2015  

ABOUT THE EURO-ATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL (EAPC)

The 50-nation Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) is a multilateral forum for dialogue and consultation on political and security-related issues among Allies and partner countries. It provides the overall political framework for NATO’s cooperation with partner countries in the Euro-Atlantic area, and for the bilateral relationships developed between NATO and individual partner countries under the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. Longer-term consultation and cooperation takes place in a wide range of areas within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Work Programme (EAPWP).These areas include crisis-management and peace-support operations; regional issues; arms control and issues related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; international terrorism; defence issues such as planning, budgeting, policy and strategy; civil emergency planning and disaster preparedness; armaments cooperation; nuclear safety; civil-military coordination of air traffic management; and scientific cooperation. The EAPC has also taken initiatives to promote and coordinate practical cooperation and the exchange of expertise in key areas. These include combating terrorism, border security, and other issues related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and small arms and light weapons. 1. Migration for the Purpose of Engaging in Islamic Extremism 2. Expansion of Formal NATO Membership 3. Violence in Eastern Europe

TOPIC A: MIGRATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTREMISM

Introduction NATO citizens engaging in foreign wars is not a new concept, however recent conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine have seen an unprecedented number of foreign fighters with NATO-country origins. NATO and Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries Partners

2015  

are aware and concerned about a number of issues flowing from these events. The brief will sum up the current state of NATO-citizens fighting on behalf of ISIS in the Middle East and in Ukraine. Delegates are expected to discuss these situations, and come up with general solutions and principles to the problem of migration for the purpose of extremism.

NATO and PfP citizens fighting for ISIS ISIS has attracted thousands of foreign fighters into its rank, including citizens from NATO and PfP countries. Many of the fighters have Muslim roots, although not all. With the exception of Turkey, most NATO countries are having difficulty integrating Muslim communities into their societies. Racism, and a lack of opportunity, are partial determinants that help explain the radicalization. ISIS has also actively pursued recruitment campaigns, and have become infamous for their use of social media to promote their goals.

Foreign Fighters in Ukraine The Ukraine conflict has been plagued by reports of foreign fighters since the beginning. There are reports of hundreds of Russians fighting on behalf of the Eastern separatists. Whether these Russians are wholly there on their own accord, or whether there is an element of state-sponsorship is debated. Many Western countries have accused Russia of controlling these foreign fighters. The Russian government however has denied directly influencing and controlling these fighters, insisting instead that they are acting as individuals.

The separatists are not the only ones who have foreigners filling their ranks. Foreigners have also traveled to fight with the Ukrainian forces. A prominent incident involved the recruitment of a Swedish sniper Mikael Skillt, a white supremacist, into the controversial Azov Battalion. The Azov Battalion has been labeled a “far-right” militia, and has links to the neo-Nazi movement.

Security Problems The number of foreign fighters originating from NATO countries in global insurgencies is a grave concern. Different NATO members and PfP countries will have different priorities and concerns with regards to this debate. In particular, the situation in Ukraine

Foreign  Fighters  in  Iraq  and  Syria  

Source:  Radio  Free  Europe  (http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/infographics/26584940.html)  

 

Albania   140   Luxembourg   1  Austria     60   Netherlands   152  Belgium   300+   Norway   45  Bosnia  &  Herzegovina  

340   Russia   493  

Bulgaria   1   Serbia   3  Canada   100+   Spain   100  Denmark   90   Tajikistan   200  Finland   20   Turkey   1000+  France   930   UK   600+  Ireland   26   USA   300+  Italy   50   Ukraine   50  Kazakhstan   150   Uzbekistan   31  Kyrgyzstan   30        

2015  

will be a delicate topic to address. However, the PfP committee may serve as an opportunity for dialogue in an increasingly confrontational relationship.

Questions to consider • What policies can NATO members adopt to counter radicalization and

recruitment? • How are foreign fighters recruited? • How can we monitor their activities overseas? • What happens to foreign fighters when they return to their home countries? • How do we balance the rights of individuals to make political choices without

endangering national security?

Further readings The Clear Banner: http://jihadology.net/the-clear-banner BBC news report on Foreign Fighters in Ukraine: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28951324 Haggeheimer, T. The Rise of Muslim Foreign Fighters: International Security, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Winter 2010/11), pp. 53–94.

TOPIC B: VIOLENCE IN EASTERN EUROPE

History Ukraine was on the brink of signing a historic deal with Europe when its then-president Yushchenko made the abrupt decision to cancel it and align itself closer to Russia. Protests erupted in Kiev, angered by perceived Russian meddling and a desire for closer ties with the European Union. The protests called for a resignation of Yushchenko, and for the original deal to be restored.

Counter-protests erupted in the Eastern parts of Ukraine, fuelled by ethnic and linguistic divisions. The eastern portion of Ukraine contains a large Russian speaking minority, that views itself as Russian and which were generally in favour or closer ties with the

Russian Federation.

Status of Crimea The annexation of Crimea took place within the context of the Ukrainian unrest. In spring 2014, Crimea held a referendum to join Russia. The referendum was not

2015  

monitored by outside observers, and many were suspicious of Russian influence, as well as general intimidation and vote-forging.

The Russian Federation was strongly in favour of Crimea joining the Russian Federation. The constitutional amendment which declared Crimea as a Russian republic and Sevastopol a Russian Federal city was rushed through the Russian legislative system.

Although the international community has condemned Russia for this action, no military action has been taken to referees the decision. Ukraine continues to dispute the legal status of Crimea and Sevastopol. Meanwhile, the countries of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have recognized the 2014 Crimean referendum, and regard it now as part of the Russian Federation. A minority of UN member states are also in recognition of the annexation.

Donbass and Luhansk The regions of Donbass and Luhansk remain in a status of civil war as of winter 2014. There is a significant presence of rebels who are fighting for independence or accession to Russia. Russia has been accused of extensive meddling, although official Russian military action has not been conclusively proven. The 2014 Minsk agreement, brokered in September 2014, between Russia and Ukraine outlined a ceasefire which has been voided by continuous rebel fighting. At this point, it is unclear which faction has an advantage.

Conclusion NATO, in particular European countries, have been put in a difficult position. The Russian interference in Ukraine seems clear to NATO members, but is covert enough that it cannot be recognized as official foreign aggression. Furthermore, European countries such as Germany are deeply economically linked with Russia in particular with regards to energy supply. Many countries are fearful that the Russian behaviour in Ukraine is a pattern which started with the 2008 Georgian conflict. Dialogue between all countries in the region is desirable, in an attempt to come up with a diplomatic and peaceful solution.

Questions to consider: • What, if any action, should be taken regarding the status of Crimea? • What can be done to maintain the territorial integrity of Ukraine? • What are the risks of this conflict affecting neighbouring states? • What threat, if any, does Russia pose to its other neighbours? • What is NATO’s responsibility regarding the feeling of “encirclement”

experienced by Russia?

2015  

• What role does energy play in the unrest?

Further readings: Nato Review video, “Russia, Ukraine and Crimea: a predictable crisis?” http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Russia-Ukraine-Crimea-crisis/EN/index.htm

TOPIC C: NATO ENLARGEMENT

NATO's enlargement is an ongoing and dynamic process which has been a top priority on the agenda of the Alliance, since its constitution in 1949. NATO’s door remains open to any European country in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership, and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area. Since 1949, NATO’s membership has increased from 12 to 28 countries through six rounds of enlargement. Albania and Croatia were invited to join NATO at the Bucharest Summit in April 2008 and formally became members when the accession process was completed on 1 April 2009.

Currently there are four partner countries that aspire for NATO membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro. During the last years, an increasing number of countries deepened their ties and undertook closer cooperation with NATO wishing to join the Alliance.

The concept of ‘open doors’ behind the enlargement process is based on Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 10 of the Treaty reads as follows:

“The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.”

However, NATO enlargement is faced with several important challenges today. The Russian Federation is strongly opposing NATO’s eastward expansion as it considers it a real threat and a danger to its geopolitical interests and national security. The results of a possible enlargement even further towards the Russian borders could create new divisive lines in Europe and could result in deterioration of Russia-West relations. Strength lies in unity and numbers and European states would be stronger vis-à-vis

2015  

Russia if they could agree to a common policy towards the Kremlin. In other words, there should be more active NATO-EU consultation the ways to approach the challenges associated with Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion.

In addition, the Alliance will also need to review its current expansion policies and plans. Some observers argue that NATO’s democratizing mission is key while a credible argument can also be made that the Alliance needs to think about limiting expansion. NATO should explore the operational and procedural implications that continuing expansion may have on the organization.

Questions to consider:  

• It is important for NATO as a collective defense and military alliance to maintain its capacity to perform its primary functions. How can the Alliance expand its area of action and responsibility without losing this capacity?

• Which of the countries wishing to accede to NATO should be the Alliance’s top priority and why?

• How can NATO more effectively engage with its partners within rapidly changing security environment who are valuable contributors to its mission, resources and mandate? Which partnerships deserve the most attention?

• How can NATO continue its eastward expansion without threatening Russia? How can it continue to expand in a way that reassures Russia without enticing its reservations and fears?

Further readings  

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Nato-enlargement-Russia/EN/index.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

http://www.janes.com/article/42392/options-for-the-evolution-of-nato

http://liia.lv/en/blogs/nato-challenges-in-post-chicago-security-environme/

2015