Rasmussen’s remark about Georgia possibly becoming NATO member without Article 5 covering occupied regions give rise to different responses
By Levan Abramishvili
Wednesday, September 11
Rasmussen stated that Georgia should start an internal discussion of whether it would be acceptable to join NATO without Abkhazia and so-called South Ossetia. Meaning that Article 5, which is the cornerstone of NATO, would only apply to the territories controlled by Georgia until the territorial disputes are solved. Article 5 stipulates that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of its members.
“Georgia fulfills necessary criteria to become a member of NATO but there is one major outstanding issue and that is the dispute with Russia on Abkhazia and South Ossetia’. So one possibility would be to become a member of NATO but not let NATO’s article 5 cover Abkhazia and South Ossetia’. So once Georgia has decided whether that’s acceptable for them, you could go to NATO and say: okay, we’re willing to do that. What about you?” said Rasmussen.
Rasmussen underscored that if Georgia wants to become a member of NATO, it should also “continue reforms within a democracy, that is determined fight against corruption, guarantee of rule of law, guarantee of free speech, free expression, guarantee of minority rights.”
However, the former NATO official didn’t shy away from recognizing how uncertain this route would be. “You have to discuss it internally, very thoroughly because it can also be a risky path,” he said.
He also noted that it is necessary to get rid of what he calls Russian President Vladimir “Putin’s de facto veto”.
“He [Putin] knows that NATO and the European Union, by the way, would be reluctant to import those problems into our organization. He knows that and that's why he continues to de facto occupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia’. But if you say: Okay, we're ready to join NATO without Abkhazia and South Ossetia’, we will let Article 5 only cover the territory, which is fully controlled by the Georgian government, then we will ensure that Putin cannot veto,” noted Rasmussen.
The former Secretary-General noted that such a decision by the Georgian side would restart “real talks about the future Georgian membership.” He called it a ‘first real step’ towards fulfilling the decision made at the Bucharest summit in 2008 when The NATO members agreed that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually become members of NATO.
Assessing the risks that would inevitably come with the decision, Rasmussen said:
“Of course, it is a risk. And that's why it’s for Georgia to discuss and decide what to do. But the question is, what is riskier, the current situation or to start new talks about future membership of NATO.”
Georgian political sphere, very characteristically, got divided on the issue. The leader of the parliamentary majority, Gia Volski interpreted Rasmussen’s words as Georgia rejecting the possibility of getting the occupied territories back.
“Any international organization should accept Georgia with the territory and borders that the international community, including NATO recognizes, supports, and works hard with us to restore this justice,” said Volski.
He went on further to state that making that decision would be against history and statehood.
“There are issues that we need to discuss. It should be a consensus of society, which needs further comments and explanations. Neither we nor any of the political forces can refuse these territories, nor they will, because it would be going against history and the State, which will benefit no one. I’m sure that emotionally everyone is inclined like that, regardless of their political wing. If this [Rasmussen’s comments] contradicts this, it is unacceptable for us, but there is another side to this when we say that we will achieve our territorial integrity through negotiations,” said the leader of the parliamentary majority.
Grigol Gegelia, an independent political commentator who ran for a Mtatminda MP seat last spring, harshly criticized Volski for his comments, calling them “irresponsible and uninformed”. In a Facebook post, Gegelia explained what Rasmussen meant by saying that Georgia could become a NATO member before getting the occupied territories back.
“This does not mean the concession of these territories, but rather the fact that these territories will not be covered by Article 5 of NATO, which gives member states common defense obligations …This is exactly what the Georgian side has been trying to achieve for many years. This is an offer that Georgia should aspire to implement,” says Gegelia.
Gegelia stressed that Georgia should show the stability and sustainability of the political system.
“We need to demonstrate the stability and sustainability of the political system and class. We have to say unanimously that we have a high sense of responsibility. The most important part of Rasmussen’s statement today is that Georgia has a military readiness to join NATO, but lacks political willingness! That is what all political and public groups should work together to ensure the stability of our homeland,” concludes Gegelia.
The former Minister of Defense Tina Khidasheli told InterPressNews that this was the most pragmatic solution to the challenges that Georgia faces.
“This idea does not belong to Anders Fogh Rasmussen. It is nice that he has the same position. It would have been better if he had expressed this idea when he was the Secretary-General, but we all know how important it is for the international community to hear the positions of such high-ranking experts,” said Khidasheli.
She also underscored that Georgian authorities have had this outlook, however fragmented.
“The Georgian Government had this position fragmentarily when we, the people who believed in it were in power, but for action to be taken, you must be motivated. I don't think the Georgian authorities have any other feelings about NATO, except the threat,” she said.
Bucharest summit of 2008, as monumental as it was for Georgia, was 11 years ago. Georgia has enhanced the level of democracy, press independence, economic growth and improved its military capacity and participation in NATO missions year after year. However, despite the constant development, there is still no Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Georgia, a necessary step for the eventual membership.
As mentioned by Rasmussen, NATO needs to have an appropriate answer to Putin’s de facto veto. And if the day comes that the Georgian political elites conclude that the pros outweigh the cons and agree for the 5th Article to be applied only to the Georgian-controlled territories, NATO should not hesitate and grant the country MAP. Georgia's eventual accession would send a powerful message to Putin that, despite his efforts to hinder Georgia's growth through continued occupation, Western partners are prepared and able to assist and bring the country to its Euro-Atlantic future.