Discussion of Foreign Policy Orientation in the Pre-Independence Period of Georgia (Late 1917 – Early 1918)

Abstract

Relevance and Novelty of the Topic: Defining foreign orientation is a matter of existential importance for a small country. The chronological framework of this research is intentionally selected: it was during this period that the collapse of the Russian Empire occurred, necessitating a realization of the new geopolitical reality. The study of the ongoing discussions on this topic has not previously been the subject of dedicated scientific research. Its analysis is crucial because, at a turning point for the country, the criteria upon which Georgia had historically defined - and at that moment needed to make - its foreign policy choice became the subject of debate. This theme - how Georgian political thought was formed during a pivotal and chaotic period - is fundamental to understanding our statehood. Research Methods and Methodology: The paper employs qualitative research methods, specifically content and discourse analysis of periodicals. The research is based on a historical-comparative approach, allowing for the juxtaposition of narratives from various political parties. The hermeneutic method is used in processing sources to examine the issue within the context of the geopolitical crisis of the time. A methodological distinction is key: the focus is not on daily political chronicles (articles reflecting the "current moment"), but on special publications where the issue of orientation is conceptualized as an independent theoretical problem and a strategic choice. This allows for the identification of the fundamental visions of the Georgian elite and the criteria upon which they based the country’s long-term strategy. Discussion of the Research Topic: The discussion of this period represents a kind of "intellectual laboratory." The country did not yet face the acute existential choice of May 1918, which allowed thinkers of the time to theoretically formulate principles and criteria in a relatively "calm" environment. The activation of the foreign orientation issue was driven by three factors: a) Russia's military defeat by Germany in World War I; b) Revolutionary chaos and civil war in Russia; c) Accusations by certain forces that Georgia was "betraying" its Russian orientation. Main Findings of the Research: a) Ideological Polarization: A clear difference emerged between the ruling party (Social-Democrats) and the opposition forces (National-Democrats, Socialist-Federalists). This discussion was an ideological struggle between "national statehood" and "class-revolutionary unity" (N. Zhordania). While for the Social-Democrats, the "Russian orientation" was perceived as unwavering and identical to a Western choice, the opposition spectrum questioned this view. b) Civilizational Decolonization: In 1917, the word "orientation" was often used not only to denote a foreign policy vector but also for civilizational self-identification. This discussion was not just about "who to be friends with," but also about defining "who we are." Tite Tabidze's argumentation (newspaper Sakhalkho Sakme) asserted that what entered Georgia from Russia was not European culture, but its surrogate. This was a call for Georgia to establish direct links with Europe without Russian mediation. c) Geopolitical Pragmatism: Although the Social-Democrats considered talk of Georgia's orientation groundless (the newspaper Ertoba even published an ironic article on the matter), the topic was vital for other political parties, as evidenced by publications in the newspapers Sakartvelo (National-Democrats) and Sakhalkho Sakme (Socialist-Federalists). Niko Nikoladze (Sakartvelo) viewed foreign policy as a tool for modernization, where the choice is determined not by subjective preference but by geographical location and the international balance of power. He argued that Georgia always chose the orientation from which "light and movement" originated. By naming this criterion, Niko Nikoladze supported a European orientation. Conclusion: The research shows that the discussions at the end of 1917 prepared the ground for the de-ideologization of foreign policy, which facilitated the political elite's ability to make pragmatic decisions during the crisis of 1918. Despite theoretical debates and initial attempts to remain within the Russian orbit, the sharp deterioration of the international situation (specifically the Ottoman threat) placed pragmatic survival on the agenda. This forced Georgia to move from theoretical discussion to real action and turn to Germany for assistance. The research was carried out within the framework of the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia Grant Project “The Beginning of the Contemporary Georgian Parliamentarianism: The National Council of Georgia - The Parliament of Georgia”. Grant Code: FR-23-2950