Recent reports that US officials have inspected air facilities in Georgia for possible use in Iraq military operations are solidifying Tbilisi's image as Washington's chief strategic partner in the Caucasus. However, plans to integrate Georgia into the Western security framework face daunting obstacles. Georgia, for example, lacks a national security concept and the country's military remains in disarray.
Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze's administration has strongly backed the US campaign to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In recent days, according to various media reports, US experts examined the Kopitnar air base, located near Kutaisi, to determine whether American planes could use it to carry out missions over Iraq. Although Georgian leaders appear ready to grant permission, the United States has yet to formally request the use of Georgian facilities.
Georgia, at present, remains riven by separatist conflict, and often comes under intense pressure from Russia in connection with a number of long-running disputes, in particular the Chechen conflict. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives]. Tbilisi considers closer strategic cooperation with the United States, and membership in NATO, to be essential if Georgia is to overcome its current security woes.
"In the past 10-11 years not a single country has rendered as much valuable assistance to Georgia as has the United States," Shevardnadze said March 24 in a regular weekly radio interview. "I sometimes say that we would not have survived without it [US assistance]."
Numerous problems that grip not just the military, but Georgian society as a whole namely widespread crime, corruption and poverty make Georgia an unattractive candidate for NATO membership. Among the key initial steps for Georgia, as it strives to join NATO, is the development of a national security doctrine. In the over 11 years since Georgia regained its independence, military and political leaders have failed to agree on a common vision of what the country's strategic goals should be.
The national security concept would incorporate strategic and civil society components to serve as a general statement about Georgia's place in the global order. It would seek to explain how Georgia defines its security, what measures need to be taken to achieve it and what stands in the way. The concept would also clearly identify Georgia's enduring strategic interests, and outline the methods necessary to ensure those interests.
Tbilisi's ability to work out its national security concept has been hampered by a variety of factors. Virtually from the start of Georgia's independent existence, the country has been consumed by civil warfare. Political settlements to conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain elusive. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In addition, the Soviet legacy has often frustrated civil society and economic development, and has been a contributing factor in fueling crime and corruption. A significant segment of Georgia's military and political elite retain fond memories of the Soviet era, and are thus reluctant to see the country move in a Westward direction. Of late, a mounting struggle between Shevardnadze and his domestic political critics has also emerged as a factor. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
The lack of a national security concept, in turn, helps maintain a vicious cycle that is eroding Georgian statehood. The concept can prioritize security needs. Without it, government has a harder time efficiently allocating scarce national resources. In addition, the lack of a clear security doctrine increases the risk of Georgia sending confusing or wrong signals to both its own people and the outside world, possibly causing geopolitical misunderstandings that damage Georgian security. That risk is especially great concerning Tbilisi's dealings with Russia.
The United States is encouraging Georgia to grapple with its national security concept dilemma. On January 29-30, Georgian leaders convened a conference in Tbilisi to discuss a draft concept. The event brought together members of Georgia's national security and defense establishment, legislators and local non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives. Experts from the Baltic States, the United States, Great Britain and Germany also attended the "National Security Concept for Georgia" meeting. Co-sponsors included the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development and the Latvian Institute of International Affairs.
The Georgian National Security Council developed the draft concept not only for those in Georgia, but also "for their regional neighbors, for Russia and for those in the West," noted Ambassador David J. Smith, a conference participant and the US representative to the International Security Advisory Board.
The conference marked the first occasion that Georgian military and political leaders explored national security issues with NGO representatives. Andro Barnoff, Chief of Staff for the Committee on Defense and Security in the Georgian Parliament, noted: "many of these individuals had never even met face to face." The whole process "is about building trust and confidence, and linking the people to the government and vice versa," noted conference director Atis Lejins of the Latvian Institute of International Affairs.
Many participants believed the conference raised hopes for the adoption of a national security concept. Conference attendees agreed on several broad priorities for Georgian security, namely the importance of territorial integrity, non-traditional conceptions of security and a pro-Western orientation. "The most critical issue for Georgia," noted one Georgian National Security Council (NSC) official, "involves ensuring the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
The draft concept calls for equal respect of sovereignty: "Georgia respects the sovereignty of other countries and requires that countries respect its sovereignty in the same vein." Such language can help Georgia resist Russian encroachment on Georgian sovereignty in areas such as Abkhazia and the Pankisi Gorge. [For background on Abkhazia see the Eurasia Insight archives].
In outlining a non-traditional view of security, the draft stresses the need to defend the "interests of the individual, society, and state from internal and external threats." Thus, the protection of Georgians' individual liberties is held to be as important as traditional military notions of national security. In clarifying the country's outlook, the draft affirms the Shevardnadze administration's calls for "integrating with European institutions and accession into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
At the Tbilisi conference, officials from the Baltic States played a prominent role. In January 2002, the Latvian parliament adopted its own national security framework, and Latvian officials and experts are now eager to share their experience with other former Soviet states. As Lejins said, "we have a common bond the suffering under Soviet occupation. We found it hard to break out of the
Eric A. Miller, Ph.D. is an analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy in Fairfax, Virginia and Managing Editor of the journal Comparative Strategy.
Sign up for Eurasianet's free weekly newsletter. Support Eurasianet: Help keep our journalism open to all, and influenced by none.