Vancouver ModelUnited NationsThe 12th Annual Conference • February 1–3, 2013

Background GuideNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization

Zach Hauser & Stuart Warren

Secretaries-General

•

Eric LiuChief of Staff

Catherine ChouDirector-General

•

Aliya-Nur BabulUSG Committees

Adam ChandaniUSG Conference

Parker NannUSG Delegate Affairs 1

Eden LeeUSG Delegate Affairs 2

Brian KwokUSG Finance

Andy LeeUSG Marketing

Catherine WangUSG Marketing

Kevin ChienUSG Simulations

Jennifer YoonUSG Sponsorship

Greetings, all delegates of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization:

My name is Jason Zhang, and I will be your Director.

Let me begin by saying that taking on the role of Director for NATO is a personal challenge for me from an ideological standpoint. However, I ensure you that I will do my best as your Director. There is not much to say regard-ing my own personal history other that I am in my second year of IB and about to graduate – and that this is my first time attending VMUN.

I have assembled two very closely related topics for NATO delegates to re-search and debate about. One of the greatest paradigm shifts in the history of the world occurred on December 25, 1991, and its effects are still being felt today. I am, of course, referring to the collapse of the Union of Soviet So-cialist Republics which, at its core, meant the failure of the Marxist ideology and the states upon which it was based. Our topics for VMUN 2013 were chosen in the shadow of this great Soviet colossus whose fall is still very much relevant today.

With that said, I hope that the delegates of NATO enjoy their time at VMUN 2013. It is a time to create history – let all the delegates come to realize this and take part in writing the future of the world!

I wish you only the best.

Jason ZhangDirector, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Vancouver Model United NationsThe 12th Annual Conference • February 1–3, 2013

Position Paper PolicyWhat is a Position Paper?A position paper is a brief overview of a country’s stance on the topics being discussed by a particu-lar committee. Though there is no specific format the position paper must follow, it should include a description of the positions your country holds on the issues on the agenda, relevant actions that your country has taken, and potential solutions that your country would support.

At Vancouver Model United Nations, delegates should write a position paper for each of the com-mittee’s topics. Each position paper should not exceed one page, and should all be combined into a single document per delegate.

For the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, position papers are mandatory.

FormattingPosition papers should:

— Include the name of the delegate, his/her country, and the committee

— Be in a standard font (e.g. Times New Roman) with a 12-point font size and 1-inch docu-ment margins

— Not include illustrations, diagrams, decorations, national symbols, watermarks, or page borders

— Include citations and a bibliography, in any format, giving due credit to the sources used in research (not included in the 1-page limit)

Due Dates and Submission ProcedureAll position papers must be submitted by midnight on Friday, January 18, 2013, two weeks prior to the conference.

Once your position paper is complete, please save the file as your last name, your first name and send it as an attachment in an email, to your committee’s email address, with the subject heading as your last name, your first name — Position Paper. Please do not add any other attachments to the email or write anything else in the body.

Both your position papers should be combined into a single PDF or Word document file; position papers submitted in another format will not be accepted.

Each position paper will be manually reviewed and considered for the Best Position Paper award.

The email address for this committee is nato@vmun.com.

Topic A: Former Warsaw Pact Member-States

IntroductionThe world from 1945 to 1991 was marked by constant hostility between the capitalist West and the socialist East. NATO was expressly formed in 1949 to ‘counter’ the threat to capitalism that the Eastern socialist states posed. The Warsaw Pact was formed in 1955 in response to NATO’s establishment, and from its inception included many of NATO’s current member-states such as Romania and Poland. From 1989 to 1991, as the Soviet Union began to collapse, the USA began to offer economic assistance to the troubled states of Poland and Hungary. Indeed, NATO has somewhat assumed responsibility for its former Cold War rivals and has taken up their care as a mandate of sorts. However, certain crucial questions remain unanswered. What is NATO’s role in a world without the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact? Does NATO have a responsibility for the well-being of the former Warsaw Pact nations, seeing as that organization was founded in response to the establishment of NATO?

Timeline1964 Nikita Khrushchev is deposed by his protégé Leonid Brezhnev, who as-

sumes the post of General Secretary. Alexei Kosygin assumes the post of Premier.

1975 The Era of Stagnation, a period of economic and social stagnancy for the Soviet Union, begins. All industries but vodka and military production show annual decline until the Union’s ultimate dissolution in 1991.

1980 A Polish independent trade union and underground political party, Soli-darity, is formed.

1982 The second-longest-serving General Secretary, Leonid Brezhnev, dies. Yuri Andropov, former KGB chief, takes office as Brezhnev’s successor.

1984 Yuri Andropov, General Secretary of fifteen months, dies. Konstantin Cher-nenko becomes his successor.

1985 Konstantin Chernenko dies; Mikhail Gorbachev replaces him as General Secretary.

1986 Glasnost is officially established as Soviet governmental policy by Mikhail Gorbachev. Moscow loses its ability to force All-Union levels of ideologic-al declarations on the SSRs. Subsequent elections to SSR regional councils yield high volumes of nationalist delegates who support ethnic independ-ence from the Soviet Union.

1988 Perestroika, although never formalized as official Party policy, is dis-cussed at the first CPSU Party Conference since 1941. Gorbachev called for multi-candidate elections to the newly-established Congress of People’s Deputies, which replaced the old Supreme Soviet.

— 4 —

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 5 —

January 1989 In Poland, Jaruzelski obtains Communist Party support for negotiations with Solidarity. In Hungary, Parliament adopts a democracy package, which includes policies of trade union pluralism, freedom of association and assembly, and electoral reforms.

May 1989 The first signs of the Iron Curtain being torn down emerge, with Hungarian troops dismantling the border fence with Austria.

June 1989 The Tiananmen Square incident occurs in China.July 1989 Gorbachev renounces the Brezhnev Doctrine, which asserted the Soviet

right to uphold Communism in already-Communist states.August 1989 The last Communist Prime Minister of Poland, Czeslaw Kiszczak, steps

down in favour of Tadeusz Mazowiecki, a staunch anti-Communist, to no opposition from the Soviet Union.

September 1989 More than 30,000 East Germans escape to West Germany. However, East Germany shuts all its borders and blockades itself, leading to protests.

November 1989 East German authorities, under increasing popular pressure, open border points with West Germany to East German citizens. Willy Stoph, Prime Minister of East Germany, and his entire cabinet resign. Shortly after, the Communist Party announces its relinquishing of power over the Czecho-slovakian state.

December 1989 In Romania, crowds boo leader Nicolae Ceaucescu as he delivers a speech. The Romanian military subsequently defects, and raids the Romanian Central Committee building. The executions of Ceaucescu and his wife are broadcast on Christmas Day.

March 1990 Multi-party and direct presidential elections are held in Hungary. Democratic elections are also held in East Germany for the first time since 1933.

June 1990 Czechoslovakia holds its first democratic general elections since 1946.October 1990 East and West Germany unite to form the Federal Republic of Germany.August 1991 The Soviet Army and the State Committee of the State of Emergency un-

successfully try to oust General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev from power.December 1991 President Gorbachev resigns from his Party and State posts; he dissolves

the Soviet Union one day later on Christmas Day. The Russia Federation is declared, becoming the successor state of the USSR and obtaining its nuclear arsenal. Each of the former SSRs (once incorporated into the Soviet Union) become their own independent states.

1999 The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland join NATO.2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia join

NATO. 2009 Albania and Croatia join NATO.

Historical AnalysisThe Soviet Union is now only a name found in history textbooks and Olympic records. However, from 1921 to 1991, its existence was very real. Western liberal democracies such as Britain, France, and the United States, distrusted the USSR even before the beginning of the Second World War because it was founded on the concept of a worldwide proletariat revolution. Though the Western states and the Soviet Union cooperated in the Second World War against Nazi Germany and Imper-ial Japan, a rift quickly developed between them. It was immediately apparent that the ideologies of the United States and the Soviet Union were absolutely irreconcilable; the USA held the rights to private property and enterprise in high esteem, while the Soviet Union believed these concepts to be evil. The Berlin Blockade of 1949, in which then-General Secretary Joseph Stalin restricted East Berlin’s trade with West Berlin, marked the official beginning of the Cold War.

The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 catalysed the start of NATO military cooperation. NATO engaged in naval, land, and atomic war exercises to better prepare against a possible Soviet invasion. The Soviet proposal to join NATO in 1954 thus took the organization by surprise; the Soviet Union had proposed the idea to maintain European stability, but NATO took it as a move to weaken the organization itself. This, coupled with West Germany’s entry into NATO, provoked the direct cre-ation of the Warsaw Pact Organization in 1955. Once again, we see the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was another major conflict that provoked hostilities between the two sides. The Soviet Union, threatened by the US’s missile systems in Turkey, tried to achieve a degree of parity by building missile silos on Cuban soil. The proximity of Cuba to the United States and the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs invasion caused the US to send surveillance planes into Cuba; footage from those planes verified Soviet construction of missile sites.

The subsequent standoff between President Kennedy and General Secretary Khrushchev very nearly resulted in another conflict, but ultimately ended with the Soviet Union’s retreating and dis-mantling its missiles, while the US reciprocated in Italy and Turkey. An additional hotline between Washington and Moscow was set up so that the two leaders could contact each other in times of emergency. However, Khrushchev’s confrontational stance during the conflict eventually led to his ousting as General Secretary, with Leonid Brezhnev replacing him in 1964.

Brezhnev’s tenure as leader met with difficulties right from the outset. Alexander Dubcek, the Gen-eral Secretary of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, began to diverge ideologically from Moscow. He called for socialism with a human face, essentially predicting Gorbachev’s policies from 1985 onward, and used this policy to relax censorship and to exert control over the Czechoslovak popu-lation. This was seen by Moscow as an overture for Czechoslovakia’s possible defection from the Warsaw Pact, which would hinder the Soviet Union’s position in a possible war against NATO.

Thus, on 20 August 1968, the Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia with a force numbering in the hundred thousands to quash the Dubcek regime. Its invasion was successful and resulted in the imprisonment of Dubcek. However, the Western nations, including NATO’s members, condemned the invasion. The American ambassador to the UN, for one, responded to the statement that the Soviet Union was simply offering aid to Czechoslovakia to uphold its socialist purity, by noting that

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 6 —

“the fraternal aid that the Soviet Union [was] according to Czechoslovakia [was] the kind that Cain offered to Abel.” Though many Western nations feared a nuclear war, they did not intervene in the Czechoslovakian invasion partially because of geographical distance, and also because the United States was already heavily involved in the Vietnam War.

The Vietnam War of 1955–1975 (with the US entered officially in 1968) is viewed as the first war the United States lost. The conflict began when South Vietnamese President Diem’s campaign to purge Communist influences, such as the Viet Cong, a South Vietnam-based Communist insur-gent group. Early on, at Diem’s request, the United States provided aid and tactical assistance to the South Vietnamese. The Communist North Vietnamese government, however, approved Southern insurgencies in 1960, calling for an end to American imperialism. North Vietnam enjoyed explicit Soviet and Chinese support due to shared standpoints, at least until 1969; South Vietnam continued to be backed by the United States until the war’s close in 1975. Ultimately, the North Vietnamese government won the war, and the Viet Cong became the provisional government of South Viet-nam. American sentiment to this day still reflects the bitterness of losing Vietnam to Communist influences, especially when four Presidents had pledged that the exact opposite would occur. This conflict also soured relations between Soviet Union and the United States.

Domestically, the Soviet Union began to see a general stagnation in societal and economic matters as early as 1964, with Leonid Brezhnev’s accession to power. Brezhnev’s ascent marked the begin-ning of a gerontocracy, a leadership composed largely of aging men more and more out of touch with Soviet society and the general state of affairs. However, it was this gerontocracy, the nom-enklatura, which saw a need for change nonetheless in the ailing Union, and appointed Mikhail Gorbachev the General Secretary of the CPSU in 1985. Gorbachev thus inherited a union that had overextended itself in terms of defense and whose centrally planned economy was plagued with difficulties.

In general, the Soviet Union was the only member of the Warsaw Pact with far-reaching power pro-jection capability no doubt bolstered by its nuclear arsenal. There is little reason for the other mem-bers of the Warsaw Pact to be met with the same hostility that was accorded to the Soviet Union, and indeed, NATO has definitely been moving forward to incorporate those former Warsaw Pact states. Even relations with the Soviet Union itself began to improve following the rapid deaths of Konstantin Chernenko and Yuri Andropov. The actions of Mikhail Gorbachev were crucial to the end of the Cold War and to the Soviet Union’s thawing relations with the Western nations and NATO.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s accession to the post of General Secretary accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev openly declared that the Soviet Union would no longer interfere with the affairs of its satellites. Though this held to be untrue in certain situations, his policies did indeed lead to the possibly unintentional dissolution of the Soviet Union. An abortive coup d’état attempt by several senior Soviet politicians was crushed by the efforts of then-President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Boris Yeltsin, resulting in Gorbachev’s eventual diminishment. Furthermore, the policy of glasnost allowed the different Soviet Republics and satellite states to voice their discontent, as described below, and to ultimately end the Soviet Union’s existence.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 7 —

The End of the Cold WarMikhail Gorbachev was the last General Secretary to preside over the USSR. His policies of pere-stroika and glasnost awakened nationalistic and anti-Soviet sentiment in the Soviet Union as well as in its satellite states. As a result of glasnost (openness), whereby Soviet repression of the satel-lites’ freedom of speech was relaxed, the citizens of the Eastern bloc gradually worked to change the situation in their countries. Various Communist states would join NATO because of a desire for increased cooperation with the prosperous Western states. However, with this influx of former Eastern Bloc nations joining NATO, an alliance originally formed to counter the threat posed to world capitalism, NATO’s role needs to change.

Current SituationIn the previous century, when a global Communist revolution seemed imminent, the two ideologic-al groups, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, stood against each other. Now, however, the former Warsaw Pact nations are gravitating towards NATO. The ultimate question remains: what is NATO’s role moving into the future?

Some of the former Communist nations have begun to formulate their own opinions about the future of NATO and its changing membership. The division can be made into two main camps: former component republics of the Soviet Union, and former Soviet satellite states that were con-trolled from Moscow. The movement away from Communist rule was different in each of their circumstances; the various factors that helped in shaping the new democratic regimes greatly affect their stances. In some nations, democracy was achieved through peaceful means, as in Poland and in the former Czechoslovakia; in others, such as Romania, freedom had to be fought for and won. The following are specific examples of nations from the parties involved: Poland, as a former Soviet satellite; Ukraine, as a former SSR; the United States; and the Russian Federation.

PolandIn Poland, the election of John Paul II as Pope in 1978 and his subsequent visit to Warsaw sparked a series of events that would ultimately lead to the founding of the Solidarity movement, the trade union, and the restoration of democracy. The restoration of democratic rule under President Lech Walesa saw a massive influx of foreign aid, with the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany at the time) providing 2.2 billion dollars, and the United States offering a total of 950 billion dol-lars.1 Poland, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, joined NATO in 1999. Since then, these three nations and Slovakia, collectively known Visegrad Four, have been key in implementing an encirclement of Russia that is imperative to NATO’s overall defensive strategy. Poland, in particular, has become prominent within both the Visegrad Four and NATO itself, initiating a project for an independent military group that is projected to become active as of 2016.2 Poland also supports the entry of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia into the Visegrad Four as supplementary members, and backs Ukraine’s entrance into the EU and NATO. In short, Poland’s behaviour is typical of a na-tion that suffered half a century of being controlled by other nations (first Nazi Germany, then the

1Pear.2Gulevich.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 8 —

USSR), and wishes to assert itself in the world stage to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Its plans for defense with the rest of the Visegrad Four include independent military movements with an autonomous command structure separate from NATO.

Poland’s visions for expansion are reflective of the medieval Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that existed in the fourteenth century. It was considered a major power at the time, and Poland’s subservience to the Soviet Union in the twentieth century was a complete reversal of the medieval power structure where a strong Poland dominated the Prussian heartland. Though Polish relations with Germany have considerably improved since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russo-Polish relations suffer from constant ups and downs.3 For example, Poland’s backing of Georgia in the 2008 South Ossetia War was seen by Moscow as “offensive.” Russia believes Poland to be leaving the Russian sphere of influence and entering that of the Western European nations and the United States, as embodied in Poland’s entry into both NATO and the EU. That Poland supports the entry of its former Eastern Bloc allies into NATO further supports its evolving and growing role in this alliance.

UkraineFormerly completely integrated into the Soviet Union as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Ukraine was one of the founding states of the USSR in 1921. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine’s economy has seen instability, starting with a recession in the mid-late 1990s. In a recent poll conducted in Ukraine, the majority of Ukrainian citizens had doubts about joining NATO and roughly 40% saw NATO as a threat to Ukrainian security. Despite this, NATO granted Ukraine into its membership program, and Ukraine is engaged in an Intensified Dialogue with NATO at the time of the writing of this article. Victor Yanukovych, the President of Ukraine as of 2010, stated Ukraine’s intentions to remain unaligned and stressed that there was no question of Ukraine’s joining NATO. As a former Soviet component republic, its stance is considerably differ-ent from that of the Soviet satellite states and reasonably so.

At the same time, however, Yanukovych also expressed the intention that Ukraine would remain in communication with NATO and remain in its outreach program (that is, the Intensified Dialogues and Partnership for Peace).

United States of AmericaFew words need be said about the United States’ relations with the former Soviet Union. After all, the Cold War, spanning the entire latter half of the twentieth century, was founded upon their differences. However, the USA seems much more accepting of other nations that existed in the Warsaw Pact, such as Poland and Hungary, though it still tries to maintain a hand in European affairs. As one of the most prominent members of NATO, the USA takes an active role in NATO activities. However, its confrontational attitude that marked the presidency of Ronald Reagan has largely been reversed by the conciliatory policies of Barack Obama. His visits to Eastern and Cen-tral European states revealed a desire to cooperate more closely with them, as evidenced by the strong USA-Poland and USA-Hungary relationships. Part of Hungary’s gravitation towards the

3Cheremushkin.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 9 —

United States involved the returning of the Holy Hungarian Crown in 1978 to its home. As Hun-gary shifted away from the Soviet Union in its last days, the USA accepted Hungary as a valuable ally, an acknowledgment formally recognized in the accession of Hungary to NATO in 1999. How-ever, the US’s proposed enlargement of NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine has been met with failure due to both states declaring their removal of that goal.4 A formal US declaration of policies regarding former Warsaw Pact nations and their entry into the alliance has yet to be announced, but by the actions of the US it seems to be more than willing to accept former enemies into its mil-itary alliance.

Russian FederationRussia has had an overall negative response to its former satellites joining NATO. However, it does indeed cooperate with NATO on different issues including the situation in Afghanistan as well as counteractions to international terrorism. The NATO-Russia council, founded in 2002 to further NATO-Russian relations, is the main forum in which the two parties come together. Despite the smooth surface of NATO-Russian relations, several events have tempered the relationship’s stability. For example, the 2008 South Ossetia War, involving Russia and Georgia, incurred much criticism from NATO, which contended that Russia had violated UN Security Council resolutions it had previously endorsed by recognizing South Ossetia’s independence from Georgia.5 In addition, the Russian government believes that NATO is trying to surround and encircle it by using its former satellites. Like Ukraine, Russia sees the eastward expansion of NATO as a threat not only to itself but also to European stability as a whole. To that extent, Russia has no current plans to join NATO.

From Russia’s recent actions in Syria and its history as the Soviet Union, a conclusion can be drawn that Russia is often diametrically opposed to the nations of the West. China, too, has recently taken such a stance. It is unclear just how far NATO will go in cooperating with Russia — former President Medvedev has, after all, referred to it as a foreign military bloc.6 In addition, President Medvedev described NATO’s projected missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as invasive to Russian security. In general, Russia has numerous doubts about NATO presence around it and is cautious of the organization’s further expansion into its surrounding regions.

Bloc PositionsMost Western nations accept the entry of former Warsaw Pact states into NATO, furthering the cause of international cooperation. Some former Warsaw Pact nations, especially the former SSRs, look distrustfully at NATO intentions. Russia, for one, has taken a hostile stance towards NATO’s eastward expansion. The USA supports further integration of the former Warsaw Pact nations, and Poland seeks to be a leader in the Visegrad Four and the planning of autonomous military actions.

Relations with Russia have become a larger and larger issue. It is a powerful nation that does not have plans to join NATO, and its assertions that NATO is infringing upon its territorial integrity and security are alarming. NATO’s absorption of the former Warsaw Pact nations is seen by Russia

4B92.5Scheffer.6Tsypkin.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 10 —

as an attempt to Americanize its former allies and members within its sphere of influence. How-ever, NATO and Russia do have a history of cooperation as evidenced by initiatives such as the NATO-Russia Forum, joint programs on terrorism, and the war in Afghanistan.

Former Warsaw Pact States (excluding Russia)Due to the adverse effects of the Cold War (often referred to as a lost century), the former Warsaw Pact states look to NATO for support in modern times. Examples include, as described above, Po-land and Hungary.

Some countries, like Poland, have flourished. Others, like Romania, still face uncertain futures. However, the common trait among them is that they now rely on the United States and NATO whereas before they had no choice but to rely on the Soviet Union. Some, like Poland and Hungary, have reached favourable trade status with the United States, boosting their economies.

Former Soviet Socialist RepublicsDue to much closer ties with the Russian Federation, the former SSRs (component republics of the Soviet Union) view NATO as a threat and invasive to their sovereignty. They also, as parts of the former Soviet Union, treat the West with some degree of hostility regarding military alliances.

Developed Western Nations of NATO (excluding the United States)Though most Western nations are entangled in foreign military conflicts such as the situation in Syria, they are still quite concerned about affairs close to home. Therefore, these nations are hesitant to increase cooperation with former SSRs but welcome opportunities to aggrandize their econ-omies.

Principal Cold War AntagonistsThe United States, as the sole remaining superpower, is not afraid of overextending its worldwide military presence and seeks to gain even more influence and prestige in the world. Also, some ob-servers have suggested that the United States uses its foreign policy to distract its citizens from in-ternal problems. The United States’ key concern is to consolidate its position in the world especially in the face of China’s meteoric rise. Little has been said and done regarding its massive national debt.

The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, resents losing its sphere of influence, espe-cially that over Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. Because a key Russian strategic interest is the securing of its frontiers and because NATO has virtually encircled it, Russia is very threatened by the organization’s eastward expansion. This, coupled with Russia’s frequent opposition of UN Security Council resolutions backed by the US, is reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s opposition of the US in previous decades. In summary, Russia’s greatest concern is security and how it can use its secure position to regain the lost glory of the Soviet Union.

Questions to Consider1. What is NATO’s new role in the post-Cold War era?

2. How should NATO change itself to reflect the new international state of existence?

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 11 —

3. What should NATO do in terms of placating and dealing with the Russian Federation, and should it try to increase ties with Russia?

4. Should NATO try and move away from its existence as a military alliance and become more of a political association in order to promote the values of international cooperation?

SourcesB92. (2008, April 3). NATO offers “intensified dialogue” to Serbia. Retrieved July 16th, 2012, from B92 News: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=03&nav_id=49084

Cheremushkin, P. (n.d.). Russian-Polish relations: A long way from stereotype to reconciliation. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from Columbia University.

Gulevich, V. (2012, April 27). NATO ENCIRCLEMENT OF RUSSIA. The Strategic Role of the “Visegrad Four”: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from Global-Research.ca: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30569

Pear, R. (1989, November 19). THE WORLD; U.S. Aid for Poland: Long on Incentives, Short on Dollars. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/19/weekinreview/the-world-us-aid-for-poland-long-on-incentives-short-on-dollars.html

Scheffer, J. d. (2008, August 26). Statement by the Secretary General on the Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from North Atlantic Treaty Organization: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-107e.html

Tsypkin, M. (2010, February 2). What’s New In Russia’s Military Doctrine? Retrieved July 20, 2012, from GlobalSecurity.org: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100227-rferl01.htm

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 12 —

Topic B: Involvement in the Balkan Region

IntroductionFor many people today, the term dictator has negative connotations; often, rulers such as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin come to mind. In truth, however, a dictator is merely someone who exercises absolute power in a government. Josip Broz Tito, leader of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugo-slavia (SFR Yugoslavia or simply Yugoslavia) for thirty-five years, was an example of a benevolent dictator who served as a unifying figure for the six states of the Yugoslav federation. Originally a founder of Cominform, Tito was its only member to successfully defy the hegemony of the Soviet Union in the socialist camp. Tito’s strong leadership and successful public policies allowed Yugo-slavia to flourish until his death in 1980, when ethnic conflicts began to divide the region. The post-Tito constitution of the SFR Yugoslavia changed its name to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FR Yugoslavia, dropping the S).

The ultimate dissolution of the FR proper was in 1992, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union by a mere few months (Serbia and Montenegro maintained a union known as the FR Yugoslavia despite having the membership of only those two nations until 2003). NATO’s involvement was mostly in the 1990s, after resolutions passed by the UN Security Council mobilized resources to suppress Bosnian hostility and the Kosovo War. The questions that have arisen from NATO’s in-volvement in the Balkan region are numerous: is NATO’s involvement in the area necessary? How can the Balkan region achieve long-term stability? Is military involvement only conducive to fur-ther violence and instability?

n.b. The term Balkan and all its variants are politically and connotatively neutral. They have been selected as descriptors of the geographic locations of the involved countries over imprecise descrip-tors such as Southeastern Europe or Central Europe, which describe larger and more inclusive areas; Balkan designates merely the countries involved.

Timeline1980 President Josip Broz Tito dies; a Presidency of nine members, representatives of

the Yugoslav constituent republics and the Communist League, assumes power.1981 Demonstrations for Kosovo to gain republic status and to become independent

of Serbia break out. The Presidency cracks down on these demonstrations and declares a state of emergency.

1986 Slobodan Milošević becomes President of the League of Communists of Serbia.1987 Milošević delivers a speech supporting Serbian nationalism against the Alban-

ian inhabitants of Kosovo, foreshadowing the end of Yugoslavia. Serbian Presi-dent Ivan Stambolić (whose resignation is forced by Milošević later that year) remarks that he saw the end of Yugoslavia embodied in Milosevic’s speech.

— 13 —

1987 Serbs and Montenegrins protest outside the Belgrade parliament building against persecution by Albanians.

1988 The first non-Communist Slovenian political party, the Slovenian Peasant Union, is formed. Branko Mikulić, Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, resigns in the face of a 15% unemployment rate and a 250% inflation rate.

1988 A leading politician, Stipe Šuvar, attempts to oust Slobodan Milošević from the Yugoslav Central Committee. Later that year, a million people gather in Bel-grade to show their support for Milošević.

1989 Milošević becomes the President of Serbia; shortly after, he delivers a belliger-ent speech to two million people discussing the possibility of war. The May Declaration is signed in Slovenia by opposition parties, demanding full democ-racy and sovereignty of the Slovenian state. Later in the year, Slovenia amends its constitution to allow secession from Yugoslavia and provisions open elec-tions, leading to Serbian and Montenegrin revolts.

1990 Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina hold their first multi-party elec-tion. In Slovenia, 88.5% of all voters support independence in a referendum.

1991 Slovenia wins the Ten-Day War, gaining independence from Yugoslavia. The Croatian and Bosnian Wars of Independence begin. Macedonia also votes for independence.

Historical BackgroundYugoslavia’s history began at the Paris Peace Conference following the First World War. As a result of the conference and the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Serbia, Montenegro, and the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs were merged. The pan-Slav nationalism that held the states together proved a potent force, as they managed to withstand even the Nazi invasions of the Second World War through the Partisans’ guerrilla warfare. Josip Tito first emerged as the General Secre-tary of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in 1936 when Yugoslavia was still a kingdom; he commanded the Partisans throughout World War II and led the resistance movement against Nazi invaders. After the war’s conclusion, he was made Marshal of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia’s insuperable and highest military rank, and served as Prime Minister of the newly established Republic, which now included Macedonia and Bosnia & Herzegovina. During his reign, Yugoslavia enjoyed con-siderable prominence as a middle power; it was the foremost founder of the Non-Aligned Move-ment, and its economic and political influence grew steadily under Tito’s leadership. During the many ethnic conflicts between the Croats and the Serbs, Tito (who was of mixed blood, being both of Croat and Slovene ethnicity) served as a unifying figure for the six component republics of the SFR Yugoslavia. His death was the catalyst for increasing unrest between these various groups.

In the early 1990s, Serbian President Slobodan Milošević consolidated his power in the Federal Presidency of Yugoslavia. The Presidency, a chamber consisting of representatives from the six Yugoslav republics, the two provinces, and the Yugoslav People’s Army, had eight voting members (with the exclusion of the Army representative). When Milošević came to power, he also replaced

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 14 —

the Presidency representatives from Montenegro, Vojvodina, and Kosovo with people loyal to him, thus giving Serbia a disproportionate federal influence in Yugoslavia. In addition, at the 14th Extra-ordinary Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in January 1990, Milosevic agreed to only one demand made by the Slovene and Croat groups: multi-party elections. The Slovene and Croat representatives then walked out of the Congress to protest what they saw as Milosevic promoting Serbian supremacy.

The Yugoslav WarsBeginning in 1989, Yugoslavia was in a constant state of turmoil. Ethnic tensions, as outlined above, were largely the cause of that tension. High concentrations of the different Yugoslav ethnicities in Yugoslav republics other than their own led to movements for national self-determination and called into question the definition of a nation. Thus, nationalism and ethnic divides were major causes of the Yugoslav wars in which NATO was forced to eventually intervene. The Log Revolu-tion, in which ethnic Serbs blockaded Croatian roads to the Knin and Dalmatia regions, was seen as a precursor to more violent fighting. The subsequent Yugoslav Wars were a result of the seces-sions of the various former Yugoslav republics from the federation, the unchecked expansionism of the Serb leader Milošević, and the ethnic tensions and confusions that had existed in the Balkan area prior to the First World War.

In December 1990, a Slovene referendum on independence was held. 88.5% of all Slovene voters — an overwhelming majority — voted for independence. The Serbian-controlled federal Yugoslav government, which sought to expand Serbia’s borders, found this utterly unacceptable. Moreover, tapes were leaked in January that showed the Croatian Minister of Defense smuggling arms to two masked men. As a result, the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) discussed the possibility of declaring a state of emergency. Had JNA intervention in Croatia been approved, the likely result would have been a war; ultimately, intervention failed due to a single vote.

Croatia’s independence referendum also yielded an overwhelming majority with 94.2% of all voters in favour. Subsequently, both Croatia and Slovenia declared independence from the SFR Yugoslav-ia on June 25, beginning the Ten-Day War involving the JNA and Slovenia. Hostilities concluded with an agreement that Slovenia and Croatia would impose a three-month moratorium on seces-sion, in return for the retreat of JNA troops. Peace was short-lived though: the Croatian War of Independence (1991–1995) soon broke out.

The Bosnian War of IndependenceNATO, while not intervening largely in these regions, did take an active interest in the Bosnian situation. Its involvement began in July 1992 with a joint patrol between NATO and the western EU of the Adriatic Sea to enforce the United Nations’ arms embargo on Yugoslavia. In 1992, NATO also enforced a no-fly zone over Bosnia established by the UN. Moreover, NATO further supported UN peacekeeping troops who came under fire in their duty starting in 1993, and established an anti-heavy weapons perimeter around Sarajevo and Gorazde, which was later extended to various other Serb-controlled regions of Croatia.

A peace plan to end the Bosnian War of Independence was drafted by Cyrus Vance, a former US

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 15 —

Secretary of State, and Lord Owen in the hopes that it would be accepted by the various sides in the conflict (that is, the Bosnian Government, the Republika Srpska autonomous region of Bosnian Serbs, and the Bosniak Muslim minority). However, the Bosnian Serbs rejected the plan and re-newed hostilities. At NATO’S 1995 London Conference, it was decided that air strikes were neces-sary to quell the conflict. As a result, August 1995 marked a period of intense NATO air strikes over Bosnia, after Bosnian Serbs attacked the Sarajevo safe zone. These air strikes pacified the Serbs and their supporters in Bosnia and Serbia, and resulted in the Dayton Agreement, drafted in Dayton, Ohio and signed in Paris. The agreement established the sovereign nation of Bosnia and Herzego-vina, which is itself comprised of two entities: Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. NATO enforced the Dayton Agreement through the creation of IFOR, the Imple-mentation Force, which patrolled the Inter-Entity Boundary Line that divided the two entities.

The Kosovo WarThe Bosnian War of Independence, whose effects are still being felt today, was not the only Yugoslav War in which NATO intervened. The Kosovo War of 1998–1999, involving Kosovo as an independ-ent oblast (province) of Yugoslavia enclaved within Serbia, was another focal point of NATO in-volvement in the Balkans. The war arose from desire of the Albanian ethnic majority in Kosovo for independence. NATO largely supported the claims of the Albanians, who, by the doctrine of national self-determination set by US President Woodrow Wilson, had a right to their own nation.

Initially, the conflict began as an insurgency centred around the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an Albanian separatist group based in Kosovo, which was initially viewed as a terrorist organiza-tion by the United States and allied NATO governments. However, for currently classified reasons, NATO member states removed the KLA from the blacklist and began to supply it with aid. Then, on September 24, 1998, NATO issued an activation warning, informing the KLA, the Army of the Republic of Kosovo, and the Yugoslav People’s Army of its plans to launch air strikes against the Yugoslav forces. The international community mostly supported NATO’s intervention, but also called for an end to hostilities.

Like the other Yugoslav Wars, the Kosovo War was marked by numerous war crimes on both sides. In addition, NATO’s air strikes later proved to be controversial (the targets included factories, oil refineries, and trade routes), leading to a key question: did NATO’s actions have adverse effects on the nations it sought to stabilize, in this case Serbia and Kosovo?

Serbia, in diplomatic communication with Finland and Russia, sought alliances to settle the issue with NATO militarily. However, neither nation pledged its support despite Russia’s anti-NATO stance. Milošević realized that NATO would seek to end the conflict regardless of what Serbia did, and so conceded to the Finnish-Russian drafted peace plan in June 1999 and agreed to a NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo, the KFOR, to ensure stability within the region.

In general, a large number of NATO nations participated in the Kosovo War, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States; altogether, fifty thousand NATO soldiers were stationed in northern Albania to reinforce some ten thousand KLA insur-gents. Russia and Sweden also participated in peacekeeping operations following the war.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 16 —

Macedonian InsurgencyIn the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, NATO conducted a smaller-scale operation. In 2000, an insurgency was started by the Albanian ethnic minority, which comprised one-third of Macedonia’s citizens. The rebels demanded, among other things, that Albanian become an official language of Macedonia — which the Macedonian government refused to agree to. As a result, the government pleaded for NATO assistance in quashing the insurgency.

In response, NATO sent a force of roughly 3,500 soldiers to confiscate the insurgents’ arms; his was largely considered to be an extension of the Kosovo operations. Later, the Commander of KFOR requested reinforcements from the United Kingdom, but they never arrived due to political reluc-tance to augment the 3,300 British troops already present in Macedonia.

Current SituationIn a time of general economic disability, it is unclear whether NATO nations can remain in support of the peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. Furthermore, the legitimacy of NATO’s air campaign in Kosovo has been called into question. Many American critics of NATO’s bombing cite domestic scandals and assert that the timing of the decision to bomb Kosovo was partly due to President Clinton’s extramarital affair.

Moreover, civilian casualties increased once NATO entered the conflict; this fact has drawn inter-national criticism, especially from Russia and China. During the period of unrest, many Chinese reporters were accidentally killed by NATO airstrikes, and Russia sent volunteer forces to oppose NATO and to support the Yugoslav army.

NATO remains in the Balkan region as a peacekeeper. NATO’s force in Bosnia once numbered around 7000; scalebacks in 2003 reduced this number to 5000. A point of contention regarding this troop size is whether or not it is necessary. For example, Western European nations, particularly France and Britain, are among those affected by the recent European debt crisis and are not in a position to continue funding such large numbers of troops.

NATO, as an intervening and outside force, now has a responsibility to make sure that the Balkan region remains stable but does not become a financial drain on other countries. As such, a long-term solution to the issue must be found. What can NATO do to ensure that the Balkan region in general and the former Yugoslavia in particular become stable?

Bloc PositionsThe Balkan region, marked by turmoil even before the First World War began, finally began to disintegrate following the death of Josip Broz Tito, who led it to reasonable success in the form of Yugoslavia. Ethnic conflicts and Serbian expansionism were key factors to the debilitation of Federal Yugoslavia, itself a misguided idea that sought to combine hostile ethnicities in one nation. Recent developments have yielded temporary solutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Macedonia, but ultimately the loose threads yet hanging in those nations must be tied. NATO, as an intervening and outside force, now has a responsibility to make sure that the Balkan region comes to a stable state of existence; peacekeeping, while very useful in the short term, becomes a financial

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 17 —

drain the long term and new solutions must be found. An important issue that delegates should consider is what exactly NATO can do to ensure that the Balkan region in general and the former Yugoslavia in particular become stable.

Western European NationsWestern European nations such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany believe that a permanent solution must be put in place as soon as possible. They are not in the best of financial and economic circumstances as of 2012, and cannot over-extend their limited resources. With that said, they need to retain their statuses as upholders of international justice and the ideals of the UN, and look towards peace talks regarding the status of Kosovo in the context of its existence as an enclave in Serbia.

United States of AmericaThe United States of America also looks to withdraw from the Balkans. It has called Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia in particular “partners in international security,” in contrast to their previous designation as “security consumers.” The United States wants nations to provide security for themselves so that it can reduce its significant military expenditures, which also motivated its withdrawal from Iraq. However, the American presidential election to be held in November 2012 is a cause for worry, as Republican challenger Mitt Romney may reverse many of incumbent Presi-dent Barack Obama’s policies, should he come to power.

Russian FederationRussia is strictly against NATO’s involvement in the Balkans just as it opposes Eastern European nations joining the alliance. It remains suspicious of NATO, its former Cold War enemy, and be-lieves that a major NATO strategic objective is to surround it. This is true to an extent, but Russia believes that NATO infringes upon its sovereignty and the sovereignty of other nations due to the proximity of the Balkans, a historical Russian strategic interest, to Russia proper. Considering that the last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, considered himself a protector of Europe’s Slavic population, the history of Russia and its intentions on the Balkans is not a short one.

Questions to Consider1. What is the political status of Kosovo?

2. Is a military presence necessary in the areas of NATO intervention?

3. Are peacekeepers necessary in the areas of NATO intervention?

4. Was NATO’s intervention in the Kosovo War justified? Were its methods justified?

5. How can NATO continue to work toward stability in the Balkan region without affecting the anger of Russia?

6. How can NATO work together with Russia to make sure that the Balkan region becomes and remains stable for years to come?

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 18 —

SourcesB92. (2008, April 3). NATO offers “intensified dialogue” to Serbia. Retrieved July 16th, 2012, from B92 News: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=03&nav_id=49084

Binder, D. (1987, November 1). In Yugoslavia, Rising Ethnic Strife Brings Fears of Worse Civil Conflict. The New York Times.

Daly, E. (1999). War in the Balkans: Serbs enter Albania and burn village. The Independent, 23-24.

Gulevich, V. (2012, April 27). NATO ENCIRCLEMENT OF RUSSIA. The Strategic Role of the “Visegrad Four”: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from Global-Research.ca: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30569

Lampe, J. R. (2000). Yugoslavia as History: Twice There Was a Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Massey, D. S., & Taylor, J. E. (2004). International Migration: Prospects and Policies in a Global Mar-ket. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2011, July 11). Western Balkans: Moving Closer to Euro-At-lantic Integration. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from North Atlantic Treaty Organization: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_76329.htm

Silber, L. (1997). Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation. Chicago: Penguin Books.

Singleton, F. B. (1985). A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Somun, H. (2012, March 20). Macedonia warns NATO that Balkans might burn again. Retrieved August 16, 2012, from Today’s Zaman: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-274885-macedonia-warns-nato-that-balkans-might-burn-againby-hajrudin-somun*.html

Tomasevich, J. (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Tsypkin, M. (2010, February 2). What’s New In Russia’s Military Doctrine? Retrieved July 20, 2012, from GlobalSecurity.org: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100227-rferl01.htm

Vancouver Model United Nations 2013North Atlantic Treaty Organization

— 19 —