Following the adoption of the Russian law, the rhetoric of the Georgian government has increasingly turned anti-Western and anti-democratic, raising alarm among Western partners. To gain insights into how Washington views the swift shift in political dynamics in Georgia and the actions it may consider against those participating in anti-democratic processes, Globalnews.ge spoke with Michael Carpenter, Special Assistant to the US President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council: 

As the elections approach, the government's political statements are increasingly anti-democratic and anti-Western. For us Georgians, this process is like an open announcement by the government that it is on the path to the Belarusization of Georgia. How do you assess the current political dynamics in the country?

- Well, when I look at the process that's underway in Georgia, I distinguish between the rhetoric and the actions. Frankly, the US government has a lot of concerns regarding the actions that we're seeing, especially the implementation of the foreign agents law against civil society groups. We see that there is harassment of civil society and harassment of the opposition. They are being vilified in the public sphere and are being prevented from carrying out the functions that civil society usually performs in a democratic state, which is to serve as a check and balance on those in power. To the extent that this is happening alongside the rhetoric, which is often anti-democratic, I would note in particular the statement from the Prime Minister that after the elections, there is a possibility that opposition parties will be criminalized or outlawed. That is inconsistent with democratic values.

- Despite the fact that relations between the Georgian government and Washington are now in such a tense political phase, we still often hear from American officials that the Georgian government can change this anti-democratic and anti-Western course and take appropriate steps. Is there really still room for such a possibility?

- Look, sure, there's always an opportunity to change course, but we are very seriously concerned by the trajectory and the actions that this government has taken. As a result, we have paused roughly $95 million in bilateral assistance to Georgia. Due to these actions, we've implemented a policy to deny visas to those who engage in anti-democratic activities, and so far, dozens of people—including members of the Georgian Green Party, parliamentarians, law enforcement officials, and private citizens—have been denied visas under this authority. We are looking to other authorities that we could use to hold those accountable who are undermining democratic processes in Georgia. Obviously, you have a very big election coming up, and we're going to be watching very closely. Do you think that might be the last test for the Georgian government democratically? It's not for me to say whether it's the last test, but this is an important test. Each democratic election provides an opportunity for a democratic country to renew its democratic institutions. Conversely, if there are actions taken that curtail freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, then that election may not be free and fair. As I said, we're watching very carefully, but some of the actions that have already been taken regarding civil society and the opposition parties are quite alarming. I just want to put this in context: for a country that aspires to Euro-Atlantic integration and to become a member of NATO and the EU, these activities are directly at odds with the values upon which those organizations are founded

- Will these elections be a final test for the current government of Georgia in terms of its commitment to democracy?

- Look, I'm not gonna comment on Russia's aims with regard to this election. I will say that Russia has a history of using an anti-democratic playbook in Georgia, in the region, and around the world. Frankly, we've seen their malign influence and their efforts to undermine democratic elections in many, many countries. So, there is nothing new in this, but it is alarming.

- Recently, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service issued a statement that the United States, together with the OSCE/ODIHR, is planning to interfere in the parliamentary elections of Georgia in order to prevent the victory of "Georgian Dream" in the upcoming elections. This is the second open statement from the Russian foreign intelligence. From your point of view, is this an unprecedented attempt at open interference by Russia in the internal political processes of Georgia, especially before these elections? Also, what is your reaction to such statements?

- I have full confidence in the Georgian people that they can answer that question themselves. I think it's rich for the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation to be commenting on OSCE/ODIHR; by the way, Russia participates in the OSCE, so it's quite rich for them to be claiming that a democratic election observation mission is somehow, in their eyes, anti-democratic. But look, these are critical elections, and we know that there are actors in the region and beyond that would like to see Georgia pursue an authoritarian path and would like to see Georgia hijacked away from its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. The last polling I saw suggests that the overwhelming majority of Georgia's citizens prefer to join NATO and the EU, so it's very clear voters have a choice in October: do they want to pursue these aspirations or not?

- Are such statements an open signal to the West that Russia is trying to back the "Georgian Dream", so to speak?

- Look, I'm not gonna comment on Russia's aims with regard to this election. I will say that Russia has a history of using an anti-democratic playbook in Georgia, in the region, and around the world. Frankly, we've seen their malign influence and their efforts to undermine democratic elections in many, many countries. So, there is nothing new, frankly, in this, but it is alarming.

- I would like to ask you one more question on this issue, because in this case too, we see quite consistent rhetoric from Russia and 'Georgian Dream.' While the government of Georgia declares the West an enemy, some political hints are made before the elections that territorial integrity can be restored through changing foreign policy. Moreover, there have been hints about a kind of declaration of neutrality. You have been very familiar with the situation in the occupied territories of Georgia for many years, as well as the Geneva format and its results. With that in mind, how realistic are statements like these? What do you think?

- Particularly, look again, I would pose this question to the Georgian people: how realistic does it sound that a country that is occupying 20% of Georgia's territory would enter into some sort of agreement to support Georgia? I mean, that's for the Georgian people to decide. And look, I mean this very sincerely: it is not my place to lecture any country on the geopolitical trajectory or the alliances or partnerships that that country has. However, if a country like Georgia wants to join NATO and the EU, there are very clear requirements for that, which involve following democratic norms, abiding by democratic values, and not undermining civil society or limiting freedoms of expression and assembly. Those are all very intrinsic to Euro-Atlantic integration, and the EU has said that right now, Georgia's path towards the EU is halted. So, this is an inflection point for Georgian society, and Georgians have to answer all these questions for themselves.

- The Georgian authorities announced that they will finance non-governmental organizations themselves. This scenario also exactly coincides with the decision made in Russia in 2017. Do you feel that the decisions of the Georgian government purposely coincide more and more with the legislative policy of Russia than with that of the European Union?

- Well, certainly the foreign agents law is much more similar—in fact, it's very similar—to the Russian foreign agents law, the so-called foreign agents law, than it is to any legislation in a Western country. And so again, you know, it's not for me to decide whether the government is going to pursue this course or that course; it's up to them. But the Georgian people should be evaluating their government based on these criteria. Is it abiding by democratic norms, or is it pursuing a path that, frankly, we've seen Russia implement—a playbook that started in Russia and was then expanded to the so-called near abroad, buying up media, harassing civil society, and implementing changes to civil society status via things like the foreign agents law and a raft of other measures designed to curtail democratic norms and to implant, over time, gradually and piecemeal, an authoritarian state? We've seen it time and again. And I would just caution that if this is the path that's happening, then people should be aware of that.

- As a final point, when the current government of Georgia talks about banning opposition parties, it openly limits the possibility of non-governmental organizations operating in Georgia, etc. How ready is Washington to take even tougher measures against those responsible for these processes?"

- I've already said we've now denied visas to dozens of people who have engaged in anti-democratic actions, and that includes members of the ruling party and members of parliament. We have other authorities that we can take; we have sanctioned Georgian judges for behavior that is not in keeping with the rule of law. We have used anti-corruption authorities as well. We'll continue to look to use these sorts of tools to hold individuals accountable for anti-democratic actions. Ultimately, in terms of the geopolitical direction that the country pursues, again, this election in October is an inflection point, and it's up to the Georgian people to decide.