Tweet
INTERVIEW: GIORGI KVELASHVILI - GEORGIA'S 'UNPRECEDENTED' OPPORTUNITY
Michael Cecire
Eurasia Review
http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/04/interv iew-giorgi-kvelashvili-georgias.html
April 28 2010
Giorgi Kvelashvili, an analyst and regular contributor with the
Jamestown Foundation, speaks to Evolutsia.Net about Georgia's
development, foreign policy, and politics.
Evolutisa.Net: Giorgi, thanks for agreeing to the interview.
To start, you've been very active writing about Georgia's geopolitical
position at the Jamestown Foundation. With the recent US-Russia nuclear
arms limitations agreement and the fitful start-stop 'reset,' do you
think that the US and Russia are any closer to seeing eye to eye on
things like Iran and, closer to home, Russia's neighborhood policy?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
Unlike his predecessor, the incumbent US President, Barack Obama,
at least in his rhetoric, focuses more on issues of global security
and peace than freedom, democracy and human rights when prioritizing
America's foreign policy agenda. Pretty accurately, this stance seems
quite logical given Obama's domestic priorities, which puts justice
above liberty.
To be sure, President Obama's rhetoric is not very good news for small
nations like Georgia or the Baltic states since we would be better
off, and the world would be safer, if the United States exerted more
pressure on Moscow so that the latter move toward a freer and more
open society. Cooperation with Russia or China, for that matter, on
security, energy and technology issues, should be conditional and
closely linked to those countries' domestic behavior. This means
that the human dimension of security should not be decoupled from
the international security; otherwise we will be heading toward a
very fragile world where peace would be a temporary good.
Having said that, I do not think that any bargaining is going between
the current U.S. administration and the Kremlin at the expense
of Georgia or other countries in Russia's neighborhood. America's
'no' to Moscow's proposal on a new European security treaty - whose
ill-hidden aims are to undermine NATO and carve for Russia a sphere
of influence by limiting the small nations' freedom of choice -
is proof of the assumption I have just made.
On the other hand, the United Staes have never openly demanded that
Russia withdraw its troops from the occupied Georgian territories.
Those troops and the very fact of occupation are a direct threat
to Georgia's sovereignty. This is a very volatile status quo. It
cannot be maintained long given the fact that Russia has achieved
very little by having those territories under its control. There are
two outcomes from this situation: either Russia will be forced to
leave or it will expand its rule all over Georgia. There is no third
outcome. I am pretty sure of it.
As far as Iran is concerned, Russia would only benefit from the
deepening crisis over Tehran's nuclear and missile programs. I do not
think that the American government would offer Russia a freedom of
action in Georgia for its cooperation over Iran. Not at all. Moscow's
hope lies in other calculations. Namely, if the Iran crisis descends
into open military hostilities, then Russia would feel it is time to
act in Georgia and in other parts of the former Soviet Union. Simply,
no one would care about Georgia then and Russia as an opportunistic
power will capitalize on an "attention vacuum" as well as on high
energy prices.
Evo: Based on these developments, and President Obama's outsourcing
of the US Georgia policy to Vice President Joe Biden, do you think
that the US-Georgia relationship is headed in the right direction?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
The "outsourcing," even if it were really happening, is a mere
technical issue. It would be better to look at the situation from a
different perspective. This administration seems to be as committed
to Georgia's nation-building efforts and democratic transformation as
the previous administration was. I do not see any deviation from the
pattern. Americans are helping us as ever before and this is not only
financial and technical support - it is also moral support. Without
an exaggeration, Georgia is governed by US-educated people from the
president and high-ranking government ministers to mid-level and
low-level public officials. And most of them have been educated at
top US schools on American taxpayers' money. I wish we had as many
US-trained medical doctors though. America is an inspiration for the
Georgian youth and I do not think any nation in the world can best
the Georgians in their admiration for the United States and its values.
On its part, Georgia, which is not even a NATO member yet, has
made tremendous contributions to the US-led international efforts in
Afghanistan by deploying nearly 1,000 troops under French and American
command. This move has created a new dynamic in Georgian-American
relations. We have attached no national caveats to our deployment and
nor have we tied this issue to the NATO membership process. Of course,
we seek several important benefits from our friendly move and this is
exactly what goes against the current Russian leadership's Georgia
policy. Tbilisi's international isolation is the Kremlin's number
one objective and our international involvement can successfully
foil that plan. Closely linked to the 'isolation policy' is Moscow's
desire to leave Georgia as a member of the international community
void of function. Our cooperation with the West on transit, energy
and military issue thwarts the Kremlin's plan as well.
But this is just a very small part what Georgia is doing for what
the United States stands for in the contemporary international system.
Georgia is building a modern nation which is an alternative to
what Russia epitomizes itself and advances in its neighborhood. Our
sovereignty aside, Russia fears our way of life and institutions.
Modernity is the single most important issue that distinguishes
Georgia from Russia. We are the first and unfortunately so far the only
country in the region that created a Western-styled functional police,
a public register, armed forces and other nation-state attributes
which are absolutely different from the Soviet-era analogues present
in all other post-Soviet states, except the Baltic nations.
Evo: Of course, I agree with everything you're saying, but you can't
deny that many see US support as fairly half-hearted (the EU question
aside!) and something of an afterthought. I'd agree that the Georgian
contribution to Helmand is definitely worth mentioning and worthwhile,
but it's still a pretty small amount compared to the overall number
of forces in Afghanistan. It's hard not to understand the point some
Western analysts make when they say that a foreign policy orientation
should not depend on 1,000 additional troops in Helmand.
How do you think Georgia can cultivate a relationship with the US where
it becomes an American value, agreed upon by most of the population,
that Georgia is worth helping and worth defending, as Israel has done?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
Georgia under President Saakashvili has been acting as a de facto
American ally. I would agree that a nearly 1,000 Georgian troops
is of course a pretty small amount compared to the total number of
forces currently deployed in Afghanistan. But nonetheless, it means
that we are assisting our strategic partner as much as we can and,
besides, we are projecting ourselves as someone who has a role in
the international system. It is not only via our already materialized
function as an energy transit country in the East-West corridor but
also through our military involvement in the West's peace efforts
that we are proving being useful to the world.
By the way, our very existence as a sovereign nation is already a
contribution to the international security and peace. Why do you think
the Russians covet Georgia so much? Is not it because having Georgia
in their fold would allow them to control the energy corridor, enjoy
higher stakes in the bargaining with the United States over Iran and
other issue, and overall, increase their relative power vis-a-vis the
West. I do not think the world would be a safer place to live should
Moscow's strategy materialize. Sovereignty of the former Soviet states
is crucial if we do not want to have Cold War 2.
Talking with officials in Washington is important and I think we have
been quite successful at advancing our case, but I have a feeling that
we could do better in relation to our reaching out to the American
public. I mean not only think tanks, academia and pressure groups -
and keeping good contacts with all of them is indeed very important -
but also to the American people in general. Administrations come and
go but the American men and women are always there. We have to talk to
them. I know they will listen. They bear the Torch of Freedom and they
are the ones who elect America's leaders. We share so many values with
them and there are so many unexplored avenues in this regard. In short,
I am talking about the indispensability of human-to-human contacts.
Evo: Vano Merabishvili is on record saying that he doesn't believe
another war is looming. I'd agree, but Jamestown has generally been
less upbeat about this kind of thing. What are your impressions?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
I am not positioned to make a point on the Jamestown Foundation's
behalf. What I will say is my own observation.
I am extremely happy with the level of cooperation I have developed
with the president of the Jamestown Foundation Glen Howard, his
extraordinary staff and the highly insightful and talented analysts who
work with this organization. I am also very glad that the Jamestown
focuses on the Caucasus more emphatically and more deeply than any
other research institutions in the US or elsewhere in the West. It is
day-to-day work and almost all Jamestown writers base their research
on non-English sources which are not accessible for those who do not
speak Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian, Chechen or other languages across
the Caucasus and wider Eurasia.
As for Minister Merabishvili's claim, I only have access to open
sources and of course he has highly confidential information as well.
Based on the information I am familiar with and given the reality I
have described above, another Russian intervention cannot be ruled out
at all. A lot will depend on how the Iran crisis develops. Karabakh
is another story. What I mean is that if another war over Karabakh
breaks out, Russia will be the primary beneficiary. All in all,
for the Kremlin's current bosses, the Caucasus is quintessential
for Russia's imperial growth. Besides, they feel that without having
Tbilisi under control sometime soon, their imperial strategy will have
to be abandoned altogether. In this respect, time is on our side. The
longer we will survive, the greater will become the chance of Russia's
own transformation into a modern, responsible and democratic nation.
Evo: I'd like to take a little turn from this question. On one hand,
I think you're making a really good point about Russia seeking
suzerainty over Georgia in the medium to long term. However, a lot
of thoughtful observers have said that Turkey would never agree to
such an arrangement, as Georgia is seen in Ankara as a useful buffer
against Russian expansion. Russia's 're-imperialization' has been the
focus of many articles and discussions, as has the concept of Turkish
'neo-Ottomanism,' to put it crudely. However, there's a lot less
treatment on how both of these forces affect the future of Georgia.
I'd contest that Georgia's strategic geography is once again at work
here. Turkey could never fulfill (or even Iran, some might say) its
larger strategic ambitions if Georgia becomes a Russian satellite,
connected to Armenia to the south. What do you think? Though Ankara
and Moscow are cooperating now, do you think Georgia can use its role
as a buffer by leveraging Turkey to some extent against Russia?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
Turkey has been our good friend since the very beginning of our
revival as an independent country in 1991. We are now strategic
partners and are engaged in very fruitful and mutually beneficial
relationship. Turkey is our number one economic partner as well.
Ankara supports the independence and territorial integrity of all
former Soviet states and this feature distinguishes it from Moscow.
Besides, I do not think that the prevailing strategic thinking in
Turkey is based on the premises of zero-sum game. Turkey supports
our NATO membership and we support Turkey's EU membership, the
normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations and, in general,
Turkey's greater role in the Caucasus. This would only increase
stability and security in our region. As concerns your notion on
'buffer' states, we do not see ourselves as a buffer between the larger
neighboring powers. We are an actor who aspires a NATO membership
and a full incorporation into the Trans-Atlantic system of states.
Evo: Despite Russia's requirement modification, it seems that the
Mistral sale is a done deal. Many Western analysts have pooh-poohed
the idea that the Mistral poses a threat to Georgia. What do you
think? And, political advocacy notwithstanding, how can Georgia
compensate for the increased threat level posed by a helicopter
carrier sitting off of Georgia's coastline?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
The Mistral at Russia's disposal is of course dangerous and I do not
think we have to be the only one who should be ringing the alarm bell.
But even more dangerous is the very fact that a deal like this is
being struck between Russia that invaded its smaller neighbor in
2008 and France, a NATO member Western nation, that mediated the
ceasefire agreement between Russia and Georgia. In gross violation
of that agreement, Russia is continuing its illegal occupation of
Georgia's sovereign territory, and the Mistral deal is seen in the
Kremlin as a reward for the occupation.
Two weeks after Stalinist Russia invaded Finland on November 30, 1939,
it was kicked out of the League of Nations. Are we safer today some
sixty years later when we have a functional United Nations instead of
a "dysfunctional" League of Nations and a P5 member Putinist Russia
getting away easily with a grabbing of someone else's property? I do
not think so.
Meanwhile, Georgia, the victim of Russia's aggression, has been under
effective US arms embargo since August 2008. US Senator Lugar and
his supporters in Congress have called for a change in that direction.
Georgia's outstanding security concerns remain while Russia's actions
are only checked diplomatically. Diplomacy is a powerful deterrence
but in the long run it becomes lame if real force on the ground is
not coupled with it.
Evo: On that last point, I am reminded of a conversation I had with
Remy Gwardamadze just the other day. Remy was speaking with someone
and asked about the average Georgian male's willingness to join the
military, and his friend responded that most people are trying to
avoid military service. To be honest, that has been my impression as
well - that most Georgians don't seem to be exactly jumping at the
chance to join the Georgian military forces. To put this into context,
I remember the 2008 war. When Russian troops seemed to be poised to
march on Tbilisi, Georgians didn't start forming paramilitary bands
or head to the hills for a protracted guerilla war, but instead had
a European-style protest!
Obviously, Georgia needs arms and assistance from abroad - but if
Georgians themselves don't seem to be prepared to fight for their
independence, why should anyone else? What do you think? Do you see
this as a function of a feeling of hopelessness? Or just a lack of
confidence that Georgia could ever win such a war? Or that Russian
occupation may not be so bad? And how can Georgia reverse this
inclination among its people?
I mean, on one hand, you have places like Switzerland, Singapore, and
Israel (all three described as models for Georgia in various respects),
but these places all have universal conscription, advanced air forces,
and highly trained militaries. None are NATO members.
Georgia's military, on the other hand, seems to be focused on NATO
interoperability rather than territorial defense.
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
You are making very important points. It is not that I fully agree
with you on your assumptions or perceptions. If I may say this, you
are partly right when describing the morale of a number of Georgian
men. But there are so many others whose patriotism is beyond doubt.
The Russian invasion showed that we have very many good soldiers and
real heroes. There were some serious shortcomings of course during
the war especially in the military command and communications system
but in general the morale in our armed forces was high. Unfortunately,
there were reports that some of our compatriots collaborated with the
enemy. This is very regrettable and I think huge work should be done
to improve our human capabilities.
I am for a system that includes universal conscription, a sizeable
professional component and a national reserve. We should be capable
of territorial defense, which would also be our deterrence.
There are at least two dangers that I see. Some people in Georgia
think that liberalism and democracy do not need teeth. On the other
extreme of the spectrum there are ethnic nationalists who do not
understand what nation-state really means, and for them 'survival'
means ethnic and cultural preservation in an empire (the Russian
empire, of course) not a survival as a nation in Western understanding.
Georgia's education system should better focus on the modern concepts
of citizenship. The army is another place where education should
continue. President Saakashvili has recently unveiled a plan that
will soon make patriotic and military education in Georgia's secondary
schools an essential part of the academic curriculum.
Evo: Many around the world, and Evolutsia.Net has joined this
chorus periodically as well, still see Georgia's political and media
environment to be badly flawed. How can the Saakashvili government
take steps, in the near future, to correct these problems? Will they
happen? When?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
Georgia's system is in the process of making. Building a modern nation
is of course harder than building just a state. Some ten years ago
we did not even have a real state. Ours was a failed one. Without
modern institutions democracy and individual liberties are just a
dream because you cannot have liberty in the jungle of anarchy.
I think we have made good progress both in terms of nation-building
and democracy. But for the modern political culture to become stable
and sustained, new elites committed to it should be formed. And this
takes time. Establishing a responsible citizenry is a long process.
Western-type liberal elites organized along right, centrist and
left affiliations will someday fully replace the old-fashioned
intelligentsia and the peculiar "political parties" of today's
Georgia that have almost no ideologies and are simply formed around
individuals. But this is a process whose success depends on the
growth of our economy and the formation of a powerful and numerous
middle class.
The political elite that governs Georgia now has a great responsibility
to direct this process in a due course. I would even say that the
opportunity granted to our generation is unprecedented in Georgia's
history.
There is pressure on the government to expedite and deepen liberal
political and economic reforms and I think this is very good. I
myself want the Westernization of Georgia to proceed faster. But take
into consideration the fact that there is even more pressure on the
ruling elite from the old-timers who want the reforms to be abandoned
altogether and the country to go back to some 'poor Georgian state'.
The pro-Western class in this country is often accused of betraying
Georgianness, whatever this means, and those retrograde and revanchist
forces, closely associated with Russia and criminal gangs (kurduli
samkaro) now operating outside Georgia, are still powerful enough to
influence our future. I believe greater transparency, pluralism and
freedom of expression will only speed up our transformation.
Evo: Thanks for your time, Giorgi.
Giorgi Kvelashvili, an Edmund S. Muskie alumnus, holds a Master's in
International Relations from Yale University. He currently serves as
an analyst for the Jamestown Foundation and regularly publishes for
Tabula magazine.
Michael Hikari Cecire is a writer and independent analyst living in
Tbilisi. A former Peace Corps Volunteer in Georgia, he is a frequent
commentator on economic development and South Caucasus policy issues.
In addition to Evolutsia.Net, Cecire has also written for the Caspian
Business Journal, the London Telegraph, World Politics Review, and TCS
Daily, among others. This article first appeared at Evolutsia.Net,
a news and analysis blogozine covering the political landscape of
Georgia republic.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Michael Cecire
Eurasia Review
http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/04/interv iew-giorgi-kvelashvili-georgias.html
April 28 2010
Giorgi Kvelashvili, an analyst and regular contributor with the
Jamestown Foundation, speaks to Evolutsia.Net about Georgia's
development, foreign policy, and politics.
Evolutisa.Net: Giorgi, thanks for agreeing to the interview.
To start, you've been very active writing about Georgia's geopolitical
position at the Jamestown Foundation. With the recent US-Russia nuclear
arms limitations agreement and the fitful start-stop 'reset,' do you
think that the US and Russia are any closer to seeing eye to eye on
things like Iran and, closer to home, Russia's neighborhood policy?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
Unlike his predecessor, the incumbent US President, Barack Obama,
at least in his rhetoric, focuses more on issues of global security
and peace than freedom, democracy and human rights when prioritizing
America's foreign policy agenda. Pretty accurately, this stance seems
quite logical given Obama's domestic priorities, which puts justice
above liberty.
To be sure, President Obama's rhetoric is not very good news for small
nations like Georgia or the Baltic states since we would be better
off, and the world would be safer, if the United States exerted more
pressure on Moscow so that the latter move toward a freer and more
open society. Cooperation with Russia or China, for that matter, on
security, energy and technology issues, should be conditional and
closely linked to those countries' domestic behavior. This means
that the human dimension of security should not be decoupled from
the international security; otherwise we will be heading toward a
very fragile world where peace would be a temporary good.
Having said that, I do not think that any bargaining is going between
the current U.S. administration and the Kremlin at the expense
of Georgia or other countries in Russia's neighborhood. America's
'no' to Moscow's proposal on a new European security treaty - whose
ill-hidden aims are to undermine NATO and carve for Russia a sphere
of influence by limiting the small nations' freedom of choice -
is proof of the assumption I have just made.
On the other hand, the United Staes have never openly demanded that
Russia withdraw its troops from the occupied Georgian territories.
Those troops and the very fact of occupation are a direct threat
to Georgia's sovereignty. This is a very volatile status quo. It
cannot be maintained long given the fact that Russia has achieved
very little by having those territories under its control. There are
two outcomes from this situation: either Russia will be forced to
leave or it will expand its rule all over Georgia. There is no third
outcome. I am pretty sure of it.
As far as Iran is concerned, Russia would only benefit from the
deepening crisis over Tehran's nuclear and missile programs. I do not
think that the American government would offer Russia a freedom of
action in Georgia for its cooperation over Iran. Not at all. Moscow's
hope lies in other calculations. Namely, if the Iran crisis descends
into open military hostilities, then Russia would feel it is time to
act in Georgia and in other parts of the former Soviet Union. Simply,
no one would care about Georgia then and Russia as an opportunistic
power will capitalize on an "attention vacuum" as well as on high
energy prices.
Evo: Based on these developments, and President Obama's outsourcing
of the US Georgia policy to Vice President Joe Biden, do you think
that the US-Georgia relationship is headed in the right direction?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
The "outsourcing," even if it were really happening, is a mere
technical issue. It would be better to look at the situation from a
different perspective. This administration seems to be as committed
to Georgia's nation-building efforts and democratic transformation as
the previous administration was. I do not see any deviation from the
pattern. Americans are helping us as ever before and this is not only
financial and technical support - it is also moral support. Without
an exaggeration, Georgia is governed by US-educated people from the
president and high-ranking government ministers to mid-level and
low-level public officials. And most of them have been educated at
top US schools on American taxpayers' money. I wish we had as many
US-trained medical doctors though. America is an inspiration for the
Georgian youth and I do not think any nation in the world can best
the Georgians in their admiration for the United States and its values.
On its part, Georgia, which is not even a NATO member yet, has
made tremendous contributions to the US-led international efforts in
Afghanistan by deploying nearly 1,000 troops under French and American
command. This move has created a new dynamic in Georgian-American
relations. We have attached no national caveats to our deployment and
nor have we tied this issue to the NATO membership process. Of course,
we seek several important benefits from our friendly move and this is
exactly what goes against the current Russian leadership's Georgia
policy. Tbilisi's international isolation is the Kremlin's number
one objective and our international involvement can successfully
foil that plan. Closely linked to the 'isolation policy' is Moscow's
desire to leave Georgia as a member of the international community
void of function. Our cooperation with the West on transit, energy
and military issue thwarts the Kremlin's plan as well.
But this is just a very small part what Georgia is doing for what
the United States stands for in the contemporary international system.
Georgia is building a modern nation which is an alternative to
what Russia epitomizes itself and advances in its neighborhood. Our
sovereignty aside, Russia fears our way of life and institutions.
Modernity is the single most important issue that distinguishes
Georgia from Russia. We are the first and unfortunately so far the only
country in the region that created a Western-styled functional police,
a public register, armed forces and other nation-state attributes
which are absolutely different from the Soviet-era analogues present
in all other post-Soviet states, except the Baltic nations.
Evo: Of course, I agree with everything you're saying, but you can't
deny that many see US support as fairly half-hearted (the EU question
aside!) and something of an afterthought. I'd agree that the Georgian
contribution to Helmand is definitely worth mentioning and worthwhile,
but it's still a pretty small amount compared to the overall number
of forces in Afghanistan. It's hard not to understand the point some
Western analysts make when they say that a foreign policy orientation
should not depend on 1,000 additional troops in Helmand.
How do you think Georgia can cultivate a relationship with the US where
it becomes an American value, agreed upon by most of the population,
that Georgia is worth helping and worth defending, as Israel has done?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
Georgia under President Saakashvili has been acting as a de facto
American ally. I would agree that a nearly 1,000 Georgian troops
is of course a pretty small amount compared to the total number of
forces currently deployed in Afghanistan. But nonetheless, it means
that we are assisting our strategic partner as much as we can and,
besides, we are projecting ourselves as someone who has a role in
the international system. It is not only via our already materialized
function as an energy transit country in the East-West corridor but
also through our military involvement in the West's peace efforts
that we are proving being useful to the world.
By the way, our very existence as a sovereign nation is already a
contribution to the international security and peace. Why do you think
the Russians covet Georgia so much? Is not it because having Georgia
in their fold would allow them to control the energy corridor, enjoy
higher stakes in the bargaining with the United States over Iran and
other issue, and overall, increase their relative power vis-a-vis the
West. I do not think the world would be a safer place to live should
Moscow's strategy materialize. Sovereignty of the former Soviet states
is crucial if we do not want to have Cold War 2.
Talking with officials in Washington is important and I think we have
been quite successful at advancing our case, but I have a feeling that
we could do better in relation to our reaching out to the American
public. I mean not only think tanks, academia and pressure groups -
and keeping good contacts with all of them is indeed very important -
but also to the American people in general. Administrations come and
go but the American men and women are always there. We have to talk to
them. I know they will listen. They bear the Torch of Freedom and they
are the ones who elect America's leaders. We share so many values with
them and there are so many unexplored avenues in this regard. In short,
I am talking about the indispensability of human-to-human contacts.
Evo: Vano Merabishvili is on record saying that he doesn't believe
another war is looming. I'd agree, but Jamestown has generally been
less upbeat about this kind of thing. What are your impressions?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
I am not positioned to make a point on the Jamestown Foundation's
behalf. What I will say is my own observation.
I am extremely happy with the level of cooperation I have developed
with the president of the Jamestown Foundation Glen Howard, his
extraordinary staff and the highly insightful and talented analysts who
work with this organization. I am also very glad that the Jamestown
focuses on the Caucasus more emphatically and more deeply than any
other research institutions in the US or elsewhere in the West. It is
day-to-day work and almost all Jamestown writers base their research
on non-English sources which are not accessible for those who do not
speak Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian, Chechen or other languages across
the Caucasus and wider Eurasia.
As for Minister Merabishvili's claim, I only have access to open
sources and of course he has highly confidential information as well.
Based on the information I am familiar with and given the reality I
have described above, another Russian intervention cannot be ruled out
at all. A lot will depend on how the Iran crisis develops. Karabakh
is another story. What I mean is that if another war over Karabakh
breaks out, Russia will be the primary beneficiary. All in all,
for the Kremlin's current bosses, the Caucasus is quintessential
for Russia's imperial growth. Besides, they feel that without having
Tbilisi under control sometime soon, their imperial strategy will have
to be abandoned altogether. In this respect, time is on our side. The
longer we will survive, the greater will become the chance of Russia's
own transformation into a modern, responsible and democratic nation.
Evo: I'd like to take a little turn from this question. On one hand,
I think you're making a really good point about Russia seeking
suzerainty over Georgia in the medium to long term. However, a lot
of thoughtful observers have said that Turkey would never agree to
such an arrangement, as Georgia is seen in Ankara as a useful buffer
against Russian expansion. Russia's 're-imperialization' has been the
focus of many articles and discussions, as has the concept of Turkish
'neo-Ottomanism,' to put it crudely. However, there's a lot less
treatment on how both of these forces affect the future of Georgia.
I'd contest that Georgia's strategic geography is once again at work
here. Turkey could never fulfill (or even Iran, some might say) its
larger strategic ambitions if Georgia becomes a Russian satellite,
connected to Armenia to the south. What do you think? Though Ankara
and Moscow are cooperating now, do you think Georgia can use its role
as a buffer by leveraging Turkey to some extent against Russia?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
Turkey has been our good friend since the very beginning of our
revival as an independent country in 1991. We are now strategic
partners and are engaged in very fruitful and mutually beneficial
relationship. Turkey is our number one economic partner as well.
Ankara supports the independence and territorial integrity of all
former Soviet states and this feature distinguishes it from Moscow.
Besides, I do not think that the prevailing strategic thinking in
Turkey is based on the premises of zero-sum game. Turkey supports
our NATO membership and we support Turkey's EU membership, the
normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations and, in general,
Turkey's greater role in the Caucasus. This would only increase
stability and security in our region. As concerns your notion on
'buffer' states, we do not see ourselves as a buffer between the larger
neighboring powers. We are an actor who aspires a NATO membership
and a full incorporation into the Trans-Atlantic system of states.
Evo: Despite Russia's requirement modification, it seems that the
Mistral sale is a done deal. Many Western analysts have pooh-poohed
the idea that the Mistral poses a threat to Georgia. What do you
think? And, political advocacy notwithstanding, how can Georgia
compensate for the increased threat level posed by a helicopter
carrier sitting off of Georgia's coastline?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
The Mistral at Russia's disposal is of course dangerous and I do not
think we have to be the only one who should be ringing the alarm bell.
But even more dangerous is the very fact that a deal like this is
being struck between Russia that invaded its smaller neighbor in
2008 and France, a NATO member Western nation, that mediated the
ceasefire agreement between Russia and Georgia. In gross violation
of that agreement, Russia is continuing its illegal occupation of
Georgia's sovereign territory, and the Mistral deal is seen in the
Kremlin as a reward for the occupation.
Two weeks after Stalinist Russia invaded Finland on November 30, 1939,
it was kicked out of the League of Nations. Are we safer today some
sixty years later when we have a functional United Nations instead of
a "dysfunctional" League of Nations and a P5 member Putinist Russia
getting away easily with a grabbing of someone else's property? I do
not think so.
Meanwhile, Georgia, the victim of Russia's aggression, has been under
effective US arms embargo since August 2008. US Senator Lugar and
his supporters in Congress have called for a change in that direction.
Georgia's outstanding security concerns remain while Russia's actions
are only checked diplomatically. Diplomacy is a powerful deterrence
but in the long run it becomes lame if real force on the ground is
not coupled with it.
Evo: On that last point, I am reminded of a conversation I had with
Remy Gwardamadze just the other day. Remy was speaking with someone
and asked about the average Georgian male's willingness to join the
military, and his friend responded that most people are trying to
avoid military service. To be honest, that has been my impression as
well - that most Georgians don't seem to be exactly jumping at the
chance to join the Georgian military forces. To put this into context,
I remember the 2008 war. When Russian troops seemed to be poised to
march on Tbilisi, Georgians didn't start forming paramilitary bands
or head to the hills for a protracted guerilla war, but instead had
a European-style protest!
Obviously, Georgia needs arms and assistance from abroad - but if
Georgians themselves don't seem to be prepared to fight for their
independence, why should anyone else? What do you think? Do you see
this as a function of a feeling of hopelessness? Or just a lack of
confidence that Georgia could ever win such a war? Or that Russian
occupation may not be so bad? And how can Georgia reverse this
inclination among its people?
I mean, on one hand, you have places like Switzerland, Singapore, and
Israel (all three described as models for Georgia in various respects),
but these places all have universal conscription, advanced air forces,
and highly trained militaries. None are NATO members.
Georgia's military, on the other hand, seems to be focused on NATO
interoperability rather than territorial defense.
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
You are making very important points. It is not that I fully agree
with you on your assumptions or perceptions. If I may say this, you
are partly right when describing the morale of a number of Georgian
men. But there are so many others whose patriotism is beyond doubt.
The Russian invasion showed that we have very many good soldiers and
real heroes. There were some serious shortcomings of course during
the war especially in the military command and communications system
but in general the morale in our armed forces was high. Unfortunately,
there were reports that some of our compatriots collaborated with the
enemy. This is very regrettable and I think huge work should be done
to improve our human capabilities.
I am for a system that includes universal conscription, a sizeable
professional component and a national reserve. We should be capable
of territorial defense, which would also be our deterrence.
There are at least two dangers that I see. Some people in Georgia
think that liberalism and democracy do not need teeth. On the other
extreme of the spectrum there are ethnic nationalists who do not
understand what nation-state really means, and for them 'survival'
means ethnic and cultural preservation in an empire (the Russian
empire, of course) not a survival as a nation in Western understanding.
Georgia's education system should better focus on the modern concepts
of citizenship. The army is another place where education should
continue. President Saakashvili has recently unveiled a plan that
will soon make patriotic and military education in Georgia's secondary
schools an essential part of the academic curriculum.
Evo: Many around the world, and Evolutsia.Net has joined this
chorus periodically as well, still see Georgia's political and media
environment to be badly flawed. How can the Saakashvili government
take steps, in the near future, to correct these problems? Will they
happen? When?
Giorgi Kvelashvili:
Georgia's system is in the process of making. Building a modern nation
is of course harder than building just a state. Some ten years ago
we did not even have a real state. Ours was a failed one. Without
modern institutions democracy and individual liberties are just a
dream because you cannot have liberty in the jungle of anarchy.
I think we have made good progress both in terms of nation-building
and democracy. But for the modern political culture to become stable
and sustained, new elites committed to it should be formed. And this
takes time. Establishing a responsible citizenry is a long process.
Western-type liberal elites organized along right, centrist and
left affiliations will someday fully replace the old-fashioned
intelligentsia and the peculiar "political parties" of today's
Georgia that have almost no ideologies and are simply formed around
individuals. But this is a process whose success depends on the
growth of our economy and the formation of a powerful and numerous
middle class.
The political elite that governs Georgia now has a great responsibility
to direct this process in a due course. I would even say that the
opportunity granted to our generation is unprecedented in Georgia's
history.
There is pressure on the government to expedite and deepen liberal
political and economic reforms and I think this is very good. I
myself want the Westernization of Georgia to proceed faster. But take
into consideration the fact that there is even more pressure on the
ruling elite from the old-timers who want the reforms to be abandoned
altogether and the country to go back to some 'poor Georgian state'.
The pro-Western class in this country is often accused of betraying
Georgianness, whatever this means, and those retrograde and revanchist
forces, closely associated with Russia and criminal gangs (kurduli
samkaro) now operating outside Georgia, are still powerful enough to
influence our future. I believe greater transparency, pluralism and
freedom of expression will only speed up our transformation.
Evo: Thanks for your time, Giorgi.
Giorgi Kvelashvili, an Edmund S. Muskie alumnus, holds a Master's in
International Relations from Yale University. He currently serves as
an analyst for the Jamestown Foundation and regularly publishes for
Tabula magazine.
Michael Hikari Cecire is a writer and independent analyst living in
Tbilisi. A former Peace Corps Volunteer in Georgia, he is a frequent
commentator on economic development and South Caucasus policy issues.
In addition to Evolutsia.Net, Cecire has also written for the Caspian
Business Journal, the London Telegraph, World Politics Review, and TCS
Daily, among others. This article first appeared at Evolutsia.Net,
a news and analysis blogozine covering the political landscape of
Georgia republic.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress