Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili meets with Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala. and Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md. of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe U.S. Helsinki Commission May 14 on Capitol Hill.
Justine Jablonska/MEDILL

WASHINGTON – When Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili attended the Nuclear Summit in Washington DC in April, there’s a few things he didn’t do. He didn’t meet with President Barack Obama or Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Saakashvili also didn’t discuss Georgia’s membership in NATO with members of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, with whom he met on Capitol Hill.

Georgia wants to be in NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – an intergovernmental military alliance whose member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

NATO has said that it wants Georgia to be in NATO. It’s even released a statement proclaiming that Georgia will be in NATO.

But although both sides agree, that’s not enough – and, according to Aaron Linderman, the Florence and Bookman Peters Excellence Fellow at Texas A&M University, NATO membership may be on indefinite hold for Georgia for numerous reasons.

Linderman says that two very important considerations exist for Georgian membership in NATO.

Will that membership be enough to “deter aggression against Georgia, or will we actually have to fight to protect it?” Linderman asks. He’s not sure, and says that NATO’s commitment to Article 5 regarding the Baltic republics “in the face of open aggression is not 100% certain.”

The mutual defense provision of NATO’s charter has never truly been tested, Linderman says. And the United States would like to keep it that way: “Deterrence is relatively cheap,” Linderman says. “Actually driving the Russians out of Estonia or Poland would be a real mess.”

Mark Chodakiewicz of the Institute of World Politics agrees. “I doubt that we would back Georgia with U.S. troops on the ground if the Russian Federation invaded once again,” he says.

Aggression against Georgia is one consideration, while aggression from Georgia is another: What happens if, once awarded NATO membership, Georgia behaves in a way that “invite[s] intervention from Russia?” asks Linderman.

Some have said that that’s exactly what happened during the 2008 Georgia-Russian conflict, but Linderman says he thinks Saakhashvili’s actions were justified. “He was trying to assert sovereignty over his own territory,” he says, while Russia was waiting for an excuse.

“Intercepted phone messages from the Roki Tunnel suggest that Russian troops were in motion even before the Georgians began their attack on the South Ossetian separatists,” Linderman says.

Those Russian troops that remain in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a huge obstacle in the way of NATO membership for Georgia, according to Linderman, since some of Georgia’s territory is currently under foreign – read: Russian – occupation. If Georgia is admitted to NATO, then what does NATO do with those Russian forces? Linderman asks.

Thus, as long as those Russian troops remain in Georgia, Linderman says, “it is unlikely that membership will move forward.”

What, then, can move that membership forward?

Russian troops leaving Georgia, says Linderman – but that probably won’t happen.

“Having a few thousand troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a relatively cheap way for Russia to prove that it still controls its neighborhood and can block NATO expansion at will,” Linderman says.

Another way would be “some kind of recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” meaning a renunciation of Georgian sovereignty, he says. That move would anger Georgians and affirm Russian aggression in the region – but then Georgia would fully possess the territory it claims, says Linderman, and thus give Georgia a fresh start at a NATO guarantee.

Linderman doesn’t think either of these options will happen anytime soon: “I think we have to conclude that Georgian NATO membership is on ice indefinitely.”

Beyond if Georgia will obtain NATO membership is the question of why it wants it, Linderman says. Is it because Georgia wants assistance, or a guarantee of assistance? Is Georgia “ideologically committed to democracy, civilian control of the military, and independent media and the other things for which NATO members stand?”

According to Chodakiewicz, Georgia is continuing to show “some sophistication in its propaganda, stressing the human right’s side of the issue, which flies very well in the West.”

Linderman says that while Georgia’s record isn’t perfect, it does have a real commitment to democratic values. Commitment alone isn’t enough, however: “Saakashvili and other Georgian leaders have to realize that it is not enough to have a pretty good democracy,” Linderman says. “They need to work tirelessly to ensure the rule of law and democratic governance.”

Although Saakhashvili didn’t meet with Obama or Medvedev during his Washington DC trip, he did meet with U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden, who thanked Saakhashvili for Georgia’s troop contribution to Afghanistan. Georgia also has troops in Iraq, for a total of 3,000 troops fighting alongside U.S. troops. According to Richard Holbrooke, Special U.S. Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Georgia appears to have the highest per capita troop contribution of any country in the world.