However, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has officially announced that in response to the adoption of the “foreign agents” law in Georgia, which Washington views as a tool for suppressing opposition and democratic freedoms, the U.S. is implementing a policy of visa restrictions against the country.
Though there is no immediate talk of imposing visa sanctions against specific individuals in the Georgian leadership, the Secretary of State has declared that such sanctions could now be applied. “Anyone who undermines democratic processes or institutions in Georgia, including before, during, and after the [parliamentary] elections in October 2024, may be denied a U.S. visa and barred from entering the United States. Immediate family members of these individuals may also be subject to these restrictions,” Blinken’s statement reads. The U.S. also promises a near-total review of bilateral relations with Georgia. The European Union is also considering sanctions – though this information comes from leaks rather than official statements. At least four countries, are calling for the cancellation of Georgia’s “visa-free” status. This “visa-free” regime is essentially the only benefit Tbilisi has received from the EU for its pro-Western orientation, aside from the complications in relations with Russia.
However, the tension between Tbilisi and Brussels has escalated far more severely than could have theoretically happened with the imposition of sanctions. Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze revealed sensational details of his conversation with an EU commissioner: “Even amidst prolonged blackmail [from the West], the threat made during a phone conversation with an EU commissioner was shocking. The commissioner listed a series of measures that Western partners might take if the veto on the transparency law is overridden, and noted, ‘You saw what happened to Fico, and you should be very careful,'” the Georgian government’s press service quotes the Prime Minister. Kobakhidze also added that “the attack on the Slovak Prime Minister shows traces of special services from a country particularly closely linked to the global war party.” He did not specify which country.
This is a sensational claim. The words of the unnamed EU commissioner were perceived by the Georgian Prime Minister as a “shocking threat.” The uproar over the “foreign influence transparency law” already discredited the EU and represented direct interference in Georgia’s internal affairs, with more of an intent to “put them in their place,” “show who’s boss,” etc., rather than genuine concern for Georgian democracy. But if an EU commissioner hints at an assassination attempt on another country’s Prime Minister in a conversation with one country’s Prime Minister, it goes beyond all conceivable boundaries.
Theoretically, a plausible explanation could be devised here: “Our commissioner was misunderstood, he was talking about the danger of deepening internal conflicts in society, and officially, Bratislava does not speak of ‘foreign involvement’ in the attempt on their Prime Minister.” This explanation might work – but only if it were officially stated. However, the EU’s response to Kobakhidze’s statement is simply silence.
The silence of EU structures can be somewhat explained. Journalists know well: if a statement includes phrases like “one of the…,” it is usually not officially refuted – it seems not to concern anyone specifically. But a “shocking threat” in a conversation between a Prime Minister and an EU commissioner is not a situation where the EU can afford to remain silent. Perhaps Brussels considers themselves almost untouchable, confident that no one would dare to accuse them of anything, but this time the issues are too dangerous and shocking for the EU leadership to remain silent.
Indeed, many beyond Tbilisi would like to know if Europe employs such methods against dissenting politicians.
