North Atlantic Treaty Organization Chair: Nicolette D’Angelo North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Chair: Nicolette D’Angelo NATO PMUNC 2016 Contents Letter from the Chair…….………………………...……………………...…..3 Introduction to NATO.….………………………...……………………...…..3 Topic A: Hybrid Warfare in the Baltic………….....……………..……………4 History of the Topic…..…………..………..……………………….……….…………6 Current Status/Key Issues……………………….……………..…………...…………9 Country Policy.....…………………………………………….……………………….13 Keywords……………………………………....………………...…………….…..….17 Questions for Consideration………..…………….………………...…….……….…...17 Bibliography……….................……………………………..……………………...…...19 Topic B: Counter-terrorism.……………....…………………..……………..21 History of the Topic..……………………..……………………….……….…………21 Current Status………………………………………………………………………....25 Country Policy.….…………………...……………...…..……………………………..29 Keywords………………………………………………………………………….......30 Questions for Consideration...........…………….……………………..………………..32 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..32 2 NATO PMUNC 2016 Letter from the Chair Dear Delegates, On behalf of Princeton and the International Relations Council, welcome to PMUNC 2016! My name is Nicolette D’Angelo, and I’m a sophomore from West Milford, New Jersey majoring in the English department. My main focus of study is poetics and antiquity, so I’m also pursuing certificates in Creative Writing and Humanistic Studies. And while I did Model UN all throughout high school, this is my first time staffing a college conference. It's both an honor and dream-come-true to be your chair! When I'm not stalking Best Delegate, I'm also involved on campus editing the Nassau Literary Review, singing with the Chapel Choir and working for the Princeton Writing Center. Other hobbies include blogging, reading the Nass Weekly over brunch and being woefully overdressed for class. But enough about me - I'm so excited to meet you all and share our first PMUNCs together! That said, if you have any questions about this background guide - or about MUN, the committee or anything in general - please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing all of you in action very soon! Sincerely, Nicolette D’Angelo [email protected] Class of 2019 3 NATO PMUNC 2016 Introduction to NATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military and political alliance made up of 28 member states throughout Europe and the Americas. First established on April 4th, 1949 with the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s creation at the beginning of the Cold War was an attempt at balancing power between the East and West. More specifically, the rise of Soviet Union following WWII – and the widespread fear of the communism that came without it, especially in Europe – necessitated some form of intergovernmental action that would provide for the mutual protection of several allied nations in the North Atlantic. As such, NATO’s primary purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through its most unique, enduring principle – the principle of collective defense. In the North Atlantic Treaty, collective defense is established in Article 5, wherein it is stated that “an armed attack against one or more [members]… shall be considered an attack against them all.”1 However, Article 5 had never been formally invoked until the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States. In so doing, the North Atlantic Council – the governing body of the organization – exhibited solidarity toward the US, as well as its power to engage in collective action against counterterrorism. Among other things, this action involved radar aircraft patrol, naval standing forces and efforts to “enhance intelligence- sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies.” The cooperation and sharing of NATO’s military assets follows both a civilian and a military structure. Of the former, each member state has at its disposal a delegation of permanent representatives, all of which are overseen by the NATO headquarters in Brussels. 1 "The North Atlantic Treaty." NATO. Accessed September 29, 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm. 4 NATO PMUNC 2016 Of the latter, NATO military operations oversee forces placed under the organization’s jurisdiction by individual member states, along with associated command and control structures. These forces are available for NATO operations once they meet a specific set of readiness criteria, as well as rules of deployment that vary from country to country. In civilian and military matters alike, however, a consensus is taken by common consent. Since 1949, this principle of consensus has existed at every committee level, meaning that any “NATO decision” passed is an expression of the collective will of the 28 sovereign states participating in the Alliance.2 This system is interesting politically – and rather idiosyncratic on the international stage – seeing as consensus decision-making means there is no voting within NATO. Consultations instead take place until a course of action that is acceptable to all is agreed upon. Surprisingly, this negotiation process happens rapidly since members consult each other on a regular basis. They often can anticipate each other's positions as a result. 2 Nato. "Consensus Decision-making at NATO." NATO. March 14, 2016. Accessed September 29, 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49178.htm. 5 NATO PMUNC 2016 Topic A: Hybrid Warfare in the Baltic NATO was originally established to balance power between the Soviet Union and North Atlantic nations, and today, many of the Alliance’s recent actions still concern the relationship of its member states to Russia. Especially in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s aggressive foreign policy and the annexation of Ukraine, Russia’s use of unconventional tactics has been a controversial military Frankenstein – otherwise known as hybrid warfare, its tactics of international conflict (for which there is no universal definition) have only further complicated the already-delicate geopolitical status of the Baltic region. And in NATO’s tenure of dealing with this threat, hybrid warfare increasingly has delegitimized the Alliance’s usual posture of deterrence. Deterrence Historically, deterrence has always been a core element of NATO’s collective defense strategy. It can be defined as “the threat of force in order to discourage an opponent from taking an unwelcome action.”3 The Alliance or a member state typically can deter an adversary in two ways: by the threat of retaliation (deterrence by punishment) and/or by rejecting the validity of the adversary’s war aims (deterrence by denial).4 In both cases, deterrence seems to be a matter of displaying military prowess – of putting one’s power “on display.” In theory, then, deterrence should never fail to be effective according to a cost- benefit analysis of both parties’ security and interests: if all parties were to act “rationally,” 3 Collective Defence - Article 5." NATO. March 22, 2016. Accessed September 29, 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm. 4 Ibid. 6 NATO PMUNC 2016 belligerence would often seem to be an unattractive option, especially when nuclear power is involved. Or at least one would think. Unfortunately, in the 21st century, conventional deterrence techniques have often failed, especially in cases of hybrid warfare – that is, when an adversary incorporates “a tailored mix of conventional weapons, irregular tactics, terrorism, and criminal behavior in the same time and battlespace to obtain [a group’s] political objectives,” among other things.5 History of Hybrid Warfare For NATO to both understand the threat of hybrid warfare and make strides to neutralize it peacefully, it is necessary to fully explore how this tricky combination of conventional and irregular war strategies has been used throughout history. In other words, the serious security challenge now called hybrid warfare is not nearly as new as it seems. As early as the Peninsular War in 1807, states have deployed hybrid warfare in the following forms – through the use of regular and irregular forces, strong links with national or transnational criminal groups, unclear distinction between civilians and soldiers, and finally, military activities in the situation when war is actually not declared.6 For example, just as regular militiamen joined forces with Spanish guerillas under the British Army in the Napoleonic Wars, today’s hybrid tactics also involve a broad array of military, political, 5 By History: Why Sweden and Finland Will Not Be More than NATO Partners. "On Not-So-New Warfare: Political Warfare vs Hybrid Threats - War on the Rocks." July 28, 2015. Accessed September 29, 2016. http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/on-not-so-new-warfare-political-warfare-vs-hybrid-threats/. 6 Šešelgytė, Margarita. "Can Hybrid War Become the Main Security Challenge for Eastern Europe?" October 17, 2014. Accessed September 29, 2016. http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/can-hybrid-war- become-the-main-security-challenge-for-eastern-europe_2025 7 NATO PMUNC 2016 economic, information, and – now – even cyber instruments used by actors, be them nation- states or non-state actors without strict allegiance to any one state or sovereign body. This brings several salient examples of hybrid warfare to our attention, such as the 2006 war between Israel and the Hezbollah; the September 11th attacks; and the 2014 Islamic State’s advance into Iraq. The 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict is a well-trod example of hybrid warfare for several reasons. From 2000 to