|
GEORGIA’S WAY TO NATO STREAMLINED
ZAAL ANJAPARIDZE,
Political analyst, Tbilisi
NATO’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has unintentionally given rise to the most active during the recent years public discussion in Georgia concerning potential advantages and disadvantages of the country’s anticipated NATO membership. On February 10, de Hoop Scheffer spoke at the international security conference in Munich and diplomatically said that in 2009 he would like to see “us coming closer to honoring the ambitions of Ukraine and Georgia”.
However, several weeks before de Hoop Scheffer’s address, the Georgian opposition party “National Forum”, perhaps, for the first time publicly raised several unpleasant issues on the future of Georgia’s membership in NATO. In the main, the issues concerned the recovery of Georgia’s territorial integrity after it joins NATO. These considerations came about after de Hoop Scheffer and the other high-ranking officials of NATO had hinted that Georgia could become a member of NATO before the territorial problems were solved and that NATO was unlikely to address those problems.
Members of the “National Forum” and some other opposition parties fear that Georgia may join NATO without Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thus losing those territories for good. Georgian authorities have not clearly answered the point-blank question whether NATO will help Georgia regain its territorial integrity. Instead, the “witch-hunt” campaign was launched. The ruling party representatives declared those doubting the necessity for Georgia to join NATO “state betrayers” and “Russia’s agents”. They forced the leading political parties to prove their loyalty and openly express their position on NATO. Virtually all of the leading parties supported that. The NATO Secretary General’s statement made the issue still more angled and it was debated practically by all local mass media.
Careful diplomatic wordings of the NATO officials concerning Georgia’s joining the Alliance are always differently interpreted by the Georgian authorities and opposition. Such differences also occurred after NATO summit in Riga where Georgia had been instructed on how to develop democracy, which is required for the country’s membership in NATO. The Georgian government represented this as a real breakthrough, while the opposition and the majority of the experts regard it as just another “home assignment”. A similar situation is emerging with the above mentioned statement made by Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. The authorities call it “historic” and say that the date of admission has been already determined.
Against the background of the pro-NATO euphoria, Moscow told Tbilisi that it would like to see Georgia as a neutral state. It is quite evident that Georgia’s joining NATO would drastically change the military-strategic and political situation in the region not in favor of Russia. The U.S. President George Bush, who stated that his country would help Georgia move along the path to NATO, is likely to be as good as his word. The U.S. Senate is going to allocate considerable funds for that purpose. No doubt, the USA will do its best to make Georgia a member of the North Atlantic Alliance.
However, Georgia continues to live under the Sword of Damocles (that is the problem of breakaway areas), the more so as the situation with Kosovo keeps changing. If to take into consideration, on the one hand, Russia’s influence on settlement of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and on the other hand, hesitant position of NATO that does not wish to be involved in a new conflict, Georgia will have scope for political maneuver, or simply speaking, the political haggling with both NATO and Russia. NATO needs Georgia because of its unique geostrategic location. Apart from purely military aspects, the international projects on load and energy transit through Georgia to Europe should be safeguarded better than it is done now.
If to take into account the fact that Georgia’s regions, densely inhabited by Armenian and Azerbaijani ethnic minorities, are acquiring the secessionist trends fed by the other countries, Georgia’s joining NATO is to stop those trends.
Georgia’s joining NATO should lead to the full withdrawal of the Russian troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia (de jure they are considered to be Georgia’s entities), which may be used to reestablish Georgia’s jurisdiction in those regions. The lack of Russia’s military support and the prospect of being integrated into Europe with broad autonomy within Georgia can theoretically impel separatists to give up the current irreconcilable positions. However, we can’t know how Russia will behave in that case. It may confront NATO and refuse to withdraw its forces or prefer to obtain some concessions from the West under the face saving formula.
But Tbilisi may chose an alternative way, i.e. negotiations with Moscow about the exchange of neutrality for the help in restoration of territorial integrity. Although, taking into consideration the bitter historical experience and the current situation, this opportunity appears very improbable. For all that, one should not disregard it.
As the saying goes, every cloud has a silver lining. The public debates that started in Georgia on such a burning issue as joining NATO, are necessary for the country to make a deliberate and legitimate choice.
February 20, 2007
|
