It is time for Europe and the US to throw their full weight behind Georgia.

In this op-ed for commonspace.eu Dennis Sammut argues that it is time that taboos are broken, and Georgia should now be given an EU and NATO membership perspective regardless of what Russia says.

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili, who is currently on an official visit to the United States,  has raised the stakes in terms of his country's expectations from Europe and the United States over the coming months. Fresh from a meeting with President Obama at the White House, Garibashvili told the US think tank "Atlantic Council" that NATO should give Georgia a  Membership Action Plan (MAP) at its summit in September in Britain, and also called on the EU to make "a clear promise of membership to the successful countries" of the Eastern Partnership. Both demands would have sounded to many at best premature, one year ago. There were too many uncertainties surrounding Georgia, and the international situation seemed to suggest that a slower, more subtle approach to events in Eurasia was desirable.

Yet several things have happened over the last year or two that have made even cynics like myself think again. First there were developments in Georgia itself. Few could have believed that the transition of power from the increasingly despotic administration of Saakashvili to the Georgian Dream coalition could have proceeded so smoothly. Even fewer believed that once he had power, the mastermind and architect of the transition, Bidhzina Ivanishvili, would then retire from front line politics and leave a younger generation to carry on the task of government. Yet these things happened, and credit must be given to all concerned, including Saakashvili and the United National Movement.

Over the last two years the Georgian political elite have shown an increasing maturity, whilst Georgian civil society has shown an ability to keep politicians in check, and to hold them to account even in the most difficult of circumstances. Those of us who have followed Georgian politics over two decades, and who often despaired at the failures of its politicians, have been pleasantly shocked by the events of the last two years. There are now several EU countries that have a thing or two to learn from Georgia. Many problems remain in the field of governance and in the consolidation of the democratic process, but now Georgia's biggest challenges are in the economic  sector, and it is right that this is where the new government is putting the emphasis.

In the international sphere, and particularly with regards to events in the Eurasian region, much has changed too.  Over the last year Russia, in its quest for great power glory, not for the first time, has overplayed its hand. Russia's attempts in 2013 to undermine the European Union's modest Eastern Partnership strategy, and to frustrate the desire of a number of former Soviet republics to establish association arrangements with the EU, have now clearly misfired. The people of Ukraine have seen to that, paying with their blood. By the end of the day Russia is likely only to have Armenia to show as a trophy for its expensive and misguided policy. In Ukraine the situation will remain unstable for some time, and western countries should not try to pre-empt the process. Ukrainians must get their act together and move their political process forward to a new level, as the Georgians have done successfully.

With Georgia however it is another matter. If there was ever a time when Georgia should be put on a clear time table for full NATO and EU membership that time is now. I have never believed that NATO membership is a panacea for every situation, and some countries may be wiser staying out. The Georgian people have however made up their mind, and there is broad consensus amongst Georgians that this is what they want. There is now no justification for continuing to procrastinate over Georgia's membership. It will irritate Russia, but that may be one of the reasons why it needs to be done. The lingering sense that Russia somehow has a veto on what happens in the former soviet republics has lingered long enough, and is now itself a cause for instability and insecurity, let alone being an infringement of the rights of these countries to determine their future. NATO membership for Georgia is a taboo that needs to be broken, for the sake of Russia as much as for the sake of Georgia.

On the other hand membership of the EU is somehow perceived as a more technical issue, requiring time. Indeed Georgia will need to be eased into membership, as well as being required to implement substantial reforms. Yet putting Georgia on a time table for membership will consolidate the fragile gains of the last two years in the political field, and will considerably help Georgia to forge its economic future. No doubt the Brussels bureaucracy, and those of the member states who are so minded, may well come up with hundreds of difficulties, and most of them will be real enough. Yet there is never going to be a better time for accepting Georgia's European aspirations and the EU needs to rise to the occasion and put membership on the table.

As could be seen from the visit of the Georgian Prime Minister to Washington in the last days there is a lot of goodwill towards Georgia in the US, and the same can be said for the European Union. Yet goodwill is meaningless unless backed by action, and it is now time for the US and the EU to take the plunge and throw their full weight behind Georgia.

Dennis Sammut is a foreign policy analyst and a regular contributor to commonspace.eu. He is currently based at Oxford University, and may be contacted at dennis.sammut@spc.ox.ac.uk

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
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

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)