Georgian Parliament Speaker slams EU Ambassador over lack of transparency

Georgian Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili on Saturday addressed persistent claims that Georgia’s foreign influence and grant laws stem from anti-Western sentiment, presenting a personal anecdote involving EU Ambassador Paweł Herczyński to refute arguments that transparency was never an issue, citing specific examples of concealed funding to fictitious NGOs and violent protest materials.

Speaking on the Imedi TV show Open Air - Debates, Papuashvili rejected claims that transparency had never been an issue in Georgia’s relations with foreign donors.

“There were many assessments, and I also heard the argument that transparency has never really been a problem, which of course is untrue. I will explain why it is untrue. At the time, there was talk that everything was transparent”, he said.

The Speaker cited the case of the European Endowment for Democracy, alleging that it financed a fictitious NGO linked to the political party Droa.

“In reality, I have recounted this story several times. When it became known - not because they disclosed it, but by chance - that the European Endowment for Democracy was funding a fictitious NGO created by the party Droa, under the same name Droa. It was registered at the address of Elene Khoshtaria and was funding an NGO, but in reality it was funding a political party. We also learnt by chance that the European Union had funded a Molotov cocktail campaign, financed through the European Endowment for Democracy”, he noted.

Papuashvili recalled asking the EU Ambassador to disclose details of its funding in Georgia, receiving a flat refusal.

“When we found out all this, I asked the acting EU Ambassador to look into it. Some time later, he came back to me and said he had reviewed what the European Endowment for Democracy was funding and agreed that there indeed appeared to be political motivation behind that funding. I asked him, can you show me what you are funding? He said, no”, the Speaker said.

“What conclusion can we draw from this story? First, the funding was non-transparent - that is a fact. Second, not only was it non-transparent, but the donor was concealing - and still conceals - from the host country’s Speaker of Parliament, the Government, and the public what it is funding. So this is a fact: it was non-transparent, and it required regulation”, Papuashvili continued.

He rejected the notion that requiring financial transparency equates to hostility toward the EU, US, or any partner.

“The second manipulation is the claim that because you are required to disclose your finances - as the state does, as public officials do through declarations, as any honest person with nothing to hide does - this is somehow related to hostility. Of course, this is exactly the manipulation that was being used. It has nothing to do with declaring the European Union hostile, declaring the United States hostile, or declaring anyone hostile. That is not the issue”, Papuashvili continued.

“The issue is about us and others. The issue is whether others should spend money in our politics. That is what this is about. And those who cannot see this boundary, who cannot distinguish between what is ours and what belongs to others, who cannot understand what is domestic politics and what is external interference in domestic politics, fundamentally fail to understand what we mark today - the day of our first Constitution - whose very first sentence of the first article speaks of independence and sovereignty. When others interfere without being asked, they have no place there”, the Speaker concluded.