POLITICS

NOVEMBER 19 - 25, 2021 POLITICS

5 When Avoiding and Hiding from the Essence of an Issue. Part II

OP-ED BY VICTOR KIPIANI, CHAIRMAN, GEOCASE

Asummit of the EU and Western Balkans was recently held in Slovenia. Its agenda was dedicated to the EU integration of the “Balkan Six”—an issue which has recently gained particular importance and has become a test not only for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro’s full EU membership but also for the Union’s real readiness to pursue its eastward expansion. Opinions among EU members are split on this topic, and not only with regard to the Balkan Six and the progress of their reforms: the attitudes of certain EU member states towards Russia, China and Turkey as well as their interest in political or economic angles are additional important factors. If we set aside internal Balkan processes for a second, it is particularly noteworthy that the word “expansion” engenders noticeable levels of resistance in EU countries.

Presumably, the answer to this resistance could be the various quasi-integrational attempts of several Balkan countries (e.g. the “Open Balkans” initiative), as these improve their readiness for greater coordination and integration around overall European themes.

One specifi c angle (reviewed here) can help us to discuss the “Eastern Partnership”, particularly as the political and economic test of Europeanness for this platform is much more diffi cult and complex than it is for the Balkans. It should be enough to mention that the West still considers the Eastern Partnership countries as a so-called “buffer zone”, whereas Russian infl uence over these countries is increasing daily; and this problem is rendered even more acute by the open aggression and occupation of territories belonging to several members of this “Associated Trio”. As a result, the integration of these countries into the EU causes great diffi culties and “archproblems”.

What should Georgia’s approach be towards European integration in such conditions? Where and to what extent do our interests overlap with those of the “Associated Trio”, as countries much closer to us in terms of their geopolitical aims?

I think that the best response of “Senior Europeans” would be the greater Europeanization of this Trio and the deepening of their EU integration in various sectors. Alongside various bilateral programmes with the EU, I would also consider establishing an overall regional market for the “Trio” with unifi ed rules and regulations. In addition to previously mentioned bilateral processes, i.e. when we carry out reforms whereas the EU fulfi lls its promises, a greater synergy of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine within a regionally important trilateral association would serve as an optimal response to Western European skepticism.

Besides economic components, a much greater rapprochement and consultations between the foreign policies and national security systems of the “Trio” would be equally useful. It is a fact that knocking on the doors of the EU and NATO on our own and uniting our call with those of others are two diametrically different situations. Alongside these two components, I believe that the West would welcome a more systematic approach from the “Trio”. The institutionalization of cooperation along foreign and security lines, both among the “Trio” and with the EU, would also improve the effectiveness of the fi ght against hybrid threats and disinformation.

The reader will have noticed that we began by discussing the “Eastern Partnership” before shifting to the “Associated Trio”, and this was neither a coincidence nor an accident. Despite declared support for the “Eastern Partnership” (of which the European Parliament’s paper of the 16th of September 2021 on EU-Russian political relations is a further example), moving towards the EU along the route of this “partnership” will be much longer than via the “Trio”. It is not only about the ambiguity of certain EU statements regarding the Eastern Partnership, e.g. “everything but institutions”; nor is it about speculation that the “Eastern Partnership” is an attempt by the EU to distance itself from the countries of the partnership. Yet nor is this thesis groundless… Essentially and importantly, the failing of the “partnership” in terms of European integration is a lack of overlap between the interests of its main members, making this union even more amorphous and “imminent” membership of the EU even more unrealistic.

Accordingly, I believe that the reality is that moving towards the EU along the “Associated Trio” path offers better prospects, for through such a homogeneous union Tbilisi could make it relatively easier for the EU to take practical counter-steps. Alongside the previously mentioned Europeanization, both parties to the integration process, i.e. us and them, must make political decisions. And this, along with common European values, rests upon the profi tability, acceptability and pragmatism that are so characteristic of the modern world.

The West still considers the Eastern Partnership countries as a so-called “buffer zone”, whereas Russian infl uence over these countries is increasing daily. Image source: belgradeforum.org

NATO: SO CLOSE AND YET SO FAR…

The problems that Georgia’s NATO membership faces are linked to one key issue: the differences of opinion among Alliance members regarding Eastern enlargement. From one summit to another, instead of the promises of 2008 being kept, we simply receive even more promises. Also, considering the anachronistic inclusion in the last summit’s declaration of an “individual membership plan”, I would read it as yet another appeal to “mark time”, if not actually another step back.

In general, expanding the Alliance has become a test of the modernization of the Western world as well as of its ability to adapt to the rapidly changing global security environment. As a result, we have ended up in a situation in which, alongside Tbilisi’s attempts to become a NATO member, we are also witnessing the Alliance’s own attempts to redefi ne itself in new contexts.

According to current data, Georgia has still not clearly been given a specifi c date for its NATO membership; and as for the country’s “individual membership” plan, we still do not know what more we could do to achieve greater specifi city. Additionally, there is also a need to clearly defi ne what our partner countries may expect (in terms of defense and in other areas) from a country which, despite hundredfold pressures in this most complicated region, continues to be the standard bearer of the course of Western geopolitics.

We have therefore reached a demand for the primacy of political will: we have been waiting for NATO members to show unity and make a bold political decision for a long time. Moreover, considering current processes, it seems likely that we will have to wait much longer still. If this turns out to be the case, it would be most unfair and should be mentioned immediately.

The word “unfair” was not mentioned accidentally. Georgia is currently much more advanced on the path towards NATO than, for example, Bulgaria and Romania were back in 1999 or Albania in 2007. Moreover, the picture of infl uences in the Black Sea region is changing very rapidly, requiring less talk of “values” and greater agility and dynamism in defense of “interests”.

The situation requires an honest and specifi c conversation with our Western partners regarding the “rules of the game”, in parallel with which the Georgian side is only left with the “option” of not stopping, not even for a second, its constant and unstoppable (!) work to fully and qualitatively reform its military and security sectors as well as its economy and democratic institutions.

Yet working on such changes should be done without self-satisfaction, groundless PR and reproaches. Real and comprehensive change is fi rst of all useful to its real benefi ciaries: our country and our society.

Also, if we cannot compel our partners and allies, we should at least call on them to turn our cooperation into an interallied effort, so that when they make a political decision, this relationship would only lack a signature.

Alongside Tbilisi’s necessary political and diplomatic efforts and before NATO’s possible replacement or the inactivation of its safety umbrella, I believe it would be appropriate to discuss the so-called security “compensation” model. This, too, has become a much more frequent subject of discussion, and I shall now underline the two main formats that such a model can adopt.

One of them is structuring a certain kind of alliance based upon territorial arrangements around the Black Sea. The Black Sea’s role in the overall Eurasian system has been mentioned many times; the region really has unique meaning as a “security lock” at the geostrategic crossroads of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet states, Turkish space and Russia’s “New Kaliningrad” (the Crimea). It is therefore time to take practical steps towards making this evaluation a reality.

As an alternative (or overlap), one could also consider transforming Georgia’s bilateral strategic partnership with the U.S. into a bilateral strategic alliance; and here, too, with great results in terms of security. When mentioning this model, it is worth noting the recent visit to Tbilisi of the U.S. Secretary of Defense and considering what practical results this visit could have.

At the same time, such cooperation should encourage Georgia’s regional position and stability. Efforts to strengthen the country’s security should fi rst of all be conditioned by our national and state interests, ensuring our citizens and society enjoy the peace and development that they need to prosper. It is equally important to note that this would in turn improve the stability and peaceful prospects of the wider Black Sea region and would be completely desirable for the South Caucasus—a neighborhood in which territorial integrity and civilized coexistence are fundamental principles.

IN A WORD…

Our discussion of these topics is yet another invitation to debate these matters among ourselves in a realistic and specifi c manner. I believe that formulating such an approach would help practical policy makers to establish a principle-based and yet fl exible position. Georgia cannot enjoy the luxury of being “incapable to agree” when considering the question of the country’s safe development. At the same time, systems of relations based upon framework agreements with our partners and neighbors can only be formed through a technocratic, rational and applied analysis. It is time for Georgian politicians to abandon their chestthumping patriotism and creation of fake media effects in favor of refl ecting reality, for only the latter can lead to practical, tangible and long-term results.

Wrong & Guilty or Right & Innocent?

OP-ED BY NUGZAR B. RUHADZE

The nation is totally and absolutely overwhelmed with just one issue: how to handle legally and physically, in the fairest possible way, the convicted third president of Georgia. Any other problem of national magnitude has been overshadowed by this. Georgia has stopped development and is paralyze; split and polarized so disastrously that an optimistic projection of the situation has become practically impossible.

The people of this country, as socially anxious and politically obsessed as they happen to be right now, are losing the judicious ground under their feet. The political delirium in which our good citizens have found themselves is having a lethal effect on the nation’s future. All human interests have been dejected, elementary human pleasures have been eradicated, and most of our healthy minds have been warped to the extent of stupefi ed stagnation. Lost between the two drastically differing psycho-political discourses, the ruinously dichotomized nervous system of the nation is being deleteriously shaken to the point of arresting its functionality. Our moral endurance capability is on the verge of explosion, and there is nobody out there to calculate the damage.

Are we going to recover from this diabolical quandary? Unlikely, because the nation has limited resources for survival, and that limit is currently at stake because of the uncanny self-exhaustion we are faced with. And no source to replete that vainly wasted national energy can be seen on the horizon. We certainly need help, the outside assistance, a friend’s hand and shoulder, but the world doesn’t seem to be handling our story in the wisest possible way. The casual world has standards of international behavior, deviation from which raises eyebrows, but raised eyebrows alone are utterly irrelevant to what’s going on with our blameless but terribly weakened people at this moment in time.

The question is still open why the former president wanted to permeate the already balanced and healed socialpolitical tissue of this society, and do so on Election Day. Everything is in doubt and under question. Most of us are at a loss, unable to tell wrong from right, having no clue how to discern between truth and lie.

Who is going to say whether the muchtalked-about convict, strangely swollen out of his signifi cance as a political animal, is guilty or innocent? And if he is guilty, what should the State of Georgia do in order for all of us here to get the feeling of justice done? Or does justice matter no longer in this land? If he is innocent, will the world have a say in handling his innocence with genuine righteousness? There is something nearly suicidal in puffi ng the issue into hyperbolized parameters, where the bridges seem to be burning irretrievably.

There is a weighing scale of stakes that any nation must be equipped with, which Georgia seems to have lost for good. Our weathervane is fl apping around like a broken toy and has no sensitivity to the climate around it. Why are all those stakes so badly ignored and forgotten? Are we going to put an end to that development indispensable for our kids’ prosperous and healthy future? The invisible killer of joy is around to fi nally deprive us of hope and opportunity. Why are we giving preference to just one issue, determining if the renowned convict should be freed or stay jailed? Shouldn’t we care more of the happiness and wellbeing of the remaining four million Georgians that need to be taken care of? It seems our capability to handle both is at the nadir right now. There is something very dark about the whole thing. There is a huge devastating wave moving on Georgia, whose current government has been overwhelmed with unknown-before headaches: looking after the economy without which we are all in trouble; handling the notorious culprit so sagely that not even a piece of hair falls from his head; coping with sporadic international discontent; remaining within the Euro-Atlantic framework of development; the perennial problem of territorial integrity; keeping together the spiritual integrity of our people; tolerating and handling with dignity the mixture of media rights and wrongs; optimal budgeting of the country’s fi nancial and other resources; keeping intact our cultural and spiritual values; feeding the elderly and fortifying the youth for future struggles; being in close and useful touch with the rest of the world. How felicitous are meanwhile the forces of opposition: just take to the streets and talk at the highest pitch, and get in the way of those who are factually responsible for our survival at this harshest time in our history. Aren’t they lucky!

Image source: JamNews.net