|
THE GEORGIAN TIMES: NEW LEADERS EMERGING ON WORLD SCENE - MORE CHANCES OR CHALLENGES FOR GEORGIA?
The international community is seeing the emergence of new players on the global political scene. How will the balance of power change after new leaders take the reins in France, England, Turkey and in Russia in 2008? GT talked to Davit Aprasidze, Associate Professor at Ilia Chavchavadze State University of Tbilisi.
Russia
Russia is due to hold presidential elections in 2008. Aprasidze is speaking whether Georgia should expect change of Putin’s government and his policy.
Had you raised the issue when Putin came to power, the answer would have been that Putin’s arrival would not change anything. But Putin has still changed something. In this case I will agree with those analysts who say that it is really difficult to make forecasts. I think the 2008 elections are not going to bring any substantial change since the focus will be on maintaining the existing balance of power, for instance, in relations with democratic institutions. As for Russia’s attitude towards Georgia, I do not think it can get worse. The main problem is going to be the pre-election period. Georgia is a good theme to play with in Russia’s politics, and you can score political points easily without spending much capital. Therefore, I think during pre-election campaigning the political forces of Russia will actively use the Georgian theme. As the elections come closer, relations between Georgia and Russia will strain further.
Europe
Old and influential Europe will see new leaders at the helm of their countries at the beginning of May. The May 6 elections will reveal the next president of France, whether it is Nicolas Sarkozy the head of centre-right party UMP, or Marie-Ségolène Royal from the Socialist party. The UK is also bracing for the change of power. Will new leaders change Europe’s foreign policy track?
With the new leaders assuming power in France and England, we might expect some changes in the attitude towards the United States. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, for instance, has a different approach to Euro-Atlantic ties. As for Britain, which has always been closer to the U.S. than any other European country, I do not expect any serious change. In general, the key points of disagreement between the U.S. and Europe [I do not imply economic relations] are the fight against terrorism, the understanding of hegemony, and relations with Russia. As to how to fight terrorism, even the U.S. is changing its position and starting to appreciate the importance of ‘soft power’ methods. Europeans, on the contrary, begin to admit that keeping their distance from the war is not the right approach. Their attitudes are going to get closer around this point and it does not mater what the names of the leaders will be.
Concerning hegemony, Europeans have come to realize that the U.S. is a hegemonic power in the security field while Europe remains at the top in social and economic fields. This means that the crisis has been surmounted. We must expect more harmony between Europe and the U.S. in the immediate future.
England or other European countries might have had an exceptional relationship with Russia in the 19th or 20th centuries, but today we cannot say that these countries are connected with Russia. Roughly speaking, if we consider which is the best choice for Europe – Russia or the U.S. – it is clear that the U.S. is more important than cooperation with Russia in gas sector. Europe is making an effort to get rid of Russia and is looking for alternative ways. Yet, it is not an easy job to make a final decision – either for New or Old Europe.
As to Europe’s outlook on the enlargement, Europe is not ready for this, in the first place, for financial reasons. First, it has to digest all these countries. I have one article asking whether Georgia would become the first country that will join NATO without any prospect of joining the E.U. originally; these two issues were discussed as a single question. However, I would not dramatize the situation if we are going to join NATO earlier than the E.U. Georgia’s NATO membership, as even German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has said, is a matter of time. As to Georgia’s E.U. membership, there are unfortunately no talks in Europe. To sum up, the change of leaders in Europe will not change attitudes towards Georgia.
Turkey
Foreign Minister of Turkey Abdulah Giul was nominated for the candidate of President of Turkey. He enjoys strong support from the military that play important role in the political life of Turkey. The course which the new pro-Islamist leader will choose is going to determine the security of the region, including Georgia which is a strategic ally of Turkey.
Abdulah Giul has in fact taken power. The military, which counts for much in the political life of Turkey, supported him. That is, we can already consider him the new leader of Turkey. Maybe I am an optimist, but I do not think his rise to power is going to change anything in the region or that it will pose new challenges to Georgia. The current events unfolding in Turkey suggest that no new players have appeared on the scene.
Giul was Minister of Foreign Affairs under Erdogan, but during his tenure as the minister he never raised an issue about severing relations with the Christian world. Although the Islamists are now taking the whole vertical [power structure] in the executive governance, this party is still far from the radical Islamist parties of the 60s and 70s, which really reduces the threat of Islamist [radicalism] in this country.
It is interesting to see how Turkey’s interests in the energy field are aligning with those of Russia. Turkey dominates the Black Sea region, but Bulgaria and Romania are members of NATO, and that is important. Ukraine and Georgia have real chances of joining NATO, [and if they do] NATO and not Turkey is going to become a leader in Black Sea basin. The increasing role of NATO has reduced the influence of Russia. This is where the interests of Turkey and Russia coincide – they do not want to see a new player appear on the Black Sea basin. I am not saying that a strategic alliance will be created between Turkey and Russia but Turkey, so to say, is cautious and moderate in developing the system of energy corridors and it is equally careful and moderate in the issues of NATO membership. That is, there are no signs of the type support and enthusiasm which we felt during the inception of the BTC pipeline project at the end of the 1990s. Nonetheless, I want to stress once again that this is not the issue which is going to re-shape the strategic priorities of Turkey. These are just aspects which can explain Turkey’s low-key position in NATO and energy diversification issues.
Increasing Military Presence in Iraq
Georgia recently announced its intention to double their military contingent in Iraq, while many other countries are poised to withdraw their troops from the territory. Some question if this is the wise decision.
If we look at the issue from the American perspective, it would be appropriate to cite one general’s statement – we can admit that the deployment of coalition forces in Iraq was a mistake, but a bigger mistake would be if we withdrew right now. The congress was insisting that we pull out by 2008. But before troops withdraw from Iraq, local institutions should be strengthened so that they can take the control over the country. At least, hasty withdrawal would create a gap, and no one argues about this even in the U.S. The year 2008 will be decisive. The argument in Congress was sparked over the increase in spending in Iraq and the exact pull-out date. Bush’s position is logical—suggesting that there is no practice of planning in such issues, since one must not tell his rival, ‘stand up until the end of the April 2008 and then I will pull out.’ This is why the U.S. Administration is doing well in saying it will withdraw gradually.
As for motivation, when I say that international security is not just my business or your business, but that of all of ours, Georgia’s argument becomes more substantial. Georgia is no longer a consumer but a producer of security, and we have more grounds to say ‘I am going to be a full member of NATO community.’ Several German experts used to downplay the potential role of countries like Georgia in NATO. Now, when Germany refuses to send its troops to Iraq in consideration of the domestic political situation there, you can tell them: ‘Here, I am a country that makes sacrifices.’ Summing up, this is going to increase the credibility and the role of Georgia in the international arena. This will substantiate the U.S.’s arguments to support Georgia’s NATO membership, as it is sending so many people to Iraq and is able to contribute to international security.
It is difficult to admit, but we have to admit that the army trained in the war is going to be better. That is, the 2 000 people who will rotate [once in six months] is going to be a serious force. Add to that the increased budget for defense and we can say that this will help increase Georgia’s security and indirectly solve the conflicts.
Deployment of U.S. Radar System in the Caucasus
Georgian government’s stance is that the installation of radars in the Caucasus would place the region in some kind of security system and increase the security guarantees.
I would repeat [Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs] Matthew Bryza’s evaluation. He said that there is no plan about the installation of the U.S. radar system in the Caucasus or in Georgia at this stage. Nothing could be ruled out in the long run, but the possibility is not realistic at the time. At least, if the radar defense system is deployed in Georgia, our country will benefit a lot in terms of security guarantees. But risks are in place even without this issue. Is it not enough to have 2000 thousand servicemen along the Iranian border? We are in the spotlight anyway. It is better to be engaged in a defense system which would increase our security guarantees.
Well, Russia is about to become more aggressive. But what is the choice for Russia? Do you think it will strike the U.S radar system? So this system will guide us to a safer environment, since an attack on the radar system would not make any sense for a potential enemy. Secondly, when Georgia has a NATO flag flying above its soil, yes Russia will get more hostile but will be left with no alternative.
Nino Edilashvili
“The Georgian Times”, May 7, 2007
|
