How human rights become tool for Western manipulation Georgia under fire

An Azerbaijani local media outlet has published an article arguing that the concept of "human rights" has undergone a troubling transformation in the West, evolving into a political weapon rather than a universal principle. Caliber.Az reprints the article.

Statements of international human rights organizations related to Georgia have intensified. Journalist organizations alone have issued statements condemning Tbilisi on six different topics over the past month. Other specialized organizations, including “Amnesty International”, “Freedom House”, “Human Rights Watch”, have also been targeting Georgia for the past year.

Most of their statements are baseless and not supported by any arguments. It is quite clear that by orchestrating such swift and all-out attacks, they want to make the neighboring state the target of global public opinion and force it to make certain concessions. And this haste deprives them of the opportunity to create an argumentative basis for their accusations.

They have also come up with new mechanisms to achieve the desired effect. For example, they have created a standalone coalition consisting of “Partner organizations” that manage the “Platform for the Safety of Journalists”, which operates under the umbrella of the Council of Europe. This coalition, branded as a “Special Fact-Finding Mission for Georgia”, was initially formed on behalf of eight international journalistic organizations. Its official program states that its purpose is to “collect information on the state of fulfillment of obligations on freedom of the media and expression in Georgia”. The reality is that it has been instructed to prepare reports accusing Georgia of “violating freedom of speech and expression”.

A report released on behalf of the Fact-Finding Mission on October 3 shows that the coalition did not conduct an in-depth investigation. It misinterpreted all the facts it came across and portrayed them as arguments against the Georgian government. For example, according to a fact registered on September 15, Georgia was condemned because the exiled Belarusian journalist Andrei Mialeshka was prevented from coming to Tbilisi. On September 17, Armenian “journalist” Arsen Kharatyan was not allowed to enter Georgia. The State Border Service explained the incident by inconsistencies found in the documents of both persons. The mission, however, turns a blind eye to that and prefers to record the fact as a “violation of journalistic rights”.

There is a considerable number of nuances the “fact-finding mission” should have explored in these two examples. For example, attention should have been paid to whether Arsen Kharatyan is a journalist or a politician. Because he is better known as Nikol Pashinyan's adviser than as founder of “Aliq Media”. In other words, he is a political figure and has been referred to someone who played a double game in the arrest and subsequent release of bail of Yuri Khachaturov, the secretary general of the CSTO. He was removed from his post due to his controversial views on this matter. He left Armenia and went to Tbilisi. There is sufficient information about this in Armenian media. Members of the “fact-finding mission” remain tight-lipped over this even though they themselves have been lecturing the world for years that “when you get involved in politics, journalism ends”, “A subject taking a propagandist position loses its status as a media institution and becomes a political bulletin”. However, none of the eight international journalistic organizations included in the “Fact-Finding Mission” under PACE has paid attention to Arsen Kharatyan's political identity or take into account the mission of “Aliq Media”. Because in this particular case their target is Georgia, not Armenia. They are forbidden to focus on anything that will bring the government of Pashinyan, who plays the role of “a government leader surrendering to Western politics”, into disrepute. The current government of Georgia, in the meantime, is fighting off provocations of the West. In return, it is subjected to renewed pressure. The decision made in Western political circles is that Tbilisi should be targeted and condemned by all possible means. “Human rights organizations” are also acting in accordance with this directive, fabricating so-called facts on human rights violations and condemning Georgia.

The attitude of the “fact-finding mission” to the law on “Family values ​​and protection of minors” adopted by the Georgian parliament on September 17 is the same. They believe that this law “contradicts the freedom of the press and expression”. Their argument is that the new legislation “restricts the possibility of free reporting on LGBT+” in the country. But why does Europe become so concerned when Georgia takes steps to protect the family institution in its territory?

Georgia did not become a member of European institutions, including the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) or the Council of Europe, for the latter to come and stimulate the “LGBT+” or “Radical feminism” movements and destroy the family institution. The goal behind becoming a member of the OSCE and the Council of Europe has been to ensure the country's security and gain support in terms of democratic development. What tangible steps did the OSCE and the Council of Europe take to ensure the sovereignty of Georgia, whose territory is fragmented and divided into at least three parts? Why don't European institutions show the same level of enthusiasm and determination in the issue of restoration of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia as they do in the protection of the rights of the “LGBT+” community?

If domestic stability is undermined in Georgia, which does not receive any tangible support from the OSCE and the Council of Europe while its territorial integrity and sovereignty have been violated, and if the family institution, the backbone of society, gets derailed by alien trends, shouldn't the government take steps to prevent this danger? Should Georgia be subject to sanctions for taking steps to protect the stability and health of its society?

In fact, European institutions are not content with making statements against Georgia on such fabricated topics alone. They are also trying to apply painful sanctions against this country. First, they do this at the level of “human rights protection organizations”. Then they reflect this in the policies of interstate organizations. For example, “Reporters Without Borders”, one of the members of the “Fact-Finding Mission”, has significantly reduced Georgia's rating on the “media freedom index”, by 26 steps, over the last year. It dropped it from 77th to 103rd place. The comments section of the report points out that this has several reasons. One of the arguments is that Georgia introduced the draft “Law on Foreign Agents” (Law on the Transparency of Foreign Influence) in 2023.

Since numerous articles have been written about this claim by RSF being nonsensical, we will not go into further detail. We will briefly emphasize that a law of the same content exists in the United States but no organization criticizes or targets the US because of that. Paradoxically, the United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions on Georgia because of this. After the adoption of the Law “On the Transparency of Foreign Influence” in 2024, the US officially canceled the $95 million assistance package intended for Tbilisi. The European Union acted in the same fashion, freezing the funds allocated from the European Peace Fund for the support of the Georgian armed forces in 2024.

The paradoxical behavior of Western countries does not end with the United States getting annoyed to see a law in Georgia that America also has. The paradox is also observed in the actions of “human rights champions” and “journalistic organizations with international status” based in the West. The attitude shown towards Georgia over the past year proves that what words about these organizations being “independent” and “principled” are just fiction. The concepts of “human rights”, “rights advocacy”, “freedom of speech and expression” and “civil society institutions” have lost their classical meaning in the West. These notions have become a cold weapon in the hands of the United States and Western European states. If the attitude of “Amnesty International”, “Freedom House”, “Human Rights Watch” and “Reporters Without Borders” towards Georgia is in sync with the political decisions of the US State Department and the Council of the European Union, what “independence” or “rights advocacy” can we talk about? The example of Georgia is further evidence that these organizations have become executors of the decisions of Western political circles. They receive a thesis and execute an order. They target the states that go beyond the political frames drawn by the West and do not submit to the political ambitions of the United States, turning them into objects of public condemnation. They prepare the groundwork for the US and the Council of the European Union to impose sanctions against such target countries.

For comparison, let's note that two different laws severely restricting media activities, freedom of speech and expression have been adopted in France in recent years. “Law No. 1202 on the fight against information manipulation” was adopted in December 2018. In 2019, a draft of the “Global Security” law was brought up for discussion. Both laws caused serious public outrage. Analytical centers claimed that the “Law on the fight against information manipulation” was paving the way for censorship of the press in France. “Euronews” writes that the French parliament violates the freedom of expression and silences critical voices by empowering judges to immediately delete “fake news” during election campaigns. Because it is difficult to distinguish between “fake news” and “a critical opinion” in a moment, to determine what is disinformation and what is criticism. “This approach creates the conditions for critical opinions against the French president to be removed from circulation under the guise of disinformation”.

They wrote and criticized, but France’s ranking in the media freedom index of Reporters Without Borders was never reduced because of these two laws. On the contrary, whereas in 2017 France was in 39th place in the “media freedom index”, it advanced to 33rd in 2018. Today it is in 21st place. In other words, France was rewarded for adopting a negatively charged law. With whatever logic, France was rewarded and moved 18 steps up in the “media freedom index”, while Georgia was punished and its name dropped 26 steps for the same act. This is the attitude of Europe and human rights organizations based in Europe to human rights, freedom of speech and expression.

It is no secret that the reason why “human rights organizations” based in the West have been targeting Georgia is not related to human rights violations in the country. This concern is related to the parliamentary elections to be held on October 26. They have been muddying the waters to mastermind the victory of political groups that are under the yoke of the West. They are trying to secure an edge by imposing sanctions, putting pressure and misleading public opinion. Whatever plans the US State Department lays out to achieve its goals in Georgia, “human rights organizations” must implement them. They manipulate the concepts of “human rights”, “freedom of speech and expression” at their sole discretion. The current black PR campaign against Georgia is a part of this policy.

Such hypocrisy manifests itself not only in the attitude towards Georgia, but also in the policies towards Azerbaijan. You don't have to go back in time to see this. What has been happening over the past month provides ample examples. During the fall session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on September 27-October 4, 2024, hearings on “human rights in Azerbaijan” were held without the participation of Azerbaijan itself. The co-rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee of the Council of Europe on Azerbaijan, Liz Christophersen, spoke at length, touched upon standard topics and expressed her point in the end. She said that the “leaders of Karabakh” imprisoned in Baku were subject to torture and that “ethnic cleansing was carried out against Armenians in Karabakh”. Ms. Christophersen's claims are so absurd that they require no comment. But whatever the logic, she does “gain support”.

On October 3, 58 legislators wrote a letter to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, calling on him to put pressure on Azerbaijan over “human rights” in the run-up to the COP29 summit. Ten senators and 48 congressmen want Blinken to “take specific action to achieve the release of political prisoners in Azerbaijan”. They also want the release of “separatist leaders” detained in Baku. They are not hiding their claims and openly acknowledge them. In their appeals to Blinken, they also write that “Azerbaijan must stop its oppression of Armenia”.

European and US legislators portray the “rights” of “Karabakh leaders” in the context of human rights. But when will it be time to evaluate the rights of a million refugees displaced from their homelands for 30 years, thousands of martyrs who lost their lives during the Karabakh wars, nearly 5,000 Azerbaijani citizens whose fates are still unknown, and more than 90,000 people who have been traumatized by war in this context too?

Of course, never. They do not need to be provided with human rights. There are political interests in the South Caucasus. They are protecting the rights of those protecting these interests.