Confederation: A Russian Bait for the Georgian State

In order for the main entity for Georgian citizens—the Georgian State—to continue its existence and continuous development, professional circles, and primarily lawyers, have not just a right, but an obligation to speak out about the challenges facing the state. Furthermore, they must raise their voices with well-reasoned arguments regarding the threats that the Georgian state may face in the near future, whether in a few months or a few years. The main challenge for the Georgian state today, and for the last 34 years, is the occupied territories. The occupation, in turn, destroys several fundamental principles of any state: the principle of the inviolability of borders, and the principles of sovereignty and independence. Towards us, the Georgian state, this is being carried out by the Russian Federation—in other words, modern Rashism—which, on the one hand, attempts to strip the Georgian state of its borders; on the other hand, deploys its military bases in Abkhazia and Samachablo (the Tskhinvali region); and thirdly, questions our sovereignty.

"What cannot be achieved by military means can be achieved through propaganda." Accordingly, for the enemy that has occupied Georgian territories, the means to achieve its goal may be numerous, but the goal itself remains unchanged: "There must not exist an independent, sovereign Georgian state that will be a member of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." On the path to this goal, it uses both military means and, recently, actively utilizes the main weapon of hybrid warfare—which is, of course, "propaganda." Based on the current reality, it is my deep conviction that the Russian Federation, i.e., Rashism, will use a new so-called propaganda weapon against the Georgian state: the proposal of a "Confederation of Georgia." Therefore, in order to know what the enemy's goal is, we, as free citizens of Georgia, are obliged to arm ourselves with knowledge, understand the essence of the issue, and draw accurate conclusions, because: "Free citizens armed with knowledge and education ensure the independence and freedom of the state, and the enemy despises the latter." Let us start with a few distinctions that will easily pave our way through this legal sea.

Generally, states, according to their forms of government, are almost never identical; it is impossible for two exactly similar states to exist. Nevertheless, in legal theory, four concepts of conditional division are used: unitary, federal, regional, and confederal states. These are also conditional concepts—today, there is no classical unitary or classical federal state, but their approximate essence allows us to distinguish them from one another.

Unitary State – Unitarism derives from the Latin word "unitas" and literally means unity. In this case, the state is governed from a single strong center, while the remaining parts outside the center lack political independence; they only hold a formal administrative role. To explain this using the example of Georgia:

The income of a person employed in Batumi or Chiatura is transferred to the unified tax system of the center, Tbilisi. No matter who lives in Batumi or Adjara, or what income is generated there, the state operates this income through the center. Consequently, if, for example, 1 million is generated locally from the economy, the state does not dispose of it locally; rather, this 1 million goes to the center (Tbilisi), and subsequently, the center decides whether to return half a million there or not return it at all. Political independence for self-government almost never exists in states with such a structure; local self-government is merely formalized there. Under such a structure, self-government focuses on planting trees, paving asphalt, and deciding whether a plot of land belongs to a physical person, for example. But even in this case, in the Georgian state, even if the self-government confirms the existence of property rights, the center—in this case, the Public Registry—makes the final decision;

The greatest advantage of a unitary state is the state's unified, swift steps, flexibility, and mechanisms for quick decision-making and execution from the center to the region. But this has its major drawbacks: under conditions of fragile democracy, it is impossible to anchor people locally; there is a massive drain from the regions to the center. Due to the absolute power of the center, those living in the region remain without rights; thus, a unitary state strips regions of full political independence. Let us note here: no one should confuse political independence with so-called separatism. Separatism is an entirely different concept in a unitary state. Furthermore, political independence does not imply the independence of the region and/or locality; on the contrary, political independence means that the people locally make decisions acceptable to them, for example, what part of the taxes should go to the center, what should remain, etc.

Regional State – A regional state is a kind of synthesis between unitary and federal states; however, a regional state is still a certain transitional phase of a state when it moves from unitary to federal. During a regional state, it formally remains a unitary state but has many characteristics of a federal state, although through certain legislative acts, it remains tethered to the center. To use the example of Batumi and Chiatura again: during a regional state, Batumi and Chiatura send half a million of the generated 1 million to the center but manage the remainder themselves, which the center formally agrees to; however, in case of disagreement, the center will still manage it as it wishes. Furthermore, during a regional state, the Mayor's office, the City Council (Sakrebulo), or, for example, the Governor decides who owns a plot of land, while the Public Registry merely formally registers this plot to whoever was granted the right by the Mayor. In other words, the center remains the holder of power, but it is forced to submit to the wishes of the population of that specific region. Under such territorial arrangements, regions may even have the right to elect a regional parliament; a criminal code may exist operating specifically in that region, but this criminal code must be based on the center's criminal code;

There might exist, for example, the right for the region to elect judges and/or the chief of police of this region, but after election, the center retains the right to approve them. The region may also have mechanisms to regulate various issues—for example, how to open a new store, or what the tax rate should be, decided by the local self-government without the center—but despite this, such a region still relies on key laws issued by the center. This type of state may also have the right to adopt its own constitution, but even when adopting this constitution, it must rely on the center's basic constitution. An example of such a state is Spain. However, in theory, it is still considered that a regional state is a transitional phase to a federal state, and in the event of political crises, it cannot withstand the pressure because there is no unified so-called legislative base (meaning a unified centralized system). Consequently, there are many confrontations between the center and the region, during which even lawyers get confused about which law operates in this region and which does not, which takes precedence and which does not.

The positive side of a regional state is that regions develop alongside the center; therefore, such a state does not face the problem of only the center developing while the region lags behind. However, its weak point is the low speed of decision-making, as well as constant or episodic confrontations between the center and the region, which openly manifest themselves during the management of political crises. A regional state inherently strives towards a federal structure; this very feature, whether it wants to or not, distances it from the center as the sole center for political decision-making. Moreover, in regional states, separatism appears in most cases, although it is usually not expressed in an armed rebellion; it is more of a legislative dispute between the center and the region rather than drawing borders and/or separating along ethnic lines.

Federal State – A federal state is a state that has evolved from a unitary state through the idea of a regional state, whose main distinguishing feature is unified decentralization, the division of political power, and the long-term development of a unified state based on the distribution of power. Such states mostly stand out for their uniform spatial development; this means the following: the Kakheti region is as developed as, for example, coastal Samegrelo. During development, each of these regions has its own parliament, which exercises, for example, legislative authority within local borders, adopting acts in that specific territory that define, for example, what is a crime, what is considered a crime, and what is not. This could be a criminal code, or, for example, it establishes the rules of relations among citizens for this region via an administrative code, etc. Going back to the example of Batumi and Chiatura: out of the generated million, both regions decide for themselves how much to transfer to the center and how much not to. If they believe it should remain in the region, it remains; however, it acts according to the initial agreement—for example, it can transfer the entire amount, but to keep everything, it needs the center's consent.

Decentralization in a federal state is so vast that it is considered the most democratic system. Its first model of democratic federalism was the United States of America; its formation occurred as a result of an agreement on common rules of the game, which is now called the U.S. Constitution. This type of federalism was driven by two conditions: the former colonies of Great Britain decided to choose their own path for development and not be dependent on the center, while there was also an understanding that they had to maintain the identity of each state that had existed for several centuries, according to the order in these states expressed through established traditions and different rules of governance. Today's federalism is practically presented in this way: there are two authorities. One is local, meaning the local parliament manages the governance within this unit; at the same time, a representative is delegated by elections from this same entity to represent the interests of the specific unit in the center. Furthermore, legislation is strictly demarcated: local legislative issues are regulated by acts adopted by the local parliament, while legislation adopted by the delegated representatives in the center also applies to this entity;

In a federal system, the subject of the federation participates in the general state decision-making process, regardless of the size and population of the federation subject. This means that its vote, even with a population of one million, has the same significance as another entity's, even if the latter has a population of tens of millions. This is the most effective participation of federation subjects in exercising legislative power. Again on the example of Batumi and Chiatura: Batumi and Chiatura locally choose the conditions of their order according to legislative acts through the local parliament, and at the same time, Batumi and Adjara send their representative to the center to protect their interests. Meanwhile, in a federation, the center manages several exclusive competencies: for example, defense/military, which is managed only from the center and not by the federal subject (i.e., whether it is the army or the guard, it is strictly centralized under the center's subordination), as well as the exclusivity of foreign policy. The formation of this center is carried out through the representatives delegated by the federation subjects;

Additionally, there may be federal government organizations, for example, the FBI; credit policy may also be strictly centralized, and/or the basic principles of tax policy may belong to the center (meaning the center agrees with the subject from the start that the unit can raise the tax itself, but not below a limit—e.g., Batumi and Chiatura have the right to raise or lower income tax from 20%, but it must not be less than 10% or more than 30%, and it is predetermined that 5% goes to the center while the subject manages the rest, i.e., a certain minimum part of the revenues goes to the center, the rest stays locally, etc.). As for the exclusive rights of the federation locally, these are: protection of public order, approval of the local budget, education, healthcare, sports, and organization of local self-government. Within their competence, federation subjects issue laws, execute these laws independently of the center, etc.

The greatest plus of a federation is uniform development. Furthermore, during a federation, rapid development occurs not only in the center but in all subjects; competition among subjects, even regarding tax regimes, creates a desire among the population to move from a developed to a less developed region and retain more of their income. This, in turn, causes concern for the developed region, prompting it to lower taxes again, which means more money for the population. This creates other conditions: the multiplication of free citizens who are not dependent on the budget; on the contrary, the budget becomes dependent on them, etc. On the downside, of course, is the speed of the general decision-making process, but once adopted, this decision, even in foreign policy, does not change.

After having briefly described the main characteristics of all three types of states, let us now move to the concept of a confederal state, or rather a union of states, and subsequently, why it is a Russian bait for the Georgian state;

Confederal State – This is a union of two and/or more states, where during such a union these two or more states entirely retain their sovereignty and remain subjects of international law. A confederation may participate as a subject in international relations, while the subjects comprising it also participate in international relations (it may participate in a limited form, but the line between participation and recognition almost ceases to exist). There can be many different or similar examples among confederations: for instance, having a unified tax policy, unified borders, and/or a unified military army. But at the same time, the main distinguishing feature of a confederation is that joining and/or creating a confederation is voluntary, just as exiting from it is. Confederations have or invent some common body that manages their common foreign policy, but this body acts within the scope of their sovereign rights; therefore, in the event of disagreement, the existing subject has, absolutely has the right to leave the confederation. The main distinguishing feature of a confederation is the voluntariness of being in it; accordingly, in the case of a confederation, there is no protective/locking mechanism to prolong the existence of this entity. In most cases, it exists for a certain period of time when two or more states need to solve specific problems facing them, and after solving this problem, the right is exercised: to continue existence as a separate state;

During a confederation, the common supreme body makes a decision that, in both states' tax legislation, income tax should become 10%, for example. But this enters into force only and exclusively if both states subsequently grant their parliaments' consent, and if consent is not granted, what happens then? The answer is one: decisions are made by consensus, and if consensus is not reached? Or, for example, the confederation agrees that the foreign policy course should be pro-Chinese; one member of the confederation supports this, the other, through its own parliament, refuses. Consensus cannot be reached. What happens in such a case?;

It is noteworthy that a confederation should not be perceived as a state; it is more of an association arising to face a specific challenge. If this challenge is overcome or remains insurmountable, the confederation ends its existence. The existence of a confederation in the long term is impossible; it either transforms into a federation and/or an alliance, but under no circumstances into a unified state. Czechoslovakia is a sufficient example (it is enough to note that neither Czechia nor Slovakia claimed the succession of Czechoslovakia; in 1993, membership in the UN was terminated, and simultaneously both countries independently continued to exist in the UN as two states).

Still, we must return to the most important point: a confederation is not a form of state. A confederation is a union of two or more states where the presence of members depends on their consent, and exiting this union is voluntary.

And here begins the main trap, which must be called by its name: a Russian bait for the Georgian state.
To this day, Russia, meaning Rashism, demands from the Georgian state the signing of a non-use of force treaty with both Abkhazia and, as it calls it, South Ossetia (which we call Samachablo), which according to today's law is occupied. Not a single major state in the world recognizes the independence of either Abkhazia or Samachablo as Rashism does. Accordingly, this seemingly useless demand for a "non-aggression" pact has another dimension:
If Georgia recognizes its territorial integrity, and the UN also recognizes that Abkhazia and Samachablo are not independent states but are under the effective control of Russia, and at the same time Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not subjects of international law, demanding this act is not about "ensuring non-aggression," but rather, de facto: Georgia recognizing its own territory as independent. Because the logic is simple: if you sign a non-use of force pact, it means you recognize the other party as a state entity; consequently, you yourself recognize the independence of these two regions and de facto recognize them as subjects of international law.

Now let us move to the confederation regarding Abkhazia and Samachablo. On the one hand, we should expect a proposal with roughly this phrasing: "a voluntary union aimed at restoring territorial integrity and living in a common confederation." On the other hand, this confederation proposal means that: through this union or Georgia's membership in it, it constitutes a de jure recognition by Georgia of Abkhazia and Samachablo as independent states!

This will certainly be followed by a propaganda line using ordinary Russian methods, saying, for example, that Switzerland is a confederal state, and if it is good for Switzerland, why would it be bad for Georgia?! The answer is: only the term "confederation" remains from the Swiss Confederation, and since 1848, Switzerland has been not a confederation but a federation. Today, the whole world agrees that Switzerland is not a confederation, because not a single one of its 26 cantons (federal subjects) has the right to demand independence and/or the right to exit. Therefore, if a subject does not have the right to exit, how can it be a confederation? Accordingly, proposing a confederation union using the example of Switzerland is a common trick of Russian propaganda: seizing only the name and not the essence.

The second main characteristic of Switzerland's federalism is that there is a common two-chamber parliamentary system, called the National Council and the Council of States. Switzerland's federal structure is recognized/declared even by the 1999 Constitution, and in this constitution, you will not find a provision for the independence and/or exit from membership of any canton. The center holds the necessary attributes for a federation: issues of peace and war, foreign policy, the monetary and credit system, budget approval, and the army. Accordingly, Switzerland is not a confederation despite its official name.

In the event of a confederation proposal, the Georgian state, in exchange for joining it, will also be asked for a main condition, which is the Achilles' heel in foreign policy for small countries like ours: neutrality. Taking the same example of Switzerland—did Switzerland win or lose by being a neutral country? There will be a propaganda line; narratives will be created: "it survived World War II through neutrality," "it hasn't had a war for the last few centuries because of neutrality," etc. Primarily, neutrality is possible where you might have democratic countries as neighbors—if not all, at least the majority. Secondly, neutrality is possible where all major leading countries agree to it, meaning the big players become guarantors of neutrality. Otherwise, neutrality is a prelude to the conquest of the country (let us recall 1921: the signing of a treaty by Russia with the Georgian state, and exactly 6 months after the de facto declaration of neutrality, the annexation of Georgia). Accordingly, neutrality is ensured not only by the country itself but by other states. Thirdly, it is impossible for neutrality to exist if the country is not de facto militaristic, voluntarily militaristic. In response, Nazi Germany did not refrain from attacking Switzerland because the latter was neutral, but because Switzerland is a militaristic state where mandatory military service is compulsory and elevated to the highest degree; including, however surprising it may be to some, having quite strong armed forces with its reserve system, as well as being one of the leaders in gun ownership per capita, etc. The same could be said until recently about Finland's neutrality.

Hence, for the Georgian state, whose territory is occupied by Russia—a major player who will call itself a "guarantor"—will this guarantor ensure neutrality? The answer is unequivocally negative. It is simply a basic trick to leave Georgia without allies, and neutrality will not help us avoid military confrontation.

With the confederation proposal, there will absolutely, absolutely be a "let's think about it," but this is a legal bait. Because in this proposal—perhaps not orally, but certainly in writing—there will be a provision granting both Abkhazia and Samachablo the right to leave the confederation. This means that even if you agree to the confederation, through an artificial crisis in a few years, Samachablo will be given the right to leave the confederation, and simultaneously it will become a member of the UN, meaning it will be a subject of international law. And this will not be able to be stopped by the Georgian state because, again and again: a confederation means that the Georgian state recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and Samachablo. This means that the Georgian state will not be able to be restored within its borders; it means that the Georgian state itself will renounce its own territories.

Consent to any form of confederation means that the Georgian state recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and/or Samachablo, because a confederation is a union of states (in this case, a union of three states). A confederation means neutrality, intended to leave Georgia without allies for its subsequent annexation to Russian Rashism through legal or military aggression. A confederation means: the disappearance of the Georgian army in the Georgian state.

The proposal may include a certain period of confederation and its subsequent transformation into a federation, however, this too is a legal bait, because effective control over both occupied regions is exercised by the Russian Federation. Accordingly, the existence of a confederation in any form and/or consent to it by the Georgian state means the end of the Georgian state.

We, as free citizens of Georgia, are obliged to arm ourselves with knowledge, understand the essence of the issue, and draw accurate conclusions, because: "Free citizens armed with knowledge and education ensure the independence and freedom of the state, and the enemy despises the latter."