Keeping Georgia’s “Rose” in bloom
As I crossed the border from Turkey to Georgia, the border agent checking my U.S. passport smiled, gave me an American-style thumbs up, and said in broken English, “United States good, John McCain good.” This was in April, only two weeks, after Georgia received disappointing news at the NATO Summit in Bucharest that a Membership Action Plan (MAP) would be postponed. Yet Georgia’s efforts to tie itself to the West had not been lost even on that young border agent.
However, the culture, beauty, and charm of Georgia’scapital city, Tbilisi, located in the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains, has been masked of late by the escalation of violence in its separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to the northwest, ethnic conflicts that erupted following the collapse of the Soviet Union. A fragile democracy, Georgia continues to be crippled by its so-called “frozen conflicts.” Still considered part of Georgia, but under the influence of Russia, this patch of land has become a new frontier of delicate relations between Russia and the West. Two months ago, the tension between Georgia and Russia flared dramatically when Russia shot down a Georgian reconnaissance drone. Russia accused Georgia of violating the UN ceasefire agreement by flying an unmanned aircraft over Abkhazia. Diplomatic intervention by Europe and the United States quieted the disagreement, but tensions remained high. Last week, violence continued with bomb explosions in the Abkhaz town of Gagra and the capital, Sukhumi, prompting Abkhazia to close its border with Georgia, worrying many in the West that the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict could take a turn for the worse.
GMF’s Ron Asmus and several co-authors released a policy brief last month, and in it, they contend that the current peace process in the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict has failed. While Russia initially played the role of peacekeeper almost a decade ago, recently it is has become more of a facilitator in party negotiations, bringing into question its impartiality in furthering the peace process. “There is an urgent need for an internationalized framework in which a true, multi-faceted and genuine peace process can develop that could respond to the Abkhaz and Georgian peoples’ genuine interest beyond geopolitical or status aspirations,” Asmus and co-authors Svante Cornell, Antje Herrberg, and Nicu Popescu write in “Internationalizing the Georgia-Abkhazia Conflict Resolution Process: Why a Greater European Role is Needed.” In it, the authors advocate for the international community, in particular the NGO community, to become more involved. A sustainable peace is only feasible if there are commitments from the outside. “The growing tensions and the inappropriateness of the current format requires a reframing of the issues at hand and a restructuring of the negotiations alongside a vision of providing a suitable implementation strategy that will allow those commitments resulting from a peace process to be monitored and evaluated,” they write.
Georgia, whose hope of being extended MAP and further integrating itself into the Euroatlantic community was recently put on hold, has accused Russia of fueling the tensions. While visiting Prague on July 8, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Russia’s behavior toward Georgia, saying that it is only adding to the tension in the region. Secretary Rice is on a three-week tour of the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Georgia, where she will renew U.S. support for Georgia’s application to MAP.
Russia makes no bones about the fact that it does not want Georgia to gain MAP, feeling that it would threaten its regional interests. But even as Russia and Georgia argue over Georgia’s alliance membership, few are paying attention to the Abkhaz people. Asmus, Cornell, Herrberg, and Popescu write that the “human consequences” of the conflict have yet to be addressed. “Economically, the Abkhaz and others remaining in Abkhazia have seen their situation stagnate, as they have fallen behind in terms of their overall development, even if some stabilization has occurred recently.” Once considered the “Riviera” of the Soviet Union, this region of the Black Sea coast still lags behind socially and economically. This is in sharp contrast to the rest of the South Caucasus, which has been experiencing high rates of economic growth since 2005.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, not much has changed between the capital cities of Tbilisi and Sukhumi; rather, change has come in the international community outside of the conflict, according to the brief’s authors. Such changes could be the stepping stone to further the peace process and bring to a close the region’s unresolved issues. “The goal must be to create a different political balance that restores lost credibility and balances a Russian role that has long ceased to be neutral,” they write. And “while a solution to the conflict belongs ultimately to governments, both Georgian and Abkhaz NGOs can play an important role in diffusing tension and changing stereotypes.”
As I write, I am reminded of Tbilisi’s “wishing trees,” draped with ribbons and scraps of cloth, these trees—symbolizing the hopes and dreams of their owners—line the footpaths that carry you up to the city’s most famous landmark “Mother Georgia.” And like the young border agent I met, enthusiastic about the West, his dreams, like that of his beloved country, of becoming a full-fledged member of NATO and entering into the fold of the West is fragile at best, as long as the Abkhazia-Georgia conflict continues.
The international community has the tools, knows the lessons learned, all it needs now is the will to act and put the process in motion.