My name is Kirk Carter and I will be serving as the Committee Chair for the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, an alliance more commonly known as NATO. I am a junior from Athens,
Georgia double-majoring in International Affairs and International Business, with a minor in
Political Science. Outside of Model United Nations, I am involved with Nourish International,
Promote Africa, the Roosevelt Institution, Amnesty International, The Red and Black, WUOG
90.5fm, Invisible Children, and the ONE campaign. Off campus I tutor at Oasis Catolico, coach
youth soccer, and enjoy spending any of my free time outdoors.
I am incredibly honored to have Alex Clark-Youngblood as my Assistant Director. He is a third-
year International Affairs major from Roswell, Georgia. This is his first year on the UGA Model
United Nations team and he I am extremely excited to have him working with our committee.
Also helping out with the committee will be Steven Etheridge, who will be serving as Crisis
Coordinator. Steven is a third year from Conyers, Georgia majoring in Biological Engineering
with an interest in public policy. Steven is entering his third year on the Model United Nations
team and served as Committee Director for the National Security Council at UGAMUNC 2008.
At UGAMUNC XV, NATO will run as a crisis committee. This means that while there will be
an agenda of given topics to discuss, events may and shall happen that will require the committee
to adapt to new challenges. Rules of procedure will be light, with most of the simulation running
in a moderated caucus-style format.
I am very excited to be chairing NATO this year and I am confident that this UGAMUNC will
be the best to date. Both Alex and I are committed to running this committee as effectively as
possible. As always, we encourage our delegates to come prepared to our conference and
actively participate throughout the committee sessions. I am especially looking for delegates that
strive for compromise, especially on the highly contentious issues of the conference.
I look forward to working with you and hope that you enjoy UGAMUNC 2009.
UGAMUNC 2009 1
NATO was created in 1949 by the North Atlantic Treaty. It originally consisted of 12
states: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Luxembourg, Italy,
Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, and Iceland.
NATO now includes 26 members. Since 1949, NATO has added: Greece, Turkey,
Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
In 2009, Albania and Croatia will officially become members of NATO.
NATO is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.
It constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual
defense in response to an attack by any external party.
Each of the 26 members sends a delegation or mission to NATO’s headquarters in
Brussels, Belgium. The senior permanent member of each delegation is known as the
Permanent Members form the North Atlantic Council (NAC), a body that meets together
at least once a week and has effective political authority and powers of decision in
The second member of each country's delegation is the Military Representative, a senior
officer from each country's armed forces. Together the Military Representatives form the
Military Committee (MC), which recommends defense measures to the NAC.
UGAMUNC 2009 2
Topic I: NATO Enlargement
NATO enlargement is an open, continual process, not a single event. Since its inception in 1949,
14 new states have joined the original 12 signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty. NATO has
witnessed expansion into the Balkans, with the ascension of Slovenia and Bulgaria, to the Baltic
with the membership of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
NATO’s Enlargement Goals
NATO’s goal for enlargement is to take advantage of a “unique opportunity to build an improved
security architecture” in a post Cold War world. The aim of the architecture is to increase
stability and security for the Euro-Atlantic area through a gradual process of integration and
cooperation that involves and engages both states and multilateral institutions throughout
NATO views security as more than defense. Security is a concept that embraces political and
economic goals and benchmarks as well. This basis of security has been made into NATO’s new
hope for enlargement of the alliance. Despite its proactive enlargement, NATO has and still
remains a purely defensive Alliance whose fundamental purpose is to preserve peace in the Euro-
Atlantic area and to provide security for its members.
NATO enlargement will extend to new members the benefits of common defense and integration
into existing European and Euro-Atlantic institutions. NATO feels that common defense and
integration are vital to protecting democratic development of new member states. NATO
enlargement seeks to safeguard the freedom and security of its members.
Requirements for Membership
All actions regarding expansion and new membership are governed under Article X of the North
Atlantic Treaty. The article states:
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European state in a position
to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North
Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any state so invited may become a Party to the
Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United
States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of
the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
NATO will make decisions on enlargement. Enlargement will occur through a gradual,
deliberate, and transparent process, encompassing intense and cooperative dialogue with all
interested parties. There is no set list of criteria for inviting new member states to join the
Alliance. Enlargement is decided on a case-by-case basis and some nations may attain
membership before others. New members are not admitted or excluded on the basis of belonging
to some group or category. Ultimately, Allies unanimously decide whether to invite each new
member to join according to their judgment of whether doing so will contribute to security and
stability in the North Atlantic area.
UGAMUNC 2009 3
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council
The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) was established in 1997 to succeed the North
Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC). It consists of the 26 NATO members and 23 Partner
EAPC activities are designed to complement Partnership for Peace (PfP) Programs. Activities
are based on two-year actions plans, which focus on cooperation on a number of political and
security-related matters such as arms control, international terrorism, peacekeeping, emergency
planning, and environmental
EAPC Partner Countries
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Austria, Australia, Belarus,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Finland, Former
Almost all of non-NATO
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Ireland,
EAPC members have
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia,
Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
relations with NATO,
successfully broadening the
http://www.nato.int/issues/eapc/ network of cooperation
An important achievement of the EAPC has been the establishment of the Euro-Atlantic Disaster
Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC) at NATO headquarters, following a proposal by the
Russia. The EADRCC coordinates humanitarian relief throughout Europe. The most notable
cases of EADRCC action were the relief efforts directed towards refugees fleeing from Kosovo
during the Kosovo War. The EADRCC has also provided assistance to those affected by natural
disasters as well.
Areas for further practical initiatives are being added, notably with respect to global
Partnership for Peace Program
The Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a major initiative introduced by NATO at the January 1994
Brussels Summit Meeting of the North Atlantic Council (NATO’s senior governing body). The
aim of the Partnership is to enhance stability and security throughout Europe. The Partnership for
Peace Invitation was addressed to all states participating in the North Atlantic Cooperation
Council (NACC) and other states participating in the Conference for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (CSCE). The activities in which each Partner engages with NATO are based on a
jointly created Individual Partnership Program.
The PfP program focuses on defense cooperation. The PfP also attempts to use dialogue to forge
a working relationship between NATO and each Partner country. The PfP has become an
increasingly important feature of European security. In accordance with the PfP Framework
Document, NATO promises to consult with any active Partner that perceives a direct threat to its
territorial integrity, sovereignty, or security.
UGAMUNC 2009 4
All members of PfP are also members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council However; the
Partnership for Peace retains its own separate identity within the framework provided by the
EAPC and maintains its own unique set of elements and procedures. Unlike the EAPC, which is
a multilateral organization, the PfP is based upon bilateral relations between NATO and each of
the PfP countries.
Any country wishing to join the
Partnership for Peace is first invited to Current PfP Framework Document Signatories
Armenia (October 5, 1994)
sign the Framework Document. In
Austria (February 10, 1995)
addition to describing the objectives of Azerbaijan (May 4, 1994)
the Partnership, this describes the basic Belarus (January 11, 1995)
principles on which PfP is founded. By Bosnia and Herzegovina (December 14, 2006)
signing the Framework Document, Finland (May 9, 1994)
countries make a political commitment to Georgia (March 23, 1994)
the preservation of international law and Republic of Ireland (December 1, 1999)
democracy, to refrain from the threat or Kazakhstan (May 27, 1994)
use of force against any state, to settle Kyrgyzstan (June 1, 1994)
disputes peacefully, and to respect Republic of Macedonia (November 15, 1995)
existing borders. After signing the Malta (March 20, 2008)
Moldova (March 16, 1994)
Framework Document, individual
Montenegro (December 14, 2006)
Partners submit a Presentation Document Russia (June 22, 1994)
to NATO, in which they outline the steps Serbia (December 14, 2006)
taken to achieve the political goals of the Sweden (May 9, 1994)
Partnership, the resources that the Partner Switzerland (December 11, 1996)
brings to the Partnership, and the areas in Tajikistan (February 20, 2002)
which it wants to pursue joint cooperation Turkmenistan (May 10, 1994)
with NATO. Ukraine (February 8, 1994)
Uzbekistan (July 13, 1994)
Based Presentation Document, and on
additional proposals made by NATO and http://www.nato.int/pfp/sig-cntr.htm
each Partner country, an Individual
Partnership Program (IPP) is created and covers a two-year period. The IPP outlines the political
aims of the Partner in the PFP, broad objectives for the Partnership, and specific activities to be
implemented in the cooperation areas.
UGAMUNC 2009 5
Each Partner selects its own activities based on their state’s individual requirements and
priorities. This principle of self-differentiation is an important aspect of PfP that recognizes that
the needs and
Potential Areas of Cooperation under the PfP situations of
1. Air defense related matters each Partner
2. Airspace management/control country vary.
3. Consultation, command and control, including communications and
information systems, navigation and identification systems, interoperability
aspects, procedures and terminology it is for each
4. Civil emergency planning one of them to
5. Crisis management identify the
6. Democratic control of forces and defense structures forms of
7. Defense planning, budgeting and resource management activity and
8. Planning, organization and management of national defense procurement cooperation
programs and international cooperation in the armaments field most suited to
9. Defense policy and strategy their needs.
10. Planning, organization and management of national defense research and
11. Military geography
12. Global humanitarian mine action
13. Language training Individual
14. Consumer logistics Partnership
15. Medical services Action Plan
16. Meteorological support for NATO/Partner forces
17. Military infrastructure NATO created
18. NBC defense and protection the Individual
19. Conceptual, planning and operational aspects of peacekeeping Partnership
20. Small arms and light weapons Action Plans
21. Operational, material and administrative aspects of standardization (IPAP)
22. Military exercises and related training activities
program at the
23. Military education, training and doctrine
Courtesy of: NATO Handbook - http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb030204.htm Summit. The
IPAP serves a
means of further tailoring relations with specific countries targeted for potential membership. It
is also utilized for states not intending to join NATO but require addition diplomatic resources.
As of 2008, IPAP has only been implemented with countries already participating in the
Partnership for Peace Program.
IPAP programs make it easier to coordinate bilateral assistance programs between Partners and
Objectives consist of political and security issues; defense, security and military issues; public
information; science and environment; civil emergency planning; and administrative, protective
security and resource issues.
UGAMUNC 2009 6
Membership Action Plan
States with Individual Partnership Action Plans
Seeking NATO membership:
NATO created the Membership Georgia (29 October 2004)
Action Plan (MAP) in order aid Bosnia and Herzegovina (10 January 2008)
aspiring partner countries meet NATO Montenegro (June 2008)
membership goals and prepare for
future membership. Participation in Not seeking NATO membership:
the MAP does not guarantee future Azerbaijan (27 May 2005)
membership, nor does the Plan contain Armenia (16 December 2005)
simply a list of checkpoints for an Kazakhstan (31 January 2006)
aspiring member to reach. Decisions
to invite aspirants to start the Undeclared intent:
Moldova (19 May 2006)
Membership Action Plan and
subsequent accession talks are made http://www.nato.int/issues/ipap/index.html
by NATO on a case-by-case basis.
The MAP is not intended to replace the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. The MAP provides
for concrete feedback and advice from NATO to aspiring countries on their own preparations
directed at achieving future membership. It provides for a range of activities designed to
strengthen each aspirant country’s candidacy.
Like PfP, the MAP is guided by the principle of self-differentiation: aspiring members are free to
choose the elements of the MAP that suit their own national priorities. Aspirants must submit an
Annual National Program (ANP) on preparations taken for possible membership. The ANP
covers political and economic, defense, resource, security and legal issues. In the ANP, the
aspiring members set their own goals and benchmarks. NATO charts the progress made by
aspiring members and provides feedback and assistance in setting and meeting goals.
Aspiring members are expected to meet certain political and economic goals in order to obtain
NATO membership. These include “settling any international, ethnic or external territorial
disputes by peaceful means; demonstrating a commitment to international law and the concept of
human rights; establishing democratic control of their armed forces; and promoting stability and
well-being through economic liberty, social justice and environmental responsibility.”
Defense and military issues focus on the ability of the country to contribute to collective defense
of the Euro-Atlantic area. Resource issues focus on the need for any aspirant country to ably
commit sufficient resources towards defense that would allow them to meet the commitments
future membership would likely entail. Security issues deal with the ability of aspiring members
to ensure that a process is in place that ensures the security of sensitive intelligence information.
Lastly, legal aspects require that aspiring members make domestic legislation compatible with
the legal agreements that govern NATO cooperation. This means, insuring that any portion or
requirement of NATO’s membership would be in line with a state’s constitution or system of
UGAMUNC 2009 7
The only state currently in the MAP program is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a
MAP that has been in progress since April of 1999. Macedonia’s accession into the Alliance
largely hinges upon its resolution of a naming dispute with Greece. Albania and Croatia both
recently completed the MAP program and were invited join NATO in April of 2008, an
accession that will officially take place at the 2009 Strasbourg Summit. Georgia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Ukraine have all expressed MAPs in order to progress towards
Questions to Consider
1. Does further enlargement of NATO ensure security of the Euro-Atlantic area?
2. Should NATO consider the objections or concerns of non-member states or organizations
when deciding on matters of enlarging the Alliance?
3. Would increased NATO presence in an area actually serve as a destabilizing force?
4. What are the political, economic, and military benefits of NATO enlargement?
5. What are the political, economic, and military drawbacks of NATO enlargement?
6. Does enlarging NATO provide a benefit to your state in the form of increased security,
economic benefit, etc., that couldn’t be obtained through bilateral agreements?
NATO Issues page on enlargement: http://www.nato.int/issues/enlargement/index.html
Congressional report on NATO enlargement: www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21055.pdf
Information on states that have expressed a desire to join NATO:
Bosnia and Herzegovina: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
UGAMUNC 2009 8
Topic II: The Serbian-Kosovo Dispute
The history of Kosovo has long been one of multiple identities. Until its declaration of
independence in 2008, the majority-Muslim region had been a part of a majority-Christian
Serbia. Although Serbians are currently a minority of the population in Kosovo, many refer back
to a time when Kosovo was predominantly Serbian. Kosovo had been a prominent part of the
past kingdoms of Serbia.
In the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, Ottoman forces defeated a coalition led by the Prince Lazar
Hrebeljanović. The Kingdom of Serbia was captured by the Ottomans after the Battle of Kosovo
in 1389, a date that is still commemorated by many Christian Serbs, however Kosovo became the
center of a Serbian Despotate, enjoying tremendous wealth from mining resources, until finally
falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1459.
Kosovo and Serbia were both liberated and
later occupied by Austrian forces during
the Great War (1683-1699). During the
occupation, Holy Roman Emperor Leopold
I and Serbian Patriarch of Pec Arsenije III
led an exodus of nearly 37,000 Serbian
families out of Kosovo and into Austria.
This pattern of migration by Christians
from Kosovo and into Austria would
continue throughout the remainder of the
18th century. This period known as the
Great Serb Migrations came to mark the
transition of Kosovo from a Serbian
majority to a Serbian minority.
Another factor in the emigration of
Christian Serbs from Kosovo was the role
of Islam in the Ottoman Empire. In 1766,
the Ottoman Empire abolished the Orthodox Christian Patriarch of Pec. As a result, the position
of Christians and Serbs in Kosovo rapidly deteriorated. The Ottoman government levied against
non-Muslims and ethnic Serbs faced violent abuse. Meanwhile, predominately Muslim
Albanians began to grow in stature and influence throughout Kosovo. By the advent of the 19th
century, the once dominant Slavic Christian demographic had yielded to a more Turkish-
In 1871, the then Principality of Serbia sought to reintegrate Kosovo. In 1878, a Peace Accord
was signed between Serbia and the Ottoman Empire, which handed control of Pristina and
Kosovska Mitrovica to the Serbians and rendered control of the remainder of Kosovo to the
UGAMUNC 2009 9
Also in 1878, ethnic Albanians created the League of Prizren, which sought to prevent the
annexation of Albanian lands into rapidly expanding Slavic territories. The League would rule
the territory of Kosovo until being defeated by the Ottomans in 1881.
During the Balkan Wars in 1912, the Kingdom of Serbia captured Kosovo. Only the region of
Metohija, which was taken by the Kingdom of Montenegro, was outside of Serbian control.
Kosovo’s status as an official part of Serbia was finalized with the Treaty of London (1913).
Following the war, Kosovo saw a major population shift. In order to change the ethnic
composition of Kosovo, Serbia began a re-colonization of Kosovo. Meanwhile, the rights of
ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo to receive an education in their own language was denied.
This was also added to other civil rights denials to ethnic Albanians, a group Serbians did not
officially recognize as a minority. As a large number of ethnic Albanians fled Kosovo while
numerous colonist Serb families moved into Kosovo, equalizing the demographic balance
between Albanians and Serbs for the first time since the 18th century.
During World War I, Kosovo was largely abandoned by the Serbian army and in turn occupied
by Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary. The Serbian Army retook Kosovo in 1918 and placed it under
the unified crown of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenians, which became the Kingdom
of Yugoslavia in 1929. Yugoslavia became a communist country in 1945 under the command of
Marshal Josip Broz Tito, who dealt with independence-minded residents by creating six
republics: Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. Kosovo
was given autonomy. Despite autonomy, the mistreatment of ethnic Albanians continued. A
large number of Albanians were driven from the country by the Tito government.
In 1989, Kosovo was stripped of its autonomy by the Yugoslav government of Slobodan
Milosevic, who sent in the army to quell political demonstrations by ethnic Albanians. Milosevic
replaced members of the Kosovar government with his own sympathizers. The move proved
largely ineffective and did not stop Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leaders from declaring
independence the following year. In response, the Milosevic government dissolved the Kosovar
provincial government, replaced government officials with Milosevic sympathizers, fired over
80,000 ethnic Albanian workers throughout the country and introduced a new Serb curriculum
on all higher education in Kosovo. Further, Albanian was no longer recognized as an official
language within the province. Albanian language newspapers were banned and Albanian TV and
radio broadcasts ceased to air.1
Kosovo remained largely quiet during the wars that marred the breakup of Yugoslavia. However,
in April of 1996, four attacks on Serbian security personnel were carried out simultaneously
throughout Kosovo. An organization calling itself the "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA)
subsequently claimed responsibility. The KLA launched a campaign characterized by urban
guerrilla warfare. They employed regular bomb and gun attacks on Yugoslav security forces,
government officials and civilians known to openly support the national government, this also
included “loyalist” Albanians who were non-sympathizers with the KLA. Most Albanians
supported the KLA, claiming them to be "freedom fighters" while the Yugoslav government
UGAMUNC 2009 10
labeled them as "terrorists" for carrying out attacks that targeted police and civilians. In 1998, the
KLA was named a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.
In March 1998, Yugoslav army units were dispatched to assist Serbian police in fighting the
separatists. In subsequent months, thousands of ethnic Albanian civilians were killed and more
than 500,000 fled their homes. The UNHCR estimated that 460,000 people had been displaced
from March 1998 to the start of the NATO bombing campaign in March 1999.2 The fighting was
also forcibly displaced a large number of ethnic Serbs, the Yugoslav Red Cross estimated more
than 30,000 non-Albanians were displaced in Kosovo.3
The United Nations estimated that by the end of the war, estimated that nearly 640,000
Albanians fled or were forcibly expelled from Kosovo between March 1998 and the end of April
1999. Numerous human rights groups called the expulsion of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo a form
of “ethnic cleansing”. Following a break
down in another round of negotiations
between Serbian and Albanian
delegations, NATO initiated a bombing
campaign involving nearly 1,000 aircraft.
All of the NATO members were involved
to some degree, including Greece, which
had publicly denounced the war. Over the
ten-week campaign, NATO aircraft flew
over 38,000 combat missions.
The proclaimed goal of the NATO
operation was to pressure the Yugoslav
security forces into leaving Kosovo. UN
Peacekeepers, who would assist in
resettling Albanian refugees, would
replace the outgoing Yugoslav troops.
The campaign was initially targeted
Yugoslav air defenses and high-value
military targets.4 By April of 1999,
despite the NATO bombing campaign,
NATO countries began to think seriously
about a ground operation, requiring an
invasion of Kosovo.
UGAMUNC 2009 11
Milosevic recognized that NATO was serious in its resolve to end the conflict through any
means and the possibility for Russian assistance was slim despite Moscow’s strong anti-NATO
stance. In mid 1999, Milosevic accepted the conditions offered by a Finnish–Russian mediation
team and agreed to a military presence within Kosovo headed by the UN, but incorporating
NATO troops. Since, June 10,
1999, a United Nations mission
has largely governed Kosovo. On
that date, the UN Security Council
passed UN Security Council
Resolution 12445, which placed
Kosovo under transitional UN
administration (UNMIK) and
authorized KFOR6, a NATO-led
peacekeeping force to ensure
stability in the region. Resolution
1244 promised Kosovo autonomy
within the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and later the Republic of Serbia.
February 17, 2008 marked the opening salvo in a new round of questions concerning the status
of Kosovo. The majority ethnic Albanian population declared its independence from the
Republic of Serbia and sought to establish its national sovereignty.7 The move was loudly
condemned by Serbia and resulted in violent riots in both Serbia and Kosovo.
Serbia greeted Kosovo's independence by pressuring the international community to condemn a
declaration it felt Kosovo had made illegally. The
Serbian government withdrew ambassadors from
any state recognizing the independence of Kosovo,
placing warrants on Kosovar leaders for treason, and
petitioning the International Court of Justice to
litigate the matter.8 Ethnic Serbs rioted in both
Serbia and Kosovo targeting mosques and other
cultural sites. One protest in Belgrade, the Serbian
capital, saw protesters storm and set fire to the U.S.
UGAMUNC 2009 12
The attack on the United States embassy was seen as a response by the Serbian peoples to the
United States' recognition of Kosovo's independence. The United States was one of 47 UN
member states to formally recognize Kosovo following its declaration of independence.10 The
remaining 145 UN member states have still yet to recognize Kosovo’s independence. The most
notable among these was Russia, a state that has long supported Serbia. President Vladimir Putin
responded to the recognition of Kosovo by major Western powers as "a terrible precedent which
will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades,
but over centuries".11 It is expected that Russia's refusal to recognize Kosovo will ultimately
derail any prospects of Kosovo attaining a seat in the United Nations. Russia is one of the five
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, a body that must unanimously
approve Kosovo’s ascendance.
Among NATO member states, 21 have formally
recognized Kosovo’s independence: The United States,
the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, Latvia, Germany,
Estonia, Italy, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, Poland,
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Iceland, Slovenia, Canada,
Hungary, Bulgaria, Norway, and the Czech Republic.
Five remaining NATO members; Spain, Greece,
Slovakia, Romania and Portugal have yet to, or refuse to,
recognize Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
NATO maintains that the ongoing Kosovo Force mission and mandate remain unchanged and
continues to operate under the agreement "between KFOR and the Republic of Serbia from June
Questions to Consider
1. Given the volatile nature of the Balkan region, should NATO pursue strengthened relations
with an independent Kosovo?
2. Serbia is member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program, recognizing such, how should
NATO consult with Serbia on the situation?
3. To what extent should other regional interests like Russia be engaged on dealing with potential
violence between Serbia and Kosovo?
4. Should KFOR continue to be involved in maintaining a peace in Kosovo?
5. Has your country recognized the independent status of Kosovo? If so, what measures should it
take to insure that Kosovo’s independence is maintained? If not, how should NATO approach
the situation between Serbia and Kosovo?
UGAMUNC 2009 13
Topic III: Russia/ NATO Relations
NATO Relations with Non-Member States
The North Atlantic Trade Organization was founded on the “desire to live in peace with all
peoples and all governments” (The North Atlantic Treaty). Since 1991, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization has been forming the foundation of positive, cooperative relationships with non-
NATO member states. The hope that is through the formation of fluid and continuous dialog
between members and non-members, NATO will begin partnerships that will overcome the
barriers limiting international cooperation constructed during the Cold War era.
Furthermore, NATO views the maintenance of peaceful relations with non-member states as a
step towards bolstering the security of member states beyond the borders of NATO. The main
framework through which these relations are maintained is that of various NATO commissions
and working partnerships. The main avenue by which NATO connects with non-member states
is through the fifty-nation Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Partnership for Peace. This
NATO initiative stimulates and maintains numerous bilateral relationships with non-member
states. More specifically, NATO has taken special care to form strong relationships with Russia,
Ukraine, Mediterranean countries, and Middle Eastern countries through specific bilateral
councils, the Mediterranean Dialog, and the Istanbul Cooperative Initiative.
Historical Background of NATO/ Russian Relations
The history of NATO-Russian relations began during the Soviet Era. The Warsaw Pact was
formed in response to NATO’s admittance of West Germany as a member state in order to
strengthen Soviet control over satellite nations as well as to ensure Soviet security in the area.
Members included the Soviet Union and Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, and East Germany. NATO members and Warsaw Pact allies were engaged in a nuclear
stalemate from the time of the Warsaw Pact’s conception until the close of the Cold War. In
1990, a reunited Germany declared that it would be maintaining its NATO membership and
consequently revoking its Warsaw Pact status. A matter of months later, in 1991, the Warsaw
Pact dissolved completely, thus marking the beginning of Post-Soviet NATO-Russian relations.
The NATO-Russia Council was formed in May 2002 at a summit meeting Rome. “The driving
force behind the NATO-Russia Council’s pragmatic spirit of cooperation is the realization that
NATO and Russia share strategic priorities and face common challenges” (NATO-Russia
Relations). “Key areas of cooperation include the fight against terrorism, defense reform,
military-to-military cooperation, counter-narcotics training of Afghan and Central Asian
personnel, theatre missile defense, crisis management and non-proliferation (NATO-Russia
Relations). The NATO-Russia Council (the NRC) was reaffirmed by both parties as a positive
and working relationship during the April 2008 summit in Bucharest.
UGAMUNC 2009 14
One of the most contentious issues throughout the history NATO-Russia relations is the
expansion policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The map on the following page
shows the progression and expansion of NATO over the past 50+ years.
The map to the left displays
member states categorized by the
year they were admitted into
NATO, the most recent indicated
by yellow-green and the least
recent by royal blue.
The map above clearly demonstrates that the trend in NATO expansion over the past half century
has been to reach into the South and East of Europe. NATO’s fairly recent encroachment upon
Eastern Europe has become a matter of contention in NATO-Russian relations. Due to
aggressive expansion policies on the part of NATO, Russia now shares a boarder with 6 member
states. This tension is only furthered by the fact that several Eastern European states have
recently been and approved for membership and potential membership status with NATO,
including Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Ukraine, and
Georgia, the latter two sharing direct borders with Russia.
NATO/Ukraine and NATO/Georgia Relations
The two potential members in particular, Ukraine and Georgia, have been the subject of much
debate within NATO as well as between Russia and NATO. These two former Soviet nations
have formerly requested Membership Action Plans from NATO. “The Membership Action Plan
(MAP) was launched in April 1999 to assist those countries which wish to join the Alliance in
their preparations by providing advice, assistance and practical support on all aspects of NATO
membership. Its main features are
The submission by aspiring members of individual annual national programmes on their
preparations for possible future membership, covering political, economic, defense,
resource, security and legal aspects;
UGAMUNC 2009 15
a focused and candid feedback mechanism on aspirant countries' progress on their
programmes that includes both political and technical advice, as well as annual 19+1
meetings at Council level to assess progress;
A clearing-house to help coordinate assistance by NATO and by member states to
aspirant countries in the defense/military field;
A defense planning approach for an aspirant that includes elaboration and review of
agreed planning targets. Which would be the first step toward membership. The eastern
European countries in NATO that were once part of the Soviet Bloc have been
encouraging this enlargement, while several Western European countries, led by
Germany and France, oppose the MAP offer” (NATO handbook).
Most recently, the focus of NATO-Russia relations has centered on the conflict arising from the
Russian military action taken against Georgia in August 2008. The conflict began when Georgia
deployed troops into South Ossetia, an area recognized by the UN as within the Georgian
boarder. Georgia took this military action in order to quell increasing separatist group and cross-
boarder violence. In this military process, Georgia encountered resistance from UN sponsored
Russian peacekeeping troops. Russia viewed the military action taken by Georgia as hostile to
Russia and responded with a swift and overwhelming invasion of Georgia expanding well
beyond the contentious boarder of South Ossetia. A special NATO ministerial session was called
in response to Russia’s actions. NATO’s conclusion viewed Russia’s invasion of Georgia as
“disproportionate” and “inconsistent with its peacekeeping role, as well as incompatible with the
principles of peaceful conflict resolution set out in the Helsinki Final Act and the NATO-Russia
UGAMUNC 2009 16
Founding Act and the Rome Declaration” (NATO-Russia Relations). Russian President Vladimir
Putin was quoted by the Interfax news agency as responding to criticism by stating, “What else
could we do? Do you think we should have wiped the bloody snot away and hung our heads?”
Despite Russia’s claims, NATO affirmed that Russia’s actions against Georgia were
inappropriate. Consequently, NATO suspended normal relations with Russia. NATO maintained
that Russia’s aggressive actions were not only disrespectful to Georgia’s sovereignty, but also to
NATO’s core belief to uphold the sanctity of civilian life. Through out the situation, NATO
stood firmly by all allies’ efforts to assist Georgia with humanitarian relief. Russia was slow to
withdraw from Georgian territory, but finally did so after more than a month of occupation. The
situation still remains tense.
Questions to Consider
1. How can NATO ensure a working peace with Russia in the future?
2. What is your country’s position on the expansion policy of NATO into Balkan and
former Soviet states?
3. What are potential alternatives to membership available to such states?
4. What are positive steps that should be taken to mend the NATO-Russian relationship
post-Russian invasion of Georgia?
5. How can NATO work to minimize Russia’s view of NATO expansion as aggression?
Suggestions for Additional Reading
http://www.nato.int/docu/ (NATO’s on-line Library)
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-russia/topic.html (NATO-Russia Relations)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/nato_expansion.html (NATO Expansion)