2024-04-18
I wish to respond the adoption of the Draft Law of Georgia on Transparency of Foreign Influence by the Parliament of Georgia with First Hearing today. Parliamentary discussion once again evidenced that opponents of the Draft Law do not have any argument against it - they in fact have none! In essence, it is genuinely European as it is based on one of the main European values. It is transparency and accountability. In addition to being European, this Draft Law is Georgian as it protects the main principle of Georgian statehood - state, national sovereignty. Draft Law solely envisages the following: annual reporting on funds received and expenditures incurred by organizations carrying the interests of foreign power. It is the minimum standard of transparency. You are all aware that a much higher standard of transparency exists in the United States and the European Commission approved of a draft law involving much tighter standards. Also, a number of EU Member States practice respective laws of much tighter standards.
You may recall when they were lying last year and even this year, claiming that everything was already transparent, as if public institutions received all the information about the non-government organizations (NGO). It was manifested in parliamentary discussions that it was an utter lie. In reality, we extracted data about seven organizations, including the most affluent ones, and it became clear that mere 18% of their funding was accessible to public institutions, rather than transparent. As for publicity, zero percent of these funds are public. Also, big portion of NGOs stay away from making their finances public at all. A simple question needs to be asked: when one receives and spends money, why would one wish to keep away from disclosing this information to the public? One receives money, spends it and keeps it hidden from society? Why should one not wish to have everything transparent for the public, if one is not confident in its own integrity? Answer to this question simply does not exist. If one has integrity, receives money and spends it, why would one wish to not show it to people? There is simply no answer to this.
As for who the draft law aimed against, transparency cannot be aimed against anyone, especially it cannot distinguish enemies from friends. Transparency is equally applicable to everyone - friends and foe, including subjects with or without integrity. Claiming that the Government of Georgia is not fully transparent towards the society is not valid as you may well be aware that we publish every Government Decree. It does not mean that we deem ourselves as enemies of someone. Transparency is first and foremost a responsibility of friends and accountability towards the society.
As for the influence of pro-Russian forces in Georgia, I wish to remind you that nation-wide elections were held since 2012, in 2012, 2013 and 2014, whereby pro-Russian parties and candidates were getting 20 percent of votes. It was happening in the first years of our governance. Pro-Russian forces have practically disappeared from the political scene nowadays. The only organization which was active in recent periods was Alt-Info. It has existential problems nowadays.
Therefore, we all see that we did a lot - we did everything - in the past 12 years to reduce the state sovereignty risks to the minimum and we did achieve this goal in real terms. Nevertheless, Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence will naturally provide an additional assistance towards this end, of course.
I also wish to note that the sovereignty of Georgia faces challenges in a number of directions. I intentionally wish to stay away from spelling out what I mean here. Even in the realm, which I am not intentionally specifying due to objective reasons, the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence will provide significant assistance to make sure that state sovereignty is protected from various sides.
As for the West, it was referred to by the opposition, claiming that we deem the West to be an enemy. Once again, let me repeat that transparency is not a criteria for distinguishing friends and foe. In the first instance, friends should be transparent. It is a responsibility of a friend towards Georgian society.
We were openly discussing from the outset about the malpractices that we were concerned about and we openly shared our views on this with our partners. We were absolutely openly requesting our partners to make their performance transparent. There were initial pledges, though sadly transparency was still not ensured. I once again wish to remind those malpractices that we were concerned about and still are. I am referring to the operation of NGOs. To start with and to openly speak about the dilemma, NGOs had two attempts at staging a revolution in Georgia in 2020 and 2022. Everyone remembers what happened after the parliamentary elections of 2020; how the so-called PVT (Parallel Vote Tabulation) was rigged; they needed five weeks to confess in this. You may also recall the fake news disseminated on the so-called extra votes, claiming that the Central Election Commission published election results with a delay. On the grounds of all these nuisances, they published a fake report, claiming that the elections were the worst in history. I just quoted their words from the report. It created an excuse for the radical opposition to start sabotaging by being absent from the Parliament and ultimately that very fake report of the NGOs gave grounds for us to sign an anti-constitutional, cabal political agreement on the grounds of which we agreed to the so-called 43 percent threshold. Everyone understands it well that had we not received 43% of votes in municipal elections, snap ones would have been held, which was the goal of this entire process. Thus, their intention was to shift the power against the kind will of the people, which did not happen and happily so. It was the first attempt of a revolt. As for the second one, you may recall how events were developing in June 2022, when the same NGOs that were funding from the respective sources, went straight on stage and demanded the government to resign for a technical one with their engagement to be created. It was the direct involvement in the revolutionary process - a direct entry into politics - which should not be done by an NGO as a rule. Nevertheless, they opted for self-disclosure and as they were hoping for success, i.e. they went "va banque" and thus got engaged into the revolutionary process in this form. I wish to state one thing clearly here: had the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence existed, NGOs would not have dared this and would have taken a better care of the reputation of their donors. Nevertheless, as the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence sadly did not exist at that time and our sovereignty was not protected so solidly at that time. First and foremost, our concern was that these were revolutionary attempts.
NGOs actively try to attack the Orthodox Church to jeopardize its reputation. We have been seeing these attempts throughout these years. I am confident here again that had the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence existed, more responsibility would have been demonstrated by NGOs towards their donors and would not have put them in an awkward situation. When the Georgian society sees that an NGO funded by a concrete donor agency has been attacking the Orthodox Church for years, what will the impression be about such donors? Here again, the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence sadly did not exist. Respectively, individual NGOs were insolently attacking the Orthodox Church. Another issue that was of our concern, in parallel with attacks on the Orthodox Church, was that individual NGOs were openly supporting such activities that aim at political interventions with religious motifs in Georgia. Inter alia, individual NGOs were supporting such activities as those oriented at facilitating religious extremism in the country. I do not want to name groups that stood out with religious extremism and which are regularly and systemically advocated by an organization funded by one of the Western sources. It is absolutely bizarre! Here again, I think that had the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence existed in Georgia for years, these individual organizations - one NGO in particular - would have failed in daring to openly go against the state interests and would not have put its donors in such an awkward situation. Sadly, NGOs are openly engaged in the LGBT propaganda, which is practiced in a rather rough manner. Rights of all people should be protected in Georgia. It is not a matter of human rights here, as it is a direct and rough propaganda of LGBT interests and individual NGOs are engaged in this. Here again, I am confident that had transparent funding existed, NGOs would have found it difficult to participate in this propaganda with such a rough manner and they would have taken better care of the reputation of their donors. They would have had to, albeit against their intentions or interests of the state and society.
Next topic that was of our concern and which we openly shared with our partners was the engagement of individual NGOs in the failing of strategic economic projects, which resulted in harming our energy independence for instance. Concrete NGOs were engaged in this as well. Here again, I think that had the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence existed, NGOs would have found it very difficult to roughly obstruct the interests of our energy independence and would have taken a better care of their donors.
Next issue of our concern that we openly shared with our partners, though no response followed in terms of transparency, was a systemic attempt to discredit the public institutions. Particularly attacked were the judiciary and police. These people allegedly do not favor or like stigmatization; you may well recall how fervently they were trying to stigmatize these institutions, especially the judiciary and constantly discredit the police. They know very well that if one wants to dismantle the state, the first target is the law-enforcement bodies. Thus, NGOs were attacking public institutions and trying to stigmatize them, harming their reputation. Let me say here again that had the funding been transparent and the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence existed, I think that NGOs would not have dared to openly attack public institutions and statehood of Georgia. Neither would they put their donor in this awkward situation.
Also, NGOs openly joined the campaign of the second front-line in 2022. From the dawn of the war, in the very first days they were demanding sanctions to be introduced and to send volunteer fighters to Ukraine with an official consent of the Government of Georgia, which meant that the economy of the country would collapse. We would have had at least 10% economic decline in the very first year, which means that our economy would have lost several billion USD; during COVID we had minus 6.5%. Can you imagine what would result from an economic downfall in the magnitude of at least 10%? Collapse of the national economy! It was their goal. Second demand was to send voluntary fighters to Ukraine with the consent of the Government of Georgia. It would immediately mean the engagement of Georgia in the military conflict.
I remind you that concrete NGOs and respective parties demanded all these. Also, let me once again remind you of a notorious phrase of one of their leaders. I am quoting word by word: "Russia is losing the war in Ukraine. They lack resources there and will not be able to pursue military action in every direction. We should do everything to use this window of opportunity". Now a leader of this very NGO is insolently speaking about Russian interests. These very people led to the entry of Russian tanks to Georgia in 2008 and these statements of theirs served the same goal in February-March 2022 and later.
These NGOs never condemned calls of high-ranking government officials of Ukraine in relation with the second front-line. They should have condemned, if the second front-line was not in their interests. They never did! None of the statements called for Georgian turning into the second front-line. I am confident that had the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence existed back then, these organizations would have restrained themselves from the war propaganda to a greater extent and would not have put their donors in an awkward situation here again.
NGOs are one of the main sources of radicalism and so-called polarization in the political landscape of Georgia. We all witness this, don't we? We have all heard their statements. Basically, if you look at the Facebook pages of leaders from affluent NGOs, you will see and get convinced that they are one of the main sources of polarization in Georgia. It is unclear to us why may one demand de-polarisation on the one hand and polarization - on the other. We did ask this question directly to respective diplomats, who are related to one of the funds. I am referring to the European Endowment for Democracy (EED). Funding was directly provided for ensuring polarization directly and EED financing is not transparent at all. They have zero transparency in the segment of EED funding. Of course, we received no response whatsoever. Initially they pledged to make everything transparent, though it has not been done to this day. I think that had the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence existed all these years, donors would have found it difficult to openly finance polarization in Georgia and respective NGOs would have also found it difficult to openly facilitate polarization in our country.
Had the NGOs succeeded in what they actively tried in 2020-2022, i.e. shift of governance through a revolution, Georgia would have been in a much worse situation than Ukraine. I strongly believe in what I am saying. It means that peace and EU integration would have been a redundant quest. Thank God, their attempts failed.
Draft Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence first and foremost aims to safeguard Georgia from Ukrainization by solidifying our sovereignty and ensuring a stable development of our country, which is a prerequisite of Georgia's integration into the EU. Avoidance of Ukrainization is an essential precondition for the integration of Georgia into the EU and a prime goal of the given draft law. Hence, it may not distance Georgia from Europe, but rather essentially approximate us with the main goal of our foreign policy - attainment of EU integration. It is a very vital prerequisite of EU integration.
As for the statements made by US and European politicians, it is sad that none of them referred to any arguments. You have seen the statements made by Messrs. Stoltenberg and Scholz. More statements followed today and there was one by a concrete diplomat working in Georgia. None of their arguments were brought against the law. Zero! We may go through them together and find no arguments whatsoever. They say that the law contradicts European values. In which area? Which particular clause? Why? Zero arguments are given. In the given circumstances, these statements will naturally serve as a basis for revisiting our decision. Statements deprived of arguments cannot serve as a basis for revisiting our decision. Therefore, I once again suggest an open discussion to everyone about the draft law. It is important to make sure that Georgian society gets full information about the draft law. I am offering an open discussion with everyone - be that a diplomat, foreign politician or anyone else. You have witnessed that Georgian politicians were avoiding discussions within the Parliament of Georgia. They had nothing to say. As for the foreigners, diplomats, politicians, one-sided statements without arguments should not be made. That is why, I once again suggest everyone to hold open discussions. If ambassadors or foreign politicians wish to be part of the political debate, let them be kind enough to get engaged in an open discussion with the public being present. That is why my personal offer towards this end remains valid.
I remind everyone that Georgia is a small, but independent and proud state. Independence and freedom is the supreme value for the Georgian people. Hence, we cannot permit anyone to give us instructions without arguments. I am stressing it as a Head of Government of Georgia. It was what our parent's generation fought for in the 80's and we will fight for dignity and independence till the very end, especially now when we represent a free and independent state.
Georgians were marching with a slogan of sovereignty on Rustaveli Avenue 35 years ago. They demanded sovereignty and independence from the Soviet system. It is a paradox that today street rallies are held on the same Rustaveli Avenue with a slogan against solidifying sovereignty. They claim that they want no sovereignty, no knowledge of who spends what, e.i. imagine the magnitude of this paradox. Part of the public is brought out on Rustaveli Avenue to claim that they need no information on who spends what. They wish to know nothing; they wish to close their eyes and not get this information. Imagine the scale of this paradox and absurdity created as a result. The only thing envisaged by the law is for the citizens of Georgia to receive information on expenditures. Part of the society is brought out to demand no information about funding or solid sovereignty; they wish someone to once again try to instigate a revolution with one's funding in the conditions of no transparency. No matter how paradoxic it sounds, it is still a fact.
It is clear for us that nobody is happy about spending money in a transparent manner. Nevertheless, we have our own interest and it is to make sure that citizens of Georgia know everything about the influence of foreign friends and foes in our country, so that no mistakes are made and national interests of Georgia are precisely defined for the development of the country at every single stage.
I wish to say a few words about our praise-worthy sportsmen, who have been subject to an extraordinary pressure in these two days. The same stateless people - let me use this rough term - have been putting pressure. They were the ones who declared Tornike Shengelia and Khvicha Kvaratskhelia as traitors some years back. These were the same people. We may extract the Facebook screens to see what they were doing and saying back then and what is the magnitude of pressure pursued now. You may remember the campaigns held against Tornike Shengelia and Khvicha Kvaratskhelia. These two praise-worthy sportsmen were declared as outright traitors. We have evidence that the same people are pressuring them now. During these two days they have been putting pressure on these two and other sportsmen. I pledge to each sportsman that the Government of Georgia will stand by their side in every case and in any circumstances. We will stand by the side of our footballers when they advance from the group at the European Championship. They will stand by our side when we all become an EU Member State. Once again, I wish to express my special respect to each of our praise-worthy sportsmen. Let me repeat again that an attempt of throwing political dirt at sportsmen by the collective UNM is the most disgraceful behavior and these people are precisely doing this.
Notorious faces of the blood-shed regime of the UNM were particularly active at the street rally yesterday: Nika Gvaramia and Giorgi Vashadze, being the notorious deputies to Adeishvili, along with others, who are conversing on high matters. Discourteous behavior is supposed to have a limit, but we saw Shota Utiashvili yesterday, who placed the corpses of several street protesters on rooftops back in 2011. Now, this person shamelessly rallies in the street. Let me remind you that corpses of several street protesters slaughtered by the previous rule were placed on rooftops at the direct instructions of Utiashvili. It was his idea to put corpses on rooftops to imitate an accident. This shameful Shota Utiashvili and his wife, who backed this crime from the so-called independent media - critical media - were in the street rally yesterday. It is yet one of the main evidence of the immeasurable shameless behavior. Also, yesterday's street rally included Kezerashvili's brother-in-law Chikovani. He was the main organizer of the street rally and Franklin Club, which has been renamed now. One of the leaders of the rally, being an agent of foreign influence, is Zibzibadze. Outdated rituals of Akerman Guidelines were used in the street rally yesterday. Akerman trainees deceived citizens of several countries previously with these tricks and led to devastating development of events there. Nevertheless, Georgian society is now quite experienced and these cheap tricks will not be swallowed.
I wish to share my personal perception in relation to the pseudo-European campaign pursued by the collective UNM. It is ridiculous when Levan Khabeishvili, Nika Gvaramia, Gubaz Sanikidze, Ana Natsvlishvili, Salome Samadashvili preach to us - they directly preach to me - how to be European. Khabeishvili, Sanikidze and others preach to me and us how to be European! It is so shameful! Their anti-European past and behavior is the most vivid evidence of how false is their so-called European campaign pursued by them. The European campaign by Gubaz Sanikidze and Levan Khabeishvili is merely ridiculous!
I wish to thank each media outlet, free media and every single journalist, who have been doing their job with utmost professionalism, irrespective of the huge hampering and grave humiliation. It is very sad that the worst insults of journalists have not yet been condemned by any diplomat and NGOs, saying nothing about their colleagues. It is up to you, but it all looks shameful.
Lastly, I wish to say a few words about the performance of the Ministry of Interior. Had Merabishvili or Gakharia been the Minister of Interior yesterday, you would find corpses of several protesters on rooftops, while others would have lost eye sight. We all remember how the majority of law-enforcement operations would end when managed by these people. Thank God, the Ministry of Interior is now managed not by an agent of foreign power, but a patriot - Vakhtang Gomelauri, who leads the police system with highest European standards. I wish to express gratitude to policemen - each and every one of them - for being patient when humiliated or physically abused by aggressive groups, not counting several incidents. There were a few cases. They confronted the aggressive crowd with highest European standards, notwithstanding the most un-European behavior of the protesters. In several cases, the aggression expressed by specific people against the police was simply unbearable. It is important that, despite the large scale of violence against the policemen, no one was seriously injured yesterday. Both policemen and all five protesters who needed to be hospitalized were given timely medical assistance, for which I would like to thank the doctors.
Every citizen, every honest protester is precious to us. Also, citizens who are misled and protest the unread law for the second time are dear to us, although it should be noted here that the radicals misled much less people in this case. The citizens who are misled by Akerman Guidelines and oppose the state in the Franklin Club, the so-called Academy of the Future or Shame Movement are also dear to us.
I would also like to warn everyone to refrain from violence and provocations. All offenders will be held accountable to the full extent of the law. Answers are especially strictly required from those who are hiding behind the scenes, I say this emphatically - essentially, the processes take place behind the scenes. Therefore, we must warn everyone, especially these people, people operating from behind the scenes, who use misled people for violence and provocation. Nothing can stand in the way of the protection of state sovereignty and, therefore, the final adoption of the law. Towards Europe with dignity, transparency and sovereignty - this is our motto and our spirit. We believe that we can become a member of the European Union only with dignity, transparency and sovereignty. So, forward to Europe with dignity!
----------
Manana Gabelia, Imedi TV: For three days now, we have been keeping an eye on the bill's parliament review and interpretations. We also see protest. What is your take as Prime Minister on the further development of these processes? Also, we heard Devi Chankotadze's statement and calls from the legislative body. We also heard that the fight continues. I want to ask you about the European Parliament's resolution as well.
Prime Minister: As for the continuation of these processes, I repeat that this process must be finalized, of course. It is a matter of honor to protect public interests, the country's sovereignty, and prevent everyone from misleading our society. Naturally, this process will be finalized. Last year, we made a different decision, but this year it is necessary to follow through this process, precisely to prevent Georgia's Ukrainization above all else, also to ensure against the events of 2020-2022 reemerging. Ultimately, this law will secure both the state's sovereignty and donors, because, with no transparency of financing in place, there is a great temptation among NGOs to misdirect their work, and this eventually causes donors discomfort. This law will insure donors. We understand that they are not happy with the transparency of finances, but this is not necessary just for state sovereignty. This is also necessary for them, so that their finances may be transparent, in which case the temptation is weaker to finance wrong activities and for organizations to carry out wrong activities with their financing-for example, contribute to polarization, radicalization, or try once again to incite a revolution, for the third time in the course of the past few years, try to Ukrainize our country. Transparency is the best way to prevent all this, and it is very good for donors.
As for Chankotadze's statement, in reality it betrays their signature style. I want to warn everyone strictly to refrain from provocations. We are well-aware of the National Movement's signature style in general. They are capable of stooping to anything, and they have done it before. This party has lowered itself in every way possible. These organizations that come out today and speak of lofty matters, they are concealing the actions of the National Movement in the past, including torture in prison and murders, etc. Remember May 26, when Utiashvili placed corpses on the roofs of kiosks. Check and see how severe statements from NGOs were back then. At the time, they were so-called GONGOs, i.e. government-organized non-governmental organizations. But today they pursue a different political agenda. And this is why transparency is key. Ultimately, transparency will make this process and NGOs healthier. If their activities have been unhealthy so far, transparency will contribute to making the work of these organizations healthier. As for Devi Chankotadze, he is one of the faces of the UNM who let slip what this political force may be thinking in reality. Consequently, let me warn everyone strongly against daring stir up provocations, against using people as weapons to pursue their personal political interests, especially since they stand no chance. Today, the state is standing firm, and the UNM, with less than 10% of votes, and all its collective satellites, cannot carry out any large-scale provocation. The state will severely counter any such attempt. The UNM will not get away with what it succeeded to do while in power. The independent, sovereign Georgian state will not let that happen.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: Firstly, I want to ask you about European aspirations. For the country to become a full EU member, Georgian legislation must harmonize with EU legislation. The legislative body has amended many laws to make sure that they are compatible with EU legislation. However, the bill adopted by the Parliament today at first reading, European structures say that this law will not lead Georgia into Europe, and that it prevents Georgia from being granted EU membership. Why are you putting Georgia's European future at risk? Because they are telling us bluntly that the adoption of this law may prevent the country from entering the negotiations phase, and we may not become a full member of the EU.
Prime Minister: Let's have a brief discussion. They say that this law contradicts European values. But have you heard anyone explain in what way and why it contradicts these values?
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: You do not think the arguments set forth by the US are enough? You also met with Scholz....
Prime Minister: Georgian society, including me, has not heard any arguments. Remind me just one argument from Scholz, Stoltenberg, or the EU proving that this law contradicts EU legislation or principles, just one, no more.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: Labeling people working toward Georgia's interests as agents of foreign influence, this same idea is at the heart of the law adopted in Russia.
Prime Minister: Firstly, the Russian law copies the American law's terminology. The US law refers to relevant entities as foreign agents, and the same term is copied by Russia. As for the Georgian law, it does not use this term. But the term used by us is repeated in the document commended by the European Commission and in a number of laws of EU member states. Consequently, you have no argument, because our terminology is repeated in a document commended at a high EU level and in laws adopted by EU member states.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: However, the EU law is against Russia, mostly, and not against its constituent parts. You oppose European capital and the US, because most NGOs in this country are financed from America and Europe.
Prime Minister: That is a lie, I can assure you. It is a lie. The law commended by the European Commission applies to everyone without exception, save the EU itself. It cannot apply to itself, right? Thus, the law adopted by the EU applies to everyone, be it Russia, America, Qatar, or Iceland-with the exception of the EU and EU member states. What you say is wrong, so I have countered your argument. Do you have other arguments?
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: Yes, sir, one more question if I may. We have heard many arguments over these days....
Prime Minister: No, you tell me.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: It will take too long.
Prime Minister: Give me just one argument.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: The bill that labels NGOs as agents of foreign countries....
Prime Minister: Where does it read agent? You are already forced to lie.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: That media outlets and NGOs must apply to the registry of agents of interests of foreign countries, is not it a Russian standard? This is how it started in Russia, and this is how the third sector was banned in Russia, with the same terminology.
Prime Minister: That is a lie. It reads a foreign agent, and now you are forced to resort to manipulation, and here is why. In reality, this terminology does not repeat the Russian one. It is the same as European terminology. So I have countered your argument again. As for our terminology, let me explain that this term is formulated as an organization working toward the interests of a foreign force. This is not a term but a statement of a facts. I defended my thesis on this topic in Germany. And it reads in every textbook and scientific work that, wherever money is linked to social processes, politics, or beyond, in every case money is followed by influence and interests. It is written in elementary textbooks and scientific literature. There is no money in this setting that does not entail influence and interests, so an organization working toward the interests of a foreign force is not a term but a statement of a fact. And a statement of a fact means that, when someone gives you money, you use this money to pursue their interests. This is also a standard for NGOs themselves. If we finance an NGO tomorrow, it will be called a GONGO right away. GONGO stands for government-organized non-governmental organizations. As soon as the Georgian Government finances an NGO, regardless of its line of work-and it may be doing something very good like caring for the environment or people with disabilities-other NGOs immediately label it as a GONGO, a government-organized non-governmental organization, which is true in part, because, whenever authorities finance an NGO, this financing entails the interests of the government, the state. Relevant organizations receiving money from authorities, judging by the standards of NGOs themselves, are working toward the interests of the government. If an organization financed by the Government of Georgia is an organization working toward the interests of the Georgian Government, why should not organizations financed by foreign forces known as organizations working toward the relevant interests? Simple logic, is it not? We have so many arguments that they cannot counter, and this goes to show that there are no grounds for criticizing this law altogether, none, zero. The only thing envisaged in this law is the minimum standard of transparency. Once a year, organizations must upload their declarations on the relevant website, nothing more.
Presently, this financing is not transparent. For example, you cannot find anywhere any information about who finances the Shame Movement, and for what, why, and with how much. Consequently, there is a transparency gap which must be bridged. What you said, I just countered it all. Thus, there are no arguments against this law. If someone has an argument, I invite every Ambassador-we cannot hold direct debates with the Speaker of the Department of State-but Ambassadors are here. And, if they are accountable to society and feel like participating in continuous political debates, we all must take part in open discussion with the public present.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: Yes, I understand, so you are defending the Russian law and pass it off as an American law. As for debates, we invite you to TV Pirveli for debates.
Prime Minister: You just lied twice in one sentence. Firstly, this is not a Russian law, and this law and the Russian law have nothing in common in essence. I can explain to you in detail what the Russian law reads. Based on the law applied in Russia, state control services may inspect any organization and, if they dislike something, they can ban this NGO altogether. The term foreign agent is used, including in reference to individuals, human beings. There are branding mechanisms, meaning that if such person is on TV, for example, it must be displayed onscreen that this particular person is a foreign agent. A criminal case may be started against such persons or individuals. But what part of our law is Russian? You call it the Russian law. This is not just deception but-pardon my language-a barefaced lie, because this law has nothing in common with the Russian law. Back in the day, this fibbing was introduced by Saakashvili. If before politicians and journalists were not lying so shamelessly, Saakashvili personally introduced this standard, so it became possible not to have any arguments at all but lie shamelessly. Barefaced lies are one of the things we must reduce in Georgian politics and media. I want to thank you for the false information giving me an opportunity to say so much.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: You can come to TV Pirveli and continue our debates....
Prime Minister: We just had a discussion with you, and I think the public understands it all.
Khatia Samkharadze, TV Pirveli: I am sure the public understands it all. As for yesterday's rally, grievous facts took place, including one person suffering from broken ribs and young people beaten up. You must have seen the footage of what happened yesterday. After all this, you will meet and teach your students. What will you tell the students you cracked down on yesterday? And you recently said that everyone acting outside the boundaries of the law today will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. After all this, how will you face your students in class, and how will you speak to those you cracked down on yesterday, and who knows what may happen today?
Prime Minister: Firstly, the word crackdown is another of your lies today. What happened at yesterday's rally, was not a crackdown, do you know when a crackdown took place? When your party placed several corpses on the roofs of kiosks. It was May 26, 2011. How dare you appear on TV after that, while serving the TV station owned by this party? What moral rights do you have to speak to the public, while being one of the servants of this political party's TV? So do not ask questions about morality. You have no right to say anything about morality. As for my moral responsibility, the law that is in the process of adopting is fully compatible with legal principles, and no one has and can produce any arguments contrary to that. As for the dispersal of the rally, the dispersal was carried out in line with the highest European standards. There were three unfortunate incidents when police officers may have lost their temper. But, as for injuries, you lied again. Five people were hospitalized, and the Health Ministry published detailed information based on doctor reports on their injuries. So you are lying again, and what you say certainly fails the smell test. TV Pirveli is the UNM's television. So what if Khazaradze finances it? Khazaradze and the UNM are one collective political force. And, when you serve this political force, you have no right to speak about morality.
Rustavi 2: Salome Zurabishvili, in an interview with the BBC, stated that she will veto this law, and her veto is the voice of the people. What is your comment on the President's statement?
Prime Minister: Salome Zurabishvili is herself an agent of foreign influence, so the relevant foreign force, the global war party-which we have discussed repeatedly in the past-is the only thing she can be the voice of. As for the legitimation of this law, in a mere six months we will hold parliamentary elections, including a referendum on this law. Everyone will see clearly that this law will eventually enjoy support among 60% of Georgian society. Thus, everyone should wait for the elections, and let no one, notably Salome Zurabishvili, speak on behalf of the Georgia people while outright betraying the Georgian people and the country's Constitution.
Keta Tsitskishvili, Mtavari Arkhi: You spoke a lot about the media and violence against jorunalists. After you leave here, you can check your July 5 and subsequent statements, and then get back to us to talk about violence against the media, how violence is applied to us and how we support one another.
Prime Minister: I immediately condemned violence against the media. But you never condemned violence against your colleagues. Did you make a public statement about it? I remember, when violence was used against journalists on July 5, and mostly against representatives of opposition media outlets, the authorities, including me, immediately condemned this violence. By the way, your colleagues from other TV stations did the same, but you did not, yesterday or today.
Keta Tsitskishvili, Mtavari Arkhi: I want to ask about the statements by Borell and Várhelyi. Our partners must have told you behind closed doors....
Prime Minister: I promise you, nothing besides what was said publicly has been mentioned behind closed doors. If they have arguments against the law, why not say it publicly? There are no such arguments, because the only thing the law envisages is annual declarations. There can be no arguments in this regard, so when you say that it is the Russian law, you are lying.
Keta Tsitskishvili, Mtavari Arkhi: Our Western partners say that, if we adopt this bill as a law enforced in the country, Georgia's European path will be jeopardized, a possible setback on the European path. Cannot you in Georgian Dream see these threats, when international partners of this rank tell us about it? And, if this path is blocked, what should Georgia do?
Prime Minister: If we were not sure that this law does not compromise European integration, we would not have adopted it, of course. We are convinced that the law does not jeopardize European integration. Better still, we know that it will secure our country's integration into European structures. Unless we protect our state's sovereignty, we will wind up like Ukraine, leaving behind both peace and European integration. If this law serves one purpose, it is the objective of our European integration. Without sovereignty, you cannot enter Europe. Above all else, you must be a sovereign state to become an EU member state. Consequently, we are convinced that the law will only benefit the interests of our European integration, and the public will see this. We have been through struggles, especially in the years 2020-2021-2022 and 2023, and these struggles have given us concrete results, and the public has been monitoring this. What are these results of these years for our Government and our country? The result is that we, despite serious problems and risks, have kept peace. We did not let anyone instigate disorder in the country, though there has been a serious attempt. You remember that they wanted snap election, a revolution, then you remember what they demanded from us when a war broke out in Ukraine. We have maintained peace, and the country under our rule eventually received the candidate status. Even before that, our country had tangible results on the path to European integration, including the Association Agreement, the DCFTA, visa liberalization, and finally the candidate status-all this happened with us at the helm, and nothing has come the easy way. We have earned it all through struggles, and we have kept our country's independence and sovereignty, something that some countries have failed to achieve and therefore now face serious problems. Thus, the adoption of this law serves the purpose of cementing our state's sovereignty and European integration, and the adoption of this law has no alternative. Unless we adopt this law, we will face problems with sovereignty and European integration.
Giga Benia, BMG TV Company: Mister Kobakhidze, firstly, you lied to the public by saying that representatives of the diplomatic corps did not respond to what you claim to have been an attack on Imedi's journalist yesterday. The EU Ambassador condemned it in his statement.
Prime Minster: No, you are lying, and here is why. In reality, this was not a statement of condemnation by the EU Ambassador. You know how the standard generally works. When there is violence, public statements are usually issued. In this case, a journalist asked the EU Ambassador a question. Yes, the context was violence against journalists, but he gave a general response that he generally distances himself from all forms of violence. This is not distancing, so now you are lying, not I.
Giga Benia, BMG TV Company: You say that none of the foreign partners has produced any arguments showing that the bill developed by you is Russian. Why could not you convince them, then, that it is a Georgian, European, and American bill, as you claim, and why have you failed to convince the public, the Georgian people, Georgian citizens. And, when you say that similar laws are found in the US, the EU, France, why do they themselves say that they have no such laws? If Georgian Dream's bill cripples our country's European integration, who will assume the responsibility for botching our historical choice?
Prime Minister: My answer is very simple. Firstly, when Americans say that their law is not the same, it is true, and in what way? Their law is the most severe. Their law prescribes criminal liability for individuals, criminal prosecution, and registration as a foreign agent. They have the toughest regulations. In this regard, the American law is not similar [to ours], because it sets much higher standards. The same is true of France and its bill commended by the European Commission. In the same vein, it is not similar because it is much tougher. The European Commission commended it, and when the European Commission commends much tougher laws, how can our law be against European values? The European Commission has already stated that their law is good, and it is much tougher than ours. What level of paradox are we talking about? The highest executive body of the EU says that a much tougher law is good, and then they say that our law is bad. As for convincing, how do you convince them unless a discussion takes place? They come and say things without any arguments to back them up. We have not heard a single argument. Have you heard a public argument as to why the Georgian law is bad, and why they oppose it? There can be no such argument in nature. Their problem is not that there is an argument and they cannot prove it to us. The problem is that there is no argument, because the only thing this law reads is that NGOs receive financing and then tell people where the financing comes from and how it is spent. How can this be bad or contradict European standards? The problem is not that they have a hard time proving their argumentation. The problem is that there is no argument, the reason why they cannot tell us anything using arguments. As to why they are telling us this, it is because no one likes transparency when spending money. For example, we made this decision in our Government, on our initiative, but we too realized that transparency entails its own risks. For instance, as soon as I made a decision to make every ordinance public, a week later, one TV station, though absolutely groundlessly, launched speculations concerning one of the ordinances. This makes it uncomfortable for us too, even though we are clean in our actions. No one issuing money is happy about transparency, which is understandable. But we have our own interests after all. A donor may not be happy about the transparency of its money, but why should we be happy with our citizens, for example, not having information about the source of financing of Franklin Club, Shame, or other radical organizations? The interest is to be able to let them know tomorrow where this money came from and where it was spent. Would not you like to know? Then, why do you oppose the law? There are projects designed to empower Georgian agriculture. There is a foreign force. It may be the EU, the US Government, etc. And this force is interested in developing Georgian agriculture. In this case, a relevant organization works toward a noble interest of this foreign force. When the authorities finance agriculture, for example, it will be an organization working toward our interests, one seeking to empower the country's agriculture. However, if the Government finances an organization seeking, for example, to organize an attack on one religious union or another, this too will be an organization working toward our interests, but it will be an organization working toward bad interests. The main interest of transparency is to let people tell good interests from bad ones. I am confident that a significant portion of these sums, hypothetically 70-80%, is spent on good interests like agriculture, persons with disabilities, etc. But the remaining 20-30% is spent on bad interests. Presently, Georgian citizens have no information about these finances. There is no information to be found anywhere. Does Shame or Droa provide this information?
We remember more than one case when wrong things would be demanded from us based on erroneous information. You probably remember-I am not sure what happened exactly-someone must have misled 27 Ambassadors who delivered a demarche to the Justice Minister because we were allegedly killing Saakashvili. No one is immune to such mistakes, including the EU, so 27 Ambassadors were force to deliver such a fake demarche. But what matters most here is not what someone else tells you but what serves your interests.
For example, the Droa political party established a fictitious non-entrepreneurial legal entity with the same address, head, Facebook page, everything, and one of the European foundations transferred money to this legal entity for salaries and office rent in the course of 2-3 years, this not being financing building on a grant project. They just deposited amounts directly to cover salaries and office rent. But this was not written anywhere. Once, Khoshtaria let it slip on Facebook by posting that her election campaign is financed by EED, for which she expressed her gratitude. We learned about it by accident. It is not written anywhere. You cannot find any information even today, who transfers, how much, to whom, for what, and how. But we learned about it thanks to that blunder, that Khoshtaria's political party is financed unconstitutionally, illegally by one of the European foundations. Presently, Georgian citizens have no information about such cases. You are interested in a law providing you with this minimum information, right? Why do you dislike this law, then?
Giga Benia, BMG TV Company: If transparency is the starting point here, why does the law designed to upgrade the transparency of NGOs and media outlets label everyone as entities working toward foreign interests because of 20% of raised funds while 80% is spent on good causes? This is perceived negatively by the public.
Prime Minister: It is not negative. It is just a statement of a fact. Why is it a statement of a fact? I am a foreign force, hypothetically the EU or the Government of Sweden or Iceland. This is the first part of the term. The second part is that I have an interest. In this case, it is a noble interest to develop agriculture in another country, and a particular organization works toward this interest and receives money from me to this end. Consequently, a foreign force is a statement of a fact, and interests and working toward interests are also statements of a fact, in both good and bad cases. In other words, in one case, when I care about agriculture, this organization works toward my good interest. But, when Shame, for example, attacks the Patriarchate, this organization works toward a bad interest. What matters most here is transparency. An organization working toward the interests of a foreign force is a statement of a fact, the rest, whether this interest is good or bad, is ensured by transparency, the reason why in reality there is no argument against this law. The only thing happening here is a statement of a fact that some organization is working toward the interests of a foreign force, but no one says that these interests are good or bad. On the contrary, we say that most of these interests are good, when they concern agriculture, persons with disabilities, etc. These are positive interests. The only thing that the public will learn is telling good interests from bad ones. Nothing more. So there are no arguments against this law in reality.
Ana Broladze, Public Broadcaster: Some NGOs said during committee hearings that they perceive the status of an entity working toward the interests of a foreign force as labeling and stigmatizing. They suggested, including at committee hearings, to use the term a recipient of foreign financing, for example, something that would not cause stigmatization. Is the ruling team ready for this compromise? When you say that the process will be finalized because it is in the state's interests, while the people at the rallies say they will not let the bill become a law because they take it as an insult and call it pro-Russian. Rallies will continue, there will be more people, and they will try to make you hear their angry voices. This is what we have been hearing over these last few days. How do you see the processes unfold, while we hear that neither party-neither the one defending the bill nor the one opposing it-is willing to change its mind?
Prime Minister: When these revolutionary processes were in the making, one of the senior officials said that NGOs speak on behalf of the Georgian people. Then then same was repeated by the relevant Ambassador, then an NGO representative. They stated in one accord that NGOs speak on behalf of the Georgian people, which is a lie. We are a democratic state, and the only one speaking on behalf of the Georgian people in a democracy is the government. There is a simple system of legitimation, meaning that people elect a parliament, the parliament puts together a government, etc. This is a basic manifestation of the principle of democracy that the democratically elected government is the only one speaking on behalf of the Georgian people. And when senior officials from concrete spheres of influence tell us that NGOs speak on behalf of the Georgian people, I think it is important that things be called as they are, and everyone should know that NGOs do not speak on behalf of the Georgian people. They are instead organizations working toward the interests of foreign forces. This does not necessarily mean that a given NGO works toward good or bad interests. When information is transparent, the public should be aware of it. We can counter falsehood, including with this term. Once again, we need the correct statement of a fact. In other words, there was the false statement of a fact, on one side, when they tried to force on us the public this false thesis as though NGOs were speaking on behalf of the Georgian people, which is a lie. What happens in reality must be made known to the public, including on a legislative level-a law must confirm the simple truth that these organizations do not speak on behalf of the Georgian people, but are organizations working toward the interests of foreign forces. In reality, the problem concerns to a lesser degree organizations that serve apolitical interests, such as agriculture, etc. Those who are troubled by this term more than anyone else are organizations whose activities include attacks on the Church, participation in revolutions, support for religious extremism in Georgia, LGBT propaganda, etc. Thus, all things must be called as they are. As for this terminology, an organization working toward the interests of a foreign force, is a mere statement of a fact, and I believe it is very important to keep it.
Ana Broladze, Public Broadcaster: How do you see the processes unfold with neither party involved willing to change its mind?
Prime Minister: Our key starting point is the protection of our state's national interests. If we see that a part of our society has been misled, and each person taking to the street in protest is honest-and I do not mean Shota Utiashvili and Eka Kvesitadze here-they are all equally dear and valuable to us, and it all must be taken into account. But our principle task is to protect society from being misled by anyone, and this is a matter of honor. Our protection of public interests and protecting the public from being misled, this is our Government's responsibility to the Georgian people. Today, we once again spoke about arguments, and no argument has been produced by anyone, by foreigners, a simple argument showing why it is bad to ask you where you spend money and let the Georgian people know about it. What do you have to hide? If your cause is good, and you are engaged in philanthropy, why do you hold it back from the public? Hypothetically, I finance agricultural projects, and spend money on it, what is there to hide? Just make it public, show when and how much you issued, to whom, and what is wrong with the public receiving this kind of information once a year? We are forced to talk about such absurdities, that it is simply unimaginable. I will meet with the Ambassadors of the EU member states, if they agree, and we will exchange our arguments concerning this law, and I promise you that they will produce zero arguments, because these do not exist in nature. And not because the Ambassadors will not be ready, or because they are not intelligent enough, but because there simply is no argument against this law-no one can prove that showing money is bad. I have no right to speak about the arguments used by them in meetings behind closed doors. As for one particular meeting with three Ambassadors, they simply passed on a message. They would not speak up, and we had no discussions. I had my own arguments, but they just passed on a message, sharing the opinion of the EU, and that was the main purpose.
As for Germany, the Ambassador of Germany spread false information as though, in all three meetings in Germany, our delegation had been told that this law is bad, and we should not adopt it. As for the meeting with the Bundestag President, questions were raised and then answered by us. The President had no reaction whatsoever. She just posed a question, heard an answer, with no further discussions. Then we switched to bilateral relations. As for the Bundestag President, she asked questions, saying that her colleagues in the Bundestag are concerned over this law, that it is not in line with EU legislation, principles, etc. Then I shared my arguments, after which she said that she would continue discussions on this matter. Imagine arriving in Germany and meeting with the Parliament Chair. Our colleagues in other countries have millions of questions. The Parliament Chair, much less the Chancellor, can read this law. They cannot read a Georgian law. She is supplied with information, and based on this information she asks a question. As for the Chancellor, he made this statement, I confirm. But it was incorrectly spread by the Ambassador. He should have double-checked this information, including with me, because eventually he spread false information. He joins Lelo sometimes as part of their election campaign, and this is where he may have received this information. I do not know. The Chancellor did say that, in his opinion, the law contradicts the principles of the EU, something that did not happen in the other two meetings. But the Chancellor of Germany actually did say it, to which I responded with one argument, saying that the European Commission itself commended a similar law, etc. He replied by stating that he does not like the European Commission's or the French law. I understand that he does not like it, but an EU member state adopted it, and it remains an EU member state. No one has criticized France for it. So, clearly, this is not an argument either.
As for content, I explained to Scholz that the only thing that this law envisages is annual declarations. We had a sort of exchange of opinions in this regard. Then there was a general meeting with the delegation, and I reiterated our arguments. No discussion was held at all. There was a text prepared in advance, also a widespread practice-and you cannot blame anyone for it-and, naturally, he read this text at the briefing as well. This is why I say that public discussions are important. It is wrong when statements are spread unilaterally, especially when they contain no arguments. It is like Aleko Elisashvili sneaking up on one of the MPs and punching him. Sneaking up from a blind spot is wrong. If someone has arguments and a position, they must stand up to you in an open discussion, meaning that acting like Elisashvili is wrong. So we suggest to everyone to have a talk. Ambassadors are present here. If there are arguments against this law, we are ready to discuss them all in an open discussion. I hope that the Ambassadors will accept this offer. The German Ambassador was with Lelo's leaders during their party's visit to Bolnisi. An unfortunate occurrence. I do not want to sidetrack, but I think it is wrong, of course, when you rent a house from Khazaradze and then accompany him on his political campaign in Bolnisi. It is plain wrong. So I am not surprised that they hired one of the faces of a radical party as an interpreter.
Nutsa Koroshinadze, POSTV: Many statements have been made by the European Parliament over the past few days, including calls concerning a revolution. What is your opinion? You also mentioned forces controlled "in relation to transparency." Could you give us more details?
Prime Minister: If someone decides to make a revolution in this country, you remember that, in 2012, practically revolutionary elections were held, and the Georgian people changed the government. Of course, no one can have a revolution with interference from outside forces, and no one will let that happen. It does require taking certain steps, though. And one of the key goals of this law is to prevent such processes. I repeat that, in this way, relevant forces are insured too. Someone may be tempted to instigate disorder in Georgia. But, with transparent foreign influence in place, this temptation will subside, so this law is poised to play a very positive role in many ways. As for controlled entities, I will refrain from details. The public already has a clear idea about the fact that an organization working toward foreign interests may have a positive meaning or positive impact, though it also may be negative, when negative attempts to influence are made. But there are also-and I will use a different term-agents of foreign influence in Georgia, an absolutely unacceptable phenomenon. Unfortunately, these entities are in direct opposition to our national interests.