Developments in Georgia have been a longstanding interest of mine, but when I used to speak about them to friends in the Labour party they would look at me blankly. Most did not know that the capital city is Tbilisi, that the country produces some of the most delicious wine in the world, or that there was a simmering dispute with Russia, which could potentially have significance for all of us. That all changed last summer as Russian tanks rolled over the border, recreating scenes that most of us thought had been consigned to the history books.

On all of my visits to Georgia, what struck me most is that this is a European country. When you speak to the population, they share our values. They look to Europe and America as beacons, in a neighbourhood where the flame of democracy only flickers. The government of President Saakashvili has made important reforms to tackle corruption, enhance the role of the judiciary and restructure the military. Economic reforms have won praise from the World Bank and IMF. The changes do not yet meet the exacting standards of a western democracy, but in the region they stand out. Concerns about the extent of reforms remain, and clearly there is huge scope for progress, but the Georgian government deserves our support in driving forward change.

But it appears that some in Moscow have not accepted that Georgia, never mind Ukraine or the Baltic states, is no longer a part of the Soviet Union. During a dispute in 2006, Russia put a blockade on Georgian exports in an attempt to cripple the economy. I witnessed with my own eyes traumatic scenes at Tbilisi airport, when plane loads of Georgians arrived home after being deported by the Russian government. Without getting into the arguments over the cause of the 2008 war, the outcome is clear:
Russia effectively occupies over 20 per cent of Georgian territory and thousands of Georgians have been displaced from their homes and now live in temporary accommodation.

We can feel pride in the way that the leaders of all British political parties responded strongly against Russian aggression last summer. Gordon Brown and David Miliband have worked hard to secure a coordinated EU response and, along with American allies, have kept the dream of Georgia’s NATO membership alive. Within the Labour party, MPs Bruce George and Denis MacShane have consistently highlighted the plight of ordinary Georgians throughout the crisis.

But what now? Georgia is working hard to maintain the process of reform and to meet the requirements for membership of NATO, but this raises important questions for the alliance, and for all who believe in progressive politics. For example, how can liberal reforms in Georgia be best encouraged? Was the war of 2008 just about Georgia, or does it signify a wider Russian attitude to its neighbours? Should Russia be allowed to veto membership of a NATO applicant, even if all the conditions are met?

Another key question for 2009 will be whether the EU can manage to come up with a coherent line in dealings with Russia. Mixed messages were sent in 2008, from indignation over Russian aggression in the summer to agreement to start discussions on a partnership agreement in the autumn. Some have argued that Russian actions in last month’s gas dispute with Ukraine will act as a tipping point, though I am not so sure. Indications are that President Barack Obama will take a robust approach in dealing with his Russian counterparts. His transition team supported the Bush administration in signing a strategic agreement with Georgia last month.

Fundamentally, Georgia is a sovereign country and should be allowed to decide its own destiny. If Russia is allowed to subvert that, there will be implications for all of us.