POLITICAL ELITES, IDEAS AND FOREIGN POLICY:

GEORGIA SINCE ``ROSE REVOLUTION``International School for

Caucasus Studies Ilia State University

Project Duration

09.2010-09.2011

Research Team

Giorgi Gvalia - Research Leader

Zurab Iashvili - Project Manager

Bidzina Lebanidze - Senior Researcher

Content

Methodological Foundations and Specific Methods

Main Research Questions

Contending Theoretical Frameworks

Main Research Hypothesis and Alternative Explanations

Empirical Observations

Main Findings and Concluding Remarks

Future Steps

Methodology and Specific methods

Methodological Approaches

• Congruence Method• Process Tracing

Specific Methods:

• Thematic Content Analysis• In-Depth Interviews• Analysis of Theoretical and Secondary

Sources

Research Questions

• What explains the intensification/change in Georgia’s foreign policy since 2003?

• How can one account for the continuity in fundamental priorities of Georgia’s foreign policy since the Russia-Georgia ``August War`` ?

• How can be explained the fact that while Georgia’s foreign policy in 1992-2003 was the mixture of balancing and bandwagoning strategies towards Russia, from 2004 Georgia starts to rely only on the strategy of balancing and distancing itself from Russia?

Mainstream Theoretical Frameworks

Neorealism - Structural Theory of Security Constraints

Liberalism - Structural Theory of Economic Constraints

Neorealism – Theory of External Constraints

Major Neorealist Predictions:

• H 1 - Variations in Small State’s Foreign Policy are conditioned by the variations in its external Security Environment, mainly by the variations in the nature and extent of external threats;

• H 2 - Small states are more likely to rely on the strategy of bandwagoning with a threatening great power rather than balancing it

• H 3 - The propensity towards bandwagoning increases if the following conditions are present:

H 3. 1 - threatening power is much stronger than threatened one

H 3. 2 - threatening power lies in close proximity

H 3. 3 - Threatening great power has large offensive military capabilities

H 3. 4 - Credible balancing Alliances are not viable

Liberalism – Theory of External Economic Constraints

Major Predictions of Economic Liberalism:

H 1 - Economic Dependence Constraints State’s ability to Pursue Pro-independent Foreign Policies;

H 2 - Variation in State’s Foreign Policy aims and strategies is the result of the variation in the level of economic dependence on another state

H 2. 1 - When Economic dependence is high State is more Likely to adopt Pro-Dependency Foreign Policy;

H 2. 2 - When Economic dependence is low State is more Likely to adopt Pro-Independence Foreign Policy

Empirical Observations

Within Case Comparison - Variation in the Value of Dependent Variable

Two cases:

Case 1 - Georgia’s Foreign Policy After the ``Rose Revolution``

Case 2 - Georgia’s Foreign Policy Since the `` August War``

Case 1 - Georgia’s Foreign Policy After the Rose Revolution

Intensification of Pro-Western Foreign Policy

Insufficiency of Mainstream Theoretical Approaches - Neorealism and Theory of Economic Dependence

None of the mainstream theories could provide satisfactory explanations of intensification/change in Georgia’s foreign policy since the ``Rose Revolution``

Why Mainstream Approaches are Flawed?Weaknesses of Neorealism

H 1 - Variations in Small State’s Foreign Policy are conditioned by the variations in the nature and extent of external threats

We see no meaningful covariance between the values of independent and dependent variables of interest

Intensification of Pro-Western Foreign Policy in 2004 could not be satisfactorily explained by the variable of External Threat emanating from Russia

The Russian factor (Power and Threat) remained constant through the entire period of Georgia’s sovereign statehood

Major analytical Problem of Neorealist framework - Change in the value of DV (Georgia’s Foreign Policy) could not be explained by the IV (Threat from Russia) that did not undergo any substantive change in its value

Why Mainstream Approaches are Flawed?Weaknesses of Theory of Economic Dependence

H 1 - Economic Dependence Constraints State’s ability to Pursue Pro-independent Foreign Policies

H 2. 1 - When Economic dependence is high State is more Likely to adopt Pro-Dependency Foreign Policy

In 2004 Georgia has intensified to distance itself from Russia despite high levels of economic dependence on its former Metropole

How Do We Measure Economic Dependence

We use three main indicators for measuring the variable of Economic Dependence

1. Trade Dependence

2. Energy dependence

3. Access to Alternative Markets

Russia - Georgia’s Number One trading partner before 2006 (About 20 percent of its total trade, Source: Statistics.ge)

Russia – Georgia’s major supplier with Strategic Energy Resources (Natural Gas and Electricity)

Georgian Export Structure By Countries 2005statistics.ge

Russia US

France Germany

UK Turkey

Georgian Import Structure By Countries 2005 statistics.ge

Russia US

France Germany

UK Turkey

Dynamics of Trade With Russia – Exports statistics.ge

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

40

80

120

160

200

Chart 1: Exports to Russia (in Mio USD)

Dynamics of Trade With Russia – Imports statistics.ge

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

100

200

300

400

500

600

Chart 1: Imports from Russia (in Mio USD)

Case 2 – Georgia’s Foreign Policy Since ``August War``

Main priority of Georgia’s Foreign Policy - Pro-Western Foreign Policy

Despite changes in its external security environment, we observe no substantive changes in Georgia’s foreign policy aims and priorities

Integration with the West remains the top priority of Georgia’s foreign policy

Why are Mainstream Approaches Flawed?Indeterminacy of Neorealism

• H 2 - Small states are more likely to rely on the strategy of bandwagoning with a threatening great power rather than balancing it

• H 3 - The propensity towards bandwagoning increases if the following conditions are present:

H 3. 1 - threatening power is much stronger than threatened one

H 3. 2 - threatening power lies in close proximity

H 3. 3 - Threatening great power has large offensive military capabilities

H 3. 4 - Credible balancing Alliances are not viable

Changes in Georgia’s External Security Environment since ``August War``

Objective Indicators

Strategic and Military Indicators:

Change in the Military Balance of Power:

1. Russia has deployed offensive weapons, such as Short-range Ballistic Missiles SS-21, which places much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, within reach.

2. It also deployed S-300 air-defense systems in Georgia’s occupied territories, thus covering the air space of all major Georgian airports from the Black sea on the west to country’s eastern borders.

3. Some 10-15 thousand Russian military forces are stationed in Georgia

4. Russia continues buildup of military infrastructure in occupied territories

In strategic and military terms Georgia is clearly in more vulnerable position than it was until the ``August War``

Changes in Georgia’s External Security Environment since ``August War``

Objective Indicators

Political Indicators:

Internationally Russia managed to reassert its importance and influence in its ``Near Abroad``

Georgia’s chances of joining counterbalancing Alliance (NATO) in the short-term perspective are not promising

Change of administration in the US removed the ``Democracy Promotion`` agenda from the priorities of current US administration

Changes in Georgia’s External Security Environment since ``August War``

Perceptions of Relevant Actors

Political elite perceives external security environment to be more vulnerable after the ``August War`` than it was before (Source: Draft of the National Security Concept, Public version of Threat Assessment Document, Foreign Policy Strategy, Interviews)

Alternative Theoretical Lens is needed – ``Balance of Ideas``

Major Assumptions of ``Balance of Ideas``

H 1. - Foreign Policy is a Socially constructed realm of activity

``Foreign Policy is What States make of it``

H 2. - Elite’s Ideas and Preferences are important factors shaping and influencing state’s foreign Policy choices and strategies

H 3. - Variation in State’s foreign policy choices is the result of variation in the elite’s ideas and preferences

Balance of Ideas - Theory of Foreign Policy Choice

Foreign Policy is the social in the sense that states relate to one another through shared ideas and these ideas help define who and what states are

Shared Ideas Define the realm of acceptable policy options and direct strategies according to the national interests that are not exogenously given, but instead must be endogenised

``Balance of Ideas`` is the theory of foreign policy choice, not of foreign policy outcomes

``Balance of Ideas`` better captures (than Structural/material approaches) the broad dynamics of Georgia’s foreign policy since ``Rose Revolution``. The variables of Political Elites and Shared Ideas explains why Georgia intensified pro-western foreign policy since ``Rose Revolution`` and why it did not alter its main foreign policy directions since the ``August War``

How Do We Define Ideas?

Ideas are beliefs held by individuals that affect foreign policy outcomes (Keohane and Goldstein)

We see no intrinsic dichotomy between Terms Ideas and Interests

Whose Ideas Matter Most and Why?

Our Theory is focused on Political Elites

Nature of Political System

Political and administrative elites are directly involved with the issues related to the foreign and security policy of the country

``Elite attitudes are likely to have much more immediate bearing on state behavior than will those of general public``(Duffield , 1999)

Elites vs. General Public

While we do not totally devalue the role of public opinion, we assume that public opinion at most sets the bounds of what is acceptable, while elite opinion is of utmost importance in shaping and defining foreign policy agenda and strategies

What Type of Ideas Matter?

We distinguish between two types of ideas:

1. Ideas Related to State’s Purpose – These type of ideas concern the country’s identity, its national values, its international status and national interests;

2. Strategic Ideas or Causal Beliefs – These type of ideas help determine which of the many instruments will be used to achieve the desired goals

How Do Ideas Matter?

Ideas can influence Policy in three primary ways:

1. Ideas can serve as road maps – They can influence an actor’s perception of external environment, framing and definition of situation, interpretations of outcomes after the fact

2. Ideas can narrow the range of available policy options and ensure constancy in policy despite some changes in material conditions

3. Ideas can ensure path-dependency in policy as past decisions can limit the possibilities of current policy

Content of Georgia’s Foreign Policy Ideas: Identity, National Interests and Strategy

On the basis of the conducted Content Analysis three broad foreign policy discourses/paradigms could be discerned

1. European Discourse (Identity) - Georgia is a European country, not the Post-Soviet State

2. Modernization Discourse (National Interest) - Most important post-revolutionary project is the modernization of the country and the building of a strong state, that will have no links, except history, with the failed state that Georgia experienced during 1990’s

3. Strategic Discourse (Strategy) - Realization of National Interests is possible only through the close association and integration with European and Euro-Atlantic political-military institutions such as NATO and EU

Excerpts Describing Main Foreign Policy Paradigms

``This is not, of course, a new path for Georgia, but rather a return to our European home and our European vocation-which is so deeply enshrined in our national identity and history`` (President of Georgia)

The bandwagoning with Russia is not an alternative for Georgia, not because that if Georgia goes back to Russian sphere of influence it will cease to exist as a state… no! Georgia will still be a ``sovereign`` state, it will still have a formal seat in the UN, but the main issue is not this. The main and fundamental issue is that bandwagoning with Russia means Georgia of 1990’s, when it was failed, corrupt and criminal state with no hopes of ever becoming normal, modern and European state…`` (Interview with high level policy-maker)

``The ultimate aim is the modernization of the country and the society. What we do then internationally is determined by this aim. This is why it becomes impossible to be with Russia…`` (Interview with the Chairman of the Committee for European Integration, Parliament of Georgia )

Concluding Remarks

``Balance of Ideas`` which incorporates the variables of Political Elites and Ideas is superior theoretical framework for explaining and understanding broad dynamics of change and continuity in Georgia’s Foreign Policy

While we agree that the ``third image`` and materialistic theories are important parts of any story about the foreign policy of Georgia and about small states generally, we contend that these approaches are not sufficient.

Future Steps

Increasing the number of cases

Increasing the number of alternative explanations

Thank You!