International IDEA’s online roundtable aimed to contribute to a better understanding of the current and likely future effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on democracies in Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. In addition, the discussion aimed to distill recommendations on how national and international democracy assistance providers should revise their actions in response to this crisis.
Three speakers from Armenia, Moldova and Georgia reviewed the unfolding effects of Russia’s war in Ukraine on democratic development of their countries, and delve into the following key questions:
– How will the war affect democracies in the three EaP countries of Armenia, Georgia and Moldova? What positive and negative consequences are expected? – What are the particular vulnerabilities where the democratic progress could be rolled back? – How should national and international actors change their strategies for democracy support following Russia’s war against Ukraine?
Context
Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova continue to strengthen their democratic systems. Achievements, albeit with many challenges, include improvements to the conduct of elections, increasing the transparency and accountability of government institutions, and maintaining an open, civic space for citizens and media to openly debate, question, or challenge their governments. It is no wonder President Putin is scared of such democratic vibrancy at his doorstep.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the objectives it pursues through this war—replacing Ukraine’s democratically elected government with another, ‘friendly’ regime—once again demonstrates the nature of Russia’s interests in its neighborhood.
Just days after the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and following Ukraine’s urgent application for membership of the EU, Georgia and Moldova also sent in their applications. These declarations once again commit these countries and their incumbent governments to build a European-style democracy—where human rights and the rule of law are sacrosanct and where state power is constrained by democratic checks and controls.
These developments, even if the accession remains a distant prospect, signal a resolution of all three countries to further invest in democratic qualities. If there is a positive fall-out to be found from this devastating war, this could be it.
But what other effects can be anticipated on these fledgling democracies fraught with multiple structural and institutional challenges? Could the war and its fall-out on the region’s economies unravel social and political instabilities? Against this backdrop, will the political elites and the public, witnessing Russia’s attack on Ukraine, find the resolve to continue building pluralistic, democratic systems? Or will the governments, using the argument of war at their doorstep, increasingly resort to majoritarian or even authoritarian methods of governance? Will they focus on the fight against corruption and oligarchic influence (a large majority of local oligarchs are connected with Russia) or will the economic pressures result in moving away from this vital agenda? Will the state of emergency and a prevailing sense of crisis allow for conditions to build independent judicial bodies and a strong rule of law? Will civic groups and watchdogs find it harder to fight for independent media and their ability to check government actions?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine found Central Asian states in surprise. Undoubtedly their attention was occupied by events in Kazakhstan beginning of 2022 and developments following widespread unrest when Russian military aggression against Ukraine shook the world.
As for the facts, all Central Asian states and their economies are intertwined with Russia. Some are members of the Eurasian Economic Union as well. The cooperation and interdependency are so high that the threat of Western sanctions over the Kremlin having an effect on them is very tangible and high.
Moreover, three countries of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, along with Armenia and Belarus, are members of the Russian-led security/military alliance – the CSTO. Therefore, Moscow’s expectation of demonstrated support, including military, was rather realistic and projected.
Despite relatively clear links and bondages to Moscow, the reactions and political statements of national governments from Central Asia differed from complete silence to support or concerns over the developments in Ukraine. President Putin’s recognition of breakaway regions and dismissal of Ukrainian statehood should’ve rung a bell in some Central Asian states, particularly those with significant Russian minorities.
The Georgian government submitted its application for European Union membership last week — two years ahead of schedule, as domestic support for Ukraine galvanized calls to look West.
Why it matters: Leaders in the Republic of Georgia hope that the shockwaves caused by Russia’s invasion will spur reluctant EU members to admit longtime aspirants like Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.
“In making this historic decision, Georgia stands firmly beside Ukraine and its Euro-Atlantic aspirations amid the unprovoked Russian military invasion of the country,” the Georgian Embassy in Washington, D.C., said in a statement.
Flashback: Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008 in a five-day war that saw Russian-backed separatists in two Georgian regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, break off and form self-governed regions.
In a strange twist, that invasion — like the current war in Ukraine — began just as the Olympics concluded in Beijing.
Russia faced few repercussions after the Russo-Georgian War, which some analysts say empowered Moscow to annex Crimea in 2014.
Background: As a former Soviet republic that sits geographically on the divide between Europe and Asia, Georgia has come to view its identity through its Christian heritage and ties to ancient Greek civilization, which in the widely held view of many Georgians makes the country a part of Europe.
“We are not only old Europeans, we are the very first Europeans, and therefore Georgia holds [a] special place in European civilization,” former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, known for his strong pro-West and pro-NATO stance, said during his 2004 inauguration.
Georgia signed an association agreement with the EU in 2014, and it planned to submit its EU membership application in 2024.
Yes, but: Some EU member states doubt that Georgia can meet the bloc’s standards on issues like anti-corruption and clean elections, and they worry that pressure would grow to admit other prospective members.
While the Baltic states have supported Georgia’s bid for EU membership, Germany and France have been more skeptical.
State of play: Allegations of democratic backsliding under the ruling Georgian Dream party have also jeopardized the country’s relationship with the EU.
Last year, Georgian Dream drew criticism from EU and U.S. officials when it withdrew from an EU-brokered agreement aimed at resolving a political crisis after opposition parties challenged the results of the October 2020 election.
Georgia then declined a loan offered by the EU, signaling a shift away from the bloc.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “obviously influenced” Georgia’s decision to submit its application for EU membership two years earlier than expected, former Georgian Defense Minister Tina Khidasheli told Axios.
Tens of thousands of people were out demonstrating in Georgia’s major cities to support Ukraine, said Khidasheli, and many Georgians also signed online petitions urging the government to submit the EU application.
What to watch: Georgia’s path to EU membership is far from secured, but Khidasheli said that EU members might support Georgia as a way to stand up to Russia.
“I think that European countries understand that they need to do something at this very moment, they need to do something to prove that Russia does not have veto power.”
It is often said of President Putin that he is a master tactician but not a strategist. I understand this to imply that he can make the most out of today and does not have the foresight to predict the consequences of his actions. Well, that is not entirely accurate. President Putin uses the military the only way the military ever works: to determine the circumstances that will define a future negotiation. So, Putin is what we make of him.
If Washington, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Vienna, and London articulate fear, then Putin has won a strategic victory.
In my mind, the question is whether Putin’s brute force will be allowed to determine our future. Profiling Putin’s mental state is futile; if the Russian President was open to psychological support, he might not be leading a country as a ruthless dictator, but someone else would. No man should be given so much power because it is detrimental to their mental state. But this discussion has no substance; what is important is whether the Russian Bear will be allowed to bully first of Europe or maybe the entire Collective West.
Washington should rethink its priorities because the issue at hand is not geographic, even if it is geopolitical. The question is no longer “the Atlantic or the Pacific” but whether there will be anything left of the system we now recognize as “global governance”: the internet, the global market, and human rights regimes are devolving into separate and irreconcilable ecosystem with no normative guarantee. There is no “Great Wall” of the West to retreat behind. If Washington retreats that will be a strategic choice that will dilute its power beyond recognition. If Washington does not share its power with Europe, its power will be inconsequential.
Now, we should reflect on the substance of this rhetorically evocative affirmation “We are all Ukrainians!” If we are, we then need to think as Ukrainians. For Ukrainians, the question is how long this pain will last, and what will be left of their freedom. People in urban centres will go without electricity, communications, and perhaps even food. Ukraine’s children will not feel secure, will not go to school, and a whole generation will be marked by the fear of loss and the terror of destruction.
That is a fear Georgians know only too well. But it is not Georgians alone: Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians have this fear ingrained in them. European know only too well the fear of Russian tanks and what these can do to a generation. And we should draw a line in the sand and leave fear behind us, as Europeans.
Fear is like smoking. The only way not to fear, is not to be afraid. We need to have the courage to imagine a future without fear, in Europe, otherwise “Europe” means nothing.
It is understandable that Europe fears the prospect of another devastating European war. But fear is contagious. If Europe sinks into the fear of Russia, peace and war will increasingly look similar. Russia’s demand for “breathing space” – a Near Abroad – feeds on fear, which is detrimental to the health of every democracy. Russia can ask for more countries, more limitations to freedom, more guarantees that the Kremlin’s ability to be the bully of Europe will go unpunished and unchecked. With care for the Russian people, we should stand up to the bully as what today is about the influence and dominance in the “Near Abroad” would be expended in distorted imaginations towards the “middle abroad” or maybe even further.
Westerners need to help Ukrainians not to fear: to be generous with assistance for the refugees that choose life anywhere rather than an existence in fear; to support those who prefer to die rather than live in fear; and they need to look at Georgians – and each other – and find ways of standing together so that their peace is not defined by fear. If fear defines the substance of what it means to be European or Westerner then Putin’s regime has won. And that will be the defeat of every Westerner that has every worked for peace since 1945 on both shores of the Atlantic.
Tedo Japaridze is a former Ambassador of Georgia to the United States, a former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of Georgian Parliament, a former Foreign Policy Adviser to the Prime-Minister of Georgia. He was also national security adviser to Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze. This blog represents his personal opinions.
You can sign the statement on the link provided below. Join us and together let’s demand the active steps and real decisions of the Parliament on the path of the country’s European integration.
Today, as never before, the joint and rapid action of all branches of the Georgian government is crucial to ensure Georgia’s European perspective. It is the duty of all representatives of the Georgian state to act quickly and purposefully in order to use the window of opportunity, which has been created to stop the criminal decisions and actions of the Vladimir Putin regime, and to ensure the country’s European future.
Georgia is the first victim of the Putin regime, the long-term struggle of the Georgian people for freedom deserves proper assessment and European perspective.
At the same time, we realize that the non-fulfillment of the Charles Michel Agreement is a significant obstacle to the establishment of relations with Georgia as a trusted partner. Therefore, we consider the fulfillment of the Charles Michel Agreement to be the most important condition for strengthening democratic governance in the country.
Correct and timely statements and resolutions are important for EU integration, but only a first step. Today, by making relevant decisions in the Parliament of Georgia, we must show the whole civilized world, including the European Parliament, the European Council and the European Commission, that Georgia’s struggle for democratic, free and European statehood is irreversible and we are doing our best to ensure it.
Accordingly,
1. The parliament of Georgia, in accordance with Article 78 of the constitution of Georgia, should immediately adopt a resolution on the launch of relevant procedures for Georgia’s accelerated accession to the European Union.
2. The parliament of Georgia should call on the executive government of Georgia to immediately apply for Georgia’s EU membership.
3. The government of Georgia should promptly present an action plan on the measures to be taken during this week for Georgia’s accelerated accession to the European Union.
4. The government of Georgia should, in accordance with the constitution, grant the President of Georgia the relevant powers to start negotiations with the European Union.
Signatories:
1. Civic Idea
2. Democracy Research Institute (DRI)
3. Open Society Foundation
4. Democracy Index
5. Institute for the Study of Nationalism and Conflict
6. Eastern European Center for Multiparty Democracy
7. Civil Council on Defense and Security
8. Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association
9. Georgian Court Watch
10. Investigative Journalists’ Team “iFact”
11. Center for the Strategic Research and Development of Georgia (CSRDG)
12. Human Rights Center
13. Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI)
14. International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED)
15. Social Justice Center (former EMC)
16. Tolerance and Diversity Institute
17. School of Tomorrow
18. Equality 17
19. Mothers Against Gambling
20. Caucasus Dialogue Foundation
In addition, the application is signed by more than 150 individuals.
Note: The civil society appeal for the immediate start of Georgia’s accelerated EU accession procedure, signed by more than 150 individuals and dozens of representatives of civil society organizations, had been prepared before the ruling party officially announced its intention to apply for the EU candidate status. Due to the special importance of the issue, we are spreading the initial version of the appeal.
On January 26th, Civic IDEA held a web talk with its partners about developments and perspectives in Kazakhstan.
“What Happened in Kazakhstan: Reflections from the field”
Story of the protests; Are they over, or over for now? Confidence towards the existing government and President Tokayev; Controversy over a decision on shooting the demonstrations; Influence of foreign powers with vested interests in Kazakhstan; CSTO as a club defending dictators; Split of the Political elite or business as usual? Request for reforms, political and democratic reforms on the agenda of demonstrations; Reflections from neighbors; People believing in the possibility of change
If you want to listen to these topics and other interesting analyses from our experts, tune in for ? https://youtu.be/RPu3z12Sz-c
Moderator: Tinatin Khidasheli – Chairperson, Civic IDEA Former Minister of Defence of Georgia
Experts Panel:
Tatiana Sedova Freelance consultant on public participation, transparency and accountability, multistakeholder cooperation mechanisms, extractive industries governance, community engagement and capacity building; Member of the EITI National Stakeholders Council in Kazakhstan; Board member of Zertteu Research Institute (open budgets and anti- corruption). At different times Tatiana worked for international and national organizations: the World Bank, Publish What You Pay, EITI International Secretariat, GIZ, NRGI, MSI Integrity, Counterpart International, Eurasia Foundation, USAID, European Commission, PACT, Soros Foundation, INTRAC, Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB, Kazakhstan Temir Zholy, City Bank, KazInvestBank, and others;
Mariya Lobacheva Program director of Public Association Echo. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative alternate Board member She has about 20 years’ experience in the non-governmental sector in Kazakhstan. Her work includes managing a research and advocacy strategy to promote transparency and citizen participation. Mariya has carried out several analytical works related to the extractive sector’s influence on the local population, as well as civic participation in income management at the subnational level. Mariya also has extensive elections observation experience and has produced several observation reports.
Danila Bekturganov Political scientist and a Director of NGO “Civil Expertise” in Kazakhstan. He has more than 20 years of work experience in the non-governmental sector of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Mr. Bekturganov has conducted more than 200 trainings, webinars, and TOTs for NGOs on elections, transparency of budgets and extractive industries, digital rights, and transparency of public procurement. Also, he is a member of the Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG) for the implementation of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Kazakhstan.
Amangeldy Shormanbayev Lawyer by education. Currently, Mr. Shormanbayev is a Kazakhstan Program Director for Public Foundation “International Legal Initiative”, political rights expert, rule of law regional program director. At different times he worked for a number of Kazakhstani NGOs, primarily in the human rights field.
Ani Kintsurashvili Senior researcher of the Georgian think-tank Civic IDEA, working on democracy, transparency and anti-corruption issues and focusing on regional perspective of South Caucasus and Central Asia.
With the support of the European Values Center for Security Policy, USAID and MFA of the Czech Republic, Civic IDEA, with the local partners (GRASS, DFR Lab, MDF), contributed to the second volume of the joint research “Russian and Chinese Influences in Georgia”.
This Report is the second edition of the study launched in 2020 – Mapping Research: Comparing foreign influence in Georgia. This year’s issue – Russian and Chinese influences in Georgia – 2021 update monitors the development of foreign country influences in Georgia in 2021, especially in state institutions, NGOs, media, political parties, or the Church. This paper aims to further analyze a broad spectrum of problems already introduced in the previous report, such as campaigns and activities implemented and sponsored by third countries, ranging from political infiltration to corrosive capital flows with political goals.
The Chairperson of the Civic IDEA- Tinatin Khidasheli, participated in a conference organized by the International Institute for Peace (IIP) – “Thirty years on: Is There still a Post-Soviet Space?”. The report of the conference has been published, which also includes the article by Tinatin Khidasheli:
“From the Georgian perspective, it is important to distinguish between political Europe and geographic Europe. Georgia very much sees itself as belonging to the former, though it is geographically in the Caucasus. Georgia has felt invisible to the West since the 2008 War with Russia, wherein Georgia received little support from NATO or the EU. Georgia is a place where Russia is contesting the West for influence, and Russia is trying to show that Georgia belongs to its neighborhood. For Georgians, it appears that the EU and NATO have constructed a new Iron Curtain, the countries beyond which they do not see as their concern. Furthermore, Russian sanctions were a blessing in disguise for Georgia, as the country was able to strongly diversify its economy and exports when Russia closed its market to Georgia.”
On December 16, 2021, at the Hilton Garden Hotel in Tbilisi, Civic IDEA, together with GRASS and MDF, participated in a closing event for the media literacy project hosted by the non-profit organization ‘People in Need’, and supported by the Czech Government and USAID / GEORGIA.
Opening remarks were made by the Ambassador of the Czech Republic to Georgia, Peter Mikiska, USAID / GEORGIA Mission Director Peter Wiebler, and People in Need Georgia CEO, Dion Battersby. The representatives of the Georgian NGOs discussed the Chinese and Russian malign influence as a threat to democracy in Georgia, the scale of disinformation, foreign fake news, and propaganda campaigns during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is a great honor for us to share with you the first part of the publication initiated by “Civic IDEA” and prepared together with partners, which will tell you the story of the growing influence of foreign countries in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The second part of this edition is planned for 2022.
This publication is a collection of 8 analytical articles, which mainly introduce the dynamics of various projects, loans, and debts initiated by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the South Caucasian and Central Asian countries, the growth and expansion of the role of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as well as the existing threats and most notable events. While much is being written today about the operations of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party by various research institutes and organizations worldwide, very little is said about region of our interest and even less about the dynamics and patterns that are unequivocally evident in these states.
“Civic IDEA” has been studying Chinese influence operations in our region for more than three years now. We are interested in the policies of the Chinese state, its universities, and other educational centers, companies, and financial institutions, etc. Accordingly, in our previous publications, you will find materials about the activities of the Confucius Institutes, student and scientific exchange programs, the so-called “debt trap” practices, and security risks for different countries, etc.
In this publication, you will get more detailed information and knowledge about seven countries: Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Unfortunately, despite our numerous attempts, we could not find a suitable partner in Turkmenistan who would agree to participate in the joint study.
The work about Georgia was written by Ani Kintsurashvili, a senior researcher at the Civic IDEA. The paper summarizes the Civic IDEA’s China Watch reports and measures the growing Chinese influence in critical infrastructure and defense sectors of the country by reviewing the misconduct related to the notorious and blacklisted Chinese companies (CEFC, Sinohydro, Motor Sich, Nuctech, CRBC) actively operating in Georgia within the BRI. Moreover, the research stresses that these Chinese companies usually mediate the massive corruption schemes orchestrated by the Chinese state officials and local business and political elites. This occasion explains the ignorance of the Georgian government in failing to investigate the company’s reputation with which they are signing the MoUs and handing the projects critical for Georgia’s natural security.
Artak Kyurumyan, an independent expert and a chairman of the board of Open Society Foundation, discusses Sino-Armenian political relations and the performance of Armenian investments in the People’s Republic of China. The paper highpoints the diversity of opinions in the experts’ community, as some believe that Armenia has working relations with China, while others think that Armenian-Chinese relations are in stagnation. Armenian authorities don’t have a vision or strategy on how to build ties with China. Russia had and has a significant impact on Armenian foreign policy and holds leverages to influence them. For several years different Armenian governments were optimistic about the Armenian-Chinese joint venture Shanxi-Nairit. Shanxi Nairit does not utilize its full capacity and could not cover its costs and accumulated huge losses. After 2018 the representatives of the Revolutionary government were also represented in the board of Shanxi Nairit and were assuring that they are doing important job. However, large parts of the Armenian community think that government officials use such opportunities to travel and don’t create any substantial value added.
Gubad Ibadoghlu, a senior policy analyst of the Economic Research Center, covers China’s mounting interests and influence in Azerbaijan, emphasizing the boosted trade between China and Azerbaijan and between China and Europe through the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway, which forms an integral part of the Belt and Road construction and serves as a critical bridge that connects the eastern and western ends of Eurasia. Moreover, Azerbaijan is devoted to building a new corridor for cross-border transportation designed to cut through the territory of Armenia to join up the Azerbaijan mainland and the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan. For China, this corridor will serve as the second South Caucasus route leading to Europe via Armenia, Nakhchivan, and Turkey. Azerbaijan’s economic diversification policy and China’s willingness to transfer industrial capacity facilitate more extensive economic cooperation between the two countries. Besides, China has failed to close several critical financial agreements at the governmental level to boost economic ties with Azerbaijan. There are currently no agreements on currency swaps, industrial transfer, or free trade between the two countries.
Research on informing the people of Kazakhstan about the activities of Chinese companies in the Kazakhstani extractive sector belongs to Danil Bekturganov, a political scientist and a Director of NGO “Civil Expertise” in Kazakhstan, who analyzes the coverage of activities of Chinese companies in the extractive sector of Kazakhstan by Kazakh media. In addition to analyzing the awareness of citizens, investigated the availability of statements and other documents issued by the government of Kazakhstan related to Chinese investments and BRI. The study examines specific cases related to the impact of the activities of Chinese extractive companies on local communities, and social, economic and environmental consequences of these activities. Mr. Bekturganov argues that Kazakhstan is one of the key places in the implementation of the BRI. Large Chinese extractive and construction companies operate on the territory of the country, railway and road routes, including the “Western Europe – Western China” corridor, pass through Kazakhstan’s territory. One of the important parts of the BRI implementation is the informing of Kazakhstani citizens about the initiative and about the opportunities, provided to businesses and local communities. The absence or lack of information gives rise to a large number of myths and phobias, and does not contribute to increasing public confidence in the presence of Chinese business in Kazakhstan. Another important aspect is the environmental impact of Chinese projects, which should be objectively and publicly assessed.
Bakytbek Satybekov, an expert and a co-chairperson of the National Open Government Forum in the Kyrgyz Republic explains China’s “debt trap” diplomacy in Kyrgyzstan by highlighting the obvious signs of the presence of such a policy in the country. Author starts with the description of a term China’s “debt trap” with examples of experience of other countries. After that mr, Satybekov describes history of Kyrgyz borrowings from China with details, such as purposes of loans, financial and other conditions and later emphasizes evolution of Kyrgyz debt management strategy with emphasis on limitation of share on a creditor in debt portfolio. At last, he provides the audience with the analysis of impact (outcome) the Chinese “debt trap” could bring to Kyrgyzstan.
Umedjon Majidi, political analyst and a postgraduate of the University of Sussex covers the topic of Corrosive inflows to the Republic of Tajikistan and how Chinese investments undermine good governance and transparency in Central Asian region. Corrosive capital coined by Center for International Private Enterprise based in Washington DC is defined the term “corrosive capital” to more clearly label financing that lacks transparency, accountability, and market orientation flowing from authoritarian regimes into new and transitioning democracies. It applies directly to big authoritarian countries which play a key role in Central Asia, they are Russia, China that lack true forms of transparency, accountability, good governance in their capital granting schemes. This paper based on wide variety of publications in various languages analyzes specifically how People’s Republic of China within its strategy of Belt and Road Initiative in Tajikistan brings bad governance schemes to Tajikistan local and national governance institutions in contrast of western countries when the capital and funds come usually with conditions to reform a local governance attached.
Farkhod Tolipov, a director of the non-governmental Research Institution “Bilim Karvoni” (“Caravan of Knowledge”) in Tashkent, finalizes the collection of articles with his input “China’s Power Projection in Central Asia and its Geopolitical Implications: The Case of Uzbekistan”. The state’s power projection capability means its ability to exert influence on other states by utilizing its real power. This utilization of power can take different forms from diplomatic communications and political pressure to open demonstration and application, separately or in combination, of elements of soft and hard power. So this paper is constructed around the main question as to what we know about China’s power projection undertakings in the Central Asian region with some more focus on Uzbekistan. Public and experts’ opinions in Central Asian countries are quite ambiguous about Chinese influence in the region; Sino-phobia and Sinophilia coexist among people, officials, and experts. In particular, Beijing’s repressive attitude towards Uighurs in Xingjian province also affected the perception of China by Central Asians. China as a great power cannot, but pursues great-power politics, which per se can bring with it opportunities and challenges for neighboring areas including the Central Asian region. Moreover, all great powers historically have always competed with each other and this competition, in turn, always caused significant geopolitical implications.
Story of the protests;
