Georgia’s significant progress, on the road to European and Euro-Atlantic integration, is good for the whole region

This is a commentary prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

Two symbolic yet also significant steps during the course of the last days have taken Georgia closer to achieving its aspirations for integration in the European and Euro-Atlantic community.

On Monday, the Committee for Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of a resolution to recommend that Georgians wanting to travel to EU Schengen countries for tourism or business purposes can do so without the need for a visa. It was one of the last procedures necessary for this measure to be finally adopted. The Committee's recommendation will now go to a full plenary of the parliament. It will then need to be finally endorsed by the joint mechanism, known as the trilateral, involving the Parliament, the European Council (representing the member states) and the European Commission.

For the Georgian people this has been a long journey during which their government implemented extensive work to satisfy EU requirements. In Georgia there were expectations that this measure would be adopted before the summer. There were last minute procrastinations on the European side, by and large related to issues not concerning Georgia at all. However many in Brussels understand that visa liberalisation was promised to Georgia if it fulfilled the necessary criteria, and that now that it has done so not to honour the promise will have serious impact on the EU's credibility. So the archaic Brussels bureaucracy and machinery is now focused on completing this task.

In July, the Association Agreement between Georgia and the EU came fully into force. Georgia stands to benefit from this agreement in different ways, but for many the visa free travel is the symbolic step that Georgians will be able to experience first-hand. That is why the measure became hugely important, and why it is hoped it will come into effect soon.

The second event of this week, less than forty-eight hours later, was the arrival in Georgia of the full North Atlantic Council, headed by NATO's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Their arrival also marked the fact that whilst Georgia is not yet a full NATO member the relationship with the alliance is strong, to the point of being unique. In the summit in Wales in 2012 and in Warsaw Summit earlier this year the alliance indicated that it was willing to entertain Georgia's full membership sometime in the future.

You can read more about Georgia and the Warsaw Summit here.

This is far from being a one-way relationship. Georgia already contributes to many of NATO's most dangerous and difficult missions from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, with large contingents of troops. It has already shown that it is ready to share the burden that a common defence arrangement, such as NATO requires. Georgia has been knocking on NATO's door for several years. A number of factors, have stood in its way, including, although this is always denied, some hesitation on the part of some NATO allies, due to the fact that they do not want their relations with Russia to deteriorate further. However NATO is clear that Russia has no veto on the alliance's further expansion. This was reaffirmed again this week in Tbilisi. Speaking in a joint press conference with the Georgian Prime Minister, Stoltenberg, replying to a question from the Reuters correspondent said,

"For NATO it is a fundamental principle that every nation has the right to decide its own path including, what kind of security arrangements or military alliance it wants to be part of. And this not the only principle that NATO has subscribed to but it's actually a principle that also Russia and all other European nations have subscribed to many many times starting with the Helsinki Final Act back in the 1970s and then repeatedly done so in different international treaties. So for every sovereign nation, for every independent nation as Georgia it is a fundamental right to choose whether it wants to be a member of the Alliance or whether it does not want to be a member of the Alliance.

That's the independent decision of an independent nation. So whether Georgia is going to become member of NATO or not is up to NATO, the 28 allies and Georgia to decide, nobody else has the right to interfere or try to veto or try to intervene in that process. And this has been underlined by NATO again and again and NATO's door remains open and that has been shown many, many, times despite protests, despite expressions from Russia that they dislike the enlargement of NATO; NATO has continued to enlarge."

Many observers now feel that, as long as Georgia continues on its path of reform and democratisation, NATO membership is only a question of time. As Prime Minister Kvirikashvili remarked, "We believe that there will be a window of opportunity for Georgia but we need to be patient and we need to be consistent."

You can watch the proceedings of the press conference in Tbilisi on 7 September here

Good for Georgia, good for its neighbourhood

The steady progress that Georgia is making in realising its European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations is good for Georgia and reflects the will of its people. It is however also good for its neighbourhood. Everybody recognises that Georgia's Caucasus neighbourhood is difficult and complicated. Not only because the region has been over centuries an area of interest and competition between its three larger neighbours, Russia, Iran and Turkey, but also because the two immediate neighbours of Georgia in the South Caucasus - Armenia and Azerbaijan, are locked in a seemingly unresolvable conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, and technically remain at war with each other. Ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis also constitute sizable minorities within Georgia itself.

Georgia maintains exemplary relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Over the years successive Georgian leaders have made huge efforts to maintain friendly relations with both countries, also pursuing mutually beneficial co-operation, but stopping short of alienating one or the other. Indeed, the last week also saw Georgia's Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili visiting both Baku and Yerevan and meeting the Presidents of both countries.

Speaking in Baku on 31 August Kvirikashvili said "We spare no effort to support reinforcement of our neighbourly relations that have truly strategic character. We share friendship, and regional and global projects that are crucial for the well-being of our nations and further reinforcement of our friendship".

Five days later, in Yerevan Kvirikashvili noted that Armenia's relations with Georgia date back hundreds of years and added that the Georgian people and Government attach the utmost importance to the development of these relations. According to Kvirikashvili, the existing mutual understanding between the two Governments as well as the dynamics of recent years and active trade and economic relations form an excellent base for the further strengthening of relations and developing the huge potential which they offer. The Georgian Prime Minister said that strong friendly relations between Armenia and Georgia are important not only for Georgia and Armenia but also for stability in the South Caucasus.

Georgian-Azerbaijani and Georgian-Armenian relations have developed and consolidated over the last two decades and now form the backbone for regional co-operation. As is to be expected there are also issues that unless well managed can spoil these relationships and all sides need to be careful how to manage them. Georgia has a role to play to improve relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and it must not shy away from doing so whenever the opportunity arises. For both Armenia and Azerbaijan a strong, stable and prosperous Georgia is essential for their own prosperity and stability. Closer relations between Georgia and the EU and NATO are therefore also important for the whole region.

Armenia is a member of the Russia led Collective Security Treaty organisation (CSTO) whilst Azerbaijan declares itself non-aligned and is a member of the Non Aligned Movement and the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (IOC). Georgia has made it clear through its words and its actions that its closer co-operation with NATO and the EU is a threat to neither country, and in fact can offer important opportunities to both.

Georgia's reform agenda - not necessarily a model, but most certainly a beacon

In the process of realising its European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations Georgia has implemented an impressive package of reforms in all aspects of governance. The progress is impressive, and one hopes, will be sealed with a well organised and truly democratic election process in the coming weeks.

No two countries are the same, and it is wrong to try to cut and paste Georgia's experience of reform and democratisation to other countries in the neighbourhood. Yet the fact that Georgia is a beacon for others in undeniable. Armenians and Azerbaijanis travel to Georgia often, for business or leisure. They are able to experience the changes in the country nearly as well as the Georgians themselves. They see the pluralistic political landscape, the diverse media, the dynamic ngo sector, and are able to draw their own conclusions. There are also a large number of Georgians of Armenian and Azerbaijani ethnicity living in Georgia and they are a living bond between Georgia and its neighbours. Georgia's success therefore inspires, but in a subtle way, so neither Baku nor Yerevan actually feel threatened by it.

Russia's paranoia is unjustified

The same cannot be said of Russia, Unfortunately, Russia continues to see Georgia's progress towards EU and NATO as a threat. This perception is wrong and unjustified. Georgia's western orientation is not part of some evil plan to encircle Russia, as is sometimes suggested. Apart from the fact that a country the size of Russia is very difficult to encircle, it is Russia itself, through its actions, that has caused many of its smaller neighbours to seek security in bigger alliances with similarly minded countries.

A stable peaceful and prosperous Georgia is good for Russia too, regardless of whether it is a NATO member or not. On the contrary, an impoverished, unstable and failed Georgian state would be a much bigger danger for Russia - especially in the North Caucasus. Georgia can also be a beacon for its neighbours here too.  In the North Caucasus Russia's problems continue to fester, even if under the surface. Russia should stop thinking of Georgia as a buffer zone and instead realise that its modernisation as part of its journey to EU and NATO is helping uplift the region from poverty and isolation. Rather than trying to undermine Georgia, Russia should seek to work with it as a force for good in the Caucasus. This may be something too hard to swallow for the current imperial minded Kremlin, but is not beyond the imagination of progressive Russians.

Patience and Consistency

The Georgian Prime Minister was right in highlighting the need for patience and consistency when addressing the joint press Conference with the Secretary General of NATO. They are indeed attributes that are necessary as Georgia manages the difficult political terrain of its region. Georgia's diligence has already started to pay off, and will do even more so in the future. This will be good not only for Georgia but for the entire neighbourhood.

This commentary was prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

Download this report here in PDF

 

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)