Georgia: No Discussion of MAP for Tbilisi during NATO Meeting

The NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels ended, as expected, without debate on the controversial question of Membership Action Plans (MAP) for Georgia and Ukraine. What remains unclear, however, is how to interpret that: Is it the sign that membership is now hopeless for the two former Soviet republics? Or is it merely a change in tactics? Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that a new US presidential administration will take office in January, and its position on NATO expansion is not well defined.

The week before the meetings, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled that the United States -- which had been the most forceful proponent of MAP for Georgia and Ukraine -- would not be pushing for MAP any more. But Rice said that Washington remained committed to the general goal of admitting Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance, agreed on at the Bucharest NATO summit earlier this year. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Instead of the MAP process, which was strongly opposed by many Western European NATO members as well as by Russia, accession of the two countries will now be managed through a Georgia-NATO Commission and a Ukraine-NATO Commission. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. NATO also agreed at this week's meeting to restart ties with Russia that were suspended as a result of the August war with Georgia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

A Ukraine-NATO Commission has existed since 1997, but the Georgia commission had its first meeting in October and is still at the embryonic stages. "We reaffirmed Bucharest and all of its elements, but what we did do here, which is very important, is to empower the commissions -- the NATO-Georgia Commission and the NATO-Ukraine Commission -- to intensify their work in helping these states to make progress toward the Bucharest goals and aspirations," Rice said on December 2.

What remains to be seen, observers said, is whether the commissions will become genuinely influential or merely talking shops.

"What they tried to do is put some sort of mechanism behind the Bucharest statement, a demonstrable item showing that Georgia and Ukraine are actually moving toward NATO membership," said Colonel Jon Chicky, a faculty member at the National Defense University who focuses on the region. "MAP had always been the next logical step, but those three letters had become such a lightning rod, so they tried to find a way do MAP without having MAP." [Col. Chicky emphasized that his views are his own and do not reflect those of the US government, Department of Defense or NDU].

"MAP did not really offer added value, it just provoked knee-jerk reactions from the Russian government against NATO expansion," said Cory Welt, associate director of the Eurasian Strategy Project at Georgetown University, in an email interview. "So long as the councils are taken seriously as platforms for institutional reform, the decision could lead to as healthy an equilibrium as can be expected in the current situation: Russia can relax in the (false) belief that it has forestalled NATO expansion, while NATO can continue working with the two states on tracks tailored to their particular situations and goals."

Nevertheless, there remain fundamental differences within NATO about whether and how Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted into the alliance, and this meeting did nothing to remedy those differences, according to Charles Kupchan, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University. The United States "used the dispute over MAP to paper over this more fundamental dispute, and by agreeing to use the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the NATO-Georgia Commission to foster reform in those countries, they put off the fundamental issue of where are we heading, what is the goal and the time frame?"

The commissions, Kupchan added, will "put those fundamental issues on ice and agree to help Georgia and Ukraine advance reforms that they need to take no matter what."

The move away from MAP also can be interpreted as the Bush administration drawing back on the issue and giving the incoming Barack Obama administration some space to formulate its own policy. "What this did was punt the ball to the next administration," Col. Chicky said.

It's not clear how the Obama administration will proceed on the question of NATO expansion. During the presidential campaign, Obama supported MAP for Georgia and Ukraine. His vice president, Joe Biden, has been a long time supporter of Georgia and NATO expansion. The incoming national security adviser, James Jones, is a former military commander of NATO.

On the other hand, Obama has strongly emphasized working more closely with allies, and NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine has become an issue dividing the United States and western Europe, as well as a source of profound tension in relations with Russia.

"The objective [of NATO expansion] is supported, but the tempo will be slower," said Col. Chicky. "My guess is that they'll try to improve the relationship with Europe first and then test the water with the Russians, and see whether they can do business with the Russians. And I think they'll learn very quickly with the Putin crowd the answer will be no."