April 4, 2019, marked the 70th anniversary of the establishment of NATO. On that day, former Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen published an article that was about Georgia as well. Here is an exclusive interview with former NATO Chief about NATO-Georgia relations.
Q: Considering the current relationship between NATO and Georgia, what is the main obstacle for Georgia to become a full-fledged member of NATO and how do you evaluate NATO-Georgia relationship?
Relationship between Georgia and NATO is at the very best and it has actually improved in recent years. Georgia fulfills more requirements for the future membership of NATO, whether it has to do with military capabilities and its contribution to NATO-led operations, and the work in the NATO-Georgia Commission goes very smoothly. We all know that the relationship is at the very best. I would say Georgia fulfills almost all conditions to become a NATO member; however, the main obstacle, of course, is unresolved disputes with Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Q: In your last article you mentioned that Georgia could become a NATO member bypassing this obstacle the same way as Cyprus became a part of the EU. Can you tell us how much support will this idea have in NATO?
Well, there will be a lot of skepticism. But my point is the following: We know that NATO is very reluctant to import unsolved disputes, like disputes of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This will have a negative impact on our Article 5 obligation – to help NATO ally that is subject to aggression from Russia or any other party. So, obviously, that would be a challenge that Russia de facto occupies Abkhazia and South Ossetia, however, if we publicly state that it is an obstacle to Georgia’s membership of NATO, that will provide Putin and Kremlin with the de facto veto. So as long as they occupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they can prevent Georgia from joining NATO. The only way to overcome that would be to declare that we could treat Georgia like the European Union treated Cyprus. Accept Georgia as a member of NATO, as EU accepted Cyprus and at the same time to declare that NATO rules and obligations regarding Article 5 do not apply to de facto occupied territories, just like EU rules don’t apply to Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus.
Q: How would you describe the decision made during the 2008 Bucharest Summit? In its resolution, NATO stated that Ukraine and Georgia would become members but they didn’t get the Membership Action Plan (MAP) yet. Was it a mistake?
I think that it was a mistake, respectively. I was in favor of granting membership plan to Georgia and Ukraine but there was no consensus by NATO Ambassadors. So we issued another statement, underlining that Georgia and Ukraine will become NATO members. But by not granting the membership action plan to Georgia, we sent a dangerous signal of weakness to Putin and Medvedev and in August 2008 they attacked Georgia. I don’t think that would have happened if we sent a clear message of commitment granting membership action plan to Georgia. So I think it was a mistake.
Q: Let’s move to the Black Sea package that was approved a few days ago by NATO. We see more NATO ships in the Black Sea and also there are Russian ships, of course. How important is the Black Sea for NATO?
The Black Sea, from a strategic point of view, will become a more and more important part for NATO security. Of course, the Russian aggression against Ukraine in the Azov Sea is a clear example of the Russian interests in the Black Sea. This issue directly impacts the security of two NATO allies – Romania and Bulgaria. That is the reason why foreign ministers discuss this and NATO will step up presence in the Black Sea.
Q: We often hear from Donald Trump that his administration is demanding from Europeans to spend more on defense. Can we say that there is a dispute between Europe and the US and could it impact NATO unity?
I agree with the USA administration that Europeans should invest more in defense, and actually, they do. In 2014, at my last summit as a Secretary-General, we decided that in the next decade, that is before 2025, all NATO allies will invest at least 2% of GDP on defense. At that time only 3 allies reached that target. As I estimate at the end of this year 8 NATO members will live up to 2 percent target. Since 2014 European allies have increased the defense spending. I think we are on the right track and I think they must continue in that direction because Russian aggression against Georgia and Ukraine created a completely new environment that requires more investments in defense.
Q: Now let’s speak about Ukraine. We see that Mr. Zelensky is leading in presidential elections. Can you tell us the difference in the foreign policy of two candidates?
I met two of them two days ago and actually that was quite encouraging because we know the direction of President Poroshenko. He will stay on the reform course, he is pro-EU and pro-NATO. He promised to step up approach to EU and NATO membership. We didn’t know much about Mr. Zelensky but our meeting with him shows that he has more views and ideas than people pretend. He also said to keep on the reform course. He is pro-EU and pro-NATO. He is surrounded by a good team. These people, I think, will help him to be a very efficient president. In conclusion, we could send a clear message to Russia – do not try to test President of Ukraine be that Poroshenko or Zelensky, because any Russian aggression will be met with firm respond.
Q: But Mr. Zelensky said that he is ready for direct talks with Putin. Is that a good idea?
Poroshenko also speaks with Putin in Minsk Agreements format. So I think that is a good idea to discuss these issues with Putin, but at the same time, you have to provide a very firm stance that you don’t give concessions because every concession will be misinterpreted by Putin as a weakness that he can exploit. We know from the experience that the only language that Putin understands is the language of power and unity of Europe and the US.
