|
|
 |
 |
|
 | | "STABILITY in NATO
Membership?" |
|
|
| By Maya Beridze |
|
NATO is the hope to restore the territorial integrity of Georgia and strengthen its national security," said Akaki Kalmaxelidze, coordinator of the Georgian NATO Integration Program, during a June 25 interview. Indeed, 83% of Georgians support integration and see membership as a positive step for Georgia, according to a poll conducted by the Georgian Center for Social Research. But anyone who moves beyond the first impression can see the extraordinary complexity of what NATO membership could actually mean for Georgia and the region. Instead of bridging differences, membership without the necessary conditions and groundwork for cooperation can actually segregate cultures, further alienate close neighbors and provide the basis for possible conflict. Specifically, support for Georgian membership of NATO critically misjudges changing trends in American policy. A cooling of US-Turkey relations as a result of political maneuvering leading up to the war in Iraq has now been followed by possible recognition of the Armenian genocide by the US Congress. Many in Turkey feel they are being punished for not falling in line with new US foreign policy priorities. And Turkey is not alone. The US recently suspended military aid to half a dozen nations seeking NATO membership in early July because they failed to exempt US citizens from prosecution in the new International Criminal Court. Is it possible that NATO may experience the same fate as the United Nations in light of current US foreign policy? NATO Secretary General George Robertson made an interesting statement to Western media in June. He said "that Europe needed to spend more on defense and avoid creating unnecessary new structures if the US is to take it [NATO] more seriously as a partner for global security." Clearly, the question is whether NATO can be a practical alternative to the current security and hegemonic imbalance that exists in the world.
Is there really a function for NATO in the post-Soviet world, or is such a statement nothing more than "lip service" for an organization that may have outlived its useful life? Does cooperation bring about stability or does it provide a thorn in the side of important regional power players like Russia and Iran?
With an expanded role that NATO could play in regional and international security, including the fight against terrorism, comes an understanding of the need for a paradigm shift. The United States is already shifting allegiances away from Turkey, a NATO member, to Armenia, a client state of Russia and the occupier of Azerbaijani territory. This trend could further destabilize an already unstable region. As the Secretary General of NATO continued in his remarks, "We face a growing disconnect between our collective aspirations in Europe and our willingness and ability to deliver the forces needed to meet them." Much can be read into such a statement, and it is not positive, especially for the Caucasus.
Achieving regional stability is the key element for NATO membership. However, US lawmakers are proposing a resolution to recognize the genocide of the Armenians as a means to punish Turkey for refusing to allow US troops on its soil. The bill has already won passage in the US House of Representatives, and Senate approval is expected.
However, this is difficult as Georgian and Azeri officials will readily concede. The border regions between the Caucasus and Russia are very porous. Inconsistently controlled borders are exacerbated by the presence of the Russian military and the uncontrolled regions within the legal boundaries of Georgia and Azerbaijan. OSCE should understand that it would take more to assist in the enforcement of international borders and to achieve territorial integrity for Georgia and Azerbaijan. Unresolved conflicts in Georgia and Azerbaijan are further undermined by arms trafficking and transit routes for drugs.
The highly effective and well-financed Armenian lobby has effectively manipulated Turkish unpopularity in the US to divide the Caucasus and thereby help the Russians achieve their foreign policy objectives. The proposed HR 193 could in turn complicate matters for countries of the Caucasus who aspire for NATO membership. Punitive legislative acts by American lawmakers may derail any serious attempt to bring about improved Turkish-Armenian relations. In reality, such behavior is on the same intellectual level as taking off the 'French' from French Fries in the Congressional lunchroom.
For Georgia the timing could not be worse with court decisions pending on environmental safety that will impact on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline project. In addition, the IMF's continued financial support for the Georgian economy is now coming under question. So the problem for Georgia is its overeagerness to capitalize on its status as a transit route, to extent that it has courted NATO to the detriment of its own interests.
A better combination would have been a "partnership or framework" for membership based on expanded cooperation on security and economic fronts, rather than vindicating Russian interests to divide the region.
Georgia and Azerbaijan perceive NATO membership as the panacea for many of their security and internal problems. The same can be said for membership in the World Trade Organization or the Silk Road Project, funded by the European Union and development banks.
It is premature to boast about all the benefits of membership and partnership until the impacts on regional players are fully considered. What also matters, especially for countries like Georgia, is the ability to solve internal problems, and not to look upon membership in both security and economic organizations as the 'quick fix'.
NATO Integration
Although NATO has been held up as a successful example of Collective Defense, times have changed. Consequently, its larger role needs to change - this may mean shifting away from military solutions to cultural and scientific engagement. Indeed, Western policy has not been very successful in countries like Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, and some even now question the sincerity of it in the first place.
This brings us back to the point that Georgia and regional powers should be aware that NATO membership could be misused for the projected BTC pipeline project. Perhaps western interests prefer more corrupt and unstable states that would surrender to their demands more readily than democratic states which are concerned with the needs of their citizens and protecting the environment.
Any potential NATO member should be aware that by putting too much emphasis on joining, it may be short-changing itself of the possibility of achieving closer and more cooperative relations with its nearest neighbors and strategic partners.
Regardless of the best combination for stability in the Caucasus one thing is certain: the future of the region cannot be made easy by one or more countries becoming NATO members.
|
|
|
|
|
