Daily Georgian Times, Georgia
March 10 2007
Georgia’s NATO aspirations
This interview was recently taken by the `Eurasian Home’ a Moscow
based think tank with Mr. Pachulia, head of GORBI Gallup
International, a Georgian based research firm. The verbatim text
follows:
Q. How far can the Georgian leadership go in terms of collaboration
with NATO, including opportunities for placing NATO troops in the
country?
The Georgian leadership has strong support of its population in terms
Georgian NATO relationship at this moment. The consensus about the
benefits that the country could receive after becoming a member
appears mutual but there remain many contradictions. Although
Georgian president Saakshvili and key officials have stated several
times that NATO membership does not necessarily means locating NATO
troops on Georgian territory. However, this argument is not
convincing for NATO bashers outside of the country. Moreover, there
are many homegrown opponents in Georgia who see NATO needing Georgia
and ask whether Georgia really needs NATO?
Nonetheless, and as some pundits believe, Russia can even digest (as
a matter of fact that NATO may end up on its door step, sooner or
later) Georgian membership, but they could not digest the theoretical
possibility of Turkey (via a possible heavy military presence in
Georgia), and from a country that has been a historical rival of
Russia to be some 300 kilometers closer to the Russian borders than
they are at already.
In the meantime, however, striving for NATO is a useful distraction
for the more pressing social and human rights issues facing Georgia.
It is easier to blame the domestic problems of Georgia on the lack of
territorial integrity and the constant meddling that Russia stands
behind in the conflict zones. This becomes a convenient distraction
as to more pressuring problems facing the average citizen such as
problems of human rights, living wages and ever-increasing inflation
(both actual and hidden).
Under normal circumstances, Georgians ambitions would be held in
abeyance until it would clear up its act, and get away from fancy
proclamations that all is well on the home front, and prove it in
fact. NATO does, however, serve in the meantime as a useful function
for the Georgian State. And that NATO standard means more than to
volunteer Georgian troops for the NATO mission in Afghanistan as a
down payment for membership.
Q. To what extent is the Georgian population supportive of NATO
membership?
After the recent expansion of the EU, which even took hold of once
Soviet territory, the majority of those new member states quickly
welcomed NATO membership. Although not a member of the EU, Georgian
has expressed a similar desire to sign on to European structures such
as NATO not only for economic reasons, but to distance itself from
Russia, especially following the recent deterioration of
Georgian-Russian relations and political standoff in late 2006 over
the arrest of alleged Russian military officers who were alleged to
be spies. The ensuring war of words contributed already stressed
relations. Interestingly though, in early 1990s, opinion polls
demonstrated that Georgians were not very eager even to join the EU
and the sentiments were split, however this was due to the fact that
experience of being a member of the USSR was not considered as `good’
and respondents seemed a bit skeptical about future membership of any
club. There must be a reason for a shift in public opinion and not
only because Georgians to buy into NATO as a transparent organization
that has a clear definition in the post-Cold War period. It may be
that Georgians see NATO as a stick not to measure the success of
their government’s efforts to gain membership but a beating stick to
whip the government into line to what are the membership requirements
and how that can improve their lives. Georgians are pragmatic in
nature and more concerned about true democracy and not political
rhetoric.
Interestingly enough, right after NATO’s secretary general’s remark
that `Georgia and Ukraine may become members of NATO in 2009′ this
issue raised debates among different parties and it was understood in
different ways by those with different standpoint dependencies.
A week earlier, Russian ambassador Vyacheslav Kovalenko’s new
initiative even added fuel to the fire with his proposition of
`Moscow wants Georgia to be independent and a neutral state’ and this
could have been heard far and wide. All things considered, its is
pretty pathetic that such proclamation was not heard 16 years ago,
right after Georgia declared independence and started crashing and
burning with the help of Russia and its imbedded agents. However,
better late than never; those years have passed. Now Russia and
Georgia can look back and dwell on them or get on with their lives
and start fresh. The time has passed for finger pointing and trying
to sort out who is guiltier for making a mess of things. In the
meantime bad memories still serve the purpose of keeping a
controversial political relationship, nothing to say about official
Tbilisi accusing Russia of annexing territories of its own country,
and Russian keeping the `breakaway’ regions as their hedge for a
showdown over NATO.
This begs the question as to what the Kremlin really means with its
conception of neutrality, and what price is Georgian willing to pay
for this neutrality, if anything. There are many questions in the
air, and should Georgia and the alleged stakeholders trust such an
initiative? The price could be very high if trust is not forthcoming
and it does not conform to the reality on the ground. More
importantly, however, is what benefits would a vaguely defined
position of neutrality serve when there is the possibility of being
part of a collective security organization in the not-too-distant
future? Georgians see NATO as the cure-all for resolving their
problems with territorial integrity and this overall attitude is
supported by various comments of key members of the US Senate foreign
intelligence committee.
In some respect Georgia is doing quite well at first impression (in
terms of international relationship with NATO and the West,
conducting reforms in the Army, etc). However, one thing that is
often forgotten in the minds of many still remains missing: there is
a need for a public education campaign about NATO, and what benefits
it actually will bring in the future, apart from a collective
security agreement, the sooner results are forthcoming to the average
Georgian the better.
Otherwise, we could find ourselves in the same situation as the
famous quote of the Jewish-American comedian, Grocho Marks (of the
Mark’s Brothers) "I wouldn’t want to join any club that would have me
as a member". In fact, this may be an overstatement but if Georgia
really qualified for membership then Georgia would not need NATO. Not
all Georgians are delusional in understanding that membership for
Georgia is not a serious issue for NATO.
In the final analysis it may be that NATO can find more fertile
ground in Georgia for collaboration and this can be a good example in
bringing Ukraine back to active negotiations and put some color back
into the Orange Revolution whose colors have started to fade and run
because of meddling influence of Kremlin. It goes without saying that
so goes Georgia, so goes other countries in the neighborhood as in
the case of the future pragmatic direction of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Q. What kind of problems and issues could be solved, thanks to
joining NATO, in terms of general public opinion of (e.g. solving
territorial disputes, etc)?
Perhaps the biggest challenge to membership is not from Russia but
from within: time will resolve the conflict zones and demands of
secessionist governments. Ideally, if all goes well, all parties will
realize that the time has arrived to sit down at the same table of
negotiations, and without outside influences calling the shots.
Tbilisi and its supporters do not need to be drawn into a military
confrontation, the situation could be solved faster than anyone is
willing to expect. Case study of Aslan Abashidze and his little black
sea fiefdom that is still in the minds of those who thought that it
could not be ended because of its closes ties with the inter-circle
of the Kremlin.
Snows are melting due to the arrival of spring, and it is highly
likely if things are not carefully considered on diplomatic fronts,
that the smoking coals could be stirred and everybody knows the
potential fallout. Outsiders have nothing to lose but Georgia has
everything to loose, its statehood, while secessionist governments
and those who blatantly egged them on will lose face and this can
result in lots of unintentional consequences.
Moreover, NATO is a goal – something to aim high in the hope that we
will come closer to the mark. Georgia needs standards, and even if
the sentence to wander is shortened by just a few years in trying to
live up to those standards, then all the extra effort will have been
well worth it. However, one thing is missing and it should be
emphasized as perhaps the weakest link: in the minds of many, mostly
politicians and those looking to belong to the proverbial club with
wannabe members, there needs to be more than just a military
emphasis. Alternatively, there should be more emphasis on the process
in itself that allows for a professional army as part of a civilian
government that actually works.
National Security does not mean an army in isolation but it rather
means democracy; a system where the informed majority of the
population holds their elected leaders accountable, where there is no
doubt that the society is one of a rule of law and not the rule of
men.
As it stands now, Georgian officials on the one hand, are proclaiming
peaceful integration of breakaway regions, and on the other hand they
can see only a united Georgia as being able to enter NATO. Can those
two things happen in this sequence? At this moment, it is hard to
predict, however during the last 3 years several miracles had
transpired in the political life of Georgians, so one could never
know what to expect next (you never know).
Georgian Times
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
