Book contents
- Power, Patronage and International Norms
- Power, Patronage and International Norms
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Masquerading in International Relations
- 2 Peripherality and Patronage in International Relations Theory
- 3 The Strategic Life of Peripheral-Patronage States
- 4 Uganda’s Self-referral to the International Criminal Court
- 5 Sierra Leone’s Truth Commission and Tribunal
- 6 Georgia’s Western Ambitions
- 7 The Long-term Effects of Strategizing
- 8 Conclusion
- Appendix
- Glossary
- Bibliography
- Index
6 - Georgia’s Western Ambitions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 November 2024
- Power, Patronage and International Norms
- Power, Patronage and International Norms
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Masquerading in International Relations
- 2 Peripherality and Patronage in International Relations Theory
- 3 The Strategic Life of Peripheral-Patronage States
- 4 Uganda’s Self-referral to the International Criminal Court
- 5 Sierra Leone’s Truth Commission and Tribunal
- 6 Georgia’s Western Ambitions
- 7 The Long-term Effects of Strategizing
- 8 Conclusion
- Appendix
- Glossary
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Georgia under Mikheil Saakashvili provides a two-part illustration in which initial success in concealing its quasi-authoritarian rule from the US’s Millennium Challenge Corporation might have been, but ultimately was not, repurposed into success with its most important audiences: the European Union and NATO. Georgia after the Rose Revolution was just illegible enough for the Americans, given their strong asymmetrically interdependent relationship with the new regime, even though Saakashvili’s government had increased legibility by consolidating corruption into his inner circle’s hands. This was not enough for the EU or NATO, even though each has found reasons to overlook domestic insufficiencies before and, according to some members, the Russian threat prior to the August War of 2008 demanded rather than prevented Georgian accession. Georgia had the same mid-level legibility as it showed the Americans, but it faced a deeply divided audience in the other organizations. With no agreement on what Georgia meant for either organization, an asymmetrically interdependent relationship did not coalesce, and Georgia did not manage to conceal its quasi-authoritarian domestic rule from either one.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Power, Patronage and International NormsA Grand Masquerade, pp. 146 - 189Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024