South East European Review Vol. I

RSEEwhere regional and global issues are discussed...eview

South - East European Review – SEE REVIEW • Volume I • Issue 1 • April 2013

Celebrating 64th NATO Anniversary

phot

o by

: N

ATO

Welcome by:Giuseppe Belardeti,Secretary General ,Atlantic Treaty Association

SEE REVIEW is quarterly Journal of the YATA South – Eastern Working Group and it is published by YATA Macedonia.

SEE REVIEW aims to inform and raise debate on the key regional issues and beyond.

SEE REVIEW will primarily inform the broader public, but will also present an open forum for developing dialogue concerning the security challenges through public debates.

The Journal will develop a debate on regional security concepts, the new democratic reality and Euro-Atlantic roots of the region, and will analyze the security challenges facied in the region and beyoun to provide workable solutions for the future of SEE!


RSEEwhere regional and global issues are discussed...eview All the views expressed in the articles of this issue are

those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the South - East European Review editorial board or of the YATA SEE Working Group.

Tel:+389 2 316 22 21 | E-mail: [email protected] | www.yata-interantional.org

South - East European Review – SEE Review

•Volume I • Issue 1 • April 2013

SEE REVIEW is the journal of the YATA South – Eastern Working Group, published by YATA Macedonia.

IMPR

ESU

M Founder / Editor-in-Chief:

Deputy Editor-in-Chief:

Permanent Contributors:

Editorial Board:

Albania

Bulgaria

Croatia

Macedonia

Serbia

Slovenia

Turkey

Language Editor:

Design and Layout:

In cooperation with/supported by

Mr. Ilija Djugumanov, YATA VP for Public Diplomacy; President of YATA Macedonia

Mr. Joao Freitas, YATA Secretary General; President of YATA Portugal

Mr. Jason Wiseman, Program Director at ATA

Mr. Marko Pankovski, Member of YATA Macedonia Presidency

Mr. Daniel Fazlic, Secretary General of YATA Sloveina

Mrs. Ratela Asllani, President of YATA Albania

Mrs. Mariya Sapundzhieva, President of YATA Bulgaria

Mrs. Rea Poljak, YATA Croatia

Mr. Ilija Djugumanov, YATA VP for Public Diplomacy; President of YATA Macedonia

Mr. Boris Viculin, President of YATA Serbia

Mr. Iztok Stefanic, YATA Executive VP; President of YATA Slovenia

Mr. Sami Zafer Tekat, YATA VP for Communication; President of YATA Turkey

Mrs. Elena Dzugumanova

Mr. Zoran Arsov

YATA International

C O N T E N T

Giuseppe Belardeti

João Teixeira de Freitas NATO’s Post-Cold War Victory and The Future of Peace Building

Kristin DurantYATA NETWORK

Jason Wiseman,Jihadist In�ltration in South Eastern Europe – A Flash Point in a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy

Marko PankovskiNATO partnerships sustainability: points for discussion

Daniel Fazlic,Carpe diem Balkan

Ratela Asllani The Challenges of NATO- “Mysterious Enemy”

Mariya SapundzievaBulgarian Euro Atlantic Youth Club: Mediating Education and Politics

Ilija Djugumanov Can the young leaders strengthen the transatlantic tie and what are the options?

Boris ViculinSerbia between NATO membership and military neutrality - “The true source of rights is duty”

Iztok ŠtefaničThe role of youth in the future of security and stability

Rea PoljakYATA Croatia –Past and Future Activities

Sami Zafer TekatYATA Turkey – mission and opportunities

Joint declaration on the establishment of the “YATA South-Eastern European Working Group”

Slovenia

SEE Activities Croatia

Turkey

Declaration

Welcome

In Focus

Beyond Borders

Permanent Contributors

SEE Reviews

Albania

Bulgaria

Macedonia

Serbia

456

7

910

11121315

16

1719

20

4

As a civil society organization dedicated to promoting the importance of transatlantic values in our societies, the Atlantic Treaty Association has a strong case for the region: from a consumer of security, South East Europe became a producer of security by fostering greater dialogue across cultures and religions. This was made possible by progressively integrating the region within Euro-Atlantic institutions, namely NATO and the European Union. The Atlantic Treaty Association has been at the forefront of this process by cooperating with civil society and governmental authorities across the region from the early nineties. A strong emphasis was – and still is – attributed to the engagement of the successor generation into a meaningful debate on transatlantic security and cooperation, through our Atlantic Association of Young Political Leaders and the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association.

Democratic and stable institutions are not a given, but have to be nurtured with responsibility and dialogue. South Eastern Europe embarked on this process and is conducting it through several regional and international fora, each of which has a speci�c added value and is contributing to the overall regional stability within its proper frameworks. Amongst the fora, NATO and the EU assume the largest role as they are the most comprehensive and overarching multilateral cooperation institutions, while incredible value is also provided for by OSCE, the Adriatic Charter of the Southeast European Cooperation Initiative. This process is still a work in progress but ademocratic, pluralistic ad interconnected South East Europe is now before our eyes.

Nevertheless, we should be wary of easy successes. When NATO was founded in 1949, adherence to Atlantic values was not taken for grantedgiven for granted. A golden age of Atlanticism never existed. Its successes were built on the constant work of enlightened politicians and intellectuals, as much as by a general understanding that Atlanticism was the right way forward in a bipolar world.

Rati�cation of the North Atlantic Treaty in countries like France and Italy was far from unanimous. Strong political forces, from isolationists in North America to Communists in Western Europe, refused the idea that Atlanticism was the right solution, that peace is maintained and protected only by working together for a sustainable agreement with your neighbor, an agreement that is not detrimental to anyone, a win-win solution.

Even today, we experience a wave of anti-Europeanism across the continent. Yet Croatia is set to become the 28th EU member in a few weeks. Similar to what happened more than 60 years ago, when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, today new countries – Croatia and then Albania being the latest - are embracing the values and principles de�ned in the short North Atlantic Treaty.

When thinking about South East Europe, my memory goes to the memorable book by Ivo Andric, “The Bridge on the Drina.” The story span around 4 centuries across the region, �rst dominated by the Ottomans and subsequently by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While always inhabited by a variety of races, cultures, ethnicities and religions the bridge is a metaphor for the complex relations between the di�erent groups. The novel resulted in Andric being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1961. The same bridge that was once used to deploy armies and weapons for war became an instrument of commerce and exchange. It now stands as a testament of a great cultural heritage.

Our SEE Review is animated by a group of Atlanticists who believe in the importance of working together, strengthening ties across countries to avoid the misunderstandings and violent outbursts of the past, and living in a peaceful and prosperous Europe. A comparison between the current situation in North Africa and the Middle East with that of South Eastern Europe of the early nineties is not too far from reality. As much as Andric’s South Eastern Europe was a melting pot, sometimes violent, sometimes innovative, today’s Middle East and North Africa are similarly an accumulation of traditions, world views and philosophies.

As in Europe, where we learned to co-exist and respect each other, the future of the MENA region lies in the de�nition of their own interna-tional institutions and political frameworks that will allow people and governments to interact and cooperate.In the next pages, much will be said about international cooperation frameworks and national strategies toward regional security. Lessons learned from regional experts will be drawn and I am persuaded that new and fresh ideas will be presented, which will contribute to further strengthening regional dialogue.

Finally, my congratulations go to the promoters of this great initiative: the Euro Atlantic Council of Macedonia and its Youth Division. Special thanks go to Ilija Djugumanov who produced this Review and collected the contributions.


Welcome

Giuseppe Belardeti,Secretary General, Atlantic TreatyAssociation

ear readers,welcome to the �rst issue of the South East European Review.

This Review aims at collecting bright and innovative ideas on the political, economic and security future of this crucial European region.D

NATO’s Post-Cold War Victory and The Future of Peace Building

Celebrating 64th NATO Anniversar y

It was November 9th, 1989; a large crowd of German citizens cheered on and roared through as a wall that had once symbolized oppression, separation and the rule of fear within Europe – indeed the stone and gravel embodiment of Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ – was torn down. The path toward German Reuni�cation was laid bare, and only 2 years later, on the 26th of December, 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved and its 15 republics were given back their rightful independence.Crumbling under the systemic failure and inadequacy of soviet Marxism to produce wealth and prosperity, and stumbling under the weight of armament accumulation and military industry overburdening, the Soviet Empire had failed. But its failure was not exclusively due to neither structural shortcomings nor the natural shortcomings of human nature within megalomaniac projects, there wasn’t just self-defeat – the Atlantic Alliance, NATO, had stood its ground, promoted a sense of collective safety and further united, politically and militarily, its member states. NATO and the U.S.A. as the ‘benign hegemony’ leading the Alliance had triumphed over the Soviet project. The security of the E.U. project itself had also depended on NATO (despite the wrongful attribution of the most recent Nobel Peace Prize) and, thus, one could probably assume the role of NATO was to be done and �nished at the turn of the 20th Century, with the end of the Cold War and the Reuni�cation of Germany under the �ag of a stable and prosperous democratic republic.

One would assume wrongly.

And many reputed theorists of Geopolitics and International Relations made such wrong assumptions; Fukuyama clamored his ‘The End of History’, for example, and was soon proven wrong as the systemic threats to the Alliance and its members evolved with the arrival of the transnational threat paradigm.The shocking reality of the rise of ethno-nationalism and its rami�cations so close to home (namely within former Yugoslavia) also struck a chord in what concerned the new role of NATO and its importance for collective security. All in all, the coming events during the 90’s and early 21st Century (with the 9/11 attacks) proved NATO’s role was far from over. Victory had not defeated NATO; it had merely forced it into an institutional and praxis standstill that led to the reassessment of its outreach and capacities in order to adapt to a new International Structure.

Slowly but surely, under U.N. Security Council Approval and Mandate, NATO and its member-states participated in several collective security operations designed to stem the tide of transnational threats (such as ISAF and Uni�ed Protector), proving its newfound purpose as a collective security organization with a global outreach – further proven by missions such as Operation Ocean Shield, which actively combats the transnational threat to prosperity and stability that is Piracy.

E�ectively, the cohesion, inter-operability and active political and military cooperation within and from NATO have also allowed for the current lock down on Jihadist movements. The space for Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist and extremist organizations is becoming increasingly smaller, despite transnational threats evolving every day, and the threat from potential fundamentalism and political extremism is currently trans�guring itself into a State-bond form (Iran, North Korea, the Sharia conservatism turn within the ‘Arab Spring’, etc.). This in turn further shines the spotlight on NATO’s contemporary importance. If we are to deal with new State-bond threats, then a framework such as NATO’s is all the more essential in what concerns transnational and international security. Furthermore, the continued existence and importance of NATO has stimulated the emergence of Youth associations and public advocacy groups that actively seek grassroots based peace-building, through international seminars and regional working groups among young students and the future elites of countries all over Europe and beyond.This Atlantic Youth – born from a shared passion about the importance of Security and NATO – is paramount in healing the wounds of many past con�icts. It actively proves peace can be achieved through dialogue, mainly when done among more open-minded, less memory burdened individuals with an academic orientation to their thoughts and their understanding of the world.In this sense, initiatives like the SEE Working Group will prove fundamental in the coming years. And will also prove how NATO not only has produced security and stability for its member-states and partners for peace, but has stimulated the surge of an international intellectual society as well...of an international network of Young Atlanticists.

5

In Focus

João Teixeira de Freitas, Secretary General,Youth Atlantic Treaty Association

YATA NETWORK

6

As President of the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA), I have been chosen to represent 37 National Chapters consisting of students, young researchers and professionals who all want to do their bit to improve our global community by drawing attention to important issues, being constructively critical of decision-makers, promoting dialog and thereby impacting agendas. They make up the international network of youth that is YATA, and they work tirelessly to engage young people in international politics and security issues. We do this primarily through debate - in the belief that if two people have engaged in civil dialog, hostility between them is less likely.

YATA’s biggest strength is that we encompass a multitude of cultures, languages and political systems. This helps to nuance our perspectives, engage in meaningful dialog and involve youth from all over the world in our activities. YATA’s two �agship initiatives, the Danish Atlantic Youth Seminar (DAYS) and the Portuguese Atlantic Youth Seminar (PAYS) are prime examples of the work that we do. Both are week-long events with a broad variety of academic and social activities taking place, and an introduction to the cultural and political context of the host country. Both are golden opportunities to experience the magic that takes place when open-minded young people of many di�erent nationalities and backgrounds gather to interact and discuss some of the core issues in international relations. It is most often at these types of events that personal contacts are established and ideas take hold.

I was happy to witness a shining example of this when I attended the annual 2BS (To Be Secure) Forum on June 3–6 2012 in Budva, Montenegro. The Atlantic Council of Montenegro had decided to host 15 YATA representatives - many of whom were from South Eastern Europe (SEE) but had never met each other before. The time spent together during the conference created a movement to spur closer cooperation in the region. Action was quickly taken, and in the few weeks following the event, a project proposal for the establishment of a YATA SEE Working Group was formulated and the agreement for cooperation was signed at our recent General Assembly in Rome, Italy. The establishment of the SEE Working Group is an important milestone for YATA and the involvement of youth in the South Eastern European region.

We aim to inspire youth to become active participants instead of passive listeners. Volunteer work provides the foundation for our organization. We create strong academic and social networks both nationally and internationally by acting as volunteers. We recognize the importance of the history that is shared across the Atlantic and the values that have been born from this shared history: freedom, liberty, peace, security and the rule of law – as formulated in the North Atlantic Treaty. These are values which few people will dispute and to a large extent, they have become a matter of course and are taken for granted. This is where YATA plays a signi�cant role, because we provide a framework for practicing and thereby, experiencing the virtues of Atlanticism. Within the context of our network, the concept becomes directly applicable. As a YATA member you are meeting with people of di�erent nationalities, discussing a broad variety of political, social and economic issues and learning about values and interests which can vary greatly from your own.

We are constantly trying to maintain the balance between focusing on what we have in common, while simultaneously facilitating a forum in which di�erences can be discussed, analyzed and thereby better understood. In YATA, we respectfully challenge one another’s views and thereby gain greater insight. This is important with the wide geo-political area that we encompass. We see it as our duty to do all we can to engage, educate and motivate young people to take part in debates which will ultimately a�ect their future. Initiatives such as the South Eastern European Working Group will prove vital in supporting youth to go beyond borders.


Beyond Borders

Kristin Durant,President,Youth Atlantic Treaty Association

Jihadist In�ltration in South Eastern Europe – A Flash Point in a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy


Considered Europe’s “frontier” in its �ght against militant Islam, South Eastern Europe (SEE) has been central to global counter-terrorism e�orts for nearly two decades. Due to its ethnic diversity, geographical location and war torn history, SEE has become a �ashpoint in the Global War on Terror. As the recent Burgas bus bombing indicates, the region is particularly vulnerable to jihadist activity which has the potential to undermine the fragile peace that has been built in recent years. This article will analyze jihadist activity in SEE to demonstrate the signi�cance of developing a cooperative strategy with SEE countries that enhances their motivation and operational capabilities to develop an e�ective counter-terrorism strategy for the region.

Analysis of jihadist in�ltration in SEE will focus on three factors. First, how the in�ux of foreign �ghters and money during the war years impacted the region. Second, how jihadist in�ltration continued after the war and the impact this has had on international security. Third, how continued jihadist activity undermines SEE security and the implications this holds for the future of the region.

The In�ux

Having turned to the Muslim world for support during the war years, President Izetbegovic facilitated the in�ux of thousands of mujahedeen or “holy warriors” to assist the beleaguered Muslim population. Largely coming from North African and Middle Eastern countries, with strong �nancial and political support from the Gulf states, foreign jihadists not only provided material support, but began to introduce an ideological campaign based on a non-compromising and radical version of Wahhabi Islam that remains prevalent in the region today.

Numbers vary but estimates range from 700 mujahedeen entering SEE in the �rst year of the war, to over 3 000 mujahedeen by late 1995. Having played a signi�cant role during the war years, many of them moved on to �ght in di�erent “theaters of jihad” including Kosovo, Albania, Chechnya and Afghanistan while many others set down roots in Bosnian and Albanian society by marrying local women and/or applying for citizenship.

This created a complex problem for Bosnian and Albanian authorities. On the one hand, the foreign �ghters were viewed as heroes by the local society, having come to their aid during the war. On the other hand, they were undermining regional peace building e�orts by spreading their ideology and conducting terrorist activity, preventing SEE’s ability to fully integrate into the Euro-Atlantic region or cooperate with the international community. This has led to a relatively low scale of government action against terrorist infrastructure which is conducted mainly to satisfy the West.

This problem underscores the dynamics of regional counter-terrorism e�orts today since the in�ux of foreign �ghters and money during the war has allowed jihadists to gain considerable in�uence within areas of SEE society, vastly undermining e�orts at regional cooperation.

Impact on the International Community

The fragile political systems throughout SEE after the war allowed foreign jihadists to consolidate and spread their in�uence throughout the civil society as well as assume positions in the newly formed government institutions. The weak central government and growth of ungoverned spaces throughout the region, allowed them to operate freely while state sponsors like Saudi Arabia established charities and nongovernmental organizations such as the “Third World Relief Agency,” “Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation” and the “Saudi High Commission for Relief” to funnel �nancial and logistical support to the mujahedeen. This facilitated two major concerns: �rst, it led to the spread of homegrown extremism and the growth of a widening dawa infrastructure inside the country. Second, it created a critical “stop-over point” where jihadists could receive training along with operational, �nancial and logistical support during their travels.

7


Jason Wiseman,Project Director,Atlantic Treaty Association

1

2

Kohlman, Evan F. 2004. Al Qaida’s Jihad in Europe: The Afghan Bosnian Network. Oxford, U.K.: Berg Publishing, p. 162.

Shay, Shaul. 2007. Islamic Terror and the Balkans (Herzilya: The Interdisciplinary Center), 72.

2

1

8

This has had four major impacts on counter-terrorism e�orts around the world:

1) Homegrown Extremism – Islam in SEE was traditionally in�uenced by the Hanna� school of Sunni Islam, known for its promotion of tolerance with a reputation of being moderate and largely secular. The in�ux of Wahabbism has led to radicalization and internal strife within Muslim communities. Moreover, by 1995 the ideological goals of the mujahedeen shifted from helping their co-religionists to creating a frontline against the West. Their goals were to spread jihad and develop a base of militant Islam from which to strike Europe. The propagation of this ideology has grown considerably following the war years. In October 2011, a Wahhabi convert attacked the US Embassy in Sarajevo while in 2010, Serbian police broke up a terrorist cell operating in the mountainous Sandzak region straddling the border between Serbia and Montenegro that was planning to attack Western embassies in Belgrade.

2) Government In�ltration – Largely a result of homegrown extremism concentrated in Bosnia, intelligence agencies believe Bosnia is the only country in Europe where jihadist sympathizers, surrogates and collaborators hold government positions. In February 1996, plans to attack NATO installations in Bosnia were discovered at a terrorist training camp near Sarajevo sta�ed by Iranian instructors. The commandant of the camp was Alija Izetbegovic’s personal intelligence chief and head of the AID (Bosnia’s secret police) Bakir Alispahic. Today he is the head of the security committee of Izetbegovic’s SDA party, despite being on the US black list of individuals prohibited from visiting the US because of terrorist ties. Moreover, it has been alleged that Bosnia’s embassies and consulates around the world have issued passports to Islamic extremists, causing serious concerns about the depth of government in�ltration.

3) Transit – Travelling to and from Europe to the Middle East or Central Asia almost inevitably requires going through SEE. It’s geographical location, weak border security and frail governments have made SEE countries a key transit route for jihadists seeking to enter or retreat from a combat zone. The Iraq War in 2003 illustrated this clearly as many jihadists made their way through the Balkans to �ght Coalition forces in Iraq, receiving money, training, o�cial documents and religious zeal before smuggling themselves through the region and into the Middle East or vice versa.

4) Access to Legal Documents – Considered a “golden ticket” since SEE passports allow someone to travel throughout the European Union without arising much suspicion, jihadists have regularly sought out and received passports, visas and legal paperwork from local authorities. Since 9/11, Western intelligence agencies have warned various authorities to be on guard for travelers bearing Bosnian passports since some of the worlds most wanted terrorists acquired Bosnian citizenship during and after the war.

The discovery of Bosnian passports in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq have raised international demands that Bosnia step up its e�orts in combating Islamic extremism and safeguarding their issuing of legal documents. The combination of these four factors has allowed jihadist activity in SEE to have a major impact around the world. Veterans of Bosnia’s Kateebat el-Mujahidin (Battalion of Holy Warriors) include some of the most high pro�le jihadists of the last two decades including: Khalid Sheik Muhammed (the mastermind of 9/11), Juma al-Dosari (involved in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Riyadh), Omar Saeed Sheikh (involved in the 2002 kidnapping and beheading of Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl), Juma al-Dosari (participant in the 2000 USS Cole bombing) and dozens of others. This has resulted in regional and international intelligence agencies remaining at an impasse with how to address this issue as jihadist activity in SEE continues to feed civil strife, corrupt local authorities, endanger international forces and undermine political reconciliation.

Implications for the Future

With a very extensive network and a deeply rooted dawa infrastruc-ture, the future of the Balkans does not look bright. Despite improve-ment in regional cooperation in recent years and a reinvigorated e�ort on the part of local authorities to address and counter terrorist activity, SEE has a long way to go before it can claim to be su�ciently secure from jihadist activity.

As countries in SEE continue to work towards Euro-Atlantic integration and NATO membership, their goals will be signi�cantly advanced by furthering cooperation with each other and the international community to address this common threat. With an increase in Western engagement, provision and oversight of operational and �nancial support to local and regional authorities, construction of joint counter-terrorism campaigns, continued support and encour-agement towards moderate Muslims challenging radical Islamists and their ideologies and the establishment of multi-national task forces with su�cient legal authority to counter terrorist activity, major progress can be made. If and when these measures are taken, countries in SEE can make signi�cant gains in addressing their security de�cit, consolidating their political progress and move closer towards reconciliation and coexistence. This will result in more than Euro-Atlantic integration or NATO membership, it will result in SEE turning the tide from an importer of security to a key exporter of security to the international community.



Oluic, Steven. 2008. Radical Islam on Europe’s Frontier – Bosnia and Herzegovina. National Security and the Future 1-2 (9), p. 38-41. Bardos, Gordon. “Iran in the Balkans: A History and a Forecast” World A�airs, January/February, 2013. Oluic Steven. 2008. Radical Islam on Europe’s Frontier – Bosnia and Herzegovina. National Security and the Future 1-2 (9), p. 41. Ibid, 41 Bardos, “Iran in the Balkans: A History and a Forecast”

3

4

5

76

3

4

5

7

6

NATO partnerships sustainability: points for discussion


The process of increasing the prevalence of the NATO partnerships policy throughout the world can improve the Alliance to expand its capabilities to prevent and manage threads. Furthermore, looking for more and more partnerships is a proactive strategy which allows NATO logical advantages. Even though NATO partnerships policy seems pretty clear and precise, there are some questions that should be answered. Is this global partnership network something that NATO can successfully manage? Moreover, is NATO capable to adjust its position towards the possible requirements of the partners? And �nally, can NATO rely on the partners that have unstable governments and make radical political changes from one election cycle to another?

Regarding the �rst question, NATO should analyze its capabilities to manage such wide network of partnerships, having in consideration the possibility to neglect some existing partnership structures. Obtaining strong and useful partnerships requires energy and commitment. Thus, NATO should prioritize and decide which partnership structure or initiative is most important for the contemporary security context. But should NATO prioritize the Mediterranean Dialogue or the Istanbul Initiative? Even if it seems easy to answer that both should be practiced, that will lead to two relatively weak networks of partnerships. In order to create two-way partnerships which are strong and contributing, NATO should prioritize, which o� course, does not mean that the other partnerships networks should be abandoned.

The process of adjustment of NATO positions towards the possible requirements from the partners is something that can prevent further development in some partnerships structures. Partnerships means cooperation and that in some point inevitably leads to compromise. Thus, NATO in some points of the partnership process will face requirements from the partners that will be against the interest of the Alliance. Some of the partner countries are not developed democracies which means that some NATO political or military standards sometimes will not be implemented completely. NATO partnerships are not designed for operational cooperation only, but also to strength the ties on strategic and political level. Even though NATO has a list of dialogue and consultation priorities, the frame is too broad and the possibilities and actions related to misunderstanding are not determined.

On long term, in the process of deepening the partnerships structure, it is completely normal that partners’ positions can become opposed and in this situation, NATO should have previously determined strategy how to act.

Finally, as a very important point for discussion on NATO partnerships policy is the question that rises when unstable governments and radical political course changes are mentioned.

Along with the partnerships initiatives and partnerships with organizations, NATO is building individual partnerships with many countries. These individual partnerships include countries like Ukraine and Georgia which politics related to euro-atlantic security and integrations signi�cantly vary from one election cycle to other. It is certain that such countries are not reliable partners for NATO on long term and that these partnerships work only on ad-hoc basis. Even though the framework for cooperation with these countries is limited, NATO should rethink the way of cooperation with countries that have no continuity in their foreign relations policy. Such political variations can easily change the status of particolar country from partner to potential threat which questions the sustainability of these partnerships.

To conclude, NATO partnerships policy developed signi�cantly since the end of the Cold War and many useful initiatives and partnerships were created with countries that are important security factors regarding euro-atlantic security. The orientation of NATO to integrate instead of isolate and to proactively spread its partners’ network, strengths the NATO in�uence on global peace and security, which is vital to NATO development as a security organization in a globalized world. The process of creating partnerships is extensively dynamic and requires permanent revision and rethinking in order to be improved and to match with the contemporary security processes. NATO should constantly revise its partnership policy, develop it and try to make it a sustainable process that will eliminate the threats and will result with more safety among the NATO and its partners.

9


Marko Pankovski,Member of Presidency,YATA Macedonia

1

1 The o�cial list of dialogue and consultation priorities:• Political consultations on security developments, as appropriate, including regional issues, in particular with a view to preventing crises and contributing to their management;• Cooperation in NATO-led operations and missions;• Defence reform, capability and capacity building, education and training;• Interoperability;• Counter-terrorism;• Counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery;• Emerging security challenges, including related to cyber defence, energy security and maritime security, including counter-piracy;• Civil emergency planning.

For more information, please visit: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_84336.htm?

Carpe diem Balkan

10

When I was asked to write for the journal I was constantly thinking on what to write about. I will write about what this journal is all about: the Balkans and the youth living in this term or de�nition. What I will talk about is the Balkans itself: most of us and most foreigners know little or nothing about the Balkans. They do know that there was a war in the area, an area the EU integration is moving towards and where the pejorative term balkanization (“process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other« (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary)) comes from.

The term Balkan is most probably a Turkish term - "Balkan" is generally believed to come from Turkish balkan, meaning "a chain of wooded mountains." (Great Turkish Dictionary 2013). Alternately, the name may have derived from the Persian bālkāneh orbālākhāna, meaning "high, above, or proud house," and brought to the region in the 12th and 13th centuries by Turkic tribes who applied it to the area (Todorova 1997, 27).

What many people who have worked with the population of this peninsula have seen that we are an extremely proud people, which were tossed around and conquered by many nations which had huge impacts on our culture, ways and values. Although there are at least 11 countries with di�erent cultures but with similar ways and the languages themselves have a similar background.

The youth in is living di�erently, compared to their peers from the West, especially in the light of the wars that raged in the 1990s. The post war ideology and the detente that was established hinders further integration policies and sti�es cross-cultural integration in the area. This is what this initiative was built on: to make a tool where the youth from the area will take charge of our own policies and ideas; not to be governed and controlled by the Western ideology, which is sometimes seen in the Balkans as to »parent like«. We are a generation lost in our parent’s norms and values and are still unable to �nd our own as globalization is kicking hard and confusing the predominantly already bewildered.

The youth in the Balkan is well educated and is versed in several languages, but is lacking the opportunities which are denied to us by the worsened economic state and loosening of the social fabrics which hold together the people of the area. The economic decline which has lasted since the 1980 and had its ups and downs has brought pessimism to our homes. Prospects are dimming as we are being fed by the ideals of a social welfare system while at the same time see no way of entering it, what’s more, the war has opened the wounds of sorrow and the borders have sti�ed the lines of communication.

I see that only communication will bring optimism back into our area. The peninsula was more or less always controlled by other powers and governed by foreign states and only recently have we become masters of our own homes, regardless of the state of them. The situation has not been resolved yet, but the new driving force of the 21st century – the youth, will look not with the eyes of their parents but through the eyes of cooperation. Lines of communication will provide a lasting peace in the Balkans and will provide as a platform upon which will be able to build new homes and the most important thing – new ideas, which will not only change the area, but change Europe as a whole. I am an eternal optimist and I see the Euro-Atlantic bond as the bond that will spread the idea and integrate the South-Eastern European ideas across many nations. The change will happen slowly but it will happen. This short article is for all of you to understand that the Balkans is an energetic, problematic and exciting region which needs its opportunity to put itself on our feet, not to be lifted upon them.

I was honored recently to be selected the �rst Liaison of the South - Eastern European Working Group. I have to say that this group would not have happened without the energy and sacri�ce of many people whom I am proud to call my friends and it is only �tting to show them the gratitude they deserve. They are a group of young professionals that will one day change the world for the better and this Working Group is only the �rst step of their exciting paths that will, and I can say this without a hint of a doubt, leave foot marks all over the Transatlantic link.

Sources: Great Turkish Dictionary. Büyük Türkçe Sözlük. Available at: http://www.tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/: Türk Dil Kurumu (25.3.2013).Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. 2013. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/balkanized (27.3.2013).Todorova. Maria N. 1997. Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University Press



Daniel Fazlic,YATA Slovenia

The Challenges of NATO- “Mysterious Enemy”


Looking from the perspective of the Cold War, it was very well known what made together the transatlantic community was the common enemy “the Communism”, which was identi�ed with “Soviet Union”. However, after the cold war and with the fall of the Berlin Wall, that perspective has changed on its own. From my opinion the most security challenge that transatlantic community is facing today is the identi�cation of the common enemy, which I would rather name it as “mysterious enemy”. This “mysterious enemy” may come from any kind of challenges that our world/planet is facing. Indeed, the “mysterious enemy” can be hidden in the three most relevant factors we are facing today and those are cyber/technological threats; nature disasters /global warming; and famine /economic crisis.

Primarily, I would emphasize the role of technological and moreover the cyber threats, which one day may be able to convert the real battle �eld into computers’ battle �eld (everything auto-commanding). This is more dangerous rather than the one in real battle �eld, due to the fact that in the real battle �eld, the target and the military forces are known, but the “mysterious enemy”, can not be under the control, and target is unknown as well. The main point is, if the target is the civilian/innocent people, it will be really devastating. The technology may be used by all extremists, known as terrorists, radical Islamists, ultra-Orthodox, organized criminals, ultranationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-Communists, etc. We all are aware that technological weapons (biological, chemical and nuclear) one day may fall in the arms of those unconscious people. Therefore, all of them may �nd a common shelter, which may be provided by cyber technology. All these abovementioned groups have established their networks and their own supporters across the continents, and they are very well organized by spreading their ideology. Their ideology may unite them in the production or purchasing of a valuable asset to respond to our values. Indeed we must be prepared, but how?

Most of the actual leaders are aware of these threats, but maybe the way of addressing them is di�erent. We should not forget that those groups are radical, extremist and any kind of aggressive response toward them makes the situation worst. The aggressiveness of the world’s leaders does not make them better than those radical groups. However it makes them as “bad” as radicals. In other words, the next generation of leaders should address those sensitive issues with maturity, by understanding the root of the problem, �nding the diagnosis, what makes those people so radical, what are the issues or policies that have radicalized them, what is uniting them and why. It is important to identify those issues, and the work can be started by this point, reducing their dissatisfaction and weakening their linkages. The radicals do not represent a state or armed forces of a group. It is much harder to �ght the non-state actors, because the history has demonstrated that is the same as �ghting a guerrilla war. Those groups are supported by the people/civilians and �ghting them through aggression is very hard, to say maybe impossible. Therefore, the main way of �ghting those groups is by loosing their supporters, an indicator that keeps those groups and their ideology alive.

The second important factor known as natural disaster/global warming, is another “mysterious enemy” that our world can not predict. This is why the armed forces play a signi�cant role in helping the civilian population. The new generation of leaders should work in this direction, addressing the environmental issues, scienti�c researches and work together hand in hand with other organizations that have emphasized these issues. This is not matter of ideology, but the matter of all humanity and all species living in our planet. This goes further than Article 5 of the NATO members, it goes for all countries/state (recognized or not). The last factor that makes every people to be a “mysterious enemy” is the famine. Therefore, it is the law of nature that people will �ght for their survival. If the famine spreads a virus, then it is hard to deal with it. Statistics have shown that countries that deal with famine in daily life are facing wars, while prosperous states have gained security.

If those three factors are combined with each other will make the enemy more mysterious, and this is the security threat that we are facing today. Although NATO is a political-military organization, one of its challenges are also to address issues that may bring to a con�ict situation. NATO should deeply get involved in the world threats not only in those of 28 members. Those threats may come from various dimensions. Moreover, in my opinion as far as “the mysterious enemy” is still persistent and a�ects the whole world, the NATO mission probably should be extended and more universal.

11

SEE Reviews

Ratela Asllani, General Directorate of Defence Policies,Ministry of Defence, Albania

Bulgarian Euro Atlantic Youth Club: Mediating Education and Politics

12

Undoubtedly, Bulgaria is one of the most fascinating countries on the Balkan Peninsula. It’s a phenomenon how a combination is created between the temperament of the typical Bulgarian and the urge to struggle for development in this so problematic part of Europe, where balance has forever been the key point for survival. Striving to remain stable throughout the ages, now Bulgaria is one of the latest members of the European Union that shows an outstanding potential to take a leading place in the economy of the region. Considering its rich, but also controversial history dating from 7th century, as well as its amazing and beautiful nature, Bulgaria has deservedly become one of the top tourist destinations in South-Eastern Europe. In the past 20 years, which were transitional period for the nation, Bulgaria showed that it is capable of creating miraculous changes in most of the sectors – not only in economy and politics, but in the judiciary and administration and most importantly – in the way the average Bulgarian thinks and acts on the national and European scene. Marks for its recent development are also many useful NGOs which were founded in Bulgaria since the 90s and are still working right now.

The Atlantic Club of Bulgaria is one of these few NGOs in South-Eastern Europe which has both shaped many of the landmark events in recent history such as Bulgaria’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact, accession to NATO, EU, signing of the Antarctic Treaty and comprehended the in�uence of technology. The Club’s tradition in bringing innovation dates back to its founding in 1990 when its emergence on Warsaw Pact territory was a novelty of its own. It was founded by Dr. Solomon Passy, who after eight years in government and international organizations was back at the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria in 2009. One of the well-deserving successors of the Atlantic Club is the Bulgarian Euro-Atlantic Youth Club (BEAYC).

BEAYC is directly related to the Atlantic Club Young Leaders Program, founded under the umbrella of the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria. As a legal entity, BEAYC was o�cially set up in July 1996 and is the o�cial youth branch of the Atlantic Club. It is a voluntary, national and pluralistic youth organization that unites young people with di�erent political, ethnic and cultural a�liation, political leaders, state and military o�cials. Among the main aims of BEAYC is the promotion of the Euro-Atlantic values among the youth in Bulgaria by advising and supporting the youth organizations a�liated with di�erent political parties, students’ communities, decision makers in the Bulgarian state institutions and the people at large. Another important goal for BEYAC is to foster Bulgaria’s involvement within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic political, economic and defence institutions. Corresponding to its ambitious approach, the activities of Bulgarian Euro-Atlantic Youth Club include organizing of visits and lectures by domestic and foreign experts and distinguished speakers, seminars and conferences on various topics, information and publication about the developments within NATO, EU and related international organizations (including information about scholarships, seminars and research opportunities), initiating important contacts with similar organizations abroad. As a consequence, BEAYC has established numerous contacts with a lot of international non-governmental organizations.

Also, having in mind its contacts in the sphere of foreign policy and international relations, BEAYC in cooperation with the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria organized a lot of keynote speeches of famous people in the last three years: Ban Ki Moon, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, European Commissioners, Heads of States and Governments, Ministers of Defence, Ambassadors, Cabinet Ministers ets.

BEAYC have a success with a lot of projects related to NATO topics, European Commission and other international donors.Typically for the ACB the youth from BEAYC are currently looking for those idealistic ideas for the development of Bulgaria and its place in the world, which will become a reality in time.


SEE Reviews

Mariya Sapundzieva, President,Euro Atlantic Youth Club, Bulgaria

Can the young leaders strengthen the transatlantic tie and what are the options?


Starting almost 60 years ago, the transatlantic partnership is undoubtedly the key element of security of United States as well as European countries. Transatlantic partnership is something that is bene�cial to development of both sides of the Atlantic and is evolving continuously. During this period, the transatlantic partnership became multidimensional and included almost every important �eld other than just security concerns. Regarding security issues, it became pillar of the euro-atlantic security pattern as well as example of cooperation and understanding between two geographically distanced contingents. It is due to its unique way of common assessment and management of threads which allows to the countries to share their view on contemporary challenges and actions.

One strong characteristic of the transatlantic partnership is in its informal institutionalization through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Almost every included country is a NATO member state and those which are not members of NATO are NATO partner countries or members of EU. The NATO Alliance is the most important part of the transatlantic partnership because it represents all key countries involved in the process of creating the transatlantic partnership. According to many factors, NATO is synonymous with transatlantic partnership, a body that shapes the mutual relations, common security concerns and the way of reaction.

Even though NATO represents the transatlantic vision of its member states, partners across the Atlantic have not had same position on every question related to their security concerns. Partners in the transatlantic community often have di�erent perceptions on the form and level of engagement in international missions and use of resources available.

But there is something else that is seen as a more complex problem than the set of di�erent views among the countries in the transatlantic partnerships scheme. The transatlantic community has three important challenges that should take into consideration in order to strengthen its ability to shape the international security in the future.

Management of resources is a problem that occurred during the world economic crisis which also implicated on the economies of North America and Europe. The economic crisis questioned the management practices of resources in the past and required new approach. Governments were obligated to decrease some expenses in security sectors which resulted with doubts about the level of future preparedness of the countries for the future challenges.

13

SEE Reviews

Ilija Djugumanov, President of YATA Macedonia,YATA Vice –President for Public Diplomacy

14

A third challenge that transatlantic partners should take into consideration is the role of youth in these processes. Having no major event or reason to remind and motivate them, new generations of young people are less aware of the importance of transatlantic partnership. In contrast of previous generations, contemporary young people cannot have such strong feelings about the level and importance of the friendship across the Atlantic. There are two ways of how this challenge should be addressed. The �rst one is, as a problem and the second one is, as an opportunity.

Transatlantic partners must perceive the youth as an opportunity to improve their ties in the future. But in order to achieve this, they should assess the need for youth transatlantic integration. Economic crisis can be a major obstacle during this process but this should never serve as an excuse to halt progress. Youth should intensively cooperate and through this cooperation, realize the need of youth integration in the process of strengthening the transatlantic partnership.

Further recognition of the role of the Atlantic Treaty Association is the �rst step towards achieving this goal. The use of this type of organization is the best possible way to engage the youth population in new processes of changing and improving the transatlantic partnership. Thus, the global widespread network of Atlantic Treaty Association members is a strong foundation to raise the awareness among the youth. Even though this organization works on a high level, countries should support projects of this organization which are oriented towards integration of youth in the process of strengthening the transatlantic partnership.

New generations of leaders should be created that will be aware of the importance of transatlantic partnerships. Youth have the power to create changes and their leadership should be recognized which will result with strengthening of the transatlantic partnership.


SEE Reviews

Thus, countries had to choose between two di�cult paths: to decrease their level of preparedness and to focus on most important challenges or to share their capacities together with the partners. For the NATO members countries the �rst choice was unacceptable because in the Strategic Concept of 2010 they agreed upon even more �elds which should be added into the broader security framework.

On the other hand, the concept which is most appropriate for addressing this austerity challenge was called Smart defence. This concept is present long time ago but recently for the �rst time, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen shaped it in a frame which is acceptable for every NATO member state. This concept is seen as a cure for the contemporary security threads by every country included into transatlantic partnership. One important characteristic for this concept is its broad design which some countries �nd satisfactory because there are no direct ways of orientation. On the other hand, this freedom of action can cause problems in the way how this idea is implemented. The concept of Smart Defence can contribute to mutual trust among the countries and can solve the problem with austerity measures across the countries. Thus, the level of implementation of this concept will drastically shape the future of the transatlantic partnership.

Another important challenge regarding the transatlantic partnership is the level of development of actors that were not considered indispensably important during the years of creation of this transatlantic tie. The level of comprehensive development of new world emerging powers can seriously undermine the transatlantic partnership if it’s not accepted as a new reality which is contributing to the changing balances of power. The economic crisis can change the way of orientation of many countries towards new rapidly raising economies. Transatlantic partners should �nd a way how to position their attitude towards the new emerging powers in a way that will integrate them in one broader global security network.

Photo by: http://www.britishcouncil.org

“Transatlantic partners must per-ceive the youth as an opportunity to improve their ties in the future.”

“Countries to choose between two di�cult paths: decrease their level of preparedness and to focus on great challenges; or to share their capacities...”


From 2000. question of NATO membership of Serbia is the one that is been dealt very carefully. No matter is it the word about politicians, media, experts etc. the term euro-atlantic integration, which in some manners is representing the euphemism for NATO membership, in Serbia this term newer reached the strength and popularity of the term European integration, which used to denote EU membership of Serbia.

Resolution of the Serbian parliament from 2007. in which we have the stand that the Serbia is military neutral country, has become formal framework for the public strategy that the Serbian NATO membership is not the topic. This issue was not discussed in a quality manner even in 2009. when Croatia and Albania became NATO member states, even though by the accession of these two states Serbia become surrounded with NATO members or the countries that will soon became NATO members.

The main problem of Serbian politics in the euro-atlantic integration is that they are based on assumption that the next elections could be organized even tomorrow, and because of that reason the parties must in the �st place have on mind the future voters, and unfortunately - their emotional relation with NATO. The idea of military neutrality is not well developed in political and social institutions of Serbia, especially from the aspect of international relations – which is as we can see from the history of traditionally neutral countries such as Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Ireland and Finland, that most important aspect. The military neutrality of Serbia is not recognized by any country trough some kind of international agreement or any other document that could be recognized by great powers and international organizations.

Modern security risks that has transnational and asymmetric character, imposed the need of cooperation within national states in the area of defence. If Serbia would like to ensure the security of its citizens, it can not be an exception in this process.

In general, the advocators of NATO membership are pointing out that in case of NATO membership of Serbia, our country would be much safer country and more desirable economic partner and the fact that all of the east-european countries before acquiring EU membership, �rst became NATO member states. On the other hand advisories of this idea are putting in the �st plan some arguments such as the war with NATO from 1999. as well as the fear that NATO membership of Serbia would worsened relations with Russia.

Research made before the Strategic military partner conference 2011. that was held in Belgrade in June 2011. showed that on a potential referendum about Serbian NATO membership, 61 percent of citizens would vote against, and only 15 percent in favor of aforementioned.

Although this is the situation concerning the public opinion, facts that the Serbia still does not have communication strategy for NATO membership and is not currently participating in NATO led missions - some of the NGOs are already implementing some of the elements of the Communication strategy by working with the public directly and as well as trough the media, and the Army is working on the implementation of NATO standards. For example…Within e�cient usage of partnership mechanisms from the PfP program, Serbia decided to use tools from Operational Capabilities Concept Evaluation and Feedback (OCC E&F). For usage of this mechanism, Serbia got good remarks from NATO when 26 evaluators participated in the evaluation of the interoperability of the Serbian Army units declared for EU and UN peacekeeping missions from Sep 5-14, 2012. in Sombor within the military exercise named SHIELD 02. This exercise, involved more than 250 Serbian soldiers from infantry, military police, and CBRN units, who simulated a real operation scenario in English, using NATO tactical procedures and modern devices. After this exercise, Chief of NATO Military Liaison O�ce in Belgrade BG Ornello Baron expressed satisfaction with the exercise which was, in his opinion, performed with outstanding professional skills demonstrated by the Serbian Army units. Beside this, Serbia also used the tools from NATO Building Integrity Program, which is a part of NATO’s commitment to strengthening good governance in the defence and security sector. We got a really good feedback from NATO expert team that visited our country at the end of 2012. in order to check the progress of our MoD in the use of NATO BI toolkit, when the NATO ambassador for BI projects - Mr. Jan Lucas Van Horn, expressed his satisfaction concerning great e�orts made by the Serbian MoD in this process.

Having in mind that the NATO membership is not one of the formal conditions for EU membership, Serbia could be exception in the process, but the question is how would Euro-Atlantic community accept wish of Serbia to share its economic, political and legal power embodied within the EU and not security responsibility for the preservation of the former, embodied in NATO? (as one of the greatest paci�sts in history – Mahatma Gandhi said:� The true source of rights is duty� - author's note). What is more important is the question why should we denied ourselves the possibility to in�uence some decisions by “self-expelling” our state from the forums in which there are discussions and decision making processes about us…?

15

SEE Reviews

Boris Viculin,Project manager,President of YATA,Atlantic Council of Serbia

Serbia between NATO membership andmilitary neutrality“The true source of rights is duty”

The role of youth in the future of security and stability

16

It is a privilege for me to write an article for the very �rst SEE Review, which is a result of intense regional cooperation and great work done by the team from YATA Macedonia. We have only recently set on the path of closer cooperation among the young representatives of national chapters of the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA), which proved especially fruitful and promising in the region of South-Eastern Europe. Although the younger population may often �nd the �eld of international security and cooperation less interesting and even feel it is unnecessary, we are determined to make it fresh and relevant by conducting joint research in the �eld and promoting the exchange of ideas and experience among the representatives of di�erent countries.

The concept of security has become ever more globalised and interconnected in the past twenty years. The countries in the region of South-Eastern Europe understand that it is inevitable and imperative to base their security on the values set in the North Atlantic Treaty – democracy, rule of law, liberty, peace and security. It has become apparent in recent years that local or regional security challenges will often cause a so called “butter�y e�ect” and have massive consequences in a geographically remote region or within a completely di�erent �eld. Unfortunately, the established processes and norms in the society and within the political system tend to focus on the obvious security threats and challenges, while overlooking threats which cause more damage and casualties. The political, economic and security successes enjoyed by the Euro-Atlantic area after the Second World War and especially since 1990, have almost faded into memory. Currently European Union is still undergoing a �nancial, economic and political crisis, impact of which is evident in several areas. We can see security threats emerge as a consequence of high unemployment rates (especially among the younger popula-tion), which are rarely discussed publicly or in the mainstream media.

This, coupled by nationalism and radicalism, could be one of the most challenging security challenges facing the transatlantic community in the 21st century. At the same time, incentives are arising to eliminate the very architecture which underpinned this extraordinary success story (i.e. European Union's attempts to duplicate NATO's roles and structures and Russian tendencies to implement entirely new European security architecture). The growth of defence budget of some members (e.g. the United States) of the alliance and cuts of the initially low defence budget of others, especially the smaller European countries, which continue to be a�ected by the crisis, poses a security threat to the international community as well. Such disproportionate distribution of e�orts and costs for the protection of security worldwide is alienating the members of the alliance, creating distrust and dissatisfaction.

I believe that instead of focusing on searching for “The” security challenge of the future, our generation should reconsider current institutions and their ability to adapt to the new globalised world. Young professionals, students, researchers and future leaders have a unique responsibility to take part in the rethinking of both national and international institutions regarding their role in the future of security and stability. We, who have been born and raised in the age of rapid changes, interconnectedness and hyperlinks, are the ones who are able to comprehend the modern security architecture and should be much more aware of the value and importance of international peace, security, stability, democracy and peaceful coexistence. What we need to focus on is embracing the opportunities for learning, networking and researching security from di�erent angles and perspectives.

YATA and the YATA South-Eastern Europe Working Group are great examples of successful youth engagement in the �eld of international security, creating several opportunities and initiatives which will generate change and contribute to the process of building a stable and a secure future. In August 2013 the Youth Section of the Euro-Atlantic Council of Slovenia (YATA Slovenia) will organize a project titled “Balkan Summer Atlantic Youth Seminar – Balkan SAYS”, a dynamic multicultural “think-tank” experience, which will bring together and create a network of young professionals, provide them with an opportunity to openly discuss the security and stability issues in the region and collaborate with international colleagues in order to �nd creative and unique solutions based on research and analysis under the mentorship of reputable experts in the �eld. Projects such as SEE REVIEW and the Balkan SAYS will undoubtedly contribute to the development of our security and stability, and I am honoured to be able to participate and contribute to this process. I encourage all the young and not so young people reading this to take part, �nd your �eld of interest and contribute with the best of your abilities.


SEE Reviews

Iztok Štefanič,YATA Executive Vice President,President of YATA Slovenia

Celebrating 64th NATO Anniversar y 17

YATA Croatia –Past and Future Activities

Island of Kolocep, Dalmatia, Croatia

SEE Activities

December 2011 - The Youth Committe of the Atlantic Council of Croatia, NATO, PDD ProgramMembers of the the Youth Committe of the Atlantic Council of Croatia visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium (Program organized by NATO Public Diplomacy Division)

Public Lectures and Round Tables. April - September 2012In order to raise public discussion on the future role of NATO the Youth Committe of the Atlantic Council of Croatia co-organized round tables and panel discussions covering following issues: Croatia in NATO: Experiences and Challenges, North Africa − Challenges to International Security, Russia’s Foreign Policy, Iran in International Relations: Nuclearisation of Iran, China’s Policy on Euro−Atlantic integrations.

Active websiteThe Atlantic Council of Croatia (Youth Committee) together with the Centre for International Studies launched interactive website which is open to wider public in terms of publishing analysis, reports and articles dealing with International Relations in general and Euro−Atlantic integration in particular, thus providing objective information on the issue. It also announces all important events organized by the Atlantic Council of Croatia as well as our regional partners.

International Summer School – Koločep, Dalmatia, Croatia 2012In 2012, as well as the past eleven years, Youth Committee of the Atlantic Council of Croatia, the Atlantic Council of Croatia and Center for International Studies from Zagreb organized the International Summer School, which was from July to September 2012 held on the island of Koločep, Dalmatia, Croatia. The primary goal of the school is to inform and prepare young Southern European leaders for the world of the future, especially for a better understanding of the courses of Euro−Atlantic integrations.

18

During the last eleven years the International Summer School, previously held on the island of Šipan, gathered more than 1500 participants through a total of 41 seminars. Also, the International Summer School hosted a number of senior government o�cials, diplomats, politicians and university professors from various countries in the region and the world.

Three international scienti�c conferences and one scienti�c symposium were held within 2012 International Summer School on the island of Koločep:1. Conference: The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union, 2nd-7th July 2012 in cooperation with Royal Danish Embassy in Croatia2. Conference: European Union - Enlargement, 20th -25th August 2012 in cooperation with Hanns Siedel Stiftung in Zagreb, Croatia3. Conference: NATO and Mediterranean: New Challenges and Prospects, 27th -31st August 2012 in cooperation with NATO Public Diplomacy Division, Brussels, Belgium4. Symposium: Contemporary Terrorism and Bioterrorism, 3rd -8th September 2012 in cooperation with Pliva Croatia d.o.o. and NATO Public Diplomacy Division, Brussels, Belgium


SEE Activities

International Summer School 2012 on the island of Koločep through three scienti�c conferences and one scienti�c symposium gathered participants and speakers from following countries: United States of America, Austria, Turkey, Greece, France, Spain, Slovenia, Poland, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, Hungary, Germany, Denmark and �nally from Croatia.

Participation at the International Conferences and Seminars

Members of the Youth Committee of the Atlantic Council of Croatia have again this year participated in the work of numerous international seminars and conferences thus contributing to scienti�c discussion on future of NATO and regional integration process. Our members participated, gave lectures and published their works at conferences in following countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Austria.

UPCOMING ACTIVITIES 2013

Spring , Fall 2013: panel discussions, round tables and debates organized at universities in Croatia with prominent diplomats, professors, political o�cials and employees in various associations and institutes from the �eld of international relations.

June/July/August 2013 – the Youth Committee of the Atlantic Council of Croatia will participate in organization of the 12th International Summer School 2013 held traditionally in Croatia, Dalmatia, Dubrovnik, Island of Koločep (Hotel Villas Koločep).

1. June 17-22 - Conference (TBA) in cooperation with Royal Danish Embassy2. June 24-28 – Conference (TBA) in cooperation with NATO Public Diplomacy Division3. August (TBA) – Conference in cooperation with Hanns Seidel Foundation

Workshop, Island of Kolocep, Dalmatia, Croatia

Group photo - Kolocep

Celebrating 64th NATO Anniversar y 19

YATA Turkey – mission and opportunities

18th International Security and Cooperation Conferance - ANTALYA

SEE Activities

The aim of TAK is to enlighten public opinion about Turkish Foreign Policy and relations with international organization, especially with NATO.

Turkish Euro – Atlantic Youth Committee (YATA- TURK) is a youth organization which aims to inform young people about the issues concerning international security and also organizing conferences and other activities in accordance with this aim. YATA- TURK, which shows activity under the Turkish Atlantic Council, is at the same time the Turkey branch of Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA) which is under the patronage of Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) since 1996. Turkish Euro – Atlantic Youth Committee has o�cially been established in 15 July 2005 with the approval of ATA Turkey and now has been continuing its works and projects with an accelerating speed. It is formed by young and politically motivated leaders with the mains of:

- To develop and maintain a strong network of responsible future political leaders,-To promote cooperation among the youth from NATO Member Countries, NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Countries, and NATO Observer Countries.- To educate and inform the public on international security a�airs.- To engage young leaders in promoting the importance of the Trans Atlantic security relationship, while simultaneously helping to shape its future.- To deepen cooperation with other international organizations in an e�ort to generate debate regarding the role of key security institutions, such as: NATO, the EU, the OSCE, the UN, and the Council of Europe.- To encourage research into the role of NATO.- To support the activities of the ATA.Apart from all this, it gives us the opportunity to make new and concrete friendships and also helps us to create a link between cultures and di�erent folklores.

And we believe that, together we will build up a better world where comprehension, respect, peace and security do not take place in speci�c regions but in the entire world.

Furthermore, YATA has a wide range of events like certi�cate programs, seminars, debates, internships, conferences, workshops and social gatherings, all of which attract participants from NATO and neighboring countries. Although a big portion of the participants are university students and academics; heads of states, prime ministers, cabinet members, army o�cials of all ranks as well as civil servants and journalists regularly join such kind of events.

YATA turkey delegation visit NATO HQ

Joint declarationon the establishment of the

“YATA South-Eastern European Working Group”

Joint Declaration on the establishment of the “YATA South-Eastern European Working Group”

Page 1 of 5

Joint declaration

on the establishment of the

“YATA South-Eastern European Working Group”

* * * * *

We, the representatives of national chapters of the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA)

from the region of South-Eastern Europe (SEE): YATA Albania, YATA Bulgaria, YATA Croatia,

YATA Macedonia, YATA Serbia, YATA Slovenia, YATA Turkey, and YATA International

(hereinafter referred to as Partners),

in accordance with real needs for improvement of the communication among the Partners; and

the outcomes of the initial meeting of Partners in Brussels on June 18th 2012 and official

announcement of the initiative at the ATA Council Meeting on June 20th 2012,

we have come together determined to further intensify the cooperation and mutual assistance

in YATA activities and with the desire to pursue common interests, develop joint projects,

educate and inform regarding youth engagement in the region of South-eastern Europe in the

field of security and defence;

considering our strong devotion to the Euro-Atlantic idea and values of Democracy, Freedom,

Liberty, Peace, Security, and the Rule of law;

have agreed on the following:

Article 1

In order to improve competences of YATA national chapters from SEE, promote the exchange of

experience and practices, strengthen professional ties and mutual assistance and add value for

individual organizations the Partners have agreed to establish the “YATA South-Eastern European

Working Group” as a regional network of south-eastern European YATA chapters (hereinafter referred

to as the Working Group).

Members of the Working Group are YATA national chapters from the SEE region, which have signed the

Joint Declaration on the establishment of the “YATA South-Eastern European Working Group”.


Page 2 of 5

Article 2

The purpose of the Working Group is to bring together YATA chapters from the SEE region, to facilitate

cross border cooperation through common projects and activities, in order to avoid duplications and

reduce costs, to strengthen competences and to contribute to the sustainable development and to the

process of Euro-Atlantic integration of the countries in the SEE region.

Article 3

The President or other designated representative from each Partner shall act as the National Contact

Point to the Working Group. The National Contact Points will represent ideas, interests and focus areas

of their YATA national chapter in the Working Group and communicate the developments within the

Working Group to their national chapter.

YATA International will be represented in the Working Group by a representative from the YATA

Executive Board, who will represent ideas, interests and focus areas of YATA International in the

Working Group and communicate the developments within the Working Group to YATA Executive

Board.

Article 4

The Working Group will be managed and administered by the Liaison of the Working Group. The Liaison

will be rotated among the National Contact Points for a one year non-consecutive term.

The Liaison shall:

- act as the representative of the Working Group,

- be responsible for the organization of annual meetings of the Working Group,

- act as the administrator of Skype conference calls of the Working Group,

- act as the administrator of the Facebook Group of the Working Group.

Article 5

The Working Group will establish regular communication among the National Contact Points through

annual meetings of the Working Group, Skype conference meetings and Facebook Group platform.

Annual meetings of the Working Group will be organized once per year by the Liaison. At the annual

meetings key decisions regarding the Working Group will be adopted, e.g. amendments of the

Declaration, accession of new members to the Working Group, withdrawal of Partners from the Working

Group and the election of the Liaison for the next mandate.

A high representative of YATA International will assume the position of Chairperson at the Annual

meeting of the Working Group.


Page 3 of 5

Skype conference meetings will be called by the Liaison on a regular basis, with the purpose of

discussion of ideas, development of common projects and exchange of information among the Partners.

The Liaison shall act as the administrator of Skype conference calls.

Facebook Group platform will be established for the exchange of information regarding the activities of

the Working Group and individual Partners activities. The Liaison shall act as the administrator of the

Facebook Group.

Article 6

Decisions of the Working Group shall be based on consensus of all Partners, unless stated otherwise.

Article 7

The Working Group shall focus on the following activities:

Maintaining regular communication among the National Contact Points through the established

communication channels;

Sharing experience and supporting each other in developing and executing national and/or

regional projects;

Developing and organizing common projects/activities;

Promoting the participation of members at the national events organized by individual chapters;

Developing and publishing common publications/newsletters;

Reviewing and evaluating all activities accordingly.

Article 8

The Declaration shall be valid for an indefinite period of time. The Partners can at any time propose

amendments to the Declaration.

Article 9

YATA national chapters from the SEE region may apply for membership in the Working Group to the

Liaison. Accession of new members to the Working Group will be decided at the Annual meetings with a

consensus.

YATA national chapters outside the SEE region may apply for the status of Observer to the Liaison.

Accession of new Observers to the Working Group will be decided at the Annual meetings with a

consensus.


Page 4 of 5

Article 10

Any Partner may withdraw from this Working Group at any time by written notification to other

Partners and the Liaison. The withdrawal shall take effect at the next Annual meeting of the Working

Group.

Article 11

This Declaration shall not affect any rights and obligations of the Partners arising out of other

international, multi- or bilateral engagements, be of a legal or a political nature.

Signed in Rome, the 3rd of February 2013.



South - East European Review – SEE Review

•Volume I • Issue 1 • April 2013

SEE REVIEW is the journal of the YATA South – Eastern Working Group, published by YATA Macedonia.

Tel:+389 2 316 22 21 | E-mail: [email protected] | www.yata-interantional.org

South East European Review Vol. I

Documents

yata vp

yata croatiamr

president of yata bulgariamrs

president of yata serbiamr

president of yata albaniamrs

review volume

future of security

challenges of nato