Loki
04-16-2009, 02:10 AM
Mikheil Saakashvili shows the strain (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sarah_marcus/blog/2009/04/15/mikheil_saakashvili_shows_the_strain)
I noted recently that even before the start of anti-government protests still ongoing in Tbilisi, Saakashvili and his government probably felt confident that the opposition would not gather enough support to force his resignation.
And although at a press conference held on day two of the protests and in a subsequent interview the president was playing it cool and relaxed, the rallies have clearly given him some cause for concern.
He lost his cool recently, displaying irritation and not a little anxiety about foreign investment deals being held up due to the protests.
"I did not expect the West to put all the relationships with us on hold while waiting for this revolution. An official delegation from France decided to postpone their visit. A Turkish company moved a scheduled contract signing until after April 9, and an Arab company until April 12. What is the matter with these people? Do we stop going to Paris or Strasbourg during their street protests?" he said in an interview with Newsweek.
The longer thousands of people block traffic on Rustaveli Avenue, Tbilisi's main street, baying for Saakashvili's blood, the more questions are going to be asked about his ability to keep Georgia calm and stable.
The more people ask those questions, the slower the flow of foreign direct investment into Georgia is going to be - and that, for a president who counts attracting unprecedented levels of FDI as among his top achievements - is a big problem.
It's not just a problem for the president's reputation, but for Georgia in general - AFP reports that just before the protests ratings agency Fitch 'put Georgia's B+ long-term foreign and local currency debt on "rating watch negative," meaning that the assessment faced a possible downgrade'.
As the protests drag on, Saakashvili has gone strikingly off-message a couple of times. One of the main lines the government has given out about these protests - and it's come straight from the president's mouth on at least one occasion - is 'We will deal with these demonstrations as if Russia doesn't exist, and we will deal with Russia as if the demonstrations aren't happening.'
Yet Saakashvili has more than once insinuated that the opposition are being funded by Russia, and when asked in the Newsweek interview who sponsored the Georgian opposition, he came right out and said it.
'Most of the money-millions of dollars-comes from Russian oligarchs. I have documentary proof of that, which I am not making public yet. Whether the money is being sent from Russia under the supervision of the Russian government, that I do not know.'
But why would he not make public such evidence if he really had it? Proof of Russian funding would be a huge blow for the opposition, if it were produced. But saying that he can't reveal it yet surely just sews doubts about the proof's existence.
Without evidence the allegation of Russian funding seems like just another attempt to discredit the opposition, and such attempts surely indicate Saakashvili's uneasiness with the ongoing situation.
The drive to associate the opposition with Russian interference also conflicts to some degree with the government's stated position that they are ready and willing for dialogue with their foes and that they welcome peaceful protest.
One minute a government minister proclaims that they want to 'change the political landscape so that the opposition can be a more influential player in Georgian politics,' as Security Council Secretary Eka Tkeshelashvili did at a recent press conference, the next the president all but brands them Russian agents. It doesn't match up, but then two-facedness is hardly a new thing in politics, in Georgia or beyond.
Saakashvili may not think that his opponents can oust him, but he seems to feel they can hurt him. Why else would he be trying to undermine a movement which is failing anyway to gain significant momentum?
I noted recently that even before the start of anti-government protests still ongoing in Tbilisi, Saakashvili and his government probably felt confident that the opposition would not gather enough support to force his resignation.
And although at a press conference held on day two of the protests and in a subsequent interview the president was playing it cool and relaxed, the rallies have clearly given him some cause for concern.
He lost his cool recently, displaying irritation and not a little anxiety about foreign investment deals being held up due to the protests.
"I did not expect the West to put all the relationships with us on hold while waiting for this revolution. An official delegation from France decided to postpone their visit. A Turkish company moved a scheduled contract signing until after April 9, and an Arab company until April 12. What is the matter with these people? Do we stop going to Paris or Strasbourg during their street protests?" he said in an interview with Newsweek.
The longer thousands of people block traffic on Rustaveli Avenue, Tbilisi's main street, baying for Saakashvili's blood, the more questions are going to be asked about his ability to keep Georgia calm and stable.
The more people ask those questions, the slower the flow of foreign direct investment into Georgia is going to be - and that, for a president who counts attracting unprecedented levels of FDI as among his top achievements - is a big problem.
It's not just a problem for the president's reputation, but for Georgia in general - AFP reports that just before the protests ratings agency Fitch 'put Georgia's B+ long-term foreign and local currency debt on "rating watch negative," meaning that the assessment faced a possible downgrade'.
As the protests drag on, Saakashvili has gone strikingly off-message a couple of times. One of the main lines the government has given out about these protests - and it's come straight from the president's mouth on at least one occasion - is 'We will deal with these demonstrations as if Russia doesn't exist, and we will deal with Russia as if the demonstrations aren't happening.'
Yet Saakashvili has more than once insinuated that the opposition are being funded by Russia, and when asked in the Newsweek interview who sponsored the Georgian opposition, he came right out and said it.
'Most of the money-millions of dollars-comes from Russian oligarchs. I have documentary proof of that, which I am not making public yet. Whether the money is being sent from Russia under the supervision of the Russian government, that I do not know.'
But why would he not make public such evidence if he really had it? Proof of Russian funding would be a huge blow for the opposition, if it were produced. But saying that he can't reveal it yet surely just sews doubts about the proof's existence.
Without evidence the allegation of Russian funding seems like just another attempt to discredit the opposition, and such attempts surely indicate Saakashvili's uneasiness with the ongoing situation.
The drive to associate the opposition with Russian interference also conflicts to some degree with the government's stated position that they are ready and willing for dialogue with their foes and that they welcome peaceful protest.
One minute a government minister proclaims that they want to 'change the political landscape so that the opposition can be a more influential player in Georgian politics,' as Security Council Secretary Eka Tkeshelashvili did at a recent press conference, the next the president all but brands them Russian agents. It doesn't match up, but then two-facedness is hardly a new thing in politics, in Georgia or beyond.
Saakashvili may not think that his opponents can oust him, but he seems to feel they can hurt him. Why else would he be trying to undermine a movement which is failing anyway to gain significant momentum?