Welcome Letter From The Secretary General
Welcome Letter From The Secretary General Kadir Has University Model United Nations 08-11 May 2015 www.hasmun.org Welcome Letter From Secretary-General Distinguished participants and guests, It’s my distinct honor and utmost pleasure to welcome you all to the second edition of Kadir Has University Model United Nations Conference, HASMUN, which will be held from the 8th to the 11th of May 2015 at our Cibali campus located at the heart of Istanbul , Turkey. For the past year, along with my wonderful colleagues ,we put a great effort on making the first ever HASMUN conference a remarkable experience for future editions. Last year, we held our first HASMUN conference successfully with over 200 high school and university participants. As the second year of HASMUN begins, we push the limits even further and expect to welcome more people from all around the world. HASMUN’15 Team would like to bring a higher quality of Model United Nations we seek for to participants and at the same time provide with a life-changing 4-day memorable experience in our charming campus located on the shores of Golden Horn. This year’s theme is “ Challenges facing the 21st century diplomacy and encouraging diversity fellowship” and HASMUN’15 offers four UN committees including United Nations Security Council, North Atlantic Treaty Organization ,Economic and Social Council, Social and Humanitarian Committee. Delegates of the United Nations Security Council and North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be chosen from experienced appliants and they will focus on international politics.On the other hand, Economic and Social Council will be consisted of high school students only because we strive to provide high school students with a better understanding of the inner working of the United Nations to foster skills and compromise. Social Humanitarian Committee are appeal for newcomers and experienced delegates.In addition to these four UN Committees, this year we have set up Justice and Home Affairs Council under the umbrella of European Union and additionally International Court of Justice.Law students are kindly welcomed to Justice and Home Affairs Council and the court whichwill tackle with law-based issues and try to have deep insight to human rights related problems. HASMUN’15 Team member have been chosen meticulously and we are working tirelessly to make your experience at HASMUN’15 one to be remembered. On behalf of the Academic and Operations Team, I kindly invite you to participate in the second edition of Kadir HasUniversity Model United Nations Conference, HASMUN’15. Warm Regards, Ecenur ORTAÇ Secretary-General HASMUN’15 [email protected] Kadir Has University Model United Nations 08-11 May 2015 www.hasmun.org Welcome Letter From Under-Secretary-General Distinguished Delegates, It is my honour and privilage to serve you as the Under-Secretary-General responsible for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. On behalf of the administration of the conference, I would like to welcome you all to the second annual session of the Kadir Has University Model United Nations Conference which is HASMUN’15 In this committee, we will be simulating the supreme decision-making body of the organization which is the North Atlantic Council to deal with two agenda. The first topic is Missile Defence and it is relevant to the very foundation aim of the organization to defend its allies from any further attacks. Since the proliferation comes to a level that give the parties to purchase the missiles cheaper, the treat become bigger for the alliance. So the Alliance needs to deal with this issue with an insurance policy like Missile Defence System but for further economical burdens of the system, the alliance must take bold steps. In this regard we are going to try to find solution to this matter in this conference. The second topic is NATO-Russia Relationship which is always at diary. After the Ukraine Crisis, NATO decided to end all the relations with the Russia as a response. The NATO-Russia Council also affected from that crisis by terminating its acts. But these acts are not seen sufficient from the international community, so in this conference, with the light of the events we are going to try to come up with a comprehensive propositions. The following study guide will provide you with the basic information not only about the conflicts but its sources and structures. We think that after reading this guide and make further research about your countries that you have assigned, you will be ready to debate fluently in this committee.We hope that this conference and the oppurtunity to debate a very controversial issue like this will help you to deepen your knowledge about the committee and the topics but also equip you with various useful skills such as leadership, cooperation, lobbying, self-expression and public speaking. For the preparation period of this study guide, I would like to mention and deliver my sincere thanks to Kutlu AKSU who is the academic assistant of the committee and also has contributed as much as he can to the guide and to our Secretary-General Ms. ORTAÇ for giving me this oppurtunity. We are looking forward to see you in Kadir Has University which has a beautiful breat-taking golden horn view.Please do not hasitate to contact us for your further questions via: ( e-mail adresses) Göksenin GÜNGÖR & Kutlu AKSU USG-NATO / Academic Asistant-NATO Table of Contents REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................15 1.INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE a) Foundation of the Committee After the World War II, the peaceful coexistance between communist East and the Capitalist West that happened for a comman enemy has given its place to the cold war in 1948, just 3 years after the end of the war. In February 1948, the communist party of the Czechoslovakia which was backed by the Soviet Union overthrew the demoratically elected government. In addition to this event Soviets blockaded Allied-controlled West Berlin. The rage in the Europe has come to an end with the aid provided by the Marshall Plan and the other means increased the volume of economic flow and fostered the degree of the stabilization economically. In the light of these events some of the European democracies decided to form various projects for more comprehensive cooperation and collective security. After few serial discussions and debates between countries, the North Atlantic Treaty was finally signed on the 4th April 1949. b) Member Countries NATO consist of 28 members today. Those are;Belgium(1949), Canada (1949),Denmark (1949), France (1949), Iceland (1949), Italy (1949), Luxembourg (1949), Netherlands (1949), Norway (1949), Portugal (1949), The Unıted Kıngdom (1949), The Unıted States (1949), Greece (1952), Turkey (1952), Germany (1955), Spaın (1982), Czech Republıc (1999), Hungary (1999), Poland (1999), Bulgarıa (2004), Estonıa (2004), Latvıa (2004), Lıthuanıa (2004), Romanıa (2004), Slovakıa (2004), Slovenıa (2004), Albanıa (2009), Croatıa (2009). c) Partners Dispite the member states, NATO work with several partners in worldwide. Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) This Council consist of both all NATO member states and the following partner countries; Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Malta, The Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Sweden,Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. -NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue These countries of the Meditarranean region are currently involved; Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunuisia. Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) Four members of the Gulf Cooperation Council have joined the alliance as the partners; Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates. Partners Across The Globe These partners are the ones which is not an element of the other structures, so the alliance called them the partner across the globe. These countries are as follow; Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mongolia. International Organizations Addition to these partnerships that listed above, The Alliance also works with several prestigious international organizations such as; United Nations, European Union, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. d) Structure NATO’s structure divided into to departmants as Civil and Military Structure as seen above. The Military wing’s supreme body is the Military Committee(MC). This body has established by the first Secretary-General of NATO to adress the upcoming wars just after the establishment of the Alliance such as Korean War. The Civilian wing represents the political side of the Alliance. The North Atlantic Council is the supreme decision making body of this wing and also it is the committee that we are going simulate in HASMUN’15. e) Decision-making System The Decisions in a comprehensive organization like this holds a strength. The system must be clear and quick enough to respond the conflicts when they are happening. So the allies, decided to have the North Atlantic Council’s system that depends on not on voting or the decisions of the majority but the basis of the unanimity and common accord. This means that the decisions made by the North Atlantic Council is symbolizes the common and collective will among the nations. This council is chaired by the Secretary-General of NATO and also it is one of the principal duties of him. In which level the council meets, the decisions are equal and have the same status and validity. In additon to the duty of deciding the acts of the organization, since this body is the only one that was established by the North Atlantic Treaty, it also carries the duty to establish subsidiary bodies, as it sees fit. As seen next, The Nuclear Planning Group has the comparable authority to the North Atlantic Council but it focuses to the spesific matters as nuclear policies, planning and the consultation procedures. The subjects which has debated by the bodies of the Alliance are written down to a paper called “Communique”. It carries a different form that you may be familiar from ModelUN conferences. Instead of the startings with phrasal verbs, they start with the “We” that reflects the common will and collectivity as seen in an example below; “We confirm today the preparedness of our Alliance to support, on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with our own procedures, peacekeeping operations under the authority of the UN Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for international peace and security. We are ready to respond positively to initiatives that the UN Secretary-General might take to seek Alliance assistance in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions . We have asked NATO's Secretary General to maintain in this respect, under the guidance of the Council in Permanent Session, the necessary contacts with the Secretary-General of the UN regarding the assistance that the Alliance could provide.” f) Evaluation of NATO’s Success With Its Interventions In this part, we are going to study NATO’s intervention to find out how successful the Alliances are in its missions. In this regard, we will have 3 different mission examples; Afghanistan, Kosovo and Gulf of Aden. The reason which we have chosen these missions are the missions are in different forms and different but current types. -Afghanistan Intervention The story begun with the 9/11 attacks that has been made in New York. USA called NATO for an emergency meeting and for the first time in the history of the Alliance call for the article 5. After some debates, in the Bonn Conference that was in December 2001, the ISAF1 has created. As known, Afghanistan was in the rule of the Taliban who said to have launched serial terrorist attacks worldwide so for the Alliance’s point of view the peace and security must be restored. On October 7th, air strikes began by British and American troops. Taliban was defeated by the Alliance and ISAF began to establish military bases in the whole country to establish peace and security for the people. Today, it is called as an international level conflict and more than 70 countries are involved in the conflict in different ways. If we want to look at the outcomes, we may face with some consequences. Firstly, in 2004, Taliban was defeated in general elections. Secondly, ISAF forces established police forces to become the country safer place and the main point of the ISAF mission is now disarming military and search for terrorists. Lastly, the mission have caused many civilian casualties since this its nature as a controversial mission. When it comes to evaluating the mission, the results will be as follow; many of problems remained as unsolved, military attacks by the Taliban fighters are still going on and they need to be pushed back, their own fights must not cause excessive civilian casulties, the military assistance and securtiy is essential for the civillian reconstruction, the farmers in Afghanistan are begining again to drug cultivation and also high corruption becoming as a dramatic problem for the Afghanistan’s future. Kosovo Intervention 1 ISAF(International Security Assistance Force) was one of the largest coalitions in history and is NATO’s most challenging mission to date. At its height, the force was more than 130,000 strong, with troops from 51 NATO and partner nations. Originally deployed to provide security in and around the capital Kabul, ISAF’s presence was gradually expanded to cover the whole country by the second half of 2006. As ISAF expanded into the east and south, its troops became increasingly engaged in fighting a growing insurgency in 2007 and 2008, while trying to help Afghanistan rebuild. In 2009, a new counter-insurgency was launched and 40,000 extra troops were deployed. For further information: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_69366.htm The supression of the Kosovo Albanians by the Serbians led to the problem. In 1996, Albenian Liberation Army decided to resist with the goal of independence from Serbia. In the following years, Albanian Liberation Army begin to action with the attack open Serbian police. Outcomes of these actions were the systematic massacre against the Albanians especially women, children and mostly civilians and Albanians expelled from the country. In October 1998, observers of the OSCE declared these actions as ethnic cleansing. In these regard, all of the efforts of the international society stayed unsuccessful. NATO threats with a military intervention also. But in 24 March, NATO’s intervention begun with the bombards. First attempts were eleminate the targets and secure the important areas of mineral resources. The strikes were directed to the key areas like bridges, roads, airports, factories and military targets to prevent any movement of Serbian Army. Outcomes of the intervention by the KFOR2 are the refugee problem that consist of 1.2 million civilian that were on the run, regime change in Serbia and the infrastructre of the Serbia was harmed hardly when the conflict happens and still the Serbia suffers economically from the war. The evaluation of this intervention is that firstly NATO attacks were named as illegal by the United Nations Security Council because there was no permission and before the intervention the Albanian paramilitary organization supported and used by NATO to legitimize the intervention. -Gulf Of Aden Invervention 2 Today, approximately 4,500 troops from the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR), provided by 31 countries continue to work towards maintaining a safe and secure environment and freedom of movement for all citizens and communities in Kosovo. Throughout Kosovo, KFOR is cooperating and coordinating with the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and other international actors to support the development of a stable, democratic, multi-ethnic and peaceful Kosovo. In April 2013, Belgrade and Pristina reached an Agreement on Normalisation, which is helping to improve relations between both parties while giving momentum to the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans. NATO and KFOR stand ready to support the implementation of this agreement within its means and capabilities. For further information: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48818.htm In 2008, gulf of Aden hosted many piracy events. Many merchant ships were attacked in multiple acts(120 pirate assaults, 35 stolen ships, 600 hostages). With the light of those events, UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon requested NATO to involve the crisis for faster response. Because, the aids that has sent from UN to Somalia which has suffered in these years a lot are stolen, the UN World Food Program has seen as endangered. NATO shared this point of view and also some of NATO’s member countries citizens are also taken as hostage including USA and Turkey. So the NATO Defence ministers agreed on UN’s request and run 2 operations: “Operation Allied Provider” 3 and “Operation Allied Protector”. On 5 October, Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 has crossed the Suez Canal, 3 ships of SNMG2 permanently patrolled the Gulf of Aden. As the outcomes of this intervention, 30.000 metric tonnes of humanitarian aid delivered safely to Somalia, any piracy has not recorded to the ships that carry the WFP food since the escorting starts, NATO is now working on new emerging for the comprehensive solutions also emerging cooperation between the international actors on piracy acts. If we want to evaluate the mission, fisrt thing t say is the success of this mission and it was recorded as one of the most succesful mission in the history of the Alliance, and the mission brought trade stability to the region in term of the ensuring the international trade but on the other hand, the roots of the piracy problems stay unsolved since the most of the pirates’ are Somalian and the intervention is not for the mainland of Somalian mainland, so the conflict of piracy and the poverty still remaining in the region. 3 Over time, the operation has evolved to respond to new piracy tactics: the March 2012 Strategic Assessment, for instance, highlighted the need to erode the pirates’ logistics and support base by, among other things, disabling pirate vessels or skiffs, attaching tracking beacons to mother ships and allowing the use of force to disable or destroy suspected pirate or armed robber vessels. With Operation Ocean Shield, the Alliance has also broadened its approach to combating piracy by offering, within means and capabilities to regional states that request it, assistance in developing their own capacity to combat piracy. This capacity building contributes to a lasting solution to piracy and is in line with regional ownership. NATO is not a lead actor in regional capacity building, but it provides added value in niche areas such as military training, command and control, and coordination in complex situations which can benefit countries in the region. NATO is therefore taking advantage of port visits to provide training and conduct ship-rider programmes for the local population. For Further information: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48815.htm?selectedLocale=en AGENDA ITEM 1: MISSILE DEFENCE INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC A: MISSILE DEFENCE Missile DefenceBefore we begin to the introduction to the topic, understanding the classification of missiles is vital point. So we eould like to start with the classification of the missiles to answer all further questions in your minds as the differences between each other. a) Classification of Missiles Missiles are commonly classified according to their types, launch modes, range, propulsion, warhead and the guidance systems. The main classification is the one which on the basis of their types. There are two types of missiles as, Ballistic Missiles and Cruise Missiles and the rest of the classifications listed below; Launch Mode: -Surface-to-Surface Missile -Surface-to-Air Missile -Surface-to-Sea Missile -Air-to-Air Missile -Air-to-Surface Missile -Sea-to-Sea Missile -Sea-to-Surface Missile -Anti-Tank Missile Range: -Short Range Missile -Medium Range Missile -Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile -Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Propulsion: -Solid Propulsion -Liquid Propulsion -Hybrid Propulsion -Ramjet -Scramjet -Cyrogenic Warhead: -Conventional -Strategic Guidance Systems: -Wire Guidence -Command Guidance -Terrain Comparison Guidance -Terrastrail Guidance -Inertial Guidance -Beam Rider Guidance -Laser Guidance -RF and GPS Reference The main classification as we referred above is type of missiles and the Ballistic Missiles are going to be our main issue as we are talking about the missile defence. b) Evaluation Of The Importance Of Missile Defence With The Cold War Example During the Cold War, USSR and USA has come really close to the edge of the nuclear war several times with regards to the armament race. Since your rival’s armament means a threat to your security and pacify your current capability, this process becomes a race, a kind that even the superior party does not want to loose its advantage towards the rival. Just after the World War II, USSR wanted to develop its own nuclear weapon and achieved this goal in late 1940s. In the begining of the 1950s, US announced its hydrogen bombs and as an answer, USSR tried to reach this capability and just several years later they have achieved it. Since USA has maintained its advantage during this process, they also desired to reach all the USSR soils with the range of their missile’s, USSR’s respond was to launch the Sputnik missile to the space to show their capability of shooting them where ever they launch the missiles. In addition to the very short summary of the the process that is stated above, we also wanted to empower the image of the our aim with an historical agreement; SALT. As known the outcome decision of the treaty was to inactive the missile defence systems of both USA and USSR to ensure the security and to establish the trust. c) NATO Missile Defence System In NATO 2010 Lisbon Summit assembled under the theme of “NATO’s New Strategic Concept”. During the Summit the allies were talking about the future proplems that the Alliance may face. One of the key challanges is the increase of the proliferation level through the Europe border. In this regard, the representative of the United States has offered a missile defence system as the capability of the Alliance. The pupose of the this proposal was to serve to the Alliance’s core task of collecive defence. To do so, Allies decided in the Declaration4 of the Lisbon Summit as: “36. The threat to NATO European populations, territory and forces posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles is increasing. As missile defence forms part of a broader response to counter this threat, we have decided that the Alliance will develop a missile defence capability to pursue its core task of collective defence. The aim of a NATO missile defence capability is to provide full coverage and protection for all NATO European populations, territory and forces against the increasing threats posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles, based on the principles of the indivisibility of Allied security and NATO solidarity, equitable sharing of risks and burdens, as well as reasonable challenge, taking into account the level of threat, affordability and technical feasibility, and in accordance with the latest common threat assessments agreed by the Alliance. 37. To this end, we have decided that the scope of NATO’s current Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) programme’s command, control and communications capabilities will be expanded beyond the protection of NATO deployed forces to also protect NATO European populations, territory and forces. In this context, the United States European Phased Adaptive Approach is welcomed as a valuable national contribution to the NATO missile defence architecture, as are other possible voluntary contributions by Allies. We have tasked the Council to develop missile defence consultation, command and control arrangements by the time of the March 2011 meeting of our Defence Ministers. We have also tasked the Council to draft an action plan addressing steps to implement the missile defence capability by the time of the June 2011 Defence Ministers’ meeting. 38. We will continue to explore opportunities for missile defence co-operation with Russia in a spirit of reciprocity, maximum transparency and mutual confidence. We reaffirm the Alliance’s readiness to invite Russia to explore jointly the potential for linking current and planned missile defence systems at an appropriate time in mutually beneficial ways. NATO missile defence efforts and the United States European Phased Adaptive Approach provide enhanced possibilities to do this. We are also prepared to engage with other relevant states, on a case by case basis, to enhance transparency and confidence and to increase missile defence mission effectiveness.” As seen above in the declaration, current sysytem’s capability has expended. Therefore, Allies agreed upon a plan that will covered by the common economic effort by the allies in 10 years of process. The estimated total cost of the Ballistic Missile System has calculated as 200 million € (260 million $ with the currency of that day). In June 2011, Defence Ministers approve the NATO Ballistic Missile Defence Action Plan as the significant first step. Followingly, Turkey announced that they can host US-owned missile defence radar as one of the NATO Ballistic Missile Defence capability. During the same month, United States and Romania agreed upon to base a US Aegis Ashore System in Romania, also Poland signed an agreement with US to enter into force and The Netherlands announced that they will upgrade their four air-defence frigates with extended long range system for the aim of national contribution to the system. A few months later, in October, Spain and US announced that US Aegis Ashore Ships will be ported in Rota, Spain. At the begining of 2012, Germany offered its Patriot air and missile defence systems with the aim of national contribution to the system. 4 (see: Lisbon Summit Declaration http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_68828.htm) In April, NATO succesfully tested the command and control architecture for the Interim Capability in the Air Command HQ Ramstein, Germany. In May, at the NATO Chicago Summit, NATO members signed the decleration of Interim BMD Capability. In December, as the result of the ongoing civil war in Syria, the conflict reflected to its biggest border neigbour, Turkey. Therefore, NATO decided to protect its ally which carries an important role with its geo-strategical location. In this regard, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States deployed Patriot air and missile defence systems to eastern Turkey. In 2013, US Aegis Ashore system has grounded to Deveselu, Romania and the United States announced that its act of revision of EPAA. In the first part of 2014, first and second US Aegis is stationed in Rota,Spain. Then Denmark announced its decision to acquire ship-based radars for NATO Ballistic Missile Defence. Lastly, In the NATO Summit in Wales, the Allies revised the basic points for the NATO BMD and also discussed upon additional contribution that offered or decided by the Allies. As you see above the main and vital point here is not to have a Missile Defence System among the Allies but to connect them under the roof of a stronger network system. Because, 30 countries already has this capability and some of them are allies. “The aim was to put al these capabilities in one single network, so this all capabilities would become more effective and efficient by working in such network. By doing that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. “(Ludwig Decamps, Head of Armaments Programme Support Section) Therefore, when the allies contributes to the system one by one, the system becomes more comprehensive and stronger. d) Components of Missile Defence System -Infrared Satelite -Communication Stalite -Communication System -Ground Station/Command Station -Missile Sensor Systems -Shooter/Interceptor Missiles e) How The Missile Defence System Works? This process is the written version of NATO’s introduction video which you can see in the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LPdmxnBkIU We will explain this process via a case simulation step by step; When the missile (the threat) launches to a location which NATO wishes to defend, missile’s heat signatures detected by a space-located infrared satelite, The information is transfered to a ground station(most likely to HQ) for processing, Then the information is sent to the communication network which in turn transfers to all neccessary sensors in weapon systems, Since the missile’s engine eventually burns out, the infrared satelite can no longer detected, So, the long range range sensors get involved such as land-based and sea-based systems, Then this systems continue to track the missile and transfer information to weapons and to command and control system to let them calculate the firing solutions, Since there will be variety of factors, the upper layer shooter may or may not engage to the missile but lets continue with lower shooters, The information becomes contiunallty being shared among all the network system, as this tracking continues, of course the greater and greater accuracy achieved. The upper layer sensor are updated information to the lower layer systems an d shooters, As the missile continues on its path, lower layer sea-based and land-based sensors continue to track it, Finally, a lower layers shooter that has seen fit engages and destroys the missile. The best part of this system is that the whole process occurs in a few minutes. a) Funding NATO and MD System Allies can directly or indirectly make financial contributions to the Allience for its costs of running the activities and implementing its policies. Indirect contributions normally the largest incomes of the Alliance, for instance to volunteer equipments or troops to a military operations holds a serius costs. Direct contributions are used by the Alliance for the financial requirements that serve the interests of all 28 Members. The Costs are being shared by 28 Members according to an agreed sharing formula that is based on GNI (Gross National Income) which symbolizes a small percentage of each member’s defence budget. As you see from the next table that shows the sharing procedure the era between 1/1/2014 and 31/12/2015. The costs are sharing collectively but according to their defence budgets to have the same amount of burden to each member’s budgets. For instance, when Albania holds 0.0870 amount of costs, United States holds can hold 21.7394 percentage of the costs that is slightly more than one of five of the total costs. The Costs are divided into three groups as you can see from the table as Military Budget, Civil Budget and NSIP5( The NATO Security Investment Programme). The Military budget of the Alliance covers the expenditures of Military committee, the Military Agencies, International Military Staff, the two strategic commands, control and informations systems, theatre headquarters for deployed operations etc and the military budget of 2015 is € 1.2 Billion. The Civil Budget covers the costs of Headquarter, personnel expenses and operating costs. The Civil Budget for 2015 is € 200 Million. The NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP) covers major construction and command and control investments that are beyond the national defence requirement of individual member states. The NSIP budget for 2015 is € 700 million. b) Conclusion As we stated above, the issue of Missile Defence holds an important role for the Alliance as one of the most important capabilities of NATO. At the Lisbon Summit, NATO announced its plans for an alliance missile defence system and today, by the time and contributions become an important part of the Alliance’s collective security. However, the economic burden of the system has mostly carried by United States. The politicy that desires to rebalance of American attention from Europe to Asia and with respects to the automatic budget cuts that are called sequstration, US readiness to fund a NATO missile defence system is constantly decreasing. Future US governments are likely to significantly cut their MD funds also, the European members with their own rapidly shrinking defence budgets, are neither willing nor able to step in by procuring thier own components, the future of the entire NATO MD project is at stake. “NATO’s political leadership will have to take bold decisions to avoid the missile defence project from turning into a Potemkin’s village” 5 c) Questions to Consider Does your country have its own missile defence system? Does your country believes the need of such system’s? The NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP) covers major construction and command and control system investments, which are beyond the national defence requirements of individual member countries. It supports the roles of the NATO strategic commands by providing installations and facilities such as air defence communication and information systems, military headquarters for the integrated structure and for deployed operations, and critical airfield, fuel systems and harbour facilities needed in support of deployed forces. The NSIP is financed by the ministries of defence of each member country and is supervised by the Investment Committee. Projects are implemented either by individual host countries or by different NATO agencies and strategic commands, according to their area of expertise. The 2015 ceiling for the NSIP is €700 million. For Further information: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en Does your country contributes to the current NATO Missile Defence System? What your country thinks about the future of the Missile Defence System? Can your country contribute more to the system with direct or indirect means? Which measures sould be taken to reach a fair burden-sharing of MD system that is also able respond to the future threats that NATO may face? AGENDA ITEM 2: NATO-RUSSIA RELATIONS INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC B: NATO-RUSSIA RELATIONS After the collapse of former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991, NATO remained as the only largest military union all over the world. Purchase to bipolar world did not mean the ending of the existence of NATO. Instead of ending, the organization choosed to adopt current new order by creating new policies such as open door based expansion or fight against terrorism. Particularly, fight against terrorism has been pointing very mutual concerns of all states and international community. That is why, many states even the continuation of USSR the Russian Federation has been acting with Nato appropriately in sort of common interests. In order to conduct the wide range of collaboration between USSR and NATO in common interests, in 2002 NATO-Russia Council is found as the continuation of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security Forum.6 Picture:17 CRUCIAL AREAS IN NATO-RUSSIA RELATIONS 6 http://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html 7 http://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/news/index.html There are sort of key points in NATO-Russia relations which are conducted by NATO-Russia Council in order to extend the cooperation between parties and create a developed comprehension. These certain areas mainly have purpose address to common interests such as protection of civil people in case of unwanted circumstances and problems of all of the world “terrorism.” Furthermore to be able to create an extended confidence between NATO Alliances and Russia cooperation in Nuclear issues, such as sharing of experiences, are in the agenda of NATO-Russia Council as well. 1-Russia’s support for ISAF and Afghan Security Forces In 2008, Russia supported the ISAF forces in Afghanistan by allowing the passing of several equipments of ISAF from Russian territories as transit state. In addition to in March 2011, NATORussia Council leaders agreed on Russia’s supports and maintenance to Afghan Security Forces’ helicopter flee. In this project; Turkey, United States, Italy, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany and Croatia participated as donor states. The total amount of these donation was approximately $23 million. 2- Counter-narcotics training of Afghan and Central Asia Security Personnel This project was started by The Nato-Russia Council Foreign Ministers in December 2005 to fight against the trafficking in Afghan narcotics. In that way a local capability and regional networking and cooperation were tried establish with the expertise of seven member states Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajiskistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. At the same time United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) cooperated the project. Training institutes were founded in Russia, United States and Turkey. 3- Fight Against Terrorism Action Plan to fight against terrorism was started by Nato-Russia Council Foreign Ministers in December 2004 in order to create wide range of coordination and strategic cooperation in this area. In that pathway, an information exchange system was developed to control the air activities and help against to prevent terrorist attacks just like 9/11 attack to United States of America. In scientific and technical meaning, Russia and Nato collaborated on the STANDEX project. This STANDEX project has a purpose of developing a technology “that will enable the stand-off detection of explosive devices in mass transport environments.” 4- Issues Related to Nuclear Weapon NATO Alliances and other parties primarily Russia are creating nuclear strategy and exchanging views which are based on experiences of these states. In that way extended sharings of lessons taken from nuclear incidents and accidents among the states that have nuclear capability are provided. At the same time emergent response to nuclear weapon incidents was discussed in June 2011 with the participation of NATO Alliances and Russia. Also in the meeting, increasing of the policy of transparency and developing of common understanding in nuclear issues were put forward and considered. In that way full confidence among the states that have capability to produce nuclear weapon was tried to be provided. 5- Industrial Cooperation on the Issues Related to Defense A Project called “NATO-Russia Defence Industrial and Research and Technological Cooperation” 8 was started in January 2005 and in 2007 the Project was ended. As a result of the project, it is concluded that there was a great potential that could address to global threats in terms of technological and scientific capabilities. 6- Civil Emergencies From 1996 to 2014 NATO and Russia cooperated in order to create a capacity to joint response to civil emergencies just as earthquakes and floods. Also prevention of these disasters before they come to occurrence was in the agenda. In 1998, “Euro Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre” 9 was found in order to coordinate the joint actions conducted by NATO Alliances and Russia in case of emergencies. At the same time within the framework of NATO-Russia Council, joint actions were conducted in order to fight against the results of terrorist attacks. As instances for these joint actions Fighting Floods in Georgia 2005, Pakistan Earthquake Relief Operation 2005, Earthquake in Turkey 2011 and Forest Fires in Bosnia Herzegovina in 2013 could be given. 7- Creating Public Awareness In order to inform the people of the world about the cooperation between NATO Alliances and Russia, public campaigns were held and a website of NATO-Russia Council http://www.nato-russia- council.info/ was found. MILESTONES IN NATO-RUSSIA RELATIONS 8 http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20141008_140108SummitGuideWales2014-eng.pdf 9 Ibid. It is obvious that from the “end of Cold War in 1991” to “Ukraine Crisis 2014”, there had been an increasing cooperation between NATO and Russia relations. These cooperation were firstly carried by North Atlantic Cooperation Council. By the establishment of NATO-Russia Council, it is argued that the cooperation between NATO and Russia had shifted thorough a different and more creative dimension. In this point the milestones-which are the officially accepted by NATO- of this relation could be given year by year as in below: 1991- Following to the end of Cold War Russia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Picture:210 1994- Russia joined the Partnership for Peace (PfP). 1996- Russian troops took a part in NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1997- Russian and Alliance of Nato leaders signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations and Security at a summit in Paris. At the same Permanent Joint Council (PJC) was established. 10 http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/1992/m920604a.htm- North Atlantic Cooperation Council-1991 1998- Russian diplomatic mission to Nato was established. Also memorandum in the meaning of scientific and technological cooperation was signed. 1999- Due to Nato’s Kosova air campain, Russia put aside its participation in PJC for a few months. 2000- New president of Russia Vladimir Putin stated that he will work with Nato in a mentality of Pragmatism. 2001- Russian President Putin was the first world leader called The USA President George W. Bush after September 11 terrorist attack to USA. Russia had opened its airspace to international coalition targeting the terrorist groups in Afghanistan as well as its intelligence contribution. 2002- Nat founded a Military Liaison Mission in Moscow. Russian and Nato Alliances Leaders signed a declaration pertaining to “Nato-Russia Relations: A new Quality” at a summit in Rome. Also PJC was replaced by NATO-Russia Council (NRC). 2003- As a first time an Nato-Russia Council meeting is held in Moscow. An agreement which refers to the rescue of submarine-crew was signed between NATO and Russia. In Balkans, Russian troops were decided to withdrawn from Nato-led peacekeeping forces. 2004- In Colorado Springs, United States, the first Nato- Russia Council misile defence post exercise took place. Also Russian Federation offered to support Nato’s maritime counter terrorist operations at the Nato-Russia Council meeting in Istanbul. For very first time time interoperability courses were held in Moscow. A detailed action plan in order to fight against terrorism at the framework of NatoRussia Council was created. Foreign Ministers of Nato-Russia Council issued a statement which expresses the common concerns pertaining to the elections in Ukraine. 2005- Inoperability between NATO and Russia had been increased in strategic, tactical and operational level. The second missile defense exercise took place in Netherlands. 2006- In Sofia sort of priorities and advices were agreed to guide the NRC’s future works. For a first time a Russian frigate was sent to Mediaterraine to support Operation Active Endeavour.11 2007- The ratification of “PfP Status of Forces Aggrement” was done by Russian Parliament. This year refers to the 5th anniversary of NATO-Russia Council. Also in this year for a second time a Russian frigate was sent to Meditrainne in order to support the Operation Avtive Endeavour. 2008- Russia contributed ISAF forces by providing them transition. Following to the Russia’s military action to Georgia sort of the works of NATO-Russia Council was put aside in August 2008. However in key areas the collaboration between NATO and Russia was continued specifically in terms of fight against narcotics and terrorism. Picture:412 11 http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20141008_140108SummitGuideWales2014-eng.pdf 12 https://fmashiri.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/russia-nato.jpg This cartoon refers to the situation of NATORussia Council after Georgia intervention 2009- It was agreed that formal meetings between NATO and Russia has to be resumed as well as practical cooperation at the framework of NATO-Russia Council. 2010- For the very first time a political advisory forum was held in Rome in June. In July a military committee with the presidency of Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola visited Moscow to meet with the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation Armed Forces in order to discuss about military cooperation at the framework of NATO-Russia Council. 2011- Foreign Ministers of NATO-Russia Council meet in Berlin in April in order to discuss about the situation in Libya and Afghanistan at the same time the future of missile defense cooperation between NATO and Russia. Also NATO-Russia Council action plan against terrorism was updated. NATORussia Consolidated Glossary of Cooperation (NRCCGC) was started to support the military and political cooperation between NATO and Russia. Picture:513 13 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_72654.htm NRC meeting in Berlin-2011 2012- Russia Federation sent a special representative to ISAF meeting in at the NATO Chicago Summit in May. Foreign Ministers of NATO-Russia Council agreed to the increasing of cooperation between NATO and Russia in December for the collaborated work programme for 2013. 2013- NATO Secretary General Rasmussen met Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in order to discuss the way to strengthen the dialogue between NATO and Russia in February. Foreign Ministers of NATO-Russia Council exchanged views about global security issues such as North Korea and Syria in April. Picture:614 2014- Russia’s military intervention to Crimea was condemned by NATO in March. Also Russia’s this act was considered as illegal use of force in the territory of Ukraine. Furthermore NATO considered the referendum held Crimea as illegitimate and contrary for both the Ukraine Constitution and international law. The results of referendum were not recognized by NATO alliances. In April, Alliances urged Russia to take appropriate steps in accordance with international law. NATO pointed out that the solution for the problem should be created in a diplomatic way instead of military way. In that point all the practical cooperation between Russia and NATO were decided to suspended by NATO unilaterally. THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE WITH IN THE SCOPE OF NATO-RUSSIA RELATIONS A-NATO-UKRAINE RELATIONS 14 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/we-should-respond-north-korea-what-if-we-cant In recent times, Ukraine has developed and strengthen relations with Nato in terms of political dialogue and practical cooperation. Especially after the Russia’s illegal military intervention to Crimea, the importance of this cooperation has increased. Nato’s supports the sort of initiatives in Ukraine as well as Ukraine Army’s contributions to Nato’s Afghanistan and Kosova missions are one of the symbol of the mutual trust of both parties. Formally, the basis of Ukraine-Nato relations roots the foundation of Nato-Ukraine Comission (NUC).15 Picture:716 As a result of the illegal invasion of Crimea by Russia, Nato Allies keep supporting the sovergnity and territorial integrity of Ukraine as it has been internationally recognized. Also the importance of the concepts of Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic development were identified in the Article 14 of the “1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Ukraine” as: NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty and independence, territorial integrity, democratic development, economic prosperity and its status as a non-nuclear 15 http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20141008_140108SummitGuideWales2014-eng.pdf 16 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10670603/Ukraine-in-pictures-Threat-of-warbetween-Ukraine-and-Russia.html weapon state, and the principle of inviolability of frontiers, as key factors of stability and security in Central and Eastern Europe and in the continent as a whole.17 Nato, supports the democratic reforms and the increasing of the defense capacity in Ukraine for the goal of providing chance for the Ukraine people to be able to shape their future according to their truths. Furthermore in Chicago Summit 2012, Allies declared that “Nato still has an open door policy for Ukraine in terms of enhancing political dialogue and interoperability with Nato.” Related Article 35 of 2012 Chiago Summit Declaration is being partially given below: An independent, sovereign and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security. Marking the fifteenth anniversary of the NATO-Ukraine Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, we welcome Ukraine’s commitment to enhancing political dialogue and interoperability with NATO, as well as its contributions to NATO-led operations and new offers made. We note the recent elimination of Ukraine’s highly enriched uranium in March 2012, which demonstrates a proven commitment to non-proliferation. Recalling our decisions in relation to Ukraine and our Open Door policy stated at the Bucharest and Lisbon Summits, NATO is ready to continue to develop its cooperation with Ukraine and assist with the implementation of reforms in the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the Annual National Programme (ANP). (…)18 Nato allies consider the Ukraine’s ongoing necessary reforms specifically in defense and security sector very vital for the state for its democratic development process as well as the ability to defend itself. B-NATO RESPONSE TO THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE After the Russia’s act on Ukraine, The U.S. Congress stated its concerns about the Russia’s “illegal” annexation of Crimea and ongoing problematic situation in Ukraine. At the same time it is argued that the situation Ukraine heightened the concern in NATO alliances in terms of transatlantic security and NATO’s future policies. It is obvious that Russia’s act on Ukraine is also threatening the accumulation and concrete steps taken between NATO and Russia. The Ukraine crisis became the reason of the explosion on longer-standing tension between NATO and Russia. It is possible for us to say that this tension came to occurrence very concretely after the situation in Georgia since the end of 17 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25457.htm 18 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_87593.htm Cold War. Former NATO Secretary General Rasmussen defined the Russia’s military act to Ukraine as “the most serious crisis in Europe since the fall of Berlin Wall” and declared that NATO “can no longer do business as usual with Russia.” 19 On the first days of the April NATO declared the suspension of all practical cooperation with Russia conducted at the framework of NATO-Russia Council founded in 2002. But the political dialogue and the reciprocal existence of diplomatic missions are still continues. After Russia’s military aggression to Ukraine, NATO-Ukraine Commission issued as statement that condemns Russia’s act. “We, the Heads of State and Government of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, stand united in our support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. We strongly condemn Russia’s illegal and illegitimate self-declared “annexation” of Crimea and its continued and deliberate destabilization of eastern Ukraine in violation of international law. We call on Russia to reverse its self-declared “annexation” of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognise. Russia must end its support for militants in eastern Ukraine, withdraw its troops and stop its military activities along and across the Ukrainian border, respect the rights of the local population, including the native Crimean Tatars, and refrain from further aggressive actions against Ukraine. Allies consider any unilateral Russian military or subversive action inside Ukraine, under any pretext, including humanitarian, as a blatant violation of international law. Allies support the efforts of the Government of Ukraine, including through the Ukrainian Peace Plan, to pursue a political path that meets the aspirations of the people in all regions of Ukraine without external interference. Allies welcome the commitments made by all parties, including in Geneva and Berlin, and other ongoing negotiations to work toward establishing the conditions for a peaceful solution. However, despite the commitments it has made, Russia has, in fact, carried out direct military intervention inside Ukraine and increased its support to the militants. We call on Russia to change course and to take active steps to de-escalate the crisis, including to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Ukrainian authorities. Allies recognise Ukraine’s right to restore peace and order and to defend its people and territory and encourage the Ukrainian Armed Forces and security services to continue to exercise the utmost restraint in their ongoing operation to avoid casualties among the local population. Allies commend the Ukrainian people’s commitment to freedom and democracy and their determination to decide their own future free from outside interference. They welcome the holding of free and fair Presidential elections under difficult conditions and the signature of the Association 19 http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43478.pdf Agreement with the European Union, which testify to the consolidation of Ukraine’s democracy and its European aspiration. We expect that the upcoming elections to the Verkhovna Rada in October of this year, as an important element of the Ukrainian Peace Plan, would contribute to this end. We welcome the actions of other international actors to contribute to de-escalation and to a peaceful solution to the crisis, in particular the OSCE, the European Union and the Council of Europe, as well as individual Allies. In the framework of our long-standing Distinctive Partnership, NATO has consistently supported Ukraine throughout this crisis, and all 28 Allies, including through NATO, are enhancing their support so that Ukraine can better provide for its own security. Recognising Ukraine’s intent to deepen its Distinctive Partnership with NATO, we are stepping up our strategic consultations in the NATO-Ukraine Commission. NATO has already strengthened existing programmes on defence education, professional development, security sector governance, and security-related scientific cooperation with Ukraine. We will further strengthen our cooperation in the framework of the Annual National Programme in the defence and security sector through capability development and sustainable capacity building programmes for Ukraine. In this context, Allies will launch substantial new programmes with a focus on command, control and communications, logistics and standardisation, cyber defence, military career transition, and strategic communications. NATO will also provide assistance to Ukraine to rehabilitate injured military personnel. Allies are reinforcing their advisory presence at the NATO offices in Kyiv. Allies have taken note of Ukraine’s requests for military-technical assistance, and many Allies are providing additional support to Ukraine on a bilateral basis, which Ukraine welcomes. NATO and Ukraine will continue to promote the development of greater interoperability between Ukrainian and NATO forces, including through continued regular Ukrainian participation in NATO exercises. Allies highly value Ukraine’s ongoing contributions to Allied operations, the NATO Response Force and the Connected Forces Initiative. Allies welcome Ukraine’s participation in the Partnership Interoperability Initiative, appreciate Ukraine’s interest in the Enhanced Opportunities Programme within the Initiative, and look forward to its future participation. With Allied support, including through the Annual National Programme, Ukraine remains committed to the implementation of wide-ranging reforms, to combat corruption and promote an inclusive political process, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities and the rule of law. As noted at previous NATO Summits, including in Madrid, Bucharest, Lisbon and Chicago, an independent, sovereign and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security. We reiterate our firm commitment to further develop the Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine which will contribute to building a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe. 20 As concrete steps in addition to the position taken in the NATO-Ukraine Commission, NATO is imposing sort of sanctions to Russia in various terms and having various response to Russia’s military aggression. D- CONCLUSION After the end of Cold War, the world turned to US based monopolar structure. In such an environment it was inevitable for Russian Federation –former USSR- to act with NATO in certain areas. Until the beginning of Ukraine Crisis in 2014, it could the argued that sort of cooperation areas were created and continually functioned between NATO and Russia with the lights of common interests such as civil emergencies, fight against terrorism and counter-narcotics etc. Of course it was obvious that sort of controversies came to existence as we have seen in Kosovo and Georgia situations, in fact the relations sustained until 2014. However the Ukraine Crisis and following that the annexation of Crimea by Russia became the reason of the end the cooperation between NATO-Russia. 20 http://www.nato.int/cps/da/natohq/news_112695.htm Picture: 821 21 http://arsenalfordemocracy.com/2014/04/12/ukraine-crisis-map-as-of-april-12-2014/2014-ukraine-crisismap/#.VRxznfmsVyU Picture: 922 22 http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/energy-issues-ukrainian-crisis Picture: 1023 REFERENCES 23 https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lightbox/map-showing-ethnic-proportions-crimean-population-photo190051953.html http://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html http://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/news/index.html http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20141008_140108SummitGuideWales2014-eng.pdf http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_117901.htm http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/1992/m920604a.htmhttp://www.aco.nato.int/page14683036.aspx https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=TTrFOvY4weYC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=putin+spirit+o f+pragmatism+2000&source=bl&ots=e9kOMEAGtS&sig=0Z5D1nrlEzRUOvwphLKysoI2jyU&hl=tr &sa=X&ei=s8cOVePbDcv7ywPi_oKoCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=putin%20spirit%20 of%20pragmatism%202000&f=false https://fmashiri.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/russia-nato.jpg http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_72654.htm http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/we-should-respond-north-korea-what-if-we-cant http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10670603/Ukraine-in-pictures-Threat-ofwar-between-Ukraine-and-Russia.html http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25457.htm http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_87593.htm http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43478.pdf http://arsenalfordemocracy.com/2014/04/12/ukraine-crisis-map-as-of-april-12-2014/2014-ukrainecrisis-map/#.VRxznfmsVyU http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/energy-issues-ukrainian-crisis https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lightbox/map-showing-ethnic-proportions-crimean-population-photo190051953.html http://www.nato.int/cps/da/natohq/news_112695.htm NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION Under-Secretary-General Göksenin GÜNGÖR İstanbul University/ Political Science and International Relations [email protected] Academic Assistant to the Under-Secretary-General Kutlu Aksu İstanbul Univesity/Faculty of Law [email protected]
© Copyright 2024