EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Georgia: Tbilisi Residents Are Cautiously Optimistic Over NATO Chances

EURASIA INSIGHT

GEORGIA: TBILISI RESIDENTS ARE CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC OVER NATO CHANCES
Nina Akhmeteli 4/08/08

In the wake of the recent NATO summit, Georgians seem to retain optimism over their country’s efforts to gain membership in the alliance, despite the hesitation shown by some alliance members in accepting Tbilisi into the defense organization.

Facing strong opposition from Russia, and resistance from European allies, NATO opted not to extend Georgia and Ukraine membership action plans (MAPs) during the April 2-4 summit. MAPs would have signaled that both countries had entered the final countdown to membership. The Bucharest decision did nothing to damage NATO’s allure for many Georgians, however.

"If we look through our history, we will see that our integration into the alliance and the European Union will be our return to the European family, where we should be," said Tamaz Mirianashvili, a 45-year-old bookseller in one of the city’s underground passageways.

Mirianashvili’s attitude is shared by an overwhelming majority. More than 70 percent of the population voted for NATO membership in a January 2008 referendum held simultaneously with Georgia’s presidential election. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. President Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration is likewise ardently oriented toward the West. European Union flags already fly over almost every administrative building.

The reasoning is straightforward: Europe and the United States are "civilized" � shorthand for successful, prosperous market democracies � while Russia has become synonymous with the failures and humiliations of the Soviet past.

The MAP matter concerning Georgia and Ukraine will be reviewed by NATO in December. Even if the two countries receive MAPs at that time, an official membership vote could be years away. To some Georgians, such a timeframe might as well be an eternity.

"I want for us to become a NATO member as soon as possible. If not, Russia will be back and I am sure it won’t bring anything good to Georgia," said 20-year-old university student Tamta Kalatozishvili. "We should be a part of Europe and I am sure we will be."

In Bucharest, a beaming President Saakashvili told Georgian TV reporters that Georgia received "even more" from the NATO communiqué affirming the alliance’s intentions to offer membership to Georgia than it would have from a concrete Membership Action Plan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

But the document has sparked some sharp disputes.

Opposition members charge that the government’s return from Bucharest without a MAP has one meaning: failure. They point to the November 7 crackdown on protestors, allegedly "rigged" presidential elections and the lack of an independent judiciary as stumbling blocks for Georgia to proceed with its membership hopes. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. At the same time, they downplay Russia’s vociferous opposition, which appears to have been a major factor in fostering European concern about giving Tbilisi and Kyiv MAPs. Some observers say Georgia could have been a democratization role model, and it still would not have received a MAP.

Some residents of Tbilisi, where Saakashvili lost this year’s presidential vote to opposition candidate Levan Gachechiladze, say that they believe the opposition criticism. Georgia has failed in its test for democracy, commented 36-year-old homemaker Nino Sharashenidze.

"First, you should tidy up your house and than care about others," she said. "We should build democracy first and then think about NATO. How could we receive a MAP and even dream about NATO when only a few days ago we had camps and a hunger strike [staged by the opposition] in front of the parliament?" [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

While joining NATO is widely seen as a sign that Georgia will have finally "made it," a frequent topic for informal discussion is how the move will affect the country’s relations with regional power brokers � a concern stemming from a long history of various foreign overlords and invasions.

In sizing up Georgia’s NATO ambitions, broadcast and print outlets have largely stressed negative statements by Russian officials about what such a move could mean for Moscow’s relations with Tbilisi, or with the two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Many Georgians see Russia as a neighborhood bully who looks for trouble, but some worry that Georgia may provoke difficulties if it defies Russia and enters the alliance.

"I know that Russia is not the best neighbor, but it is a big country and it is not beneficial for us to show disrespect to it," said Tamaz Aladashvili, who earns money, like many other 30-something Tbilisi men, as a freelance taxi driver.

While unease about Russia is widespread, annoyance at those European countries that objected to Georgia receiving MAP is also common. In the end, Aladashvili continued, Russia is closer to Georgia’s mentality and cultural traditions. "We are Orthodox like the Russians. We have similar beliefs and values. If we enter NATO and Europe, our education system will be based on their values, which are very distant from ours. And we already see that our national culture takes up a very small part of [their] books," said Aladashvili.

Some local analysts counter that integration into NATO is critical for a country located at the crossroads of East and West. However, psychologist Ramaz Sakvarelidze, a frequent political commentator, doubts that many Georgians fully understand why they need the alliance and why the alliance needs Georgia.

Despite occasional public discussions on the topic, and the government’s public information campaign, that confusion runs particularly strong among older Georgians. "When I was a child, I was always told that NATO is a very bad and aggressive organization. Now I hear the opposite, but still I do not understand why it is good for Georgia," said pensioner Luzetta Sulakvelidze. "So let them, the politicians and young people, decide. I really don’t know."

The main problem is that the NATO campaign has been held without any real debate, agrees engineer Levan Gvaramadze. "It is clear that we will gain something and lose something from NATO membership, that is how things work everywhere," said Gvaramadze, "But, unfortunately, we only hear that NATO is good and there is even some intolerance towards those who express doubts about it."

For now, though, as do most Georgians, Gvaramadze is taking his chances with the argument for the "good."

"[T]he European way today is the only rational way for Georgia," he said.

Editor�s Note: Nina Akhmeteli is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.