{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Georgia"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Georgia is entering a period of political transition and will have a new constitution after parliamentary and presidential elections in 2012 and 2013. While the current government has made progress in building a functioning state, the country’s economic situation is increasingly uncertain.
WASHINGTON—Georgia is entering a period of political transition and will have a new constitution after parliamentary and presidential elections in 2012 and 2013. While the current government has made progress in building a functioning state, the country’s economic situation is increasingly uncertain.
In a new report, Thomas de Waal examines the challenges facing Georgia and argues that the government must start building institutions and choose a long-term development model after years of governing in an informal and improvisational way. The governing elite has no serious domestic political opposition and risks turning Georgia into a one-party state.
Models for Georgia’s Future:
“Georgia now faces real dilemmas whose resolution will determine how the country develops,” de Waal writes. “Greater integration with the EU will not deliver an economic miracle to Georgia, but having a European anchor would ensure greater political stability for Georgia, which in turn would benefit the economy.”
NOTES
Click here to read the full report
Thomas de Waal is a senior associate in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment, specializing primarily in the South Caucasus region comprising Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia and their breakaway territories, as well as the wider Black Sea region.
The Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Program has, since the end of the Cold War, led the field on Eurasian security, including strategic nuclear weapons and nonproliferation, development, economic and social issues, governance, and the rule of law.
Press Contact: Karly Schledwitz, +1 202 939 2233, pressoffice@ceip.org
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.
Rym Momtaz, ed.
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
The world has entered an era of upheaval—a period of heightened geopolitical rivalry, deepening political polarization, quickening technological change, glaring economic inequality, accelerating environmental crises, and eroding respect for international law. This moment of disruption and fluidity is also one of opportunity, however. It provides openings for middle powers, both established and emerging, to exercise unaccustomed agency and influence the future of global order.
Carnegie scholars are analyzing middle power responses to this moment of upheaval and assessing whether—and under what conditions—these states can contribute to practical problem solving. They are asking critical, concrete questions: What countries, precisely, are we talking about when we refer to middle powers? In what issue areas do their priorities converge and diverge, including across North-South divides? In what domains can middle powers pack a punch, rather than produce a whimper? Are they willing to shoulder actual burdens and responsibility? Finally, how can middle powers assert themselves globally, without running afoul of or threatening their relations with the United States or China?
