|
GEORGIA – NATO: PROSPECTS FOR COOPERATION
MERAB PACHULIA,
Director of the Tbilisi-based Georgian Opinion Research Business International – GORBI
Eurasian Home: “How far can the Georgian leadership go in its collaboration with NATO, not ruling out the possibility of deploying NATO troops in the country?”
Ambitions of the Georgian authorities to develop cooperation with NATO are largely supported by the population. There is a consensus on the benefits that the country could receive after acquiring membership of the Alliance, though contradictions remain. But Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili and the key officials have stated several times that NATO membership does not necessarily means locating NATO troops on Georgian territory. However, this argument is not convincing for NATO bashers outside the country. Moreover, there are many homegrown opponents in Georgia, who admit that NATO really needs Georgia but doubt if the latter needs NATO.
Some pundits believe Russia could digest Georgia’s NATO membership (i.e. the fact that NATO may, sooner or later, end up on its door step). But Russians will not accept the theoretical possibility of Turkey, its centuries-old rival for domination in the region, becoming some 300 kilometers closer to the Russian borders via possible heavy military presence in Georgia.
Georgian authorities explain all sorts of domestic problems by the lack of territorial integrity and Russia’s constant meddling in the conflict zones. This becomes a convenient distraction from more pressuring problems that an average citizen has to face (violations of human rights, low minimum living wages and ever-increasing inflation).
We can expect that NATO will moderate Georgia’s ambitions until it clears up its plan of actions, and gets away from allegations that everything is well in the country, and proves it in fact.
In this logic NATO could serve as a useful instrument for the Georgian state. For in order to meet NATO standards Georgia’s authorities will have to do much more than declare their readiness to send volunteer troops to NATO mission in Afghanistan as a down payment for membership.
Eurasian Home: “To what extent do Georgians support NATO membership?”
After the recent expansion of the EU, which now includes a part of once Soviet territory, the majority of the new member states quickly welcomed NATO membership. Although not a member of the EU, Georgia has expressed a similar desire to sign on to Euroatlantic structures such as NATO. It did so not only for economic reasons, but to distance itself from Russia after the recent deterioration of the Georgian-Russian relations and political standoff in late 2006 over the arrest of alleged Russian military officers who were accused of spying. The ensuing blame game exacerbated the already strained relations. Interestingly, though, in early 1990s, opinion polls demonstrated that Georgians were not too eager to join the EU and the sentiments were split. This was due to negative experience that the nation had from being a member of the USSR. So back then respondents seemed a bit skeptical about future membership of any club. There is a reason for this shift in public opinion and it is not that Georgians strive for NATO as a transparent Organization that has a clear position in the post-Cold War world. It may be that Georgians see NATO as a stick not to measure the success of their government’s efforts to gain membership but a beating stick to “whip” the government into line with the membership requirements and how that can improve their lives. Georgians are pragmatic in nature and more concerned about true democracy and not political rhetoric.
Interestingly enough, right after NATO’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s remark that “Georgia and Ukraine may become members of NATO in 2009” this issue raised debates among different parties within the Georgian society.
A week earlier, Russian ambassador Vyacheslav Kovalenko’s words that “Moscow wants Georgia to be independent and a neutral state” added fuel to the fire. What a shame that such proclamations could not be heard 16 years ago, right after Georgia declared independence and started crashing and burning with the help of Russia and its imbedded agents. However, better late than never; those years have passed. Now Russia and Georgia can look back and dwell on them or get on with their lives and start fresh. The time has passed for finger pointing and sorting out who is to blame. Unfortunately, bad memories still undermine bilateral political relations, left alone official Tbilisi accusing Russia of annexing territories of its own country, and Russia keeping the “breakaway” regions as its hedge for a showdown over NATO.
This begs the question of what the Kremlin really means with its conception of neutrality, and what price is Georgia willing to pay for this neutrality, if anything. There are many questions in the air, and should Georgia and the alleged stakeholders trust such an initiative? The price could be very high if trust is not forthcoming and it does not correspond to the reality on the ground. More importantly, however, is what benefits would a vaguely defined position of neutrality serve when there is the possibility of being part of a collective security organization in the not-too-distant future? Georgians see NATO as the cure-all for resolving their problems with territorial integrity and this overall attitude is supported by various comments of key members of the US Senate foreign intelligence committee.
At first impression, Georgia is doing quite well (in terms of international relationship with NATO and the West, conducting reforms in the Army, etc). However, the authorities still forget one thing: there is a need for a public education campaign about NATO, and what benefits it actually will bring in the future, apart from a collective security agreement.
Otherwise, we could find ourselves in the situation that can be described by the words of the Jewish-American comedian Grocho Marks: "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member". In fact, this may be an overstatement but if Georgia was really qualified for membership then it simply would not need NATO. Not all Georgians are delusional in understanding that membership for Georgia is not a serious issue for NATO.
In the final analysis it may be that NATO can find more fertile ground in Georgia for collaboration and this can be a good example in bringing Ukraine back to active negotiations and put some color back into the Orange Revolution whose colors have started to fade because of influence of Kremlin. It goes without saying that Georgia and its neighbors – Azerbaijan and Armenia – will conduct more pragmatic foreign policy in the future.
Eurasian Home: “What problems and issues could be solved via NATO membership, according to the public opinion in Georgia (e.g. solving territorial disputes, etc.)?”
Perhaps the biggest challenge to membership is not from Russia but from within. Ideally, if all goes well, all parties will realize that the time has arrived to sit down at the same table of negotiations, and without mediators calling the shots. Tbilisi and its supporters do not need to be drawn into a military confrontation, the situation could be solved faster than anyone could expect. Many thought that the case of the Aslan Abashidze’s little black sea fiefdom could not be resolved without complications because of Abashidze’s close ties with the Kremlin inter-circle.
Today politicians should better think twice before making official statements and delicately resolve all the disputes at the diplomatic level. Outsiders have nothing to lose but Georgia has everything to loose, namely its statehood, while secessionist governments and those who blatantly egg them on will lose face and this can result in lots of unpredictable consequences.
We should bear in mind that NATO is a goal – something to aim high in the hope that once we will come closer to the mark. Georgia needs standards, and even if the sentence to wander is shortened by just a few years in trying to live up to those standards, then all the extra effort will have been well worth it. However, one thing is missing and it is, perhaps, the weakest link: the membership initiative in the minds of many, mostly politicians, needs further elaboration, i.e. it can not be boiled out to military aspect. Alternatively, there should be more emphasis on the democratic process in itself that allows for a professional army as part of a civilian government that actually works.
National Security does not mean an army in isolation but it rather means democracy, a system where the informed majority of the population holds their elected leaders accountable, where there is no doubt that the society is one of a rule of law and not the rule of men.
As it stands now, Georgian officials on the one hand, are proclaiming peaceful integration of breakaway regions, and on the other hand they can see no other alternative to Georgia being able to enter NATO than after incorporating these regions. Can those two things happen in this sequence? At this moment, it is hard to predict, however during the last 3 years several miracles had transpired in the political life of Georgia, so we can never know what to expect next.
March 9, 2007
|
