Living up to his reputation as an ambitious goal-setter, Georgian prime minister Bidzina Ivanishvili opined in late April that 2014 would be the year that the South Caucasus country might finally receive its long-coveted Membership Action Plan (MAP) to join NATO.
“Next year we should undertake a very vigorous step and get at least MAP,” he said. “We have strictly set MAP as a target and next year when there is a gathering of NATO [leaders] we should undertake a powerful step in this direction.”
While it’s much too early to be confident about the prime minister’s predictions, Georgia’s bid is in some ways an open-and-shut case. Were it to join today, Georgia’s nearly 1,600 troops in Afghanistan would be the sixth-largest contributor to the ISAF operation, where it already outranks contingents from big powers like France (459), Canada (950), and Spain (1,249). Though a small and still-developing country, Georgia’s defense spending, at 2.9 percent of GDP, is nearly a full point higher than the baseline 2 percent target set by NATO, which only the United States, the UK, France, Greece and Turkey see fit to observe—to the growing consternation of Alliance brass. And the peaceful transfer of power facilitated by last fall’s parliamentary elections seems to have at least partially put the country back on a path to democratic development, a key metric being closely watched by NATO officials.
But while the Caucasus nation does well in ticking off all the boxes, its overall value proposition remains a hard sell to some Alliance members. After Georgia lost a bruising war with Russia in 2008—shortly after its NATO membership application was put on hold earlier that year—Moscow carved out protectorates in legal Georgian territory, rendering it technically under occupation. Between that and the relative ease with which Russian forces were able to dispatch their Georgian counterparts (although the war revealed some severe weaknesses within the Russian military as well, despite holding nearly every advantage), Georgia looks a lot less like a security contributor and more like another consumer.
It is the fine details of this calculation that deserve the focus of Georgian arguments and preparations for NATO membership. How can Tbilisi overcome the disadvantage of being a small country with a small military with 20 percent of its de jure territory garrisoned by its giant neighbor to the north, Russia?
Since coming to power in October, the Georgian Dream (GD) coalition government has sought to turn the balance of this equation in Georgia’s favor. In this regard, the new government has made overtures to Russia and embarked on a military-reform program in an effort to reduce the prospect of another war and bolster its case for NATO membership. Recognizing that the often bellicose tone towards Moscow struck by the previous United National Movement (UNM) government had done little to advance Tbilisi’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, the Georgian Dream government is pushing to normalize ties with Russia. This also happens to dovetail well with GD’s drive to create new, broader-based economic-development opportunities.
This approach shows signs of bearing fruit. While the two countries’ relations remain best characterized as frosty—invading and seizing territory can do that—relations between Tbilisi and Moscow have taken on a more pragmatic, constructive tone. For example, Georgian wines and mineral water, embargoed by Russia since 2006 under the unlikely pretense of food safety, are finally returning to Russian markets.