EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Georgia: Despite Obstacles, NATO Progress “Irreversible”

EURASIA INSIGHT

GEORGIA: DESPITE OBSTACLES, NATO PROGRESS "IRREVERSIBLE"
Molly Corso 9/27/06

The Georgian government is claiming a political victory after NATO decided to advance discussions with Tbilisi on membership in the Atlantic Alliance. Yet while Georgian officials celebrate, significant political and strategic tests remain in Georgia’s accession drive.

President Mikheil Saakashvili declared that the so-called Intensified Dialogue is the start of an "irreversible process" toward Georgian membership in the military alliance, and a "major breakthrough." Noting in a televised September 25 speech that he did not want to "set exact dates," the president nonetheless asserted that there is no reason for Georgia’s membership process to be "delayed." The government has mentioned 2008 as a target date for NATO membership.

A NATO statement on the September 21 decision, however, adopted a measured tone. The Intensified Dialogue, the statement read, will give Georgia "access to a more intense political exchange with NATO Allies on its membership aspirations and relevant reforms, without prejudice to any eventual Alliance decision on a further membership process."

The announcement has sparked a growing debate about what the ongoing partnership with the Atlantic Alliance will actually mean for Georgia.

The government claims that it is all part of Georgia’s embrace of Western-style democracy after decades of misrule as part of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union, and as a newly independent post-Soviet country. "NATO is not just a military alliance; it is an alliance for humanitarian missions, rescue missions, building democracy and so on," said Tornike Sharashenidze, director of the Georgian Foreign Ministry’s Information Center on NATO. "It will give a huge boost to Georgia for building its democratic institutions."

Georgia’s commitment to building such institutions is one key test for any NATO decision to extend membership to Tbilisi. European members have already expressed concerns about reforms in the Georgian court system and in the country’s protection of human rights. Particularly close attention is expected to focus on whether Georgia’s nationwide municipal elections on October 5 can be considered free and fair.

The United States, arguably Georgia’s staunchest ally within NATO, issued cautionary statements on the upcoming election and Georgia’s NATO aspirations. Speaking to Imedi television on September 25, US Ambassador John Tefft noted that the elections would be closely monitored and would "certainly influence" relations between the alliance and Tbilisi.

The Foreign Ministry’s Sharashenidze, however, argues that the decision to start the Intensified Dialogue already shows that NATO believes that the government has provided for free and fair election campaigning. "I think when the campaign began, they [NATO members] saw that everything was okay," he said. "When the campaign began there was much criticism and comment, but still the campaign is running in the most democratic way it could be in a country like this, in a former Soviet country."

Others argue that Georgia’s democratic reform status could take a back seat to the alliance’s strategic interests in the South Caucasus. "NATO is an organization which, more than the European Union, let us say, uses the notion of political expedience in a geopolitical situation," said Shalva Pichkhadze, chairman of the Georgia for NATO non-governmental organization.

Russia remains a factor that can complicate Georgia’s NATO bid. Moscow has made clear that the Kremlin will see any change in Georgia’s relationship with NATO as a threat to Russian security. On September 22, the Russian Foreign Ministry termed NATO’s decision part of "the expansion of military-political alliances created during the Cold War," adding that Russia’s "negative attitude" toward Georgia’s NATO aspirations is "well-known," ITAR-TASS reported.

While acknowledging that it is Georgia’s "sovereign right" to decide for itself on NATO membership, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov emphasized on September 22 that Russia is taking steps to reinforce its military presence on Georgia’s eastern borders. "We are actively developing two alpine brigades with the latest equipment. Both brigades will be stationed right by the border with Georgia," Russian news outlets reported Ivanov as saying. "Therefore, Russian security will not suffer if Georgia joins NATO."

Sharashenidze dismissed Moscow’s statements as a sign that Kremlin officials "still identify themselves with the Soviet Union, which is why they identify NATO with the Cold War."

Although the Georgian government has played down NATO’s military aspect, the idea of the alliance as a barrier between Tbilisi and Moscow holds a strong attraction. At a news conference on September 22, Georgian Deputy Defense Minister Mamuka Kudava praised NATO for paying "great attention" to the stability of its member countries. "NATO’s principle is that Georgia, just as any other candidate country, should do as much as possible to create guarantees of security in its own region," he said. Kudava added that Georgia’s actions concerning the conflict zones of Abkhazia and South Ossetia would be coordinated with NATO. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Pichkhadze, however, argued that seeing NATO as a type of security blanket against Russian aggression could make the conflict resolution process more complex. "When we in Georgia are talking about NATO, both government and society, for us NATO is not an organization, not an alliance based on some values. Not an alliance that defends these values. For us, this is an alliance which would defend Georgia from Russia and nothing else," Pichkhadze said. "If we see NATO only as a shelter against Russia, it will not help settle the conflicts."

But some local analysts caution that the Georgian government’s celebrations about NATO’s decision may be premature. "[T]hey made statements that they were expecting the ID [Intensified Dialogue] in July or August and they were waiting for [the] MAP [Membership Action Plan, an official step toward NATO membership] in November," Tamara Pataraia, a project manager and researcher at Tbilisi’s Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, said. "My opinion is that they overestimated the situation."

An Intensified Dialogue has also been granted to Ukraine, another Russian neighbor and former Soviet republic. On September 14, however, Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich announced that public opposition had prompted Kiev to put its membership campaign on hold.

During a visit to Tbilisi in May, NATO Assistant Secretary General John Colston said the alliance was "impressed" with Georgia’s attention to reforms – particularly those that concerned military and strategic "structures" – but refused to comment on a timeline for the coveted Membership Action Plan.

Nonetheless, optimism in Tbilisi persists. While the Intensified Dialogue may not carry the same benefits as a Membership Action Plan, Georgia for NATO’s Pichkhadze commented, the alliance’s decision cannot be seen as a consolation prize for Georgia. "[In] no way is it a step back," he said. "This is another form of contact between a non-member state and the alliance. It is closer. This is a form of closer contacts."

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.