Bill Overview
Title: Republic of Georgia Sovereignty Act
Description: This bill prohibits any federal agency from taking any action that implies recognition of the sovereignty claims of South Ossetia or Abkhazia within Georgia, or any other closely-related successor entities.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: People living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia
Estimated Size: 1000
- The bill pertains to South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions, which are internationally recognized as part of Georgia, affecting the people living in these regions.
- There are approximately 53 million people living in the geographical Caucasus region.
- The population of Georgia is approximately 3.7 million, including South Ossetia (~53,000) and Abkhazia (~245,000).
- The bill directly impacts policies and international relations regarding these regions.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly affects people directly involved with or interested in US foreign policy regarding Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, such as policy analysts, diplomats, and potentially a small number of Georgian Americans.
- Given the limited direct impact on the US population and the budget constraints, there will be minimal real-world changes for most Americans.
- The cost of executing such a targeted foreign policy act is low initially but could involve larger investments in diplomatic and international engagement over time.
- Simulated interviews should include a mix of people: those directly working on US foreign policy, Georgian Americans with ties to the region, and individuals interested in global politics.
Simulated Interviews
Foreign Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a strong reinforcement of US foreign policy alignment with international law.
- It does not change the ground realities but is significant symbolically.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Journalist (New York, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy aligns with US historical stance on these disputed regions.
- It makes some news but doesn't have a huge impact on day-to-day life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Business Owner (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the US taking a clear stance on this issue given my heritage.
- It gives a form of diplomatic backing that is reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Understanding US foreign policy better through acts like these is educational.
- While it doesn't affect me directly, it shapes the field I am entering.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Economist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a predictable assertion for economic analysts focusing on regional stability.
- It doesn't change economic conditions immediately but signals US commitments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't follow foreign policy much, so this policy doesn't seem important to me.
- My daily life remains unchanged.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as an important policy to maintain international norms and support oppressed communities.
- Still, it doesn't address the immediate humanitarian issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Diplomat (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy was expected as a continuation of US stance on the territorial integrity of Georgia.
- It upholds principles I supported during my service.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
International NGO Worker (Boston, MA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully while reaffirming territorial sovereignty.
- It doesn't change the ground situation but is a positive affirmation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired (Denver, CO)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's important for the US to maintain international solidarity on issues like this.
- Doesn't affect me directly, but it's noteworthy for global politics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 2: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 3: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 5: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 10: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 100: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Key Considerations
- The policy focuses on international diplomatic stances rather than direct economic or social impacts.
- Legal compliance and administrative reviews by federal agencies are minor cost factors.
- Effects on U.S. citizens are mainly relevant to diplomatic staff and foreign relations workers.