Georgia "Will Become a Member of NATO," Declares NATO As Lisbon Summit Concludes
The Government of Georgia welcomes the NATO Lisbon Communiqué as a definitive step forward in the country's integration into the Alliance. NATO has made a clear and unambiguous commitment to Georgia's path towards membership. "At the 2008 Bucharest Summit we agreed that Georgia will become a member of NATO and we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions,"* the Communiqué states.
The Government also is pleased that NATO, while pursuing improved ties with Russia, refuses to compromise on Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. "We reiterate our continued support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders," the Communiqué notes. This message also was delivered unambiguously by United States President Barack Obama.
The Government of Georgia welcomes NATO's clarion call for Russia to finally implement the 2008 ceasefire agreements. "On this firm basis, we urge Russia to meet its commitments with respect to Georgia, as mediated by the European Union on 12 August and 8 September 2008," the Communiqué states, adding. "We continue to call on Russia to reverse its recognition of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions of Georgia as independent states."
The Lisbon Communiqué takes note as well of Georgia's continued and successful reforms: "We strongly encourage and actively support Georgia's continued implementation of all necessary reforms, particularly democratic, electoral and judicial reforms, as well as security and defense sector reforms, in order to advance its Euro-Atlantic aspirations."
Georgia's vital role as a NATO partner also is underscored by the Lisbon Communiqué, which highlights Georgia's essential contributions in Afghanistan. As did President Obama, the Alliance noted that Georgia is one of the highest per-capita contributors in troop numbers there—making clear that Georgia is as much a provider as a consumer of NATO security.*
*Italicized emphasis by SWJ.
My personal opinion - this is a very good thing. Russia's opinion - that is another matter.
Comments
I suspect that the Georgians believe they have an implicit quid pro quo from the USG - they send a battalion to fight and die with the Marines in southern Afghanistan, and we support them against the Russians, including with military force if requested. To paraphrase my old friend Ted Seay, Georgia Tech will make it into NATO before U.S. troops deploy to Georgia to fight the Russian Army.
"tequialla,
"you apperently know very little about politics and georgia so please learn facts first before you claim something extremely irrational and ignorent. I completely support geogia's integration into Nato."
Chuckle. I guess I, too, know very little about politics, etc., so you can lump me in with Tequila. I'm hard pressed to understand why Georgian membership in NATO would be a strategic advantage for NATO, or the U.S., for that matter. Maybe poster ina can enlighten me.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get why it's so important to so many people to poke a sharp stick in the Russians' eye. Before we get all hot and bothered about this Georgia, what's wrong with taking care of the Georgia with that city named Atlanta?
That which deters also provokes. The key is to understand that balance point between peace and war.
I think we ignore this to our peril, and NATO expansion is a classic example. Nations formerly of the Soviet republic see the NATO boundary as a redline. If they can join NATO they see themselves as being on the correct side of the redline and safe from Russian influence (though now subject to US influence as is applied to all NATO members...).
Every time this line advances deeper into what Russia sees as there sphere of influence it provokes them a little more. Where is the breaking point? More is not better, at some point Russia must act out to protect its own interests and sphere of influence.
I would recommend to the West to stop using NATO membership as the "redline." I would also recommend to the US to stop using NATO to build a stable of countries that we can coerce to help pursue US interests in various parts of the world.
Russia needs a redline, so we should draw that along their current border and make it clear to them that this is the limit of their ability to act out violently. We then need to recognize what Russia sees as their sphere of influence beyond that line and not bring those countries into NATO out of respect for that reasonable Russian position. This would leave a belt of nations that though not in NATO are still protected by a redline. Russia would not like such a line, but they can probably live with it as balanced by retaining their sphere of influence. The nations in that greyzone might prefer to be full NATO members, but I suspect they really just want the protection of a redline and would be happy to not have to submit to US influence that NATO membership demands.
Dave - in what way is this a good thing?
What assets does Georgia bring to the table? What liabilities?
Certainly its anemic (and shattered) military strength matters little. This is not Turkey or France or Great Britain or even Poland - this is a military which will cost NATO much more to upgrade and train to bring up to standard than it brings to the table.
On the other hand, it brings with it the obligation to defend a tiny, strategically insignificant country with two territorial claims against a much stronger power - territories filled with people who would much rather be Russian than Georgian.
In what world is this a strategic advantage for NATO?
Russia indeed is another matter. It will be interesting to watch how NATO would handle the issue of Russian troops stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia should the Republic of Georgia be admitted into NATO.
Surely a precondition for Georgia's entry into NATO would have to be predicated on Russia agreeing to recognize Georgia's sovereign claim to these breakaway regions and pulling their troops out?