Tweet
"I HAVE URGED PRESIDENT BUSH TO NEGOTIATE A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH GEORGIA" - SEN. RICHARD LUGAR
Malkhaz Gulashvili
Daily Georgian Times
http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home& newsid=10386
April 21 2008
Georgia
"NATO failed to provide Ukraine and Georgia with the Membership Action
Plan that would put them on a path to join the alliance. This was a
critical error that has broad implications for European security,"
Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Richard Lugar said in an exclusive interview with The Georgian Times.
Republican Senator Richard Lugar, who has been to Georgia a couple
of times, is considered a strong supporter of Georgia and its
government. During his recent visit to Georgia, Sen. Lugar openly said
he does not favor the presence of Russian-led peacekeeping forces in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Sen. Lugar has actively been pushing for
membership of both Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.
Richard Lugar: While Russia doesn't have a veto over NATO decisions,
the Alliance must remain vigilant that Moscow does not develop a
de facto veto. Their strong positions as a critical energy supplier
cannot be permitted to affect NATO decisions.
G.T.: How will the relations between Russia and the US develop in
the next 2-3 years? What should Georgia expect for this period?
R.L.: After 200 years, the goals of U.S.-Russian relations remain
the same. We want our relationship to contribute to basic security
and prosperity for Russians and Americans. Our policies toward
one another have frequently been characterized by ambiguous and
difficult choices, but I am sure we can make progress in the areas of
collaboration essential to our common interests. I remain optimistic
that we will summon the courage and perseverance required to move
our nations toward mutual successes. I consider myself a good friend
of Georgia. I will continue to urge the U.S to maintain a strong
relationship with Tbilisi to ensure Georgia remains independent and
committed to democratic and free market principles.
G.T.: Has confidence amongst US political leaders changed after the
November 7th events when the state of Emergency was declared? What
are US expectations about Georgia's parliamentary elections slated
for May 21? How would you assess the January 5 presidential elections?
R.L.: The U.S. must provide strong leadership to our friends in
Tbilisi. I am pleased that the OSCE determined that the January
elections were free and fair. I am hopeful that the elections in May
will signal further improvement and be another important step forward
in Georgia's continuing transformation to a democratic country which
is truly free and fair.
G.T.: The Armenia post election standoff has not earned much attention
from the West. Does it mean that Armenia is still under Russia's
influence so nobody intends to get involved there?
R.L.: I was saddened to learn of the difficulties in Armenia
surrounding their recent elections. I am hopeful that Armenia will make
progress in developing a free and fair elections system and choose
to develop stronger relations with Europe and the United States. I
am pleased that the United States remains committed to finding fair
and peaceful resolutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
G.T.: Georgia is considered a pillar for the USA. However, so far
American investments are not flowing into our country. What processes
would facilitate American investments in Georgia?
R.L: I have urged President Bush and his Administration to negotiate
a free trade agreement with Georgia. I believe this would be an
important step in developing a stronger bilateral investment and
commercial relationship.
G.T.: Although the US is the sole Super Power in the world, it is
struggling to deal with the challenges in Middle East. How will the
US overcome the crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan?
R.L.: (Sen. Lugar referred to his opening statement for the Hearing
on Iraq with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations made April 8, 2008 to answer this question -
GT). "We engaged numerous experts on the situation in Iraq and
on strategies for moving forward. Our discussions yielded several
premises that might guide our discussion today.
"First, the surge has succeeded in improving the conditions on the
ground in many areas of Iraq and creating 'breathing space' for
exploring political accommodation. Economic activity has improved
and a few initial political benchmarks have been achieved.
"The United States took advantage of Sunni disillusionment with
al-Qaeda tactics, the Sadr faction's desire for a cease fire, and other
factors to construct multiple cease-fire agreements with tribal and
sectarian leaders. Tens of thousands of Iraqi Sunnis who previously had
sheltered al-Qaeda and targeted Americans are currently contributing
to security operations, drawn by their interest in self-preservation
and U.S. payments.
"Second, security improvements derived purely from American military
operations have reached or almost reached a plateau. Military
operations may realize some marginal security gains in some areas,
but these gains are unlikely to be transformational for the country
beyond what has already occurred. Progress moving forward depends
largely on political events in Iraq.
"Third, despite the improvements in security, the central government
has not demonstrated that it can construct a "top-down" political
accommodation for Iraq. The Iraqi government is afflicted by corruption
and shows signs of sectarian bias. It still has not secured the
confidence of most Iraqis or demonstrated much competence in performing
basic government functions, including managing Iraq's oil wealth,
overseeing reconstruction programs, delivering government assistance
to the provinces, or creating jobs.
"Fourth, though portions of the Iraqi population are tired of the
violence and would embrace some type of permanent cease fire or
political accommodation, sectarian and tribal groups remain heavily
armed and are focused on expanding or solidifying their positions.
"The lack of technical competence within the Iraqi government,
external interference by the Iranians and others, the corruption and
criminality at all levels of Iraqi society, the departure from Iraq of
many of its most talented citizens, the lingering terrorist capability
of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, seemingly intractable disputes over territories
and oil assets, and power struggles between and within sectarian and
tribal groups all impede a sustainable national reconciliation.
"Iraq will be an unstable country for the foreseeable future, and
if some type of political settlement can be reached, it will be
inherently fragile.
"Fifth, operations in Iraq have severely strained the U.S. military,
and these strains will impose limits on the size and length of future
deployments to Iraq, irrespective of political decisions or the outcome
of the election in our country. "Last week, before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, General Richard Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army, testified: 'Today, our Army is out of balance. The current
demand for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds our sustainable
supply of soldiers, of units and equipment, and limits our ability
to provide ready forces for other contingencies.
Our readiness, quite frankly, is being consumed as fast as we can build
it. Lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time
at home station have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and on
their families, testing the resolve of the all-volunteer force like
never before.'
"Later in the hearing, General Cody said, 'I've never seen our lack of
strategic depth be at where it is today.' The limitations imposed by
these stresses were echoed in our own hearings. General Barry McCaffrey
asserted that troop levels in Iraq have to be reduced, stating that
the Army is experiencing 'significant recruiting and retention problems
and that 10 percent of recruits should not be in uniform.'
Major General Robert Scales testified: 'In a strange twist of irony
for the first time since the summer of 1863 the number of ground
soldiers available is determining American policy rather than policy
determining how many troops we need....The only point of contention
is how precipitous will be the withdrawal and whether the schedule
of withdrawal should be a matter of administration policy.'
"If one accepts the validity of all or most of these five premises,
the terms of our inquiry today are much different than they were last
September. At that time, the President was appealing to Congress to
allow the surge to continue to create breathing space for a political
accommodation. "Today the questions are whether and how improvements
in security can be converted into political gains that can stabilize
Iraq despite the impending drawdown of U.S. troops.
"Simply appealing for more time to make progress is insufficient. The
debate over how much progress we have made and whether we can make more
is less illuminating than determining whether the Administration has
a definable political strategy that recognizes the time limitations
we face and seeks a realistic outcome designed to protect American
vital interests. Our witnesses last week offered a wide variety of
political strategies for how we might achieve an outcome that would
preserve regional stability, prevent the worst scenarios for bloodshed,
and protect basic U.S. national security interests.
These included focusing more attention on building the Iraqi army,
embracing the concept of federalism, expanding the current bottom-up
cease fire matrix into a broader national accommodation, negotiating
with the Iraqis in the context of an announced U.S. withdrawal,
and creating a regional framework to bolster Iraqi security.
But none of our witnesses last week claimed that the task in Iraq
was simple or that the outcome would likely fulfill the ideal
of a pluralist democratic nation closely aligned with the United
States. All suggested that spoiling activities and the fissures in
Iraqi society could undermine even the most well-designed efforts by
the United States.
Unless the United States is able to convert progress made thus
far into a sustainable political accommodation that supports our
long-term national security objectives in Iraq, this progress will
have limited meaning. We cannot assume that sustaining some level of
progress is enough to achieve success, especially when we know that
current American troop levels in Iraq have to be reduced and spoiling
forces will be at work in Iraq.
We need a strategy that anticipates a political end game and
employs every plausible means to achieve it." A: What is your
forecast regarding Iran's nuclear program? How will the US respond
to Iran's threat? The task for American diplomats must be to sustain
international will and solidify an international consensus in favor of
a plan that presents the Iranian regime with a stark choice between
the benefits of accepting a verifiable cessation of their nuclear
program and the detriments of proceeding along their current course.
The United States has in place extensive unilateral economic sanctions
against Iran. Some have suggested that the Congress should pass
legislation targeting additional unilateral sanctions against foreign
companies that invest in Iran. I understand the impulse to take this
step. But given the evident priority that the Iranians assign to their
nuclear program, I see little chance that such unilateral sanctions
would have any effect on Iranian calculations.
Such sanctions would, however, be a challenge to the very nations that
we are trying to coalesce behind a more potent multilateral approach
to Iran. We should not take steps that undermine our prospects for
garnering international support for multilateral sanctions, which offer
better prospects for achieving our objectives than unilateral measures.
Iran poses challenges to U.S. interests in the region beyond its
nuclear program. Iranian policies in Iraq, Lebanon, and in the
Israeli-Palestinian arena threaten our interest in a stable Middle
East. Iran's expansionist foreign policy and the bombastic rhetoric of
its president have also fed concerns among its neighbors that it seeks
to dominate the region and interfere in their internal affairs. As
with the nuclear issue, an effective U.S. strategy for Iran should
leverage the concerns of other governments in pursuit of a united
front toward objectionable Iranian policies.
While enlisting the support of regional governments is critical,
we should avoid any calls to exploit Shi'ite-Sunni tensions. The
spread of sectarian conflict from Iraq to other parts of the Middle
East is decidedly not in the interest of the United States or the
people of the region. As the United States pursues sanctions at the
United Nations, it is important that we continue to explore potential
diplomatic openings with Iran -- either through our own efforts or
those of our allies.
Even if such efforts ultimately are not fruitful, they may reduce
risks of miscalculation, improve our ability to interpret what is
going on in Iran, and strengthen our efforts to enlist the support
of key nations. Secretary Rice's personal effort in pursuit of peace
between Israel and the Palestinians also is a welcome development
that could help diminish the appeal of extremists in the region,
backed by Iran, who call for confrontation with Israel. History has
demonstrated that progress on this difficult issue rarely is achieved
without sustained and active U.S. diplomacy.
Malkhaz Gulashvili
Daily Georgian Times
http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home& newsid=10386
April 21 2008
Georgia
"NATO failed to provide Ukraine and Georgia with the Membership Action
Plan that would put them on a path to join the alliance. This was a
critical error that has broad implications for European security,"
Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Richard Lugar said in an exclusive interview with The Georgian Times.
Republican Senator Richard Lugar, who has been to Georgia a couple
of times, is considered a strong supporter of Georgia and its
government. During his recent visit to Georgia, Sen. Lugar openly said
he does not favor the presence of Russian-led peacekeeping forces in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Sen. Lugar has actively been pushing for
membership of both Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.
Richard Lugar: While Russia doesn't have a veto over NATO decisions,
the Alliance must remain vigilant that Moscow does not develop a
de facto veto. Their strong positions as a critical energy supplier
cannot be permitted to affect NATO decisions.
G.T.: How will the relations between Russia and the US develop in
the next 2-3 years? What should Georgia expect for this period?
R.L.: After 200 years, the goals of U.S.-Russian relations remain
the same. We want our relationship to contribute to basic security
and prosperity for Russians and Americans. Our policies toward
one another have frequently been characterized by ambiguous and
difficult choices, but I am sure we can make progress in the areas of
collaboration essential to our common interests. I remain optimistic
that we will summon the courage and perseverance required to move
our nations toward mutual successes. I consider myself a good friend
of Georgia. I will continue to urge the U.S to maintain a strong
relationship with Tbilisi to ensure Georgia remains independent and
committed to democratic and free market principles.
G.T.: Has confidence amongst US political leaders changed after the
November 7th events when the state of Emergency was declared? What
are US expectations about Georgia's parliamentary elections slated
for May 21? How would you assess the January 5 presidential elections?
R.L.: The U.S. must provide strong leadership to our friends in
Tbilisi. I am pleased that the OSCE determined that the January
elections were free and fair. I am hopeful that the elections in May
will signal further improvement and be another important step forward
in Georgia's continuing transformation to a democratic country which
is truly free and fair.
G.T.: The Armenia post election standoff has not earned much attention
from the West. Does it mean that Armenia is still under Russia's
influence so nobody intends to get involved there?
R.L.: I was saddened to learn of the difficulties in Armenia
surrounding their recent elections. I am hopeful that Armenia will make
progress in developing a free and fair elections system and choose
to develop stronger relations with Europe and the United States. I
am pleased that the United States remains committed to finding fair
and peaceful resolutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
G.T.: Georgia is considered a pillar for the USA. However, so far
American investments are not flowing into our country. What processes
would facilitate American investments in Georgia?
R.L: I have urged President Bush and his Administration to negotiate
a free trade agreement with Georgia. I believe this would be an
important step in developing a stronger bilateral investment and
commercial relationship.
G.T.: Although the US is the sole Super Power in the world, it is
struggling to deal with the challenges in Middle East. How will the
US overcome the crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan?
R.L.: (Sen. Lugar referred to his opening statement for the Hearing
on Iraq with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations made April 8, 2008 to answer this question -
GT). "We engaged numerous experts on the situation in Iraq and
on strategies for moving forward. Our discussions yielded several
premises that might guide our discussion today.
"First, the surge has succeeded in improving the conditions on the
ground in many areas of Iraq and creating 'breathing space' for
exploring political accommodation. Economic activity has improved
and a few initial political benchmarks have been achieved.
"The United States took advantage of Sunni disillusionment with
al-Qaeda tactics, the Sadr faction's desire for a cease fire, and other
factors to construct multiple cease-fire agreements with tribal and
sectarian leaders. Tens of thousands of Iraqi Sunnis who previously had
sheltered al-Qaeda and targeted Americans are currently contributing
to security operations, drawn by their interest in self-preservation
and U.S. payments.
"Second, security improvements derived purely from American military
operations have reached or almost reached a plateau. Military
operations may realize some marginal security gains in some areas,
but these gains are unlikely to be transformational for the country
beyond what has already occurred. Progress moving forward depends
largely on political events in Iraq.
"Third, despite the improvements in security, the central government
has not demonstrated that it can construct a "top-down" political
accommodation for Iraq. The Iraqi government is afflicted by corruption
and shows signs of sectarian bias. It still has not secured the
confidence of most Iraqis or demonstrated much competence in performing
basic government functions, including managing Iraq's oil wealth,
overseeing reconstruction programs, delivering government assistance
to the provinces, or creating jobs.
"Fourth, though portions of the Iraqi population are tired of the
violence and would embrace some type of permanent cease fire or
political accommodation, sectarian and tribal groups remain heavily
armed and are focused on expanding or solidifying their positions.
"The lack of technical competence within the Iraqi government,
external interference by the Iranians and others, the corruption and
criminality at all levels of Iraqi society, the departure from Iraq of
many of its most talented citizens, the lingering terrorist capability
of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, seemingly intractable disputes over territories
and oil assets, and power struggles between and within sectarian and
tribal groups all impede a sustainable national reconciliation.
"Iraq will be an unstable country for the foreseeable future, and
if some type of political settlement can be reached, it will be
inherently fragile.
"Fifth, operations in Iraq have severely strained the U.S. military,
and these strains will impose limits on the size and length of future
deployments to Iraq, irrespective of political decisions or the outcome
of the election in our country. "Last week, before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, General Richard Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army, testified: 'Today, our Army is out of balance. The current
demand for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds our sustainable
supply of soldiers, of units and equipment, and limits our ability
to provide ready forces for other contingencies.
Our readiness, quite frankly, is being consumed as fast as we can build
it. Lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time
at home station have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and on
their families, testing the resolve of the all-volunteer force like
never before.'
"Later in the hearing, General Cody said, 'I've never seen our lack of
strategic depth be at where it is today.' The limitations imposed by
these stresses were echoed in our own hearings. General Barry McCaffrey
asserted that troop levels in Iraq have to be reduced, stating that
the Army is experiencing 'significant recruiting and retention problems
and that 10 percent of recruits should not be in uniform.'
Major General Robert Scales testified: 'In a strange twist of irony
for the first time since the summer of 1863 the number of ground
soldiers available is determining American policy rather than policy
determining how many troops we need....The only point of contention
is how precipitous will be the withdrawal and whether the schedule
of withdrawal should be a matter of administration policy.'
"If one accepts the validity of all or most of these five premises,
the terms of our inquiry today are much different than they were last
September. At that time, the President was appealing to Congress to
allow the surge to continue to create breathing space for a political
accommodation. "Today the questions are whether and how improvements
in security can be converted into political gains that can stabilize
Iraq despite the impending drawdown of U.S. troops.
"Simply appealing for more time to make progress is insufficient. The
debate over how much progress we have made and whether we can make more
is less illuminating than determining whether the Administration has
a definable political strategy that recognizes the time limitations
we face and seeks a realistic outcome designed to protect American
vital interests. Our witnesses last week offered a wide variety of
political strategies for how we might achieve an outcome that would
preserve regional stability, prevent the worst scenarios for bloodshed,
and protect basic U.S. national security interests.
These included focusing more attention on building the Iraqi army,
embracing the concept of federalism, expanding the current bottom-up
cease fire matrix into a broader national accommodation, negotiating
with the Iraqis in the context of an announced U.S. withdrawal,
and creating a regional framework to bolster Iraqi security.
But none of our witnesses last week claimed that the task in Iraq
was simple or that the outcome would likely fulfill the ideal
of a pluralist democratic nation closely aligned with the United
States. All suggested that spoiling activities and the fissures in
Iraqi society could undermine even the most well-designed efforts by
the United States.
Unless the United States is able to convert progress made thus
far into a sustainable political accommodation that supports our
long-term national security objectives in Iraq, this progress will
have limited meaning. We cannot assume that sustaining some level of
progress is enough to achieve success, especially when we know that
current American troop levels in Iraq have to be reduced and spoiling
forces will be at work in Iraq.
We need a strategy that anticipates a political end game and
employs every plausible means to achieve it." A: What is your
forecast regarding Iran's nuclear program? How will the US respond
to Iran's threat? The task for American diplomats must be to sustain
international will and solidify an international consensus in favor of
a plan that presents the Iranian regime with a stark choice between
the benefits of accepting a verifiable cessation of their nuclear
program and the detriments of proceeding along their current course.
The United States has in place extensive unilateral economic sanctions
against Iran. Some have suggested that the Congress should pass
legislation targeting additional unilateral sanctions against foreign
companies that invest in Iran. I understand the impulse to take this
step. But given the evident priority that the Iranians assign to their
nuclear program, I see little chance that such unilateral sanctions
would have any effect on Iranian calculations.
Such sanctions would, however, be a challenge to the very nations that
we are trying to coalesce behind a more potent multilateral approach
to Iran. We should not take steps that undermine our prospects for
garnering international support for multilateral sanctions, which offer
better prospects for achieving our objectives than unilateral measures.
Iran poses challenges to U.S. interests in the region beyond its
nuclear program. Iranian policies in Iraq, Lebanon, and in the
Israeli-Palestinian arena threaten our interest in a stable Middle
East. Iran's expansionist foreign policy and the bombastic rhetoric of
its president have also fed concerns among its neighbors that it seeks
to dominate the region and interfere in their internal affairs. As
with the nuclear issue, an effective U.S. strategy for Iran should
leverage the concerns of other governments in pursuit of a united
front toward objectionable Iranian policies.
While enlisting the support of regional governments is critical,
we should avoid any calls to exploit Shi'ite-Sunni tensions. The
spread of sectarian conflict from Iraq to other parts of the Middle
East is decidedly not in the interest of the United States or the
people of the region. As the United States pursues sanctions at the
United Nations, it is important that we continue to explore potential
diplomatic openings with Iran -- either through our own efforts or
those of our allies.
Even if such efforts ultimately are not fruitful, they may reduce
risks of miscalculation, improve our ability to interpret what is
going on in Iran, and strengthen our efforts to enlist the support
of key nations. Secretary Rice's personal effort in pursuit of peace
between Israel and the Palestinians also is a welcome development
that could help diminish the appeal of extremists in the region,
backed by Iran, who call for confrontation with Israel. History has
demonstrated that progress on this difficult issue rarely is achieved
without sustained and active U.S. diplomacy.