Irakli Kobakhidze: “By passing the proposal for Directive, the EU will not have the moral right to request that Georgia withdraw the law, according to an explanatory memorandum published by the EU.”
FactCheck concludes that Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement is FALSE.
During his appearance on the Public Broadcaster Ajara TV show Tavisupali Sivrtse (Free Space), Prime-Minister Irakli Kobakhidze stated: “As you might already know, the European Union previously initiated a process to adopt an identical law with the same principles, but it was later halted. The official explanatory memorandum states that by passing this law, the EU will no longer have the moral right to request that Georgia withdraw its version of the law. Just imagine the state of EU institutions and the influence campaigns that destabilise the situation within their structures. They believe that this law is correct but cannot pass it, as then they would have to stop demanding that we withdraw our identical law.”
FactCheck assessed Irakli Kobakhidze’s claims.
Claim #1: The European Union previously initiated a process to adopt an identical law but it was later halted.
The Prime Minister was referring to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council, “establishing harmonised requirements on transparency of interest representation carried out on behalf of third countries,” which is part of the Defence of Democracy Package. The Georgian Dream political party has consistently utilised the aforementioned directive to draw parallels to Georgia’s version of the law on transparency, portraying the two as analogous.
The Prime Minister claims that “a process to adopt an identical law in the EU has been halted.” However, in reality, this information is inaccurate. The Directive is currently undergoing reviews by co-legislators, indicating that it is in line with official procedures. Peter Stano, Lead Spokesperson for the External Affairs of the EU, confirmed this information to FactCheck. In response to FactCheck’s questions, whether the review procedures for the Directive had been halted and if the reason cited by the Prime Minister was mentioned in the EU’s explanatory memorandum, Peter Stano stated: “It is incorrect to say that the EU proposal is halted - the proposal is currently with the co-legislators, which means it follows the usual procedure.”
Despite both the Georgian draft law and the proposal for the EU Directive emphasising transparency, there is a key difference between the two – transparency serves as a means to achieve the goal for the EU Directive whereas for the Georgian law, it is the inherent objective.
The proposal for the EU Directive aims to register organisations not solely because they received funds from third countries but rather due to the activities that they undertake with said funds. The Directive applies to exclusively those organisations and physical entities that “carry out interest representation activities.” Therefore, the regulatory measures in the Directive are proportional and correspond to threats – “Interest representation activities are conducted with the objective of influencing the development, formulation or implementation of policy or legislation, or of public decision-making process, in the Union, carried out on behalf of third countries” - as stated in the explanatory note.
Thus, whilst the Georgian draft law questions any funds from a “foreign power,” the EU Directive assesses the objectives behind said funds. Consequently, Georgia’s version of the law, similarly to the Russian law on “foreign agents,” conceals its true objective under the guise of regulating funds and activities as its inherent goal is not to regulate foreign interests and ensure transparency but, rather, to discredit Georgian civil society organisations and their international partners.
Furthermore, the explanatory note of the EU’s proposed Directive states that it is inherently different from the initiated or adopted laws on the “transparency of foreign agents” in other countries with footnote 10 making a direct reference to Georgia. According to the footnote, the Union consistently condemns any undue limitation on fundamental freedoms and restrictions on civic and political space in violation of international human rights law, including so-called ‘foreign agent laws’ and as an example of the latter, provides links to EEAS statements on Russia’s law on foreign agents, Georgia’s “foreign influence” law’ adopted in March 2023 and on the initiatives of the authorities in Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Please refer to the link for further information regarding the differences between the Georgian draft law on the transparency of foreign influence and the proposed EU Directive.
Claim #2: The official explanatory memorandum claims that by passing the Directive, the EU will no longer have the moral right to request that Georgia withdraw the law.
An explanatory memorandum is an official document appended to a legislative act that explains the content and objectives of the project. Whilst this document can be prepared when the proposal is announced, revoked or suspended, the EU institutions have not published a similar document or any other explanatory note regarding the Directive on “transparency of interest representation” because the process has not been halted and the procedures are being followed as intended as mentioned above. Therefore, the assertion that the legislative process in the EU has been delayed due to issues related to Georgia is both inaccurate and absurd.
Irakli Kobakhidze was likely referring to the critical recommendation, entitled A Closer Look at the Defence of Democracy Directive and the Controversy Surrounding It, published by the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD) in January 2024. This document urges the co-legislators to thoroughly assess the Directive. The EPD is not part of the EU legislative processes but a network of non-commercial organisations, united with an aim to support democratic governance, human rights and civil society worldwide.
The document published by the EPD confirms the risks highlighted by the European Commission in the explanatory memorandum of the Directive: “Foreign interference is an unfortunate reality and real danger to democracies. Various foreign actors or governments aim to manipulate EU political processes, intending to sow discord within the EU and, in some instances, even compromise democratic decision-making processes. Disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks from third countries have also become a regular occurrence.”
Despite these risks, the Directive is unlikely to efficiently avert foreign interference and may ultimately bring more harm than good, according to the authors. The EPD has raised several key concerns regarding the Commission’s proposal, including negative geopolitical consequences, the risks of stigmatising communities, heavy administrative burdens, etc. Notably, Georgia is mentioned in the subsection of the document which assesses negative geopolitical consequences.
“Regarding the geopolitical consequences, the Directive will undermine the EU’s future diplomatic efforts addressing restrictive foreign-funding legislation. In the past, the EU has been critical of the “foreign agent” laws adopted in other countries, such as in Georgia and in Republika Srpska. Adopting this Directive means the EU will lose the ability to legitimately criticise discriminatory laws around the world. What is more, other authoritarian regimes could take inspiration from the EU Directive, making it the basis of their own future restrictive regulations. We recognise that the EU proposal is not as restrictive as other laws around the world but it is impossible to ignore the fact that it will be weaponised by those seeking to undermine independent media and civil society.”
Considering the information provided above, the entities involved in the legislative processes within the EU have not published any new explanatory memorandums regarding the EU Directive. Furthermore, whilst the Directive is clearly distinguished from the laws adopted by authoritarian regimes in the critical analysis of the Directive published by the European Partnership for Democracy, the EPD still recommends a thorough assessment of the Directive as there are threats of misuse by such regimes against independent media and civil society. Therefore, FactCheck concludes that Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s statement is FALSE.
