Slovenia and NATO: Collective Security and Armed Neutrality
During the current debate on the suitability of Slovenia's
membership of NATO, a question has been posed: why should Slovenia
join NATO when its national security is not threatened and we can
maintain peace and stability through armed neutrality with allegedly
lower costs?
This narrow outlook on contemporary security, political and
economic developments at home and abroad would be damaging in the
long-term and a danger to the security, defence and democratic
development of a country that only ten years ago managed to wrest
itself from violence and pressures expressed in political, economical
and cultural terms. Above all that outlook would present a serious
threat to the sustainable development of the conditions that support
the universal freedoms of every citizen and resident of Slovenia. We
must today consider the consequences of the world's new security
risks, consequence that could very rapidly turn any apparent
complacency and neutrality on security and our exclusion from
international crisis-management mechanisms into hugely increased costs
for the security and defence of Slovenia that would far exceed our
capabilities and far exceed the amount required for our inclusion in
the collective defence and security of Europe.
The new NATO has nothing to do with the NATO of the Cold War
era
One must remember that recently, particularly in the wake of the
tragic events of 11 September and the heightened tensions in the
Middle East, an intense dialogue has been underway within the EU,
between the EU and NATO and between NATO and Russia on how to find a
common model for the rapid reaction to security threats and the
challenges that may threaten not only the existence of individual
countries, nations, cultures but also entire civilisations. The future
NATO will be a new organisation, with nothing in common with the NATO
of the Cold War period. Instead it will be closely linked to the
realisation of the European Union's security and defence policy. The
future NATO will not only be a military organisation for the
resolution of military issues, as may be seen in current trends that
demonstrate that NATO would not carry out a European security policy
without the closer cooperation of Russia. To exclude oneself now and
in the coming years from the important process of forming Europe's new
security and defence policies would be unwise for a nation that just
ten years ago fought to secure its independence and international
recognition for the first time in its history and began to make
equally binding decisions on its destiny and future development on its
own and in cooperation with other countries.
The security challenges of the modern world are different to those
we were accustomed to during the time of the Cold War, when the
tension between different blocks could be managed by a theory of
general public and territorial defence and partisan combat. If we
forget this, during a year in which we must choose a new organisation
of security and defence, we will remain trapped in an out-of-date
paradigm amid highly abstract values. We will become the puppets of
international phenomena that we will be unable to quickly and
successfully respond to, with only our own national mechanisms at our
disposition.
In a period of universal cohesion and cooperation and the
domination of information technology, choosing a domestic security and
defence ideal would be a risk that the future generations of Slovenia
will judge us on, if they have the opportunity. To compare us to
Switzerland or even Austria, which exists on the basis of a special
international state treaty, is rather shortsighted and rather ill
considered.
EU and NATO enlargement have reduced the threat of traditional
armed conflict
The changes on the European continent that have occurred since the
fall of the Berlin Wall have created conditions favourable to the
creation of free-thinking and democratic nations. By removing the Iron
Curtain our generation chose a new democratic and more integrated
Europe. The Euro-Atlantic structures, which are based on the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation and guarantee European security, were
strengthened by the first round of NATO enlargement. It cannot be
denied that this enlargement also increased the sphere of democracy
and stability on our continent, though they did not complete it. The
new round of enlargement would certainly not be counter to this
trend. On the contrary, it would consolidate security and defence
structures and promote democratic development here and in the less
peaceful parts of South-Eastern Europe which, whether we want them to
or not, have influenced the internal security of our country for some
time. One should not forget that the security environment of Europe
and the surrounding area always changes quickly and remains uncertain
and unpredictable.
The ongoing processes of European and Euro-Atlantic integration and
the ever more intensive regional cooperation have had a positive
effect on the security situation. EU and NATO enlargement have reduced
the risk of traditional armed conflict on the continent, yet at the
same new secretive and even more dangerous challenges have appeared to
threaten peace and international stability, such as illegal migration,
organised violence and the violation of human rights, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and organised
international crime. These are phenomena that could seriously threaten
our internal security and the freedom and security of every
individual. Their origins do not lie in Slovenia, but they hardly lie
far from home. Refusing to cooperate in managing these phenomena
could harmfully effect our national security. We have come face to
face with some of these phenomena in the not too distant past. We must
remember that it would have been difficult to overcome them without
the assistance of neighbouring countries and NATO members. Nor should
we forget the positive influences on our national security and
international reputation during our membership of the UN Security
Council.
It is true that the end of the Cold War brought about a noticeable
reduction in the risk of a global armed conflict breaking out and the
threat of a general European conflict. Slovenia's independence is not
threatened in the foreseeable future. We are not exposed to a direct
military threat. Our membership in the new NATO would definitely
reduce the danger of the new forms of aggression threatening our
national security.
We must not forget something that Europe is increasingly aware of,
that the reduction in the risk of armed conflict does not bring with
it an equal reduction in the threat of non-conventional forms of
aggression, that have their source in local or regional conflicts. Our
country has previously and still faces these threats, which arise in
the direct vicinity of crisis points and the operation of retrograde
geopolitical forces in south-eastern Europe and the Middle East. The
source of these threats are varied: ethnic and religious convictions,
border disputes, violations of human rights, natural and manmade
disasters, a lack of the basic necessities of life, economic and civil
collapse, weakness or breakdown of state structures, corruption and
organised crime, as a means of life and a means of managing national
and international economic and political processes. All these
conflicts, as they escalate, sooner or later begin to eat away at the
sense of security and become a serious source of wider instability
that is reflected in the national security of a state and its economic
development.
Rapid reaction to crises and conflicts
Europe has recognised that the focus of international security
activities should be placed on rapid reaction to crises and the
prevention of possible conflicts. The military and civilian components
of NATO are more and more involved in these activities.
The experience of recent years have demonstrated that it is no
longer possible to persevere with a traditional understanding of
national sovereignty. The tolerance of the international community for
ethnic cleansing or genocide, international terrorism, and organised
crime due to an unconditional respect for sovereignty creates a threat
to regional and international security. It is becoming ever clearer
that these phenomena cannot be managed at the national level and by
the mechanisms of state regulation alone. It is only possible to
manage these international phenomena via well organised international
measures.
A typical example is the unsupervised transfer of arms and weapons
of mass destruction. This security risk represents one of the most
serious threats to international security. The availability of
materials and technology that could be used to construct arms and
weapons of mass destruction is on the increase, while the instruments
and procedures used to uncover and prevent illegal trade in these
materials and technology at the national level are often ineffectual
or over complicated. These movements are directed towards states where
democracy is in serious crisis, where there is internal conflict or
conflicts with neighbouring countries or to those countries that
support the operations of international terrorist
organisations. Slovenia faces increased risks both as a transit
country for weapons of mass destruction and given its location at the
edge of an international region at risk.
In an era of globalisation, characterised by a large amount of
reciprocal economic ties, the economy has an increased effect on
national security issues. This concerns both the economic potential of
a country, its macroeconomic and financial stability and the amount of
funds allocated to defence and the capacity of its defence
industry. There is certainly no one in Slovenia today, concerned about
the future security of the state, who would not share the view that
the stability and predictability of the economic sphere of
South-Eastern Europe and the Middle East are factors that directly
affect our security. Within its own capacity, Slovenia supports the
processes of economic transformation and the democratic political
changes occurring in the region.
Crises are often followed by large scale cross-border migrations,
which are connected with the danger of humanitarian catastrophe and
regional destabilisation. There are potential dangers posed by a
union of mass migration with organised crime, the smuggling of arms,
nuclear materials, drugs and the means for their
production. Slovenia's geographic position increases this kind of
threat. For some years, Slovenia has been faced with the serious
problem of migrations and organised crime connected to it. The
possibility cannot be completely excluded, if negative security trends
persist, of Slovenia becoming in some measure a target country for
economic migration, although to date it has only been a transitional
country. For this reason we must take into account the economic and
social consequences of the phenomena of migration and address their
causes at the source.
Since 11 September the threat of international terrorism has
increased. The geographic distance of our country from the sources of
this threat is no guarantee of security. Given its particular
location, our country could present a convenient logistical base for
preparations and activities against the citizens, institutions and
companies of other states. This would also involve it in phenomena
that would be a burden on national security that could also affect the
international community's security assessment of Slovenia.
When organised crime takes on an international dimension it becomes
a more serious threat. It is accompanied by dangers such as drug
smuggling, trafficking in people, arms and by corruption. The
existence of international organisations and criminal associations
threaten the internal and external security of a country. These
problems require appropriate state structures and institutions to be
strengthened and effective international cooperation in security
mechanisms to be increased.
New security risks and threats leave no room for complacency
If we choose armed or any other form of neutrality and consciously
exclude ourselves from processes aimed at ensuring international
security, we will become the object of special attention from foreign
secret services. We should not forget that they would be intervening
in our national sovereignty. Instead of cooperation in the field of
information collection as part of collective security and the rapid
prevention of security threats, we could find ourselves in a situation
where for reasons of national security we would have to renounce the
democratic values we choose ten years ago, when we set off along the
path of independence. Nor should we neglect the fact that
globalisation in the field of international security is extremely
interdependent with the use of information technology and means of
mass communication. Globalisation forces us to respond rapidly to
threats that arise. In this relation we can, as an independent state
and within international security cooperation, prepare ourselves to be
a match to these kinds of non-conventional risks. This does not mean
that we will lose our neutrality. Our neutrality is closely linked to
our active cooperation in the framework of international political,
economic, security and defence integration. Our neutrality can be
strengthened and confirmed through active cooperation in the defence
and consolidation of democracy and human rights and fundamental
freedoms in areas where factors arise that threaten our sovereignty,
independence and democracy.
A collective approach to eliminating threats that affect the
national security of participating countries offers other advantages
and privileges, from which non- participating countries will be
excluded. These include restrictions forming part of the immigration
policy of national states, visa policies, the free movement of workers
and capital and access to new technologies.
These are just some of the new security risks and circumstances
worthy of attention as we decide on our future security and defence
doctrine in relation to the international community. The security
risks and threats of the modern world leave no room for
complacency. We must acknowledge that collective security and armed
neutrality both have their price.
| 
