The Bloom Is Off The Rose Revolution In Georgia

There was a short stretch of time just a handful of years ago when President Bush seemed redeemed and Democracy appeared to be spreading. Remember how it began?

If a global wave of democracy does ultimately transform the politics of the 21st century, future historians may well trace its roots not to the rhetoric or actions of the Bush administration, but to developments in a tiny republic nestled in the Caucasus. For it was in Georgia in November 2003—before the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, or the purple-fingered elections in Iraq—that a frustrated population took to the streets to demand the ouster of a corrupt and autocratic government. The result of those street protests was Georgia's "Rose Revolution," a peaceful regime change that has inspired others to refuse to accept a deeply unsatisfactory status quo.

At the time, the Rose Revolution caught the world's imagination:

Not one person was injured, not a drop of blood was spilled.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to protest against the flawed results of a parliamentary election.

The demonstrators demanded the resignation of Eduard Shevardnadze, a man who had ruled Georgia for more than 30 years in total, as its Soviet-era Communist Party boss and its longest-serving post-independence president.

Mr Shevardnadze told protesters they risked causing a civil war and he deployed hundreds of soldiers on the streets of Tbilisi.

At that point, student demonstrators decided to give red roses to the soldiers.

Many soldiers laid down their guns.

Read the entire account from the BBC.

That was then--this is now. No one talks about the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon--following Dohar, Hizbollah is more entrenched than ever. The jury is still out on the Ukraine:

The reality is disappointing in contrast with the hopes of Ukraine's 2004 "Orange Revolution." The bad news: Ukraine is moving at a glacial pace in reforms. The good news: At least Kiev has avoided any major deterioration. Ukrainians can be grateful that they won secession peacefully in 1991 from hypercentralized Moscow.

...Freedom of the press has clearly improved since the "Orange Revolution." Ukraine has far more religious freedom than Russia.

The Freedom House report concluded that in Ukraine, "nationwide television channels in most cases provided balanced news coverage; representatives of the ruling parties as well as the opposition had equal access to the media." Nevertheless, many local governments still dominate the local news media.

At least they are still free to keep trying.

Iraq's future looks bright, with the success of the surge and the apparent willingness of the government to create a timetable for the departure of US troops.

But it was Georgia--and not Iraq--that seemed to really get the ball rolling and seemed the embodiment, and even the fulfillment, of Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy. It was the first of the people's revolutions--peaceful revolutions--that seemed to usher in a whole new era.

Make that a whole new error. Ronald D. Asmus writes in The New Republic:

How The West Botched Georgia

The guns around Tbilisi have now fallen silent. Efforts are underway to finalize a truce between Russia and Georgia to end Moscow's bloody invasion. It is time for the West to look in the mirror and ask: What went wrong? How did this disaster happen? Make no mistake. While this is first and foremost a disaster for the people and government of Georgia, it is also a disaster for the West--and for the U.S. in particular.

After all, Georgia was, in a fairly basic sense, our project. The Rose Revolution was inspired by American ideals--and prodding. Many of its leaders were Western-educated and cut their teeth in U.S.-sponsored NGOs. The radical reforms carried out by Mikheil Saakashvili and his team of young democrats drew on the American experience. Georgia's NATO drive was inspired by the U.S. push to enlarge NATO to Central and Eastern Europe. Three years ago, President George W. Bush stood in Tbilisi's Freedom Square and told Georgians that American would support them as they traveled their road to freedom. Tbilisi's boulevard to the airport is named after him.

According to Asmus, it wasn't that Saakashvili responded to Russia's provocations because he wrongly assumed that the West would back him up. In fact, the situation was exactly the opposite:

To be sure, the Georgian government and President Saakashvili himself is responsible for launching its military move on August 7--albeit in response to provocations and heavy shelling by South Ossetian separatists. That move gave Moscow the pretext to invade. Today, Western observers understandably ask why Tbilisi allowed itself to be goaded into what was clearly a Russian trap. President Saakashvili will have to answer that question himself. But I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what he will say. In our recent conversations, it was clear to me that he was concluding that the West was not serious about resolving these conflicts, that he did not believe he would ever have the diplomatic support required, and that the status quo could not go on forever. He watched Russia's creeping annexation of Abkhazia start last spring with almost no Western response. That does not justify what clearly was a terrible strategic mistake by Georgia to act militarily. But it points to the mistakes--both of omission and commission--the West made that contributed to this crisis.

Read the whole thing.

As Shmuel Rosener points out, a previous President Bush allowed Iraqis to assume that they could take control of their country, and their future, from Saddam Hussein. They were brutally crushed--let out to dry by the US. Now, once again, the West in general--and the US in particular--has given cause to doubt the sincerity and ability of the West to further the growth of democracy, and democracies, around the world.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Georgia.