Why We Matter

Georgia matters to the Free World. As long as the latter feels the need to uphold the system of values it defended throughout the Second World War and its long and cold aftermath of overt small wars, military stand-offs, covert subversions and innumerable kinds of crises, Georgia matters. Indeed, the country’s importance is increasing as the global ‘order’ continues to drift towards an ever more ‘disorganized order’ marked by growing competition between major powers, all trying to ‘confiscate’ the rules and maxims of international law and interpret them according to their own view of how things should play out beyond their borders. As we have said before, the trend is once again for a system of international relationships in which authority is based upon physical strength and presence rather than moral rectitude. This new competition, however, is no different from its Cold War predecessor, when the superpowers challenged each other not by direct means (although the Berlin Crisis came close) but instead by engaging in proxy wars or ideological struggles, using their allies and satellites to chip away at each other. Similarly, again, the fate of the so-called peripheries or ‘grey areas’ will continue to be decided by the struggle between the world’s major powers; we are but another tool in the box, lying alongside other more typical forms of competition ranging from nuclear disarmament to trade and currency wars. Considering this point, Georgia can undoubtedly expect to face some strong headwinds as it continues to sail towards its goal of becoming a fully-fledged member of the free world (as we knew it, and whose essential lines we wish to maintain).

Retrenchment and its consequences

Recoiling from the salutary mission of seeking to maintain liberal values and freedoms by adopting a policy of retrenchment will have severe repercussions for the overall system of entertaining international relations in a civilized manner, particularly in regions bordering upon revisionist states. Retrenchment could, in various instances, lead to dire consequences that will be difficult to reverse. Should the West abandon its capacity and willingness to be present wherever its values could make a difference, this will embolden revisionism and strike a deadly blow to the linchpins of democratic regimes. The dire consequences of retrenchment are already visible in regions that various Western scholars and politicians continue to qualify as ‘peripheral’—both in geographical terms as well as relative to upholding and defending their interests. The same is true when revisionist or ‘rogue’ regimes increasingly alternate between exercising the soft and hard powers at their disposal, thereby undermining the equilibrium of power in peripheral regions to the extent that, when the alarm is sounded for the free world to intervene, its response is deprived of the unity it requires to be decisive. In practical terms, this process of erosion sometimes results in an ‘ideological war of attrition’, in the course of which major external actors try to persuade the populations of countries in transition that other ideologies are weak, corrupt and unsustainable, and incapable of ensure their well-being. The results of numerous surveys and polls clearly reveal the ongoing practice of psychological warfare, employing the most modern technology and subtle methods of ‘brainwashing’. In this regard, we must point out that policies similar to ‘America First’ risk amplifying the magnitude of attacks by non-democratic and revisionist regimes, and unwittingly place ‘peripheral’ countries such as Georgia at a disadvantage. And in addition to all these consequences, today’s policies of retrenchment are speeding the tragic demise of the world that we, as a country, belong to, and have been striving to reunite with since regaining our independence from the Soviet Union.

We Matter Since Democracy Matters

Ensuring stability and democracy in countries that the West formally terms ‘peripheral’ ranks among the key factors for preserving democracy in the West itself. Recognizing this interconnection in terms of a ‘spill-over’ effect implies more concentrated efforts to solidify institutional governance and the rule of law in ‘peripheries’ that matter, and that are rightly seen as fitting into the Western political, security and cultural context, to which Georgia clearly belongs. But the different efforts that Georgia's partners undertake to support governments and help political actors to resist the subversive effects of revisionist and intrusive policies are not just concerned with supporting democracy on the ground: they also send a message to other ‘peripheries’ deemed to be on the right track in terms of development that they are not alone. Additionally, these efforts are also a clear signal to the free world itself, demonstrating that the rumour of its irretrievable demise is similar to the story in the ‘Chronicle of a Death Foretold’. Yet maintaining and emboldening the West in Georgia is not to be measured by military hardware or the number of troops as such, but instead by the alignment of strategic interests through the prism of partnership. Such an alignment of interests has the power to prevent the country from falling under the control of a revisionist power whose interests and values are alien to those of the West and to raise Georgia above the rest.

We Matter Since Security Matters

Georgia’s ability to defend herself needs to be built up to a level where the country can handle most situations and fight a delaying action if a major crisis or aggression occurs. All in all, increasing Georgia’s capacity to resist is the joint responsibility of the country and her allies. A limited number of countries of the Eurasian periphery, and notably Georgia, require special treatment by NATO despite not being members of the Alliance (for the foreseeable future); this is particularly true for countries in the ‘grey areas’ around illiberal and revisionist states. It is also essential to note that strengthening Georgia’s security and defence capabilities, as a ‘checkpoint’ on the border between the free and unfree worlds, equates to strengthening those of Warsaw, Berlin, London, Paris or Brussels. Stating that Georgia continues to be ‘an important ally in regional stability and defence co-operation’ is very encouraging, but such statements need to be translated into official, concrete actions—and the sooner, the better. There can also be no distinction between the security of ‘rank and file’ countries and that of more important ones: such a political error would only play into the hands of the opposition. The logic of competition between different states is upsetting, but simple: power respects power. Weakening or abandoning efforts to promote the values of the free world in ‘grey areas’ and submitting to the provocative bluff of revisionist regimes diminishes the real significance of these values and makes it easier for these regimes to absorb ‘grey areas’ into their sphere of influence. Moreover, we believe that, as was the case during the Cold War, mutual respect based upon a balance of opposing powers continues to be one of the main deterrents to all-out war.

We Matter Since Economic Success Matters

The Marshall Plan was among the greatest achievements following the end of the Second World War. Firstly, it countered the spread of communism across Western Europe, and secondly it gave birth to the unique alliances that are the EU and NATO. But it would be a mistake to believe that the Marshall plan cannot and should not be repeated; on the contrary: it can and should be repeated in the right places, and Georgia is clearly one of these. Dramatically boosting the Georgian economy would send a signal that the West stands shoulder to shoulder with pro-democratic governments and forces in Russia’s neighbourhood; such overt support would also render democratic political competition on the ground irreversible, since economic aid would of course be tied to far-reaching reforms guaranteeing strong institutions, the rule of law, media pluralism and an independent judiciary. Besides, a new ‘Marshall Plan for Georgia’ that would support the establishment of a new order in the former Soviet area—i.e. along the borders of revisionist Russia—through the provision of a financial and security package would underscore the renewed presence of Western political and military alliances in key regions of Eurasia. The recent annexation of Crimea was clear proof that the ‘grey areas’ described by various Western scholars and politicians cannot be ignored without grave consequences for stability and the overall balance of power. Georgia’s Western partners need to act boldly in these areas if they are to effectively rein in the forces that threaten this stability and balance.

What Must (and Must Not) Follow

There has clearly been some progress in the way in which Georgia has sought to meet the challenges that she faces. The way we think, act and react has undoubtedly improved—but in our rapidly changing world, this is still not enough, especially in the long run. There is clearly a need for a more strategic and united approach, and this in turn requires greater expertise and soundness when defining priorities and attempting to achieving them through different actions and transactions. Our policies sometimes appear somewhat chaotic and improvised, and our attempts to build a fully professional, autonomous and politically independent civil service so far seem to have failed. This needs to change, and Georgian politics need to start providing the country with the means it requires to follow a larger-scale foreign policy. Equally, however, the West needs to improve the way in which it understands and meets its commitments: the clear message should be that any erosion of Western interests in ‘peripheral areas’ will undermine the very premise of Western civilization itself. In this regard, it is critical to remember that the security and inviolability of what we have become used to calling the liberal order—i.e. the order of the free world—is organically entwined with the stability and security of countries mistakenly treated as ‘peripheral’ to that order. Should the West not stand up for Georgia as and when required, avoiding real action in order to evade trouble, it will inevitably later find itself in even greater trouble when the time comes to deal with a now-overpowering threat. The difference between acting now and acting later is measured in a diminishing ability to act and reduced levels of credibility and trust. It is truly striking that many of the free world’s current problems are the result of its inability to act sufficiently decisively—a failing for which the oft-stated desire to avoid risk can be no excuse. Global developments in general, and particularly those related to Eurasia, dictate the need for the West to define and adopt coherent long-term policies vis-à-vis the continent’s ‘peripheral areas’ on the borders of revisionist states. Such policies should focus upon ‘good’ states that overwhelmingly share the West’s values and contribute to regional stability and defence co-operation (even if they do not always go along with everything). It is time for all of us to reject bigotry and to unite for a greater common strength.

By Victor Kipiani

Image source: wikiwand.com