STUDY GUIDE

FOR

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established on April 4th, 1949 as
an intergovernmental military alliance. The Alliances creation was part of a broader
effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival
of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the
continent, and encouraging European political integration. Since its inception, NATO
went through different stages of development, changing from a bi-polar power in
the Cold War to a crisis orientated entity today. Starting with 12 member countries
in 1949, it grew to an organization comprising 28 countries, with its latest members,
Croatia and Albania, joining in 2009.

Like any alliance, NATO is ultimately governed by its 28 member states. However,
the North Atlantic Treaty outlines how decisions are to be made within its structure.
Each of the 28 members sends a delegation or mission to NATO's headquarters in
Brussels, Belgium; the senior permanent member of each delegation is known as the
Permanent Representative. Together, the Permanent Members form the North
Atlantic Council (NAC), a body which meets together atleast once a week and has
effective governance authority and powers of decision in NATO. The meetings of the
North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and action is
agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord when decisions are to
be made. There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the

Council table, or on any of its subordinate committees, retains complete sovereignty

and responsibility for its own decisions.

ADVANTAGES TO THE NATO MEMBER STATES

One of the positive points of joining NATO is that, NATO helps for its member
states to create their defensive programs and consults them in the economic and
other areas. In addition to this, joining NATO is appealing to small countries, which
are unable to defend themselves and NATO helps for its member states when a
problem of defense rises. Moreover, the subject of joining NATO is apparently
contradictory because it is rather difficult to decide what it better for small country:
to be a member of a military organization or to be a neutral country. Actually, it is
cheaper to join NATO than stay a neutral country and build all security systems and
a professional army without a help from foreign countries.

THE NATO MEMBER STATES:

TOPIC A: CRITERIA FOR INTERVENTION BY NATO.

After World War II, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. occupied much of Europe. Most
of the continent's governments had fallen to the Nazis during the war, so the
two superpowers were left with the responsibility of setting up new
governments. Each promised to allow free elections, but in the end, did not.
This left eastern and western Europe divided by style of government (eastern
was communist, western was not) and left Germany divided between the two
superpowers.
Eventually, as tensions rose between the superpowers, the Soviets cut off their
area of Germany, and closed access to West Berlin, which was located deep
within the Soviet zone of occupation. The allies aided the citizens of Berlin
with supplies during the Berlin Airlift of 1948. This was a combined effort
between the USA, Britain and France to keep the city alive. In the end over
two million tons of food and supplies were dropped.

Soon after, when the Soviets began withdrawing from other countries around
the world, it became evident that they were not going to go quietly. The
USSR demanded oil concessions from Iran in exchange for withdrawal, but did
not get them. In a similar manner, the Soviet leaders demanded that Turkey
allow them to utilize its resources to spy on the western world. The Soviets
also supported a communist revolution in Greece that led to a bloody civil
war. Soon after that, there was a communist coup in Czechoslovakia, which
was not a Soviet initiated venture, but quickly received full Soviet support.
Western European nations countered this chain of events and the apparent
growing Soviet threat with the Brussels Treaty, which defensively linked
Britain, France, and Benelux.
The expansion of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and the threats against
Greece and Turkey aroused growing alarm throughout Western Europe. As a
consequence, in April 1949, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, 12
nations established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to
coordinate the military defenses of member nations against possible Soviet
aggression. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States (with
Greece, Turkey and the Federal Republic of Germany joining afterward in
1952) agreed to consider an armed attack against any one of them as an
attack against all. The territory covered included French Algeria, and there
were also provisions in the treaty to protect the "occupation forces in any
party of Europe." In December 1950, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was
appointed the Supreme Commander of NATO military forces with a unified
command of 50 combat divisions.

HISTORY OF THE TOPIC:

NATO IN BOSNIA:
On December 2, 2004, the nine-year NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) mission in
Bosnia and Herzegovina concluded successfully. NATOs intervention in the Bosnia
conflict--using force for the first time in Alliance history--led to the Dayton Accords

and put an end to a costly and destructive conflict in the heart of Europe.
In the nine years that followed the intervention, over 500,000 servicemen and
women from 43 nations and every continent, including 90,000 Americans, served in
Bosnia and Herzegovina without losing a single soldier to hostile action.
The people of Bosnia have welcomed a continued international security presence as
they take the remaining steps on the path toward integration into a Europe whole,
free, and at peace. The European Union (EU) has established a military mission,
Operation ALTHEA, to provide this support.
Initially, the EU will have 7,000 soldiers, the same size as SFOR at its conclusion, and
80% of the soldiers will be the same as in SFOR. Most of the roughly 1,000
American troops recently in SFOR have returned home. Some will remain behind to
form the core contribution to the new NATO Headquarters in Sarajevo, which is
headed by an American.
The end of SFOR is a demonstration of the progress Bosnia has made in the nine
years since Dayton and a concrete example of cooperation between NATO and the
EU. It provides the first significant use of Berlin Plus arrangements, which gives the
EU access to NATO planning and assets.
The United States and NATO are not leaving Bosnia. NATO Headquarters Sarajevo
will operate in close cooperation with the EU, taking up the challenge of defense
reform, continuing efforts to locate and apprehend indicted war criminals, and
working with local authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to combat terrorism. The
United States remains committed to the security and stability of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, including through a significant contribution to the NATO Headquarters

and a continued presence at Camp Eagle in Tuzla.
During its time, SFOR facilitated the transfer of 53 war crimes indictees to The
Hague to stand trial. The NATO Headquarters will continue that work. However,
Bosnia and Herzegovina retains the obligation, and primary responsibility, under the
Dayton Accords and UN Security Council Resolutions to apprehend all fugitive
indictees.
NATOs intervention proved the Alliance is capable of meeting the new array of
security challenges facing the post-Cold War world. Today, NATO forces are
benefiting from their experience in Bosnia as they carry out their missions in Kosovo,
Afghanistan, and Iraq.

CURRENT SITUATION
NATO IN SYRIA:
In late 2010 and early 2011, Syria seemed a fairly stable nation, especially once
considering the bubbling things in Republic of Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen. In
December 2010, items within the Los Angeles Times and also The New York Times
praised the history and culture of Syria, furthermore as the new direction of
government. USA legislator and former presidential hopeful John Kerry had met 5
times over the past two years with the first family of Syria, with the prospect of
Syria-Israel peace negotiations the ultimate and ostensibly accomplishable goal. In
March 2011, the first girl of Syria, Asma al-Assad had a Vogue magazine feature,
which quickly became polemical. Within the article titled Asma al-Assad: A Rose
within the Desert, al- Assad was hailed for her mission to form a beacon of culture
and secularism in Syria. Syria had long been a state of tumult, however over the
course of the Arab Spring, Syria quickly shifted from beacon of relative stability to

oppressive military state engaged in a civil war with its people. Graffiti was a typical
manner of dissenters due to the lack of formal channels to affect change. The
motives in this situation seemed way more mischievous than malicious. However, the
mukhabarat (Syrian intelligence) was already on heightened alert for discontent due
to the events in Tunisia and Egypt,
On March 15, nearly twenty thousand protesters came out. Protesters began
chanting anti-government slogans, and damaging government offices of the
mukhabarat, the Baath party, the governor, and also the security forces. Daily
protests continued, and also the situation escalated on March 23rd when security
forces raided the Omari mosque during a second crackdown attempt, killing fifteen
and wounding many. The Omari mosque had become a makeshift hospital for
wounded protesters and fearful refugees, adding to the fallout of the crackdown.
Basic services, like water, electricity, and telephone networks, were shut off and
funerals prohibited, as that they had become a point for the protests. That evening,
government forces had surrounded Deraa, preventing any movement to or from the
city.
The protests that erupted in Deraa weren't the sole protests to erupting late March
2011. There have been additionally protests in Banias, a fairly conservative
Mediterranean coast city, concerning the regimes antiIslamic decrees of recent
years. Protests popped up during a variety of other cities around the country,
notably in Homs, Qamishli, al-Hasaka, Hama and Latakia, further as some suburbs
Damascus.
The protests widespread organic origination mirrored the widespread systematic
issues in Syria, and however there have been very few calls for the fall of the regime.
The protesters primarily wanted the implementation of long-promised reforms on
the part of the regime, and comradeship among the shared hopes of the protestors

blossomed, because the uninflected and disconnected society of Syria was broken.
The mukhabarat, or security/intelligence services, are expansive and omnipresent in
Syria, or at least that's the image they need and want to keep.
On 22 April 2011, Syria was suffering from the largest demonstrations yet, and
correspondingly this was the bloodiest day yet: human rights organizations
estimated that over a hundred people were killed. The govt. intensified its
crackdown on 25 April, when tanks rumbled into Deraa. Defections from the govt.
army were prevalent, and by the summer, a semi-organized opposition fighting force
known as the Free Syrian Army was formed. In May and June 2011, the regime
continued a schizophrenic response to protests, alternating between concessions
and reform measures, and intensified crackdowns in cities across Syria. On 31st May3rd June, the opposition groups and individual activists met at a conference in
Ankara, Turkey, in a shot to create an overarching organization that would represent
the opposition. Despite setbacks, the conference served as a launch pad for the
Syrian National Council (SNC) that would be formed in the autumn of 2011.

Mediterranean nations and this arranged the inspiration for the Union for the
Mediterranean. Its inclusion here indicates associate implication that the cooperative
dialogue was a prerequisite for edges of other regional initiatives. At Prague, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization made it clear that Arab nations would receive no
economic edges from other North Atlantic Treaty Organization/EU initiatives if they
did not support NATO in its counterterrorism endeavors in the region. The allies
wanted to demonstrate their resolve to pursue terrorist acts, and to boost NATOs
role in the region.

NOTE FOR DELEGATES:

Two NATO interventions are explained above. Delegates also need to study
interventions in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Libya. This does not mean that other
international crisis that are out of focus in the guide are of no use to the committee
like the Darfur Genocide.
Concerning NATO interventions on a general scheme, a standard resolution on
future intervention should be passed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to
bring some sense of formality in action to the interventions which NATO has taken
thus far. The interventions that have occurred by NATO have been largely hurried
and unorganized. The interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were predicated on the
failure of the United Nations, when NATO troops took a progressively aggressive
approach as UN peacekeeping efforts failed. Interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan
were second-tier reactions to United States initiated actions, as NATO served as a
better actor to advocate for long-term training and stability. Finally, in Libya, NATO
acted with blessing from the UNSC, and served a largely guardian role, as NATO
action was restricted to enforcement of the no fly zone and prevention of
government inflicted massacres. Considering a nations military capabilities is key in
making an informed commitment of resources to an armed conflict.

QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER:

1. Does the current conflict like in Syria meet the qualification for a NATO intervention? What
other violations would need to occur to merit NATO involvement?
2. Should NATO seek UNs approval in intervening in other states?
3. What should be the criteria of a situation for NATO to intervene?
4. Should a genocide by an established government on its people (Darfur) be unaddressed by
NATO but a genocide by warring factions (Bosnia) qualify for intervention?

Topic B: THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS

HISTORY:
The recent wave of protests in Ukraine began when the government suspended
preparations to sign the European Unions (EU) proposed trade and partnership
agreement in November 2013. The bill would have brought Ukraine closer to the EU,
while the government's move was an attempt to cement stronger relations with
Russia instead.
As more than 100,000 people rallied in the capital of Kiev, it seemed as if the
Orange Revolution was repeating itself. This time, however, protests were much
more violent as dozens died and hundreds were injured during clashes with police.
Protestors called for the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych, early elections,
and a repeal of anti-protest laws.
In 2004, the demonstrations against Yanukovych, the pro-Moscow presidential
candidate, led to reelections. The opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, became the
countrys new president and Yulia Tymoshenko its prime minister.
The victory of the Orange Revolution did not last for long. Yanukovych stepped back
into power after being reelected in 2010, while his rival, Tymoshenko, was jailed for
two-and-a-half years. She was only released few months ago
.
Ukraine has been torn between East and West since the collapse of the Soviet
Union. According to a recent poll, 46% of Ukrainians support Ukraines integration
with the EU, and 36% oppose it. Those who rally in Kiev are pro-EU, but the mainly
Russian-speaking east and south prefer closer cooperation with Russia.
As the EU tries to strengthen its ties with Ukraine, Russia is doing the same. Russian
President Vladimir Putin would like to see Ukraine to join the Moscow-driven

economic group, the Eurasian Customs Union. It consists of Russia, Belarus, and
Kazakhstan and is part of a larger plan to create an association of former Soviet
countries, due to be launched next year.
Yanukovych has sent mixed signals for years. At times, he has said that Ukraine will
join the Customs Union, and at others, he has raised hopes of joining the EU.
As the violence escalated during protests, the Ukrainian parliament voted to
overthrow Yanukovych and send him to The Hague. The president has since fled his
home and is now wanted on charges of mass murder. At the same time, pro-Russian
demonstrators have been clashing with anti-Yanukovich protestors.

CURRENT SITUATION:
Ukraine, like many former Soviet Republics, is a Fourth World country in that it
must first dismantle the damage done by Soviet rulethe destruction of trust,
consensus and civil society, as well as crumbling infrastructurebefore it can rebuild.
Poland and others have done this, but not without significant struggle and
assistance. The question is posed, then: Can Ukraine do the same and how much
external assistance and assurance does it need?
In the 2000s, I once sat in a high level U.S. diplomatic discussion about Russia
conducting its annual energy slowdown offensive to squeeze Ukraine, Poland, and
most of Europe with restricted energy supplies and sudden price spikes. A very
senior U.S. leader commented that Russia hasnt learned its lesson about doing
this and sage heads nodded obsequious concurrence around the tableexcept for
me. I opined that in fact the Russians had learned their lessonsthey could energy

squeeze Ukraine, Poland, and Europe any time they wanted to and there was
nothing that Europe or the United States could or would do about it.
Nonetheless,only having one spigot to turn limited the strategic choices of Russia
and Putin, who wanted more nuanced options.
Three new energy pipeline projects allow Russia to have a symphony of energy
options with which to optimize their regional power policiesBlue Stream, South
Stream and Nord Stream.

NATO AND THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS:

As the NATO summit in Wales of September 2014 has closed, we need reflect on
the alliance that has kept the peace on the European continent for 70 years
recently celebrated in Normandy on June 6. We cannot imagine that war will start
again on the continent in Ukraine, only three hours from Paris. We celebrate the
European Union and all that it brings to the continent, linking the 28 members
(Croatia being the newest member, joining in August) through the six flows of
integration: people, money, merchandise, information, culture and education. It was
all peaceful until this huge crisis erupted.
The crisis in Ukraine demands a response from Europe and from the international
community. The cease-fire went into effect as Ukrainian President Petro Porochenko
looked at his watch last week in Wales. But the response and here is where the
EU and the U.S. differ may be different, as both entities have different stakes,
different engagements. While it is easy for the U.S. to easily slap three round of
sanctions on Russia, it must be understood that the EU, and certainly Germany and
the Baltic countries and all those that border Russia, are a bit hesitant, as their
economies are entirely intertwined and interlocked in many ways.
Let's look at just one aspect of this crisis: depending 100 percent on Russia for their
energy are the Baltic states; the rest of Europe has a 25 percent dependency rate. It

is quite easy to understand that, as fall and winter approach, those dependent
countries are hard-pressed to support sanctions with Russia, with which they share a
border; these countries also have Russian citizens inside their borders.
With Spearhead, NATO's new 4,000-men strong rapid reaction force, the alliance is
set to respond to the military part of the equation, in the face of all of the European
countries having reduced their defense budgets, except for Sweden. And hard power
is necessary to support and backup soft power. Soft power alone, or just drawing
red lines, is not enough. Demonstrating strength and resolve are necessary,
especially when a country's sovereignty and its borders are violated and
international law is flouted. In return, however, trade must be reestablished, the
agricultural blockades lifted and visa restrictions lightened.
In light of growing number of violent non-state actors, NATO continues to ensure
the peace and prosperity on the European continent. But to exclude and alienate
Russia, which has a special relationship with NATO and the EU, would be a grave
mistake and the West would and can expect to bare the consequences, both
militarily and economically.

QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER:

1. Does the current situation in Crimea satisfy the qualifications for NATOs
intervention?
2. Is there a legal framework required by NATO for the Ukrainian Crisis? If yes, the
briefed content of that particular framework.
3. How can be NATO be more effective and efficient in its work as it faces multiple
challenges like the Syrian and Ukrainian Conflict?