North Atlantic Council - "NATO's Enlargement Process" 1st Topic
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
North Atlantic Council
1st Topic:
“NATO’s Enlargement Process”
TOPIC AREA A: NATO’s Enlargement Process TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 3 Past NATO enlargements 4 The Enlargement Process 7 The current status of the Enlargement 15 Russia and the problems of NATO enlargement 21 Conclusion 23 Bibliography 24 North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 2 © 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations. All Rights Reserved. www.thessismun.org
Introduction NATO's enlargement is an ongoing and dynamic process which has been a top priority on the agenda of the Alliance, since its constitution in 1949. Through six rounds of enlargement, during and after the end of the Cold War, NATO's membership has expanded from its original line-up of the 12 founding members, to 281. The enlargement process has been based on the Open Door policy of the Alliance, which derives from Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. However, after the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, NATO recalibrated its strategy and reevaluated its goals for the future. In order to build a new policy on the enlargement and the subsequent preservation and strengthening of the Euro-Atlantic security, NATO published "The Study on NATO enlargement" in 1995. The Study set the new standards for the enlargement and established the modalities for the completion of this process2. With the creation of new partnership programs such as the Membership Action Plan (MAP), aspirant members can be prepared for an eventual membership by closely cooperating with the Parties, participating in missions and fulfilling obligations by the side of NATO members and partner countries3. The accession of new members to the North Atlantic Treaty is a complex and demanding process which is consisted of various stages ranging from intensified dialogue between NATO and aspirant members, to the ratification of the accession protocols of individual countries. During the last years, more and more countries deepen their ties and closely cooperate with NATO and wish to join the Alliance. Countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro are currently on the path of obtaining NATO membership while others work on democratic and/or military/defensive reforms in order to meet the standards of NATO membership. But NATO enlargement is facing some very important problems that could obstruct the expansion of the Alliance and may cause instability in the very subtle global balance of power. The Russian Federation is strongly opposing NATO’s eastward expansion as it considers it as a real threat and a gathering danger to its geopolitical interests and national security, warning that any further NATO expansion that will undermine Russian national interests will be met with immediate answer. 1 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm 2 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm 3 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 3 © 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations. All Rights Reserved. www.thessismun.org
Chapter 1: Past NATO enlargements
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established in April 1949, by
twelve countries, which also became NATO’s founding members: the United
States of America, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium,
Luxembourg, France, United Kingdom, Portugal and Italy. The signing of the
North Atlantic Treaty4 connected North America and Europe, over the Atlantic,
via a military alliance. NATO was created so as to protect Western Europe from a
possible attack from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, thus creating a
system of collective defense for its members5.
Article 10 of the Washington Treaty “opened the door” to European states
willing to assume the responsibilities and obligations that derive from being a
NATO member, thus creating a basic form of NATO’s Open Door Policy6 which
will be discussed extensively on the following chapter.
NATO enlargement during the Cold War
The Cold War was not only a battle of conflicting ideologies; geostrategic
interest was the base of any major decision between the two rivaling blocs. Since
its constitution in 1949, NATO was, and continues to be, the keystone of Euro-
Atlantic security, ensuring the stability and protection of the democratic states in
Western Europe.
The first round of enlargement, found NATO welcoming Greece and
Turkey as its new members, on February 18, 1952. The great geopolitical
importance of those two countries helped them achieve membership status, as it
was deemed that both countries had to be immediately aligned to the West7.
Moreover, NATO membership would ensure stability in the relations between
the two countries, which had experienced great animosity and several conflicts
in the past.
4 The North Atlantic Treaty, establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was signed in
Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949.
5 The system of collective or mutual defense of NATO derives from Article 5 of the North Atlantic
Treaty. Article 5 of NAT reads as following: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or
more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and
consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of
individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,
will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the
other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and
maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to
the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the
measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” (source:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm)
6 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm
7 Greece was the only non-communist country in the Balkans, but has just exited a destructive
civil war which left the country heavily divided between conservatives and communists thus in
great need of stability, and Turkey most importantly controlled the Soviet Union’s only access to
the Mediterranean.
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 4
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgOn May 6, 1955, the second enlargement of NATO was a fact, with West
Germany entering the ranks of the Alliance. The extremely important location of
the country, along with its steadily growing economy and its emerging industrial
power, made West Germany a valuable asset for the Alliance.
The accession of Spain to NATO signaled the third enlargement of the Alliance,
on May 30, 1982. After the restoration of democracy in the country in 1978,
Spain joined its neighbor Portugal in NATO, thus enabling NATO to effectively
control the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, a location of great strategic interest.
This would be the last round of NATO’s enlargement during the Cold War.
Post-Cold War NATO enlargement
The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact8, sparked
a great debate in the East and West about the purpose of existence of NATO in
the post-Cold War era. The main reason that it was created for; containing the
Soviet block and the communist expansion in Europe, was no more, leading to
many arguments that NATO had no reason to exist anymore. But events such as
the Gulf War in 1990-91, and the Bosnian War in 1992-95, led NATO to a
strategic re-evaluation of its purpose, tasks and area of action. NATO members
opted for collaboration and partnership with their former Warsaw Pact
adversaries in order to guarantee stability and security in the reformed
European continent. Forums for dialogue and bilateral cooperation were
established between NATO and ex-communist countries.
The first expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War, although it is
not considered as an enlargement round, was the admission of the reunified
Germany, on October 3, 1990. The former East Germany was now unofficially a
member of the Alliance through the whole of the reunified German state.
Through the cooperation with NATO, some countries expressed their
intention to join the Alliance. In 1995, the “Study on NATO enlargement” was
released, setting the new conditions and criteria for the accession of new
members to the Alliance.
On March 12, 1999, following intensive talks based on the findings of the
Study on NATO enlargement9, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined
NATO, resulting in the fourth enlargement of NATO, and the first official after the
end of the Cold War. In April 1999, NATO launched the Membership Action Plan
(MAP), a mechanism to help prepare aspiring NATO members for possible
membership.
8 The Warsaw Pact (or Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Defense) was a military
alliance treaty based on collective defense, between eight communist states of Central and
Eastern Europe. The members of the Warsaw Pact were: the Soviet Union, Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Albania. The Warsaw Pact was the
main adversary of NATO during the Cold War, and was established in 1955 as an eastern answer
to NATO.
9 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/ar/natolive/topics_49212.htm
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 5
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgAfter joining the MAP, a team of seven countries from the Vilnius Group10;
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia, were invited
to start accession talks at the Prague Summit in 2002, and subsequently joined
NATO on March 29, 2004, in what is known as the fifth round of NATO
enlargement. Croatia, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
which were also members of the Vilnius Group and participated in the MAP,
were deemed as not ready to join NATO at the time.
In April 2008, Croatia and Albania were invited to start accession talks, at
the Bucharest Summit. Eventually, Croatia and Albania formally became NATO
members on April 1, 2009. This was the sixth enlargement of NATO, and the final
to date.
Date Event Country
4 April 1949 Signing of the North USA, Canada, Belgium,
Atlantic Treaty Denmark, Norway, France,
Iceland, Italy, Portugal,
Luxembourg, The
Netherlands, The United
Kingdom
18 February 1952 First Enlargement Greece, Turkey
9 May 1955 Second Enlargement West Germany (Joined as
Germany on October 3,
1990)
30 May 1982 Third Enlargement Spain
12 March 1999 Fourth Enlargement Czech Republic, Hungary,
Poland
29 March 2004 Fifth Enlargement Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia
1 April 2009 Sixth Enlargement Albania, Croatia
Chart depicting the past NATO enlargements in chronological order, by date,
enlargement and country11
10 The Vilnius Group, created in May 2000, was a group of NATO candidate countries, aiming on
practical cooperation and exchange of information, and preparing its members for NATO
membership, as well as providing practical and political support to NATO in strengthening
security and stability in Europe. The group consisted of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia (joining the
group in 2001), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. (Source:
http://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/security/4494/4509/)
11 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 6
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgChapter 2: The enlargement process
The “Open Door” Policy
The whole concept behind the enlargement process lies on Article 10 of the
North Atlantic Treaty. Article 10 of the NAT, reads as follows:
“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.”12
The very essence of this article is that it creates the outline of the “open
door” policy that the Alliance used throughout the years, giving –as mentioned-
to any “European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to
contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”, the opportunity to accede
to the North Atlantic Treaty, and become a member of NATO. The goal of this
policy is to extend the zone of Atlantic- European security and stability to other
European countries, by keeping the enlargement process seemingly open to any
European Country who wishes to join the Alliance13.
During the Cold War, the “Open Door” policy was more flexible to the
accession of new members, mainly due to the fact that the main criterion for
their selection was their geostrategic/geopolitical value to the Alliance. But with
the end of the Cold War, and its aftermath, the “Open Door” policy’s main
philosophy basically remained the same, while the criteria associated with the
selection of new members became far more selective and the process of
accession fairly complex. With the 1995 “Study on NATO enlargement”, new
prerequisites for acquiring a membership were set, and the modalities of the
accession process were refined.
New mechanisms were established to help aspiring NATO members to be
prepared for a possible membership and to help them move on a carefully
planned accession itinerary. Those mechanisms are consisted by a number of
new partnership programs and dialogue fora (Partnership for Peace, North
Atlantic Cooperation Council, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Individual
Partnership Action Plans, Membership Action Plan etc.) which serve as a
preparatory stage for countries who wish to join NATO.
Despite of the fact that the mechanisms of the enlargement process have
changed, the spirit of the “open door” policy remained the same throughout
these years. The new Strategic Concept of the Alliance, adopted at the Lisbon
Summit in 2010, reaffirmed the Allies commitment that NATO’s door will remain
12 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
13 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/1999/9904-wsh/pres-eng/04open.pdf
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 7
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgopen to any European country willing and able to fulfill the commitments and
obligations of a NATO member, and to contribute to the Euro-Atlantic security
architecture;
“The door to NATO membership remains fully open to all European democracies
which share the values of our Alliance, which are willing and able to assume the
responsibilities and obligations of membership, and whose inclusion can contribute
to common security and stability”14
The 1995 Study on NATO enlargement
The enlargement of the Alliance is an ongoing and dynamic process15 that
transforms and adapts to the evolving and ever-changing global environment.
After the end of the Cold War, NATO enlargement was part of a crucial debate
concerning the future of the Alliance. The colossal changes witnessed by the
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the fall of communism and
the restoration of democracy in Europe as well as the destruction of the Berlin
Wall and the reemergence of Germany forced the Alliance to reconsider and re-
evaluate its strategy for the future.
In the context of this decision, NATO launched a research on the possibility of its
expansion in the post-Cold War environment, which resulted in the publication
of the “Study on NATO Enlargement” on September 3, 1995. The Study
concluded that the end of the Cold War provided a “unique opportunity to build
improved security architecture in the whole of the Euro-Atlantic area”16 and that
NATO’s enlargement would “provide increased security and stability for all”.
Through the 1995 Study’s principles on enlargement, it was made clear that the
ability to contribute to the Alliance security was not anymore the sole and most
important criterion for acquiring a membership17.
Most importantly, the Study set the main conditions, that if fulfilled would
guarantee that the enlargement would be beneficial both to NATO and the EU.
The first and most important condition was that the countries that aspired to be
NATO members had to be prepared to join the Alliance. That means that, any
country that wants to be a NATO member must fulfill some certain prerequisites
that will make her suitable for obtaining a membership. These requirements
included:
• The completion of their democratic reforms, and a stable democratic
political system18;
14 (2010), Strategic Concept for the Defense and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, Chapter 27, pp. 25-26
(Source:http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20120214_strategic-
concept-2010-eng.pdf)
15 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/ar/natolive/topics_49212.htm
16 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm
17 Simon Jeffrey, (2000), “NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) and prospects for the next
round of enlargement”, East European Studies (The Woodrow Wilson Center), no.58, p.19
(Source:http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ACF45B.pdf)
18 Chapter 1.A.3, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement
(Source:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_24733.htm)
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 8
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.org• To have settled ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes by peaceful
and legal means19 followed by a commitment to the peaceful resolution of
conflicts;
• The respect for human rights and the fair treatment of national minorities
and their subsequent rights20;
• The ability and willingness to contribute militarily in the collective
defense and operations of NATO and to help strengthen the role of the
Alliance in preserving the Euro-Atlantic security as well as to comply with
every other obligation that derives from membership to NATO21;
• A commitment to democratic civil-military relations and the
establishment of civilian and democratic control over the military,
followed by transparency in the defense planning and spending sector22.
As it is noted clearly throughout the Study, the ability of state to have resolved
any kind of dispute is greatly valued when the Parties are taking under
consideration whether to invite a country to join the Alliance, or not. Fulfillment
of those requirements set by the Alliance will bring an aspirant member state
closer to formal membership.
The second precondition set forth by the Study was that; any possible
enlargement would guarantee the continuation of the unhindered and smooth
interoperability of the Alliance. It is very clear that by expanding its membership,
NATO aims at strengthening “the Alliance's effectiveness and cohesion23” but
also to enhance the Alliance’s military capabilities in order to effectively perform
its functions and to effectively undertake missions related to contemporary
needs and emerging threats too (i.e. “… to undertake peacekeeping and other
new missions…”)24.
The third and last condition was that; the enlargement was not just a
process of extending individual security guarantees to individual countries, but
the desired effect would be to create and preserve a stable and secure
environment to the whole of Europe at the base of the renewing and
strengthening the Euro-Atlantic relationship, which nowadays is foundered on
the NATO- EU relations. It is evident that NATO considers the enlargement of the
European Union, as a parallel process to its own enlargement25, which in many
19 Chapter 1..B.6, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement
(Source:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_24733.htm)
20 Chapter 2.A.17, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement
(Source:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_24733.htm)
21 Chapter 5, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement
(Source:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_24733.htm)
22 Chapter 5.B.72 & Chapter 1.A.3, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement
(Source:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_24733.htm)
23“Strengthen the Alliance's effectiveness and cohesion; and preserve the Alliance's political and
military capability to perform its core functions of common defence as well as to undertake
peacekeeping and other new missions;” Chapter 1.B.4, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement
(Source:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_24733.htm)
24 See above Reference 13
25 According to Chapter 1.B.4, NATO enlargement should “complement the enlargement of the
European Union, a parallel process which also, for its part, contributes significantly to extending
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 9
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgcases works supplementary to the respective EU process26. The value of those
two parallel processes is measured by the level of security and stability, whilst
both parts collectively bring in the intrastate relations of the new democracies of
the ex-communist Eastern Europe, as a result of their membership in those two
institutions. It has been argued that the expansion of NATO is the forerunner of
the European Union’s expansion, as it is seen as the first step in the alignment of
a country to the Western system.
The Study on NATO enlargement also encourages the aspirant countries
to actively participate to its partnership programs, most notably the Partnership
for Peace (PfP)27 and the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC)28, “which
will both help prepare interested partners, (…) for the benefits and
responsibilities of eventual membership and serve as a means to strengthen
relations with partner countries which may be unlikely to join the Alliance early
or at all.”29 The role of those programs is crucial to the evolution of the
enlargement process, as many countries, now members of NATO, have first
actively participated in such programs and eventually earned their
membership30.
Through practice, NATO has established three steps that are needed to be
completed by the partner countries in order to acquire a NATO membership; the
Individual Partnership Action Plans, the Intensified Dialogue and eventually
the Membership Action Plan.
Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs)
The Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) initiative was launched at the
conclusion of the 2002 Prague NATO Summit. The IPAPs are developed on a two-
year basis and are designed to ensure a “comprehensive, tailored and
differentiated approach to the Partnership”31 and to support the domestic
reform efforts of partner countries which possess the political ability and will, to
further enhance their relationship with NATO.32 These plans are not only created
for countries aspiring to join NATO, but they are also developed in regard to
security and stability to the new democracies in the East.”
(Source:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_24733.htm)
26 Many countries which had first joined NATO, joined the European Union in the future,
indicating the close relationship of those two processes. As an example the Czech Republic,
Poland and Hungary joined NATO in 1999, and they subsequently became member-states of the
EU in 2004.
27 For more information on the Partnership for Peace program please visit:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50349.htm
28 The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) ceased its functions in 1997 and was
succeeded by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. For more information on NACC, please visit:
http://www.nato.int/cps/ru/natolive/topics_69344.htm
29 Chapter 1.B.4, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement
(Source:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_24733.htm)
30 For example, Poland joined the PfP in 1994 serving as the first form of interaction with the
Alliance. Eventually Poland was granted membership to NATO, in 1999.
31 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2002/p02-127e.htm
32 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49290.htm
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 10
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgcountries in need of the diplomatic resources and support to continue their
domestic reforms.
The IPAPs are not designed as a NATO integration mechanism but as
time-phased action plans, developed specifically for each partner country, that
create obligations toward the Alliance. Moreover, they give NATO the chance to
have an increased involvement, with the consent of the respective partners, “in
the planning, conduct, and oversight of projects in which they (the partners)
participate and to which they contribute”.33 An IPAP is created so that it clearly
outlines the cooperation objectives and priorities of the individual partner
country, and makes sure that the correct mechanisms are being implemented in
order to serve the corresponding priorities. The IPAPs objectives mainly focus on
addressing security, military, defense and political issues.34 IPAPs are also a
valuable tool in promoting the political dialogue between partner countries and
members of the Alliance, and are also useful in coordinating the respective
partner country’s efforts with other relevant international institutions.35
With the launching of the IPAPs’ mechanism, the Alliance urged their
partners to participate in it; special attention was given to the strategically
important regions of Caucasus and Central Asia.36 On November 22, 2002, one
day after the launching of the IPAPs, Ukraine agreed to an Action Plan with
NATO.37 Georgia was the first country to start implementing an agreed IPAP with
NATO, on October 29, 2004.38 Azerbaijan was the second country to agree to an
IPAP with NATO, on May 27, 2005, and updated its IPAP on March 7,
2008.39Armenia agreed on one on December 16, 2005,40 Kazakhstan on January
31, 2006,41 and Moldova on May 19, 2006.42 The next countries to agree on an
IPAP were Bosnia and Herzegovina (on January 10, 200843) and Montenegro (on
June 200844). All of the aforementioned countries were already members of
NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, before implementing the IPAPs.
Intensified Dialogue
The “Intensified Dialogue” is considered to be the preliminary stage
before the Parties and the partners can agree to a “Membership Action Plan”
(MAP). It is an addition to the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP), as it
offers the chance, to the partner countries, to engage to a more intense political
33 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2002/p02-127e.htm
34 Source: http://nisa.az/content/view/91/676/lang,en/
35 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49290.htm
36 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2002/p02-127e.htm
37 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/ar/SID-40166323-
FEE6CCD2/natolive/official_texts_19547.htm
38 Source: http://eu-
nato.gov.ge/index.php?que=eng/G_A_N_E/Individual%20Partnership%20Action%20Plan/IPAP
39 Source: http://nisa.az/content/view/91/676/lang,en/
40 Source: http://www.nato.mfa.am/en/actionplan/
41 Source: http://www.kazakhstanembassy.be/relations/with-nato
42 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49290.htm
43 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49290.htm
44 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49290.htm
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 11
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgexchange with NATO members45. These series of dialogues “cover the full range
of political, military, financial and security issues relating to possible NATO
membership, without prejudice to any eventual Alliance decision.”46
The Intensified Dialogue formula has its roots both on the 1995 Study on
NATO enlargement and on the 1997 Madrid Summit. According to the findings
and the conclusions of the 1995 Study on NATO enlargement, NATO members
agreed that one of the steps to a possible enlargement would be “intensified,
individual dialogue with the interested partners”47. Between 1995 and 1997, the
Alliance offered the chance of a dialogue with the interested partners, and talks
were held, that helped both the Alliance; to obtain useful information about the
capabilities and aspirations of the interested partners, and subsequently the
Partners; to reach a better understanding on the procedures of the Alliance, as
well as of what it is asked from them to be able to join NATO in the near future.
In the 1997 Madrid Summit, NATO leaders decided “to continue the Alliance’s
intensified dialogues with those nations that aspire to NATO membership or that
otherwise with to pursue a dialogue with NATO on membership questions.”48
Currently two partner countries are engaged in an Intensified Dialogue
with NATO; Ukraine (since April 2005) and Georgia (since September 2006).
Membership Action Plan (MAP)
The Membership Action Plan, often referred to as the “MAP”, is a program
launched by NATO at the 1999 Washington Summit, which aims to help aspiring
countries meet NATO standards and prepare for future membership.49 To be
more precise; “the MAP is a tailored program for aspirants, designed to help
build a roadmap to future membership, by offering active advice, assistance and
practical support to strengthen their candidacies.”50
The goals that a MAP sets are based on the findings of the 1995 Study on
NATO enlargement, meaning that the countries that agree to a MAP have to fulfill
certain criteria that the 1995 Study had originally introduced. Such criteria
include the democratic control of the country’s armed forces, the peaceful and
legal settlement of ethnic and territorial disputes etc.
MAP’s are tailored to suit each individual country’s needs for reforms and
unique situation, and are varied in length and set of goals. Countries currently
participating in the MAP, on the way to membership preparation, have to submit
individual annual national programs, which cover a wide array of issues such
as political, economic and defense aspects.51 The MAP offers to the participating
countries, a feedback mechanism on their progress that includes both political
and technical advice, as well as a provision for annual assessments from the
North Atlantic Council (NAC), on the basis of an annual progress report.52 Other
45 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/09-september/e0921c.htm
46 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1997/p97-081e.htm
47 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/1997/970708/infopres/e-enl.htm
48 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1997/p97-081e.htm
49 Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079718.html
50 Source: http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/NATO/fact5.html
51 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/eu/natolive/topics_37356.htm
52 Source: http://www.fas.org/man/nato/natodocs/99042451.htm
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 12
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgkey elements of the MAP program are; “a clearinghouse for coordinating security
assistance by NATO and by member states”53 and “a defense planning approach
for aspirants which includes elaboration and review of agreed planning
targets.”54 The North Atlantic Council is responsible for reviewing the
candidacies and ultimately deciding which countries are to be invited to
participate to the MAP.
So far all the countries that have participated in the MAP have either
joined NATO or are about to join the Alliance in the near future. Participation in
the MAP has been decisive in helping prepare the seven countries that joined
NATO in the 2004 enlargement55 as well as Croatia and Albania, which joined
NATO in 2009. Today, there are three countries participating in the MAP;
Montenegro which was invited to participate in the MAP in December 2009, the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which participates in the MAP since
April 199956, and Bosnia and Herzegovina that joined the MAP in April 2010.
The accession process
A very basic outline for the accession process of new NATO members can
be found in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 10 only provides us
with very basic information about how a new member is accepted to join the
Alliance; the complete process itself is a very complex and demanding one
indeed.
The North Atlantic Council, as the principal political and decision making
body of NATO, reviews the status of candidate members and upon consensus
decides which country to invite in order to begin accession talks with the
members of the Alliance. However, this is the start of the accession process
which is highlighted by some major stages; the accession talks, the deposit of
letters of intent to join NATO, the signing of accession protocols, the ratification
of accession protocols, the invitation from the Secretary General of NATO to the
candidate countries to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty, the accession of the
invitees to the Treaty and the formal acquisition of NATO membership by the
invitees.
The first step for the accession of new members is the conduct of
accession talks between the potential member and a NATO team. The accession
talks are a series of meetings between a team of NATO experts and the
representatives of the individual invitees, aiming to “discuss and formally
confirm their interest, willingness and ability to meet the political, legal and
military obligations and commitments of NATO membership.”57 The talks are
split into two sessions with each invitee; each session focuses on a special area of
interest. The first session covers political, defense and military issues while the
second session covers the more technical aspects of the accession such as legal
53 Source: http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/NATO/fact5.html
54 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-064e.htm
55 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia
56 FYROM is the only partner of the former Vilnius group to not have joined NATO until today.
57 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/2002/0211-
prague/more_info/membership.htm#top
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 13
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgissues and the contribution of the new member to the Alliance’s common
budget.58 The result of these talks is a timetable submitted by each invitee, which
designates the completion of the reforms that have been discussed in the earlier
talks with the NATO experts and that many of which may continue long after the
accession of the respective country to NATO.
After the accession talks, the invitees have to send letters of intent to
NATO, along with timetables which set the timeframe for the completion of the
agreed reforms. The letters of intent serve as a confirmation of the invitee’s
interest, willingness and ability to join the Alliance and fulfill the obligations and
commitments that derive from a NATO membership. The letter of intent is
submitted by the foreign ministers of the invited countries, and is addressed to
the Secretary General of NATO.
With the submission of the letters of intent, NATO will prepare accession
protocols for each one of the invited countries.59 These protocols are in fact
amendments to the North Atlantic Treaty that will be incorporated to the Treaty
once signed and ratified by the Alliance’s members. Once the accession protocols
are signed, they have to be ratified by NATO countries, according to their
national procedures and requirements.60
After the signing and ratification of the protocols, and their subsequent
acceptance to the North Atlantic Treaty, the Government of the United States of
America is notified61 as is procedure62. The Secretary General of NATO then
extends an invitation to the new countries to accede to the North Atlantic
Treaty.63
Following their invitation from the Secretary General, the invited
countries will have to ratify their accession protocols according to their national
procedures, and then to deposit their ratified accession instruments to the
Government of the United States of America. Upon depositing their accession
instruments to the Government of the USA, the invited members formally
become full members of the Alliance.
58 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/ar/natolive/topics_49212.htm
59 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/2002/0211-
prague/more_info/membership.htm#top
60 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/2002/0211-
prague/more_info/membership.htm#top
61 The United States of America is the depository of the Washington Treaty.
62 The procedure according to Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
63 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/ar/natolive/topics_49212.htm
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 14
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgChapter 3: The current status of the enlargement
Currently, there are three countries set to join NATO in the near future; Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
However the enlargement debate doesn’t stop on those countries; there are
many countries that are either being engaged in intensified dialogue with NATO,
others that have agreed and work on Individual Partnership Action Plans
(IPAPs) or others that are just participating in NATO partnerships programs (i.e.
Partnership for Peace) and that are active players in the NATO enlargement
debate. These countries are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Cyprus, Finland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden and Ukraine. In this chapter
we will briefly discuss about the current status of relationships between the
aforementioned countries and NATO.
Armenia
Armenia is currently working on a renewed Individual Partnership Action
Plan (IPAP)64, which was agreed with NATO in November 2011 and which was
jointly agreed for a two-year period.65 Armenia is also an active participant on
the Partnership for Peace program (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership
Council (EAPC).
Although Armenia seeks to enhance its political and practical cooperation with
NATO and further strengthen its relationship with the Alliance, it does not seek a
full membership in the Organization.66 There are many practical problems that
hinder a possible accession of Armenia to NATO. First, Armenia’s greatest
concern is that a possible NATO membership will worsen its relationship with
Russia; the latter being its main strategic partner.67 Armenia is also a member of
the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a Russian interest military
organization much like NATO. On the other hand, a possible Armenian
membership to NATO may be vetoed by Turkey, which has not established
diplomatic relationships with Armenia and is currently imposing an economic
blockade on the country, along with Azerbaijan.68
Azerbaijan
64 The first Individual Partnership Action Plan between Armenia and NATO was agreed in 2005.
65 Source: http://www.nato.mfa.am/en/actionplan/
66 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-7810FBA6-
08212942/natolive/topics_48893.htm?blnSublanguage=true&selectedLocale=uk&submit=select
67 Russia maintains a military base in Armenia, which contributes to the country’s security.
68 Source: http://www.ata-sec.org/homepage-main-news/420-bilateral-brief-nato-a-armenia
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 15
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgThe framework of cooperation between NATO and Azerbaijan is based on
the jointly agreed Individual Partnership Action Plan, which was established in
May 2005. Azerbaijan has been one of the first countries from the former Soviet
Union, to join the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program of NATO in 1995, and is
also participating in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.69 Until now,
Azerbaijan has no intention of joining the Alliance. Through closer and more
intense cooperation with NATO, Azerbaijan is seeking to achieve Euro-Atlantic
standards and to come closer with the Euro-Atlantic institutions.70 Although
negative on the prospect of joining NATO, Azerbaijan’s stance may be altered in
the future; "if Azerbaijan's national interests require membership of those
organizations, the country could become a member of NATO or even the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) - or remain neutral," Azerbaijani
presidential aide Gasanov, argued.71
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently participating in the Membership
Action Plan (MAP) program, and is set to join NATO sometime in the future.
NATO invited Bosnia to join the MAP in April 2010.72 Bosnia and Herzegovina is
also participating in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program since 2006, and
eventually agreed on an Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO, in
January 2008.73 Since 2008, the country has been engaged in an Intensified
Dialogue with NATO on its membership aspirations, as well as on membership
related military and political reforms.74
However, there is one defensive aspect that is impeding the accession of
Bosnia to the North Atlantic Treaty; the defense property issue. The North
Atlantic Council will accept Bosnia’s first Annual National Program only when
“all immovable defense properties identified as necessary for future defense
purposes”75 have been officially registered as state property.76
Cyprus
Cyprus is the only European Union member state to not have join NATO nor to
participate in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. In February 2011, the
Cypriot House of Representatives voted for the affiliation of the country with the
PfP program; however, the then Cypriot President D. Christofias exercised his
veto right to block the parliament’s decision.77 After the national elections of
69 Source: http://nisa.az/content/view/36/62/lang,en/
70 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49111.htm
71 Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/azerbaijan-not-to-join-nato_850713.html
72 Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8638794.stm
73Source:http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbri
efs/2008/01/11/nb-01
74 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/is/natolive/topics_49127.htm
75 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_62811.htm
76 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/de/SID-3B729FAF-
5E1A703B/natolive/opinions_100806.htm?selectedLocale=en
77 Source: http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/greek-studies/1442-partnership-for-peace-is-a-
strategic-necessity-for-the-republic-of-cyprus-.html
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 16
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgFebruary 2013, the new government of Nicos Anastasiades opted for a
rapprochement with NATO, stating that Cyprus aims to join the Partnership for
Peace program.78
By joining the PfP, Cyprus can partially alleviate the pressure from Turkey, as the
latter vetoes the participation of Cyprus in the joint meetings between the EU
and NATO, under the pretext that Cyprus is not a participant in the PfP program
of NATO.79 On the other hand, Cyprus is also a very special case of a country, as
its division serves as a confrontational matter between Greece and Turkey, both
of the latter being members of NATO.
Finland and Sweden
Both of the Nordic states of Finland and Sweden are cooperating
extensively with NATO (i.e. both are members of the NATO Response Force) and
are debating the possibility of joining the Alliance, but so far there is no clear
decision upon the future of both countries with NATO. Both governments briefly
discussed in 2009 the possibility of joining their neighbors, Norway and
Denmark, in NATO, in order to reinforce the Nordic defense cooperation.80 The
debate of joining NATO is sparking up due to the recent increase on the rearming
of Russia. But, should a NATO membership is to be sought both of the countries
are legally obligated by their constitutions as the accession issue should be
resolved by referendum; in both of the countries those in favor of NATO
membership are a minority.81 Also both countries have limited military
capabilities when opposed to NATO standards, which is making the accession a
rather complex issue as military and defensive sector reforms are needed.
On the other hand, Russia is concerned with NATO’s post-Cold War
expansions and is vociferous in the possibility of NATO expanding its reach so
close to its borders. As Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned; “new
participants emerging close to our border will change the parity and we'll have
to take this into account and respond to that…”82, in a summit of Nordic and
Russian leaders in Norway on June 2013.
FYROM
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia83, is currently participating
in the Membership Action Plan, since April 1999. It is the only country of the
2000 Vilnius Group that has yet to obtain a membership to NATO. FYROM was
one of the first countries to join the Partnership for Peace program, in November
1995 and has been a valuable partner of NATO providing host nation support to
78 Source: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130408/cyprus-eyes-natos-
partnership-peace
79 Source: http://www.affaires-strategiques.info/spip.php?article1050
80 Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130911/DEFREG01/309110013/
81 Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130911/DEFREG01/309110013/
82 Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/04/us-russia-nato-
idUSBRE9530UH20130604
83 Turkey recognizes FYROM with its constitutional name.
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 17
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgthe troops of the Kosovo Force (KFOR).84 Apart from the Vilnius Group, FYROM,
along with Albania and Croatia has helped create the Adriatic Charter.
At the Bucharest NATO Summit in April 2008, the members of the
Alliance recognized the progress of FYROM towards becoming a NATO member,
and unanimously decided that an accession invitation will be extended to the
country only if the name issue with Greece has been resolved in a mutually
acceptable manner.85 86 The decision taken at the Bucharest Summit of 2008 has
been reaffirmed more recently by the Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh
Rasmussen on May 2013; “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will
receive an invitation to join NATO as soon as the issue over its name has been
resolved. They know that.”87
Georgia
Georgia’s accession to NATO is one of the country’s top foreign and
security policy priorities.88 Since September 2006 Georgia is engaged in
Intensified Dialogue with NATO, in order to deepen its political exchange with
the Alliance and to help implement its Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP),
which was agreed in October 2004.89In order to help Georgia achieve its goal of
NATO membership, the NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC) was established in
September 2008.90 Also Georgia has been an active participant in the Partnership
for Peace program (PfP), since it joined it in March 1994.
At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO Allies unanimously decided that
Georgia should become a member of NATO.91 However the 2008 South Ossetia
War between Russia and Georgia served as major impediment in Georgia’s NATO
membership, as it compromised the Georgian Army’s poor military and
defensive capabilities and further complicated NATO-Russian relations; as a
result Georgia was not granted a Membership Action Plan so far.
In May 2013, Georgian Prime Minister Ivanishvili stated that the
aspiration of his government is Georgia to get a Membership Action Plan in
2014.92 However, in October 2013, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh
Rasmussen stated that Georgia would not become NATO member in 2014, but
will continue to implement its Individual Partnership Action Plan, and cooperate
closely with NATO.93
Kazakhstan
84 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/it/natolive/topics_48830.htm
85 Source: http://www.mfa.gr/en/fyrom-name-issue/
86 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
87 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/de/SID-3B729FAF-
5E1A703B/natolive/opinions_100806.htm?selectedLocale=en
88 Source: http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=453
89 Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/09-september/e0921c.htm
90 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52131.htm
91Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
92 Source: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66914
93 Source: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/22/rasmussen-no-nato-membership-
for-ukraine-georgia.html
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 18
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgNATO and Kazakhstan are practically cooperating on certain areas, via the
implementation of the latter’s Individual Partnership Action Plan94, agreed with
NATO in January 2006. The IPAP is agreed for a two-year period. The
cooperation between NATO and Kazakhstan takes place within the framework of
the Euro-Atlantic Council (EAPC).95 Kazakhstan is also cooperating with NATO
and other non-NATO partners through NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP)
program, which the country joined in May 1994. Kazakhstan is not aspiring to
obtain a membership to NATO, but continues to cooperate with the Alliance and
maintain good and stable relations with it, as it perceives that NATO is a possibly
guarantor of the country’s sovereignty and security.96
Kosovo
Kosovo is aspiring to join NATO, and despite the United States of America
support97 this scenario is not yet possible as it does fulfill two important
requirements; a full member status in the UN and a capable national military
force. In order to join the Alliance, or even participate in any partnership
program of NATO such as the Partnership for Peace (PfP), Kosovo needs a UN
membership which is a necessary condition for the acceptance of any new
member.98 Most importantly, four NATO members; Greece, Romania, Spain and
Slovakia do not recognize Kosovo’s independence something that could possibly
hamper any membership effort. Kosovo does not have yet an organized national
army effectively controlled by the government, and should it decide to form one
this decision should be taken along with the consent of NATO, for an eventual
transformation of the Kosovo Security Force (KSF) into Kosovo national army.99
Montenegro
Montenegro is currently working on a Membership Action Plan, which it
had received in December 2009. After its independence from Serbia in June
2006, Montenegro joined the Partnership for Peace program (PfP) and
eventually agreed to an Individual Partnership Action Plan in June 2008, before
engaging in Intensified Dialogue with NATO in April 2008. The biggest debate
upon the accession of Montenegro to the Alliance is the reform of the
Montenegrin security agencies and defense sector in order to meet NATO
standards100, and to effectively fight instate corruption and organized crime.101
Although Montenegro is believed to join the Alliance sometime in the near
future, the opinion of the populace is ambivalent; the recent memories of the
94 Sources: http://www.eurodialogue.org/NATO-relations-with-Kazakhstan
95 Sources: http://www.nato.int/cps/el/natolive/topics_49598.htm
96 Sources: http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav071100.shtml
97 Sources: http://en.ria.ru/world/20120405/172621125.html
98 Source:
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.php?yyyy=2013&mm=02&dd=05&nav_id=84531
99 Source: http://www.stripes.com/news/kosovo-aims-to-form-military-force-and-join-nato-
1.201794
100 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/eu/natolive/topics_49736.htm
101 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/de/SID-3B729FAF-
5E1A703B/natolive/opinions_100806.htm?selectedLocale=en
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 19
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.org1999 NATO bombings and its role on the eventual dissolution of Yugoslavia
weight heavily on the conscious of the Montenegrins, resulting in an unclear
image and hesitation for the future of Montenegro in NATO.
Serbia
Serbia has been a member of the Partnership for Peace program since
December 2006. Although Serbia is not aiming at obtaining a NATO
membership102, in May 2013 handed a draft IPAP which was met with positive
feedback from the Alliance and it is currently in the final stages of negotiating
with NATO on agreeing on its first Individual Partnership Action Plan.103 NATO
membership is a very subtle issue within the Serbian society, something that is
mainly accredited to the painful past associated with the Bosnian and mainly the
Kosovo war, and the NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999 in specific.
Ukraine
The cooperation between NATO and Ukraine has been based on the
framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) which was established in
1997.104 Ukraine is engaged in Intensified Dialogue with NATO since April 2005.
NATO and Ukraine agreed on an Action Plan in November 2002, in order for the
country to complete democratic and military/defensive reforms so it can join the
Alliance in the future. Ukraine has also been an active participant of the
Partnership for Peace program since February 1994.
At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO leaders welcomed Ukraine’s
aspiration for membership in NATO and agreed unanimously that Ukraine is to
become a member of NATO.105 A Ukrainian membership to NATO is seen by
Russia as an attack to Russian interests and is a matter of strong debate in both
countries. Also, the public opinion is against the possibility of Ukraine joining
NATO, while many perceive NATO as a threat to Ukrainian national interests.106
Until 2010 Ukraine had an active policy of pursuing NATO membership.
The election of Viktor Yanukovich marked a turnaround on Ukraine’s Euro-
Atlantic path, as Ukraine is not presently seeking membership to the Alliance,
choosing a “non-bloc” status policy while also maintaining strong cooperation
with NATO.107 Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated in October
2013, that Ukraine will not join NATO in 2014108, however the door to NATO will
remain open as was reaffirmed at the Chicago Summit in 2012, and as was
originally decided at the Bucharest Summit in 2008.
102 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/de/natolive/topics_50100.htm
103 Sources: http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/press-service/statements/12420-serbia-and-nato-are-
we-at-a-turning-point
104 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/is/natolive/topics_50319.htm
105 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
106 Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110848/Ukrainians-May-Oppose-Presidents-
ProWestern-Goals.aspx
107 Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/el/natolive/topics_37750.htm?
108 Source: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/22/rasmussen-no-nato-
membership-for-ukraine-georgia.html
North Atlantic Council – Topic Area A 20
© 2014 by University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, for Thessaloniki International Student Model United Nations.
All Rights Reserved.
www.thessismun.orgYou can also read
