Five days have passed since the release of the BBC investigative documentary, yet Georgian Dream has still not explained which chemical substance the Ministry of Internal Affairs mixed into the water cannons used to disperse peaceful protesters in November–December 2024.
Instead, former and current high-ranking officials of Georgian Dream have been issuing contradictory statements and confusing comments.
“It appears that Georgian Dream has not fully formed a strategy on how to deal with this painful issue,” says diplomat Valeri Chechelashvili, expert at the Strategic Analysis Center.
Batumelebi interviewed him.
Mr. Chechelashvili, how do you assess the reactions of Georgian Dream officials after the release of the BBC investigative film?
First of all, it should be noted that Georgian Dream’s position is changing. Initially, there was total denial of everything. Now there is already an acknowledgment that some kind of powder was mixed into the water. According to Georgian Dream, this powder was entirely permissible and did not constitute any violation. In any case, it is clear that the matter is very serious, and it is troubling Georgian Dream.
Georgia, like 132 other countries, is a party to the international Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which underpins the organization of the same name. Under this convention, Georgia has undertaken very clear obligations not to acquire, transport, or use such chemical substances and to cooperate with international investigations if necessary.
Therefore, I think Georgian Dream now understands that this is a very serious matter. Moreover, a purely domestic investigation will not be sufficient. Not only protesters and researchers who documented the effects of the substance on people must be questioned, but also representatives of the law enforcement agencies involved. A conclusion must be produced that satisfies not only Georgian society but also international circles.
This is an issue that is extremely sensitive in international relations. Anything related to chemical weapons is perceived very painfully. The more seriously Georgian Dream approaches this issue, the better it will be for both itself and Georgia’s international reputation.
What do these contradictory comments tell us about internal governance, information strategy, and responsibility within the government?
In my view, this indicates that the coordination chain within Georgian Dream is broken. First there was denial, then acknowledgment that yes, there was some powder, but it was not prohibited.
First of all, if Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze does not know what powder it was, why does he claim it was not prohibited? That is something an investigation must determine.
These contradictory and confusing messages indicate that Georgian Dream does not actually have control over the situation. Alternatively, it suggests something even more serious, namely that there were grave violations.
In any case, pushing this through and attempting a cover-up will not work. The resonance is already very strong.
The BBC investigative film has received more than 126,000 views on YouTube in just four days. This number is growing every hour, and the reactions are already significant.
I believe that how Georgian Dream navigates this crisis will depend entirely on how serious its response is.
That is how it looks from the outside, at least. Georgian Dream is a very closed system, and it is difficult to understand from the outside what they are discussing internally, how they are analyzing the situation. At present, it appears that their strategy on this painful issue is not yet fully formed.
There has also been speculation that these contradictory statements are part of a Russian hybrid warfare tactic, deliberately confusing the public to blur the truth. What do you think?
I do not think so. It is clear that Russia conducts hybrid warfare against Georgia, as it does against its other neighbors, but in this case, I think it is a different story.
Initially, there was confusion. Then there was an inability to form a coherent strategy.
The problem is complex. This case severely damages not only Georgian Dream, but Georgia’s reputation as a state.
I believe Georgian Dream has not yet figured out how to deal with this serious problem. That is why we are hearing these contradictory and inconsistent messages.
If the allegations are confirmed by an investigation, how should the actions of the law enforcement agencies and the government be assessed legally, ethically, and politically?
That depends on what facts are established.
However, in any case, the use of any chemical composition against demonstrators is in itself a serious crime. Those who made and executed such decisions must, of course, be held accountable.
Even if we assume that the substance used was not prohibited, the fact that protesters experienced health problems for months, including itching, vomiting, burning of the eyes and skin, blood pressure issues, and so on, indicates that even a permissible substance was used in a disproportionate manner, in excessive quantities. That alone implies that legal consequences must follow.
The sooner everything is clarified, properly assessed, including legally, and responsible individuals are identified and punished, the better it will be for Georgian Dream itself.
Therefore, I believe Georgian Dream must, first and foremost, develop an effective strategy for dealing with this crisis as quickly as possible, one that meets the expectations that have emerged both within Georgian society and internationally.
What will such a scandal mean for Georgia? What impact could it have on the country’s international reputation and its path toward the European Union?
Two scenarios are possible.
If the case is investigated objectively and those responsible are punished in proportion to their culpability, and if the investigation is conducted in a way that leaves no doubt about its objectivity, either domestically or internationally, then both Georgian Dream and Georgia will emerge with fewer losses.
If, however, the investigation is not objective and doubts arise both at home and abroad, then I believe the activation of serious sanctions against those responsible for failing to conduct or obstructing a proper investigation will be inevitable.
First of all, conclusions will be drawn by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, of which Georgia is a member state. Georgia has ratified the convention, which has 193 member states. Georgia’s fifth president has already appealed to this organization to monitor developments in Georgia. This is not a problem that will simply fade away. International actors will pursue it to the end, and so will we.
Georgian society is deeply concerned. This could have resulted in fatalities. Not everyone participating in protests has the same health condition. A substance may not seriously harm a healthy person but could be fatal for someone with underlying health issues.
What should the opposition, civil society, and citizens do now to ensure a full investigation?
It is difficult for me to say what more can be done. The bar is already set very high. I am not sure what additional actions society can take.
What we can do is continue to strengthen demands toward state institutions to ensure that the investigation is conducted objectively.
This issue must remain constantly in focus and continuously discussed. There is little else that can be done, because Georgian Dream has unconditional control over all institutions, and the possibilities for societal influence are quite limited.