Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze on Monday said he hoped relations with the United States would “move away from the current wrong track” and expressed his “special respect” to Ambassador Robin Dunnigan whose work he said was “qualitatively different” from her predecessor Kelly Degnan.
In her time, the former Ambassador spoiled so many things in the Georgian-American relations that it was simply impossible, practically or theoretically, to have done more damage", Kobakhidze claimed.
He also said the recently imposed US sanctions against Georgian officials following adoption of the controversial law on foreign influence were “insulting to the Georgian state and Georgian society”.
The PM added his Government had “reason for optimism” in improving relations with the US and noted “everything must be done from our side to actually strengthen the partnership”.
The United States has imposed so-called visa restrictions - they do not call them sanctions, they are visa restrictions. In reality, these visa restrictions were imposed without names being made public, and what is more, we have checked and, to date, not a single MP has been notified of the visa restrictions”, he said.
Therefore, the hype that has been created in the opposition [on the restrictions] is completely exaggerated. The very decision [on the restrictions] that was voiced [by the US] is insulting to the Georgian state and Georgian society, because that is not how you talk to a partner country, but as far as the practical burden of this decision is concerned, the practical burden is actually zero”, the Government head claimed.
When visa restrictions are imposed without naming names, the only effect it can have is to insult another state. This does not correspond to the spirit of partnership, although everything must be done from our side in order to strengthen partnership relations in the future”, he said.
Kobakhidze also said the State Department’s visa restrictions, imposed last year on four senior Georgian judges for “significant corruption” had not made “any practical impact” or limited the independence of the country’s judiciary, alleging their imposition had actually “affected the reputation of the US” as the restrictions had been approved “without any facts or evidence”.