EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Georgian Officials Strive to Build Momentum for NATO Membership

EURASIA INSIGHT

GEORGIAN OFFICIALS STRIVE TO BUILD MOMENTUM FOR NATO MEMBERSHIP
Molly Corso 5/04/06

Georgian officials are striving to build momentum for the country’s NATO membership bid by emphasizing sustainable reforms. The government’s domestic critics continue to complain, however, that the military reorganization effort lacks transparency. Meanwhile, NATO officials are encouraged by the Georgian government’s reform progress, but remain vague on the matter of a specific accession timeframe.

The problems and prospects concerning Georgia’s drive to join NATO were examined during a security conference held May 1-3 in Tbilisi. Participants focused largely on Georgia’s progress with its Strategic Defense Review (SDR), basically an inventory of the country’s strategic assets. The review is a component of the country’s Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP), which is designed to prepare Georgia for NATO accession. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defense Policy and Planning John Colston told journalists during the conference that alliance officials were "impressed" with Georgia’s attention to "future security and military structures." Alexis Chahtahtinsky, an advisor to the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, lauded Georgia as a "de-facto" NATO, but, like other alliance representatives, dodged discussion of a specific membership timeline.

Georgia’s courting of NATO continued May 4 with the arrival of a NATO Parliament Assembly delegation, which, in addition to holding talks with Georgian defense and political leaders, is expected to visit a military base in Akhalkalaki. Local media outlets have also reported that the NATO officials will travel to the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflict zones. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

NATO membership is a central element of President Mikheil Saakashvili’s security strategy for Georgia, a country that has been embroiled in disputes with Russia for much of its independent history. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In a televised speech April 17, Saakashvili praised the NATO integration process and said NATO membership is "a strategic and peaceful step towards strengthening Georgia and resolving conflicts." Tornike Sharashenidze, the director of the Georgian Foreign Ministry’s NATO Information Center, welcomed the recent positive comments made by alliance representatives, while emphasizing that the SDR is not complete.

Military reform efforts have been accompanied by complaints by some defense experts about a lack of transparency, especially in the realm of military spending. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. "It is hard for me to judge what is happening because they do not allow me to enter military bases," said Irakli Aladashvili, a military analyst and war correspondent. "If journalists cannot enter military bases and observe what is happening that means something is wrong. Citizen oversight is not as strong as it should be, especially if we aspire to join NATO."

Shalva Pichkhadze -- the chairman of Georgia For NATO, a local non-governmental organization -- cautioned against judging the military’s reorganization outside of the country’s overall democratization context. He asserted that democratic institution building had not made sufficient progress, and expressed concern that Western governments would not pressure Saakashvili’s administration to accelerate the democratization pace due to Georgia’s growing strategic importance in the Caucasus region. The administration "is hoping that NATO will be willing to close its eyes concerning the misdeeds and mistakes of the government," he said.

Elene Khoshtaria, a top government official handling Euro-Atlantic Integration issues, recognized that fulfilling Georgia’s IPAP commitments involves more than just reorganizing the military. "It is not only defense reform, it is reform of the whole state � a kind of harmonization of all state institutions to NATO standards," she said. "This of course requires the strengthening of democratic institutions. This requires a very clear vision of foreign security polity. This requires reforms starting from defense and ending with science and education."

NATO officials are keeping close track of Georgia’s IPAP implementation, holding consultations in both March and April. In March, a NATO assessment mission voiced satisfaction on defense-related reforms, but expressed concern about some aspects of the democratization process, including efforts to establish an independent judiciary. Pichkhadze called attention to a NATO statement indicating that local elections in Georgia this fall posed a democratization test for the government. "If NATO thinks Georgia still needs to pass tests that means they [NATO officials] are not sure that democratic reforms are progressing as they should," he said.

Officials in Tbilisi seem confident that Georgia’s NATO bid will continue to make fast progress. Giorgi Baramidze, the state minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration, said the April consultations in Brussels "demonstrated" that Georgia is meeting its "reform targets." Around the end of the year, Georgia should be ready to tackle a Membership Action Plan (MAP), the next level of the NATO accession process, Baramidze indicated.

Khoshtaria, Baramidze’s aide, stressed that the Georgian government is more concerned with results than specific deadlines. "The position of NATO is very clear. They say the process of Georgia’s integration into NATO is a performance-based one. We fully support this position because we are committed to the process of reforms," she said.

Editor�s Note: Molly Corso is a freelance reporter and photojournalist 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.