The global developments demand a thorough, objective, and non-populist assessment of Georgia's foreign policy.
Such work is necessary in order to better see the full depth and contradictions of current processes, to better understand the existing entanglements, and to clearly envision the path forward, The Caspian Post reports citing
It is advisable to take a brief step back and conduct a so-called “zero-sum” audit. What does such an analysis mean from a practical point of view?
First and foremost, it is a level-headed examination, free from ideological clichés and useless sentiments, of the trends shaping the emerging “disorderly world order.” Such examination aims at:
(1) Objectively and comprehensively assessing the current and evolving situation surrounding Georgia;
(2) Clearly defining short-term, medium-term, and (as far as possible) long-term objectives;
(3) Agreeing on guiding principles for implementing the foreign policy line;
(4) Developing technical means and methods for achieving the relevant objectives, as well as conducting an inventory of the necessary resources.
The “zero” nature of such an exercise lies in assessing the past period without embellishment, romanticization, or heroization. At the same time, the analysis of the future should also be carried out without “rose-colored glasses” and without dividing everything into “black” and “white.”
In other words, a “zero-sum” audit serves to identify “our” and “their” interests, as well as to objectively determine the degree of convergence and divergence between them. This, in turn, will help shape a policy based on Georgia’s realistic capabilities, both domestically and internationally.
Key issues to focus on:
The key issues or topics to be addressed in the aforementioned audit can be broadly outlined as follows: 1. Assessment of the globally established or emerging centers of influence; 2. Analysis of the role of major powers; 3. Evolution of alliances and other multilateral associations; 4. Study of the transformation of strategic partners’ policies; 5. Identification and prioritization of tactical or situational partners.
At the same time, it is necessary to institutionalize, on a continuous basis, analytical and research directions such as: (a) The Russian civilizational world; (b) The Turkish civilizational world; (c) The Persian civilizational world. That is, those civilizational centers at whose crossroads Georgia is situated, and which have a direct impact on Georgian politics.
Furthermore, observing and studying two major geocenters, the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, requires institutionalization. For this purpose, their positions should be regularly measured through a “stress test” (in terms of support, skepticism, or direct opposition) regarding the following topics relevant to us: (a) Trade and supply networks; (b) Multilateral institutions; (c) Military-political and economic alliances.
In my opinion, the conclusions drawn in these and other areas will lead to a better and more effective implementation of Georgia’s foreign policy translated into concrete results. Therefore, the usefulness of the theoretical part of the “zero-sum” audit will be measured primarily by policymaking in practical terms.
In addition to the so-called traditional topics, the proposed analysis should also address several relatively new developments that have emerged over the past few decades. An analysis conducted without focusing on these developments would be incomplete and could lead to significant miscalculations or mistakes in practical policymaking. Among these “new developments” are:
(1) The distribution/re-distribution of power between state and non-state actors (primarily the corporate world and other “informal” influence groups) on the global stage;
(2) The impact of technological changes on decision-making centers;
(3) Political polarization and the resulting conflicting processes taking place in contemporary society.
I repeat, it is precisely this kind of fundamental research and analysis that will enable the creation of an objective and impartial roadmap for the implementation of Georgia’s foreign (and not only foreign) policy line.
It is also worth noting that the proposed analysis provides a solid basis for the participation of academic thought in the process. This, in turn, allows for the reconciliation of differing positions and agreement on shared priorities, which is an essential condition for public acceptance of foreign policy.
Resources and once again… resources
The achievement of relevant objectives requires adequate resources (human, material, etc.). Therefore, the “zero-sum” audit necessarily involves the inventory and classification of resources. Otherwise, the audit would resemble “intellectual sadomasochism,” which would justify neither the time spent nor the paper used.
In short, the framework formula of “realistic goal + technical path + accompanying resources” creates one of the solid prerequisites for managing a political line, serving to advance the country while minimizing risks along the way.
A clear understanding of the resource base is important not only for accountability to taxpayers and for maintaining discipline in spending. Additionally, the process requires a particularly refined skill: achieving maximum results with limited resources. Clearly, this is not an easy task, but it is a necessary art that we must master.
This also allows for timely adaptation to changing priorities resulting from external processes and adequate reallocation of resources. Such adaptability in contemporary realities will support official Tbilisi to pursue a flexible “emergent strategy” (particularly for managing crises) instead of a rigid “grand strategy,” thereby promoting greater realism and effectiveness.
At the same time, returning to the above-mentioned formula, the resource component, in addition to traditional themes like “greater security, greater economic prosperity”, must also take into account challenges such as:
(1) Technological security, which ensures overcoming technological lag and facilitates a leap from the Third World to the First;
(2) Demographic security, which is linked to the recent noticeable changes in the country’s demographic structure; and
(3) Intellectual security, which is tied to the flow of intellectual potential essential for making the leap from the Third World to the First.
The Trump “character” factor
The audit of Georgian foreign policy has been a long-matured necessity. However, the world’s shift from the “old order” to a “disorderly order” made this necessity indisputable. And then, Donald Trump’s second presidential term - which offered international relations a kind of “tabula rasa” or “clean slate” - made this necessity unavoidable.
A reflection of the new formation’s order and standards can also be seen in Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remark that the old order has not only “become outdated” but has also been “used as a weapon against us.” Even more dramatic observations can be found regarding this trend - for instance, according to the well-known expert Robert Kagan, “without the American superpower, chaotic jungles will emerge.”
I have written on several occasions about the renewed standards; however, in the context of Georgia’s “zero-sum” audit, I would highlight one declared principle of the current United States administration. Specifically, based on the notion of convergence in interests (rather than primarily in values), the United States will engage diplomatically with all state actors, regardless of the nature of their political regimes.
In a much broader perspective, Trump’s second term signifies (at least for now) the US’ rejection of the so-called “hegemonic stability” as a maximum. At a minimum, we are witnessing the hegemon’s significant distancing from its commitment to global stability in favor of “plurilateralism” and “overlapping of practical interests.”
Undoubtedly, this is not just a new wave, but a new era in international relations (don’t ask me about the timing), which calls on the Georgian side to be ready to “listen” to everyone, try to “understand what they are saying,” as well as to “convey its own point of view” thereby finding possible points of intersection. We should also remember that in the aforementioned “jungles,” a place will be secured for those who are genuinely strong and self-reliant, not for the weak and dependent.
Therefore…
The policy of “Georgia First” rather than “Georgia Only” should form the solid foundation of our actions. The first one, “Georgia First,” is a prerequisite for progress, development, and modernization, while the latter, “Georgia Only” (which is being imposed on us today), is a prerequisite for remaining stuck in the past, in phobias and stagnation.
