Georgia - NATO Relations

By: Nika Chitadze 

Materials of the International Conference – Perspectives of the NATO Enlargement. Center of Strategic Studies, Krakow, Poland, 13-14 May, 2005.

Georgia regained its independence in 1991 when an overwhelming majority of Georgians voted to secede from the Soviet Union. The country's first elected leader, Zviad Gamsakhudia was removed in a 1992 coup that brought Eduard Shevardnadze to power. He remained as president of the country until 2003. 

The "Rose Revolution" of late 2003 ushered in a new era in Georgian political development.  Public dissatisfaction with the corrupt governance and deeply flawed elections of the post-Soviet period finally culminated in several weeks of intense popular protest that led to the collapse of the Shevardnadze administration.  Mikhail Saakashvili won the election held in January 2004 with an overwhelming majority and he continues as president today.  He has pushed for economic reforms and a crackdown on corrupt practices.  Most importantly from NATO's perspective, he has pushed for closer integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions.  Saakashvili is a western-educated, post-Soviet leader who appears committed to making Georgia a more western-orientated country based on rule-of-law, while at the same time improving its relationship with Russia. 

The Sub-Committee visited Georgia in June and met with a range of government representatives who cited the many achievements of the Rose Revolution. Giorgi Baramidze, State Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, briefed the delegation on the progress Georgia has made since 2003, noting that it was nearly a failed state three years ago.  He outlined the reform process including efforts to increase the effectiveness of the police force.  The police force has been cut in half and salaries have doubled for the remaining officers.  This has reduced the incentive for corrupt behaviour and the public shows increasing trust in law enforcement officials.  Public expenditures have also increased nearly five-fold since 2003.  In part this is financed by a cut of 30 percent of the government workforce, but increased tax revenues from a growing economy are also a factor. GDP grew by more than 9 percent last year and is projected to be 11 percent in 2007.  Mr. Baramidze attributed much of this growth to the economic policies of the government, which is designed to create favourable conditions for foreign investment and minimize government interference in the private sector.

In economic policy, the government is committed to a privatization programme of its remaining state-owned enterprises.  The president launched a major privatization drive in 2004 that is slated to sell off 1800 enterprises.  Although a boon for the government's budget, the privatization process has come with allegations of corrupt practices. This has weakened investor confidence.  Several non-governmental organizations, including Transparency International, have given Georgia low scores on perceptions of corruption and cited it as one of the least favourable business environments of those surveyed.  On a positive note, however, the World Bank recently noted that Georgia has made substantial reforms that improve the business climate and ranked it as one of the top ten most rapidly reforming countries.

Georgia has expressed its clear desire for a close partnership with NATO culminating in eventual membership in the Alliance. Before joining the Intensified Dialogue process, Georgia was within the Partnership Action Plan for Defence Institution Building programme (PAP-DIB), the main aim of which is to improve the operational capability of the military while simultaneously subordinating the military to civilian authorities.  This has been a long-standing aspect of NATO's engagement with potential members.  In the early 1990s NATO worked closely with the governments and militaries of Central and Eastern Europe to assist in the construction of military forces that were firmly under civilian control.

This is not a simple task as the countries in question all came from a Soviet-style model of civil-military relations that subordinated the military to the Communist Party.  Changing to a model appropriate for democratic governance required a wholesale change in the thinking of military officers.  It also required building a cadre of civilians capable of managing defence ministries.

Ultimately, however, this programme was successful across Central and Eastern Europe.  NATO is able to exploit this success in working with Georgia and other countries in the region.  Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian military officers, for example, are currently advising their Georgian counterparts on how to implement the reform process.  As a new NATO member that was formerly part of the Soviet Union, Latvia, as well as Lithuania and Estonia, can offer advice that is highly relevant to the Georgian military reform effort. Many think that Georgia has the same rode as with the Baltic States.

Georgia, as well as Azerbaijan and Armenia, is part of the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP).  Individual Partnership Action Plan presents new mechanism of Georgia’s cooperation with NATO. Georgia became the first country with whom NATO started cooperation in forms of IPAP (October 29, 2004). Implementation of IPAP is essential for NATO membership. IPAP encompasses complex reforms in political, defense, security, economic and other fields, which are necessary to develop Georgia into a stable democracy and a reliable partner for NATO.

Georgia is implementing an action plan that outlines concrete measures for fulfilling IPAP. In order to facilitate the NATO integration process, various institutional reforms are underway. Georgia is fully committed to the irreversible implementation of the IPAP provisions, which are essential to Georgia’s quest for a NATO Membership Action Plan.

Georgia actively cooperates with NATO members and other aspirant states within the scope of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Georgia attributes special importance to bilateral and multilateral cooperation with NATO member states in the political, security and defense fields.

The purpose of IPAP is to spell out an individual programme for reforms spanning the range of civil and military issues.  IPAP is divided into four chapters and includes the aerial of reforms to become interoperable with NATO. First chapter is Political and Security Issues, it includes the following subjects: Security policy; Relations with Neighbor countries; War with Terrorism; Supremacy of Law, Human rights and Democracy; Economic Development and Priorities; solving internal problems; Cooperation with other Organizations. The second chapter concerns Defense, Security and Military issues, such as: Defense and Security Reform; Defense Planning Issues; Military and Interoperability Issues; Defense Economic Issues; Defense and Security Investment Issues; Logistics. The third chapter concerns the Societal Information, Science, Environmental Protection and Urgent Situation Planning. And the fourth chapter includes Administrative, Defensive Security and Resources Issues.

Georgia's ambition to become a fully-fledged member of the Euro-Atlantic community was a major theme of discussions during the Sub-Committee's visit.  Gela Bezhuashvili, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, stated that Euro-Atlantic integration was Georgia's foreign policy priority. NATO integration would allow Georgia to consolidate the model of democracy it has developed and is promoting in the region, through such forums as the Community of Democratic Choice or the Black Sea-Baltic Sea summit in Vilnius in May this year.

Mr. Baramidze also underlined Georgia's contribution to Euro-Atlantic security.  He recalled Georgia's contribution to international peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Georgia also provides a gateway to the strategically important region of Central Asia and to its energy resources.  

In June 2005 the Georgian government decided to publish IPAP document, what made the process to be more transparent. The experts from NATO member countries evaluate the process of IPAP implementation in Georgia. In November 2006 on the Georgian Security Forum the NATO member state authorities expressed their positive attitude towards Georgia and the chosen direction of conducting IPAP process.

Romualds Razuks, NATO Liaison Officer for the South Caucasus, briefed the delegation on the evolution of NATO's partnerships with the three countries of the South Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.  He emphasized the defence institution building aspect of NATO's engagement in the region.  NATO has moved on from promoting democratic values to assisting the countries of the region in establishing the foundations for modern democracies with civilian control of the armed forces.  As such, programmes to assist in legislative oversight of the armed forces and implementing transparent budgeting processes are increasingly important. The IPAP also gives some direction to reforms in personnel management, resource management and generally establishing an affordable and sustainable defence strategy.

Of the three countries of the South Caucasus, Georgia is the most advanced in the implementation of its IPAP.  The March 2006 full assessment was very positive, highlighting the tremendous progress achieved by Georgia since the Rose Revolution.  Mr. Razuks noted that Georgia has established full civilian control over the Ministry of Defence.

Countries who choose to participate in the PfP programme become simultaneously members of the EAPC, although the organisations are separate and PfP officials report to the EAPC in a roughly similar way to how NATO officials report to the North Atlantic Council.

Participating in the activities of NACC for Georgia, which just gained its independence, was one of the most important international mechanisms to keep the state sovereignty. Moreover, being a member of the NACC and having close relations with NATO gave Georgia an opportunity to be acquainted with the rich political-military and scientific-economic experience of the Alliance, which would help the rebuilding of Georgia in accordance with the modern Western standards. So, membership with NACC was the first real steps for Georgia to get close to NATO. The representative of Georgia, T. Kitovani (Minister of Defense) firstly took part in the meeting of the NACC on April 1 of 1992. And Georgia became the member of this organization on June 5 of 1992 at the NACC member state Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Oslo. So, we can call this date as the starting day of cooperation with NATO.

Since joining PfP, Georgia has been an active participant in its activities, including joint exercises, short courses for staff officers and planning conferences, etc. The country’s political and security elites began to recognize the potential role that NATO could play in enhancing Georgia’s fragile security, particularly in the aftermath of the “war scare” that developed with Russia in the summer of 2002, resulting from Moscow’s public threat of military intervention in Georgia based on its concerns over the link between radicals in the Pankisi Gorge and those fighting in Chechnya. On September 13, 2002, the Georgian Parliament passed a resolution confirming the political aim of eventual NATO membership: “[T]he Parliament of Georgia confirms that all the major political forces of the Parliament support the full membership of Georgia in NATO and recognizes that this decision is a historic choice of Georgia, justified by the will of the people, and considers that the aforementioned issue will not become the subject of further political debates. The Parliament of Georgia declares that Georgia carries out the process of reforms in the spheres of politics, economics and security, so that the country in the nearest period can satisfy the criteria necessary for NATO membership.” Georgia officially declared its aspiration to join NATO at the Alliance’s Prague Summit in 2002. In both public and private, former President Shevardnadze and other Georgian government officials signaled a renewed sense of urgency in deepening relations with the Alliance; President Saakashvili has underscored this more recently, stating “We closely cooperate with NATO in the framework of the PfP program and do not change our purposes in regard to entering this organization”. He further indicated that the criteria necessary for Georgia’s further integration into NATO would be agreed upon at the NATO summit in Istanbul in June 2004. “We need stable guarantees of security, and NATO is the only guarantor”, Saakashvili said.

In general terms, this posturing explains the constant reiteration of Tbilisi’s goals for military reform, namely the creation of small, mobile, modern forces that are well trained and geared towards NATO interoperability. With these goals in mind, Georgia’s PfP participation has expanded and become more active, joining PARP, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) and Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP). Georgia also agreed to 28 PGs for 2004 and is actively seeking to participate in the MAP process, ASDE System, and PfP Trust Fund and is supporting the opening of a PfP cell in Tbilisi. On October 1, 2002, a memorandum of understanding on logistic cooperation was signed between Georgia and NATO’s Maintenance and Supply Organization (NAMSO), paving the way for the implementation of a PfP Trust Fund Project for the demilitarization and disposal of missile stockpiles and the remediation of Georgian military sites. Georgia also is maximizing its presence at NATO, with a Mission and a military representative at NATO HQ, and a liaison officer in SHAPE. It also has forces deployed in Kosovo as part of NATO’s peacekeeping forces. This role in KFOR is seen to demonstrate the country’s ability to “effectively and smoothly” operate with allied peacekeeping forces. Georgia has also made available the following assets within PfP:

Georgia’s Contribution to PfP

Quantity Asset

1 Army Company for Peacekeeping

1 Combat Engineer Platoon

1 Training Area

2 Airfields

1 Military Harbor (Poti)

Source: Georgia’s Individual Partnership Plan, 2000-01,

Part II – Partners Forces & Assets Available

Georgia’s training facilities at Vaziani, which were renovated in 2003 through U.S. and Turkish bilateral assistance, are considered by NATO to meet Western standards and hosted multinational military exercises in 2002 and 2003. Its Kopitnari and Marneuli airfields, part of its PfP assets available, have witnessed improvements, particularly the Marneuli airfield which has undergone significant modernization (to NATO standards) by Turkey, including a runway repaving and extension and the replacement of the airfield’s electrical system. All PfP participation has been geared towards the achievement of Georgia’s PGs. One key PG was the creation of a peacekeeping battalion by 2004. Since 1999, Georgia has participated in the KFOR mission in Bosnia with a platoon (43 personnel), placed under the operational control of the Turkish battalion. In that period, almost 200 officers, NCOs and soldiers have gained international peacekeeping experience.119 In June 2003, one Georgian company (140 personnel) was sent to Kosovo as part of the German-Italian Brigade. The Georgian MoD has thus sought to prioritize peacekeeping within its PfP program. Many of Georgia’s other PGs witness no progress towards implementation owing to the restrictions of funding placed upon the MoD. Despite the apparent progress in NATO’s relationship with Georgia, privately many Georgian officials have been dissatisfied with PfP. Their critique centers on the nature and breadth of many of the areas covered and goals established by PARP, which they see as overly ambitious and perhaps unrealistic given the current capabilities and weakness of the Georgian armed forces, not to mention funding constraints; they believe that many of the programs have lacked focus and failed to appreciate the needs of the Georgian state that often compete or even conflict with PARP. PARP has proven to be an important tool in encouraging dialogue, but it has not addressed the key and more immediate issues affecting the reform and development of the armed forces. Georgian officers committed to the country’s closer partnership with NATO express concern that meticulously planned PfP programs, which support such bilateral assistance, should complement U.S. International Military Education and Training (IMET) sponsored initiatives. Indeed, the argument continues, NATO’s lack of expertise in the region has gone hand in hand with the political stalemate brought about by Russia’s continued military presence and a belief that NATO does not wish to seriously assist in building Georgia’s security whilst risking its important relations with Moscow.121 The bottom line is that PfP programs need to be more tailored to Georgia’s specific security needs.

It is clearly defined in the National security Concept of Georgia that the main priority is to join the alliance:

Georgia, as a Black Sea and South-Eastern state, has historically been a geographic, political and cultural part of Europe. Therefore, integration into European and Euro-Atlantic political, economic and security systems is the firm will of Georgian people. Georgia welcomes NATO and EU enlargement and believes that integration of the Black Sea states into NATO and EU will significantly reinforce the security of the Black Sea region as the South-Eastern border of Europe. Integration to NATO and EU represents a top priority of Georgian foreign and security policy.

Georgia views NATO as an organization of collective defence that is the central mechanism for providing security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. Georgia’s cooperation with NATO contributes to strengthening of democratic values in the country, accomplishment of democratic reforms, especially in the field of defence, as well as establishment of a secure and stable environment. Membership of NATO would not only endow Georgia with an unprecedented degree of military and political security, but would allow it to contribute to strengthening the security of Europe, particularly the Black Sea region. Georgia has already proved its readiness to share the responsibility of the collective security by sending its troops to Kosovo and Afghanistan.

NATO’s November 28-29, 2006 Riga summit meeting was mostly about military capabilities and Afghanistan.  Nonetheless, there were clear signals that Georgia is on track for a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) and then alliance membership.  But the Riga discussions also revealed competition between global and narrow visions of NATO’s future.  Georgia fits perfectly with the first, but uneasily into the other.

The summit hosts left no doubt that Latvia’s vision of NATO includes Georgia.  Banners exhorting, “NATO, do not forget Georgia” fluttered along the road between Riga’s airport and the city center.  A team of students sporting T-shirts with the same slogan turned up outside each summit event.The U.S. President told the NATO Young Leaders Forum, “We will continue to support Georgia’s desire to become a NATO ally.”

On the official level, the Riga Summit Declaration recognizes “Georgia’s contribution to international peacekeeping and security operations.”  While many NATO allies dither over the cost and danger of the war in Afghanistan, Georgia is preparing to contribute military police and Special Forces to the NATO command there.

The Riga declaration also reiterates NATO’s support for Georgia’s territorial integrity and reminds Russia that it must fulfill its 1999 Istanbul commitments to withdraw military forces from Georgia and Moldova.  Only then will NATO countries ratify the Adapted Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty that Russia craves.  This message is important, not only for Russia, but also for any NATO capital that is tempted to reward Moscow for only partial fulfillment of its obligations.

As expected, NATO reaffirmed that its door is open to all democratic European countries “who meet NATO’s performance-based standards and are able to contribute to Euro-Atlantic security and stability.”  In uncharacteristically explicit language, the statement continues that the alliance will issue invitations to membership at its 2008 summit meeting. 

That should be incentive for Georgia to redouble its efforts at “political, economic and military reforms, including strengthening judicial reform.”  Note the order and the emphasis of this passage from the Riga declaration.  NATO is evidently pleased with the reforms at the Georgian Ministry of Defense and now places stronger emphasis on political and economic modernization, underscoring its interest in the judiciary.  Georgia should take this as a clarion call to action—NATO membership at the 2008 or 2009 summit meeting is attainable.

Whether Georgia attains it depends on its own performance, but also on the outcome of the debate between the global and narrow visions of the alliance’s future.

The global vision sees NATO as the foundation of a global security network adapting to the challenges of the 21^st Century.  As the foundation of a global security system, NATO must consolidate and secure its European base to the maximum extent possible.  Georgia in NATO would be a deft geopolitical move to stress the sovereignty of all post-Soviet states, secure the Black Sea and assume a vantage point at the gateway to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia beyond.

That kind of reach is important because NATO’s 21^st Century operations will be outside the NATO area and increasingly out of Europe altogether.  That means that NATO’s interests will often intersect with those of non-member states.  For example, Australia, Japan, South Korea and eight other non-member countries have joined the NATO operation in Afghanistan.  Consequently, from its firm European base, NATO must now reach out to like-minded non-member states to plan and train together, as Bush proposed in Riga.

By sending troops to Afghanistan—without caveats—Georgia is proclaiming that it understands the gravity of the situation and is willing to help.  That is, after all, what it means to be an ally.  Together with continued progress on reforms, this should be sufficient to propel Georgia into NATO in 2008 or 2009.  Whether that happens will say as much about NATO as it does about Georgia.

NATO Parliamentarians, Georgian and Alliance countries officials, and independent experts attended the 65th Rose Roth Seminar in Tbilisi, Georgia from April 19-21, 2007. The seminar focused on a range of issues shaping Georgia’s aspirations and prospects for Euro-Atlantic integration. It featured a number of prominent Georgian speakers, including President Mikheil Saakashvili, the Speaker of the Parliament Nino Burjanadze; the Vice-Prime Minister and State Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, Giorgi Baramidze; the Minister of Foreign Affairs Gela Bezhuashvili; and the Minister of Economy Giorgi Arveladze. Senior officials from NATO, the European Union, OSCE, the IMF­including EU Special Representative Peter Semneby, Latvian Foreign Minister Artis Pabriks, and OSCE Ambassador Roy Reeve ­ as well as from the NGO and academic communities also addressed the gathering.

Georgia's aspirations for NATO membership are realisable. This was the clear message that emerged from the deliberations.

Three other related themes dominated the proceedings. Firstly, the Georgian government and the Georgian people are very focused on Euro-Atlantic integration.  President Saakashvili told participants that joining NATO is now the government's and, indeed, the public's highest foreign policy priority; even the political opposition in parliament has endorsed this goal. Having nearly completed the Individual Partnership Action Process (IPAP) and now engaged in Intensified Dialogue (ID), Georgian officials are optimistic that the Alliance will be prepared to initiate a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the next NATO summit. This would put Georgia on the road toward NATO accession. For their part, NATO officials stressed that membership of NATO is performance based.  The determination by NATO members to extend a MAP to Georgia will be based on a collective judgment that Georgia has made sufficient progress in a broad range of reforms.
        Secondly, Georgia has made good progress in implementing a range of economic, political and administrative reforms which have not only helped reconstitute state authority since the Rose Revolution in 2003, but which have also moved the country closer to the Euro-Atlantic Community.  Last year, the World Bank rated Georgia as the most successful reformer among the world's developing countries and it moved to number 35 in the world rankings of best business climates. Government officials stressed that they are determined to continue pushing radical liberal reforms and administrative modernization. To achieve these ends, they are employing best practices learned from other transition cases and, in particular, are drawing many lessons from the Baltic States, which have strongly supported the Georgian reform process.  Both NATO and the EU have also offered very important support for the transition process.

Thirdly, although Georgia's progress across the board is indeed impressive, its transition is far from complete.  There are concerns about democratic and judicial practices that elicited admonitions from several speakers. They reminded Georgian participants that their government must adhere to best democratic practices not only to fulfill their ambitions for Euro-Atlantic integration, but also to ensure the sustainability of the political, administrative and economic reform process. The message here was that concrete actions are needed to ensure that national elections in two years are fully fair and transparent and that judicial reforms, in particular, are implemented to ensure both the independence and incorruptibility of Georgia's judges. Although the economic outlook is very positive, there are still outstanding problems including price volatility, the management of government surpluses and the current account balance.

Finally, the Seminar also focused on the problem posed by break-away regions in Georgia, the role of Russia in these conflicts and the possible implications of failing to advance the reconciliation process. Here too there was a sense that more can be done on both sides of the divide to foster a climate of trust that might advance reconciliation. At the same time, Allied countries will not accord any country in the region a veto on Georgia's membership aspirations nor are they prepared to allow intransigence on the part of the leaders of break-away regions, or their sponsors, to become an excuse to thwart Georgian goals, particularly if Georgia is acting in good faith to resolve the conflicts. 

“We are trying our best to contribute to the security of our region and are continuously making constructive steps to reach the solutions acceptable for every country in our region. A recent unchallengeable prove of this is the signature of bilateral agreement with Russia on the withdrawal of Russian military bases and facilities from Georgia before 2008. We are sure that this very positive achievement will help to strengthen stability not only in Georgia and in the whole region as well.

We believe that launching the Intensified Dialogue (ID) with Georgia and later granting MAP will: - tremendously encourage and help Georgian people and government to foster their individual and collective efforts in building modern democratic state based on common Euro-Atlantic values; - further broaden to the East democratic enlargement and contribute to the security of Europe.”   - These are the words of the former Minister of defence of Georgia. During his period Georgia started to implement reforms in defence sphere, these are: democratic control, improving the social conditions, defence budget, defence planning, conducting SDR process, promoting the international security, etc.

The course of the current Minister of Defence did not change and he continues the reform processes in defence sphere. “Becoming a full fledged member of NATO is a key foreign and security policy priority of Georgia. “After having demonstrated strong performance, Georgia was able to take next step towards NATO and started Intensified Dialogue on membership issues.

We are proceeding irreversibly on transformation towards becoming a stronger partner and eventually stronger ally. Georgia is willing and has potential to contribute to global security. Membership in NATO is the choice and destiny of Georgian people and government.”

We discussed a lot that Georgia is willing and does everything to become a NATO member country, but we actually did not ask the question: Why NATO? NATO represents much to the world. To some, it is a desirable military bloc and political coalition, while to others it is an irritant. But, what specifically does NATO membership signify for Georgia?

The first view is that NATO membership is very effective tool for political and security reform. The second is that NATO is a club in which membership can and does favor state building. In this second view NATO membership is seen as a destination, to which a country can arrive only if it has completed a process of state building. The aspiration to join NATO raises the question “Where is Georgia headed”? The answer is toward assimilation with the Euro-Atlantic family of politically likeminded states.

It is important to note that Georgia has a somewhat different road to travel toward NATO membership than the Baltic Republics or other Eastern European countries had. Although the Baltic States were administered by the USSR, they were perceived internationally as having legitimate claims to statehood throughout the Soviet period. Georgia, in contradistinction, had to invent a modern statehood in the context of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the rampant conflict and confusion that was left in its wake.

For Georgia, NATO signifies a necessary tool to aid in building not just any state, but a democratic state. The standards for joining NATO are different now than they were in the 1950s. Georgia understands that the NATO integration requires real democratic development. Therefore, the democratic character of the state is paramount.

Georgia naturally suffers from an insecurity complex. It seeks a secure environment for its own existence and for the life and development of its citizens. NATO, primarily a security institution, addresses these needs and is considered as an umbrella or safe haven for small and week countries who alone cannot overcome security threats.

Georgia is too small and should make a choice either Russia or Unites States, and it made its choice, and as would Ambassador David Smith say it made a good choice. In case of dangerous neighbors and the strategically important location, as Georgia has, the NATO membership is a guarantee. In chapter one, we discussed NATO briefly and also its article #5 which states:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Other aspect why Georgia strives to NATO is to develop economic stability, NATO brings stability and security in the region and so it brings economic development. NATO also gives the framework for the International Security operations. In which Georgia is already involved.

Georgia has shown convincing performance in both reforming its military forces and contributing to international security.  It has developed into a full fledged democratic society.  Georgia is ready to take its place as an essential member of the Euro-Atlantic community.

On November 4, 2004 NATO Secretary General Mr. Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies. In his speech he began by noting that NATO has been undergoing fundamental changes in order to meet the “new threats of our modern society.” During the Cold War, NATO was the defender of values such as human rights, rule of law, and democracy, and it continues to defend those values today against new threats. There are three threats to the values that NATO protects that either did not exist when NATO was founded or did not pose as grave a threat as they do now: (1) terrorism, (2) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and (3) failed states. The deadliest threat to NATO members and to the values that NATO protects is a combination of the first and second threats, which is to say, terrorists with WMD.

           

While in the past, NATO was an organization focused on territorial defense, in recent years, NATO has become an alliance running operations far outside its traditional borders. NATO is currently in Afghanistan, for example, to defend and promote democratic values and human rights. Today, NATO has succeeded in ensuring Afghan elections and continues to work with the Afghan government to promote security. “If we don’t arrange and organize stability and security that far away, if we don’t see to it that that country doesn’t become that black hole again, terrorism will land on your and our doorstep.” The demands on NATO to conduct such far-flung operations will only increase in the future.

As for Georgia, it’s clear from stated ambitions of the government that Georgia is taking a path targeted at integration with the European Union and NATO. To foster closer cooperation and to guide the relationship between NATO and the Caucasus and Central Asia, Robert Simmons has been appointed the Special Representative of the Secretary General of NATO for the Caucasus and Central Asia. Soon, a liaison officer for the Caucasus will be appointed. That officer will start in Tbilisi and then travel to Azerbaijan and Armenia.

As NATO is making efforts to promote closer relationships with its partners, these partners also need to make their own efforts. For example, partners can participate in NATO peacekeeping operations and make progress in their own society on the values that NATO promotes, such as defense reform, defense restructuring, and fighting corruption. Georgia should be commended for a variety of initiatives on its part to work with NATO and to contribute to the relationship. Georgia has a long and winding road ahead of it if it wants to achieve integration into NATO. However, it’s clear that if progress and reforms in Georgia continue at their current pace, Georgia will go that road. Scheffer promised to support Georgia wherever he could.

Georgia’s NATO membership will inevitably open and widen the path for the membership of the other countries of the South Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. These countries give increasingly frequent signals of readiness to participate in transatlantic cooperation at a much more advanced level than the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program currently offers.

For these countries too, NATO can serve as an incentive for conflict resolution in the case of Armenia and Azerbaijan, not only would NATO accession impact the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, but also the possibility of military confrontation between these two states would be averted.