EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Georgia: Moving on Toward NATO, Without a MAP

EURASIA INSIGHT

GEORGIA: MOVING ON TOWARD NATO, WITHOUT A MAP
Molly Corso 12/03/08

Georgian aspirations to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization remain in a holding pattern after the military alliance offered Georgia closer cooperation, but stopped short of agreeing to a full-fledged Membership Action Plan. Some Georgian analysts believe that the lack of a cohesive message from the alliance is a bad signal for Tbilisi.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told journalists on December 2 that the alliance had created a new format -- the Annual National Program -- for Georgia and Ukraine to "beef up" NATO’s commissions with the individual countries. No decision, however, was taken on future membership plans, a point of contention between the alliance’s 26 member states.

"Without prejudice to any further decisions on MAP, we will develop so-called Annual National Programs to help them [Georgia and Ukraine] advance their reforms," de Hoop Scheffer told reporters on December 2 after meeting with NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. "MAP has not ceased to exist. There was no decision taken on MAP by the foreign ministers; but you cannot say that MAP has evaporated. MAP is still there."

Little is known about the new format; more information is expected after the final meeting session on December 3.

Despite the lack of details about the Annual National Program -- or about how the new format would influence the countries’ membership track -- Georgian officials were upbeat about NATO’s decision. Georgian State Minister for Euro-Atlantic Integration Issues Giorgi Baramidze contended that the program should not be interpreted as a side step away from membership. Speaking to journalists in Tbilisi on December 3, Baramidze called the new plan a "step forward."

"[This] is not MAP, but it is an important element, which brings us closer to the alliance," he said.

But NATO analysts in Tbilisi are voicing frustration about the alliance’s decision. According to Khatuna Mshvidobadze, deputy director of the Centre on NATO, financed by the Georgian Ministry of Defense, ANP is a "disappointment."

"It is not helpful for Georgia and Ukraine to become the member state of NATO in the nearest future," Mshvidobadze said. "Unfortunately, this is not some big news for us. We were waiting for [a] further decision about this [membership] . . . we were expecting more. It is a sort of disappointment for us."

Mshvidobadze added that even among the alliance members there is a lack of unity about Georgia’s future with NATO. Opposition from Germany and France, as well as other members, is an "unofficial" veto for Tbilisi, she said.

"Unfortunately, it is an unofficial [veto]. I don’t know how we should convince them. That is essential for us . . . we don’t know what will be tomorrow [since Russian troops are still on Georgian territory]," Mshvidobadze said.

Irakli Menagarishvili, a former Georgian foreign minister under ex-President Eduard Shevardnadze, said Georgia needed to receive an "encouraging" message from the alliance that would help "speed" up the country’s reform process.

But Mshvidobadze noted that there has been a sense of frustration about the membership process since the Bucharest summit this April, when Georgia was not given MAP. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive].

"[NATO is] asking for us to do more reforms, to improve our democracy. OK, we will do it. Georgia should do what they are asking from us," she said. "Unfortunately there is another issue they were discussing [at the Bucharest summit] . . . territorial conflict."

That, she noted, would be more complicated to resolve. And even if Georgia can meet all the requirements stated, Mshvidobadze noted that there is a feeling it will still not be enough for some NATO member countries.

"If we do this, what will be the other reason [not to give membership]?" The only real option for Georgia right now is to continue reforms and keep trying to convince "Western European countries" that it is ready for membership, she added.

According to ex-Foreign Minister Menagarishvili, the only way forward for Georgia is to prove to the military alliance that accepting it as a member is in everyone’s best interest.

"We would [have to] try to show that it is in the interest for all NATO as well as Georgia," he said, noting that consensus among NATO members is vital. "The only strategy acceptable for Georgia would be . . . to adhere to the strategy we defined several years ago -- the final foreign policy priorities have been set."

Editor's Note: Molly Corso 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.