Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Post
September 13, 2008
Pg. 16
NATO membership should be on its horizon, as should a stronger democracy.
IT'S NOT yet clear whether Russia will respect the two agreements it has signed to end its invasion of Georgia. According to the latest deal, Russian military outposts on a central highway across Georgia are to be removed by Tuesday -- but as of yesterday they were still there. Meanwhile, Moscow is blocking humanitarian convoys in a region adjacent to the rebel province of South Ossetia, in violation of an Aug. 17 cease-fire agreement. President Dmitry Medvedev, who signed both deals, announced this week that Russia will permanently station 7,600 troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another direct violation of the cease-fire.
The Bush administration and France, which brokered both deals, properly remain focused on pressing Mr. Medvedev to respect his commitments and on removing Russian soldiers from Georgian territory, at least outside the two enclaves. But already discussion has begun about what the United States should do -- or not do -- to preserve Georgia's independence and protect it and other Russian neighbors from aggression. The Bush administration has so far promised $1 billion in assistance for the Georgian economy, and it has dispatched a military team to assess aid for the Georgian army, whose bases and equipment were systematically destroyed by the invading Russians.
At congressional hearings on Georgia this week, administration officials were pressed by both Republicans and Democrats about a NATO statement at a summit in April, reiterated this month by Vice President Cheney, that Georgia and Ukraine would someday become NATO members. Would the United States still press for Georgia to join NATO, they asked, and would that mean that American forces would have to fight to defend Georgia against Russia?
The real answer to this question is that, Mr. Cheney's rhetoric aside, Georgia will not be invited into NATO anytime soon. What the Bush administration has proposed is that it be given a "membership action plan," a framework for preparing for alliance membership that typically requires several years to implement. President Bush pushed hard -- and unsuccessfully -- for NATO to agree on giving Georgia such a plan last April; he should try again to win agreement at the alliance's next major meeting in December. The plan would not guarantee NATO membership, but it would provide a way to stabilize Georgia and strengthen its democratic institutions in the next several years while making clear to Russia that it will not be allowed the 19th-century-style "sphere of influence" it has demanded. Administration officials are being appropriately cautious about providing Georgia with new military supplies. But it should have the right to buy defensive weapons from the United States, especially since it has signed a commitment not to engage in further offensive military action against South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
U.S. policy is now focused on propping up the Georgian government of President Mikheil Saakashvili, in part because Russia's declared objective has been to force it from office. But the best longer-term assistance for Georgia would be aid and training to strengthen its democratic institutions -- including its media, courts, parliament and opposition political parties. A stronger Georgian democracy will be less likely to respond rashly to Russian provocations, as Mr. Saakashvili did last month in ordering an attack on South Ossetia. It would be more able to resist Moscow's pressure. And it would have a better chance of earning membership in Western institutions, including NATO.
September 13, 2008
Pg. 16
NATO membership should be on its horizon, as should a stronger democracy.
IT'S NOT yet clear whether Russia will respect the two agreements it has signed to end its invasion of Georgia. According to the latest deal, Russian military outposts on a central highway across Georgia are to be removed by Tuesday -- but as of yesterday they were still there. Meanwhile, Moscow is blocking humanitarian convoys in a region adjacent to the rebel province of South Ossetia, in violation of an Aug. 17 cease-fire agreement. President Dmitry Medvedev, who signed both deals, announced this week that Russia will permanently station 7,600 troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another direct violation of the cease-fire.
The Bush administration and France, which brokered both deals, properly remain focused on pressing Mr. Medvedev to respect his commitments and on removing Russian soldiers from Georgian territory, at least outside the two enclaves. But already discussion has begun about what the United States should do -- or not do -- to preserve Georgia's independence and protect it and other Russian neighbors from aggression. The Bush administration has so far promised $1 billion in assistance for the Georgian economy, and it has dispatched a military team to assess aid for the Georgian army, whose bases and equipment were systematically destroyed by the invading Russians.
At congressional hearings on Georgia this week, administration officials were pressed by both Republicans and Democrats about a NATO statement at a summit in April, reiterated this month by Vice President Cheney, that Georgia and Ukraine would someday become NATO members. Would the United States still press for Georgia to join NATO, they asked, and would that mean that American forces would have to fight to defend Georgia against Russia?
The real answer to this question is that, Mr. Cheney's rhetoric aside, Georgia will not be invited into NATO anytime soon. What the Bush administration has proposed is that it be given a "membership action plan," a framework for preparing for alliance membership that typically requires several years to implement. President Bush pushed hard -- and unsuccessfully -- for NATO to agree on giving Georgia such a plan last April; he should try again to win agreement at the alliance's next major meeting in December. The plan would not guarantee NATO membership, but it would provide a way to stabilize Georgia and strengthen its democratic institutions in the next several years while making clear to Russia that it will not be allowed the 19th-century-style "sphere of influence" it has demanded. Administration officials are being appropriately cautious about providing Georgia with new military supplies. But it should have the right to buy defensive weapons from the United States, especially since it has signed a commitment not to engage in further offensive military action against South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
U.S. policy is now focused on propping up the Georgian government of President Mikheil Saakashvili, in part because Russia's declared objective has been to force it from office. But the best longer-term assistance for Georgia would be aid and training to strengthen its democratic institutions -- including its media, courts, parliament and opposition political parties. A stronger Georgian democracy will be less likely to respond rashly to Russian provocations, as Mr. Saakashvili did last month in ordering an attack on South Ossetia. It would be more able to resist Moscow's pressure. And it would have a better chance of earning membership in Western institutions, including NATO.