The US and Human Rights in Georgia

The collapse of the Soviet system and the on going process of globalization of the world economy have created a paradoxical situation concerning human rights in the republics of the former Soviet Union. In the countries of the former Soviet Republics human rights are abused on a larger scale and with greater impunity than at any time since the end of the so-called Stalin era. Individuals and whole ethnic communities whose rights are being abused have less and less hope for any justice or even moral support from international communities.

Human rights organizations are becoming increasingly ineffective in their attempts to influence public opinion or government policies concerning human rights. The West and the United States, who until a short time ago were seen as the harbingers of human rights and democracy in the world, are becoming more and more tolerant towards the unprecedented abuses of human rights in the newly independent states.

There are three major factors contributing to this regrettable decline of a movement that occupied a prominent place on the agenda of many international political organizations, social groups, and even government offices.

A. During the last decade it has become increasingly obvious that presence or absence of atomic power in possession of any given government determines the degree of indignation that the Western powers are ready to express over human rights abuses by this government. The Western alliance and the US did not hesitate long to use military force in order to stop the Serbian atrocities in Kosovo. However, they do not want to go beyond feeble protests to the Putin government, which is conducting a virtual genocide of the Chechen nation, and using most barbaric methods to achieve its goal. The Western leniency towards Moscow is having extremely negative consequences that are affecting the problem of human rights. The actions of the West have discredited their good intentions and turned their claims in the name of human rights into hypocrisy. These double standards are provoking more and more countries to become atomic powers in order to forestall any military interference in their internal affairs on the part of existing or possible future alliances. Iraq, Iran, China, India, and Pakistan are intensifying their efforts to become full-fledged atomic powers, and thus render themselves immune to any outside interference into their internal affairs.

B. It has become increasingly obvious that the economic interests of the Western powers supersede moral or humanitarian concerns. The Western alliance and the US used military force to liberate Kuwait in the name of freedom and justice, but are conducting business as usual with Russia and China at a time when human rights abuses have reached staggering proportions in both of these countries. The supremacy of economic interests in determining the foreign policy of the Western powers has many deplorable consequences. The governments of many smaller countries that are not blessed by fate with rich oil fields, are trying to gain the support of the West by offering every possible economic incentive to Western investors; they are turning their territories into an unrestricted market for imported goods or into a source of raw materials without regard for the disastrous ecological consequences and the depletion of natural resources. This too has an adverse effect on human rights since it is corrupt governments and the Mafia who benefit from such deals, while the majority of the people live in abject poverty, often unable to enjoy even the absolute minimum of civil rights. Another bait, smaller countries use to make themselves attractive to great powers, is their geopolitical advantages. Thus, Armenia, in exchange for Russia's military aid, has turned almost its entire territory into Russian military base. As an afterthought, I would like to add that the economic factor seems to be a much more compelling factor in determining the policy of the Western alliance and the US. Russia's nuclear arsenal was not created after the dissolution of the USSR, it has been building up for the last forty years. However, its presence did not deter the West from speaking up in defense of human rights in the republics of the former Soviet Union in the past.

C. Economic interests are inseparable from the strategic concerns of superpowers or powers aspiring to become such. Russia and the United States offer their support to smaller countries, albeit with a heavy price tag attached. And governments willing to pay such price, enjoy full immunity from any responsibility for human rights abuses in their countries. Georgia provides an excellent illustration. In pursuit of its economic and strategic interests, the US chose Shevardnadze just as it had chosen Shah Reza Pahlavi in Iran, President Marcos in the Philippines, and just as it made its choices in Vietnam, Guatemala and El Salvador. And, having made its choice, it sees no evil, hears no evil, speaks no evil about its protegees.

The US administration continues to turn a blind eye to abuses of power by the Georgian government, abuses of human rights throughout the country, torture and atrocities in prisons, discrimination against persons known to be in opposition to the present government or suspected to be sympathizers of the late President Gamsakhurdia.
Political prisoners who have suffered physical pain and humiliation, who have been serving long prison terms under unbearable conditions are declared to be hardened criminals. In this regard, the cases of Dokvadze, Gelbakhiani and numerous others have been well documented by various international human rights organizations, but Washington prefers to ignore them. With depressing regularity the US administration keeps praising Shevardnadze, awarding him all sorts of medals, especially at times when his popularity in Georgia plunges dangerously low.
A significant number of Georgians live abroad against their will for fear of imprisonment on charges of being Zviadists.
The US government twice denied an entry visa to Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, whose only "crime" is being a son of President Gamsakhurdia.
Last year in the annual report released on its web site the State Department of the US listed Georgia among the countries sponsoring terrorism, and named supporters of Zviad Gamsakhurdia as the worst offenders. Moreover, in violation of the democratic principle of "innocent until proven guilty", an individual who is still under investigation on terrorist charges is cited as a terrorist. Ironically, according to numerous statements by President Shevardnadze himself, at least three supposed terrorist actions against him were planned or carried out by persons who were once close to him and even served as members of his government.
The US and other Western observers, with the exception of the Helsinki Human Rights Organization, declared the parliamentary elections last October to be just and democratic in spite of unprecedented abuses in favor of the ruling Citizens Party and clearly biased election laws adopted by the Georgian government. Echoing official reports of the Georgian government they emphasized voting irregularities in Adjaria, but never mentioned that the candidates of the Agordzineba party were beaten, prevented from entering the building they had rented, and had their cars blocked in order to deny them access to their electorate. Moreover, the election video advertisements of the Citizens party portrayed the representatives of the Agordzineba as a "Muslim threat", a "dark force" which would destroy Georgia. President Shevardnadze was officially blessed as the "only hope" for Georgia in Svetitskhoveli, the largest cathedral of the country. Fuelling ethnic and religious hatred, these actions violated the Constitution of the country.

These are just a few examples of the US policy towards human rights abuses in Georgia. In view of the above-mentioned developments in the post-Soviet world, human rights organizations face particularly difficult challenges in carrying out their mission. Unless international human rights organizations develop new strategies and find new, more effective methods the very concept of human rights may become an obsolete and romantic indulgence of the century that is nearing its close.

***

The Author: Dodona Kiziria is professor of literature and movie research in the University of Indiana, US. She is Georgian by birth and an expert of the development of post-Soviet Georgia.

next - main - previous