EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Russian policy toward Georgia appears to be aimed at undermining its statehood and destroying its credibility, thereby driving a wedge between it and the West.
2. Supporters of Georgia must not allow this to happen; they must simultaneously encourage Georgia to continue down the path of democratic reform.
3. The reaction of EU and NATO members to these challenges has been inadequate. Delaying Georgia's integration into NATO merely fulfils the aims of Russia's policy of destabilising Georgia.
4. Europe should be supporting Georgia with a unified voice.
The issue of Georgia has been at the top of the agenda for Latvia's mass media, foreign policy specialists and other interested parties with great regularity ever since August 2007, when someone fired a projectile at a Georgian air defense system. Luckily it did not explode, and that made it far easier to identify the "owner" of the big bomb the Russian armed forces. This was declared by an international group of European experts. More recently, in early May, Russia added to its force of soldiers and military equipment in the region of Abkhazia. [On 21 May, there was a parliamentary election in Georgia] a substantial point of reference in the country's domestic life.
RUSSIA’S ROLE
One of the greatest tensions in the relationship between Georgia and Russia has occurred in the last few weeks, and it is now more likely than before that Georgia may be on the brink of war. The reason for this is that Russia has expanded its military presence in Abkhazia.
Russia has claimed that this is because of a peacekeeping agreement which was concluded in 1994 by Russia, Georgia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. However, Russia has ignored a requirement in that treaty that Georgia and the CIS must both agree to an expansion in the military force. Vladimir Sokor, a political analyst from the Jamestown Foundation who is an expert in the Caucasus, says that this means that Russia has violated both international norms and the treaties to which it itself is party. Russia also failed to inform the UN mission in Georgia about the increase in the force and the specifics thereof in terms of numbers of troops and armaments. That is in violation of existing peacekeeping terms.
Despite Russia's claims to the contrary, the UN observers in Georgia have not seen any indication that Georgia is concentrating forces at the Kodori Gorge and the Abkhaz-Georgian border. That, of course, has not given reason for Russia to decline to enlarge its military presence or to shoot down a Georgian plane which, with full rights, was observing Abkhaz territory. The bottom line here is that by destroying Georgia's ability to monitor its own territory, Russia is enhancing its own ability to conduct military operations without anybody else knowing about it.
Georgian officials (the president, foreign minister, prime minister) have declared Russia's activities to be aggression that is aimed at absorbing Abkhazia into Russia, taking away Georgia's right to its own territory and its national sovereignty as such.
It was on 16 April that [former Russian President Vladimir] Putin ordered the establishment of direct and official links to the self-proclaimed regional governments of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This cannot be seen as anything other than an attack against Georgia's statehood and a clear signal that Russia is seeking to destabilize the situation and provoke a conflict.
DIFFERENT ‘TONES’
The tone of speech of Russia and the EU vis-a-vis one and the same events has been quite different. Over the last three weeks it has been worth asking about the role and position of other EU and NATO member states.
The reaction has been simply inadequate, given the seriousness of the situation. The Russian Foreign Ministry's special representation for relations with CIS countries has claimed that "Georgia's territorial integrity is just a theoretical hypothesis" at this time, and that Russia is prepare to turn it into "practical reality." Apparently he was referring to the enlargement of Russia's military presence in Georgia, which occurred five days later. It is clear what "practical reality" was being considered. A representative of Slovenia, which is currently presiding in the EU, has said about the situation between Georgia and Russia that the EU will not take sides and that work should be done in pursuit of a peaceful solution. To put this very mildly, the tone and behavior of the two sides are very different.
At the same time, NATO has announced "firm support" for Georgia, arguing that Russia must "change its decision" about direct links with the separatist regimes, because that can be seen as a attack against Georgia's sovereignty.
LATVIA’S ROLE
Latvia's investment has been greater this time than has been the case during other periods of tension in the past. This is one of those situations in which it is worth asking what Latvia has accomplished. Thanks to the active work of Foreign Minister Maris Riekstins, Latvia's investment has been greater than at any other time. The minister has called on European Union colleagues to go to Georgia as a symbolic indication of the seriousness of the tensions. Of course, one might well ask whether the visit to Georgia of five foreign ministers (Latvia, Slovenia, Poland, Lithuania and Sweden) really is the maximum which the EU and its 27 member states can do.
Georgia has very clearly and unambiguously called on the EU to make it clear to Russia that there can be very serious political consequences if Russia continues to violate Georgia's sovereign rights and international law. Europe, however, has not responded with a unified voice, let alone talked to Russia about "political consequences."
Russia is using well tested tactics here. It is important to understand that the conflict between Georgia and Russia over the Abkhaz region is not something that suddenly flared up in advance of the Georgian parliamentary election. Russia is using tactics which it has tested and used before using domestic policy issues to maximally escalate tensions while at the same time discrediting the country's foreign policy efforts. We here in Latvia are very familiar with this. We have the issues of World War II and the Latvian Legion [a unit in the German army which Russia has declared to have been fascists], the rights of Russian speakers, the Holocaust, our large population of non-citizens. These were issues which were constantly a part of Russia's rhetoric back when Latvia was preparing to join the European Union and NATO. Of course, that had nothing to do with any Russian concern about the nuances of history.
The situation in Georgia is similar. If the situation grows more unstable, if there are greater domestic conflicts, to say nothing of conflicts of a military nature, then it is more likely that Georgia's efforts at integration into the West will remain nothing more than a dream. The further Georgia is from NATO membership, the greater the fulfillment of Russia's foreign policy ambitions.
It may seem externally that the greater tensions between Georgia and Russia, the domestic political battles and quarrels in Georgia these create an impression about this country in the South Caucasus that is unclear, hard to understand and, in a certain sense, also wearisome. Its future seems to be just as questionable and doubtful as the events themselves, and that may encourage some to give up on the matter altogether.
And that may be just exactly what foreign policy and government officials are awaiting in the country which, at one time, also tried to hinder Latvia's integration into the European Union and NATO.
GEORGIA’S MISSION
What is happening in Georgia at this time? What should be the view of Latvia and other European Union member states which have declared that they support Georgia's efforts towards reform and Euro-Atlantic integration?
Georgia is shaping and developing its democratic system. Yes, there have unquestionably been mistakes. That was the case early in November 2007, when brutal force was used against demonstrators. President [Mikheil] Saakashvili has admitted that this was so. The presidential election in January was generally declared to be democratic, and the reelection of the president was declared to be legitimate, but there was no shortage of criticism from OSCE observers an unclear vote counting process, attempts to influence voters, misuse of administrative resources. The previous two OSCE reports on the parliamentary campaign process, too, indicated that there were violations.
Georgia's mission now is to consistently strengthen democratic traditions and practices. Those who consider themselves to be supporters of Georgia, in turn, must consistently continue with their policies, continuing to remind Georgia of its mistakes and continuing to support its efforts to fix things.
Martins Murnieks is director of the 'Wider Europe' project of the Soros Foundation in Latvia. This commentary originally appeared in the Latvian daily 'Diena' on 20 May.
Copyright: Georgian Daily, 2008.