Police line up at an anti-government outside the parliament building in Tbilisi. Credit: Gvantsa Kalandadze

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 20 2025 (IPS)

Having attended hundreds of anti-government protests in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, Gvantsa Kalandadze is no stranger to police intimidation and violence.

Police brutality has become common at the daily protests that have taken place in the city since the end of last year, when the autocratic government of the Georgian Dream party said it was stopping the country’s process of integration into the EU.

Kalandadze has seen others fall victim to police brutality and experienced it on more than one occasion herself—soon after leaving a protest in December last year, she was pushed to the ground and kicked viciously by a group of officers for questioning the arrest of a man in the street, and during another gathering a few weeks later, she was knocked out when officers pushed her and other protestors into a ditch.

But when the protests began, police violence against protesters seemed indiscriminate; research by rights group Amnesty International suggests that women protesters are now being targeted specifically and are facing escalating violence and gender-based reprisals.

Kalandadze says she is not surprised by the news.

“It’s true. The police are aggressive and they harass women both verbally, using demeaning terms such as ‘slut,’ ‘daughter of a whore,’ and others, and threaten us with rape and assault,” she says.

Amnesty’s research details the police’s methods to target women, which involves increasing use of gender-based violence including sexist insults, threats of sexual violence and unlawful and degrading strip searches against women involved in protests.

“We have spoken to people personally about what they experienced at the hands of the police, such as being forced to undergo strip-searches and threats of rape during detention,” Denis Krivosheev, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, told IPS.

The group’s research also highlights individual cases of this abuse, including cases of women being violently restrained by officers, forced to strip naked, denied access to medical treatment, threatened with rape, and subjected to sexual insults.

Amnesty says these abuses not only violate Georgian law, which prohibits full undressing during searches, but also international human rights law and standards aimed at safeguarding human dignity and protecting people from gender-based violence.

“Forcing someone to completely strip naked [in detention] is against both international and Georgian law, yet despite this, the police are forcing protesters to do this. It is clearly a deliberate police policy, despite it being against the law,” said Krivosheev.

While Amnesty says it has spoken to numerous women about such abuse, Krivosheev said, “the number [of women who are victims of this targeting] is far more than we have been able to document simply because many victims are scared to speak out about what happened to them.”

Female protesters who spoke to IPS confirmed that police harassment of women at protests was widespread, but also that it was often used to provoke a specific response, and not always just from women.

“The thing is that women are never violent at protests; they would never attack police, and the police are insulting us—usually with sexual slurs like saying we’re all sluts, bitches, whores, and insults about oral and anal sex—to try and provoke us into doing something that would get us arrested or force the men around us to try and protect us and do something that will get those men arrested,” Vera*, who has attended scores of protests in Tbilisi, told IPS.

“I know multiple women who were physically pushed, dragged, or detained. Some were insulted with misogynistic language. A few were groped during arrests—and that isn’t isolated… many of us know someone personally who’s experienced this abuse,” Tamar*, a civil rights campaigner from Tbilisi who has attended scores of protests, told IPS.

She added that police were even cooperating with, or at least tolerating, criminals abusing women protesters.

“The police have used violence—tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, and physical force—but that’s only part of the story. What’s even more disturbing is the presence of organized criminal gangs. These groups operate with impunity, clearly coordinated, yet the police don’t intervene. They specifically target women activists—chasing them, splashing green substances on their faces, shouting threats, and trying to scare them off the streets.

“I was personally hit in the head with a stone by one of these thugs. When I asked a police officer for help, he sarcastically told me to ask my ‘fellow democratic fighters’ who did it, as if it had come from among the people protesting. There’s zero accountability when the violence comes from those orchestrated to look like random citizens. It’s a deliberate tactic to terrorize protesters, especially women, while maintaining official deniability,” she said.

Many female protesters believe the reasons behind the targeting of women are rooted in not just the role women are playing in the current protests but also the “misogynist tendencies” of many officers.

“There is also a culture of toxic masculinity that goes hand in hand with the conservative part of society—the police are angry that women are taking the initiative [in protests]—female participation in the current protests is a lot larger than ever before—and that causes their aggression. The police see (or, at least, saw at the beginning) women at protests as ‘inferior’ compared to men and think they will be easier to break morally and easier to overpower physically.

“Another factor is the sexual deviations of individuals in the police force—when they feel power over the women after detaining them, their perversion takes over,” Vera explained.

Others put it down to how police perceive women as a serious threat to their authority.

“I think that the real reason the police are targeting women is that women are truly fearless in these protests. They are very resilient and persistent and always on the frontlines. They have actually physically saved a lot of men from the hands of violent police. I truly believe that the police feel threatened by them,” Paata Sabelashvili, a rights campaigner in Tbilisi who has taken part in protests, told IPS.

He added, though, that “in light of the misogyny and sexism among police officers, this is, sadly, not unexpected, and I fear it will only get worse in the future.”

While Amnesty has called on Georgian authorities to immediately end all forms of gender-based reprisals and all unlawful use of force by law enforcement, investigate every allegation of abuse during the protests, and ensure accountability at all levels, neither the group itself nor protesters who spoke to IPS, believe that is likely to happen soon.

“There is little hope under the current government for accountability and effective investigation [of police abuse during protests],” said Krivosheev.

Local media have reported that investigations into complaints made by women about the violence and threats they have faced from police at protests have largely gone nowhere, as have investigations by the Special Investigation Service, which is tasked with independently investigating crimes committed by police, despite hundreds of reports of police violence in 2024 alone.

The government has not commented on claims of women protesters being targeted by police, but in the past it has justified police action at protests as being a response to violence from protesters and has claimed, without evidence, that the protests are being funded from abroad.

But while women protesters are suffering from abuse and harassment by police, the tactics appear to be galvanizing female participation in protests.

“These gender-based reprisals may have been aimed at scaring women into giving up, but that has not been the case. Women have continued protesting, and if anything, even more intensively. Many women continue to speak up about how the police are treating them,” said Krivosheev.

Kalandadze says that despite her experiences, she will not stop attending protests.

“The day the government announced it would suspend Georgia’s EU integration, I decided to join the street protests, and the violent suppression began the same night. Since then, I have attended every protest where protesters have been in danger—every gathering where the police special forces were called in. Even today, I take part in every protest where police forces are mobilized,” she says.

Vera pointed out that although the size of street protests in Tbilisi has grown smaller, they continue on a daily basis.

“The fact that there is some kind of protest in the capital every day is discomfiting for the government and also serves to ensure that the regime is not legitimized in the eyes of the country’s former western partners. There are lots of female activists and the leaders of the protest marches are always women. We have shown so much resilience. We believe in each other. This country is ours,” she said.

Tamar was even more defiant.

“When women lead, especially in a patriarchal society, it destabilizes the whole narrative. It’s not just about political dissent; it’s about cultural control. Yes, I fear things may get worse before they get better. But we aren’t taking a step back,” she said.

*Names have been changed for their safety.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Organizers decided to cancel physical Pride events this year for fear of a repeat of violence that marred the 2023 event when far-right groups attacked festival goers. The organizers and Georgia's president said anti-LGBT hate speech from government officials had incited violence ahead of the event in Tbilisi.

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Jun 26 2024 (IPS)

“If this legislation passes, LGBT+ people simply aren’t going to be able to live here.” The warning from Tamar Jakeli, an LGBT+ activist and Director of Tbilisi Pride in Tbilisi, Georgia, is stark, but others in the country’s LGBT+ community agree, accurate.

Jakeli is talking to IPS in early June, soon after the ruling government party, Georgian Dream, proposed a bill in parliament that would, among others, outlaw any LGBT+ gatherings, ban same-sex marriages, gender transition and the adoption of children by same-sex couples. 

It will also prohibit LGBT+ ‘propaganda’ in schools and broadcasters and advertisers will also have to remove any content featuring same-sex relationships before broadcast, regardless of the age of the intended audience.

Strikingly similar to various legislation passed over the last decade in Russia, where the regime has looked to crack down on any open LGBT+ expression, critics say it could, if passed, have a devastating effect on Georgia’s queer community.

They fear it will lead to violent attacks on LGBT+ people and an increase in stigmatization, marginalization, and repression of the community.

“This legislation will give the green light to anyone who already has very conservative opinions to unleash violence on the LGBT community,” says Jakeli.

Experience from other countries where similar legislation has been introduced suggests this is a very likely outcome.

“The experiences of Russia and other countries that have passed such legislation show a clear pattern: state-sanctioned discrimination tends to foster an environment of hostility and violence against LGBTI communities,” Katrin Hugendubel, Advocacy Director at LGBT+ rights group ILGA-Europe, told IPS.

“This legislative move in Georgia could embolden extremist groups and individuals, leading to an increase in hate crimes and violence. The societal message that LGBTI people are less deserving of rights and protections can have severe and dangerous consequences,” she added.

Rights groups say that while the law would have an immediate negative effect on many aspects of LGBT+ people’s lives, it is also likely to reverse what has been a growing acceptance of the community in the country, albeit a slow one.

Although recent research suggests prejudice against LGBT+ people runs deep among what is a traditionally conservative population, activists say attitudes have become more tolerant towards the community in the last few years.

“There is still a conservative society here, and transphobia, homophobia and prejudice exist, [but] in recent years, surveys have shown people being less homophobic, especially in big cities and among the young. The dynamic has been positive,” Beka Gabadadze, an LGBT+ activist and Chairperson of the Board at Queer Association Temida in Tbilisi, told IPS.

But this could now all be under threat.

“The introduction of this legislation has the potential to undo much of the progress that has been made in recent years,” Hugendubel warned.

“Improvements in the situation for LGBTI individuals in Georgia have been fragile and often driven by the efforts of activists and supportive segments of society. This law, by contrast, represents a significant setback that could negate the positive changes achieved. It could lead to increased fear, discourage public expressions of identity, and drive LGBTI people and their allies back into hiding,” she said.

The bill must pass three readings in parliament before it becomes law, and the last of those is expected for September, a few weeks before planned parliamentary elections.

Activists say they expect it to be passed, pointing to the government’s willingness to push through legislation regardless of how unpopular it might be. a law requiring civil society groups that receive a certain amount of funding from abroad to register as “pursuing the interests of a foreign power” was passed earlier this year, despite massive street protests and overwhelming public opposition to it.

Over the next few months as the Bill is debated, Jakeli says she is expecting rising repression against the community.

She says her organization’s offices have already been attacked—she believes by people connected to the government. A Georgian Dream MP appeared to claim responsibility for a series of attacks against the offices of civil society organizations in May this year.

She also expects many LGBT+ people to start, if they have not already, planning a new life abroad.

While Georgian Dream has said the bill has been introduced as a necessary measure to stop the spread of “pseudo-liberal” values that undermine traditional family relationships, critics see it as the latest cynical attempt by a government turning away from the West to increase stigmatisation of certain groups, particularly the LGBT+ community, for political gain ahead of elections.

Georgian Dream also linked its foreign influence legislation to protecting the country from NGOs promoting LGBT+ rights, among others.

“The timing and nature of these legislative moves suggest that they are part of a broader strategy to appeal to homophobic and anti-minority sentiments among certain voter bases,” said Hugendubel. “This tactic has been used in other countries to consolidate power by stoking fears and prejudices,” she added.

Following the implementation of the foreign agent law, the US slapped sanctions on Georgian officials and the EU is currently considering similar action. There have been calls for similar moves to deter the government from pursuing its anti-LGBT+ legislation.

“International pressure, such as sanctions or diplomatic measures, can be effective in signalling to the Georgian government that these actions have severe repercussions. Additionally, domestic protests and sustained public opposition can also play a crucial role in pushing back against these laws,” said Hugendubel.

But Jakeli said the government might try to use any mass protests to further push their own repressive political narrative.

“What Georgian Dream wants is for LGBT+ activists to go out on the streets now and protest and then they can turn around to voters and say, ‘Look, these are radicals trying to overthrow the government who want to spread their decadent western morals through Georgian society’,” she says.

Activists say they are holding out hope that the elections in October will bring about a change of government. Although Jakeli admits the “odds of that happening are not great” with opposition parties, she points out, “facing almost as much repression from the government as the LGBT+ community does.”

But even if Georgian Dream do remain in power after the October vote, Jakeli believes its efforts to further stigmatize the LGBT+ community may actually have already backfired.

“The protests against the ‘foreign agent’ law united different sections of society and more and more people see anti-LGBT+ laws as another ‘Russian’ method of polarizing and dividing society.

“When I was on the front lines of the foreign agent law protests, for the first time I felt as if I was part of the majority, not minority, in Georgia. I think that people have realized that everyone should have human rights, including LGBT+ people,” she says.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, has been attracting hundreds of thousands of Russians since the war in Ukraine started in February 2022. The city is a favored destination where Russians can still travel visa-free.

By IPS Correspondent
TBILISI, Mar 21 2023 (IPS)

Since the war in Ukraine started in February last year, at least 1.5 million Russian citizens have crossed the Russia-Georgia border, official data states. However, as of today, it needs to be clarified how many of them stayed in the country, but walking the streets of the Georgian capital Tbilisi, the presence of Russian nationals can be seen almost everywhere.

Right after the war started and even more when Russia announced a partial mobilization in September 2022, hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens – primarily men – traveled to countries where they could travel visa-free, including Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Turkey, and Georgia. Among those destinations, Georgia is among the most enticing because of its mild climate, wine, food, and nightlife-heavy capital. At the moment, Russian citizens can spend twelve renewable months in Georgia, and many of them are planning to stay in the long term, as the war seems would still last long.

The arrival of thousands of Russians has significantly impacted Georgian society. The country is known for its hospitality, but many Georgians are concerned about the effect such a large influx could have on their country’s social fabric. There have been reports of tension between Russians and locals and concerns about potential cultural clashes. While walking in Tbilisi, the Russian language can be easily heard in most bars, cafes, and restaurants, day and night. In contrast, there is a solid pro-Ukrainian sentiment and a not-so-hidden antagonism toward Russians. Every twenty meters or so, it is possible to spot on the streets of Tbilisi a Ukrainian flag hanging from a balcony, at the entrance of a restaurant or bar, or drawn on a wall.

As the Russians poured into Georgia, many Georgians have come to fear that the emigres somehow could serve as a pretext for Putin to target their country in the future, just as it did happen to Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. For this reason, the recent influx of Russians—mainly men who fear being conscripted into arms—has created a tense social climate in Georgia and an increased distrust towards Russians.

Suspicion towards Russian emigration is also motivated by historical events indicating the two countries as potential enemies. Indeed, Russia currently occupies 20 percent of Georgia; in 2008, a five-day conflict (“South Ossetia conflict”) broke out between the two countries over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia lost control of both areas, and Russia later recognized them as independent states. As a consequence, Tbilisi cut off diplomatic relations with Moscow, after which Switzerland took up the role of mediator country.

Today, stickers reading “Russia currently occupies 20 percent of Georgian territory” are prominently displayed at the entrance to many restaurants, bars, coworking spaces, and local shops. Many Georgians believe that the Russians who have fled their country are not opponents of the Moscow government but do not want to risk their lives at the front in Ukraine. Irakli, a baker from central Tbilisi, told IPS: “If they don’t like Putin, and they don’t share his war, then they should fight and oppose him in Russia, not run away here to Georgia.”

Many Georgians fear that the recent wave of Russians fleeing to their country is less ideological than the first one that occurred right after the beginning of the war in February 2022. There is a widespread belief that, while the first wave mainly included activists, intellectuals, and anti-Putin individuals, the current wave might consist of people who fear being conscripted to fight in Ukraine but do not oppose the Russian government’s policies—including its decision to invade Ukraine.

Because of these concerns, a survey conducted by the Caucasus Research Resource Centers in February-March 2022 revealed that 66 percent of Georgians favor re-introducing a visa regime for Russians. That visa regime was abolished for Russians in 2012, but now many Georgians think it should be revisited. However, the same survey revealed that 49 percent of respondents approved the Georgian national government’s rejection of imposing sanctions on Russia. On the one hand, this data could be interpreted as a tightening of ties with the Kremlin. More simply, it should be read as a policy aimed at not worsening diplomatic relations, as Georgia could fear some retaliation—even military—from Moscow.

Furthermore, Georgia depends on remittances from its citizens working in Russia, and, in the past, its tourism industry has prospered from Russian visitors. Most Georgian politicians agree that the country is pursuing a ‘pragmatic and careful stance toward Russia’ by not imposing sanctions and keeping the current visa-free regime. For example, Eka Sepashvili, a member of parliament who left the governing Georgian Dream party, remains aligned with it on this policy.

Adverse effects aside, Russian migration to Georgia has undoubtedly stimulated the local economy. Many among those migrants are information technology (IT) remote workers, sometimes even hired by Western companies. Therefore, their salaries are way higher than the Georgian average (300-500 US dollars per month), and their living in Georgia guarantees an essential boost to local consumption.

According to the World Bank, the 2022 Georgian economic growth was 10 percent. The surge in money transfers from Russia, the recovery in domestic demand, and the rebound of tourism after the pandemic have been the main reasons for the positive performance. The World Bank further forecasted a 4 percent and 5 percent economic growth for 2023 and 2024, respectively.

Furthermore, a recent Transparency International (TI) report shows 17,000 Russian companies are registered in Georgia. More than half of them were registered after the start of the war in Ukraine. Only in March-September of 2022, up to 9,500 Russian companies were registered, which, according to the report, is ten times more than the entire figure for 2021. According to TI, this trend indicates that many Russian nationals plan to stay in Georgia long term. Not coincidentally, in April-September 2022, remittances from Russia to Georgia amounted to 1,135 million US dollars—a fivefold increase.

Artem, a Russian engineer in his forties, arrived in Tbilisi in October 2022 after Putin announced the partial mobilization. He works remotely, so he can afford to continue living in Georgia as long as his salary allows. He stays in a guest house that is usually intended for tourists. The structure has six single rooms and two with more beds to share. In recent months, 95 percent of the tenants have been Russians who have started living here for medium-to-long periods.

Since it is the low tourist season, the landlord has agreed to rent to Russians. Still, with the arrival of the high season in May, he may return to prefer the more profitable short-term rentals.

“For now, I am staying here, but with the arrival of spring, I will probably have to look for a new place,” Artem told IPS.

Despite having a higher salary than the local average, Artem cannot afford many accommodations since prices have skyrocketed. Talking to him and other current tenants of the guest house – all Russian men – it isn’t easy to find someone who would say he doesn’t like Putin. They say they are against the war and worried about the current situation. Still, they go no further, perhaps for fear of sharing their ideas or probably because their opposition to the Moscow government is, in fact, minimal, as many Georgians believe.

Georgi, a Georgian tour guide, tells us that, according to him, Russian migrants are divided into two large groups: men—especially IT workers—who are mainly afraid of being called up but are not great opponents of Putin and those who oppose him fervently. The latter are activists, journalists, intellectuals, and members of the LGBT community—people who risked their lives in Russia—even before the start of the war in Ukraine.

The distrust towards Russians emerged even more during the first days of March when many Georgians complained that Russian citizens living in Georgia had not taken to the streets with them to protest against the so-called “foreign agents’ law.”

The law, which lawmakers dropped on March 11 after days of mass protests in Tbilisi, would have required individuals, civil society organizations, and media outlets that receive 20 percent of their funding from abroad to register as an “agent of foreign influence” with the Georgian Justice Ministry.

The law was largely criticized by civil society groups, opposition politicians, human rights organizations, and even US and EU institutions. They argued the law was an attempt to suppress dissent and restrict freedom of expression in the country, and they compared it to similar legislation in Russia that Moscow has used to crack down on NGOs and independent journalism.

The government of Georgia has been defending the law, saying it was necessary to prevent foreign interference in the country’s political affairs. The term “foreign agent” has highly negative connotations in Georgia and is often associated with espionage and foreign interference. Therefore, supporters of the law argue that foreign governments or organizations may influence “agents” receiving funding from foreign sources and that it is important to ensure that they are transparent about their funding sources. On the other hand, critics of the law argue that by forcing entities and individuals to register as “foreign agents,” the government is trying to delegitimize them in the eyes of the public and stigmatize them as tools of foreign powers.

Alisa, a Russian woman who arrived in Tbilisi in April 2022 and who clearly defines herself as anti-Putin, told IPS that she was contacted on social media by a local resident with whom she had interacted. That person pressed for her to take to the streets to protest against the “foreign agents” law. The Georgian person told Alisa that it was not fair that Russians living in Georgia stand by and watch the protests without joining them and that if they wanted to enjoy the freedoms that are lacking in Russia, then they should actively participate in all aspects of the civic life of an ordinary Georgian citizen, including protesting against that law.

“I didn’t join the protests, not because I disagreed with the demonstrators. Indeed, it was a glorious moment for democracy and the demand for freedom. However, some Georgians should understand that for some Russian citizens, exposing themselves in a protest that is also indirectly against Russia can threaten their lives,” Alisa told IPS.

As Georgia continues to navigate its relationship with Russia and the West, the influx of Russians will undoubtedly play a role in shaping the country’s future. As of today, it is still not clear whether the Georgian government will change its policy toward Russian migrants. The country seems trapped in a dilemma that crosses economic, social, political, and geopolitical aspects. The need to ensure the continuation of economic growth in the short and medium terms suggests keeping the doors open to Russians.

On the other hand, this influx is causing ever-higher prices, which in the long run will probably end up harming the living conditions of the more economically vulnerable locals, facilitating urban gentrification and, potentially, higher social tensions. Finally, from a political and geopolitical perspective, the government in Tbilisi will have to deal with a growing push from the population to get closer to the West and Europe – as seen with the recent protests against the “foreign agents” law – in the face of an inevitable growing link with Russia, precisely given the strong presence of Russians in the country.

As Georgia continues to navigate its relationship with Russia and the West, the influx of Russians will undoubtedly play a role in shaping the country’s future. As of today, it is still not clear whether the Georgian government will change its policy toward Russian migrants. The country seems trapped in a dilemma that crosses economic, social, political, and geopolitical aspects.

The need to ensure the continuation of economic growth in the short and medium terms suggests keeping the doors open to Russians. On the other hand, this influx is causing ever-higher prices, which in the long run will probably end up harming the living conditions of the more economically vulnerable locals, facilitating urban gentrification and, potentially, higher social tensions. Finally, from a political and geopolitical perspective, the government in Tbilisi will have to deal with a growing push from the population to get closer to the West and Europe in the face of an inevitable growing link with Russia, precisely given the strong presence of Russians in the country.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Georgians gathered in central Tbilisi on Nov. 25 to rally against domestic violence during the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Credit: Giorgi Lomsadze

By Giorgi Lomsadze
TBILISI, Dec 11 2014 (EurasiaNet)

The issue of domestic violence is moving to the forefront of public attention in Georgia after a series of killings of women at the hands of their respective spouses or ex-spouses made headlines in local mass media.

While no quick fix exists for the spike in violence, observers believe that changing the way police respond to abuse complaints is a good place to start.

When 22-year-old model Salome Jorbenadze phoned the police earlier this year in the western town of Zugdidi, she was hoping to receive protection against her abusive former husband. But all she received was a lecture from two policewomen about what a woman has to do to pacify an embittered ex, a source familiar with the case told EurasiaNet.org.”For many, being a man means to show that you've got the power, that you are in charge, and some just flip when they cannot assert that role and they take it out on women.” -- Naniko Vachnadze

Jorbenadze went on to complain to an in-house police-oversight agency. But no restraining order was issued against her former husband, Sergi Satseradze, a police officer. He later shot Jorbenadze dead in a crowded Zugdidi park on Jul. 25.

Twenty-four other women are estimated to have met similar fates this year. One analyst studying the trend asserts police have repeatedly failed to act on women’s reports of receiving threats from their former or current spouses.

“Such cases show that the state is failing to fulfill its ultimate human rights commitment: protecting the lives of its citizens,” said Tamar Dekanosidze, an attorney specialising in human-rights law at the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, a civil-rights watchdog.

English teacher Maka Tsivtsivadze also reported death threats she was receiving from her former husband, but he only received a verbal warning from police. Her Oct. 17 murder, taking place in broad daylight inside a centrally located university building in the capital, Tbilisi, shocked city residents.

The number of such killings is believed to be a record for a single year, but the way the police categorise such murders muddies the picture. A killing involving a man and his current or former wife is almost always classified as an unintentional, rather than premeditated murder – even in one 2013 case when an ex-husband fired 24 shots at his ex-wife, Dekanosidze said.

The misclassification of many killings skews official crime statistics and also leads to less severe sentences for those convicted of crimes. Premeditated murders carry a seven-to-15 year prison sentence; death from bodily injuries, six to eight years.

Prosecutors and police did not respond to requests for comment.

Tsivtsivadze’s case may be a tipping point for change. Amid a recent series of protests and rallies designed to heighten awareness of domestic violence, officials have acknowledged that Georgia has a femicide problem. It has set up an ad-hoc commission to collect recommendations from civil society groups and international experts on how to tackle gender-based violence.

UN Women, the United Nations agency that focuses on women’s issues, has advised that simplifying procedures for issuing restraining orders could help. The organisation’s Georgia branch has suggested allowing police to issue a restraining order even without court approval, and using bracelets “to control compliance,” said Irina Japaridze, who runs a gender-equality programme for UN Women.

At the same time, many recent public discussions have tried to put Georgians collectively on the couch to try to gain insight into the motivations behind the violence. Social psychologists worry about a copycat-killing effect, but Georgian society’s patriarchal norms are broadly seen as the root of the problem.

“I think we generally have very wrong ideas about what it means to be a man,” commented Naniko Vachnadze, a female graduate student at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs in Tbilisi. ”For many, being a man means to show that you’ve got the power, that you are in charge, and some just flip when they cannot assert that role and they take it out on women.”

Thirty-four percent of 2,391 respondents in a 2013 poll run by the UN Women programme said that violence against women “can be justified in certain domestic circumstances, such as neglect of maternal duties or other family cares,” Japaridze said.

Men are often given the benefit of the doubt for such behaviour, an attitude that can result in psychological abuse, Vachnadze said. “Many husbands are telling their wives not to go to work, not to visit friends, stay home and raise the kids,” she elaborated.

The perception of a husband’s role can continue even after a divorce. Many Georgians see an ex-wife leading an independent life as a humiliation for the man.

As elsewhere in the macho Caucasus, male and female frequently are not seen as created equal. The tradition of parents passing on property exclusively to a male heir still exists; a female fetus tends more often to lead to an abortion.

Other underlying psychological issues are believed to contribute to abuse – namely, the traumatizing post-Soviet experience of wars, lawlessness and economic collapse, as well as stress associated with the fast pace of societal change over the past two decades. Some see the violence even as a manifestation of men’s reaction to urban Georgian women’s increasing public prominence, whether as entrepreneurs, politicians, civil-society figures or, even, car drivers.

“Although we say that we live a very traditionalist society, many cultural changes have happened in recent years and it is clashing with ossified views on gender roles,” commented prominent art critic and feminist activist Teo Khatiashvili.

Tackling the cultural aspects of violence against women may be a far greater challenge than improving the police response, but Georgia, as a signatory of the U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, has international commitments to do so.

Parliament is expected soon to ratify the Istanbul Convention, a treaty that stipulates that a failure to address domestic violence constitutes a human-rights violation. Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili has underlined that Georgia does not shy away from such definitions.

“Respect for women is a lasting tradition in Georgia and the increased acts of violence against women are incompatible with this tradition and are extremely shameful,” he said on Nov. 25, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

Editor’s note:  Giorgi Lomsadze is a freelance journalist based in Tbilisi. He is a frequent contributor to EurasiaNet.org’s Tamada Tales blog. This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Irina was 21 when she first started using drugs. More than 30 years later, having lost her husband, her home and her business to drugs, she is still battling her addiction.

But, like almost all female drug addicts in this former Soviet state, she has faced a desperate struggle not only with her drug problem, but with accessing help in the face of institutionalised and systematic discrimination because of her gender.

“Georgia’s society is very male-dominated,” she told IPS. “And this is reflected in the attitudes to drugs. It’s as if it’s OK for men to use drugs but not women. For women, the stigma of drug use is massive. There are many women who do not join programmes helping them as they would rather not be seen there.”

Women make up 10 per cent of the estimated 40,000 drug users in Georgia, according to research by local NGOs working with drug users.“Georgia’s society is very male-dominated and this is reflected in the attitudes to drugs. It’s as if it’s OK for men to use drugs but not women. For women, the stigma of drug use is massive. There are many women who do not join programmes helping them as they would rather not be seen there” – Irina, now in her 50s, who has been taking drugs for 30 years

However, because of very strong gender stereotyping, women users have very low access to harm reduction services – only 4 percent of needle exchange programme clients are women and the figure is even less for methadone treatment.

Local activists say this startling discrepancy is down to the massive social stigma faced by women drug users.

Dasha Ocheret, Deputy Director for Advocacy at the Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (EHRN) told IPS: “In traditional societies, like Georgia’s, there is a much stronger negative attitude to women who use drugs than to men who use drugs. Women are supposed to be wives and mothers, not drug users.”

Many female addicts are scared to access needle exchanges or other harm reduction services because they fear their addiction will become known to their families or the police. Many have found themselves the victims of violence as their own families try to exert control over them once their drug use has been revealed. Others fear their drug use will be reported to the authorities by health workers.

Registered women drug users can have their children taken away while they routinely face violence – over 80 percent of women who use drugs in Georgia experience violence, according to the Georgian Harm Reduction Network– and extortion at the hands of police helping to enforce some of the world’s harshest drug laws. Possession of cannabis, for example, can result in an 11-year jail sentence.

Irina, who admits that she arranges anonymous attendance at an opioid substitution therapy (OST) programme so that as few people as possible can see her there, told IPS that she had herself been assaulted by a police officer and that police automatically viewed all female drug users as “criminals”.

But those who do want to access such services face further barriers because of their gender.

Free methadone substitution programmes in the country are extremely limited and because levels of financial autonomy among women in Georgia are low, other similar programmes are too expensive for many female addicts.

Discrimination is not uncommon among health service workers. Although some say that they have been treated by very sympathetic doctors, other female drug users have complained of abuse and denigration by medical staff and in some cases being denied health care because of their drug use.

Pregnant women are discouraged from accessing OST, despite it being shown to be safe in pregnancy and resulting in better health outcomes for both mother and child.

Eka Iakobishvili, EHRN’s Human Rights Programme Manager, told IPS: “Pregnant women don’t have access to certain services – they are strongly advised by doctors and health care workers to abort a baby rather than get methadone substitution treatment because they are told the treatment will harm the baby.”

While some may then undergo abortions, others will not, instead continuing dangerous drug use and the potential risk of contracting HIV/AIDS which could then be passed on to their child.

Meanwhile, those harm reduction services accessible by women are not gender-sensitive, according to campaigners, who say that female drug users need access to centres and programmes run and attended only by women.

Irina told IPS: “On some [harm reduction] programmes, the male drug users there will abuse the women drug users for taking drugs. This puts a lot of women off attending these programmes.”

She said that she had asked for a women-only service to be set up at the OST centre she attends but that it had been rejected on the grounds that only a few women were enrolled in it.

Together, these factors mean that many women are unable to access health services and continue dangerous drug-taking behaviour, sharing needles and injecting home-made drug cocktails made up of anything, including disinfectants and petrol mixed with over the counter medicines.

But there is hope that the situation may be about to change, at least to some degree, as local and international groups press to have the problem addressed.

At the end of July, CEDAW (UN Commission on Elimination of Discrimination against Women) released a set of recommendations for the Georgian government to ensure that women obtain proper access to harm reduction services after local NGOs submitted reports on the levels of discrimination they face.

These include, among others, specific calls for the government to carry out nationwide studies to establish the exact number of women who use drugs, including while pregnant, to help draw up a strategic plan to tackle the problem, and to provide gender-sensitive and evidence-based harm reduction services for women who use drugs.

The government has yet to react publicly to the recommendations but local campaigners have said they are speaking to government departments about them and are preparing to follow up with them on the recommendations.

Tea Kordzadze, Project Manager at the Georgian Harm Reduction Network in Tibilisi, told IPS: “We are hoping that at least some of the recommendations will be implemented.”

The Georgian government has been keen to show the country is ready to embrace Western values and bring its legislation and standards into line with European nations in recent years as it looks to create closer ties to the European Union. Rights activists say that this could come into play when the government considers the recommendations.

Iakobishvili said: “These are of course just recommendations and the government is not obliged at all to accept or implement any of them. But, having said that, Georgia does care what other countries and big international rights organisations like Amnesty International and so on say about the country.”

Irina told IPS that only outside pressure would bring any real change. “The European Union, the Council of Europe and other international bodies need to put pressure on the Georgian government to make sure that the recommendations don’t remain on paper only.”

But, she added, “in any case, the recommendations alone won’t be enough. The whole attitude in society to women drug users is very negative. It has to be changed.”

(Edited by Phil Harris)

LGBT flag map of Georgia. Credit: Wikipedia Commons

By Pavol Stracansky
TBILISI, Sep 8 2014 (IPS)

Georgia’s LGBT community is sceptical that recently-introduced anti-discrimination legislation hailed by some rights groups as a bold step forward for the former Soviet state will improve their lives any time soon.

The law, which came into effect in May this year, is ostensibly designed to provide protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in a country where homophobia is deep-rooted at all levels of society and LGBT groups face daily discrimination.

But activists in Georgia say that introduction of the legislation has actually hardened attitudes against the LGBT community and that there are serious concerns over how effectively it can be applied.“Since the law was passed, things are actually worse now for LGBT people. When they make a complaint about something, people just say, ‘what more do you want? You’ve got your rights now in law’. It’s really obnoxious” – Irakli Vacharadze, head of Identoba, the Tbilisi-based rights organisation

Irakli Vacharadze, head of Identoba, the Tbilisi-based rights organisation, told IPS: “Since the law was passed, things are actually worse now for LGBT people. When they make a complaint about something, people just say, ‘what more do you want? You’ve got your rights now in law’. It’s really obnoxious.

“There are also questions over how it is going to be applied and at the moment, at least, it is definitely not effective.”

With a deeply religious society – 84 percent of the population identifies itself as Orthodox Christian – attitudes in Georgia to anything other than traditional heterosexual relationships are deeply negative among much of the population.

LGBT people say that they are often refused service by businesses and hospitals, bullied in school, and harassed by the police. Meanwhile, the Orthodox Church, which has a hugely influential role in society, has denounced LGBT equality and described support for LGBT rights as the “propaganda of sin”.

A 2013 survey by Identoba revealed how entrenched anti-LGBT sentiment is in society – 88 percent of respondents said homosexuality could “never be justified”.

A peaceful gay rights march marking International Day Against Homophobia last year ended in violence as protestors from a rival church-led counter-demonstration attacked and beat LGBT demonstrators.

But the country’s pursuit of closer ties with the European Union forced political parties, which had previously been at best apathetic towards the LGBT community, to address the issue.

As a condition of being granted coveted visa-free travel to EU countries, the government was told it had to implement anti-discrimination laws, including legislation specifically on gender expression and sexual orientation.

And although fiercely opposed by the Church, they were passed with the general support of all political parties.

However, LGBT people in Georgia remain far from convinced that, in its present form, it will help them. Although welcomed as a step forward, rights groups have criticised the fact that a devoted enforcement body was not approved and instead cases will go to the Ombudsman for Human Rights.

They say that the Ombudsman’s office lacks capacity and that effectively dealing with complaints will be compromised. They have called for the passage of additional measures to ensure enforcement of the law.

The Ombudsman’s office has yet to set up a department to deal with anti-discrimination complaints brought under the new legislation and one will not be functional before January.

Meanwhile, faith, or rather lack of it, in the country’s justice system is also likely to limit its effectiveness.

Viorel Ursu, Regional Manager of the Eurasia Programme at the Open Society Foundation, told IPS: “People do not trust the judiciary in general in Georgia. They feel that even when they bring legal action, there is no guarantee that justice will be served. And although there are laws designed to protect against discrimination of LGBT people, they will still face discrimination anyway.”

Activists are under no illusions about what the laws will bring the LGBT community. When asked whether he expected things to get better for LGBT people in Georgia in the near future, Vacharadze said: “Definitely not. There’s no chance.”

But the introduction of the legislation has already had at least one potentially positive effect. LGBT people say a profound ignorance of their gender expression and sexual orientation and their lifestyles contributes to the widespread antipathy towards them in Georgian society, but passage of the laws has at least promoted vitally-needed public discussion of the LGBT community.

Vacharadze told IPS: “The law alone will not change society’s attitudes towards LGBT people, it won’t get rid of homophobia. It won’t do anything to deal with the ignorance about LGBT issues and the community.

“The way to deal with it is to get information about LGBT out to the public and get them informed. One thing about the passage of this legislation was that it did actually create a debate about LGBT people in Georgia and got information about them out into the public and got people discussing it.”

The laws also have a wider significance in that they stand in stark contrast to the repression of LGBT communities in other former Soviet states, most notably Russia which is increasing its persecution of homosexuals through repressive legislation.

Just this week, the senior political figure in recently-annexed Crimea typified the Russian political stance to non-heterosexuals when he attacked LGBT people at a government meeting.

Sergei Aksyonov, leader of the new Russian region, said that if LGBT people held any meetings “police and self-defence forces will react immediately and in three minutes will explain to them what kind of sexual orientation they should stick to.”

He also said that “Crimean children should be brought up with a ‘positive attitude to family and traditional values’,” and that Crimea had “no need” for gays and lesbians.

Some observers say that the passing of the laws in Georgia, at a time when neighbours and other former Soviet states are attacking LGBT people, is proof that the country is set on moving closer to Europe and putting as much political distance between it and Russia, which has annexed some of its territory in recent years.

Indeed, as political parties debated the anti-discrimination laws, Davit Usupashvili, the parliamentary speaker, described the bill as a choice between Russia and the European Union.

Campaigners say that the government’s desire to cultivate closer and closer ties to the EU means that the legislation will, in time, become effective.

Ursu told IPS: “In the next year or so, the Georgian government should look to strengthen the law and try to prove that it is functioning simply because it remains under the scrutiny of the EU.

“The law not only had to be adopted but it also needed to be shown to be working effectively. It is in the government’s interest to ensure that it can be applied effectively.”

(Edited by Phil Harris)

Georgia plans to finalise a pact with the European Union on Jun. 27 that would bring Tbilisi closer to Brussels. Even so, the campaign environment ahead of Georgia’s local elections suggests that the country has quite a bit of distance to cover before it reaches the standards of a European democracy.

The former Soviet republic has yet to experience a campaign season that does not smack of a rowdy soccer match. After a peaceful change of government via a 2013 presidential election and 2012 parliamentary vote, Georgian officials can certainly point to democratization achievements."They are trying to convince us that all the 80 candidates caught some kind of virus and started withdrawing en masse." -- opposition figure Nino Burjanadze

But the run-up to Jun. 15 mayoral and local council elections still has seen bloody noses, egg-throwing and allegations that the governing Georgian Dream coalition is intimidating opposition candidates.

In Tbilisi for a quick check-in ahead of the association-agreement signing ceremony, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, the EU’s chief executive, speaking during a Jun. 12 news conference, voiced concerns about Georgia’s political process.

“It is … key that Georgia remains on the path of political pluralism, media freedom and [an] independent judiciary,” Barroso said. “It is important there are no doubts about freedom and fairness of the elections, so I expect this to happen.”

Campaign incidents already have prompted the European Union’s own human rights adviser to Georgia, Thomas Hammarberg, to urge officials to start a national campaign against violence, including against political figures. The U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi has called for an investigation into the reports of violence and pressure, and for Georgia to keep up “the highest standards of democracy in this region.”

The task is not straightforward. Thirty-one-year-old Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili’s government faces the challenge of not only maneuvering the country toward closer integration with the EU, but sidestepping any funny business by confirmed Euro-skeptic Russia. As has been the case for earlier Georgian governments under pressure, the temptation to use heavy-handed means to maintain political control can run strong.

The government maintains the Jun. 15 elections, which feature 12 mayoral and 2,145 local-council and council-chair races, will occur without incident. But minority parties charge that Gharibashvili and his coalition are trying to create a single-party rule.

The main target of the attacks this election season is former President Mikheil Saakashvili’s United National Movement (UNM), the country’s largest opposition force, which 31-year-old Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili says should “vanish” after the vote.

“We, together with you, have to remove the UNM from government in every district, every city and village,” Gharibashvili declared at a Jun. 9 campaign stop in the Black Sea city of Batumi.

Earlier, Gharibashvili had asserted that his team would not let any party other than his Georgian Dream coalition score victories at the polls. The prime minister put such comments down to campaigning.

The UNM, which has claimed political persecution, questions that definition of diversity. “We are seeing a systematic, well-orchestrated harassment of our candidates to quit the race and to wipe out the opposition,” charged UNM lawmaker Giorgi Kandelaki.

The prime minister’s statements only testify to the government’s orchestration of the attacks, he added. [Editor’s Note: Kandelaki once served as an editorial associate at EurasiaNet.org].

Civil rights groups also point to a string of violent clashes. Several men scuffled with UNM officials at a recent campaign event in Batumi. In Tbilisi, one high-profile UNM member, Zurab Tchiaberashvili, had a glass crushed on his head in a café, while a group of unknown assailants tried to abduct another senior UNM member, Nugzar Tsiklauri.

Overall, political groups and election observers attribute to political pressure the withdrawal of “up to 50 candidates” from six parties, the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy reported. Only four out of 80 candidates interviewed by prosecutors said the same, however, the government has announced.

“They are trying to convince us that all the 80 candidates caught some kind of virus and started withdrawing en masse,” quipped opposition figure Nino Burjanadze, a former parliamentary chair, to Maestro TV.

The prime minister has dismissed criticism of his governing style, claiming that the Georgian Dream is diverse enough to find an opposition within its own ranks.

The Georgian Dream’s deputy chair, Energy Minister Kakha Kaladze, as well as several Georgian Dream members did not respond to requests from EurasiaNet.org for comment. In public statements, the governing coalition has attributed the violence to those who suffered injustices under the UNM’s tenure in power from 2004-2012.

Georgian Dream MP Eka Beselia, a senior coalition figure, alleged that UNM withdrawals from the race are part of a conspiracy to damage the Georgian Dream’s democratic credentials.

Those credentials carry particular weight now. Aside from the EU, Tbilisi is holding its breath for a membership-overture from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation this September.

There may be only so much public criticism the EU can dish out. Determined to hold firm against Russian pressure in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, it already has pledged tens of millions of euros to ensure Georgia’s European transformation sticks.

Signs do exist that its democratic health has improved. Observers note a largely pluralistic media environment, free of “political money,” and a more independent judiciary is taking root. An April 2014 survey of 3,915 voter-age respondents commissioned by the Washington, DC-based National Democratic Institute found that half of all Georgians believe the overall election environment has improved since 2012.

Nonetheless, the democratisation process in Georgia still has a way to go, according to 40 percent of those polled, the highest percentage on that particular question.

This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

Environmental activists and representatives of Georgia’s Ministry of Environment stand outside the Sakdrisi-Kachagiani mining site after guards stopped them from entering on Mar. 17. Credit: Paul Rimple

By Paul Rimple
TBILISI, Mar 18 2014 (EurasiaNet)

It turns out the choice between gold and historical preservation is an easy one to make for officials in Georgia: the government is going for gold.

EurasiaNet.org has learned the Georgian Ministry of Culture and Heritage Protection has given Russian-owned mining company RMG Gold the green light to excavate gold from Sakdrisi-Kachagiani, a nine-hectare site in southeastern Georgia that many archeologists claim contains the remnants of one of the world’s oldest gold mines.

In 2004, archeologists from the National Museum of Georgia and the German Mining Museum unearthed caves and mining tools at the site that are believed to date to the third millennium, BC.

It is uncertain when the company will begin mining the site. Approximately half of its workforce has been on strike since January 24, seeking higher wages. Some critics hint the company is using the archeological controversy as cover for questionable labor practices.

Opponents are also upset with the government’s evident willingness to allow the destruction of what may be a unique site. Officials have additionally brushed off a call by civil-society activists for an independent study into Sakdrisi the site’s archeological significance.

During a Mar. 17 trip by a EurasiaNet.org correspondent to the area, accompanied by government representatives, two manned security vehicles sat outside the entrance to Sakdrisi-Kachagiani. The company continues to block entrance to the site, even to Ministry of Environment officials. It cites the potential for damage by outsiders and lingering issues about the site’s status as the cause.

Caves and mining tools discovered at the site during a 2004 excavation by the National Museum of Georgia and the German Mining Museum are believed to date to the third millennium, BC.

But in its March 14 decision, the Culture Ministry cited a supposed lack of proof that Sakdrisi had ever functioned as a gold mine as a reason for lifting the site’s protected status as a a “cultural monument.”

For the past eight years, Sakdrisi had enjoyed protection, a designation that prevented mining at the site, located near the village of Kazreti, where a vast copper mine owned by RMG Gold’s sibling, RMG Copper, is located.

In a March 13 discussion with university students, Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili indicated that another factor played into the government’s decision to lift the site’s protected status. Noting the supposed lack of evidence for Sakdrisi’s past, the prime minister stressed that RMG Gold has invested 300 million dollars into the Georgian economy and employs 3,000 people.

For a country with an official unemployment rate of 16 percent, an economic growth rate of under 2 percent such earnings and employment figures are not exactly trivial. In addition, the government experienced a drastic shortfall in tax revenues for 2013.

RMG Gold, an entity that evolved from Georgia’s former mega-mining company Madneuli, is believed to rank as one of the country’s largest taxpayers. RMG Gold executives claim that to find fresh gold and maintain their operations, they need access to Sakdrisi-Kachagiani.

With gold prices now at 43.67 dollars per gramme, it appears it wasn’t difficult for officials to buy into RMG Gold’s argument. In 2013, gold accounted for 2.9 percent (35.52 million dollars) of the country’s export earnings.

Gocha Aleksandria, vice-president of the Georgian Trade Union Confederation, is among RMG Gold’s critics who note that the company started complaining about the Sakdrisi ban’s adverse impact on earnings only after it was hit with a strike.

RMG Gold representatives have claimed that as long as they can’t mine the area, they cannot pay higher wages or keep on idle workers. On Jan. 31, one week after the strike began, the company dismissed 184 workers allegedly for these reasons.

“We see it as retaliation for the strike,” Aleksandria said, speaking for the confederation’s membership.

The government has appointed mediators to settle the strike, but Aleksandria says the process is moving slowly. Even with a full work force, Mikheil Kvaratskhelia, head of RMG Gold’s Health, Safety and Environment Department, reckons it will be “a couple of years” before the Sakdrisi-Kachagiani site is blasted for mining.

Skirting Sakdrisi-Kachagiani, the last in a series of five ore pits, is not an option, the company says. Geologists claim that ore from the site, believed to be the richest in gold, must be blended with that from the four other pits to get a consistent grade of gold. Preliminary exploration work has only just begun on the first pit, about two kilometres away.

Civil-society activists are bracing for a long fight. “The government has a responsibility to explain, to argue its position, not just ignore [opponents],” commented Kakha Bakhtadze, a representative of the Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN), one of the signers of a petition to Prime Minister Gharibashvili to preserve Sakdrisi’s protected status.

The disregard that officials have exhibited toward those Georgians who want to protect Sakdrisi, “means that tomorrow the government can decide to destroy another cultural monument and do what it wants,” Bakhtadze alleged.

The message the Culture Ministry is sending is mixed. In a Mar. 14 statement, it called the claims about Sakdrisi’s archeological value a “myth,” yet it also announced intentions to invite independent international experts to monitor RMG Gold’s mining at the site in case of “some scientific” discovery.

For Irakli Matcharashvili, program coordinator at Green Alternative, another of the Georgian NGOs opposing the ministry’s decision, the plan makes no sense. “If this is a myth, why do they need a commission of experts? It’s just words.”

RMG Gold spokesperson Ekatarina Jojua has no information about a potential monitoring. “It’s beyond our scope,” Jojua said. “It’s not clear who or how this will be done. It’s up to the ministry.”

Bakhtadze, the CENN representative,believes the government is suffering from short-sightedness. “The mine might be around for five or ten years. That’s all. They will have destroyed the environment and [our] cultural heritage.”

Editor’s note: Paul Rimple is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi. This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

The South Caucasus country of Georgia is a source of much sought-after Christmas tree seeds. But its own forests are now under threat, as firewood is in increasing demand as a cheap source of heat for homes, schools and hospitals.

Before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, rural communities here relied on what were then relatively inexpensive heating sources, like diesel fuel, for their cooking and heating. Over the past 20 years, however, small, wood-burning stoves have become ubiquitous, as many Georgians, without access to natural gas or pressed for cash, have turned to the forests to heat their homes.

In a recent survey of 2,000 villages nationwide, the Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN) found that between 75 to 96 percent of the villages, depending on the region, rely on firewood for heat. That number, noted Rezo Getiashvili, CENN’s environmental projects coordinator, even includes villages with access to natural gas.

Consequently, some forests have been depleted to such a degree that wood shortages could occur, the group claims. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests are estimated to be in peril after decades of misuse and mismanagement.

“The vast majority of the villagers agreed that the condition of the forests is very tough and it is getting worse every year,” said Getiashvili.

The Georgian government has partnered with the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijani Republic (SOCAR) to install natural-gas pipelines and infrastructure around the country. But even where the gas has been brought in, residents often lack the means to either purchase gas heaters or connect their homes to the gas system.

In Mukhrovani, a small village of 90 families 25 kilometres from Tbilisi, the public school uses logs to heat a handful of classrooms because the new gas piping stops 50 metres from its building.

To cover the cost of the firewood, the school saves money from its budget all year to collect the 900 lari (roughly 529 dollars) necessary to heat the building through the winter.

While firewood keeps the children warm, the situation is far from ideal.

A makeshift ventilation system of rusting pipes goes through windows to push the dust and smoke outdoors. As a result, when the weather is windy, some rooms are unusable, noted Principal Sveta Suborukava.

Out of the 2,086 public schools in the country, 1,453 depend on firewood for heating, according to the Educational and Scientific Infrastructure Development Agency, the government body that oversees school buildings. The agency is working to connect schools to the gas system where natural gas supplies exist.

But even villagers in Mukhrovani and elsewhere are opting for firewood because it is cheaper. Irakli Matchashvili, the biodiversity programme coordinator at Green Alternative, a Tbilisi-based non-government organisation, noted that while natural gas is affordable in Tbilisi, the costs can run up to twice as much in the regions – roughly from 50 tetri to 80 tetri (29 to 47 cents) per cubic metre.

The northern mountain region of Racha, home to many of Georgia’s Christmas-tree cones, ranks as one of the heaviest areas for firewood use, according to the CENN survey.

The search for firewood is not creating an immediate danger for this export industry, although investors have noted isolated incidents when trees on their lots were cut down or access to good seeds was cut off because the government was cracking down on illegal logging.

But Nata Peradze, the founder of Guerrilla Gardening Tbilisi, a grassroots activists’ group, believes the hunt for live Christmas trees – cutting down the actual fir trees instead of just harvesting the seeds – is adding to the strain on the country’s forests since small trees, the saplings needed to rejuvenate the forests, are the ones being cut.

Environmentalists like Green Alternative’s Matchashvili stress, though, that such uses for Georgia’s forests are not an insurmountable problem if the government starts to manage the resource. “The main factor of the unsustainable forest use is the absence of proper planning,” Matchashvili said.

“Another problem… is the absence of real data. How many forests do we have? Nobody knows. How many families depend on firewood? Nobody knows.”

The Georgian Ministry of Environment and Natural Resource Protection claims that it is taking measures to tackle the issue. Under a proposal passed by parliament this month, it plans to increase the number of forestry service personnel from 969 to 2,000 people, and has imposed relatively hefty fines (from between 200 to 600 laris, or 116.50 to 349.43 dollars) on illegal logging or felling trees in protected areas or on endangered lists. Cutting down Christmas trees now incurs a fine of up to 1,000 laris, or 582.38 dollars.

While some of these proposals are still awaiting implementation, Matchashvili praised the ministry’s efforts this year, noting that now it is just a matter of putting these recent measures to work to save the “very” small number of forests left for public use.

“The main risk is if it continues business as usual,” he said.

Guerrilla Gardening Tbilisi has received financial support from the Open Society Georgia Foundation, part of the network of Open Society Foundations. EurasiaNet.org operates under the auspices of the Central Eurasia Project, a separate part of that network.

Editor’s note: Molly Corso is a freelance reporter and photojournalist in Tbilisi, Georgia. This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili rose to power in 2012 on a pledge to depoliticise the powerful police force created by President Mikheil Saakashvili following the 2003 Rose Revolution.

Yet while observers credit the government for putting an end to some alleged police abuses, concerns persist about the overall conduct of Georgia’s Interior Ministry.

For the governing Georgian Dream coalition, the stakes tied to those concerns are high, given that a presidential election is fast approaching. Rights advocates contend that measures taken so far by the Georgian Dream haven’t succeeded in boosting public confidence in the police force.

Some observers also contend that Interior Minister Irakli Gharibashvili’s job performance leaves a lot to be desired.

Ironically, police reform ranks as one of the Saakashvili-led United National Movement’s most significant achievements during its tenure as the majority party in the Georgian parliament. In the years since the Rose Revolution, the police force steadily shed its reputation as a den of corrupt bunglers and gained a measure of respect for efficient crime-fighting.

But even as the police improved its performance on the street level, critics charged that the Saakashvili administration misused the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) to protect its political power.

Georgian crime specialist Aleko Kupatadze, a post-doctoral fellow at Oxford University’s University College, documented numerous abuses against government critics and opposition politicians – including the use of intimidation, improper surveillance and arrests – in a 2012 report for Tbilisi’s Center for Social Sciences. In addition the use of torture against individuals in police custody has remained a persistent issue.

In an attempt to break with the past, Prime Minister Ivanishvili tapped as interior minister 30-year-old Irakli Gharibashvili, an individual closely linked with Ivanishvili family interests – he formerly ran Ivanishvili’s charity foundation Cartu, sat on his Cartu Bank’s supervisory board, and managed the record label for Ivanishvili’s singer-son, Bera.

Like his Saakashvili-era predecessors, Gharibashvili had no prior experience in police work, but unlike them, he also had no prior experience in government. He came into office with a pledge to end reported abuses ranging from violence against detainees to covert video surveillance of government critics.

Two of the most powerful police agencies, the dreaded Special Operations Department and Constitutional Security Department, were closed, and their portfolios turned over to the Anti-Corruption Agency, the State Security Agency, and the Criminal Police, a special investigations unit.

But some civil-rights observers note that not all the changes have been for the good.

On three separate occasions – a Feb. 8 scuffle between Ivanishvili and Saakashvili supporters outside the National Library, a May 1 workers’ rights protest, and a May 17 attack against anti-homophobia activists – police in Tbilisi floundered in efforts to maintain public order.

While police now are “much less brutal” toward demonstrators, their overall response to the May 17 fracas was “disorganised” and “completely disorderly,” commented Gia Gvilava, manager of Transparency International Georgia’s Judicial Monitoring and Legal Advice Programme. Other civil-rights activists have concurred.

“They disbanded the SWAT teams, the special units that deal with demonstrations, which is not as good as they think because you still need specially trained people in units to maintain order during big demonstrations,” Gvilava said.

Part of the problem, he noted, could have been a lack of qualified personnel.

As part of an alleged internal reform process, Gharibashvili suspended training requirements for high-level hires from January until the end of March. Three hundred and forty-one individuals were hired during this period, Gvilava claimed, citing Interior Ministry information.

The ministry did not respond to Transparency International Georgia requests for information about the exact positions filled, he said. It also has not responded to allegations that the new hires were intended for spots left vacant after a reported post-election purge.

Whatever the rationale for the suspension of hiring requirements, the ministry ran a “huge risk” by opening recruitment to potentially unqualified candidates, Gvilava asserted.

Interior Minister Gharibashvili also has been shadowed by allegations he arranged various government jobs for relatives, and used his position to secure the arrest of former Interior Ministry employees as retribution for the earlier detention of his father-in-law, Tamaz Tamazashvili, a former regional police chief, in 2011 on illegal weapons charges.

Gharibashvili has denied the charges. But Kupatadze, the researcher on law-enforcement issues, maintains that there is at least an appearance of impropriety surrounding Gharibashvili’s conduct.

The Tamazashvili-related arrests impinge on any ministry claim to be “an impartial institution”, Kupatadze said, adding that jobs allegedly secured for relatives of Gharibashvili or his wife, Nunuka Tamazashvili, contribute to “a worrying trend of ‘legitimising’ nepotism”.

At the same time, he continued, the ministry still relies “on technical and administrative measures to address the issue of crime”.

Interior Ministry officials did not follow up on interview requests from EurasiaNet.org, despite repeated attempts. The ministry did, however, provide a list of recent reforms, which included national tests for “all operational staff”, standardised hiring requirements and a new code of ethics to promote human rights.

How these reforms will counteract many Georgians’ perceptions of diminished safety remains unclear. In March, the MIA released data that showed the number of crimes reported in November 2012, one month after the Georgian Dream’s election victory, increased by nearly 40 percent from the previous year to 4,598 cases.

The mass amnesty of 8,357 prisoners this January has also fanned public jitters. With an eye, conceivably, on his party’s chances in this October’s presidential vote, President Saakashvili recently chided the Interior Ministry for rehiring police officers the UNM-led government had jailed.

For human rights activist Nazi Janezashvili, the question now is how Georgia’s latest round of police reforms will be implemented. “Without competent staff, without implementation of regulations, nothing can be reformed,” Janezashvili said.

Kupatadze, meanwhile, predicted that the Interior Ministry’s performance “is likely to remain an issue over [the] short and medium-term”.

*Editor’s note: Molly Corso is a freelance journalist who also works as editor of Investor.ge, a monthly publication by the American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia.

This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

In the two-plus decades since the Soviet collapse, the Georgian Orthodox Church has emerged as one of the South Caucasus country’s most respected and influential institutions. But some observers and theologians now worry that ultra-conservative clerics within the Church are gaining too much power.

The growing sway of fundamentalist and nationalist elements within the Church was on full display on May 17, when a clergy-led mob attacked gay-rights demonstrators in Tbilisi.“The Orthodox Church in Georgia today reflects all those problems that have been problematic for the Georgian nation and state." -- Tamara Grdzelidze of the WCC

That priestly outburst of bigotry was not an isolated incident. Previous occurrences of ultra-conservative muscle-flexing included a mass mobilisation against Georgian ID cards, allegedly because ultras believed the cards referenced the sign of the devil.

Ultras also actively campaigned against President Mikheil Saakashvili’s United National Movement Party during the run-up to the October 2012 parliament elections – despite the patriarch’s request to stay out of politics.

The parliamentary election experience suggests to some Church watchers that the Patriarch, Ilya II, is losing his grip over the clergy. Ilya II is 80 years old and rumoured to be in poor health. Although his word is final in all areas of the Church’s internal workings, age may have significantly diminished his ability to pay attention to details and promote general doctrinal unity among the clergy.

While the patriarch remains a popular leader of the Church, it’s difficult to tell where many bishops stand. What is increasingly evident is that a philosophical split is developing within the Church. Theologian Levan Abashidze describes the divide as “serious.”

A press representative for the Church did not respond to an interview request.

According to some outside observers, the Georgian Orthodox Church has been moving in a steadily conservative direction since 1997, when it left the World Council of Churches (WCC). A major factor in this retrograde drift is a decline in the educational level of clergy members.

“The Orthodox Church in Georgia today reflects all those problems that have been problematic for the Georgian nation and state: poor education, economic shortages and unemployment, the lack of the civil society, underdeveloped democracy, a long gap in the organised church life, unqualified clergy … all these factors supporting its isolationist and exclusivist tendencies,” noted Tamara Grdzelidze, a programme executive within the Faith and Order Secretariat of the WCC in Geneva.

When Ilya II became the patriarch in 1977, the Georgian Church counted only about 50 priests. Since the lifting of Soviet-era controls over religious life, the ranks of the clergy have exploded, with upwards of 1,700 ordained priests active today. Not all members of the clergy have gained a thorough grounding in theology via training at a seminary or theological academy.

Limited oversight over the preparation of priests means that the quality of their religious teachings varies widely. Rapid growth helped strengthen the Church, but it created a “vacuum” of knowledge, noted one theologian close to the Patriarchate who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution.

“[People] should know that [beating people] is not Christian, is not Orthodox, is not Georgian. …There is a vacuum of theology,” he said.

Priests who lack proper training are more apt to be part of the ultra-conservative movement within the Church. “[We need to] learn how to think,” the theologian said. “If we start to learn philosophy … tomorrow we will not throw rocks.”

The philosophical struggle within the Church seems set to intensify as Ilya II grows older and attention focuses on succession. In the Orthodox Christian faith, the patriarch is a life-long appointment. After the sitting patriarch’s death, a successor is chosen by the Church’s governing body of archbishops, the Holy Synod.

The outcome of the current succession maneuvering could have far-reaching implications for Georgia’s domestic and foreign policy, given patriarch’s ability to shape public opinion. Earlier this year, Ilya II was identified as Georgia’s most trusted public figure, according to a March 2013 survey by Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC).

Since the May 17 upheaval in Tbilisi, Ilya II has been an advocate of moderation and tolerance. “We need to value people,” he said during his Jun. 2 sermon. “We need to see in people…these positive elements that God awarded them. It is possible that a person has negative sides. But the positive is infinitely more.”

Abashidze noted that there are “certain groups” within the Church that are already engaged in a “strong fight for power”.

“There are groups who are more, let us say, open minded, and who understand that the Church needs real education, real theological education and people with theological knowledge – because otherwise the Church cannot survive,” he said.

Liberals, however, are in the minority, and there are few willing to publicly break ranks with conservatives. In an interview with the Georgian magazine Liberali after the May 17 mob attack, however, one priest urged his colleagues to speak up.

“Probably a lot of religious people were very surprised by what happened,” said Dekan Iakob Makhniashvili. “For every religious person, this day should serve as a good example that religion should not provoke people into aggression and hate.”

*Editor’s note:  Molly Corso is a freelance journalist who also works as editor of Investor.ge, a monthly publication by the American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia.

This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

The Partnership for Southern Equity defines energy equity as "the fair distribution of the burdens and benefits from energy production and consumption". Credit: Bigstock

By Matthew Charles Cardinale
ATLANTA, Georgia, Jun 24 2013 (IPS)

Advocates of the concept of “energy equity” have begun employing it in the southern United States to create a diverse coalition of citizens who might otherwise approach energy policy issues differently.

It started when the Partnership for Southern Equity (PSE), an organisation that has looked at issues of equity in other areas, such as housing, economic opportunity and transportation, realised that equity was also a key issue in energy policy."Communities of colour and low-income communities...stand to benefit the most from energy efficiency."
-- Partnership for Southern Equity

On its website, the organisation defines energy equity as “the fair distribution of the burdens and benefits from energy production and consumption”.

“Communities of colour and low-income communities are more likely to be exposed to air pollution from coal plants, are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and stand to benefit the most from energy efficiency and employment programs that help lower bills,” it added.

With these facts in mind, a coalition of organisations has formed including PSE, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), GreenLaw, the Centre for Sustainable Communities, Georgia Watch, the Fulton-Atlanta Community Action Authority and Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta.

The coalition looks to what its see as more equitable energy policies that have been achieved through citizen engagement in other places such as San Francisco, California, where a coalition including Our City and other environmental and social justice organisations came together to support an initiative called Clean Power SF.

Clean Power SF was a policy proposal to decrease reliance on for-profit utility companies and to create instead a new entity to provide energy for San Francisco, with at least 50 percent of it coming from renewable sources.

In 2007, the coalition won approval for Clean Power SF from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2007, although the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission at first refused to close a fossil fuel plant in an area called Potrero Hill.

By 2011, however, the coalition succeeded in closing Potrero Hill and stopping a proposed natural gas plant.

Inspiration and vision

Earlier this month, the new energy equity coalition in Georgia invited Barbara Hale, assistant general manager of the power enterprise for the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, to address their group at a forum.

“They were able to provide a visionary story. They have done a lot more than Georgia was ready to do,” Dwayne Patterson, director of regional organising and civic engagement for PSE, told IPS.

“The main reason why the collaboration has come together is so that we can create the space of working together. We know through the workings of the progressive movement in Georgia and throughout the South there is a culture of folks not working together. Folks have been very successful at working in silos,” Patterson said.

PSE is “about changing the old paradigm”, he said, “where collaboration is the new normal, and working smarter rather than working harder is the new normal”.

One of the first actions for the coalition has been to increase citizen attendance at recent hearings of the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC), which is considering a long-term plan by Georgia Power for energy provision to the state’s residents.

One activist not connected with the coalition who attended the PSC hearings confirmed to IPS that in recent days they had saw a marked increase in citizen participation that appeared, at least in part, to be due to the new energy equity coalition.

“We have to put the concept of power back on the table. There are situations where we can fight and lose, not because it’s the wrong issue, but because we haven’t amassed the right amount of power in order to be effective,” Patterson said.

Amelia Shenstone, southeast energy organiser for SACE, has a big picture idea of the meaning of energy equity: “When we produce energy, we’re not doing it at disproportionate costs to certain communities,” she described. “We would shift energy production to types that don’t have negative consequences,” she told IPS, citing solar and wind power as examples of such energy.

“The sources we use now are risky and have a lot of side effects…from the communities where it’s mined, to the communities where it’s burned, and where the residue that’s left over gets stored,” she said.

“I don’t want anyone to have to deal with that burden, I’d rather we reduce the consumption of coal. Imagine if it happened it your backyard, and how about we don’t do that to anybody?” she said

Shenstone insisted that citizens showing up to publicly comment when government bodies formulate public policy that affects them is key to achieving energy equity.

“People don’t know how decisions are made regarding where their energy comes from, and how they can participate. Look at who’s on the PSC and their politics… the diversity in our population is not represented there,” she said.

Nigerian Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Akinwumi Adesina holding the FAO award recognising outstanding progress in fighting hunger and attaining MDG One. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

By Claudia Ciobanu
ROME, Jun 16 2013 (IPS)

Thirty-eight countries were recognised for the first time on Sunday by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation for cutting in half the prevalence of people suffering from undernourishment, one of three targets under the first Millennium Development Goal.

Of those countries, 18 also achieved the tougher World Food Summit Goal of halving the absolute numbers of hungry people: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cuba, Djibouti, Georgia, Ghana, Guyana, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, Peru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Vietnam.

“You are the proof that when societies decide to put an end to hunger, when there is political will from governments, we can transform that will into action,” FAO Director General Jose Graziano da Silva told leaders of the awarded countries during the Rome ceremony. “Thank you for showing us that it is possible.”

Twenty other countries were recognised for cutting by half the prevalence of hunger (but not yet absolute numbers): Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Honduras, Indonesia, Jordan, Malawi, Maldives, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Togo and Uruguay.

At the Rome World Food Summit in 1996, countries around the world committed to working towards food security for all. In 2000, the U.N. adopted the eight Millennium Development Goals, meant to guide global efforts towards offering all people a decent life.

MDG One, “eradicating extreme poverty and hunger”, is broken down into three targets: reducing by 50 percent the proportion of hungry people, achieving decent employment for all, and halving the number of people living on less than 1.25 dollars a day by 2015.

Received with broad acclaim by the FAO assembly during the award ceremony, the new Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, outlined in brief his country’s path to reducing hunger prevalence from 13.8 percent to 2.4 percent over the last decade, emphasising the core role played by former president Hugo Chavez in this battle.

“We are asking the FAO to assist us in creating a system to safeguard a permanent, stable food supply, which would permit us to confront the covert speculative attacks that Venezuela is currently enduring,” he told IPS TV.

Caribbean small island state Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is another of the countries acknowledged for meeting both goals. Since the early 1990s, it has reduced hunger rates from 20 percent to 4.9 percent, according to Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, who spoke to IPS on the sidelines of the Jun. 15-22 FAO biannual conference in Rome.

Gonsalves explained that climate change and pressures from international markets on domestic banana production posed significant challenges to his country in the attempt to defeat hunger. And yet the 120,000-person state seems to have found a working mix of solutions.

“We have a history of root vegetables and fruit crops and an accumulated two centuries worth of knowledge resident in the folk which should be mobilised and is being mobilised,” Gonsalves said.

“Secondly, important is the organisation of farmers to engage in cooperative work with the state. Finally, we are implementing targeted solutions such as feeding programmes for school children and the elderly and in general developing a strong safety net.

“We are addressing the production side but also the consumer side through targeted interventions,” the prime minister said.

Georgia, another country recognised in Rome, reduced the prevalence of malnourishment from 60 percent to 25 percent over the past decade, according to FAO figures.

“This was possible because of a number of different measures that we took to generally improve the economy and combat corruption and mismanagement, which allowed us to have double-digit growth for the past years,” Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told IPS in Rome.

“Growth was combined with implementing poverty reduction programmes helping families to reach subsistence levels.”

Current estimates put the number of people suffering from hunger today at 870 million.

According to the U.N.’s The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 report, significant progress has been made on combating hunger since 1990, yet in some areas around the world this was either slowed down or even reversed by the global economic crisis.

The U.N. says that meeting the MDG goal of halving hunger prevalence by 2015 is within reach but only if measures are taken to make up for the negative impact of the crisis.

Kseniya Sobchak, a well-known Russian political activist and social butterfly, is an outspoken critic of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. But, curiously, she seems to be taking a much softer line on Azerbaijan’s authoritarian-minded ruler, Ilham Aliyev.

After visiting Baku last April, Sobchak marveled at the transformation of the Azerbaijani capital, comparing it favourably to Moscow. To her credit, she did mention the non-democratic nature of the Azerbaijani regime in comments that were published in Snob, a leading Russian cultural magazine.

Yet overall, after reading her take on Baku, one is left with an impression of a country ruled by a benevolent “Oriental ruler” who, although occasionally harsh, cares about the well-being of his subjects. Her somewhat glowing review of Aliyev’s leadership is especially ironic when set against her views on Putin.

Also recently, when a senior European diplomat was confronted with the seeming inconsistency of the EU’s policy toward authoritarian regimes in Belarus and Azerbaijan – sanctions and isolation in the case of the former, cooperation and engagement with the latter – he replied that there are two major reasons for the discrepancy.

First, while Belarus is at the centre of Europe, Azerbaijan is located “between Chechnya and Iran,” he explained, the implication being that the democratic bar is set higher for Belarus; secondly, the diplomat bluntly stated that there are important strategic interests in relations with Azerbaijan, such as cooperation in energy sector and regional security issues, not least in containing Iran, which is widely believed to be pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

While perhaps distasteful, the “strategic interests” argument is easily defensible. It’s simply prudent policy to work with a government that is prepared to cooperate with the West on a whole range of strategic issues.

Such pragmatism may not please human rights defenders in Azerbaijan and elsewhere, but it’s only realistic to accept the fact that foreign policy is not exclusively shaped by human rights issues.

At the same time, the double standard inherent in the diplomat’s comments, and more subtly contained in Sobchak’s assessment, is damaging. The “geographic argument” endorses a concept in which a less than perfect democracy is acceptable for an “Oriental” country like Azerbaijan.

Such thinking represents a serious misreading of the emerging public mood in Azerbaijan that could end up harming U.S. and EU strategic interests down the road.

There are plenty of people in Azerbaijan who yearn for a full-fledged democratic system. Tolerating anything less, then, means that the United States and EU are prepared to sell these Azerbaijani citizens short. Azerbaijanis want good governance, transparency and accountability from their rulers, just like people in Europe and elsewhere.

Evidence of widespread popular discontent with the current system is mounting in Azerbaijan. Over the past year, the country has experienced rallies against the deaths of the conscripts in the army, riots of traders over exorbitant taxes, protests of Muslims over what they see as curtailment of their religious rights, and explosions of unrest in provincial towns of Guba and Ismayilli.

Social networking and pro-democracy youth movements such as NIDA played an increasing role in harnessing discontent and mobilising it into protests.

Television viewing preferences also indicate that the population wants much more than what they are now getting. Since authorities tightly control the national media, more people, especially in the provinces, tune in the Turkish TV-based programme Azerbaycan Saati (Azerbaijan’s Hour), which provides a more pluralistic coverage of the events in Azerbaijan.

This two-hour programme has proven to be so popular that local officials in some provincial areas are said to ordering the closure of teahouses for the duration of the programme, in order to prevent people from gathering and watching it. Many Baku-based experts agree that the people increasingly are losing fear to speak out against what they see as the regime’s abuses.

Where the argument of bad geography rings superficially true is in the fact that while Belarus borders three countries of the European Union, Azerbaijan has no consolidated democracies in its neighbourhood. But even here the situation is dynamic.

Azerbaijan’s neighbour Georgia has made significant democratisation strides in the past decade, most notably experiencing a peaceful transition of power via the ballot box last year. Meanwhile, Turkey, Azerbaijan’s main ally, greatly improved its democratic practices in the 2000s, motivated in large part by the prospect of EU membership.

If Turkish democracy is backsliding today, it is due to the unique combination of negative external and internal political factors, not because of cultural impediments stemming from Turkey’s geography.

Most important of all, Azerbaijan itself has declared its Euro-Atlantic orientation and embraced extensive commitments on democracy and human rights. There is no reason why its European partners should go soft when Baku fails to deliver on these commitments.

Ultimately, strong emphasis on reform is in the EU’s long-term strategic interests: if Baku heeds calls for reform, the EU can gain a partner with enhanced domestic legitimacy. If it doesn’t, the EU can call Baku’s bluff: whatever the rhetoric of some Azerbaijani officials, they are aware that the EU remains an essential partner and cannot be easily ignored.

Most importantly, it will preserve the EU’s credibility among Azerbaijanis. The worst possible signal that either the United States or the EU can send right now is that it that they will settle for an ‘Oriental’ style ‘democracy’ for Azerbaijan.

*Editor’s note: Eldar Mamedov is a political adviser to the Socialists & Democrats Group in the European Parliament, who writes in his personal capacity.

This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

Georgia may be touted as the most pro-Western country in the South Caucasus, but the recent backlash against LGBT activists in Tbilisi underscores how wide the cultural divide is when it comes to defining democratic values.

While most Georgians condemn the violent May 17 attack on an anti-homophobia rally, many do not see the core issue as having anything to do with a lack of tolerance, a right to freedom of assembly or respect for minority rights.

Rather, many see the central issue as a matter that goes to the heart of Georgia’s national heritage and cultural identity: should Georgians be expected to embrace a lifestyle seen as common in the West, but unsuitable for Georgian society and incompatible with the teachings of the country’s main unifying force, the Georgian Orthodox Church?

Many Georgians would answer no to that question. After years of jumping through hoops to meet Western demands, some say they have seen no results – popularly defined as economic prosperity and territorial security – out of the process. How showing greater respect for gay rights, an issue often misinterpreted in Georgia as meaning general avowal of personal homosexuality, will change that situation leaves many at a loss to explain.

“If the West wants us, they have to take us as we are,” declared Georgian Orthodox Church Bishop Iakob of Bodbe and Tsurtaveli in response to international criticism of the attempt to drive LGBT activists from Freedom Square, an event in which he took part.

Criticism coming from the West about the May 17 events appears to be doing more to fuel resentment than fostering soul-searching. “Whoever — America or Europe — comes to us as a friend, we will be friends, of course. But if it wants to dictate its own [agenda], we will not accept that,” said a Tbilisi tobacco stand worker named Nodar.

One Tbilisi printing shop clerk agreed. “In general, [the West] has been treating [Georgia] like a little child: ‘If you will behave well, we will take you to ride the rides” said Manuchar. “That is having a really bad effect on people.”

The explanation for such sentiments lies, in part, in the context of current times.

“Georgian society at the moment is very poor, very frustrated, very unhappy and…caring [more] about economic and survival issues [than self-expression],” said political scientist Marina Muskhelishvili, co-founder of the Centre for Social Studies in Tbilisi. “Nobody can expect that it [Georgia] will become European in a moment … and tolerate all lifestyles and all behaviours.”

In recent years, as Georgians have grappled with economic, political turmoil and perceived encroachments on their country’s sovereignty, interest in all things seen as intrinsically Georgian – in particular, the Church — has increased. The issue of gay rights, as Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili explained to European diplomats on May 24, is “relatively new to us,” news outlets reported.

Against that backdrop, international calls for respecting those minorities’ right to assemble can come across more as demands to change “core values,” said Koba Turmanidze, country director of the Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC), which runs annual surveys on values in the South Caucasus.

“[I]t is hard to say whether people understand that no one asks you to become gay, no one asks you to marry a person of your gender; you are just asked not to beat these people up,” Turmanidze said.

While Georgian television reported Western diplomats as expressing “surprise” at the attack on LGBT activists, in reality, the display served as “maybe [a] very good reminder” that Georgia, though “going ahead fast” toward democracy, has not yet arrived at its final destination, observed political scientist Alexander Rondeli, founder of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies in Tbilisi (GFSIS).

Muskhelishvili cautioned that the cultural divide could widen if Western governments do not listen more and lecture less. “For many years, Western partners were promoting [the] development of Georgia. But in many cases they were following their own vision of what is on the agenda” within the country, she said.

Women’s rights, for instance, are “not a priority” for Georgians since they are more concerned with “how to feed their family” than about “who is the boss in the family,” she noted.

Representatives of the US Embassy and European Union’s mission in Tbilisi did not comment when queried on the cultural-divide question.

The Georgian government should do more to inform the public about the role civil rights plays in any partnership with the West, said Viktor Dolidze, chair of the Parliamentary Committee for European Integration.

At present, many Georgians see the prospect of membership in the European Union or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation purely in terms of the benefits of enjoying a greater degree of stability and prosperity. Few are taking into account the fact that membership in such organisations will require Georgia to harmonise its values with EU and NATO norms, Dolidze added.

With time, though, more and more Georgians will come to understand the challenges, said GFSIS’s Rondeli. “Only now, [a] generation of Georgians understand[s] they have to have [a] modern, democratic, inclusive, nation state,” he said. “And now, people are starting to understand that it is very difficult to achieve.”

*Editor’s note: Molly Corso is a freelance journalist who also works as editor of Investor.ge, a monthly publication by the American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia.

This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

A 150-million-dollar-plus Chinese real estate and tourism deal that is slated for a suburb of Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, is creating a quandary for many Georgians.

The project is feeding a long-standing desire for foreign investment, but it is also stoking wariness about foreign influence.[People] have the notion about China that it is huge and enormously populated, and their idea is somehow to expand.

Set against a broad backdrop of crumbling, Soviet-era apartment blocks, the project — run by the Hualing Group, a privately owned, Xinjiang, China,-based company with banking, timber, and hotel investments in Georgia – is projected to remake about 420 hectares of land in the working-class district of Vazisubani.

In the first, 150-million-dollar phase, housing will be built on four hectares for the European Youth Olympic Festival, an event of young athletes from 48 European countries that Tbilisi will host in 2015. A subsequent step is expected to include a retail and residential area, to be built at an unknown cost.

Last year, President Mikheil Saakashvili’s government praised the Hualing Group for bringing in much-needed investment and employment to a poor, densely populated part of Tbilisi. The level of investment for the first phase amounts to more than five times the size of total Chinese foreign investment in Georgia in 2012.

At the same time, rumours that the project will bring 127,000 Chinese immigrants into the city to work and live are generating local concern – increasingly prevalent since the 2008 war with Russia — about foreigners pushing Georgians off their own land and depriving them of hard-to-find jobs.

“Nothing will be left for us [if so many Chinese come],” complained Gulara, a 62 year-old female pensioner who lives near the planned development site. “Where did all these ethnic groups come from?…God gave us this land.”

In recent years, Tbilisi has experienced an influx of immigrants from Africa and South Asia, as well as occasional Chinese traders, and Arab investors. But in a country of 4.49 million people with estimated rates of unemployment over 50 percent, these visitors are sometimes seen more as an economic threat than as a source of opportunity.

“People are not aware of how to deal with, how to cohabitate … with others,” said Nana Berekashvili, the head of the Department on Minorities and Gender at Tbilisi’s International Center on Conflict and Negotiation. “In [the] case of [the] Chinese, I think it is … [people] having the notion about China that it is huge and enormously populated, and their idea is somehow to expand.”

Representatives of the Hualing Group denied that there are plans for a massive resettlement of Chinese to Tbilisi. The residential buildings that will begin construction once the Olympic Village is finished will be sold on the open market, and are not sufficient to house 127,000 people, commented the company’s Georgia spokesperson, Tina Shishinashvili.

She emphasised that 531 of the project’s 659 workers are Georgian citizens. Hualing has also taken on Georgian architects to design its overall strategic plan, she said.

But such assurances mean little to figures such as Jondi Bagaturia, the outspoken head of the right-wing Kartuli Dasi (Georgian Troupe) political party. The party has played a prominent role in stoking popular discontent over the project with claims of a pending Chinese resettlement.

Bagaturia says he bases his opposition on what he purports to be a copy of the contract between the Georgian government and the Hualing Group. Although the investment itself is “very good,” he said any influx of Chinese immigrants is “unacceptable” since the government “must protect the labour market.”

Neither the Economic Development Ministry nor Tbilisi City Hall responded to requests for comment about the planned investment. The project’s architectural plan is still awaiting municipal approval.

Hualing Group’s interest in Georgia is not unusual. Chinese companies in the past have been involved in large-scale investments ranging from the construction of a hydropower plant to a railway tunnel. With a trade turnover of 591.5 million dollars, China in 2012 ranked as Georgia’s fourth largest trading partner.

Yet Georgians’ attitudes toward the Chinese — and immigrants in general — remain complex. A 2010 survey by the Caucasus Research Resource Center in Tbilisi found that while 57 percent of 2,089 Georgian respondents supported doing business with the Chinese, 80 percent were against the closer tie of marriage.

While Georgian culture stipulates hospitality and respect toward guests, Berekashvili commented, Georgians are selective about which ethnic groups are welcomed. They “are very hospitable toward people from Western cultures, from Europe, from the United States, but very little to others,” she said.

For Yu Hua, a Chinese businessman, Georgia is still a land of opportunity. After 14 years in the country, Yu serves as the president of the newly formed Chinese Chamber of Commerce and is married to a Georgian.

He says that he has never experienced racism or discrimination, but underlines that the government and media need “to offer… correct information” to dispel rumours that could spoil Chinese-Georgian business ties.

Right now, opinions are decidedly mixed.

As a small crew cleared mounds of earth from the European Youth Olympic Village site one day last month, a group of male onlookers dismissed the Chinese project with shrugs and a curse. But one 65-year-old woman selling sunflower seeds near the site remained optimistic.

“Let’s see what happens,” she said. “I don’t think it will be bad.”

*Editor’s note: Molly Corso is a freelance journalist who also works as editor of Investor.ge, a monthly publication by the American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia.

This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

Rooted in longstanding historical, religious and economic differences, Georgian animosity toward neighbouring Turkey, Georgia’s fifth-largest investor, appears to be growing in the Black Sea region of Achara.

Recently, politicians eager for votes in Georgia’s Oct. 1 parliamentary elections have brought the sentiments to a steady boil.

The number of Turkish citizens entering Georgia nearly tripled during the first six months of 2012 (658,000) compared with the same period in 2011 (252,000), according to the Turkish consulate in Batumi.

For many, Batumi, a port city of about 125,000 people that has undergone a no-holds-barred beautification campaign, is their first port of call.

Turkish families stroll in groups along the city’s picturesque seaside boulevard or shop in Turkish fashion boutiques in the historic district, while Turkish gamblers throng the casinos.

But their presence, for some Georgian politicians and voters, is not always welcomed.

Over the past several weeks, politicians connected with billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili’s opposition Georgian Dream coalition have whipped up anger among crowds of Batumi supporters with allegations that President Mikheil Saakashvili’s ruling United National Movement Party is allowing “Turkish expansionism” that threatens Georgian culture and Georgian jobs. And even the country’s sovereignty itself.

They claim that the open-armed welcome for Turkish tourists and investors is ruining Batumi with growing prostitution and “the smell of Turkish donar (kebabs)” sold by street vendors.

While Ivanishvili himself has repeatedly stated that he does not support xenophobia, some Georgians see Turkey as an “acceptable” common enemy to target, commented Beka Mindiashvili, an expert at the Public Defender’s Office’s Tolerance Centre.

“(The opposition) can’t say (the enemy) is the West or America,” Mindiashvili said, since most Georgians eagerly desire friendship with those powers. “It has to be connected to the opinions in society, and our history with Turkey is one of war…”

The Ottoman Empire controlled western Georgia from the late 16th century until 1878, when Achara, among other territories, was ceded to the Russian Empire, Georgia’s then suzerain. Turkey attempted to retake Achara in 1918, toward the end of World War I, but was repulsed. A second failed attempt came when the Red Army invaded the Democratic Republic of Georgia in 1921.

Memories of that history, often coloured by suspicions of Islam and wariness of foreigners, still run strong. The anti-Turkey rhetoric does “not come from an empty space . . .” Mindiashvili said.

Few residents in Batumi were willing to go on the record about their feelings toward Turks, but some claimed that, despite Georgians’ traditional love of guests, the Turks are wearing out their welcome.

“There shouldn’t be so many Turks coming to Batumi…they don’t have any respect for our culture,” complained 57-year-old driver Giorgi Tkemaladze, annoyed by what he described as Turkish men publicly consorting with prostitutes. “When they are good and nice, let them come.”

While local observers doubt that such moods will translate “into aggression” against visiting Turks, “there is a tendency that it could turn more aggressive,” commented Parmen Jalagonia, head of the Batumi office for the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association.

Tensions in Batumi about Georgia’s relationship with Turkey started to increase last year, when the government announced plans to rebuild an historic mosque in the city near the gravesite of Georgians killed trying to end a brief Turkish occupation of Batumi in 1921, Jalagonia said. The plans are part of an agreement with the Turkish government to allow the Georgian restoration of medieval Georgian Orthodox churches in northeastern Turkey.

Construction on the mosque has not started, and negotiations about the project are still underway. Before the initial public reaction, which included protests, “xenophobic statements” were “quiet” and mostly linked to reports that the local government “sells property to Turkish investors for a symbolic price”, Jalagonia said.

The land-sale allegations could not be independently substantiated. But Turkey’s economic muscle is the way many Georgians know the country best – most immediately, via cheap Turkish goods in supermarkets and bazaars.

Turkish investment stood at 43 million dollars for the first two quarters of 2012, nearly half of its total of 75 million dollars for all of 2011. According to Turkey’s Batumi consulate, Turkish companies have created jobs for 6,000 locals in Achara alone. Georgian government figures were not available.

The country also ranks, along with Russia, as a top destination for Georgian labour migrants. Georgians can enter Turkey visa-free, but now, like other foreign nationals, face tighter restrictions on long-term stays, part of a bid to curb illegal migration. The deportation of 142 Georgian migrants in August under the rules fueled popular resentment of Turkey for being “unfair”.

Mindiashvili, however, predicted that the influx of Turks with cash to spend means that “primitive Turkophobia” will not take root in Batumi or Achara, where official unemployment stands at 18 percent. The Public Defender’s Office has not recorded any acts of violence toward local Turkish investors or visitors, he added.

“(T)his type of… xenophobia will not be accepted because people live better than they lived before this,” he said. “(O)pen commercial ties go only to the improvement of the economic lives of Georgians.”

The Turkish consulate in Batumi also has no record of violence against visiting Turks. Turkish Consul Engin Arıkan described the anti-Turkish rhetoric as “not good”, but stressed that it is limited to a “marginal group”.

*Editor’s note: Molly Corso is a freelance journalist who also works as editor of Investor.ge, a monthly publication by the American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia. Paul Rimple is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi.

This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

Georgia is clearly the closest U.S. ally in the South Caucasus, moving in lockstep with American interests on just about every foreign policy issue – except one: Iran.

Not wanting to become embroiled in a potential regional conflict, officials in Tbilisi are trying to finesse relations with Tehran, while staying in Washington’s good graces.

All the sabre-rattling surrounding Iran’s secretive nuclear programme has Georgians on edge. If the United States, European Union and/or Israel try for a forceful solution of the problem, geography suggests that Tbilisi could easily get dragged into a conflict.

“They (Georgian leaders) want to avoid conflict if possible, but they don’t feel in control of the situation,” said Thomas de Waal, a longtime Caucasus observer and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.

A series of arrests this year related to alleged Iranian plans for terrorist attacks in neighbouring Azerbaijan against U.S. and Israeli targets, and a recent bomb incident near the Israeli embassy in Tbilisi, have heightened the Georgian government’s sensitivities.

And not without cause, noted de Waal. “Georgia and Azerbaijan are … the closest thing that Israel has to allies in the area around Iran, so that makes them vulnerable to the covert war between Iran and Israel,” he said.

To limit the chances of blowback in the event of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Tbilisi has assiduously courted Iran’s favour, even as it tries to snuggle in the United States’ embrace.

Many heads turned last year when Georgia lifted visa requirements for Iranian citizens and talked trade and tourism expansion with Tehran. In the first three months of 2012, almost 13,600 Iranians visited Georgia; a 91-percent uptick compared to the same period during the previous year, according to Geostat, Georgia’s national statistics service.

During the Nowruz celebrations in March, neighbouring Armenia even complained that it was losing Iranian tourists to Georgia.

Some Iranians interviewed by EurasiaNet.org in Tbilisi say Georgia attracts them for its relaxed culture and the ease with which business can be done. “This is Europe,” said one Iranian man, who came to Tbilisi on a business trip. “Things are easy to do, and it feels very open.”

Open to a degree. Conscious of American diplomatic and economic support, Tbilisi can only allow so much official friendship with Iran.

U.S. Ambassador to Georgia John Bass commented to EurasiaNet.org that Washington is in “an ongoing conversation with the Georgian government on Iran” and has “encouraged them to adopt the sanctions specified by Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012.”

Among other measures, Section 1245 authorises the U.S. president to shut off or restrict access to the U.S. financial system for foreign banks found to have transactions with Iran’s Central Bank or certain Iranian financial institutions.

Ambassador Bass did not specify if Washington is happy with Tbilisi’s stance on the sanctions, or how it views economic ties between Tbilisi and Tehran. Georgian Foreign Ministry officials responsible for Iranian policy could not be reached for comment.

While Tbilisi may not have made official declarations in support of sanctions against Iran, de-facto restrictions on banking activities by Iranian citizens in Georgia appear to exist.

One Iranian citizen employed in Tbilisi told EurasiaNet.org that TBC Bank, one of Georgia’s largest private banks, had turned him down for a checking account, indicating that the background check for his under-50,000-dollar deposit was not worth its while. Others, including one Iranian-born U.S. citizen, had similar tales. All Iranians who spoke with EurasiaNet.org declined to be identified by name.

In response to an inquiry from EurasiaNet.org, a spokesperson for TBC Bank said that the bank’s policy toward non-resident customers is “based on a risks assessment and … international regulations and recommendations, which sometimes means restrictions.”

Another private Georgian bank official, who asked not to be named, said that they only provide such basic services as currency conversion and payment of Georgian state taxes to Iranians. Beyond this, the bank shuns any operations with Iranian passport holders to avoid possible problems with the U.S. Treasury Department, the official said.

The National Bank of Georgia did not respond to questions.

Arguably, such restrictions could explain why trade and investment ties between the two countries remain relatively modest. Iranian foreign direct investment peaked in 2010 at 1.1 million dollar – five times its amount in 2009, but still some 29 times less than American investment.

Imports increased by 10 million dollars in 2011, the year the visa requirement for travelers between Iran and Georgia was dropped, to reach 65 million dollars, but exports only stand at 16.2 million dollars.

Trying to stay on friendly terms with both Iran and the U.S. simultaneously can create some delicate situations for Tbilisi. In March, the Georgian government invited an Iranian defense attaché to attend joint U.S.-Georgian military exercises for Afghanistan, where Iran is believed to be backing insurgents that are battling NATO forces.

At the time, Ambassador Bass declined to comment about the U.S. reaction on the Iranian observer.

Lincoln Mitchell, an associate research scholar specialising in the Caucasus at Columbia University’s Harriman Institute, believes that Georgia’s ties with Iran do not have too “much salience” in Washington for now, but notes that that “may change, if push comes to shove on Iran”.

If it does, Tbilisi may look to its past for some balancing lessons. In the late 18th century, Georgia turned to Russia for protection against Persia; the result was its 1801 annexation by the Russian Empire, a fact bitterly resented today.

Veteran Georgian foreign policy expert Alexander Rondeli, president of the Tbilisi-based Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, believes that Georgia can hold its own. “Tbilisi will have to maintain neutrality and a careful diplomatic policy, but that’s what the government is for,” Rondeli said.

*Editor’s note: Giorgi Lomsadze is a freelance journalist based in Tbilisi. He is a frequent contributor to Eurasianet’s Tamada Tales blog.

*This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

(END)