a proud
counterexample to the Russian model of governance. Georgia's commitment
to democracy and the rule of law is a fundamental element of our
strategic relationship, as well as the precondition for the country's
further progress.
Over the years, U.S. programs have worked with Georgian Government
partners as well as civil society to promote justice sector reform,
judicial independence, and accountability. U.S. assistance also helps
Georgia improve electoral processes, level the electoral playing field,
and enable citizens to demand better representation. Support for civil
society is critical to ensuring citizens are informed, can advocate
effectively for positive change, and can maintain momentum on reforms.
U.S. assistance in the media space similarly improves access to
independent and reliable information, offers a diversity of voices, and
helps counter Russian disinformation.
Another focus area for U.S. programs is better governance, to
include support for government civil service reforms, local government
decentralization, and transparency. Improved access to quality public
services is one of the most convincing ways to show individual
Georgians that democracy is working for them.
With U.S. assistance to bolster its efforts, Georgia has made
significant democratic gains since independence, since the 2003 Rose
Revolution, and since the 2012 election cycle brought the current
Georgia Dream ruling party to power. However, the aspirations of the
Georgian people require continuous efforts to move forward in
strengthening institutional integrity and embedding democratic,
EuroAtlantic norms in the political rules of the game.
Georgia's current political crisis is thus concerning in terms of
the country's democratic development and the potential for increased
vulnerability to Russian malign influence. While the current political
impasse began after competitive but procedurally imperfect
parliamentary elections in 2020, the roots of the crisis preceded the
elections.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
assessed the first round of parliamentary elections as ``competitive,
with fundamental freedoms respected.'' At the same time, the OSCE noted
``the blurring of the line between the ruling party and the state
reduced public confidence in some aspects of the process.''
Unfortunately, most of the opposition members boycotted the new
parliament, even though polls, including those conducted by the
National Democratic Institute and the International Republican
Institute, indicate a majority of Georgians who voted for the
opposition want the elected MPs to take their seats and represent their
constituents.
The February 23 arrest of opposition leader Nika Melia--for failure
to pay bail associated with his June 2019 arrest for allegedly
organizing protest violence--intensified the crisis. Both the ruling
Georgian Dream party and the opposition have failed to act on
opportunities to deescalate. Former Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia
resigned February 18 in protest over the Government's plan to arrest
Melia. Melia's arrest presented a perilous moment for Georgia's Euro-
Atlantic aspirations and a step backward for Georgian democracy.
My colleague Kara McDonald will have more to say on this issue, but
we assess that the current impasse in Tbilisi stems from decades-long
realities in the electoral and judicial systems, including a lack of
trust in the judiciary to provide due process. The impasse demonstrates
the need for more reforms to strengthen the rule of law, judicial
independence, adherence to democratic norms, and electoral processes.
We are urging Georgian parties to make difficult compromises to end
the political crisis, and our Ambassador Kelly Degnan has worked
tirelessly over the past year in this regard. We are working closely
with our EU partners to help the sides find a way forward.
Progress will guide Georgia onto a path toward consolidation of
democratic institutions, processes, and norms, integral to its
aspiration to join the Euro-Atlantic community. Failure by the ruling
party and opposition to reach agreement and address the causes of the
standoff, in contrast, would imperil those aspirations.
The Administration looks forward to working with Congress and
European allies to help identify further opportunities to support
Georgia's democratic development, including reforms to foster judicial
independence and a level electoral playing field, as well as anti-
corruption and pro-business reforms.
We will continue to support the Georgian people's choice to pursue
closer ties with the EU and NATO and, as Congress has done, voice
strong U.S. support for Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity
within its internationally recognized borders.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Ms. McDonald.
STATEMENT OF KARA MCDONALD, OF WASHINGTON, DC, A CAREER MEMBER
OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR
Ms. McDonald. Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Risch,
Ranking Member Johnson, distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak about
bolstering democracy in Georgia.
Chairwoman Shaheen, I want to recognize as well your
sustained personal leadership. Thank you both for your
bipartisan leadership and general support. I too associate
myself with your opening statement.
President Biden has been clear about the central role our
values will play in foreign policy. This agenda to strengthen
democracy, counter backsliding, and protect human rights is our
best means to support Georgia's stability, prosperity, and
Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Georgia has been a regional leader
in democratic development in the face of Russian pressure. The
parliamentary elections of 2012 saw the first fully democratic
transfer of power since the country's independence. The
adoption of labor reforms last September and laws on anti-
discrimination and the rights of persons with disabilities are
also positive advancements. And the constitutional and
electoral reforms last summer paved the way for potentially
more pluralistic and power sharing governance.
A series of negative developments and trends, however,
trouble us greatly and urgently call attention to the work that
remains in protecting and advancing Georgia's democratic gains.
Ruling party concentration of power in state institutions,
a politicized judiciary, and pressure on civil society, these
undermine Georgian's confidence in their own democracy. I will
touch briefly on these democratic vulnerabilities in turn.
The OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission, as has been
noted, found that while last fall's parliamentary elections
were competitive, they were flawed. Allegations of
irregularities, voter pressure, and a blurring of the border
between the ruling party and the state. The OSCE/ODIHR mission
specifically highlighted concerns about ruling party dominance
in election commissions and shortcomings in the electoral
complaints process.
Although parliament passed electoral reforms in 2020 based
on some ODIHR recommendations, parliament did not adopt
critical and longstanding ODIHR recommendations regarding the
integrity of the electoral appeals process. The courts in turn
did not serve as an effective check on election administration
bodies. Credible domestic election monitors reported that the
election administration and courts rejected most of their
complaints.
The people of Georgia must have confidence in the electoral
process and their elected leaders. To that end, we are urging
the Government to implement the OSCE's election reform
recommendations and U.S. Government assistance supports that
goal. Politicization of the judiciary and prosecutions widely
considered politically motivated also contribute to democratic
vulnerability and reduce Georgia's resilience to stress on its
democratic institutions.
Ruling party dominance of the judiciary includes the undue
influence of powerful judges on other judges and use of the
disciplinary, promotion, and appointment system to exert
influence on judges. We urge judicial reform and our assistance
supports the development of an independent, accountable, and
people centered judicial system.
Finally, I want to say a word about pressure on civil
society and free media. These are essential elements of
democracy. Georgia suffers from a significant deterioration in
the ruling party's conduct toward respected civil society
leaders and an increasingly polarized national media
environment, disinformation, and misinformation, both domestic
and foreign, fuel division among Georgian communities. The
United States supports programming to strengthen independent
and free media and counter disinformation through informed
media campaigns, media literacy, and building Georgia's
capacity to protect its own information space.
The vulnerabilities I outlined play to Russia's interests
and open the door for other influences harmful to Georgia's
democratic path. Restoration of Georgia's role as a regional
model of democratic development is becoming more and more
urgent. We will work intensively to bolster its democratic
institutions and processes. It is up to Georgia's leaders and
political parties to restore Georgia's democratic reputation
and earn the confidence of their constituents. The people of
Georgia deserve no less.
Thank you and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McDonald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. McDonald
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Johnson, distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak about
bolstering democracy in Georgia.
Chairwoman Shaheen, I too want to recognize your sustained,
personal leadership on this issue. Ranking Member Johnson, I had the
privilege as Deputy Chief of Mission of hosting you in Chisinau,
Moldova during your 2014 visit with the late Senator McCain. Thank you
both for your bipartisan leadership in bolstering democracy in the
region and in Georgia. We appreciate the subcommittee's engagement and
welcome opportunities to work with you.
President Biden has been clear about the central role our values
will play in our foreign policy. This agenda to strengthen democracy,
counter backsliding, and protect human rights is our best means to
support Georgia's stability, prosperity, and Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
Georgia has been a regional leader in democratic development and
tackling corruption, in the face of Russian pressure and the occupation
of a fifth of its territory. The parliamentary elections of 2012 saw
the first fully democratic transfer of power since the country's
independence. The adoption of sweeping labor reforms last September,
and laws on anti-discrimination and the rights of persons with
disabilities are positive advancements for human rights. And the
constitutional and electoral reforms last summer paved the way for
potentially more pluralistic and power-sharing governance.
A series of negative developments and trends trouble us, however,
and urgently call attention to the work that remains in protecting and
advancing Georgia's democratic gains.
Ruling party concentration of power in state institutions, judicial
cases widely considered politically-motivated, and pressure on select
media and respected civil society leaders--undermine confidence in
Georgia's democracy, risk fueling corruption, and increase
vulnerability to external influence. Georgians themselves must have
confidence in their institutions and parties' adherence to democratic
principles if Georgia's democracy is to succeed.
I will touch briefly on these democratic vulnerabilities in turn
and what the U.S. Government is doing about them.
The OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission found that while last
fall's parliamentary elections were competitive, there were flaws--
allegations of irregularities, voter pressure, a blurring of the border
between the ruling party and the state, and a lack of effective legal
redress for election complaints.
While parliament passed amendments last year enhancing the
competitiveness of elections, the overall environment leading up to
last fall's elections was fraught, despite intensive U.S. Government
and European Union engagement. Inappropriate use of force by police
against protesters and journalists in June 2019 and insufficient
accountability for this police conduct, arrests of opposition figures,
marred 2018 presidential elections, and public distrust in the
judiciary to provide due process contributed to the tension. Political
polarization between Georgian Dream and opposition parties continued
through the post-parliamentary election period, and escalated recently
with the arrest and detention of United National Movement leader Nika
Melia. The current political impasse thus needs to be seen in this
broad context. The OSCE/ODIHR mission specifically highlighted concerns
about ruling party dominance in election commissions and shortcomings
in the electoral complaints and appeals process, both during the pre-
election and immediate post-election periods. Although parliament had
passed electoral reforms in the summer of 2020 based on some ODIHR
recommendations, parliament did not adopt critical and longstanding
ODIHR recommendations regarding the integrity of the electoral
complaints and appeals process.
The courts in turn did not serve as an effective check over
election administration bodies when reviewing appeals against decisions
of election commissions following the first round of the elections.
Credible domestic election monitors reported that the election
administration and courts rejected most of their pre-and post-election
complaints, undermining public confidence in the process.
Citing violations leading up to and on October 31, opposition
parties boycotted the runoff elections on November 21, leaving 17 of
Georgia's parliamentary seats uncontested. Moreover, the majority of
the eight opposition parties that won seats have refused to take their
seats in the new parliament.
The people of Georgia must have confidence in the electoral process
and their elected leaders, and deserve a swift resolution of the
impasse. To that end, the U.S. Government is engaged in intensive
efforts behind-the-scenes, as my colleague described, to engage the
Georgian Dream and opposition parties in a results-driven dialogue. We
are also urging the Government to fully implement the OSCE's election
reform recommendations, and our assistance, including USAID's work with
Georgia's political parties, domestic nonpartisan monitoring groups,
and the Central Electoral Commission, and DRL's support to citizen
dialogue with the parties on electoral reforms, supports that goal.
Politicization of the judiciary; detentions, investigations, and
prosecutions widely considered to be politically motivated; and
insufficient accountability for the Georgian police use of force
against protesters and journalists in 2019, also contribute to
democratic vulnerability and reduce Georgia's resilience to stress on
its democratic institutions.
We continue to urge judicial reform and provide technical
assistance to the courts so that they may serve as a check on executive
branch abuses and curb ruling party dominance of the judiciary. This
includes the undue influence of powerful judges on other judges, and
use of the disciplinary, promotion, and appointment system to exert
influence on judges. Such dynamics also raise the risk of vulnerability
to corruption. USAID assistance supports judicial reform, and the
development of an independent, accountable, and people-centered justice
system. That assistance also builds the capacity of the judicial corps
and improves access to justice for underrepresented communities.
Georgia's judiciary should be independent and protective of all
Georgians, regardless of party.
Finally, I want to say a word about pressure on civil society and
select media, and access to information, all essential elements of
democracy. Georgia suffers from a significant deterioration in the
ruling party's conduct toward respected civil society leaders, and an
increasingly polarized national media environment that undermines
opportunities for compromise, power-sharing, and consensus.
Disinformation and misinformation, both domestic and foreign, fuel
division among Georgian communities. This is why the United States
supports programming to strengthen independent and free media, and
counter disinformation through informed media campaigns, media
literacy, and building Georgia's capacity to protect its information
space.
The vulnerabilities I outlined play to Russia's interests and open
the door for other influences harmful to the Georgian people's choice
of a democratic path.
Restoration of Georgia's role as a regional model of democratic
development is becoming more and more urgent. We will work intensively
with Georgia to bolster its democratic institutions and processes,
their effectiveness and independence, and the ability of media and
civil society to operate freely and contribute to democratic
resilience. In the end, it is up to Georgia's leaders and political
parties to restore Georgia's democratic reputation and earn the
confidence of their constituents. The people of Georgia deserve no
less.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Ms. McDonald.
Senator Risch, would you like to make some opening remarks
before we start the questions?
Senator Risch. Briefly, Madam Chairman.
Senator Shaheen. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. First of all, I did not hear your opening
remarks and I didn't see them. For the record, I want to
associate myself with those remarks.
Senator Shaheen. Go ahead. We're happy to share them.
Senator Risch. Senator Shaheen and I have talked about this
issue at length. There is no daylight between us, I do not
believe, on the issue starting from the time we went there in
2012 in the fall to observe the elections. Since Georgia's
independence in 1991, there has been quite a bit of progress in
building democracy and implementing market based economic
reforms. They have done this despite Russia's illegal
occupation of a fifth of its territory since 2008.
Georgia has also been a reliable U.S. security partner with
ambitions to join both EU and NATO. A lot of us on both sides
have been a strong supporter of Georgia for many years. It is
likely it has already been mentioned, Senator Shaheen and I
traveled there in 2012. And I have to tell you that I was very
impressed and really believe that the country was going to be
off to a roaring start. We had the opportunity to go into the
camps, the real camps of both sides the morning after the
election, both the losing side and the winning side, and met
with the heads of the parties, Mr. Saakashvili and Mr.
Ivanishvili. It was--I have been in 36 elections myself. I have
been in camps the morning after of both winners and losers of
elections on all sides from President on down. I have to tell
you that the feeling in both of those camps was exactly like an
American election. The winners felt as winners. The losers felt
as losers. We had a very candid conversation with them. They
were making some brash statements at that time, which happens
the morning after the election, particularly when you have been
up all night.
In any event, I was--after listening to the comments, I
thought, no, I do not know about this. But then shortly after
that, I became very optimistic because the two sides agreed to
meet as we had urged them and suggested. And so we felt good as
the thing took off. Then as time went on, we were a little
disillusioned as there were more and more political
prosecutions. And again, we urged as best as we could that that
wasn't the way forward.
In addition to that, and unfortunately in the past few
years, we have watched the country suffer from democratic
backsliding. And it is really unfortunate because the country
deserves better. It is in a unique position to be able to pull
itself away from its history with the USSR. And what is going
on now, of course, is increasing oligarch influence over the
judiciary media and much of political life. Responsibility for
the current crisis facing Georgia, the culmination of several
years of increased tensions and failed reforms is shared by all
sides, I believe.
The two main political parties and their leaders must
realize their duty to their country and move past their
disagreements. I will take just a very short period of time, to
tell a story that when we met with Mr. Saakashvili, he was the
first one we met with who had lost. And he was insistent that
he was not going to assist in transition and what have you. And
I asked him if he had ever heard of George Washington and he
said, ``yes, he had''. Everybody has heard of George
Washington. And I said, ``Well, he was our first President as
you know.'' And I said, ``200 years from now with this election
being the first open, fair, and free election, every child in
Georgia will read about you as the first President to go
through this election. How do you want them to remember you?
Like George Washington or like someone who was a sore loser and
thought more of themselves than the country?''
He listened carefully, didn't he, Jeanne, to that speech?
And again, it was just out of the chute. So, anyway, again, we
felt good about that. I do want to emphasize that the party of
government, Georgia Dream, bears a special responsibility for
leading Georgia out of this crisis. This conflict only hurts
the country and its people and opens the door for Russia. I
know our Ambassador in Tbilisi, Kelly Degnan, and the embassy
team have been working tirelessly to facilitate a negotiated
solution between the two parties and I am very appreciative of
their efforts. Although I understand there has been little
slippage backwards, I urge them to continue and I would
certainly urge Georgia Dream and the Government to negotiate in
good faith and try to get through this.
Georgia is at a critical moment. If it cannot make its
democracy work now, I do not know when it can. It will lose its
opportunity to join the Euro-Atlantic institutions. Georgia's
political leaders must negotiate an end to this current crisis
and agree to needed reforms to improve Georgia's future.
And so, with that, thank you for allowing me to make an
opening statement, Madam Chairman.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Risch.
We will now have a round of questions. We have 7 minute
rounds and as I said earlier, I think we will be interrupted at
some point for another vote, but hopefully that will go fast.
I want to begin with you, Mr. Kent, and I am not going to
use your full title for either of you because it is long. So as
you are looking at this current crisis, how can it be resolved?
What needs to happen in order to get through the current
impasse?
Mr. Kent. Thank you, Senator and Senator Risch. I think we
would all associate ourselves with your comments as well.
I think what is needed to get through this impasse is for
the party leaders to come back together and do what is
necessary for Georgian democracy to move forward. The
conversations over recent weeks that the U.S. and the EU have
been facilitating, and now people are using the word mediating,
have centered around the necessity of electoral reforms, of
judicial reforms, of how the parliament will be conducted,
particularly using European models where committee chairs are
shared among parties. And then I think where it comes down to
areas of disagreement is: what to do about several opposition
leaders who are currently detained, as well as the way forward
politically with elections. And this is so critically important
for the future of Georgia, as you all have eloquently said. And
we are there supporting, cajoling, advising, pushing, but the
leaders of the parties have to reach agreement for the sake of
the country.
Senator Shaheen. And you mentioned the opposition leader,
Melia's arrest. Did Georgia authorities need to arrest him and
how helpful would it be to resolve his arrest to let him out in
terms of getting the opposition party to come to the table, the
UNM?
Mr. Kent. Madam Chairwoman, the previous Prime Minister saw
the peril in making the precipitous move to arrest the leader
of the opposition, and that is why he resigned on principle.
And I think many people hoped that would be a shock to the
political culture. And unfortunately, his fears were realized
the next week. Mr. Melia did break the terms of his previous
release. He took off his electronic bracelet. And so I think
this gets into this issue of the full embrace of democratic
norms and the rule of law by all Georgian leaders. And so, this
is why I think no one is blameless in this situation, but all
Georgians should have a vest interest in finding a path forward
as they did last year, and in the agreement March 8th which
allowed elections to go forward on revised terms that all
agreed. And that is basically agreeing on the rules of the game
and sticking to them.
Senator Shaheen. And Ms. McDonald, you pointed out that the
OSCE made a number of recommendations for election reform. Can
you go through what those recommendations are and to what
extent they have been part of any medication discussions?
Ms. McDonald. Sure. Thank you, Chairwoman Shaheen, for the
question.
So the OSCE/ODIHR report, as you noted, listed a number of
serious shortcomings. They were focused around the allegations
of voter pressure and voter intimidation. The second basket, if
I could call it that, of issues was around the composition of
the electoral commissions at the central, district, and
precinct levels and a blurring of the lines between the state
and ruling party roles in administration of elections. So,
again, getting to this question of ruling party dominance in
state institutions. And the third major basket, I would say,
was around the electoral grievance process and legal remedy.
So we saw from domestic monitors on the ground--there were
about 3,000 that were deployed on during the election. They
also listed a number of these shortcomings. And in that last
basket, they noted that of 1,660 complaints that the vast
majority of those were cast aside and never actually made it to
the judicial consideration. So these are the areas in which
ODIHR has really--which sets the gold standard--has really
focused the reforms and the recommendations going forward.
Senator Shaheen. So I had a chance last week to talk with--
actually, to Zoom with--several MPs from Georgia Dream. And one
of the things they said to me was that they had--the members of
parliament from Georgia Dream were supportive of the
recommendations around election reform and that it was UNM and
the opposition parties who were opposed. Is that your
understanding, either you or Mr. Kent, of the current
situation?
Ms. McDonald. So the electoral reform process is, of
course, part of the negotiations. And while we very much
believe that it is the role of the Georgians to own that
process, we also have urged that that be an inclusive process,
that it be transparent, that it be facilitated, that it be--
that there be feedback and a feedback loop between constituents
and their leaders on all sides. So that is, I think the nugget
of what ODIHR and OSCE has said is missing.
We, of course, urged the opposition parties to take up
their seats. I think we have seen in polling what Georgians
care about, right? It is jobs. It is salaries. It is
unemployment. It is COVID, poverty. So to get to the business
of governing and hashing out these electoral reforms.
Senator Shaheen. From your answer, it sounds like you think
there is not necessarily a full commitment on either side to do
that. Is that an accurate assessment of my understanding of
your answer?
Ms. McDonald. I believe it is accurate to say that both
parties need to come in good faith to the table to move forward
rapidly and in an inclusive manner on the electoral reforms,
yes.
Senator Shaheen. And Mr. Kent, what more can we do, can
Ambassador Degnan do, can the United States do, can we here as
part of this hearing do to encourage Georgians on both sides to
come to the table? And I think Senator Risch put it very well
when he said that the ruling party has a special responsibility
to help get people back to the table to come to an agreement.
Mr. Kent. I think you are holding this hearing today and
your opening statements show the right messaging, and so I
think that is very much value-added. Georgians understand how
critically important friends here in this town, bipartisan, in
Congress, in administrations under different presidents, have
been to Georgia's success. And so to hear long-time friends of
Georgia give that very direct message, as friends, is
critically important. I realize COVID has prevented all of us
from traveling over the past year. We are getting to the point
where both people in Washington and in our embassies are
starting to be vaccinated, and perhaps by the time we get to
the Memorial Day recess it will be possible for travel again.
And certainly, as you noted, some Georgians have started
traveling here as of last week.
So I think the clear, consistent messaging, making clear
that while we support a successful Georgia, we also expect
Georgia's leaders to do what their country needs them to do.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. Let us hope the current
impasse is resolved before Memorial Day.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Risch has guaranteed me he just wants to ask a
really short question, like a normal human being short
question, right?
Senator Risch. I apologize, but look. This is the question
I have. The EU, as you know, has recently implemented
conditionality on some of its financial assistance to Georgia.
I am wondering if we ought to be looking at conditionality on
our military or financial assistance to Georgia. If you do not
feel--I know this is a policy question and it goes up the chain
pretty high. If you do not feel comfortable about giving me
your thoughts on that, no problem, but I am thinking about
that.
Mr. Kent. Well, sir, I know you and your colleagues last
year put some limited conditionality on part of the aid to
Georgia. And we certainly explained that to our Georgian
friends that this was friends of Georgia wanting Georgians to
succeed. And the--particularly the appropriators have been
extremely generous in the assistance with the hard earmarks to
Georgia over the years.
I think it is--the issue of conditionality is something
that we have looked at in other circumstances as well. Your
colleagues have put that on Ukraine's security assistance, for
instance. So I think it is something to consider, both the
intent of what the appropriations are meant for, as well as the
conditionality, but I think it remains a shared commitment of
those in Congress, both houses, both parties, as well as in the
Administration, to see Georgia succeed and take the steps that
Georgia needs to succeed.
Senator Risch. I appreciate that and I guess that is why I
am thinking about it since the last ones we put on do not seem
to have moved the needle very much, and I think next time it
may be a little more stringent.
Ms. McDonald, do you have thoughts in that regard?
Ms. McDonald. Yes. Thank you for asking. I think what I
would say about this is that we are constantly assessing how
best to make our assistance most effective. And in terms of the
reforms that we have talked about, we cannot want it more than
they do. They have to commit to these. And so I do think that
while we are focused on dialogue, we are focused on resolving
the impasse and helping support the Georgians as they have this
discussion, we have to absolutely be considering all approaches
and constantly looking at what approaches and tools might be
helpful.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much both of you for your
thoughts. I appreciate it.
Senator Shaheen. Senator Johnson, since they have called
the vote, shall we go vote and come back?
Senator Johnson. Sure. That makes sense.
Senator Shaheen. So we will officially recess.
[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the hearing was recessed.]
Senator Shaheen. The Subcommittee on European Affairs of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come back to order
and we will go to Senator Johnson, the Ranking Member, for his
questions.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In preparing for this hearing and taking a look at the
situation in Georgia, to me it is pretty obvious that their
main problem is the problem that has been around since the
Russian invasion--and that is the big problem that has faced
them, as well as how it really prevents them from proceeding
into NATO integration and greater European integration. But
then underlying--then what is preventing that is, again, the
political prosecutions and the election. So I guess I would
like to drill down a little bit on the election issues.
I will say I mentioned this to Senator Shaheen earlier.
There are some eerie similarities when you take a look at this.
Democracy is hard. There is no election that is perfect. But
Ms. McDonald, can you talk a little bit about one of the
things--you talked about three main areas, voter oppression and
intimidation. Can you just describe what you are talking about
there, how that manifests itself?
Ms. McDonald. Yeah. Certainly. Thank you for the question,
Ranking Member Johnson.
So voter oppression and intimidation is perhaps the hardest
to capture in an electoral grievance process because this is
the informal oppression process, the intimidation process that
is usually informal. And so the allegations, the serious
allegations, that ODIHR and OSCE referred to in this area of
shortcomings is I think one of the more difficult to try to
quantify or to capture within polling and within the electoral
grievance process.
Senator Johnson. So did that--you just mentioned the word.
So did that lead into the second of the third problem?
Ms. McDonald. Yes.
Senator Johnson. The three problems is there just was not a
perceived proper adjudication of these. So were these like
filed affidavits or something similar to that of voter
intimidation and voter oppression and then they were never
looked at, just basically ignored?
Ms. McDonald. Yes. So traditionally how this works is at
the precinct and district level if there are grievances, it is
the electoral commission at that level, so the precinct or the
district level, to take a look at those grievances. And then if
there are grievances that merit judicial review, they are
referred to an administrative chamber of the judiciary. And
that is where we saw, or I should say where local observers and
monitors saw the vast dismissal of their electoral grievances
and complaints.
Senator Johnson. So is the judiciary replaced with every
administration? I mean how political is the judiciary there?
Ms. McDonald. Sorry. I did not hear the first part of the
question.
Senator Johnson. So is the judiciary replaced, especially
at the administrative level? Is it replaced with every new
government or is this an ongoing judicial body?
Ms. McDonald. Yeah. So the reference to the judicial reform
and the courts that I think you made in your statement, sir, I
would very much associate with myself with that many of these
issues are the issues that they have been facing for many years
related to influence within the courts. And I think, so the
combination of both having an electoral commission structure
and formula for composition of those district and precinct
level decision makers coupled with a judiciary that is widely
perceived as not independent and not impartial, I think some of
the key priority issues or concerns that we have seen in the
judiciary are, for example, the High Council of Judges, which
exercises undue influence over other judges using the
disciplinary system, using the promotion system, et cetera. It
is actually pejoratively referred to as the clan.
Senator Johnson. But my question is how often does the
judiciary turn over? Does it turn over with every
administration or are the courts continuing bodies?
Ms. McDonald. I do not know the answer to that. We can get
that for you. My understanding is that the appointments of the
judges and the process for that is part of the judicial reform
agenda that has been put forward by OSCE, by ODHIR because of
this issue of being able to appoint judges. And I think the
terms are different for the different bodies, Supreme Court,
Constitutional Court, et cetera. But I think that is all part
of the negotiation and the discussion about judicial reform and
trying to bring a modicum of impartiality to that body.
[The requested information referred to above follows:]
The terms are different for different bodies. Georgian law states
that all judges in the lower courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme
Court will be appointed to lifetime appointments. That law applies to
all incoming judges and judges who have been appointed since 2016.
However, several judges are still in the old system, which is
appointment for 10-year terms. When their terms expire, they can
reapply for lifetime appointments. The Constitutional Court judges
remain appointed for 10-year terms.
Senator Johnson. So then the third is really the non-
independent, the partisan election commission. And apparently
there are multiple levels of this. The OCSE made a number of
different recommendations. I was asking my staff whether the
U.S. made recommendations. We apparently did not, but we are
basically signing on to the OSCE. Is that correct?
Ms. McDonald. That is correct. We have urged parties to
adopt in full the OSCE/ODHIR recommendations. I would note that
last summer with the constitutional and electoral reforms some
of the recommendations were brought in, but not all. And this
has been part of the problem, I think, that we have seen not
just on electoral reform, but also on judicial reform. We have
seen this kind of drips and drabs approach, right. And there
needs to be this comprehensive buy-in in spirit and letter to
having an independent and impartial judiciary and the electoral
reform.
Senator Johnson. So we have voter oppression and
intimidation, which is hard to nail down, hard to prove, hard
to adjudicate. Then you have a judicial process, which is not
perceived as impartial to adjudicate those claims, so they do
not get adjudicated. So you just have the hard feelings and
people do not believe the results are legitimate. And then the
third one is the election commission itself and that structure.
And here is the OSCE recommendation, again that the U.S.
Government would back, correct?
It says the composition of the election administration
could be reconsidered to increase its impartiality and
independence. Isn't that key? Don't you need an election
commission that is completely impartial, nonpartisan or at
least--there is partisanship everywhere, but at least you have
a balance between one party and the other party so that nobody
feels that they have an advantage one way or the other. Is that
an accurate statement?
Ms. McDonald. That is correct.
Senator Johnson. I had one other question here. Yeah. I
will yield back my time. Thanks.
Senator Shaheen. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you
both for appearing before us and for the good work that you are
doing here. I just had two sort of more general topics of
conversation regarding U.S. policy in Georgia.
In the wake of 2008, the United States made a sizable
commitment to Georgia in the neighborhood of a billion dollars.
They were part of the MCC program. At that point, there were a
number of other programs that we had in place. And you could
make a pretty good argument that we got substantial return on
our investment. Georgia in those years, made a lot of progress.
Nowhere near perfect, but that close U.S. partnership really
mattered. And it was not just with the Government. It was a
partnership with civil society, right, trying to midwife civil
society organizations on the ground to be able to hold their
Government accountable, something that is often missing in
early stage democracies.
So maybe put this to you, Mr. Kent, but happy to hear from
both. What lessons can we learn from our experience in Georgia,
having made a substantial commitment post 2008 and what are the
ways in which U.S. assistance, if it is available and provided
on the right terms can make a difference to try to move beyond
the current crisis?
Mr. Kent. Thank you very much, Senator. You are right that
we have assisted Georgia immensely, billions of dollars since
independence, with the earmark currently at $132 million. That
is roughly $50 million a year in various forms of security
assistance, $40 million on economic development, and roughly
$35 million for democracy and governance building. And I think
our efforts have been focused on helping Georgia succeed as a
secure country that can contribute to collective security, to
succeed economically, to reduce dependence on Russia and do so
in a way that drives growth and prosperity at home rather than
having Georgians seek employment abroad. And then obviously
strengthening the institutions of governance, whether it is the
court system, whether it is being responsive to the needs of
the citizens.
And so I think a lot has been done to help remake Georgia
even physically. The MCC's focus, the first round of the MCC,
Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact was on infrastructure,
and so there is very good infrastructure now in Georgia that
did not exist previously. The second round was on education.
Again, Georgians understand that they need to improve the
student centric education so young Georgians can succeed in the
21st century. But I think in terms of the embrace of the
democratic norms in the political culture, I think that is an
area where there is still work to be done.
Senator Murphy. What is the sort of status of civil society
groups? And you say work to be done. How much opportunity
exists to do works in the civil sector? I think a lot about the
Global Engagement Center. We have been successful in growing
the capacity to support organizations that are countering
propaganda that are frankly just telling objective stories not
influenced or paid for by foreign actors. What have we learned
about our ability to try to open up that space in Georgia with
U.S. aid programming?
Mr. Kent. Well, I will say that Georgian civil society is
vibrant. They are articulate. And I think whether there are
specific areas like media freedoms or corruption in
transparency, while we have partnered with Georgian civil
society, there are excellent dedicated Georgians who are
working to build a more successful society and do not see the
path to success only in government service. And I think that is
how it should be. And I will let Kara talk about some of the
programs that DRL works on, but I think whether it is our
public diplomacy section which runs a small grants program or
works with independent medias versus our USAID colleagues--we
have a lot of excellent partners who are dedicated to laterally
building out a Georgian society that has a voice and has a role
to play in the country's success.
Ms. McDonald. Thank you for the question. You are correct.
The civil society, the vibrancy of civil society is such a
fundamental piece. It's a hallmark of democracy. And so we have
invested with generous Congressional support tremendously in
civil society and I would also say in free media. And I
mentioned the media in my testimony in particular because it is
an area where we see the best opportunity to help Georgia
counter a lot of the disinformation and misinformation and
propaganda that has been working to destabilize its society.
USAID has quite a robust what they call a democracy
governance portfolio. It is about $33.5 million of the $132
million Eur-earmark. Of that, $8 million specifically goes to
civil society. We in DRL also have just over $1 million. It is
in HRDF, which is Human Rights Defenders Fund and FFF, which is
Fundamental Freedoms Fund. Just over $1 million also supporting
various programs in terms of civil society, helping build some
of this public confidence, transparency, accountability between
constituents and their leaders.
The one thing I would mention on the media side, we also
fund out of DRL six different regional programs of which
Georgia is a part that works specifically to counter malign
influence and propaganda. That program is oriented at
bolstering truthful narratives, increasing access of
independent media voices, proliferating those independent media
voices, allowing them space and helping them gain space to
operate, being able to understand and work within a
disinformation environment, and protection of their information
technology. So it is quite a robust program and I must say it
is one that we are very committed to given the threats.
Senator Murphy. You know, there is so many similarities
between what has happened in Georgia and Ukraine. And what
Russia is really betting on is that they can destabilize the
politics and economics of both of these nations so that they
eventually give up and sort of make the choice without a full
invasion to put themselves back under the arm of the Kremlin.
And so, it is always wild to me that we are talking about
spending north of $100 million in Georgia this year and yet we
will without debate approve another $4 billion in European
Reassurance Initiative that is dedicated to military protection
along NATO's eastern flank.
And not that that is not important, but it just seems to me
to be such a misallocation of resources that we are spending
multiple billions of dollars on the military reinforcement of
Europe when the true vulnerability of countries like Europe or
Ukraine really lie in the ability of the Russians to probe at
the strength of the political and economic infrastructure. And
so I look forward as we get ready for the next budget to try to
make the case for how efficacious these funding programs are
for economic development, education, media independence, civil
society groups, and how that probably is at least as good an
investment as continuing to send rotational U.S. forces into
the areas around Russia's periphery.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
And I understand that we have Senator Van Hollen ready to
appear virtually.
Senator Van Hollen. Yes. Hi, Madam Chair. Thank you very
much for holding this hearing. And I want to thank both our
witnesses for their public service.
There has obviously been a lot of discussion about the
current situation on the ground in Georgia. And my question is
how do we break this deadlock? And I think that the status quo
right now is being easily exploited by Russia. So should the
ruling party move first and release Melia or should the
opposition drop its demand for snap elections? Should this be
something that happens simultaneously? And really most
importantly, what role can the United States play in trying to
resolve this deadlock that I think is, again, is only serving
the interests of Russia and those who do not support a
democratic trajectory in Georgia?
Mr. Kent. Senator, thank you for your question. I believe
what the U.S. can do is message, including with this hearing
and your questions and your signals that you have sent in your
statement, to our friends across the Georgia political spectrum
that they need to get back into the room together and come to
an agreement. The U.S. is actually in the room. Our ambassador
is there, the EU mediator Danielson will be back there later
this week, and we are trying our best to bring the Georgians
together.
I will be honest that both sides look to us to deliver the
other side. And in the end, while we can cajole and push, they
have to own this process because they are the ones who have to
commit and then they are the ones who have to deliver. And so I
think in terms of the details, you have hit the points of
contention between the sides. I think there is more room for
agreement on the reform path forward, on electoral reform that
my colleague detailed, the judicial reform that Kara also
mentioned, and then again how they might better share
assignments in the parliament. But the two areas you identified
are the two sticking points, and the two sides need to come
together and reach agreement.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. While I have got you
here, it is not directly related to this current impasse, but
the three plus three regional platform proposed by Russia,
Turkey, and Iran that you referenced in your testimony, can you
talk a little bit about what you see as their goals and how
that could impact Georgia?
Mr. Kent. Thank you, Senator, for that question. For the
past quarter century, the framework for approaching the real
challenge in the South Caucuses on security and particularly
the situation Nagorno-Karabakh has been led by the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe--a different element
from the Office of Democracy and Human Rights, ODIHR, that
helps run elections. And they are intimately involved in both
what's called Minsk Group process for Nagorno-Karabakh as well
as the Geneva International discussions which address Abkhazia
and South Ossetia.
And so this is the appropriate framework. All the countries
that are involved are members and have shared commitment to
values and processes. And the three plus three proposal is
really a great departure from that values-based all stakeholder
process. It would be exclusive. It would focus on regional
infrastructure. And the Georgians are concerned because some of
the designs that the Russians have put on the table would
actually circumvent Georgia with rail and road infrastructure
in the same way that the Nord Stream 2 and Turk Stream
pipelines circumvent Ukraine for provision of gas to Western
Europe. And so that is the threat that Georgia sees to this
platform. And they also very rightly do not want to go to the
negotiating table with a country that occupies 20 percent of
their territory and refuses to live up to its own commitments
made to French President Sarkozy in the aftermath of the 2008
war.
So I think that is why we believe that the best
arrangements for engaging on regional security are with the
organization that was set up to deal with that, and that's the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. Thank you very much,
Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Johnson, do you have any further questions?
Senator Johnson. I do remember the last one. First, I do
want to talk a little bit about exactly how Russia has been
behaving. I know I met with the Georgian delegation I think
before COVID and they were complaining about Russia keeps
advancing their lines and just creeping forward. What has been
the current situation over the last year or two?
Mr. Kent. Unfortunately, Senator, the Russians continue to
push the envelope. And they might try to claim that they are
South Ossetians or Abkhazians, but it is pretty clear when you
go to the line, contact line. And if you have not done, that I
am sure----
Senator Johnson. I have.
Mr. Kent. You have. When you pull up those binoculars,
those are Russians staring back at you with binoculars, so it
is pretty clear who is there. And over the last 2 years, there
have been several instances where they have not just been
putting up razor wire and fencing on the generally agreed upon
border demarcation between what are provinces, Ossetia and
South Abkhazia, but also actually moving the boundary forward
or staking a position. And so the Georgians have every right to
complain because, again, Russia, after the 2008 war committed,
first of all, for complete humanitarian access, which they do
not provide. They also committed to pull their troops back to
the positions that existed prior to the 2008 war. They have not
done that.
There are a half dozen Georgians who are detained,
essentially imprisoned, and so that is why we do have this
process, the Geneva International Discussions. We are a party
to those conversations. The next round will happen later this
week. So I think in terms of the actual aggression, it
continues. It is not a shooting war, but it is certainly a
situation of intimidation.
And the attacks, the cyberattacks also continue. The
landmark one was in 2019, and we attributed it to the GRU.
About 15,000 businesses and websites were affected. They were
attacking Georgia with cyberattacks as early as 2006 and they
continue to do so.
So the Russian attacks are in cyber. There are economic
pressures. There is the disinformation war. And then there is
the occupation of 20 percent of Georgian territory.
Senator Johnson. Which just underscores Georgia's main
problem right now is Russia. And if they can agree on how to
resolve their political differences, they would be in much
better shape. Can you speak just a little bit about the
multiparty system there? There are two main parties. How
independent? How aligned are the various smaller parties?
Either one, whoever.
Mr. Kent. Yeah. So, Senator, there are, as you said, two
main parties. I think they are the ones that people who have
watched Georgia over the last, if you will, 20 years. The
current ruling party which has been in office since Senator
Shaheen and Risch saw their election in 2012 replaced the
government of what is known as UNM, which was in charge between
2003 and 2012. But there are a number of other smaller parties
which are looking to emerge and offer Georgians a choice.
So it is unlike in the United States where you have two
main parties and it has been that way since any of us can
remember, in Georgia they are certainly looking to move towards
a more multipolar system and they have lowered the threshold.
This last election, you only needed 1 percent of the vote in a
proportional representation system. And that is why I believe
there were nine parties that were elected. And so I think
particularly with a proportional representation system being
the main way of electing MPs going forward, it depends on what
the bottom line threshold is, but you do have other voices that
are looking to emerge.
Senator Johnson. So they are actually encouraging more
parties as opposed to consolidating under two.
Mr. Kent. Correct.
Senator Johnson. Okay. That is interesting. Again, Madam
Chair, I really do applaud you for holding this hearing.
Senator Van Hollen talked about what the U.S. can do. I think
we undervalue sometimes what the U.S. Senate can do. And I
think, again, as Mr. Kent has and our witnesses have talked
about, holding this hearing is important. It sends an important
signal. I think also potentially a Senate resolution where we
can encourage sense of the Senate, encourage the parties within
Georgia to come together, settle these disputes, recognize it
is not easy, but it is up to them. Nobody can pressure them. I
thought it was interesting the comment that both parties are
looking for the U.S. to impose our will on the other. It sounds
like Serbia and Kosovo. We have heard this time and time
again--it is up to those parties. So I would love to work with
you, if we could develop a Senate resolution, pass it through
this committee, and then pass it through the Senate. I think it
could also send an important signal and might be helpful.
Senator Shaheen. I agree. I think that is a really good
suggestion and, as Ms. McDonald said, we cannot want it more
than they do. It is really important for the Georgians
themselves to want to figure out how to end this impasse.
I just want to follow up on a couple of lines of
questioning that you and others have started. I want to go
back, Mr. Kent, to your opening comments where you talked about
how the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has given Russia an
opportunity to have troops on the ground, another opportunity
to have troops on the ground in the neighborhood. Can you speak
to what kind of message that sends to Georgia and to those
Georgians who are in Abkhazia and South Ossetia who would like
to be free of Russian influence to have the additional Russian
troops in the neighborhood?
Mr. Kent. Thank you, Chairwoman. Most of the ethnic
Georgians who traditionally lived in Abkhazia and South Ossetia
have been ethnically cleansed. There are hundreds of thousands
of IDPs, most of them dating back several decades. Another
25,000 were pushed out of South Ossetia as part of the 2008
war. So Russian troops, as with Senator Johnson, maybe you have
seen through the binoculars, are there on Georgian territory.
The Russians also man several bases in Armenia and help
with the border guard services along the border with Turkey, in
particular. Russia acts as Armenia's security guarantor, vis-a-
vis Turkey. And then the Russian peacekeepers are now in
Nagorno-Karabakh for the first time since the breakup of the
Soviet Union.
And so I think in part this is the challenge of being a
country like Georgia. I am sure Foreign Minister Zalkaliani,
when he has come through, shares his vision of Georgia, an
ancient nation surrounded by three empires: the Russian, the
Ottoman, and the Persian. And sometimes the names change, but
those dynamics for a small country like Georgia remain.
And so I think particularly when you have the legacy
states, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, of those three empires
between which Georgia has sought to survive for a millennia,
that they feel that pressure, and that is why they turn to us
as what they see their main strategic partner. And it is
precisely as Senator Johnson said. When that is your threat,
you should not be creating a domestic political crisis. You
need to join ranks, sort out the domestic rules of the game,
and then focus on your real challenges, which are the changed
geostrategic reality of the South Caucuses and straightening
out your economy to be competitive and particularly in a post-
COVID environment.
Senator Shaheen. So when we were there in 2012 Ivanishvili
was considered the father of Georgia Dream, funded Georgia
Dream, and was also criticized for being too close to Russia
and taking orders from Russia basically. Now, he denied that,
and as I understand, has continued to deny that and Georgia
Dream continues to deny that, but to what extent do we think
there is still some truth in that and how much are we concerned
that Georgia Dream may not feel free to make its own decisions
about trying to resolve the current crisis, but is continuing
the impasse because it benefits Russia?
Mr. Kent. Madam Chairwoman, I think it is safe to assess
that the Georgia Dream Government, which has been in office
starting with Bidzina Ivanishvili as Prime Minister and then as
party chair and now stepping down formally from that role, has
retained Georgia's commitment to its path of integration of
western institutions. It is the Georgia Dream Government that
has announced that it will apply for EU membership in 2024.
They continue to want to join NATO. And so I think it is very
clear that not only is that the overwhelming choice of at least
three quarters of Georgians, it has consistently been the path
of choice of the Georgia Dream governments that were started by
and continue to be led by, whether formally as a chair or
informally as the founder, Bidzina Ivanishvili.
So I think when we hear Georgians, including the new Prime
Minister who was the defense minister and with whom we worked
closely, that commitment to Georgia's path and their strategic
goal is clear. I think this hearing has focused on whether the
commitment is to the values that will lead them to that path,
because NATO is not just a military alliance. It is a community
of countries that share values. And I think this really is the
ultimate test in why these developments that you have called
the hearing to discuss are so important for Georgia's future.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. And certainly as we look
at their positioning within Eurasia between three empires,
historic empires, having support from the west in that
integration with the European community and the west is very
important in providing the support that will help them continue
towards democratization and building of their institutions.
Can I just ask a final question? Senator Johnson suggested
a resolution which has been one way that the Senate has made
clear how we view certain issues. How helpful do either of you
think that will be with the current crisis and is there
anything else as you think about what this committee and what
the Senate might do to make clear the message that we have that
all parties should come to the table. They should negotiate an
end to this crisis. And they should move on in a way that
continues to be a strong partner and ally of the United States.
Ms. McDonald. Thank you, George. Thank you for the question
and I very much wanted to add a couple of thoughts.
Senator Shaheen. Good.
Ms. McDonald. I think modeling of the bipartisan leadership
that you are showing here today is so important for Georgian
leadership to see. That is really the model that we have been
pushing for, that is coming together, a culture of power
sharing, and a culture of pluralism.
And I wanted to make a quick comment about Ranking Member
Johnson's question regarding the landscape of the political
parties. What I would note on this is that a lot of the
assistance that we have been providing is focused on building
platform based parties, not personality based parties, with the
notion that that is how you coalition build. You get around
issues. You get around issues that your constituents care
about. And that is how you build coalitions within a multiparty
system that we have seen in Georgia.
But thank you also for the question about how Congress can
help. I wanted to make one other quick comment if you will
permit me, Madam Chairwoman, please. And that is as we focus on
the importance of compromise in this dialogue and getting
through this impasse, we feel it is very important also to
continue to press and urge for these electoral and judicial
reforms and the buy-in of these parties, both in spirit and
letter, right. We have found this process of reform to be a
very, very long one in Georgia, particularly as regards to
judicial sector. And I think we do not want to lose sight of
that longer, wider, structural set of issues because my fear is
that we get past an impasse and then you come back around to
these key issues. And the protests start again and then again
it goes into playing into Russian hands. So it really is those
wider issues. And frankly, the OSCE/IDIHR report is an
excellent roadmap.
Senator Shaheen. Good. Well, thank you both very much for
your testimony this afternoon and for your continuing good work
to help resolve, support Georgians in resolving their own
impasse, and we stand ready to help in any way we can. And we
will go forward with the resolution that Senator Johnson
suggests.
Thank you. This hearing has now ended.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]