Protests in Georgia over the Foreign Agents Bill

Introduction

Georgia, a former republic of the USSR, has taken global attention for its wide-scale protests over the foreign agents bill. NATO expansion which started shortly after the collapse of the USSR promised Georgian approval of the NATO membership bid in 2008 which led to the 15-day war with Russia that resulted in the formation of two independent republics, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Georgia, like Ukraine, has found itself caught between the two geopolitical powers. The public of Georgia is divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian foreign policy ideologies.

What is the Foreign Agents Bill?

The Georgian Dream Party along with its allies drafted this piece of legislation. The foreign agents bill would impose severe fines on organizations that get over 20% of their financing from outside the country unless they register as “agents of foreign influence.”

The only requirement outlined in the law of Georgia on transparency of foreign influence is for entities with foreign influence within the nation to publish their annual financial reports once a year. The foreign agents bill was signed into law by Speaker of the Parliament, Shalva Papuashvili, after parliamentarians from the administration overrode President Salome Zourabichvili’s veto on 28th May 2024.

Debate and Criticism

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze passed it with 84 members of the 150-seat house voting in favor of the bill and 30 against it. Georgia Dream, the country’s governing party, has controlled the majority in parliament for more than ten years. Although the party aspires to align with the EU and its principles, it maintains amicable relations with Russia.

The Georgian government has said that the bill is required to encourage openness and thwart Western plans to entice Georgia into a conflict with Russia. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze in a statement said “Citizens of Georgia are entitled to know who is funded by whom in this country, who is carrying positive or negative influences of a foreign power. In such conditions, the Georgian public will be better protected from any attempt of its sovereignty to be abused.”

Additionally, he stated that over 80% of the population in Georgia supports transparency of foreign influence, as has been documented on numerous occasions, and over 60% support the foreign agents bill or now known as the law on transparency of foreign influence, which prohibits criticism of foreigners. Last year, the Georgian government tried to pass this law, but a huge public response forced the government to withdraw it.

The foreign agents bill has drawn attention because of its remarkable resemblance to Russia’s foreign agent law from 2012. Russia’s foreign agent statute took advantage of the populace’s concerns about foreign influence and made Russian organizations that it targeted seem like dangerous spies. At least 148 important Russian NGOs and media outlets have stopped operating since 2016 because of the irreversible harm done to their reputations after they were labeled as foreign agents.

After its approval, the controversial foreign agents bill sparked huge protests and thousands of people came to the streets on a rainy day in Tbilisi, Georgia. The protestors carried EU flags and chanted “No to Russian Law.” In response, the anti-riot police arrested at least 66 protestors even Levan Khabeishvili, the head of Georgia’s major opposition party, the United National Movement (UNM).

International Response

The bill’s approval triggered a serious response from the United States and its European allies. The United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom criticized the bill and called it Russian law. After the reintroduction of the bill, the United States warned the Georgian government that the US would impose sanctions on those who voted in favor of the bill.

The White House National Security advisor wrote on X that the democratic backsliding in Georgia gravely alarmed them. Georgian lawmakers must decide whether to enact a foreign agent’s law akin to that of the Kremlin, which goes against democratic principles or support the country’s aspirations to join the European Union. In a statement, Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State, said that “the law would ‘stifle the exercise of freedoms of association and expression’ and impede independent media organizations’ work”.

In a statement, the EU stated that it was “considering all options to react to these developments” and that it “deeply regrets” the vote to override the veto. EU also added that the approval of this bill will act as a hindrance to Georgian EU membership for which they applied in 2011. Meanwhile, Members of Parliament have called on the British government to bolster its reaction to the demonstrations and call Sophie Katsarava, the Georgian ambassador to London, in for a dressing down. Furthermore, Russia denies its role in the drafting of such bill and has not issued any official statement after the bill’s approval.

Conclusion

The foreign agents bill is seen as pro-Russian, sparking huge protests in Georgia as a larger portion of the population is pro-West. The primary cause of the pro-Western sentiment among the populace is the 2008 conflict between Georgia and Russia, which the people argued was an illegal occupation. The government considers this bill necessary to protect the country’s sovereignty, but it is poised to damage relations with the US and EU.

A foreign agent bill was also passed by the US Congress, but they claim that the Georgian foreign agent bill is different from theirs and is similar to the Russian bill passed in 2012. Moreover, the foreign response can be seen as unjustified because the bill is now approved by the democratically elected government, and the foreign governments do not have any right to interfere in the matters of other countries’ legislation.

---

If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.