გახსენით მობილურ აპლიკაციაში

New era, Ideas, People.

The Ghost | Giorgi Chkadua

 “We hope that they will soon revive under the warm sun of liberty”—the First Republic and Post-Soviet Countries toward Europe
A Play in Two Acts
Act 1
Paris Peace Conference
British Empire    


The United States of America


Woodrow Wilson (US President)

Noe Zhordania (Chairman of the Government of the first Republic of Georgia)

Karlo Chkheidze (Chairman of the Parliament and the Constituent Assembly of the Democratic Republic of Georgia; together with Irakli Tsereteli led the Georgian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919)

President of the Assembly

Emir Zoka-ed-Dowleh (Persia)

Otavio (Brazil)

Chagas (Portugal)

Jonnesco (Romania)

Paderewski (Poland)

Branting (Sweden)

Viviani (France)

Restrepo (Colombia)

Nansen (Norway)

Fisher (British Empire     )

Narrator (the stage is gradually lit; the narrator cannot be seen, only his voice is heard): “As modern characters living in an age of transition more compulsively hysterical than the one that preceded it at least, I have depicted my people as more vacillating and disintegrating than their predecessors, a mixture of the old and the new,” the Swedish playwright August Strindberg wrote in 1888. The dialogue that shall unfold before you, however, was not authored by him. It is a true story. It all happened in 1919-1920, in the early 20th century, when the shape of the modern world was outlined. It is a time when the actors in the global scene are changing morally, consequently none of them being unequivocally evil or good, cheerful or grumpy.

There was no concept of small nations in the era of imperialism. The end of the Great War, World War I, and the collapse of several big empires brought about a brand-new present day. The global political map grew so colourful that it seemed like a viral rash had erupted on the world’s skin, forcing greater powers to learn how to deal with this pandemic.

France, Italy, British Empire     , and the US, dressed in traditional attires, are standing on the stage. Georgia is led onstage by a woman holding her by the hand little a like child. She places Georgia next to the other countries and exits. Compared to the others, Georgia seems somewhat detached like a teenager with the first facial hair just starting to grow at the corners of the upper lip. A political map is hanging across the stage behind them. Among others, the map also features newly delineated small nations.

Georgia (reading a speech and addressing the audience): For a state to exist, it must be recognized by other states. Overcoming the economic crisis inherited from the Great War and establishing stability is nearly impossible without financial support from foreign countries. During the war, we appealed to Germany in order to liberate itself from Russia and to ensure the reconsideration of the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In fact, we used Germany against the Ottoman Empire. After Germany’s defeat in the Great War, however, we once again have found itself without an ally. And yet the goal remains the same, to ensure the recognition of our independence by other states and to receive from the Great Powers guarantees of sovereignty. Receiving those guarantees was only possible at the Paris Peace Conference—after all it was there that the principle of self-determination was recognized as the cornerstone of a new world order.

The other nations onstage look at each other and ask in bewilderment: “Who is this?”

Narrator (attempts to clarify their confusion): Cultural theorist Stuart Hall argues that “identities are a kind of guarantee that the world isn’t falling apart quite as rapidly as it sometimes seems to be. It’s a kind of fixed point of thought and being, a ground of action, a still point in the turning world… The logic and language of identity is the logic of depth—in here, deep inside me, is my Self which I can reflect upon. It is an element of continuity.”

The stage grows entirely dark. The light comes on only in the right section where Noe Zhordania, Chairman of the Government of the first Republic of Georgia, is standing.

Noe Zhordania: Since we were unable to achieve the independent existence of the Georgian nation through putting together internal imperial forces or creating the Caucasian Front, we leaned toward external imperialistic forces and at random joined ourselves with their interests. We would enjoy protection here as long as free Georgia entered their international political system, i.e., as much as it proved useful and interesting to them. Every newly revived nation has rushed toward Europe, sparing no effort to find protection and assistance. We too were among these nations. Thus, the goal remains the same: national freedom as our banner, except that the methods have changed. We are striving to receive guarantees of independence from great powers and massive international work is about to begin to this end.

The light over Zhordania disappears. Only the centre of the stage, where the other countries are standing, remains lit.

France: Germany must be punished severely. Our territories of Alsace–Lorraine must be reclaimed from it. And we must be compensated monetarily for war-related damages. At the same time, we still do not know what is happening in Russia. A civil war is still on there. We want the Russian Empire to be restored. We want to resume trade with her, and the new monarch to return the amount they owe us. On December 12, 1918, the prime minister of France will dispatch telegrams to the country’s representatives in various cities, including London, insisting that Georgia’s recognition does not meet the requirements of the current situation. Furthermore, the government of France will appeal to British Empire      to refrain from recognizing the independence of Georgia.

British Empire     : A balance of power is what we have always wanted and still want. Yes, the Russian Empire must be restored. And we will help the monarchist forces to this end. After Russia pulled out of the World War, the Caucasus was declared a British occupation zone at the Britain-France Conference on December 23, 1917. Accordingly, we will easily help Denikin’s monarchist forces from that side of the Caucasus. Yes, gentlemen, there are rich oil resources in Azerbaijan, and our keen interest in the Caucasus only makes sense. But the restoration of the Russian Empire and collecting debts from it also remains among our priorities. However, there is one noteworthy detail. We do not support the idea of severely punishing and weakening Germany. This will undermine the balance of power and the restoration of the old order.

Consequently, to summarize, gentlemen, ending the war swiftly is the British prime minister’s top priority. We do not want to increase the economic loss any further or to force our population to suffer any longer. We want to avoid an anti-Bolshevik war… and if you still demand from Britain to engage in this war, I will ask but one question (the actor playing Britain turns around to face the map): How many countries are ready to send troops to Russia after the Great War?

Long silence.

Italy: In 1915, we signed an agreement in London. Based on this deal, Italy was expected to become involved in the Great War, receiving in return concrete territories. We want this agreement to be fulfilled without compromises!

America: Our representative is on his way. Please wait a little.

Darkness once again envelops the middle of the stage. Again, the light is only on Noe Zhordania.

Noe Zhordania: Even in the years preceding our Declaration of Independence, Georgia was in contact with only European Socialist groups. Consequently, the country had no foreign relations experience and ties in Europe. Lack of information about Georgia and the Caucasus also proved to be problematic at the Paris Peace Conference.

Another light comes on to put the spotlight on Karlo Chkheidze standing next to Noe Zhordania onstage.

Karlo Chkheidze: It took our delegation over a month to obtain travel permits from Istanbul to Paris. Previously, we always conducted affairs with Europe through Russia or Turkey. What made the situation even worse was that fellow delegate Irakli Tsereteli and myself were members of the provisional government established after the revolution in Russia. As a result, everyone looked at us with suspicion. We were forced to prove that we were not spying for the Bolsheviks or the Kemalists, that we were independent figures, and that our country was equally independent. By no stretch, we as a state and nation, with our past and present, are absolutely unknown in Europe.

The lights come on in the middle of the stage; enter the President of the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson, with two sheets of paper in hand.

Woodrow Wilson: These 14 points must become the foundation of a new order. The world must be grounded in principles, not power, in law, not interests. This will be a fundamental change in the behaviour of the Great Powers. We must grant to nations their self-determination. And the guarantor of new borders stemming from this right must be the League of Nations, a union of states.

The other countries are looking at Woodrow Wilson in confusion. A woman enters the stage. She approaches Georgia and tucks the loose ends of Georgia’s shirt into their pants. All keep silent for a while. As a sign of bewilderment, they shake their heads and everything starts over again:

France: Germany must be punished severely. Our territories of Alsace–Lorraine must be reclaimed from it. And we must be compensated monetarily for war-related damages. At the same time….

The voices of the characters fade away. They continue talking to one another.


Act 2: The League of Nations (Geneva)


Narrator: At first, several committees were established under the League of Nations. The Fifth Committee was in charge of admitting new members. Subcommittees were also established, each assigned to studying the situation in one particular country. Reports were developed and discussed at the plenary sessions of the League of Nations, and final decisions were made on admitting concrete countries based on the following criteria:

  1. Has the applicant country been recognized de facto or de jure? If so, by which countries?
  2. How stable is the applicant country’s government, and have its frontiers been defined?
  3. What is the area of the country, and how many people live in its territory?
  4. Has its governance been absolute?
  5. What is the past of the country like, including acts and guarantees given to other parties?

At the plenary session that took place from November 15 to December 20, 1920, recommendations provided by subcommittees were reviewed before delivering the final decisions.

President of the Assembly

In line with our agenda, we now must review applications submitted by various countries. I call on the chairmen of the committee and subcommittees.

On the right side of the stage the light comes on revealing Noe Zhordania and Karlo Chkheidze standing amidst other people. Loud remarks are heard:

“It’s starting, people. It’s starting. Come.”

“Quiet! Let me listen.”

“I can’t! I just can’t watch this!”

Because of the commotion among the audience, we cannot hear what is happening in the beginning of the meeting. The Chairman of the Fifth Committee is first to deliver a speech. Next, Persia’s representative raises his hand.


The representative of Persia wishes to give a speech. Please be as brief as possible, so that we may proceed reviewing the applications of concrete countries in a timely manner.


Emir Zoka-ed-Dowleh (Persia)

At last, it’s time to admit new countries into the League of Nations.


This illustrious institution was born after a great catastrophe, which affected all the peoples of the world, directly or indirectly. In order to hasten the reestablishment of a stable equilibrium in the human community, all bodies which compose the human race must be represented in the League of Nations.


Based on the Covenant of the League of Nations, I demand that the requests for admission of all states possessing defined frontiers and stable governments, and inspired by democratic ideals, should be accepted.


The admission of these states will consolidate their political existence and protect them against the dangers which threaten them. It is to be feared that, if we refuse to admit certain states into the League of Nations, another organization may be founded in America or Russia, and this would be a real misfortune. On the contrary, I hope that the League of Nations, whose seat is at Geneva, will assemble all the nations without exception.




During this morning’s meeting, the assembly did not grant Armenia’s request for admission. On the other hand, it sent back to the committee the proposals which were put before it regarding the representation of Armenia on the technical organizations.


Today we must discuss the requests of Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and as some members have shown a desire to have a general discussion on the Baltic States, I propose that the discussion should be opened at once on the requests for admission which have been made to us by the three Baltic States. When the Assembly has taken a decision on these three requests, we will move on to consider the request of Georgia.


I call on M. Otavio, the Rapporteur of the Committee.


Otavio (Brazil)

The committee has examined the request of these three Baltic States for admission with the greatest possible sympathy. For many years they formed part of Tsarist Russia, but after the revolution they broke away and made great efforts to regain their ancient national unity. They are states which have territories amply sufficient for them, with a large population, and they have set up governments based on liberal and democratic principles, which shows clearly their sincere intention to fulfil their international engagements.


Nevertheless, having regard to the state of the world as it is at present, and in particular to the domestic issues of the Baltic States, we have come to the following conclusions:


  • (a) Circumstances are such as to preclude the Assembly from arriving at a definite decision.
  • (b) Pending the subsequent decisions of the Assembly, these States may participate in such technical organizations as the League of Nations.


Restrepo (Colombia)

The representative of Brazil, Mr. Otavio, is a man whose eminence and whose rectitude causes me to respect him, especially, the more so as he comes from a neighbouring state, so that I may refer to him as my distinguished compatriot. He has pointed out, with regard to the Baltic States, that there are no legal reasons which forbid their admission.


This morning I was forced regretfully to vote against Armenia, because Armenia does not satisfy the legal conditions necessary for the formation of a state, a dominion, or a colony possessing a free government. We have been informed that Armenia’s western part has unfortunately been invaded by the Kemalists—the last remnants of that miserable force known as the Turkish Army—and that her territory is also invaded by Bolshevists. These two sides are in fact two accomplices in crime.


The Bolsheviks and the Turks have, indeed, come to an understanding, and have signed a peace which is not the kind of peace which we would desire to see concluded by the region.

We want Armenia to be free. A new state which comes before us suffering under the above conditions, which has no frontiers, no suitable government, and which is not governed freely, is not a legal state. We have, therefore, sufficient reason to refuse to admit her. We hope that this country will soon revive under the warm sun of liberty, to be admitted to the League of Nations later.


Regarding the Baltic States and Georgia, the case here is different.



Allow me to remind you that your ten minutes are about to expire.


Restrepo (Colombia)

If so, I will not continue to speak.



I interrupted you, sir, just to allow you to summarize your address, which the assembly will shortly hear with pleasure.


I call on Mr. Chagas.


Chagas (Portugal)

In light of the explanation provided by Mr. Otavio, we can assert clearly that the Baltic States meet every criteria defined in the Covenant of the League of Nations. Consequently, I have no argument in favour of denying them their requests. These states ask us to guarantee their existence, but we seem to be condemning them to death—after all, Bolshevik Russia is their next-door neighbour.


In light of the foregoing, in refusing admission on these grounds, we shall arrive at a somewhat paradoxical conclusion. It follows that we deny them admission to the League of Nations on the pretext that their existence may be put in danger. If that were the reason for our refusal, that same reason could be urged with reference to any other constituted state whose existence may one day be menaced.


One of the only fruitful results of the collapse of the Russian Empire was the setting up of the new democracies who are knocking at our door asking for admission to this community

of Nations. To refuse the seal of our approval for which they ask us is to countenance in the future a survival of political ideals, and perhaps to encourage secret ambitions, not the agreement enshrined in the Covenant of the League of Nations.


In order that the League of Nations may go forward successfully, its first steps must be made courageously, while it seems to be capitulating from the very outset.


Jonnesco      (Romania)

Romania desires that there should be not the slightest ambiguity regarding her vote and

motives. It is clear to all that our country has gained her national unity by the right of peoples to self-determination, for which Romania has enormous respect. She is therefore ready to the accession of the new Baltic and Caucasian states to the League of Nations.


If Romania does not vote for the immediate admission of these countries into the League of Nations, it is because she wishes to draw a distinction between nations and states. Since the Baltic and Caucasian states do not fulfil the conditions laid down by the Covenant of the League of Nations, Romania considers that she cannot vote for the admission of these states. But on the day on which they fulfil these conditions she will be the first to vote in their favour.


Paderewski (Poland)

Several small nations have asked to be admitted as members of the League of Nations. Before we set out to discuss concrete states, I would like to ask one question. What are small nations? Are they merely obscure, insignificant tribes, are they merely racial unities, small in numbers, of no importance, to whom the Great Powers of the world should show either condescension or pity? Gentlemen, the answer is in the negative. Where a nation exists, there also exists an ideal, and there exists a mission to be carried out and a history. In this respect small nations are our equals, our friends, our sisters.


I need not give you examples. If I speak of this, it is in order to point out that we must be prudent when we pass judgment on small nations, because we never know what they may be able to give us.


Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, our enemy of today and I hope our friend of tomorrow, the young and populous Ukraine, the ancient Georgia, the newly-created Azerbaijan, and that age-long martyred nation, sorrowful Armenia. They stretch out to you their hands, emaciated and bearing still the marks of the heavy shackles which the Great War has broken. They come with the flame of hope in their eyes which long years of slavery has not extinguished. They ask to become humble participants in that great boon of freedom which the triumph of the Allies has offered to peoples risen from the dead. They have suffered much; that suffering is not yet ended. They have striven much; that strife is not yet ended… Their hope still endures. The heart of Poland is with those who suffer, those who strive, those who hope, and she desires to reply by an unhesitating affirmative to the question which is before her. (Applause.)


But the grateful heart of Poland is also, and above all, with those who have so generously supported and aided her over the past few years. Our country knows too well to whom she owes her independence not to realize her responsibility in this matter, also knowing well that she should be grateful for it. But it seems that the countries who have supported Poland believe that the time to admit these states has not yet come. Naturally, we respect their decision, though it does not mean that we should suppress our opinion and give in to anyone. Therefore, gentlemen, Poland abstains from voting, at the same time expressing sincere and warm hopes that the benefactors of my country may be able to reverse their decision, to do all that is possible to proclaim once and for all liberty to all those small nations, whomsoever they may be, both to our enemies and to our friends. It is thus that amidst the darkness that overspreads our European civilization the League of Nations will appear as the dawn of a new order. (Loud applause.)


Branting (Sweden)

At this moment when the general situation is so confused, when neither Estonia, Latvia, nor Lithuania have as yet been recognized by any of the Great Powers, it would be a major risk which we could not lightly incur, to admit into the League of Nations states, which by their geographical situation, are unfortunately open to attacks from a power whose intentions no one can measure, one which perhaps will one day be transformed into a conquering power menacing the freedom of Europe.


Viviani (France)

Gentlemen, I will be brief in formulating my opinion. I only need to remind you about the Covenant of the League of Nations to this end. As you know, under the terms of Article 10, we are obligated to engage in military action whenever one of us is in danger. Simply put, this means that both small and large countries should be able to dispatch troops in case of war. This fact absolutely must be taken into account when discussing the immediate admission of newly established small nations.



In line with the agenda, now we shall vote on the admission of Estonia, and then continue our discussions.


32 states have voted

5 states for admission

27 states against admission

10 states abstained.



Now, gentlemen, I propose that we should vote in succession on the request of Latvia and that of Lithuania, postponing that of Georgia for the moment.


Restrepo (Colombia)

I should like to know, sir, whether, before these votes are taken, I am allowed to continue my speech.



Certainly, Mr. Restrepo, you have the right to do so.


Restrepo (Colombia)

Mr. President, and gentlemen, we have all agreed that the conditions regarding Latvia, Lithuania, and Georgia are alike.


The Fifth Committee recognizes that Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia fulfil all the conditions laid down by the Covenant of the League of Nations for the admission of a state to the League of Nations. This is what the text reads: “The Committee considers that, without adding a new condition of admission to those desired in Article 1 of the Covenant of the League of Nations....”


It is clearly said: “without adding a new condition”.


If the Baltic States and Georgia have fulfilled all the conditions laid down by the League of Nations, but other conditions should also be considered, why impose a new practical condition for bringing up new arguments against them? Moreover, the Committee’s report reads clearly: “That its request for admission has been examined with sympathy, but that the circumstances are such as to preclude the Assembly from arriving at a definite decision”. We must take heed of the word circumstance in this report. It puts the League of Nations, which has hardly been in existence a year, in an undignified position. Speaking of circumstances seems to me to be a violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations and, therefore, of international law. Nonetheless, we can discuss this as well. What circumstances do we mean? That the Baltic States and Georgia are threatened by the Bolshevik government? But the Bolshevik government was the first to recognize these states! Now they are threatening it themselves, while we are waiting for this monster to develop, and it is hoped that it will succeed in establishing itself as a government which respects the rights of other nations. I believe that it is the duty of the League of Nations to come to the help of all these States under Article 10. Otherwise, the League of Nations will be defeated before it steps into the geopolitical stage, and this will be our and great nations’ major failure against Bolshevism. (Applause)



I believe it is time to vote.


A total of 29 states voted on the request of Latvia to be admitted into the League of Nations


5 states for admission

24 states against admission

13 states abstained.


A total of 28 states voted on the request of Lithuania to be admitted into the League of Nations


5 states for admission

23 states against admission

14 states abstained.



We now pass to the request of Georgia for admission.


Nansen (Norway)

Greetings, gentlemen! As Senior Secretary of the Fifth Commission and rapporteur on Georgia, I venture to take up the proposition of the minority, which is in favour of admitting Georgia as a member of the League of Nations.


In discussions on Georgia, it was unclear to most participants where its state frontiers were definitively settled. But to me personally this issue is absolutely clear. Georgia is separated from Russia by a natural frontier, the Caucasus, which can be fairly easily seen and defended. It is quite true the frontiers of Azerbaijan and Armenia are for obvious reasons not yet settled, but I cannot admit that this should be any danger to Georgia.


But I think there are other and very strong reasons for admitting Georgia into the League of Nations. For one thing, Georgia, or the Georgian nation, has been an independent nation for many, many years in history. It is an old nation that was only united with Russia during the last century, and is now again independent, so on that ground there is no reason for us to reject her admission into the League of Nations.


At the same time, the geographical location of Georgia is quite different from that of the Baltic States. Georgia is not a state between Russia and the Black Sea. Russia does not need to secure access to the sea. Consequently, her interest in Georgia is unlikely be as keen.


In addition, I must say that, if we really mean anything by the words which we have so often repeated that we are anxious to help Armenia, it is obvious, without it being necessary to explain any further, that supporting Georgia would be the first step toward restoring justice in the region. Let me remind you, gentlemen, that Bolshevism dominates this part of the world, and if we wish to fight Bolshevism, we ought to have no hesitation and no doubt with regard to admitting Georgia into the League of Nations. It will be the first step towards the fight. Protecting Georgia from Bolshevism is our biggest mission in the eastern part of the world.


Of course, any country may come into danger, and we might have obligations to engage in military action. By admitting Georgia into the League of Nations, however, we will protect her from the danger of invasion. At the same time, this is a magnificent opportunity for us to show that we wish to carry out the League of Nations’ mission to protect small nations. Here is a splendid small nation which asks for admission, and I hope that this assembly will not deny her in her desire.


Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa)

I do not want to detain you gentlemen for more than a few moments, but I would like to support what my friend Mr. Nansen has just said so well. I will not repeat his arguments. I will only add a small detail. If we consider the issue of admittance to the League of Nations in light of Article 10, and say that engaging in military action often causes problems, it seems odd that we remember this circumstance only now. You are asking us: “Are you ready to fight to save these small nations?” You know what, I am not to assist those nations either that we admitted without any problem to the League of Nations yesterday. South Africa would not be prepared to send a single force to protect Bulgaria or to protect Austria or to protect Luxemburg or to protect Costa Rica, yet we have admitted those states. It follows that, in particular cases, we are dodging our responsibilities, in doing which we weaken the League of Nations instead of empowering it, and we put its future in danger. These small nations have every right to be free, and we cannot deny them this.


Fisher (Britain)

Mr. President, I trust that despite the two eloquent and attractive speeches to which we have just listened with so much pleasure, the Assembly will adhere to the report of the Committee. This is necessary, because the Committee examined the claims of these states with the greatest attention and they came to the conclusion that there was no substantial or adequate reason for discriminating between the case of Georgia and the case of the Baltic States. Consequently, I see no substantial or adequate argument why this nation should be treated differently from the Baltic States. It is true, indeed, that Georgia has a longer and older and more picturesque history. It is true that she possesses a stronger natural frontier separating it from Russia. It is true that Georgia is nearer Armenia… Mr. Nansen advanced no claim on behalf of Georgia which is not substantially accurate in point of fact. But nothing that he has said and nothing which Lord Robert Cecil has said invalidates the strength of the argument which was put before the Assembly in the brilliant speech of Mr. Viviani. If we treat the League of Nations seriously, we must treat the covenant seriously, and if we treat the covenant seriously, we must treat our obligations under the tenth article of the covenant seriously. It is because I do treat the covenant seriously that I earnestly ask the delegates in this Assembly to consider, when they are voting on the admission of a new state, whether they are prepared to take

the responsibility and come to the assistance of that state against Russia in the hour of need. We must vote not as sentimentalists but as responsible statesmen.


Of course, I am not saying that we should deny Georgia. But what does the Committee advise? It advises adjournment. We shall be here in ten months’ time. The case of Georgia may then be reconsidered. The League is yet young. We are feeling our feet. It is well not to undertake risks, to assume responsibilities which we may feel ourselves inadequate to discharge. Is it well to make a promise that we cannot fulfil? It may be said, of course, that this is carrying the argument too far; but I do venture to appeal to my colleagues to ask themselves whether there is any serious reason for discriminating between the case of Georgia and the case of the three Baltic States which we have already considered. I cannot myself find such a reason. In consequence I cannot, in spite of all my sympathy, adhere to the views which have been put before us by Mr. Nansen and Lord Robert Cecil.


Nansen (Norway)

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the representative of Britain in the words which he has just uttered. I am afraid that if that should be the principle when we are considering the admission of new countries, we shall not be able to admit any country.


I see greater danger in refusing the admission of Georgia than in admitting her. I think that there is danger that this small nation, seeing no help from the League of Nations, may be pressed into the arms of an unfriendly country. In this case, we should try our best to empower military forces in that part of the world. But it is also true that we weaken the League of Nations by refusing to admit nations when there is no good reason to do so.


A total of 23 states voted on the request of Georgia for admission into the League of Nations


10 states for admission

13 states against admission

19 states abstained.


The light goes off in the discussion area. Only the voice of the narrator is heard over the darkened stage.



The League of Nations was designed as an institution cementing the decrees of the Paris Peace Conference and establishing a new order. Dissenting aspirations, however, eventually affected this process: Britain grew disinterested in the Caucasus after Azerbaijan found herself in the hands of the Bolsheviks, thereby denying Britain access to the oil fields. Consequently, Britain no longer had any use for Georgia, which had neither strong foreign policy nor close ties or professional diplomats.


At the Plenary Session of the League of Nations, Britain and France constantly referred to the organization’s weakness and young age. With the US not being a member, the two were considered the most powerful forces in the League of Nations. Accordingly, in the case of the enactment of Article 10, Britain and France would be expected to assume the lion’s share of the burden, while every country around Bolshevik Russia was in danger. Georgia’s geographic location proved decisive in many ways. Weakened empires did not want to assume extra responsibility, though the Bolshevik government, with its Red Army, was not as strong by 1920. After the invasion of Azerbaijan, this became especially clear in the first clashes between Georgia and the Red Army. The Bolshevik army failed to advance, something that is hard to believe that Britain was not aware of.


Karlo Chkheidze

Britain was making trade deals with the Bolsheviks!


Noe Zhordania

This was a conspiracy of Bolshevik and bourgeois imperialism against a free nation.


Karlo Chkheidze

According to the prime minister of France, their government did not object to private persons engaging in trade with Soviet Russia. Those aware of France’s previous position on this issue, must admit that this statement is overly sympathetic.


Must be recognized!


Must be recognized!


The light comes back over the area of the countries.



We have fought. Over the past two centuries, Germany has defeated and humiliated us twice, even taking over Paris to sign an agreement on the seizure of our territories.


France calmly repeats:


We have fought. We have won. We have shed blood. We cannot bleed anymore.

We have fought. We have won. We have shed blood. We cannot bleed anymore.

We have fought. We have won. We have shed blood. We cannot bleed anymore.


The light is over the right side.


Karlo Chkheidze

We know that the government of Britain is trying hard to restore trade with Russia.


British Empire    

After the war, we promised our people to develop the economy and stop bloodshed. We cannot break our word.


Karlo Chkheidze

Notably, on this issue the government of Britain has enjoyed solidarity not only from the country’s financial circles, but also from the public at large. The reason lies in the fact that British industry needs Russia, a country rich in raw materials, just like Soviet Russia needs British industrial goods. The Bolsheviks take this matter with all seriousness—this is the only way to solve Russia’s problem in line with the demands of international affairs. Needless to say, Russia’s Bolsheviks need adequate transformation to fulfil this plan, because foreign capital cannot enter today’s Russia, and even if it does, it will not yield fruit. As a consequence, the Bolsheviks are facing a dilemma: either continue its policy of conquest or come to an agreement with Europe and launch creative work. I am confident that the Bolsheviks are ready…


Noe Zhordania

At the session of the League of Nations, we were promised to return to our issue in ten months’ time. About two months after the session, the Red Army marched into Tbilisi.


Noe Zhordania proceeds toward the centre of the stage where the other countries are standing. He gradually raises his voice:


This was a conspiracy of Bolshevik and bourgeois imperialism against a free nation!

This was a conspiracy of Bolshevik and bourgeois imperialism against a free nation!


Noe Zhordania proceeds toward the centre of the stage where the other countries are standing. Gradually, the light comes over the centre of the stage. The light disappears to the right side of the stage. France puts her arm around Zhordania’s shoulder and leads him offstage. Zhordania looks back but does not resist. Letters fall out of his pocket. John Cale’s song Paris 1919 comes on. Enter a woman who tidies up Georgia’s shirt collar, lifts Georgia’s chin, makes her stand straight, and exits. To the sounds of the refrain “you are a ghost”, all actors rush toward the wings and bring out white plastic bags, running back onstage in turns and wrapping the bags around Georgia’s body. The song ends, and the lights turn off. A bewildered Georgia is as pale as a ghost.


(The End.)



ეს სტატია მხოლოდ გამომწერებისთვისაა. შეიძინე შენთვის სასურველი პაკეტი

With your help we will be able to create even more high quality material Subscribe