NATO- Big Risk or Big Security

The terrible events of November 7, 2007, which a brutal crackdown on civil and human rights in Georgia, has made it more difficult for Georgia to be able to integrate into North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Our immediate aim now is to get some kind of second tier status under MAP (Membership Action Plan) or some partnership status. Experts in the aftermath of the violent crackdown that took place in November there are second thoughts about fast-tracking Georgia to full-fledged membership.  NATO authorities are thinking twice about whether to give Georgia a second chance or not. Even those who voted in principle for integration into NATO during the plebiscite that was January 5, 2008 are asking one and the same question, and it is now more frequently asked than ever before: Is there any threat behind integration into NATO?

Questions and doubts about the advantages of NATO membership has been brought to the forefront largely because of the anti-NATO pre-election statements of some political parties, for example, Irina Sarishvili, leader of political union Imedi (Hope), which was advising people to vote against integration into NATO. It was alleged that the country would lose its separatist regions instead of returning back to the fold of Georgia proper. Sarishvili was also highlighting he problems of possible conflict between Iran and the United States and the potential role of Georgia has in this looming conflict.   

“If you vote against integration it does not mean that you will vote against Europe and NATO itself, but it will show the government that you do not wish to have NATO military bases on Georgian territory. My assumption is that if NATO soldiers are deployed on Georgian soil, the relationship between Iran and the United States will become even tenser, which means that Georgia might get caught up in a Iran-US war”, stated Irina Sarishvili.

There id not one shared attitude towards NATO from all segments of Georgian society: some believe that they know integration into this international body entails. There is one line of thought that believes that integration will restore Georgia’s territorial integrity. However, many don’t know much about NATO and what advantage or disadvantage it will bring. They are listening to the range of attitudes and arguments and counterarguments and are left to make up their own minds. The plebiscite demonstrated that more than 60 % of voters are in favor of integration into NATO. The fact that remains in the analysis is that the road to full-fledged integration had many more supporters before the events of November 7, 2007.

Irakli Sesiashvili, head of the association Justice and Freedom, considers that Georgian people’s attitude towards NATO varies according to the political situation facing the country.

“I think that the government should not have raised this question on January 5, 2008 election. It seemed as if they had tried to show that the dialogue with NATO had started under their leadership. Negotiations actually started in 1994 and Georgia has already invested several billion GEL in this process, not to mention what partner countries have provided in direct support of the process. It was decided a long time ago that Georgia considered itself to be part of the West.

Those who voted against NATO are among those who were infuriated by the events of November 7, 2007. Regardless, those living in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali Region (South Ossetia) have not been able to express their point of view on this issue.

I believe that the question about integration must be raised when Georgia is able to reestablish its full-fledged independence. At that time a referendum will be necessary to have in determining how many people in all of Georgia really wants to be integrated into NATO. It necessary that Russia will not be able to have a say and impact the people’s decision integration, and such a decision can only be reached by all Georgian citizens, and without outside influence,” said Sesiashvili.

Sesiashvili also told how that Georgia can not protect its security on its own and NATO is the single body that can unite democratic and economically strong countries. “NATO does not need to count a poor country among its membership roll. It needs a country that will contribute to implementing its aims and objectives. Georgia has the potential of meeting NATO’s standards and  integration into NATO means that Georgia becomes a part of the protected world, and as a result it will not be an easy prey; should Georgian be threatened, all NATO members will then stand together in its support.

We must keep in mind that the integration will not solve all the problems that Georgia faces.  NATO has no right to interfere with the internal affairs of Georgia, and if our country decides to solve the territorial conflicts using arms, NATO will not take part or interfere. Under such conditions Georgia could face a direct threat from the Russia Federation.

Under such circumstances, NATO will support Georgia. Being a NATO member also means that our territory will bee controlled by helicopters flyovers and even observed from outer space, and other means of intelligence.

If integrated, Georgia will then be a frontline country in the south-west section of Europe. It may be necessary to make improvements in the security system of the country, and this would be necessary as a component of the united security system of NATO. It is conceivable that terrorists might attack NATO military bases that are on Georgian territory. We must think about such risks but at the same time we must also bear in mind that NATO is a shield for avoid military attacks from a third country. It is like the conflict between two neighbors. It is natural from other neighbors to interfere in trying to solve the problem- NATO is like this,” states Sesiashvili.

The people who voted against integration had their own viewpoints, which sometimes differed from each, and take for example, Nino Gvedashvili a voter, who shares the following: 
 “I had three reasons to vote against NATO. First NATO, to me, is not associated with Georgian security. Just on the contrary, as there is a real possibility of Iran-US war and Georgia will been caught up in military activities. Consequently, Iran will attack Georgia. The second problem is that one of NATO’s key demands for a membership to be considered is that country has no internal conflicts.  We have two frozen conflicts on our territory (Abkhazia and South Ossetia). We have two options whether we must relinquish these territories or bring them as soon as possible. I think we have no chance of returning these territories with peaceful methods.

The third reason why I do not support integration into NATO is because of its demand is to have highly qualified armed forces. The Georgian government is carefully striving to meet this standard and this comes at a high price. As a citizen of Georgia I do not want my money paid through taxes to be spent on the military. I am against war and do not agree with increasing defense spending to purchase military equipment. Besides I think that what NATO does in reality differs from what is claimed in its charter and regulations”.

Irakli Sesiashvili tries to dispel the doubts of a citizen Gvedashvili, and tells that it is not one of NATO's ultimate demands to resolve conflicts within the borders of a country. Georgia must try its best find some resolution to the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As for militarization of the country, he says that it must not be immediately associated with planning military operations.

“We must increase military forces to in order to repel potential aggression. It must be highlighted that the notion that “security” has acquired another additional meaning since 2001 and this is related to freedom from the threat of terrorism. In a classical meaning nobody is free from this threat and there is no front line. The front is everywhere where terrorism can be found. The aim of the world’s leading European countries is to establish peace in the world, and this is not only for the territory of Europe. NATO needs supporter among post Soviet countries for this purpose.”

Tea Berulava, a voter, thinks that the integration into NATO is neither a pipe dream nor a terrible threat: “I think that integration must not be an ultimate goal for our government. Some people think that integration will return Abkhazia to Georgia, which is incorrect. NATO will not interfere with our internal affairs. It is up to us to solve our problem our problems. I think the advantage of the integration is that stability and security from external threats that it will bring.

Besides NATO has its demands that must be followed. Such requirements include a high level of democracy, protection from human rights and so forth and so on. If we really want integration, than we must not accept a show-off off democracy. The government must start making active steps in to have real democracy in Georgia.”

Giorgi Khutsishvili, specialist of conflict resolutions: The risks are much less than the advantage of the integration into NATO.NATO membership for Eastern-European countries is a pass to the EU. Bulgaria and Rumania were also facing the doubts about risks but they made their choice.

Geographical location of our country causes more threats. The threat is that Georgia might be used to conduct military operation on Georgian soil or near the border of the country. If there is the war in Iran and at that time Georgia is a member of NATO we will be a real candidate where military forces will be deployed, but if there is no war, still we must think of the tension in which we will have our role. So must choose between being a member of the club of civilized countries or stay alone.”

Jeffery Silverman, American journalist, who has been living and working in Georgia for 15 years, thinks that the integration into NATO will not bring anything good for Georgia:

“If Georgia would achieve the standards that would be necessary for full-fledged membership in NATO then in all likelihood it would be in the position where it would not need to seek membership. As it stands for now, striving for membership in NATO is a convenient distraction for the real problems facing Georgia, both domestically and in terms of relations with the Russian Federation and other CIS countries. There continues to be the problem of territorial integrity over the breakaway regions and frozen conflict zones of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

It would be naïve to think that membership in NATO is going to be an instrument to resolve domestic problems. The problem is more complicated since Georgia’s track record in recent months has done more to prove those that claim that NATO membership is a pipe dream. The crackdown on human rights and taking a step backwards of international obligations to the Council of Europe, CoE and other treaties, demonstrates that Georgia does not meet the minimum requirements for membership in the treaty organization.  It may be that NATO needs Georgia more than Georgia needs NATO“.

Sesaishvili recalls as he sums up the events of November 7, 2007. “Just consider how many experts who now consider that Georgia has made one step backwards from any real possibility of integration: “If you digress from the road of democracy, NATO authorities will start thinking that it is not worth the trouble to open membership for you. The Diplomatic Corps had been expressing its discontent about the problems facing Georgian courts. They were perceived as impartial even before November 7.  The situation has not improved, and even more recently the Georgian government was again informed about this unresolved problem. I think Georgia will have another chance and hope that the next time people show their discontent with the government that the government will not make the same mistakes as it did back on November 7, 2007”.

Eka Kevanishvili, Tbilisi