The aid pledged by 67 donors who met in Brussels on Wednesday should not be seen either as a reward for Georgian rashness in sending its troops into South Ossetia in August or as a blanket endorsement of the government and policies of President Mikheil Saakashvili, said The Times in an editorial yesterday. Excerpts:
Even amid a global economic downturn, the 67 donors were ready to pledge $4.55 billion to help Georgia to recover from its brief conflict with Russia in August. This is a heartening measure of international generosity. Most of the money was promised by America and European Union members, countries where sympathy for the small Caucasus nation is strongest. But the EU itself was surprised by the sum, which one official said “exceeded expectations”.
The aid package is intended to pay for essential repairs to the villages, roads, bridges and railways damaged by the fighting, to provide emergency aid and shelter for the 65,000 people displaced within Georgia and to make up the budgetary shortfall by paying wages, pensions and other government services.
Donors also promised to support the country’s banks through loans and guarantees, a pledge that probably leaves Georgia in a stronger position than countries that have not suffered from war but are still badly affected by the global banking turmoil.
Georgia’s security remains precarious. Tensions rose again in the region yesterday with accusations of bad faith on both sides: Tbilisi said that Moscow deployed 2,000 more troops in South Ossetia, bringing the total to 7,000. The Russians denied this, countering that Georgia had broken the cease-fire and denouncing EU observers for turning a blind eye to these violations. And although Moscow has pulled back to the two regions it has recognized as separate states, atavistic hatreds in the region threaten to sabotage the French-negotiated cease-fire at any time.
Western financial pledges to Georgia have been spurred by alarm at the way that Moscow has used the summer conflict massively to reinforce its presence in the Caucasus and send a scarcely veiled warning to other former Soviet republics wanting to strengthen links with the West. But the aid should not be seen either as a reward for Georgian rashness in sending its troops into South Ossetia in August or as a blanket endorsement of the Government and policies of President Saakashvili. José Manuel Barroso, the EU Commission President, said yesterday that the world had a “moral imperative” to help Georgia, but this should not distract the country from political and economic reform. Japan, among other donors, echoed his call.
Georgia is manifestly freer than it was in Soviet days. But its new democratic structure is fragile and far from complete. Despite his US legal education, articulate English and admiration for the West, Mr Saakashvili has shown little interest in political pluralism, acted with heavy-handedness against his opponents and introduced worrying curbs on media freedom. A State Department report this year said that respect for freedom of speech, press and assembly worsened in 2007; one human rights group ranked Georgia behind Nigeria, Malawi and Indonesia in press freedom. Broadcasting stations have been closed, opposition figures harassed or exiled and police given a free hand against the President’s critics.
The aid pledged in Brussels should not be unconditional. Morale is low in Georgia, and political rifts, masked during the conflict, are growing. But Tbilisi must show the same courage in embracing democracy as it has in resisting Russian tanks. Donors should expect nothing less.
