Strategy International

In the past two decades, NATO has gone through four stages of its mission transformation. The first stage involves adjusting the mission to the new post-Cold War requirements; the second stage involves cooperation with the UN and military engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and the third stage is military, so-called humanitarian intervention in Yugoslavia.

Dr. Jasminka Simić[1]

CHALLENGES FACING NATO IN THE 21st CENTURY

ABSTRACT

During the entire post Cold-War era, numerous security challenges were pushing NATO in search of a new mission. Although redefined several times in the past, NATO’s mission is still not steady and in its final shape. NATO’s framework is not final yet for several reasons: lack of internal balance; NATO is moving towards rather “loose“ formula of Trans-Atlantic relations, through a “Coalition of the Willing“, in which countries accept the level and scope of military engagement in war missions (Afghanistan and Iraq)  according to their own interests. This certainly has influenced the character of NATO Mission in the 21st Century. Therefore, NATO countries do not speak with “one voice“ and they do not equally participate in military missions. Instead, specific countries are engaged in specific issues, in compliance with Security Council resolutions. NATO deepening and widening process is continuing in the 21st Century.

Key words: NATO, SFRJ, Euro-Atlantic security, cold war, UN, EU, OSCE, USA, Serbia, Euro-Atlantic Integration, Europen Security and Defence Policy

INTRODUCTION

In the past two decades, NATO has gone through four stages of its mission transformation. The first stage involves adjusting the mission to the new post-Cold War requirements; the second stage involves cooperation with the UN and military engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and the third stage is military, so-called humanitarian intervention in Yugoslavia. At the beginning of 21^st century, NATO entered the fourth stage of its mission transformation. It is taking place under the conditions of global war against international terrorism after the terrorist attack on the United States, the largest member state of NATO, and in an attempt to "regain" capability and efficiency to deal with situations that require achievement and maintenance of lasting peace and security in the world. It should be noted that shifting of NATO towards global role in dealing with security issues came with its involvement in the former Yugoslavia (during the last decades of 20^th century), and involvement in the fight against terrorism in at the beginning of 21^st century. NATO has demonstrated exceptional persistence in adjusting to new security situations with different levels of success, with open answer to the key question - how to achieve higher efficiency of the organization? Therefore, in the coming second decade of 21^st century, the success of NATO mission in Afghanistan will be a major security challenge for this organization and its leader member state, the United States, which has largest number of troops there. At the same time, NATO continues the process of vertical and horizontal expansion (deepening & widening process), which started in the nineties of the 20^th century, that is, simultaneous widening of its scope of activity and enlargement (i.e., definition of the new mission).

Terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was an attack on NATO member state, based on what, two days later, NATO called to Article 5 of Washington Agreement (principle of collective defense), for the first time in history. According to this article, attack on the United States meant the attack on all NATO members, implying that they were supposed to act as united coalition and punish the perpetrators of this terrorist attack.

For NATO member states, the attack on the US was the beginning of intense fight against terrorism and need to develop additional capabilities of its armed forces, including "effective intelligence service, preparedness and ability for deploying forces, effective engagement, ability of survival, protection of forces, defense against nuclear- biological and chemical (NBC) weapons, communications and logistics ... In order to be able to contribute to modern security challenges, partner countries should develop the above mentioned skills, and join with other partners into international coalitions whose creation is necessary, due to the cost and complexity of the issue which makes it impossible for a single country to do alone."[2]

Activation of Article 5 was viewed within NATO as an important political sign of unity and solidarity among its member states, which was necessary to show after different opinions regarding the issue on bombing of Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, different opinions occurred again, about the management of war against terrorism. They became apparent when American president Bush, Jr., named Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the "axes of evil" and centers of terrorism, and threatened to launch a war against Afghanistan and later Iraq. A period that was supposed to be, in compliance with overarching strategy for defense against terrorism, a period of joint activities, became a period of actions carried out by the United States only. Without having support by its EU partners in NATO, America launched a war against Afghanistan (2001), marked as a country of terrorist organization "Al Qaeda”, and its leader Osama bin Laden, accused of attacking the United States.

After the attack on Afghanistan, America began to incline towards unilateral military actions and engagement in broad anti-terrorist coalitions, which were carried out without formal institutional agreements. A disagreement between Euro-Atlantic partners about a model of fight against terrorism has caused strained relations within the organization, which have deepened when America revealed its intention to attack Iraq. This intra-institutional crisis was a warning to member states that reasons for the crisis were embedded deep in NATO structure, and that for global fight against terrorism it would be necessary to develop broader institutional framework for NATO activities, in which OSCE and EU should have important roles (in the European continent). These three institutions should become the pillars of the United Nations, in the fight against terrorism.

THE TRANS-ATLANTIC GAP

The trans-Atlantic gap emerged during the Cold War with the appearance of various movements for European unity and independent policy management within the framework of NATO (de Gaullism, Eastern policy), which did not reflect only European desire for own policies, but also the opinion that American approach to Cold War was too dangerous[3]. The trans-Atlantic gap in the post-Cold War period was manifested through disagreements of NATO partners about military-political and economic issues, based on which we have concluded that the period after the Cold War was characterized by a new type of the West-West conflict. The conflict between the West-West began gradually to grow and reached its climax before the war against Iraq (2003). Samuel Huntington for example, predicted that the 90’s of the 20th century will bring a complete unification of European Union, as a reaction to American hegemony, which would enable the creation of multi-polar world in the 21^st century. Exactly opposite thing happened – instead of becoming a superpower, Europe became impotent in relations with its Atlantic partner. This was proven in the Balkans conflicts, Kosovo crisis and bombing of Yugoslavia, while the war against Iraq was the climax of transatlantic gap in terms of political orientation, military capacity, technology and capability to manage modern war.[4] European partners did not agree with the American plan for deployment of a missile defense system in the territory of Poland and the Czech Republic. Disagreement was resolved in the summer of 2009, when President Barack Obama decided to modify the "anti-missile shield" and redirect it towards Romania. Besides specific military actions, such as the war in former Yugoslavia, redefinition of the NATO’s role and influence depended on internal relations within the organization.

Differences among Euro-Atlantic partners were overcome because they had a strong common interest - the continuation of NATO as the only military alliance that holds together Western allies. Even in the case of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which was the key event in the process of redefining NATO mission, although with “certain hesitation”, European partners have followed the US policy.

NATO AND U.S. INTERVENTION IN IRAQ

Deepest transatlantic gap was created on the occasion of U.S. plans to attack Iraq (2003), on the grounds that Iraq was producing nuclear weapons, i.e. was trying to restore some prohibited weapon programs and support the terrorists. The United States prepared the so called “pre-emptive strike”, a new type of military intervention (after the humanitarian intervention in FRY), with the goal to prevent Iraqi produce or use nuclear weapons, even not being certain that Iraq had nuclear weapons at all. Thus, the United States have become advocates and implementers of the two types of military intervention: humanitarian and pre-emptive.

Driven by different interests and past experience, especially the bombing of Yugoslavia, some European NATO members were not convinced that attacking Iraq and joining the new coalition led by the United States was the right thing. There was a disagreement about the best strategy to be applied in fighting terrorism, but economic interests of countries in the Middle East and their economic relationship with Iraq, also had an important role.

Germany, France and Belgium (Belgium and France had similar attitude) were against the attack on Iraq, while the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy supported the position of the United States. Why did Germany and France confront their Atlantic partner in the case of Iraq, and not in the case of bombing Yugoslavia?[5]

Germany did not want to engage in the action such as attack on Iraq, even with the UN mandate, because it was not satisfied with the consequences of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. German position against U.S. policy in Iraq was well received by German public; even conservatives believed that the United States went too far, asking for new transatlantic balance and giving more weight for Europe. French attitude was much more complex and primarily based on economic interests considering that Middle East and Iraq are the most important export markets for French goods. Besides, it is part of French tradition of defy the role of U.S. as the only superpower.[6] The European Union, at its meeting in February 2003, less than a month before the attack on Iraq, came with joint position according to which the UN was the main institution responsible for resolving the Iraqi crisis, and that the war was not inevitable, as America claimed. Thus, in the case of Iraq, the problem between the United States and EU members of NATO was caused by active rejection of American policy by the European partners, and not by lack of military power as it was the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo. For the same reason European partners in NATO do not approve military intervention in Iran and North Korea, the countries accused for possession of nuclear weapons.

The attack on Iraq was one of crucial events for continuation of NATO as a military-political organization. NATO was not only experiencing a deep gap among its member states, but even closing down, given the fact that America soon showed that it does not need partners who refuse to be military engaged.

Transatlantic gap and efforts for its overcoming had crucial impact on: 1) redefinition of NATO mission in 21^st century, 2) intensive building of European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI).

1) At the beginning of a new century, it was obvious that NATO decisions were not passed unanimously, as it was during the 90’s of last century, and especially during the Cold War period. After the bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO member countries were not so willing to pass unanimous decisions and jointly engage in military interventions. Realizing that, NATO strategists launched the concept "coalition of the willing" for the new century and actions carried out after 2000 (the coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq). This meant that all NATO future actions would be based on free choice of member states, that is, “coalition of the willing” and no intervention would be binding for all member states. The United States believed that it was impossible to fight a war when a consensus of the Council of NATO was a requirement before attacking any strategic objective. Thus, NATO did not fight in Afghanistan and Iraq as a joint military and political organization (or anywhere else after the bombing of Yugoslavia).

The future NATO mission will be affected by issues which, due to their complexity, can create different positions within the organization - Iran, Russia, Asia, including the position towards multilateralism. This fact indicates that NATO is moving towards a new and rather "loose" formula of transatlantic relationship, which leads to new redefinition of NATO mission (fourth), characterized by: lack of consensus among the Euro-Atlantic partners, engagement of NATO in compliance with resolutions of the UN Security Council, and engagement of individual states in certain actions.

NATO mission operates with such a "loose", but functional partnership in Afghanistan.  Although it is carried out under the UN mandate (August 2003), NATO mission in Afghanistan is the first NATO mission outside Europe, aimed at strengthening security forces in Afghanistan to take responsibility for safety in the country. This mission is important because the success of American fight against terrorism and closing the circle around the events of September 11, depend on the success of the mission in Afghanistan. For President Barack Obama, the war in Afghanistan is completely legitimate, as opposed to the war in Iraq.

2) While the experience in Kosovo led to development of the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI), the transatlantic gap that emerged about the issue of Iraq, has intensified the engagement of EU NATO countries on further elaboration of ESDI. In May 1999, during the intense bombing of Yugoslavia, the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force in EU. This document included the so-called, Petersburg tasks on humanitarian actions, peacekeeping, crisis management and establishment of peace, by which the European Union set grounds for its future peacekeeping missions, which began with missions in the former Yugoslavia. The EU has 14 missions throughout the world (in the Democratic Republic of Congo, monitoring mission in Georgia, naval operations off the coast of Somalia) and is increasingly becoming a global player in the international security scene. This will certainly be one of the reasons that will affect NATO future mission and its continuation[7].

However, the development of effective partnership relationships with NATO remains crucial for many European partners. Therefore, an agreement was signed with NATO ("Berlin plus", 2002), according to which the EU can utilize NATO military assets for EU-led operations, if there is a need for that. This agreement enabled NATO to support crisis management operations led by the EU, in which NATO is not fully engaged. Strategic partnership between NATO and EU has remained, and two organizations are complementary to each other. This was confirmed through EU mission in the Balkans. First, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM), where the European Force (EUFOR) replaced NATO forces, which left the country in March 2003. It was the first EU military mission implemented within the European Security and Defense Policy. In BiH, EU offered its services to take over the mission of international police force (SFOR mission included the international police force). In December 2004, EU took over command of international forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUFOR). In Kosovo, the EU mission (EULEX) took over the UN civilian mission (UNMIK) in December 2008.

OVERCOMING THE TRANSATLANTIC GAP

While Europe did not change its position regarding the war in Iraq, it stopped criticizing the U.S. about this issue, and started advocating democracy and rule of law in Iraq (training of Iraqi judges, police and other judicial officers) by organizing together with the US an International Conference on Building Stability and Prosperity in Iraq in Brussels (June, 2005). Transatlantic dialogue was significantly intensified in 2005, by President Bush visiting Europe (three times in six months) and EU delegation paying back a visit to the United States at the US-EU Summit. Since 2005, there has been a new mood in transatlantic relations, fueled by political changes in some European countries.

In Germany, with Chancellor Angela Merkel coming to power, Shredder’s political agenda about the role of NATO in the field of security in Europe and beyond the continent has changed. Though she has criticized the U.S. about treatment of prisoners in the camps at Guantanamo, Mrs. Merkel believes that NATO should remain in charge, and the European defense system should not be in conflict with NATO, and NATO should become a large transatlantic forum. In France, where there was an idea about powerful Europe with strong foreign policy and defense system independent from the United States and NATO, attitude towards NATO also changed when President Nicolas Sarkozy came to power (2007). He was advocating stronger Atlanticism and French integration in NATO military structure. This policy was implemented at the NATO Summit in Kiel and Strasbourg (April, 2009). As a confirmation of changed attitude, France deployed 800 additional troops with the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

With Barack Obama becoming President of the U.S. (the winner of Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.), the relations have improved (at least in the areas of ideological differences – e.g. announced closure of Guantanamo Bay Prison) and EU was able to discuss on equal basis with the U.S. This meant that the voice of Europe will be heard in the future. A new revision of NATO and its mission was an unavoidable topic at the NATO 60th Anniversary Summit in Strasbourg (France) and Kiel (Germany). However, NATO is still seeking for a reason for its continuation and is trying to define more specific mission. It started developing a new strategic concept in 2009/2010, with the assumption that the U.S. position will be crucial for the future of NATO.

The voice of Europe is strong and can parry the U.S in economic and financial domain, but when it comes to geo-strategic domain it is still behind the U.S. The EU in its Security Strategy is defined as global actor (EU mediation of peace talks between Israel and Palestine, resolution of the conflict in Lebanon), which is developing military forces ready to intervene anywhere in the world and contribute to the quality of transatlantic relationship. However, if EU wants to strengthen its geo-strategic position in relation to the U.S, it will take more time for development. The key issue in EU is that some countries are developing an idea of neutrality, because not all member states are capable to carry out operations and participate in missions abroad. This became evident when NATO adopted the so-called “coalition of the willing”, meaning that only the countries that are militarily equipped and ready (willing) will participate in military operations.

NATO AND RUSSIA AS PARTNERS

NATO and Russia managed to reach agreement about many issues in the post-Cold War period. However, whenever they touched the "vital" interests of the two sides, there was a problem and cooling in relations, as shown in the case of dissolution of Yugoslavia, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, terrorist insurgency in Chechnya, NATO expansion to the East and the second Gulf War. Partnership between NATO and Russia was maintained as long as their cooperation was within the framework of signed documents and behind the headquarter walls. Although the implementation of agreements on the ground was different, the relationship between NATO and Russia can help us follow the evolution of NATO mission in the post-Cold War period, that is, redefinition of NATO mission and reason why the new mission differs from that of NATO during the Cold War, when Soviet Union existed as a country.

When NATO expressed its willingness to accept new member states in Brussels at the beginning of 1994, Russia was convinced that the enlargement of NATO would isolate Russia, and therefore it accepted to formalize its ties with NATO through the “Partnership for Peace” Program, under the condition that it should involve a broad range cooperation within the "Partnership for Peace" and beyond it. Thus, in spring 1995, Russia acquired a special and unique status of "16 +1" in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and the Political Committee of NATO.[8]

Russia and NATO were operating together on the ground. When NATO lounged air attacks against Bosnian Serbs in B&H (1995), Russia criticized this decision, but later backed Dayton Peace Agreement. In line with this, in January 1996, Russia sent 1400 troops to the international peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, led by NATO. The participation of Russian troops in peacekeeping forces in Bosnia was motivated by its interest in the resolution  of the crisis in former Yugoslavia, which brought back Russia to the international scene and symbolically helped it achieve the most in Europe (at the diplomatic level, Russia achieved this through its membership in the Contact Group, which placed Russia among five leading countries). The relations between NATO military forces and Russia military forces in B&H were developing without incident.

This cooperation implied joint management of security problems in the future, which was the basis for setting up a NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security (signed on May 27, 1997 in Paris). It represents a statement according to which two sides will jointly facilitate development of stable, peaceful and undivided continent on the basis of cooperation and mutual interest.

However, the period of successful mutual cooperation was replaced by relations “cooling down” due to NATO air attack on Yugoslavia. Opposing the use of force without the UN mandate, Russia suspended the cooperation under the auspices of the Permanent Joint Council when NATO began air attacks against FRY (March 23, 1999). However, Russian President Yeltsin, despite the deterioration of relations with NATO during the bombing of FRY, believed that cooperation with NATO was preferable option, especially in light of the war in Chechnya and financial crisis that began in 1998. President Yeltsin appointed his representative for negotiations for termination of Kosovo conflict.

After the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1244, there were 3500 Russian troops (June, 1999) with the international forces in Kosovo (KFOR), led by NATO. Russia has always considered itself a significant factor of geo-strategic balance in the Balkans. A decision of Russian President Vladimir Putin to withdraw Russian peacekeepers from the region (2003) implied that Russia accepted the fact that the Balkans became a sphere of interests of NATO and western countries. Russian officials stated that the decision on withdrawal was not a sign of Russian indifference for stabilization of political situation in the region, but it meant that Russia would continue to participate in the process on bilateral level. At multilateral level, it will continue to act within the framework of UN, OSCE and other international institutions.

During 2000, relations between Russia and NATO were restrained, which was partly caused by NATO plans for expansion to the East, and especially the inclusion of Baltic countries and Ukraine in NATO. The activities of Euro-Atlantic allies in the region (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and Central Asia) were often perceived by Russians as a threat to its security and interference in the area of its "legitimate" interest.

Shift to the new 21^st century was marked by serious negotiations between Russia and the U.S. about the plan for building a "missile shield" to protect the U.S. from possible missile attacks from "outlaw" countries. However, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, on September 11, 2001, changed the Russian-American relations. For the first time after the end of the Second World War, they were on the same side fighting against "the new global enemy” - international terrorism. Russian president Vladimir Putin announced cooperation with the U.S., by linking two intelligence networks, opening air corridors for humanitarian missions, taking part in rescue and search missions, providing more support to civilian and military opponents of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, as well as coordinating activities with its allies, the former Soviet republics in Central Asia. Such cooperation with Russia facilitated the functioning and operation of NATO mission in Afghanistan. In a way, it added value to NATO by confirming its new mission, which was completely different from NATO mission during the Cold War period.

Arguments for the statement is previous paragraph can be found in the Declaration by Heads of State and Government of NATO Members Stated and the Russian Federation, adopted at the NATO Summit in Rome on May 28, 2002.[9] Concluding that “at the start of the 21st century we live in a new, closely interrelated world, in which unprecedented new threats and challenges demand increasingly united responses”, the two sides agreed to “open a new page" in their relations, in order to "enhance our ability to work together in areas of common interest and to stand together against common threats and risks to our security." It is believed that this agreement marked the end of Cold War. In this context, NATO and Russia agreed to observe in good faith their obligations under international law, including the UN Charter, provisions and principles contained in the Helsinki Final Act and the OSCE Charter for European Security. Based on the same document, NATO-Russia Council was established, which provides a “mechanism for consultation, consensus-building, cooperation, joint decision, and joint action for the member states of NATO and Russia on a wide spectrum of security issues in the Euro-Atlantic region”.

Cooperation with Russia was a confirmation that NATO has abandoned its Cold War role, and that its mission has transformed to a level that it can accept not only the countries of former Eastern bloc, but also Russia[10]. The overall cooperation with Russia in the post-Cold War period is a confirmation that NATO has redefined its mission, in relation to its proclaimed goal at the time of NATO founding in 1949. Cooperation with Russia has shown the evolution of NATO, and persistent fear (especially in countries of Eastern Europe) of Russian reaction about specific security issues. The reaction of Russia (August 2008) to the Georgian bombing of citizens in South Ossetia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia area inhabited by the Russian population, declared independence in late 2008), interrupted the new enlargement of NATO to the East, that is, accession of Ukraine and Georgia. For NATO, it is important that its enlargement is accompanied with renewal of peaceful relations with Russia, and provision of guarantees to its member states (Baltic countries or countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and future member states) that Article 5 of Washington Agreement on Collective Defense is observed.

Possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine will continue NATO transformation through the so-called horizontal widening process, and considering that this region is strategically important because of its energy resources, political and economic component of the NATO mission would gain more importance, i.e. vertical deepening process of NATO mission will be intensified.

SERBIA AND NATO

Bearing in mind military engagement of NATO in the former SFRY, and especially NATO bombing of FRY, which influenced the redefinition of NATO mission after the Cold War, we believe that it is necessary to analyze the modalities of relations between Serbia and NATO. This analysis is placed in the context of announced next enlargement of NATO as a key element of its new mission and desire of the former Yugoslav republics, now independent countries, for cooperation and membership in NATO. The sequence of NATO accession by the former Yugoslav republics shows the evolution of NATO mission - Slovenia and Croatia are NATO members, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro have expressed a desire to become members, B&H and Serbia have completed the first phase of membership - Partnership for Peace. Why is the position of Serbia regarding the future cooperation with NATO important?

All countries in the region of Southeast Europe have similar foreign policy priorities - integration in European and Euro-Atlantic institutions, because it will minimize the risk of armed conflict among neighbors. Serbia has another reason - security problem in Kosovo currently protected by the international NATO forces (KFOR). Kosovo is a reason for which the cooperation with NATO and eventual membership in this organization are essential for Serbia.

Membership in NATO is not only a military but also a political issue, because it implies that new member state will benefit from membership, but also contribute to the security system and take part in collective defense. Cooperation of Serbia with NATO involves two phases: Partnership for Peace phase, which ended with the admission of Serbia at the NATO Summit in Riga (2006), and full membership in NATO, which implies acquisition of rights and obligations under the Founding Treaty of NATO.[11] However, there is an option for Serbia - to remain neutral in relation to NATO.

The fact that was bombed by NATO makes this relationship very specific and different from others, especially because Serbian public is reluctant towards NATO. It is up to Serbia to take pragmatic attitude toward NATO, based on its own interests and needs. Membership in NATO can be accepted for several reasons:

1. Membership in NATO guarantees the protection of member state territory;

2. Joining NATO will mean joining the Western community of

nations;

3. NATO membership will facilitate modernization and restructuring of military forces, which is especially important in the country whose military forces have obsolete weapons and low level of material security for its military officers (Serbia plans to introduce a professional army (2011), modernize weapons and train its military on new methods of warfare);

4. NATO membership will facilitate retraining of officers and military personnel, because it will impose strict submission to democracy and respect of democratic control of the military (in some communist countries in which the military was used in the past as instrument of the Communist Party, it is not accustomed to be submissive to democratic government). NATO membership will be the first step in this direction.

We should refer to several principles observed by NATO. It guarantees territorial integrity of its member states and does not allow resolution of disputes through war or threat of war (e.g. Greece and Turkey often have tense relationship; they would most likely went to war during 50's of 20^th century, if they had not been members of NATO). This means that NATO is to some extent the guarantor of peace for its members, externally and internally. Its member states have formed a sustainable community with a pluralistic security, where the very idea of resolving any dispute between member states by force or threat is a priori prohibited. NATO is a very specific system – it is a military organization, but also a "state of mind."

The conflict between Serbian forces and ethnic Albanian terrorists in the southern part of Serbia, in the so-called ground security zone, was resolved with the support of NATO. Since then (2000), this territory has been controlled by the Serbian police. All NATO member states from Eastern Europe were first admitted to NATO, and after that to the European Union, which confirms that political component of NATO's new mission is strengthening and making it an organization which assesses democratic and political correctness of the countries outside EU borders - future members of Euro-Atlantic integrations. Therefore, additional argument for considering Serbia's accession to NATO is the fact that if all neighboring countries become members - what choices will Serbia have? Does this mean that Serbia (which might happen to Russia as well) could be found isolated in NATO "ring", i.e. in the environment surrounded by NATO member states?

However, the question of joining NATO is still a psychological issue, because it will be difficult to explain to one part of the population why is the membership in organization which bombed the country important? For them, NATO is still "a metaphor for unwanted American hegemony”.[12]

The main threat to the security of Serbia (and the entire Balkans region) in the future, are the existing hot spots on its own territory - Kosovo, and in the neighborhood - Macedonia. In addition, the threat comes from the political and criminally motivated terrorism, organized crime and corruption, characteristic of the social and economic problems of the early transition. Therefore, new threats require a new organization of the security sector, particularly military and police, as well as other state and social institutions in this field. Serbia's cooperation with neighboring countries in the field of border control, judiciary and implementation of solutions that have been in the meantime developed in Euro-Atlantic framework, should be strengthened in the future because of the connection between criminal and extremist organizations at the international level. Redefined mission of NATO in the new century, with significant political component, enables communication and cooperation to the extent necessary for the realization of Serbia's own security goals and resolution of the faced by the country on its way of closer relations with European institutions.

DEFINING A context for transatlantic partnership in the new century

Will redefinition of transatlantic relations move towards a modest, but more pragmatic framework? Which institutions and states are unavoidable in that process? In the circumstances when Euro-Atlantic partners are facing the need to accept "looser" formula of transatlantic relationship, and different opinions regarding current security issues like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, financial crisis, food shortages and environmental protection, we can point out that it is more likely that multilateral approach and commitment to solving current problems will be the most appropriate solution. Multilateral approach involves different actors, international organizations, primarily the UN, but also a group of states appearing among leader states in the 21^st century, Russia and China. In terms of economic growth, India and Brazil (BRIC group) belong to this group of countries.

Security problems that exist in today's world can have far reaching consequences if not treated adequately, which became evident when Iraq was attacked by the U.S. in 2003 (it was blow to international security, international law and the United Nations, and its key body for ensuring peace in the world - the Security Council). At the time of the attack on Iraq, the UN seemed defeated in the field of collective security, exactly the same as it happened to the League of Nations after the attack of Mussolini on Abyssinia. The U.S. tried to impose on the world an image that the UN is not necessary any more, but after the war in Iraq, just the opposite was proved[13]. The world still needs the UN, because besides political and security issues, this world organization deals with extremely important economic and social problems. The UN provides powerful financial and moral support to poor countries of the world in solving their existential issues. NATO is primarily a military alliance, and unlike the UN or the EU, which also lead peace missions in the world, NATO is not equipped to undertake various civil functions, based on which the value of any military intervention is assessed (e.g.: training workshops on specific topics including democratic and free election, and assistance in economic development - although political and economic component of NATO is also developing).

At the same time, the new century has: 1) brought a NATO response to security challenges in the 21^st century, by launching NATO Response Force (NRF), ready to intervene on its own for at least one month anywhere in the world in the event of environmental, industrial and military disasters, within five days of such request[14]. One NRF unit of 9000-10000 troops was formed in October 2003. It is planned to increase its number to 21,000 of even more trained soldiers; 2) significantly shifted the center of NATO gravitation toward Asian continent. Since some NATO partners, mainly countries of the former Soviet Union participating in the program "Partnership for Peace" are located in or near the border with Afghanistan or Iraq (identified as points of terrorism), they became important for NATO in the new security environment of the 21^st century. NATO became open to these Asian countries, and new round of enlargement could include them. They are located in the strategically important Caucasus region and Central Asia, the areas known for enormous natural resources, particularly oil, which makes them interesting for many countries, but also NATO, which attempted to get involved in them indirectly (e.g. Georgia, on the eve of elections in the fall of 2003).

NATO answered to the question of how to extend its political role after September 11, 200 by giving consent to full membership of seven new countries in Eastern Europe. In 2004, Slovenia (9,300 soldiers), Slovakia (35,000), Estonia (5,000), Latvia (5,400), Lithuania (10,400), Bulgaria (75,000) and Romania (170,000)[15] became new member states of NATO. The new members were engaged (regardless of size and modest armed forces, but with great geostrategic position) on the side of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. New expansion of NATO was approved at NATO Summit in Kiel and Strasbourg (April, 2009), when Croatia (57,000 soldiers) and Albania (31,000) became full member states of NATO. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM, 15,000 soldiers) has explicitly opted for NATO membership, but its accession is opposed by Greece because of a dispute over Macedonia's name, which is why the FYRM missed two opportunities to join NATO at the Summit in Bucharest (2008) and in Strasbourg and Kiel (2009). Montenegro (6,500 soldiers) has also expressed its desire for NATO membership.

Large countries have understood the importance and role of NATO in the world when China started talks with NATO. Early in 2003, Chinese expert team visited the headquarters of the organization in Brussels. What is important for NATO member states in terms of significantly growing power of China in the new 21^st century? It is the fact that growth of military budget of China and its international ambitions are natural expression of its growing economy. Will the relations between China and Euro-Atlantic partners, primarily the U.S. deteriorate as a result of competition for access to energy sources?

Japan has also expressed a desire to get closer and cooperate with NATO, considering that it already has a major role in civil reconstruction of Afghanistan and provision of logistical support to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in that country. In addition, Japan is presenting itself as a natural partner of Europe and Asia in terms of defending "shared values" of democracy and human rights[16]. Brazil also believes that although geographically does not belong to the North-Atlantic region, it shares the common European democratic values.

We can conclude that the following three key factors will affect security of the world in the future: the process of further globalization, energy and growth of China. In this context, it is necessary to review the future of NATO, first, the purpose and possibility of its continuation, and then, expansion of its mission by strengthening political and adding economic component to it. When talking about the economic component of NATO, we imply to more intensive economic cooperation between the Euro-Atlantic partners, which is necessary for the promotion of economic growth and political stability in the world, e.g., in the Middle East or Africa, with emphasis that higher economic growth and stable political situation in these two regions that are now burdened with violence, may create huge potential for the war against terrorism, and an instrument for ending ethnic conflicts.

In supporting the view that NATO is now operating in political and partly economic domain, it can be emphasized that NATO launched a research of acute problems of today, such as, environment, water protection and the prevention and remediation of consequences of natural disasters - floods, droughts, earthquakes, which may also affect the stability of the world. Since 2004, NATO has published reports on achieved results and projects for future action in these areas. If NATO successfully redefines itself as a coalition of liberal democratic countries fighting against global terrorism and wide range of other economic, migration and environmental problems, its transformation will go towards its continuation and adaptation of its mission to the new requirements and challenges of today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. Baylis John & Smith Steve, “The Globalization of World Politics, An introduction to international relations”, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2001, part 6, Michael Cox, International History since 1989.

2. Fukuyama Francis, “After the Neocons, America at the crossroad”, Profile Books LTD, London, 2006, 2007.

3. Hadžić Miroslav, “Hroničan manjak bezbednosti, slučaj Jugoslavije”, Beograd, 2001.

4. Katsirdakis George, “NATO i reforma odbrane”, u zborniku radova: Reforma vojske - iskustva i izazovi, CCVO, Beograd, 2003, str.31-32.

5. Kisindžer Henri, “Does America Need a Foreign Policy?”, BMG, Beograd, 2003.

JOURNALS

, Publication date:  september, 2006. Internet: http://www.nato.int/docu/home.htm#Official

2. Deckers Wolfgang, “Germany and the Balkans: reflections on an uneasy relationship“, Journal of Southern Europe and Balkans, Vol. 4. No.2. Nov. 2002.

, Publication date: april, 2004, Internet: http://www.nato.int/docu/home.htm#Official

4. Issues, Quarterly published by the EU Institute for Security Studies, no 27, The European Foreign&Security Policy Institute, october, 2008., Paris, www.iss.europa.eu

5. "Puissance Chine? Outre-Terre” Revue francaise de geopolitique, No 15, Editions eres, Ramonville Saint-Agne, 2006., www.edition-eres.com

6. Smith Julianne, "La relation OTAN/Russie: moment de verite ou deja vu?“ Politique etrangere, 4:2008, Revue trimesrtielle publiee par L’Institut francais des relations internationales, IFRI, Paris, 2008.