Levan Dolidze, former ambassador to NATO and the founder of Georgian Center for Strategy and Development (GCSD), spoke with InterpressNews about Georgia’s current domestic and foreign policy issues.

Many American politicians and former US Defense officials have advocated for the acceleration of Georgia's accession to NATO. In this regard, the opinion expressed by Alexander Vershbow, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, former Deputy Secretary-General of NATO and former US Ambassador seemed purposeful: “We promise that Ukraine, Georgia will become NATO members. It may be possible by creating some new, associate member status.” What might be the meaning behind Vershbow’s statement on this subject? It is plausible to assume that the United States considers developing the infrastructure for the US Air Force and Navy in Georgia. Do you share this view as well?

Mr. Vershbow is an American diplomat who, apart from having in-depth knowledge of NATO and global security challenges, also has invaluable experience in this field. He is a good friend and a big supporter of Georgia. I believe the statements made by Mr. Vershbow in Washington are essential to us, especially at this stage. The more comments intended to support Georgia, the more opportunity we have to put the issue of Georgia higher on the new administration’s agenda. It is also notable that currently there is no practice of accepting countries to NATO as Associate Members. Thus, I think this statement should be perceived as an experienced expert's attempt to give impetus to a discussion about new and creative ways of integrating aspirant countries into NATO.

In this regard, it is worth noting the 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement forms the background for this process. Besides, since the adoption of the 1949 Treaty for the foundation of NATO, there have been significant changes in security environment and [nature of] threats. In the wake of technological development, confrontation and mechanisms for countering [emerging] threats have moved to a somewhat different dimension. Therefore, today, security of NATO member states is more reliant than ever on the security environment of neighbouring countries that lie beyond the Organization’s reach.

NATO has developed several concepts and strategies for adapting to the new reality. However, many challenges remain, and I do not rule out the emergence of some other initiatives related to NATO enlargement or partnership mechanisms. We must take great care to act reasonably in this regard to ensure that any new initiative or format only enhanced the achievements we have made on our path to NATO membership.

As far as I know, the statements about the deployment of military infrastructure to Georgia were made not by the US administration but by experts. The issue is actively debated in Georgia as well. It is now especially important to be active and discuss all the initiatives that will create new and effective mechanisms for the enhancement of our security.

Last autumn, during his visit to Tbilisi, Mr. Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary-General, suggested that Georgia could join NATO without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Do you think that NATO Associate Member Status Mr. Vershbow mentioned now is something similar?

- Statements were made to clarify that Mr. Rasmussen's proposal did not imply Georgia's membership of NATO without Abkhazia and Samachablo; instead he referred to Georgia’s prospect to join the Alliance on a condition that Article 5 would not cover these territories until the full restoration of Georgia’s territorial integrity. I do not see direct parallels between Mr. Vershbow and Mr. Rasmussen's suggestions based on the information I have at this point.

Please, evaluate the importance of Mr. Pompeo's visit just a few days before the second round of elections; It is also noteworthy that he is about to leave his office.

- The visit of the US Secretary of State is undoubtedly an important political event for Georgia. However, I think the expectations related to this particular visit were clearly overrated, especially for the country's current domestic political processes. It was the Secretary of State's regional tour, which once again demonstrated that the United States views Georgia as an important strategic partner. I suppose that the Georgian government would have repeatedly expressed interest in the visit and made corresponding invitations. The Nagorno- Karabakh war has once again demonstrated the need for the United States to focus more on our region. Thus, it is quite logical that Secretary Pompeo visited Georgia. The US Secretary of State's visits always provide good opportunities to highlight our problems on the strategic partner's agenda, further strengthen the cooperation, and discuss new initiatives.

Unfortunately, due to the country's political situation, the agenda of the meetings was loaded with issues that do not contribute to the discussion of important issues for the country and progress in the respective areas. I believe, the more challenges of democracy and inner political problems we push off the agenda of our relations with strategic partners, the more successfully we will draw their attention to issues of vital importance to the country, such as national security, territorial integrity, etc.

As for the forthcoming change of the Secretary of State - this factor might have formed some barriers for discussing new initiatives, although, of course, this does not diminish the importance of either the visit or the relevant discussions within its context. In this regard, it should be noted in the first place that the State Department has a strong, efficient system of institutional memory; and we should not think that views voiced by the Georgian government representatives at these meetings will be lost without trace or will not reach the decision-makers who are to hold the State Department positions since January 2021.

In addition, Mr. Pompeo will most likely remain an influential political figure in the political circles of the USA even after he leaves the office. Therefore, securing his support for our strategic goals is of major significance in any case.

What do you think, how are the parliamentary elections assessed by the US? Also, in general, the expectations for the elections were quite high in the country. There was a lot of talk about the need for innovation in Georgian politics and many new political forces were also formed. What, in your opinion, have we achieved in this regard, and what challenges are we facing?

-Generally, I have the impression that when discussing the importance of democratic elections, more emphasis is often made on the international aspect of this issue than on the significance of free and fair elections for Georgia's citizens and its direct impact on our daily lives. I do not find it right. Undoubtedly, the international dimension of this topic cannot be underrated, especially for a country with Georgia’s aspirations. However, it is also essential to consider that free and fair elections determine not only the standard of democracy and the country's political image in the international arena but also the future of the country, which is directly related to the underlying causes of the country’s problems and ways of their solution.

Thus, it is extremely important to take specific measures and achieve the creation of a system that excludes the violations we have been talking about for 30 years. We often hear politicians say, "We all agree that…". I believe the only thing that most citizens agree upon is the need to leave the past flaws and vices behind that periodically emerge during election campaigns or elections.

The assessments voiced after the Secretary of State's visit do not substantially differ from the assessments made by the US Embassy on the second day of the elections. The assessment highlighted a number of irregularities, although the Embassy also noted in its statement that these irregularities were not considered sufficient for the Embassy to recognize the election as illegitimate.

Following this, the diplomatic missions of the US, the EU, the UK and other partner countries maintain quite active communication with political parties as well as with the citizens of Georgia.

The key message that can be clearly perceived from their statements is a call for efforts to prevent radicalism and bring the political process into a political framework. I do not think that it differs fundamentally from the attitudes of the major part of Georgia’s citizens.

It is noteworthy that there was a great deal of interest in the results of the new political forces. However, it seems that many politicians misunderstood the novelty the voters wanted to see - it did not mean only new faces and, moreover, parties registered at recent dates. It is a subject still to be researched; however, given the current picture of the political arena, I think voters' expectations and interests were more closely linked to new approaches to politics, including a more explicit political agenda, more emphasis on problem-solving methodology, realistic promises, and new standards of political culture. During the pre-election campaign, there were some attempts and steps in this direction, however, these aspects failed to become major characteristics of these parties.

Focusing on the fight against certain personalities, planning for their unconditional defeat and expulsion from politics instead of concentrating on the electorate's needs will hardly contribute to a sense of novelty.

Moreover, those major characteristics that should distinguish the new from the old pale to insignificance in attempts to prove categorical, which leads to further complications in this regard. Such effort is outdated and quite trite and hackneyed at the same time.

Heading straight in this direction does indeed contribute to the rise of the political temperature, however, it is also evident that this fails to create anything genuinely new and good. Rather, this benefits the party that acts based on old revolutionary impulses and tactics and impedes with the formation of a new political force focused on the agenda development.

The data published by the CEC, also parallel vote tabulation performed by NGOs and pre-election surveys as well as exit polls conducted during the elections (including data by EDISSON RESEARCH) provided clear evidence for the above-stated. No matter how strongly the parties concerned expressed their distrust in these figures - the close similarity of the data from various sources should be noteworthy to them.

Recently, many talented professionals have joined the political sector. There will probably be other updates in this regard, and, I hope, their participation, considering their expertise and experience, will contribute to addressing the challenges the country is facing.

“Interpressnews”

Koba Bendeliani