Crisis in Georgia
The United States has no reason to tolerate Mikheil Saakashvili's violation of democratic order.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

IN RESPONDING to a government-imposed state of emergency in Pakistan, the United States has to balance its belief in democracy against other weighty interests, such as securing the country's nuclear weapons against Islamic extremists. In Georgia, a small Caucasian country whose president imposed a similar state of emergency last week, the calculus is far simpler. Though it hosts an oil pipeline of moderate importance to the West, Georgia has attracted the attention, aid and patronage of the Bush administration over the past four years mainly because of its embrace of liberal democracy. Its "Rose Revolution" was an example for other former Soviet republics, while Russia's blatant efforts to bully and subvert the fledgling government won Georgia widespread sympathy.

In one rash and unnecessary move, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has squandered much of that goodwill. Responding to several days of peaceful opposition demonstrations in the capital, Tbilisi, he launched a crackdown that left hundreds of people injured by riot police. Two television stations were closed, and a couple of opposition leaders have been forced out of the country. Following sharp international criticism, including from the Bush administration, Mr. Saakashvili subsequently announced that he would advance the presidential election to Jan. 5. But as of yesterday, he had still not lifted the state of emergency or taken other steps needed to restore confidence in his democratic intentions.

U.S. officials have been pressing Mr. Saakashvili to act. If he does not respond in the coming days, the Bush administration should suspend all aid and cancel a planned visit by the Georgian president to the White House next month.

Georgia has been perhaps the foremost beneficiary of Mr. Bush's "freedom agenda." The administration has provided the government with special advisers, trained and equipped its army, and enrolled it in the Millennium Challenge Account, a program that provides aid to developing countries. Mr. Bush visited Tbilisi in 2005 to hail the new democracy, and his administration has spent considerable diplomatic capital defending it from Russian aggression and promoting it to European allies as a future member of NATO. Along the way, the administration chose to overlook Mr. Saakashvili's consolidation of presidential power and did not press hard enough for reforms that would institutionalize democracy by strengthening the judiciary, parliament and opposition parties.

Those reforms now must be at the center of U.S. engagement with Georgia. Mr. Saakashvili's promise of a presidential election is inadequate; far more important is the early scheduling of a new vote for parliament that could allow opposition parties more influence. The United States should offer aid and training to responsible opposition groups and promote more independent media. Exiled leaders should be allowed to return home without facing criminal charges. Mr. Saakashvili should understand that he faces a stark choice: He can continue to build democracy as a U.S. ally, or he can isolate his country from the West.