“When Goga Khaindrava says that Arabs were in Georgia for 300 years and Arabization did not happen, that is because there were no Georgians like Goga Khaindrava back then – for 300 years, Georgians constantly resisted the Arabs, and our ancestors did not ask, ‘Do you want war?’ Our ancestors fought in the literal sense. That is why this country was not Arabized. But unfortunately, as it now appears, this country has been ‘Russified,’” says political scientist Lela Jejelava. We spoke with her about Arab investments and the new narratives of “Georgian Dream.”
According to the political scientist, what we are dealing with is another trick and scheme by Ivanishvili. Lela Jejelava does not believe that Arab cities will actually be built in Georgia.
“My cautious assumption is that this is more of a scheme than a real investment. Ivanishvili expects significant financial benefit from this scheme… Based on the experience we have had, for example with the Namakhvani HPP project, there is a reasonable suspicion that this investment could be exactly that – Namakhvani 2.
Ivanishvili may be carrying out a major trick here – for the project to collapse at some stage, for Georgia to be forced to pay very large compensation, and then, through an agreement with the investor, these funds to be, so to speak, redistributed,” Lela Jejelava believes.
Batumelebi recorded an interview with political scientist Lela Jejelava:
Ms. Lela, in your opinion, how does “Georgian Dream” view its own voters, whom it frightens with the loss of Georgian identity, while at the same time telling them that Arabs were in Tbilisi for 300 years and this did not pose a threat to Georgia?
The phobias of “Georgian Dream” supporters were diverse: ethnic and religious phobias… Eventually, they became very specific and limited themselves solely to sexual phobias. It turned out that the threat of losing Georgian identity exists only in relation to sexual orientation: “They won’t marry off men to men” – this is what the entire “philosophy” of protecting Georgian identity was ultimately reduced to.
As for Arab investment: I see the main risks not in the origin of the investment, but in its lack of transparency.
The Emirates are a partner country of the United States, and six billion is a very large amount. They would not decide to invest such a sum in a country where there are certain risks for the United States. In the U.S., “Georgian Dream” is perceived as an anti-American government. Such statements are made by American congressmen and senators. Therefore, the first falsehood that makes us think something is wrong is that this is not a state investment by the Emirates in Georgia.
Secondly, representatives of “Georgian Dream” repeatedly claimed that this was an investment by the EMAAR Group. It turned out that this is not the case and that it is an investment by a private group, which is connected to EMAAR only through an individual serving as its manager.
All this already raises further suspicions: to what extent is this investment truly a political decision of the Emirates?
What raises questions is the lack of transparency and the fact that the contract is classified. Commercial secrecy is understandable – there are cases where it must be protected – but hiding an entire contract is unimaginable.
Based on our experience, for example with the Namakhvani HPP construction, there is a reasonable suspicion that this investment could indeed be – Namakhvani 2.
Why might this suit “Georgian Dream,” and what kind of trick could Ivanishvili be playing?
Ivanishvili may be executing a major trick whereby the project collapses at some stage, Georgia is obliged to pay very large compensation, and then, through an agreement with the investor, these funds are redistributed, so to speak.
Another possibility is that the project never reaches the implementation stage at all. In that case, what happens to the land? Does it remain in the investor’s hands, or does it remain the property of the Georgian side? This is also a very important issue, and until we know under what conditions our side is entering into this contract, naturally, we cannot have answers to anything.
The interest of the Arab side is completely understandable to me. We know that the most serious problem Gulf countries will face during the period of climate change is water resources. Naturally, it is profitable to invest in a country that is particularly rich in water resources.
When Ivanishvili distributes these lands here and there, this is the property of the people, isn’t it? In the long term, water resources could be for the Georgian people the same source of wealth that oil was, for example, for the citizens of Gulf countries. Today, all of this is being transferred into the hands of Bidzina Ivanishvili, into the hands of one man, under completely non-transparent conditions.
Naturally, citizens’ attitudes in this situation are negative and critical, but we must be very careful that this protest is not later exploited by other interested parties.
Who could exploit the protest when citizens are primarily demanding the publication of the contract signed with the investor?
I think the arrival of Arab investments does not really align with Russia’s interests. Therefore, naturally, I would not rule out their interest in preventing the process from reaching completion.
At this stage, it is very difficult to engage in well-grounded analysis because we have no real information and only a very vague picture.
It should also be taken into account that for all these years, there was a very strict upper limit on investments in the country, stemming from Bidzina Ivanishvili’s personal financial interests…
We are talking about an investment of 6.6 billion US dollars. This is more than Ivanishvili’s wealth. What logic would make Ivanishvili interested in the emergence of an alternative to his financial influence in Georgia?
Bidzina Ivanishvili has lost part of his wealth; his current capital is no longer six billion. What benefit does Bidzina Ivanishvili gain from this? – this question naturally arises, because he does nothing without personal gain. We have seen this not only over the past 13 years, but also in the preceding 10 years.
Arab capital may not be directly oriented toward political interests, but what strikes me most is that there are no institutional guarantees in Georgia for legal investment. If an investment is threatened, it needs protection, and under the conditions of the Georgian judiciary, this is impossible, which then leads to very large financial disputes in international arbitration.
Our contribution of capital in the form of land, which the Georgian side brings into the deal – how is it valued? We don’t know this either, and here too a trap may be set: how proportional is the Georgian contribution to the investment?
There are many questions, but society is not targeting Arabs or Arab capital – it is targeting non-transparent capital and a non-transparent contract. Our questions are not directed at the Arab side; they are directed at “Georgian Dream.”
When Goga Khaindrava says that Arabs were in Georgia for 300 years and Arabization did not occur, it is because there were no Georgians like Goga Khaindrava – for 300 years, Georgians constantly resisted the Arabs, and our ancestors did not ask, “Do you want war?” Our ancestors fought in the literal sense.
This is the reason why this country was not Arabized, but unfortunately, as it now appears, this country has been “Russified.”
My cautious assumption is that this is more of a scheme than a real investment. Ivanishvili expects significant financial gain from this scheme, but I do not expect Bidzina Ivanishvili to still be here in six years trying to implement this investment.
Both pro-Western and pro-Russian political forces are protesting the lack of transparency of Arab investments. What do you think about this?
A country in our condition should not protest investment itself. We must know under what conditions this investment is entering. For example, because of Namakhvani HPP, the country has to pay 450 million dollars – almost half a billion. No one inside the country has been held accountable for the drafting and failure of that contract.
I think that if Bidzina Ivanishvili, as a project in Georgia, is already unacceptable to Russia, then inflaming this issue against him becomes politically very advantageous.
However, if Russia replaces someone, it replaces them with its own candidate. Therefore, I believe that the pro-Western opposition must be very careful in its statements on this issue, and the entire focus and pressure should be on the government – to make the contract public – rather than repeating slogans like “they are taking Georgian land,” the same slogans that “Georgian Dream” itself used years ago. We remember well Tea Tsulukiani’s statements that Georgian land would not be sold; back then, an Iranian investor even had to leave Georgia, abandoning an already established business and purchased land.
I once joked that it seems that great “Georgian Dream-ism” will be ended by great Arabness. This issue will become a serious problem for Ivanishvili. I also wrote: Ivanishvili, are you ready for the Battle of Krtsanisi?
I clearly see the danger that we may once again find ourselves in Russia’s game. There will not actually be an Arab invasion of Georgia, but I have no doubt that Georgia will ultimately end up in a losing position because of this project.
Namakhvani turned out to be a scheme, didn’t it? A bad contract was signed, disadvantageous for us, and then observe who opposed that contract. The Patriarchate opposed it. Back then, the so-called pro-Russian and pro-Western bubble ended up on the same side. Gharibashvili annulled the contract, and as a result, the Georgian state suffered losses of half a billion dollars. Not a single person was punished.
Even today, we do not know what exactly happened with Namakhvani, or why such a disadvantageous contract was concluded.