October 25, 2012

Why Look West: Georgian Foreign Policy in Retrospect

While many empires and regional powers attempted to impose their rule over this tiny Caucasus country, Georgia always maintained its own, distinctively unique approach to its place in the regional and global political arena. This is a country that dominated the military and political elites in the Persian and Ottoman Empires in the 17th -18th centuries and for the most part of 20th century bred the Communist Party with brightest Georgian minds, but is in the vanguard of western political thinking in the region in the 21st century. The nation that gave birth to Joseph Stalin a century ago is now embracing European symbols next to independent Georgia’s five-cross flags and strives for full-fledged membership in the North-Atlantic Community. Explaining this phenomenon is not a simple task and requires a complex understanding of Georgian medieval and modern history.

Like many small-sized countries Georgia has been a constant subject to foreign influences. Hosting the north-south and east-west trade lanes has many times been the reason for foreign intrusions; Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Mongols, Persians, Ottomans and recently the Russians have conquered the Georgian soil. Times changed. So did the neighbors. But the choice of who to befriend and who to distrust in the short run stayed as the millennial puzzle for Georgian kings and intellectuals, but what never changed was Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, patiently looking west.

Although the idea of Europe arrived consciously in Georgia in late 19th century, Georgian-European connections trace back to ancient times and are deeply embedded in religion, culture and mentality. Georgia’s ruling dynasties proudly enjoyed the Byzantine title of Kuropalates for the most part of Early Middle Ages and when the Georgian principalities decided to unite in the 11th centuries; they did this under the formal supervision of their Eastern Neighbor – the Byzantine Empire. Following that, for most of the High Middle Ages the unified Georgian Kingdom was projecting its regional influence in harmony and rarely in conflict with Byzantium and the neighboring Armenia. With the weakening and eventual collapse of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, Georgia was virtually left alone amid predominantly non-Christian and highly adversarial constituencies in the neighborhood. Soon after this, the Georgian Kingdom dissolved into sovereign principalities, which were one-by-one, subjected to Persian and the rising Ottoman powers. The relatively small size of the population, land mass and economic wealth limited these Georgian provinces in their ability to openly cooperate with their European counterparts. However, secret correspondences were regularly undertaken in the 15th-18th centuries for assembling military alliance and freeing Constantinople, Holy Land and subsequently the surroundings of Georgia, which they considered as an inherent part of the Christian whole, or the Respublica Christiana. Many Georgian principals abandoned their Orthodox religion for Catholicism in hopes of getting more sympathies from their Catholic counterparts and more importantly the those in Rome. Countless embassies of Georgians went in vain to European capitals as well. Georgia’s union with Europe did not come together at that time.

When Russian interests stepped beyond the Caucasus slopes in the 17th, Georgian nobleman zealously welcomed their new Northern neighbors. The rationality of Georgia’s initial Russia-enthusiasm has been hotly debated by Georgians, both academics and politicians, and indeed, this is a very complex topic that many volumes would not exhaust, but one fact is clear – Russia at that time represented the “alternative” and the long-awaited Europe that finally made its move towards integrating Georgia into its orbit. Accordingly, King Erekle II of Eastern Georgia weary of constant Persian, Ottoman and North Caucasian intrusions saw a solution in teaming up with the new neighbor in the north and incautiously subjected its lands under the protectorate of the Russian Empress Catherine in 1783. Following Georgia’s full annexation by the Russian Empire in 1801, Georgia lost its legitimate right to communicate with the rest of the world for almost 200 years. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, the new international setting opened up a new momentum for Georgia; independent from Russian lenses, Georgia was finally able to forge partnership with modern day Europe and strive for full integration in it.

This very propensity for joining the Respublica Christiana centuries ago, echoes the country’s modern foreign policy today and will influence Georgia’s external priorities in coming decades. This is not to say that Georgia’s European aspirations are eternal, it can eventually change but the following pattern will remain intact – Georgia was, is and will be eager to move towards the West, or see the Westerners moving toward Georgia, believing that their country inherently and organically belongs to the greater European community.



About the Author

Tornike Zurabashvili
Tornike Zurabashvili is an independent researcher.




2 Comments


  1. Elle

    I do not understand why you are returning to this historical background? I think the most relevant is what is today and how Georgia perceives its place and future in the international society? EUrope does not need historical justification of Georgia’s appeal but a vibrant framework for actions today.

    Additionally, I would like to make one remark. Georgia started to liaise with Europe much earlier than you have put in the article. There are letters of Queen Rusudan writing to Pope in early 13th century.


    • Tornike

      Elle thank you for the time you took to read my opinion piece.

      You are right in saying that Georgia started communicating with west much earlier. I indicated it in there as well.

      As for the first question, I agree the most important and relevant today is that we look forward and not behind. But, one thing is Europe needing/not needing historical justification of Georgia’s appeal and another is that we ourselves need to assess our history right. This opinion piece serves this very purpose as well. This is just a brief account of how I see we saw ourselves for the last millennium and how our foreign policy has evolved in this time.

      Hope you find my answers helpful,

      Tornike



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *