U.S. Aiming at Military Presence in Georgia
Published in Geopolitika
(Lithuania) on 19 October 2010
by Ceslovas Iskauskas (link to original)
(Lithuania) on 19 October 2010
by Ceslovas Iskauskas (link to original)
Translated from
by Justina Poskeviciute.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
The superpower rivalry for influence in the post-Communist states is far from over. As usual, the only victim in such crossroads is the country that has liberated itself from Soviet domination 20 years ago, while the U.S. and Russia do not seem to suffer any loss. Georgia and Ukraine serve as examples of a similar game, where European and transatlantic integration goals have not been accomplished yet.
Suggestions to Intervene in Georgia
While unified Europe seems reluctant to act, Washington does not hesitate. Western Europe has become tired of pushing Tbilisi into joining various international structures, whilst Washington has even established a working group and put two senators in charge of it. The group has recently published a report called “Georgia in the West: A Policy Road Map to Georgia's Euro-Atlantic Future.” This document directly recommends that U.S., European and Georgian politicians become more actively involved in the Caucasus.
Several points of these recommendations certainly bother Moscow. For instance, the international community is asked to accept the international military presence in the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. After the Russian troops — which reached a number of 9,000 right after Moscow’s aggression in August of 2008 — leave, security of the region will be maintained by neutral international forces and local authorities.
Another point in the report encourages Georgia to actively seek NATO membership. During the NATO summit, which will take place in Chicago next May, the U.S. will have an opportunity to raise the question of what concrete steps Georgia must take to join the Alliance, to discuss the potential of closer cooperation with Georgia and to underline the roles that the NATO-Georgia Commission and Annual National Program will play in the integration in the Alliance process.
On the other hand, the same report straightforwardly calls for the enlargement of the U.S. military presence in Georgia. This would require a threat prevention strategy, the report indicates, that could only be developed by American presence in the country. In order to achieve this, three additional steps need to be taken: to set up a program for the engagement of Georgian military in the coalition; to support the training center of NATO’s Partnership For Peace program; and to assure the establishment of a logistics center that would serve to transport troops and military equipment to the Central Asia and Afghanistan.
The document stresses the need to normalize the U.S., NATO and Georgia’s relations in terms of military cooperation. Special emphasis is laid on the provision of military equipment to Georgia, as well as the establishment of special forces units. Such moves, the report claims, will strengthen Georgia’s military might and its partnership with the Alliance.
The last point of recommendation is for NATO to engage in the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Georgia. This mission has already won the trust of all participating parties, including Russia; it is now capable of expanding its influence over the occupation line, just as has happened in Kosovo, where the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) is working successfully.
Moscow Worried
Russia’s strategists show high concerns about the U.S. plan of military dislocation in Georgia, and have even named the document “How the U.S. Wants to Turn Russia against Itself.” Evgeny Buzhinsky, former deputy chief of the Russian Defense Ministry's main department of international cooperation, states that selling arms to Georgia and locating U.S. troops in the country would produce unfavorable outcomes in the long term. Washington could then forget about Moscow agreeing to NATO and American military supplies being transported to Afghanistan, Buzhinsky claims.
In other words, we would be returning to the Cold War era. Interestingly, while approving the candidacy of the new envoy to Russia, Michael McFaul, the U.S. Senate emphasized the “reset” variable in U.S.-Russia relations: the countries’ cooperation in Afghanistan. Since the agreement that came into force in 2009, more than 1,500 flights have been carried out and approximately 235,000 soldiers have been transported through Russia. This authorization by Moscow is of significant importance, bearing in mind that the U.S. military's alternate route — transit via Pakistan — seems relatively hazardous.
While Brussels Is Only Encouraging
It does not come as a surprise that, while Europe avoids any firm action, the U.S. is determined to play the key role in Georgia’s integration into the NATO process. As early as last October, political scientist Aivaras Bagdonas, in his article in Geopolitika, commented on the visit of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO general secretary, in Tbilisi on Sept.30-Oct. 1, 2010. During a meeting with the members of the Georgian Parliament, the general secretary announced that the decision made by NATO leaders in 2008 in Bucharest is still in effect, and so for Georgia, the door to the Alliance is still open. The country could be accepted into NATO if it wished and if all the membership requirements are met.
Nonetheless, the statement made by this high official should not be considered a prologue of any rapid or significant changes in Georgia’s NATO integration, Bagdonas notices. The country’s preparation for NATO membership, based on resonant political statements, resembles procrastination. Unsurprisingly, Rasmussen’s remarks of Sept. 2010 were all but news. It has by no means been the first instance of a NATO officer openly inviting Georgia to join the Alliance. For example, the same sort of proclamation was heard before and during the 2008 Bucharest summit. That time, however, the leaders of the Alliance member states did not take any action to advance Georgia’s integration. On Russia's insistence, the decision to grant Georgia and Ukraine Membership Action Plans (MAP) was put off for an indefinite time. To this day, Georgia still has not received a MAP.
Georgia: No Vacuum Here
That is why Washington, probably after having coordinated with Brussels, is taking up the initiative. At this point, it is worth remembering the work that has been already done by the U.S. in Georgia. On February 21-22 of last year, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke paid a visit to the country, sparking talks about the “comeback” of the U.S. in Georgia.
Georgia then managed to receive exceptional attention from Washington. In order to show its determination to remain America’s trusted ally in assuring world peace and security, Tbilisi significantly increased its military contingent in Afghanistan — from 175 to 975 — in the spring of 2010. This enlargement has placed Georgia in the first position among countries according to troops sent per capita.
During his visit, Richard Holbrooke, together with Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili, visited Krtsanisi National Training Centre, where in the spring of 2010 the new Afghanistan battalion held its training. The American diplomat announced that he was pleased with the preparation level of Georgian troops and praised Tbilisi’s contribution to improving security in Afghanistan. According to Holbrooke, Georgian forces, unlike other European troops, actively participate in military operations in Afghanistan; on this the U.S. places extreme importance.
Although the purpose of Holbrooke’s visit was to assess the readiness of Georgian troops to engage in NATO operation in Afghanistan, during the talks with President Saakashvili, another initiative was mentioned. On Jan. 29 of last year, he offered Washington to transit its military equipment via Georgia. Non-military cargo have been transported to Afghanistan via Georgia since 2005, making it the second country after Pakistan in terms of such shipments. At the end of Jan. 2010, NATO signed a transit agreement with Kazakhstan, from which non-military cargo will be shipped to Uzbekistan and then to Afghanistan. Another part of all non-military equipment arrived in Afghanistan straight through Russian airspace.
An important development in the U.S.-Georgia partnership was a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Tbilisi in July 2010. Clinton urged Russia to withdraw its troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which she referred to as occupied. The secretary also publicly called on Russia to put an end to its “occupation” of Georgian territories.
The meeting of the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership last October was attended by Georgian Prime Minister Nikoloz Gilauri and Hillary Clinton herself. At the very beginning of the meeting the secretary of state expressed the U.S.’ support for Georgian sovereignty, its territorial unity and its efforts to join NATO. The U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership was signed Jan. 9, 2009, which sets guidelines on bilateral cooperation in the areas of defense, security, economics and culture.
Undoubtedly, the U.S.' plans to actively engage in the Caucasus signify its wish to improve its geo-strategic position. At the same time, such plans indicate that Washington is prepared to take the risk of turning off the “reset” button of its partnership with Russia. If Vladimir Putin, the leader who sparked the troubles in Georgia in 2008, remains in power after the upcoming election in March, it will be difficult to avoid a new wave of tension in the region.
Suggestions to Intervene in Georgia
While unified Europe seems reluctant to act, Washington does not hesitate. Western Europe has become tired of pushing Tbilisi into joining various international structures, whilst Washington has even established a working group and put two senators in charge of it. The group has recently published a report called “Georgia in the West: A Policy Road Map to Georgia's Euro-Atlantic Future.” This document directly recommends that U.S., European and Georgian politicians become more actively involved in the Caucasus.
Several points of these recommendations certainly bother Moscow. For instance, the international community is asked to accept the international military presence in the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. After the Russian troops — which reached a number of 9,000 right after Moscow’s aggression in August of 2008 — leave, security of the region will be maintained by neutral international forces and local authorities.
Another point in the report encourages Georgia to actively seek NATO membership. During the NATO summit, which will take place in Chicago next May, the U.S. will have an opportunity to raise the question of what concrete steps Georgia must take to join the Alliance, to discuss the potential of closer cooperation with Georgia and to underline the roles that the NATO-Georgia Commission and Annual National Program will play in the integration in the Alliance process.
On the other hand, the same report straightforwardly calls for the enlargement of the U.S. military presence in Georgia. This would require a threat prevention strategy, the report indicates, that could only be developed by American presence in the country. In order to achieve this, three additional steps need to be taken: to set up a program for the engagement of Georgian military in the coalition; to support the training center of NATO’s Partnership For Peace program; and to assure the establishment of a logistics center that would serve to transport troops and military equipment to the Central Asia and Afghanistan.
The document stresses the need to normalize the U.S., NATO and Georgia’s relations in terms of military cooperation. Special emphasis is laid on the provision of military equipment to Georgia, as well as the establishment of special forces units. Such moves, the report claims, will strengthen Georgia’s military might and its partnership with the Alliance.
The last point of recommendation is for NATO to engage in the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Georgia. This mission has already won the trust of all participating parties, including Russia; it is now capable of expanding its influence over the occupation line, just as has happened in Kosovo, where the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) is working successfully.
Moscow Worried
Russia’s strategists show high concerns about the U.S. plan of military dislocation in Georgia, and have even named the document “How the U.S. Wants to Turn Russia against Itself.” Evgeny Buzhinsky, former deputy chief of the Russian Defense Ministry's main department of international cooperation, states that selling arms to Georgia and locating U.S. troops in the country would produce unfavorable outcomes in the long term. Washington could then forget about Moscow agreeing to NATO and American military supplies being transported to Afghanistan, Buzhinsky claims.
In other words, we would be returning to the Cold War era. Interestingly, while approving the candidacy of the new envoy to Russia, Michael McFaul, the U.S. Senate emphasized the “reset” variable in U.S.-Russia relations: the countries’ cooperation in Afghanistan. Since the agreement that came into force in 2009, more than 1,500 flights have been carried out and approximately 235,000 soldiers have been transported through Russia. This authorization by Moscow is of significant importance, bearing in mind that the U.S. military's alternate route — transit via Pakistan — seems relatively hazardous.
While Brussels Is Only Encouraging
It does not come as a surprise that, while Europe avoids any firm action, the U.S. is determined to play the key role in Georgia’s integration into the NATO process. As early as last October, political scientist Aivaras Bagdonas, in his article in Geopolitika, commented on the visit of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO general secretary, in Tbilisi on Sept.30-Oct. 1, 2010. During a meeting with the members of the Georgian Parliament, the general secretary announced that the decision made by NATO leaders in 2008 in Bucharest is still in effect, and so for Georgia, the door to the Alliance is still open. The country could be accepted into NATO if it wished and if all the membership requirements are met.
Nonetheless, the statement made by this high official should not be considered a prologue of any rapid or significant changes in Georgia’s NATO integration, Bagdonas notices. The country’s preparation for NATO membership, based on resonant political statements, resembles procrastination. Unsurprisingly, Rasmussen’s remarks of Sept. 2010 were all but news. It has by no means been the first instance of a NATO officer openly inviting Georgia to join the Alliance. For example, the same sort of proclamation was heard before and during the 2008 Bucharest summit. That time, however, the leaders of the Alliance member states did not take any action to advance Georgia’s integration. On Russia's insistence, the decision to grant Georgia and Ukraine Membership Action Plans (MAP) was put off for an indefinite time. To this day, Georgia still has not received a MAP.
Georgia: No Vacuum Here
That is why Washington, probably after having coordinated with Brussels, is taking up the initiative. At this point, it is worth remembering the work that has been already done by the U.S. in Georgia. On February 21-22 of last year, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke paid a visit to the country, sparking talks about the “comeback” of the U.S. in Georgia.
Georgia then managed to receive exceptional attention from Washington. In order to show its determination to remain America’s trusted ally in assuring world peace and security, Tbilisi significantly increased its military contingent in Afghanistan — from 175 to 975 — in the spring of 2010. This enlargement has placed Georgia in the first position among countries according to troops sent per capita.
During his visit, Richard Holbrooke, together with Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili, visited Krtsanisi National Training Centre, where in the spring of 2010 the new Afghanistan battalion held its training. The American diplomat announced that he was pleased with the preparation level of Georgian troops and praised Tbilisi’s contribution to improving security in Afghanistan. According to Holbrooke, Georgian forces, unlike other European troops, actively participate in military operations in Afghanistan; on this the U.S. places extreme importance.
Although the purpose of Holbrooke’s visit was to assess the readiness of Georgian troops to engage in NATO operation in Afghanistan, during the talks with President Saakashvili, another initiative was mentioned. On Jan. 29 of last year, he offered Washington to transit its military equipment via Georgia. Non-military cargo have been transported to Afghanistan via Georgia since 2005, making it the second country after Pakistan in terms of such shipments. At the end of Jan. 2010, NATO signed a transit agreement with Kazakhstan, from which non-military cargo will be shipped to Uzbekistan and then to Afghanistan. Another part of all non-military equipment arrived in Afghanistan straight through Russian airspace.
An important development in the U.S.-Georgia partnership was a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Tbilisi in July 2010. Clinton urged Russia to withdraw its troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which she referred to as occupied. The secretary also publicly called on Russia to put an end to its “occupation” of Georgian territories.
The meeting of the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership last October was attended by Georgian Prime Minister Nikoloz Gilauri and Hillary Clinton herself. At the very beginning of the meeting the secretary of state expressed the U.S.’ support for Georgian sovereignty, its territorial unity and its efforts to join NATO. The U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership was signed Jan. 9, 2009, which sets guidelines on bilateral cooperation in the areas of defense, security, economics and culture.
Undoubtedly, the U.S.' plans to actively engage in the Caucasus signify its wish to improve its geo-strategic position. At the same time, such plans indicate that Washington is prepared to take the risk of turning off the “reset” button of its partnership with Russia. If Vladimir Putin, the leader who sparked the troubles in Georgia in 2008, remains in power after the upcoming election in March, it will be difficult to avoid a new wave of tension in the region.