Commentary: NATO's Warsaw summit needs to send the right messages to Georgia

This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

NATO heads of state gather in Warsaw this weekend for a two-day summit, an event which takes place only once every two years. Once more the people of Georgia will be watching events in Georgia and waiting to see how these will affect the future of their country. While full NATO membership for Georgia is not immediately on the agenda, the two have shown in multiple ways that they are reliable partners. The summit in the Polish capital will further seal this trust, but the summit needs also to send an unambiguous message of support to Georgia and its people. 

Georgia came close to full membership at a NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008. However, this did not happen and four months later, Russian tanks rolled into South Ossetia and, after a five day war which killed hundreds, Georgia’s jurisdiction over Abkhazia and South Ossetia was further eroded when Russia decided to recognised the two de facto separatist entities as independent states.

NATO’s famous Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty says an attack on one is an attack on all, meaning if Georgia had been a member at the time of the war, American and European allies would have been obliged to support Georgia militarily.

For some in NATO in 2008, the August war justified NATO’s scepticism in April. This was a country which clearly could not be defended without the risk of getting embroiled in war with Russia But for others, the war could have been prevented if Georgia had joined at the Bucharest summit.

This dilemma remains unresolved eight years later, even though Georgia has been a model partner for NATO over the years. At the height of the Afghan war, Georgia had almost 2,000 soldiers in the country’s dangerous south, making it the largest per capita troop-contributing nation in the NATO alliance.

Georgia also routinely conducts military drills with NATO allies such as the USA, UK and Turkey. The government spends 2% of GDP on its military, a NATO demand which only five members meet. There is also widespread support for NATO membership within Georgia, to a far greater extent than in many candidates for accession, or indeed existing member states. Georgia’s problem is geo-politics, and a perception, well fed by Kremlin apologists, that inviting Georgia into NATO would be a provocative act against Russia. In a time of uncertainty in Europe many NATO member states, especially France and Germany, are cautious about further  increasing tensions with Moscow.

Some NATO members are concerned Georgia would use membership of the alliance to secure military support for the restoration of its authority on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, however Georgia says some kind of compromise arrangement could be possible, such as by excluding the two territories from the Article 5 guarantee. Georgia, unlike Russia has made a ‘non-use of force’ pledge regarding the occupied region, and the Georgian Dream government has since 2012 adopted, with the encouragement of western countries, a policy of dialogue with Russia.

Whilst many NATO leaders consistently speak warmly of Georgia, and are grateful for its tangible contributions to the alliance, ‘MAP’ – a Membership Action Plan –  does not seem to be on the agenda for the moment. This is galling to some Georgians because Montenegro, only independent for a decade and with a population whose enthusiasm for NATO membership is much more tepid, is becoming NATO’s 29th member, despite being a far less active contributor.

Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili has said Montenegro’s accession is a good thing, because it means the door of the alliance is still open. “We don’t see any alternative for ensuring long-term stability for Georgia to joining this Euro-Atlantic family of countries,” he said recently.

Georgia is heading to parliamentary elections in October and some populist politicians are trying to use the issue to score political points. Among them are Nino Burjanadze and Gogi Topadze, both of who have made anti-NATO statements. Burjanadze has made the adoption of a non-aligned status for Georgia as part of her political platform ahead of the elections. Moscow still has some possibility of influencing public opinion in Georgia and pro-Moscow parties, whilst still on the margins of the political spectrum, have tried to capitalise on disappointment in Georgia on the speed of euro-atlantic integration. They will all be seeking to secure representation in the new Parliament after October.

Conscious of this NATO leaders have been seeking ways of increasing co-operation with Georgia, short of membership through schemes such as the Annual National Program, the NATO–Georgia Commission, and the Substantial NATO–Georgia Package. “At the Warsaw Summit next month, we will further strengthen our package of support for Georgia,” NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in June.

To some diplomats, the case of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is a warning. It did not receive an invitation to join NATO when one was expected in 1998, and subsequently backslid in terms of corruption and political reform. Now, NATO membership is firmly off the cards.

At the Warsaw Summit Georgia will be a side issue to the bigger question of the relations of the alliance with Russia, relations that have reached their lowest point since the end of the cold-war. The NATO-Russia Council met recently for the first time in two years, and a further meeting is scheduled shortly after the Warsaw summit. "Our discussions will focus on the crisis in and around Ukraine and the need to fully implement the Minsk Agreements," Stoltenberg said in a statement.

Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, confirmed in a referendum two weeks ago, shocked diplomats and allies. It is likely to be a major source of discussion, and distraction, in Warsaw. “The UK is one of the strongest members of NATO, and I have no doubt that its participation and cooperation in the alliance will continue at least at the same level,” Polish president Andrzej Duda told journalists. Yet the Brexit will add considerably to the uncertaintly within Europe and its institutions at present.

NATO leaders are meeting in Warsaw this weekend at a very unpredictable time for security on the European continent. This notwithstanding, Georgians should be optimistic and patient. Their country is a comparative success story and its commitment to the North Atlantic alliance is already proven and without doubt. Eventually this will be recognised and Georgia will be part of the security umbrella which it seeks, and which it deserves. The NATO Warsaw summit needs to send this message clearly to the Georgian people.

source: This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

photo: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addressing experts ahead of the NATO Summit in Warsaw in July 2016. (picture courtesy of NATO Press Service).

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)