Javier Colomina on Georgia’s chances of joining NATO, and Russia’s ultimatums

Javier Colomina, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs and Security Policy and Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia. Image source: 1tv.ge

INTERVIEW BY VAZHA TAVBERIDZE

Mr Javier Colomina, a Spanish diplomat who replaced James Appathurai as NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for the South Caucasus and Central Asia in September 2021, gave his fi rst interview to Radio Free Europe.

Talking to Vazha Tavberidze about the security issues in the region, NATO's collective response to Russia and the so-called Rasmussen approach of getting Georgia into the alliance, Colomina says he plans to visit Georgia before the Madrid summit.

THERE WAS A STATEMENT MADE DURING THE OSCE & RUSSIA TALKS THAT WAS PARTICULARLY EVOCATIVE – THE POLISH CO-CHAIR SAID “THIS IS THE CLOSEST WE'VE BEEN TO A WAR WITH RUSSIA FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS”. IS THIS FEELING SHARED AT NATO?

It's a diffi cult question to answer. The situation is a serious one, that's for sure. The Russian military buildup has not stopped, and therefore the risk of confl ict remains. At the same time, and whenever we've talked about that the Secretary General has been extremely clear, we are doing our utmost to work on the diplomatic path: we have offered paths of consultation to the Russians, we provided a set of specifi c proposals that we believe can be a basis for dialogue, but not the ones they proposed us, which are basically unacceptable. We have been working on all the things that we believe can be a basis for a dialogue and a process related with transparency and risk reduction measures, with nonproliferation, with the communication between NATO and Russia, which is right now completely stalled. We really believe that it's time for diplomacy, we really believe there is still time for dialogue, but we need, of course, to continue work on our defense and deterrence. And it is needed due to Russia’s actions. We will convey that message as much as we need, and hopefully the Russians will stay engaged on this diplomatic path.

RUSSIA HAS MADE IT EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN THAT KIND OF DIALOGUE, AND THEY'VE OFFERED THEIR OWN ULTIMATUMS WHICH, AS YOU SAID, ARE UNACCEPTABLE TO YOU. SO WHERE DOES IT LEAVE US?

Well, it leaves us in a diffi cult situation, to be honest. We are working and hoping for the best, but we need to prepare for any contingency. We know they have offered a few things that were mostly unacceptable. And we told them so, that we won’t compromise on our basic principles; we won't compromise on the rights of any nation to design, freely, its own path and its own security arrangements. We will, of course, support the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia. Our hope, my personal hope, as a special representative and as a diplomat, is that they will really follow the diplomatic path.

MANY NEWS OUTLETS, AMONG THEM THE NEW YORK TIMES, GUARDIAN, THE HILL AND SO ON, INSINUATE THAT THERE COULD BE A MORATORIUM ON ENLARGEMENT - THE SIDES AGREE, LET'S SAY, NOT TO ENLARGE NATO FOR 20 YEARS AND THEN SEE WHAT HAPPENS. IS THIS ON THE TABLE?

It is not on the table, it's completely off the table. I've read many articles in that sense, too. But we've been extremely clear with the Russians: we won't compromise on our basic principles, we won't compromise on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine or Georgia. I think it's 100% clear from NATO that we won't compromise on our open-door policy.

A CONSENSUS IS NEEDED TO ADMIT UKRAINE AND GEORGIA, BUT THERE ARE SKEPTICS TO THAT IDEA IN NATO. AS A SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SOUTH CAUCASUS, WHAT WOULD NEED TO CHANGE FOR THAT CONSENSUS TO BE REACHED?

Georgia is a very valued partner. All the tools that we offer our partners are in place, and we're working very well with Georgia, both in practical cooperation and in terms of political dialogue. We are very engaged, and I think most of the things we need to see are there. But, of course, there are a few things that are not, and we've been conveying that to the Georgian side in terms of the reforms that we need to see, the domestic political situation, the extremes between the different parties is something that we don't like to see, of course, and we've been quite clear about that. That is among the concerns of those within the alliance that might have a different view on an open door for Georgia.

IS THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE IN THE PATH OF GEORGIA THAT IT NEEDS TO IMPLEMENT REFORMS AND TO IMPROVE THE DOMESTIC POLITICAL CLIMATE IN THE COUNTRY?

Yes, probably. What I said to the Georgians is that they need to be prepared for whenever the time comes. We know that right now is not the time for a breakthrough in the open-door policy. And I know the Georgian authorities know that, but they still need to be prepared, to fulfi ll all the reforms that are needed- in electoral reform, judicial reform, security, etc. I know that the Georgians are doing a good job, but in some aspects, that job could be improved. And we need to see those reforms coming along. 2021 wasn't the best year in that sense. We saw a few things, such as the withdrawal from the April agreement with the European Union, which can be read as messages that are confusing to the allies. I had to do some talking here to explain the situation.

IF THERE WASN’T A RUSSIAN FACTOR, WOULD GEORGIA BE A MEMBER ALREADY?

The decisions on the open door policy are taken by the 30 allies and by partners wanting to become part of the Alliance, no third party has a veto on those decisions. Russia doesn't have any infl uence. Does the situation in the world geopolitics have an infl uence? Of course it does- on everything that is happening in the world. We've been very clear: accession is a matter that will be decided by the 30 allies. And by Georgia in this case.

WHAT ABOUT THE TERRITORIAL CONFLICTS IN UKRAINE AND GEORGIA? DO THEY IMPACT THE DECISION MAKING IN THE ALLIANCE?

We have also been very clear about the territories occupied by Russia, and in my view, there is an absolute consensus by the allies that we support their sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we have asked on repeated occasions for the withdrawal of Russian troops in countries where they are not welcomed. We believe that Georgia should continue on its Euro-Atlantic path and whenever Georgia is ready to access NATO, it will do so, although I don't think there is a possibility to integrate just one part of Georgia. We believe that the territorial integrity of Georgia is a fundamental principle. And therefore we will press the Russians to withdraw their troops and at the same time, continue to work as we are doing towards Georgia’s accession.

THE FORMER SEC GEN FLOATED THE IDEA OF ADMITTING GEORGIA WITHOUT SOME OF ITS TERRITORIES. AND YOU COMMENTED ON THAT IN THE PAST, SAYING “IT'S NOT VERY HELPFUL IN THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.” HOW SO?

I think we have to stick to the principles we have defended all along. One of those is the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. We wouldn't be doing a favor to the Georgians, in my opinion, if we accepted a sort of extension of a part of Georgia and moratorium on the territories that are occupied. I think we have to put the pressure where it has to be put, and that's on the Russian side. They know they have to withdraw their troops from the occupied territories. And we know that that's actually the path for Georgia to regain control of its own sovereignty. That's what we all want.

HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE GEORGIA MILITARY, ESPECIALLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT LIVES UP TO NATO STANDARDS?

In most aspects, the relationship and the level of Georgian troops is optimal. It's not for every partner to be able to have 800 troops in a NATO operation without any trouble. We are having a NATO exercise in March. NATO and partners exercising within the partnership is not something that we do with every partner; it is something that we do very specifi cally with the partners that we believe are actually trained at the level to exercise with NATO directly. This alone is proof of how excellent the relationship is. I said before that I was planning a visit to Georgia at some point before the summit, and I will try to do so in the framework of the exercise.

Opposition UNM Party Ends Parliamentary Boycott

BY ANA DUMBADZE

The United National Movement has called off its parliamentary boycott and will engage in active parliamentary activities, Khatia Dekanoidze, Chairwoman of the National Movement faction, stated at a briefi ng on Monday.

As she noted, there were differences of opinion within the party on the issue, however, the decision was made “by the majority of members.”

The party, Dekanoidze says, will return to Parliament with its own agenda, which includes “fi erce spring protests” on the streets “to fi ght for the rights of the population by all means.”

“I would like to explain why our faction made this decision. Our party and country are facing the harshest realities and challenges. The third president of Georgia is in prison, captured by the regime. The international community says that his imprisonment is the political revenge of the regime and Bidzina Ivanishvili. Therefore, one of the main axes of our parliamentary activities will be the public disclosure of the regime, how the regime treats Mikheil Saakashvili using its repressive institutions. That is why we are going to set up a factfi nding commission.”

“This will be our own strategy to fi ght for the security and dignity of our people at all stages, on all fronts, not only in Parliament, not only in the city councils, but also in the streets, including fi erce spring protests,” Dekanoidze said.

After the 2020 parliamentary elections, the UNM refused to enter parliament, and demanded the abolition of parliamentary mandates. Members of the biggest opposition party entered parliament on June 8, 2021. However, one month after that entry, after the violent events of July 5, the party again announced a parliamentary boycott.

Red Tide Rising: Xi Jinping and the Rise of Chinese Infl uence

In late 2022, the Chinese Communist Party will hold its 20th National Party Congress, where Xi Jinping may push for a third unprecedented term. Source: Xinhua News Agency

BY MICHAEL GODWIN

The increasingly concerning issue of great power competition between the East and West has again come into focus with Russian and NATO relations. Lurking behind these events is the rapidly ambitious Chinese. With their hosting of the 2022 Winter Olympics, they are once again seizing the opportunity to utilize the levers of power to gain more legitimacy and infl uence on the world stage.

In a recent series of events, the Hoover Institution has deeply examined this expansionism and how China’s leader, Xi Jinping, could use these levers to expand his authority and outreach to other sectors of the globe. The Hoover Institution, a public policy research organization and think tank attached to Stanford University, has a wide portfolio of some of the globe’s brightest minds in politics, democracy, foreign policy, and social issues.

Convening with some of those bright minds on the matter, the Hoover Institution brought together George Soros, Chair of the Soros Fund Management and Open Society Foundations; Oriana Skylar Mastro, Center Fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; Matt Pottinger, a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Former US Deputy National Security Advisor; and Orville Schell, Director of the Center on U.S.China Relations at the Asia Society.

Soros postulates that 2022 is going to be a particularly unique year, noting such pivotal events as the French presidential, American mid-term, and Hungarian parliamentary elections. These coupled with the current NATO tensions with Russia makes the year increasingly decisive for Europe as a whole. With this backdrop, China’s Xi intends to replicate the 1936 Olympics in Germany and score a propaganda victory, he says.

As a furtherance of this, Xi has undone much of his predecessor’s work to draw investment and business to his nation. He has worked tirelessly to bring all that was once in the private sphere under government control, including various social institutions and the military. This fi rm grip on the country, amplifi ed by the development and use of artifi cial intelligence and digital censorship, has been carefully coordinated to insure his indefi nite rule.

However, Soros puts forward the idea that there are cracks beginning to form within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Elites within the party, watching the absorption of industry by the state as a potential threat to their own profi ts, could see the party headed for a monumental schism. With the Chinese economy under threat from an imminent real estate crisis, Soros sees the current model as unstable. Chinese land and housing prices are falling and, when paired with a declining birth rate, the prospects of Xi’s glorious vision could be a delusion.

In his closing statements, Soros outlines that while Xi has the tools to rectify the situation, it is doubtful that he will do so. The only viable solution is for him to be replaced with someone with more reasonable ideas and a drive to move the nation in a more desirable path. As the Chinese 20th Party Congress looms, the billionaire and philanthropist proposes that Xi intends to enshrine himself as the “leader-for-life” alongside his longtime idol, Mao Zedong.

In a subsequent discussion between Matt Pottinger and Oriana Skylar Mastro, the pair attempt to understand the ambitions of the Chinese President. From his possible attempt at a third term in his position, typically limited to only two terms, to the ramifi cations of his military, social, and foreign relations reforms, each shares their insights on Xi.

Mastro believes that Xi intends on staying in power for, at a minimum, another decade. He has structured the nation’s institutions, particularly the military, to be in his favor. By doing this, it acts as an insurance policy for his reelection and a signifi cant lever against any internal opposition. That opposition, Pottinger suggests, will not be the traditional grassroots ousting seen in other corners of the world. Rather, it will be other Chinese elites within the CCP that move to usher Xi out. Xi’s only alternative is to install his daughter, Xi Mingze, groomed in his own (which is to say, Mao’s) image, as the next leader.

Both Pottinger and Mastro agree that the West is largely not taking Xi’s ideological campaign seriously. Internally, Xi has won the favor of the people by supposedly rooting out corruption, accomplished by eliminating any opposition in the government. These purges are notorious for swiftly removing those who fail to accurately toe Xi’s model of party ideals.

In addition, he angles the populace against foreign infl uences and ideologies. A recent speech, largely ignored by Western press, praised Mao and the Communist forces in the Korean War. Pushing for preemptive actions against the West, particularly the United States, Xi states that by one early punch they can prevent a war of a thousand punches. Holistically, Xi’s promulgated ideology centers around the Stalinistic principles of party preservation over all.

As a part of that party preservation, the development and expansion of the Chinese military, combined with its role as a nationalistic propaganda tool, cements the party’s power. China’s military, like the Russian military, has gone through widespread and immense reforms in both structure and technical modernization. Mastro states that China can only be in one of two states; undeterred and happy or deterred and angry. This modernization is a push to achieve the former as well as deterring the West from capping Chinese global infl uence.

This global infl uence contest is a precursor to the next competition between East and West. As a rising shortage of semiconductors looms on the horizon, China is already positioning itself as the dominant producer. Pottinger urges the West to cut Xi from gaining this upper hand and ramping up production. Adding to this, Mastro says the West must move to control the leak of advanced technologies to China in order to maintain any edge.

In order for the West to truly compete, they have to do so in the third world, states Mastro. When compared to organizations like USAID and EU support programs, Xi’s China aims not to elevate the small nations but to rather economically enslave. Pottinger outlines that at the same time the West tries to fi ght corruption, an uphill battle at best, China uses it to their advantage and weaponizes it.

China also expands this on a global scale. Pottinger explains that the World Bank, a largely American institution that receives the majority of its funds from the United States, has China as its largest recipient. While many of these are indirect, stating that approximately 39% of funds go to Chinese state-owned enterprises, Pottinger explains that a mechanism to prevent this from happening has to be in place.

As China prepares to host this year’s Winter Olympics in Beijing, this is merely a cover for the outward expansion and internal crisis Xi is dealing with. It is for these reasons that the potential for a massive propaganda victory with the Olympics is imperative to his upcoming bid for a third, and potential indefi nite, term as the Chinese President. While it’s undoubtedly true that the West must seek a symbiotic relationship with China, they must also contend with Xi’s aggressive ambitions in the globe that threaten any harmony from forming.

Billionaire George Soros has said China’s Xi Jinping may fail to extend his rule of the country later this year in contrast to what most observers expect. Source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

Nikoloz Samkharadze: Only Point on which Georgian Political Parties Agree is that Our Redemption Lies in Our Union with West

At the Joint Sitting of the Foreign Relations and EU Integration Committees, where MPs heard the European Parliament’s Rapporteur on Georgia, Sven Mikser, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee thanked the MEP for his visit to the Georgian Parliament and for participating in the Joint Sitting of the Committees.

“I would like to emphasize that your visit to Georgia is taking place against the background of a rather tense regional situation,” stated Nikoloz Samkharadze, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs. “These are critical days not only for Ukraine but for the Black Sea region as a whole, and for the post-Soviet space. We look to the West with great hope that it will not follow Russia’s will to redistribute the world as a sphere of particular infl uences. We very much hope that the negotiations that have started between NATO and Russia, as well as between the US and Russia, will fi nally bear fruit and that this situation will end peacefully. At the same time, the interests of Georgia, as well as the interests of Ukraine, will not be compromised. This is the most important and principled issue today, and regardless of political beliefs in Georgia, the only point on which Georgian political parties agree is that our redemption lies in our union with the West.”

Georgia’s Double-Edged Political Opposition

Image source: AFP

OP-ED BY NUGZAR B. RUHADZE

The political opposition may not be measured with the same yardstick in every country. Its level and extent is marked with a circumstantial character, depending on specifi c situations and the state of affairs in a nation. In some, their opposition is desired and tolerated, and in others it is repressed and rejected, all in accordance with the level of democracy or dictatorship in the system. Opposition as such is the refl ection of one or many critically poised political forces on a wide range of developments on the daily agenda of a nation, as suggested by the current leadership of said nation.

In our multiparty country, the entire political spectrum, including hundreds of political groupings, has been criticizing the political force in power passionately and incessantly at all stages of Georgia’s 30-year existence as an independent nation. Opposition here is double-edged: parties against each other, and all of them in concert against the sitting government: noisy speeches, mendacity, manipulation, bitterness, intimidation, vote-buying, coercion, fabrications, false promises, brutality and aggression in the streets and on the fl oors of Parliament and, of course, on social media- all this used as the choice tools of a struggle wrapped in fl agrant political deception, in addition to a certain number of fair demands and slogans meant to correct the governmental moves and measures.

For voting purposes and even for further national leadership, our local political soil and electoral psychology are often prone to seek out a political fi gure with the wondrous ability to bring about a drastic revolutionary modifi cation to the life of society, based on the idea that they will introduce some unexpected sociopolitical or economic novelty. In the last 30 years, this nation has been through the hands of such messianic personalities many times, and all of them have ended up in exile, jail, or forced retirement.

We are a nation of self-confi dently speaking leaders, not of diffi dently listening followers. Even those squeezed faceless into the thick of protesting crowds carry the charge of a leader harbored inside a temporarily restrained political animal.

Although the democratic process is very loud and obvious in Georgia, it still lacks maturity and is still ridden with undemocratic tendencies and attitudes. The typical Georgian seems loathe to give up that love of power which seems to be an inborn streak of greed for leadership. Here prevails the ever-present suspicion of election rigging, which was either a conviction acquired at the very beginning of our independence and kept, or which is an abused instrument in the fi ght against the government, who is technically responsible for taking the country through the painful electoral process.

One of the strongest determiners of the outcome of elections and the effective infl uencers of votes in Georgia is social media, not just the conventional means of mass communication like TV, Radio and Press. It is likely that two million out of the entire population of 3.8 million people in the country are well versed in the internet means and ways, and are involved in the universal talk of the country, being politically active, sharp-tongued participants in the process, bisected into two opposing political camps – that of the opposition and that of the ruling party. We love to freely express our political opinion and have it registered on social media, which guarantees a higher level of participation in the political process. This means that the Georgian political opposition is mainly built in the social media space, full as it is of opinions, attitudes, judgments, evaluations, approaches and outlooks, where very often misleading thoughts are expressed and spread, conducive to threatening the political process with subversion and erecting unwanted obstacles for the governmental performance in leading the nation.

Hence, against the background of frank oppositional disapproval, the stimulation of sympathy towards the government and building up of public support becomes almost impossible, even if the media, supporting the administration, tries very hard. The political discourse, based on technological progress in Georgia, is nonstop and widespread, which is good, provided the passions and overly harsh usage of language is reduced and logic and reason are promoted in the ever-growing onslaught of the opposition on the government, infl icted as it is with more headaches than it can possibly endure.

Cabinet Discusses Defense and Pharmaceutical Plans

Monday’s Cabinet session, chaired by Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili at the Government Administration, discussed issues related to military empowerment and protection of Georgia’s pharmaceutical sector.

“To strengthen the defense capabilities of Georgia’s Armed Forces, and improve anti-armor capacities, the government is working on procuring an additional supply of Javelin man-portable anti-tank missiles,” the government’s press service announced. “In 2021, the Department of State made a decision on a possible foreign military sale of $30 million worth of additional Javelin missiles to Georgia. The Defense Ministry, in order to carry out this transaction of national and public importance, will employ simplifi ed procurement to acquire new Javelin man-portable antitank systems under the relevant agreement between the Governments of the two countries.”

Given the priorities of the Defense Ministry, it has been decided that the fi nancing to this end, amounting to $26,246,866, will be covered with the amount allocated by the US and, in line with the agreement between the governments of the United States and Geor-