Dear Delegates of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 2009

Welcome to Queen’s Model United Nations. On behalf of the committee and the university, we would like to take the opportunity to introduce ourselves and wish you the best of luck in the upcoming conference.

My name is Aleks Dhefto and I am a fourth year Politics student with a minor in French Studies. I am originally from Tirana, Albania and have been living in Canada between Toronto and Kingston since 2001. This will be my second model NATO, fourth model UN and fifth “model” conference in the past two years. I am very passionate about issues of international security and have been researching related topics through my academic endeavors as well as my extracurricular involvements with model NATO in the past. It was only last year that I took part in the very same conference that you are going to be in as a delegate while only a few months later taking part in Harvard University's model NATO in Boston, Massachusetts.

My name is Ashleigh Ryan and I am a fourth year Political Studies and Economics student from Toronto, Ontario. This is my first year as a QMUN Committee Chair, however I have participated in the QMUN Assembly as a delegate for the past three years, first on the IMF, then on the Security Council, and finally on NATO. I also was a delegate in the Southern Ontario Model UN Assembly (SOMA) in 2006. With four years of experience in Model UN Assemblies on a variety of committees, I have great insight as to what makes an enriching and productive conference. My degree has also allowed me to develop a comprehensive familiarity with many of the most pertinent issues affecting both NATO and the UN. I plan to pursue a career as a journalist using my experience with QMUN as well as my three years of working for the Queen’s Journal.

Your topics this year have been carefully chosen by your chairs in attempts to reflect current NATO concerns as best as possible. Your preparation and participation depend on you and are encouraged by us. To ease your task we have compiled an introduction to the topics that we will discuss as well as a guide to all the member nations foreign policies.

In the meantime, we hope you become familiar with the most powerful military alliance in history and are excited to participate in the conference. We know we are! If you have any questions, please feel free to direct them to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

See you in November!

Regards,

Aleks Dhefto and Ashleigh Ryan

The History of NATO

“NATO was founded to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay, First Secretary General, NATO

From the ashes of WWII rose an ideological and regional dichotomy that threatened the already weak international balance. The winners of the war had made strange bedfellows during the armed conflict but were now poised to become hegemonic rivals. Led by the US and motivated by the fear of Soviet expansion, the states of the west came together to create a 12 member alliance. Thus was born the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The 12 members that came together in 1949 agreed to be underpinned to the ideal of “collective security” - that an attack on one member was considered to be an attack on all. At first, not much more than a political coalition, NATO was galvanized by the Korean War and an internalized military structure was set up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. However, doubts lingered about the future of the organization, as certain European states were reluctant to make of the alliance anything more than an anti-Soviet reactionary coalition. They were weary of the U.S., the U.K. and a few other nations planning to turn it into a global policeman. When doubts about even the efficacy of Soviet reaction arose in 1966, France decided to pull out its military from the alliance while only remaining as a political ally.

At the same time, the Soviet-led response to NATO, the Warsaw Pact, was losing its prestige and power as the USSR was slowly declining. After the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 the alliance entered in the Balkans as a regulatory force while also drawing past Warsaw Pact members in. By 2001 NATO consisted of 26 members. Just this year it grew again to 28 with the entrance of Albania and Croatia. With expanding membership has come the evolution of the role of NATO, albeit not entirely smoothly as some members continue to argue against this. On February 28, 1994 NATO took its first ever military action by shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft that were flying on a UN mandated no-fly zone. The operations in the Balkans served to legitimize NATO, as along with military action it now had also for the first time deployed a peacekeeping force (SFOR) and awarded the NATO medal.

After the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the U.S. invoked Article 5 (collective defense) for the first time ever and launched a full blown military offensive on Afghanistan. Soon it was clear that the mission had to take peacekeeping, peace-building and state building dimensions too, making it by far the most extensive and challenging NATO mission ever. This complicated mission has long been a point of debate for NATO allies. On February 10th 2003 France and Belgium vetoed the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its veto power but said that it backed the veto. On other issues, such as the taking over of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) by NATO the alliance has shown greater cohesion. 

NATO has changed in the last decade more rapidly and frequently than it ever has in its entire history. It is important to be familiar with how these changes affect it. Some have argued that the future of NATO is decided on the fields and mountains of Afghanistan. Consensus is required for any decision to take effect and since certain nations such as the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States have been attacked first hand they will be pushing for quick solutions to terrorism problems. Other countries such as Canada, The Netherlands, Germany and Turkey are involved in the hotbed of the conflict will undoubtedly ask the alliance for more commitment towards achieving these goals.

NATO and the UN

“Our unique partnership was born in common philosophies of freedom and democracy. It was forged during half a century's fight against tyranny. Now it stands as a beacon of democracy, toleration, plurality, openness and candor in a world menaced by extremism and instability.”

Lord Robertson, Former Secretary General, NATO

The central article within which NATO operates, Article 5, points to the UN as the centre of the international political system. Also, the North Atlantic Treaty itself stresses the commitment NATO has to the principles and purpose of the UN charter. Article 51 of the UN charter on the other hand, points to the right that sovereign nations have to foster relationships of collective self-defense.

The two international organizations remain distinct entities to this day but their partnership is becoming increasingly cohesive. It wasn’t until 1992 that their relationship took on a dimension that transcended the political and became something more tangible. The conflicts that were harbouring in the Balkans were the catalyst for this change. Namely, the UN felt that action through NATO was more possible because of the structural handicap that the Security Council continues to face today. It has been suggested since then that western Security Council members will use NATO when the UN will refuse to act. This has led to some tensions between NATO and the UN at times, particularly when NATO interests clash with those of Russia and China. However, in the end NATO is an alliance independent from the UN that chooses to work with it towards peace-building goals.

Arctic Sovereignty Disputes

With the gradual warming of the planet come many unwanted externalities. One of these that seems to be important for the future of international economy and security is the gradual melting of the icecaps which is slowly uncovering trade routes and new economic opportunities. The result is a massive oil rush for quantities that some estimates pin at around 400 billion barrels along with astronomical quantities of natural gas.

NATO is a great venue for the allies to work out their disputes as all of the actors involved in them are members of the alliance except for Russia, who is an observer. It is vital to NATO’s interests that key trade routes and resource centers stay within the power of the west while it also seems inevitable that there may be internal disputes that weaken the alliance. Many nations are likely to follow what is best for their domestic economies and NATO could very well find itself an alliance divided. Such an event would in turn benefit Russia or other smaller nations not involved in disputes, which might trade their veto powers for favourable economic deals or even access to the trade routes themselves.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law and the Sea, no country currently owns the North Pole and the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it. Under the same international legislation it is stated that the six surrounding Arctic states, Russia, Canada, The United States (via Alaska), Denmark (via Greenland), Norway and Iceland are limited to 200 nautical miles (370 km) economic zone around their coasts. A country has 10 years to claim international waters that border their economic zones after ratifying the UNCLOS. All except the US have done so between 1996 and 2007.

Apart from the North Pole itself there are many other areas of contention in the arctic. Canada and Denmark specifically are disputing ownership of Hans Island, an island that is roughly the size of a soccer field. Bilateral negotiations in 1973 drew an international water boundary between Greenland and the Canadian Arctic archipelago that was fairly comprehensive but it did not cover a line of 867m between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. Straight through this line runs Hans Island, the sovereignty of which could mean easier access to the North West passage and fishing rights.

The Beaufort Sea dispute between Canada and The United States covers a strip of sea smaller than Israel and larger than El Salvador. Canada holds that the international water boundary should follow the straight line of the Yukon/Alaska boundary whereas the United States holds that the boundary should be an equidistant line between the two shores.

The Northwest Passage is claimed by Canada but most other states (especially the US) claim that under UNCLOS the passageway should be considered international, meaning that Canada cannot exert tariffs, taxes or any of its laws to foreign traders using the passageway.

The Continental Shelf Boundary agreement of 1981 between Iceland and Norway posits that each country has the right to 25% of the others’ share of petroleum activities within a specific 32 km2 range. However, this agreement is in stark disfavour of Norway, which sees Iceland harvest oil 100nm from the coast of Jan Mayen (an offshore Norwegian island).

Russia and the United States disagree over the jurisdiction of the Eastern Special Area and the Western Special area in terms of who has economic zone jurisdiction. An over 100 year old agreement between the two exists but lately there has been much diplomatic contention over the future of these areas.

Russia and Norway have made submissions to the Commission of the Limits of the Continental Shelf so that they may extend their jurisdiction to the North Pole. Canada, Iceland and Denmark are yet to make submissions but have released statements condemning the actions of the former two countries. Discussions continue.

NATO’s focus will be to become a mediating ground where the powers can come together and act cohesively to conclude debate so that the alliance may stay united. High on the agenda is the avoidance of the deployment of troops to areas of contention. Unconfirmed sources have claimed that Russia and the US have sent nuclear submarines to certain arctic areas. Canada on the other hand has confirmed that Russian fighter planes regularly fly over Canadian arctic air space.

Afghanistan Mission

NATO has been an active force in Afghanistan for more than six years. Following an explicit UN mandate, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is made up of over 47,000 personnel from many NATO member states. Over the course of this mission, tremendous progress has been made to reach a level of adequate governance and security. In partnership with the growing Afghan National Army (ANA), ISAF has secured large parts of the country to a point of few security incidents per month. On the front of reconstruction, there has also been tremendous progress. More than 4000 km of roads have been built where only 50 km existed in 2001. Electricity and health care is accessible to large proportions of the population, with more than 80% now with access to health care as opposed to 8% in 2001.

However, much of the progress reaped in Afghanistan is found only in select regions of the country—namely the North. The number of security incidents has increased in the country as Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and ISAF begin to penetrate many extremist strongholds in the South. There is enormous debate over whether NATO should focus on reconstruction in the secured regions of Afghanistan by ensuring free and fair elections, rule of law and improvements of living standards, or whether NATO should increase its military presence in the South and attempt to attain a sufficient level of governance. After thousands of casualties incurred by NATO members such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, the most prominent national forces in the turbulent South are experiencing great pressure to withdraw troops—a threat of grave consequences to the success of NATO’s mission. The new Barack Obama administration in the United States is currently debating an extension of 40 thousand more troops to Afghanistan while other countries such as Germany and France continue to refuse deployment of troops to the South. The argument is that if we are to achieve any level of prosperity in the South, there needs to be greater insurgency on the part of ISAF and the ANSF. How this insurgency is to occur is highly debatable. Should ISAF focus on training the ANA in the more secured regions so as to achieve some level of autonomy for Afghanistan, or would a more fruitful approach see ISAF work with the ANA to gain control of the South? Both strategies involve large military personnel commitments on the part of NATO members.

Even in the relatively secured regions of the country, however, ineffective governance remains a barrier to stability. The majority of Afghans approve of their government and international involvement in reconstruction. However, this may be inflated out of relief from the Taliban rule. The current Hamid Karzai administration has been reportedly wrought with corruption and many question the fairness of Afghan elections. We have also seen the rights of women severely undermined in the country, with this year’s legislation on rape within marriage. More girls are going to school now than ever, but their numbers are far below that of boys and the threat to their safety keeps many at home. The bottom line is that Afghan governance seems to be heavily dependent on foreign intervention from ISAF and also its own national army. Can a government be considered stable if there is constant military involvement? Most would like the future of Afghanistan to be such that children can go to school or to a hospital without armed officials guarding the premises. When this future can be realized is up for debate.

Poppy production continues to be a great challenge for rebuilding Afghanistan, as it poses problems for health and safety throughout the country. While 80% of Afghans do not approve of poppy cultivation, Afghanistan continues to produce 93% of the world’s supply of opium, according to the UN Narcotics Control Board Report. It is clear that the severe lack of economic development across the regions has forced Afghans to partake in a dangerous industry to which they are opposed. Economic development is a crucial part of Afghanistan’s reconstruction and an area that continues to hamper progress. What is NATO’s role in economic development and what actions need to be taken both by ISAF and other NATO organizations?

The ultimate goal of NATO’s mission in Afghanistan is to build a level of stability in the country where governance and security can be provided independently. Whether we examine the security situation or governance, more help is clearly needed. How can we increase or redirect our already large military presence to combat the less secure regions of the country? How can ISAF work with the Afghan government to crack down on corruption and ensure better rule of law? NATO has pledged its commitment to helping Afghanistan achieve a level of democracy and standard of living comparable to those of its member states, but how much time and resources are needed for this? NATO’s responsibility is enormous. The potential for prosperity in Afghanistan is evident, but the roadmap to it is for our resolution to decide.

NATO’s Role in the 21st Century

NATO was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War as an organization to defend the former Allied states from Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe. The notion of ‘collective security’ in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty became the vanguard of NATO’s role in international security. In the words of NATO’s first Secretary General, it was founded to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, NATO has expanded from its initial twelve member states to now 28, including many prominent former members of the Soviet Bloc, or the so-called Warsaw Pact as they were until 1991. As the 21st Century neared, many began to question NATO’s purpose since its role after WWII and during the Cold War was no longer relevant.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, though, NATO received another call to action. Afghanistan became the new focus of NATO as many saw it to be a major source of international terrorism with the Taliban rule and Al-Qaeda presence. Indeed, much of the funding for terrorist insurgencies in Central Asia and the West comes from Afghanistan. Since the Afghan mission began, other NATO member states have experienced terrorist attacks, such as Spain and the United Kingdom. It is clear that security has once again become an issue for NATO’s members.

Tracking the origins of terrorism, though, is a very difficult task. While Afghanistan has been the focus of NATO’s fight against terrorism, other countries in Central Asia such as Pakistan and Iran have been linked to terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda who are responsible for many of the attacks on NATO states. The Balkans have proven to be another area of security threat, as shown during the wars in Yugoslavia and Georgia, as has North Korea. There is great division within NATO over how far to extend its military involvement and whether the partnerships it has formed with non-member states are effective.

As NATO continues to expand, should its role be restricted to the military Euro-Atlantic alliance from which it was formed, or should it be reformed as a responsible, global security policeman? We have seen NATO take on greater involvement in state-building and economic development in many countries but especially Afghanistan. Should this initiative be scaled back to focus more on security, or should it be extended where it has already begun and also to other countries? What defines a conflict which warrants NATO response? What actions should be taken to achieve peace? The U.S. and the U.K. have been historical supporters of the school of thought that NATO should expand its scope of action to a more global, democracy spreading kind. On the other hand, other major powers such as France and Germany have continually argued against this. It wasn’t until recently that France re-entered its military in the ranks of NATO after leaving in 1966. Some have argued that this will weaken NATO instead of helping it as a military force.

Resolutions should define NATO’s role in international security both in terms of what conflicts it should be involved with and what its participation should entail.

Country Profiles

The United States of America – The United States is the only remaining super power on the world stage. Its 17 trillion dollar economy is a force to be reckoned with as it backs 50% of the world military spending. The US is the main financer of NATO and it has always shown the most interest in seeing the Afghan mission through. It holds the position of Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR). Its troops however remain overstretched with Iraq in the cards too. The Obama administration has promised more troops to Afghanistan which is proving to be a slow transition. The same administration has also promised a departure from the power politics of past administrations and towards a new cooperative strategy. The new strategy will still follow international US goals but in a more moderate way by the use of diplomatic, economic as well as military means. Obama has also spoken about a more humanitarian approach to international politics, one that focuses on the good of all humans instead of on the advantage of one or more states. On the issue of the Arctic, the U.S. has been largely silent, instead dealing with problems by diplomatic means behind closed doors. The U.S. is a supporter of the redefinition of NATOs role so that it may fit a more globally involved democracy spreading profile.

The United Kingdom – Considered the U.S.’s greatest ally, Britain under Gordon Brown has not changed much of its policies that it held under Blair. The US and the UK are known to have a “special relationship” and often support each other internationally. Gordon Brown has already stated that he plans on leaving Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan. The UK was victim of the July 7th 2005 attacks in London which make it an adamant supporter of the quick dealing of the terrorist problems that may potentially plague its cities. The British, along with the Americans are supporters of the transformation of NATO into a global police force. They believe that it would be best for NATO to act as a peace builder, aiding in the process of democratization and westernization of poorer countries around the world. The United Kingdom will play an important role in the Arctic debate as it has no vested interest in them but can be an important ally for whoever is able to garner their support.

France – France, under the leadership of Charles de Gaulle in 1966 withdrew its military from the alliance, only to add it once more recently. The issues that caused them to leave then are still important today. France still believes that the U.S. and U.K. have a special relationship, that they make important decisions on the future of the alliance without the rest of the alliance, that they are trying to use NATO for their own means and that they are not including France in their close quartered meetings. France believes that NATO should be used only as a means for the defence of Europe, Canada and the U.S. and that there should be no involvement in other areas of the globe. France has committed the 6th largest number of troops to Afghanistan, which does not compare well with the relative size of their army and GDP. Just like Britain, France is not involved in the Arctic debate first hand but will be an important ally and mediator the veto power of which will be in high demand.

Germany - As one of the most important founding members of NATO, Germany has a pivotal role in its actions today. However, decades of public aversion to conflict has led its government to impose strict political and military caveats that many see as crippling to its contribution to NATO in light of the fact that Germany has the largest land army in continental Europe. Not to be ignored, though, Germany has participated in NATO missions in Kosovo and now in Afghanistan conducting large reconstruction efforts and training the ANA in the North. While Germany has routinely refused to enter combat in the South due to its constitutional inability to do so, the current government under Chancellor Angela Merkel has voted to increase troops. Germany has also been able to develop strategically peaceful relationships with the U.S. and Russia. Its economic ties with Eastern Europe and heavy reliance on Russian energy have led it to take on a conciliatory position with respect to most issues affecting Russia, namely NATO expansion.

Canada - This year, Canada’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay was considered a serious contender for the position of NATO Secretary General (Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen ended up with the title). Such an honour reflects Canada’s widely respected contribution to NATO in Afghanistan, having incurred many casualties in the Kandahar province where its troops are mainly placed. Canada has been sluggish, though, in its contribution to the alliance due to poor maintenance of military’s operability. Within the country, Canada also is very divided in its support for the Afghanistan mission. While most agree that Canada benefits from being part of NATO, the military remains in full support of being involved in combat in Afghanistan but the general public would like to see the military involved more in peacekeeping and reconstruction. The Harper government has set 2011 to be the withdrawal date for the mission, but as support constantly fluctuates, it is uncertain whether this end date will be adhered to.

The Netherlands- As a relatively small country, the Netherlands pursues most of its foreign policy interests within the framework of multilateral organizations as an active participant in NATO and many other large international governing bodies. It is highly committed to European integration and Atlantic co-operation. Many see the Netherlands as a large military contributor in light of its size. Their small military’s Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) are conducting important and difficult stability missions in the Afghan province of Uruzgan.

Poland- After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Poland was one of the first countries to enter into NATO as it is a strong supporter of the alliance’s operations. Poland has aligned itself with large members of NATO such as the United States and has maintained its historical legacy of being the corridor between the West and East. It has been a prominent advocate of strengthening EU foreign policy and has been eager to embrace new NATO partnerships. Recently, Poland has positioned itself rather tenuously between Russia and the U.S. having agreed to station American missile shields on Polish soil one year ago (it has since shelved those plans). After deep-seeded historical animosity, Poland continues to see Russia as unpredictable and has therefore supported NATO initiatives to act as a bulwark against Eastern expansion.

Italy- Italy tends to follow the positions of larger NATO members, but unlike Poland retains a good working relationship with Russia. It has been involved in Afghanistan establishing a judicial system and contributing soldiers to stabilization missions, and in Kosovo and Iraq providing aid. Italy was one of the founding members and NATO and remains loyal to its initiatives.

Turkey- Turkey holds a unique and very valuable position in NATO as its borders are extremely close to Iraq, Russia and Iran. It represents a gateway to Central Asia for Europe as it is a secular state and is generally supportive of Euro-Atlantic co-operation but has many Muslim soldiers operating in Afghanistan providing a contrast to other European troops. Turkey has had a great deal of experience with ethnic conflict both with the conflict in Cyprus and the current conflict in its southern regions amongst the Kurdish population. While the country is thus less stable than other NATO members, it remains strategically important and acts as an important advisor on combating insurgencies.

Belgium- With the capital of the European Union and the headquarters for NATO stationed in Brussels, its largest city, Belgium is one of the main supporters of ‘European federalism’ through increased political and economic integration. Belgium has been a major proponent of NATO having participated in missions in Kosovo and now Afghanistan. It has important working relationships with the United States as well as the Netherlands through its ethnic Flemish population.

Spain- After the terrorist attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda on a Madrid train in March 2004, Spain notably withdrew its troops from Iraq and has radically reformed its foreign policy since. The withdrawal from Iraq has caused its relations with the U.S. to somewhat flounder, but it retains valuable partnerships with Germany, France and Portugal. Spain was one NATO member who chose not to participate in the Kosovo mission. It does, however, actively contribute to the Afghanistan mission despite suffering its share of casualties.

Romania- Having been a member of NATO for barely six years, Romania has proven itself a valuable addition having sought ties with other Eastern European states, particularly Georgia and Ukraine. It has promoted the interests of NATO even despite public backlash, as was evident upon the allowance of airspace for NATO during the Kosovo conflict. It was the first country to join the Partnership for Peace initiative and operates troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Romania has expressed its support for NATO and EU expansion, as well as increased multi-lateral agreements.

Portugal- A founding and active member of NATO, Portugal has strongly aligned its foreign policy with that of the United States along with the UN and NATO. It has contributed a disproportionately large force to the Balkans mission and ISAF. Portugal has expressed its commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty out of national security interest and a desire to strengthen its role in NATO. Portugal is considered a major political partner with France and Spain and also has ties with Africa and South America through the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP). 

Croatia- Along with Albania, Croatia is the newest member of NATO, having joined in April 2009. Relations with neighbouring states have stabilized to some degree since the breakup of Yugoslavia. Croatia has worked bilaterally and within the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe since 1999 on political and economic co-operation in the region. Further integration with the EU has been a pillar of Croatia’s international relations, however, there remains some land and maritime disputes with Slovenia, as well as ethnic issues with Italy.

Bulgaria- Bulgaria joined NATO in 2004 along with Romania and the European Union in 2007, the former being a longtime goal for Bulgaria’s foreign policy. It has proven to be a strategic expansion for both bodies. Bulgaria holds a unique position in NATO as it has a relatively close relationship with Russia due to its economic, cultural and historical ties. Bulgaria’s contribution has been applauded by many large NATO members, namely the United States. During the Kosovo conflict, Bulgaria intervened along with NATO and since joining the alliance it has established a Peacekeeping Training Centre and worked to improve NATO compatibility in areas such as training and communication.

Slovenia- Slovenia was keen to join NATO upon independence in 1991, seeing NATO membership as pivotal to protecting its national security. Slovenia has worked to improve co-operation with its neighbouring states and has introduced policies to avoid instigating internal controversy caused by foreign relations. It has supported the U.S. on issues like Kosovo, and has granted NATO logistical and personnel support to the military and humanitarian operations in the Balkan region.

Czech Republic – The Czech Republic, after the Velvet revolution has tried to start and maintain positive relations with the west. It has been largely successful as it joined NATO in 1999 and the EU in 2004. The Czech Republic has become a close ally of the United States, allowing it to build a base for missile shield defence on its soil as well as lending it a group of highly trained chemical warfare experts that aided in the war in Iraq and are now being used by NATO to respond to chemical crisis. All of this has caused considerable friction with Russia who was their ancient ally. The Czechs are minimally involved in Afghanistan.

Hungary – As founding member of the Warsaw pact and also one of the first to abandon the alliance, Hungary has been trying since 1989 to improve its relations with the western powers. It joined NATO in 1999 and the EU in 2004. The main goals at the time are to improve security and economic connections with the west while improving frosty relations with its neighbours. Its contribution to Afghanistan is minimal.

Norway – Norway is a committed ally in the coalition that has close ties with all the nations, especially the main powers and its Nordic neighbours. Norway views collective security as a vital aspect of its national defence. It has been a visible contributor to NATO operations, including allowing NATO military bases to be established in Northern Norway in anticipation of a potential conflict with the Soviet Union. Norway is a relatively generous contributor to the mission in Afghanistan. However, the image of peaceful mediator, contributor and committed ally risks to be smeared in the upcoming arctic talks. Norway is determined to assert is sovereignty over what it considers its rightful economic property and this could have negative consequences for the alliance.

Greece – Greece is one of the oldest members of the Alliance and generally sees eye to eye with most issues on NATO. However, Greece has caused some problems within the alliance, especially on the issue of Cyprus and certain Greek Island in the Aegean Sea. The debate over sovereignty caused by these territories has caused problems with Turkey, which tends to be a more committed military donor to the alliance. Along with this, Greece has stirred controversy among its Balkan neighbours (Albania, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria) over the treatment of immigrants from these countries inside its borders. Greece is against NATO becoming anything more than a European protection force.

Denmark – Denmark, like Norway is a strong voice for a cohesive NATO and Scandinavia. Denmark has played a historic role of western support during the cold war and continues to be a communicating bridge between the west and the Baltic States. Danish forces for heavily involved in the peacekeeping effort in former Yugoslavia and continue the tradition of goodwill with supplying a respectable force in Afghanistan. The Danes support American policy objectives in NATO. Relations with Canada, Norway and Russia have heated up recently over territorial disputes in the arctic.

Lithuania- Lithuania joined NATO in 2004, and has contributed forces to the NATO operation in Afghanistan. The country maintains positive relations with Latvia and Estonia. Despite previous tensions, Poland is now one of Lithuania’s closest partners. Lithuania and the United States maintain strong relations. Having recently acquired membership through increased expansion that fact should not be lost upon its political leadership.

Estonia- Estonia is one of the smallest states in the alliance. Although it contributes to NATO missions, it has also provided a recent dilemma for NATO. With the secession from Russia after the Cold War, Estonia has adopted a policy closely linked with the west generally at the cost of relations with Russia. Relations soured in April 2007 when Russia launched a cyber attack on servers of multiple Estonian organizations from the parliament to banks due to a dispute over the relocation of a Soviet war memorial in Tallinn. The cyber attack has led to new debate over the definition of Article 5 and terrorism in general. While many countries are reluctant to declare the attacks in relation to Article 5, there have been significant steps to prevent a future occurrence. The attacks on Estonia in 2007 and Georgia in 2008 provide fodder for many countries against further expansion.

Albania – Along with Croatia, Albania is NATO’s newest member. An ardent supporter of American Foreign policy, Albania owes much to the U.S. for the help ethnic Albanians received in Kosovo during the 1999 ethnic cleansing. The U.S. was also one of the first states to recognize the independence of Kosovo. Albania has pledged a small force to the mission in Afghanistan and is currently undergoing a massive update of its armed forces that is sponsored by the United States. In recent years Albania has worked to start up economic ties with its Balkan neighbors while cooling ethnic tensions. Its relationship with Greece remains strained while its relationship with Italy has improved exponentially. Relations with Serbia are stagnantly bad.  As a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Albania along with Turkey is becoming important members of the Alliance when the issue of reconstruction in Afghanistan comes up.

Iceland - Iceland maintains close ties with the Nordic states, Germany, and the United States. Iceland maintains the unique position as being the first state to recognize the independence of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Iceland, despite its extremely small population, has actively contributed to NATO operations, specifically as the largest Nordic contributor per capita to NATO missions in Kosovo and Bosnia. Iceland is currently negotiation arctic sovereignty disputes with Norway. As it was one of the hardest hit states of the recent global economic crisis, it will be important for Iceland to keep its access to important areas of maritime industry that are up for contention.

Latvia - Soon after declaring independence from Russia in 1991, Latvia became a member of the United Nations. Since then, Latvia has continued to seek further integration and cooperation with European states, joining both the European Union and NATO in 2004. Latvia supports future active participation in UN peacekeeping efforts, and has contributed forces to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Like other Baltic states, it entered the alliance partially on the principle of collective security. The actions taken by Russia against Estonia in 2007 are not readily forgotten.

Luxembourg – Luxembourg is regarded by many as the fiscal capital of Europe. It remains a country that is extremely financially liberal and therefore an ardent supporter of international cooperation and free trade. The country has historically engaged in pro-NATO, pro-US and pro-EU policies. It has very close relations with Belgium and the Netherlands. It has a very small standing army (800 strong) and therefore most of its aid to NATO is financial and cooperative.

Slovenia- Slovenia was keen to join NATO upon independence in 1991, seeing NATO membership as pivotal to protecting its national security. Slovenia has worked to improve co-operation with its neighbouring states and has introduced policies to avoid instigating internal controversy caused by foreign relations. It has supported the U.S. on issues like Kosovo, and has granted NATO logistical and personnel support to the military and humanitarian operations in the Balkan region.

Slovakia- Like Slovenia, becoming a full member of NATO has been a priority for Slovakia’s foreign policy. Slovakia’s approach to NATO involvement has largely been to support its large players, namely the United States, erring on the side of continuity and moderation. However, Slovakia has contributed members of its military to ISAF in Afghanistan and took part in the Kosovo conflict by operating a joint Czech-Slovak peacekeeping force and opening its airspace to alliance planes. Many believe Slovakia to be a shipping point for drugs coming from Afghanistan.

Russia (observer)- NATO largely owes its existence to Russia and as such recognizes its importance in its dealings. While not a voting member of the alliance (and arguably never will be), Russia has a crucial role in NATO proceedings. After the Cold War, Russia-NATO relations were generally quite favourable, with Russia signing the Partnership for Peace treaty in 1994. Since then, however, relations have deteriorated as more Soviet bloc countries have joined the alliance. Most recently, the South Ossetian War has sparked tension between the Russian and American administrations. The recognition of Kosovo, talks of establishing anti-ballistic missiles in Central Europe, and efforts to expand NATO have certainly put severe strain on Russia-NATO relations. However, Russian policy towards terrorism has been quite co-operative particularly for the Afghanistan mission. Russia contributed to the NATO-led stabilization in Bosnia and has actively engaged in peace talks concerning the Baltic region since the Kosovo conflict. The new Secretary General of NATO has recently called for a joint review of the Russia-NATO partnership and has suggested the development of a joint missile defence system with Russia, the U.S., and NATO. While Russia may uphold its commitment to co-operation, it will likely be extremely territorial and opposed to any talks of NATO expansion.

Research Starting Points

NATO
www.nato.int/

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
www.legislationline.org

EU Legislation
http://europa.eu/index_en.htm

International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism
http://www.ict.org.il/

U.S. State Department, Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/

Terrorism Research Center, Inc.
http://www.totalintel.com/

Political Terrorism Database: geographic areas
http://www.irri-kiib.be/links/terrorism.html

Wikipedia

www.wikipedia.org

CIA Fact book
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Arctic Disputes Map – Durham University
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_08_08_arcticboundaries.pdf

The Economist Country Briefings
http://www.economist.com/countries/

Library