Research project
Competency through Cooperation: Advancing knowledge on Georgia's strategic path
Events
GEOPATH revolves around a research project that will produce cutting-edge, well-informed research on the crucial question of Georgia’s future strategic path. In the context of researching Georgia's future strategic path, GEOPATH will study how four key actors – Georgia, the breakaway Abkhazia, the EU and Russia – perceive their own roles and how they relate to each other in the region. GEOPATH is lead by a tightly integrated research team consisting of scholars from NUPI, the Georgian Institute of Politics (GIP) and two Georgian ‘expat’ scholars who work abroad.
The project has two primary objectives, both of which are important and relevant for Georgia.
First, the project will contribute to strengthening the Georgian research sector through an integrated research project that brings together Georgian and Norwegian scholars.
Second, the project aspires to leave a lasting footprint in Georgia by funding a PhD scholarship and organizing annual publishing seminars for PhD students and junior researchers from across Georgia. The project will directly contribute to strengthening its Georgian partner institution as well as similar institutes around the country. Importantly the project aims to reach these goals through genuine research collaboration and joint work on a topic that is of great significance for the academic community as well as Georgian society as a whole.
Related events:
Project kickoff workshop and roundtable discussion The power of polarization: the ‘Georgias’ in between Russia and the West (A two-day event, including a kickoff workshop for project participants and a roundtable with Georgian experts, organized in Tbilisi, Georgia on January 24-25, 2019).
About our partners:
The Georgian Institute of Politics (GIP) is a Tbilisi-based non-profit, non-partisan, research and analysis organization founded in early 2011. GIP strives to strengthen the organizational backbone of democratic institutions and promote good governance and development through policy research and advocacy in Georgia. GIP is working to distinguish itself through relevant, incisive research; extensive public outreach; and a brazen spirit of innovation in policy discourse and political conversation.
Project Manager
Participants
New publications
Identification and physical disconnect in Russian foreign policy: Georgia as a Western proxy once again?
Evolving official Russian identifications of Georgia amount to a dangerous securitisation of this small neighbour – achieved through a focus not on Georgia itself but on Western engagement in the region. With the long absence of face-to-face diplomatic encounters and contact, the Russian idea of Georgia as a ‘Western proxy’ has become entrenched. This article advances a social explanation of Russian foreign policy that speaks to geopolitical explanations in foregrounding great power interaction and security by drawing on insights from a discourse-theoretical reading of securitisation theory. It adds value to social explanations by showing how the identification of another political entity can be changed into that of a ‘proxy’ through its integration into a larger ‘radically different other’, and how this expansion occurs in interplay with interpretations of physical manifestations of the larger ‘radically different other’ in the ‘proxy’. Finally, it draws attention to the impact of physical encounters on foreign policy in these times of COVID-19, war, and growing isolationism in world affairs.
Navigating de facto statehood: trade, trust, and agency in Abkhazia's external economic relations
What opportunities and trade-offs do de facto states encounter in developing economic ties with the outside world? This article explores the complex relationship between trade and trust in the context of contested statehood. Most de facto states are heavily dependent on an external patron for economic aid and investment. However, we challenge the widespread assumption that de facto states are merely hapless pawns in the power-play of their patrons. Such an approach fails to capture the conflict dynamics involved. Drawing on a case study of Abkhazia, we explore how this de facto state navigates between its "patron" Russia, its "parent state" Georgia, and the EU. The conflict transformation literature has highlighted the interrelationship between trust and trade – but how does this unfold in the context of continued nonrecognition and contested statehood? Does trade serve to facilitate trust and hence prospects for conflict transformation? With Abkhazia, we find scant correlation between trust and trade: in the absence of formal recognition, trade does not necessarily facilitate trust. However, the interrelationship between trade, trust, and recognition proves more complex than expected: we find less trust in the patron and more trade with the parent than might have been anticipated.
Georgia’s Europeanization challenged from within: Domestic foreign policy discourses and increasing polarization
Georgia`s foreign policy, especially the implementation of international agreements, is best understood in the context of domestic contestation among alternative foreign policy views. • Nativist views exert increasing influence on the Georgian public. Georgia’s European partners should engage the Georgian public through civil society support and people-to-people contacts, to build trust and facilitate open debate. • The exclusive character of differing foreign policy positions further fuels the extreme political polarization. The government and opposition should be encouraged to come together over shared democratic values, instead of playing up the differences. • Pluralism and tolerance should be encouraged in the public and media debate.
Trade and trust: the role of trade in de facto state conflict transformation
De facto states – unrecognized secessionist entities that eke out a living on the margins of the international system – are often heavily dependent on external patron states for economic aid and investment. When the parent state – the state that the de facto state seeks to break away from – responds to the secessionist attempt by imposing sanctions or economic blockades, this further exacerbates such dependency. Moreover, due to their lack of international recognition, de facto states often have limited opportunities to engage with the outside world beyond the patron and the parent state. However, closer examination of one such de facto state, Abkhazia, reveals that de facto states can enjoy some bounded independent economic agency. Abkhazia’s maneuvering between Russia as “patron,” Georgia as “parent state,” and the wider international community (here exemplified by the EU) in the sphere of trade and economic interaction has important implications for de-facto state conflict transformation.
Trade, Trust, and De Facto State Conflicts: Abkhazia’s International Economic Engagement
Does trade really foster trust? In the case of conflict-torn regions, developing trade links is often believed to contribute to transforming conflict or even facilitate peacebuilding. However, when it comes to de facto states—states with no or limited international recognition—the relationship between the two may not be quite as straightforward. A closer look at Abkhazia, a de facto state in the contested neighborhood between Russia and the EU, shows that trade can thrive even in a post-conflict situation where mutual distrust is high. However, as long as trade occurs informally and in the shadows, it does not help in building trust at the state level.
Russia’s view of Georgia: a NATO proxy yet again?
After the crises in Ukraine, and despite the Georgian government’s allegedly more pragmatic attitude towards Russia, official statements from Moscow increasingly project Georgia as hostile. This may be the result of the Kremlin stepping up a propaganda campaign to put pressure on Georgia, but it is also linked to growing perceptions of Georgia as becoming an agent of NATO. Moreover, Russia’s increasingly insistent rhetorical and practical support for the independent status of the two Georgian breakaway republics, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is still framed with reference to Kosovo as a tit-for-tat in a conflict with the West. In parallel with this hardening in Russian views, there is hardly any diplomatic contact between Russia and Georgia. The regional multilateral frameworks have become dysfunctional, obstructed by polarization. Further Georgian NATO integration could entail an increasing risk of war, unless frank discussions and engagement with Russia can be promoted.