Balkan Tensions & the Future of NATO

Speech by Ted Galen Carpenter, PhD, The CATO Institute.

The CATO Institute analyst, Ted Carpenter, artfully articulates a geostrategic view on the Balkans and proposes an American foreign policy for the area that is drastically and qualitatively different from the dominant, Bush-era, view that sought NATO enlargement from Ukraine and Georgia to FYROM, Kosovo and Bosnia.
This speech was given on May 29, 2010, in Chicago, and it was part of the panel presentation at the 64th Pammacedonian Convention.







Balkan Tensions and the Future of NATO

By: Ted Galen Carpenter



A key assumption long held by proponents of NATO enlargement is that the process would both strengthen the alliance and stabilize potentially volatile portions of Europe. That assumption is dubious in general and wildly inaccurate when it comes to the Balkans. Indeed, the addition of new members such as Croatia and Albania has produced the opposite outcome with respect to both goals. Washington’s ongoing effort to add such countries as Bosnia- Herzegovina and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) would likely make matters even worse. Yet that is the course that U.S. and European leaders seem determined to pursue.



New Balkan Members Weaken, Not Strengthen, NATO

It is mystery why NATO supporters cling to the notion that adding small, militarily insignificant allies makes the alliance stronger and more capable. It is an even greater mystery why opinion leaders in the U.S. foreign policy community believe that such allies benefit the security and well being of America. The opposite is true. Such NATO members are strategic liabilities, not assets, and many of them bring with them political, diplomatic, and military baggage that could prove very troublesome for the United States.

The addition of Croatia and Albania confirms that NATO enlargement has now entered the realm of farce. The military capabilities of those two countries are minuscule. According to the most recent edition of The Military Balance, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Croatia’s annual military budget is a mere $875 million, and its military force consists of 18,600 active-duty personnel. Albania’s budget is an even more meager $254 million, and its active duty force is a paltry 14,295 soldiers.[1]

By not yet offering membership to FYROM, though, NATO will have to do without Skopje’s $167 million and 8,000 troops. The alliance is also missing the opportunity to add Bosnia’s $281 million in military spending and 11,099 soldiers. And, of course, there is always the prospect of gaining Montenegro’s $61 million and 3,127 troops. Serbia remains enough of a pariah to the statesmen of NATO’s leading powers that its $1.06 billion in spending and 29,125 soldiers probably will be unavailable to the alliance for many years to come.[2]

The combined annual defense outlays of all of those countries are less than the United States spends in Afghanistan in one week. Why American political leaders believe that such military pygmies augment the vast power of the United States is inexplicable.



Potential Trouble for NATO–and the United States–in the Balkans

NATO’s new and prospective Balkan members are not just militarily insignificant, they create the prospect of entangling the alliance–and its leader, the United States–in a variety of messy problems. Albania is likely to prove to be an embarrassment, or worse, for its NATO partners. The country is notorious for being under the influence of organized crime. Indeed, the Albanian mafia is legendary throughout southeastern Europe, controlling the bulk of gambling, prostitution, and drug trafficking.

Moreover, Albania’s political stability remains highly uncertain, as the country is barely a decade removed from the political chaos and near civil war that led to an armed multilateral peacekeeping intervention, Operation Alba, led by Greece and Italy. Longstanding animosity between the two principal ethno-linguistic factions, the Gegs, who dominate the northern part of the country, and the Tosks, who dominate the southern portion, shows no clear signs of abating. It is important to remember that those ethnic tensions contributed to the disorder in the late 1990s, and they could easily do so again.

Problems associated with some of the countries proposed for alliance membership are even more worrisome. Bosnia in the nearly 15 years since the Dayton Accords has hardly been an unalloyed success story for ambitious Western nation builders. Although the Dayton agreement did end the tripartite civil war, Bosnia is still a country that lacks a meaningful sense of nationhood or even the basic political cohesion to be an effective state. The reality is that if secession were allowed, the overwhelming majority of Bosnian Serbs would vote to detach their self-governing region (the Republika Srpska) from Bosnia and either form an independent country or merge with Serbia. And that sentiment has intensified since the United States and its allies gave their blessing to Kosovo’s secession and unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia. Most Bosnian Croats would also likely choose to secede and join with Croatia. Bosnian Muslims constitute the only faction that wishes to maintain Bosnia-Herzegovina in its current incarnation. Although the situation remains relatively stable at the moment, that could easily change.[3] And if it did, NATO would be caught up in the new turmoil.

There are even more troubling aspects if the alliance were foolish enough to add FYROM to its roster of members.[4] FYROM has a huge problem with its Albanian minority in the north and west of the country. The Albanian inhabitants there have sought a degree of political autonomy that amounts to independence in everything but name. Indeed, serious questions remain about the proper location of the border between FYROM and predominantly Albanian Kosovo–now a nominally independent country thanks to its unilateral declaration in February 2008, which occurred thanks to the instigation of the United States and the leading powers in the European Union.

An independent Kosovo is already exacerbating problems with several neighboring countries, especially FYROM. There is scant evidence that advocates of a “Greater Albania” have relinquished their territorial ambitions in the Balkans. It was an ominous development that less than a month after Pristina’s declaration of independence, the leading ethnic Albanian party in FYROM threatened to withdraw its support and bring down the government because of what party leaders described as a failure to support minority rights or to recognize Kosovo’s independence. Among that party’s demands were greater use of the Albanian language and flag in the increasingly autonomous northwestern region of FYROM and increased benefits to veterans of the 2000-2001 Albanian guerrilla insurgency.[5]

The situation has not noticeably improved over the past two years. Indeed, there was an especially alarming incident in early May 2010. Four individuals were killed in shootout with FYROM police near the northwest border hamlet of Radusa. They were driving a van transporting illegal arms from Kosovo.[6] Unless we assume that the FYROM police are exceptionally competent at their interdiction efforts, it is highly probable that there have been other shipments and that this is part of an ongoing campaign to foment a new insurgency.

If FYROM ever becomes a member of NATO, that nasty ethnic separatist problem becomes a matter of direct concern to the alliance. One would think that the United States has enough foreign policy headaches around the world without adding that one to the list.

Fortunately, it is doubtful whether FYROM will gain membership soon. Its ongoing quarrel with Greece remains a major impediment. The primary reason that FYROM was not invited to join NATO when Albania and Croatia received invitations was because Athens continued to object to that country using the name “Macedonia,” which Greeks rightly insist applies only to a region of their nation.

That controversy is not merely over a historical and linguistic point. Greeks worry the Skopje government’s insistence on calling its country Macedonia implies a territorial claim to Greek Macedonia. Maps circulating in FYROM that include major chunks of Greek territory as part of a “Greater Macedonia” do nothing to allay such fears. In early 2008, FYROM’s prime minister was photographed laying a wreath at a monument that featured a map of Greater Macedonia, which even included Greece’s second largest city, Thessaloniki.[7]

Such provocative territorial claims are hardly consistent with the view of FYROM that the U.S. State Department has tried to promote. The nature of Washington’s continuing lobbying campaign for NATO membership for FYROM can be seen in a gushing article about the country in the April 2010 issue of State Magazine, the department monthly publication. The cover described FYROM as the “pearl of the Balkans.” The title of the article itself was “Skopje: Ancient Macedonia Builds Modern Democracy.”[8] The American Hellenic Institute issued a scathing 5-page letter rebuking the State Department for publishing such a puff piece, and the letter effectively debunked several of the article’s claims.[9]


Conclusion

NATO expansion into the Balkans is a spectacularly bad idea, for it entangles the alliance in an assortment of murky disputes and potential dangers. Most of those issues are of little relevance even to NATO’s other European members, much less to the United States. The alliance has not been strengthened by the process of enlargement; to the contrary it has acquired new strategic liabilities rather than assets.

The new Balkan members are militarily useless, and they all bring with them a variety of unpleasant problems. Enlargement has been an especially bad deal for the United States. As NATO’s leader, America is responsible for implementing the alliance’s goal of maintaining stability throughout its membership zone in Europe–and in even in security arenas beyond the continent. Given the history and current condition of the Balkans, U.S. policymakers have now made all the quarrels and problems of that volatile region America’s problems. That is an extremely unwise strategy.


Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books and more than 400 articles on international affairs. His most recent book is Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). He is a contributing editor to the National Interest and serves on the editorial boards of Mediterranean Quarterly and the Journal of Strategic Studies.



Notes:

[1]. International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance, 2010 (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 119, 123.

[2]. Ibid., pp. 179, 186, 189, 190.

[3]. See Patrice C. McMahon and Jon Western, “The Death of Dayton: How to Stop Bosnia From Falling Apart,” Foreign Affairs 88, no.5 (September-October 2009): 69-83.

[4]. For a good overview of the costs and potential problems (substantial) and prospective benefits (meager) of admitting FYROM to NATO, see Scott N. Siegel, “Weighing Macedonia’s Entry into NATO,” Mediterranean Quarterly 21, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 45-60.

[5]. Kole Casule and Matt Robinson, “Albanian Party Threatens to Bring Down Macedonian Government,” Reuters, March 12, 2008.

[6]. Jasmina Mironski, “Four Dead in Macedonia-Kosovo Border Shooting,” Agence France Presse, May 12, 2010.

[7]. Dora Bakoyannis, “All In a Name,” Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2008.

[8]. Stephanie Rowlands, “Skopje: Ancient Macedonia Builds Modern Democracy,” State, April 2010, pp. 22-25.

[9]. Aleco Haralambides, President, and Nick Larigakis, Executive Director, American Hellenic Institute letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton, April 27, 2010.

Resolution on the Macedonian Issue at the Pan-Macedonian Association’s 64th Convention

On May 27-30 the Pan-Macedonian Association’s 64th Convention was successfully held in Chicago Illinois. Consul General in Chicago Anastasios Petrovas, former Foreign Undersecretary and now Secretary for Greeks Abroad of New Democracy Dr. Panagiotis Skandalakis, Mr. George Papastergiou Prefect of Pieria and President of the Greek Secretariat of the International Foundation of Alexander the Great, Greek-American Senator of the State of Rhodes Island Leonidas Raptakis, Secretary of World SAE Dr. Olga Sarantopoulos, Mr. Theodore Spyropoulos, Coordinator of SAE in North and South America and Mr. Christos Tomaras former SAE Coordinator of North and South America attended the Convention. They all greeted the delegates, stressing the important work of the Pan Association USA throughout the time.


Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter of CATO Institute, Dr. Chris Karatzios and Marcus A. Templar, experts in the Balkans and the problems arising from the region were the contributors of the convention’s academic panel.

Mrs. Nina Gatzoulis, the outgoing president of the organization, expressed the Association’s members concern as well as the concern of the rest of the Diaspora "that there should not be any negotiations regarding major national issues amid the current financial crisis, because right now Greece is in a weak position”. This message said Mrs. Gatzoulis “should be transferred to the Greek government”.

The Macedonians Archbishop Demetrios of North America who is also Honorary President of the Pan-Macedonian Association USA, was the keynote speaker during the banquet on May 29, expressed similar positions and stressed that there should be no negotiations on issues of national consistency, while Greece is in a weak position due to the economic crisis. The Archbishop stressed the important role that the Association had on the FYROM issue and encouraged the Macedonians to continue the struggle for the vindication of historical truth.

Chicago’s Metropolitan Iakovos also greeted the Macedonians and expressed his support to the efforts of the Pan-Macedonian Association USA. Also Dr. Ilias Tomazos President of PAIDEIA honored the convention by his presence.

The composition of the new executive committee is as follows:

Dr. Antonios Papadopoulos-Supreme President

Dr. Panagiotis Baltatzis-Supreme Vice-President

Efstathios Pilidis-President of Youth

Demetrios Chatzis-Supreme Secretary

Kostas Hatzistefanidis-Supreme Treasurer

Legal Council-Theodoros Vassilakis and Demetris Ioannidis

Mrs. Nina Gatzoulis stays as President of the Committee of World Pan-Macedonian Associations.

The attached resolutions were approved by the convention:


RESOLUTION

The Pan-Macedonian Association of the USA in a duly convened meeting at its 64th National Convention held from May 27 to 30 in Chicago, Il, decided the following:

1. We shall never accept, for the country of The FYROM, any name that will include the term Macedonia or any of its derivatives.

2. The Pan-Macedonian Association expects from the Greek Government, the Political Leadership of Greece, the United States Government, and the rest of the International Community that the final agreed upon name of the country of The FYROM, should clearly differentiate the residents of that country from us, the Macedonians.

3. The name Macedonia is unquestionably a historical and cultural heritage of Greece. The history of Macedonia and particularly its name are NOT NEGOTIABLE and as a paternal legacy cannot be ceded to third parties.

4. The permanent name of the country of The FYROM should express its multiethnic composition and thus shall permit all its inhabitants to co-exist peacefully.

5. We demand that the people of Hellenic origin residing in The FYROM be accorded all their human rights.

6. The Macedonian identity is historically and culturally Hellenic. We do not accept any concept of a “Macedonian” ethnicity and “Macedonian” language.

7. It is our sacred duty to continue our struggle for the rights of Macedonia. History demands it.

8. In the event that the final agreed upon name of the FYROM includes the term “Macedonia” or its derivatives, should be ratified by a referendum by the Greek people.

9. The final agreed upon name of the FYROM should be reflected in it is constitution.

10. We fully support the existence of a country north of Greece with the interim name of The FYROM. We support its efforts to join the EU and NATO, provided its official name does not include the term "Macedonia" or its derivatives. Further, we harbor no animosity or any ill feelings towards its citizens or its Diaspora. Furthermore we expect good neighboring relations to an additional criterion for its Euro-Atlantic integration.


DECLARATION

The Pan-Macedonian Association of the USA in a duly convened meeting at its 64th National Convention held from May 27 to 30, 2010 at Chicago, IL declares the following:

1. We demand that the continuous irredentist propaganda emanating from The FYROM, including the falsification of the Hellenic heritage of Macedonia, stops immediately.

2. We shall never accept an Orthodox Church with the term "Macedonia" or its derivatives in its name.

3. We oppose the use of the name Republic of “Macedonia” in any legal document within the Hellenic Republic, or by Hellenic interests worldwide.

4. We condemn terrorism in all of its forms.

5. Turkey must respect the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus, which is a full EU member. Turkey must immediately remove all its occupation troops, it must remove the illegal settlers who were brought to Cyprus from the mainland of Turkey, return all properties to the rightful owners and make all due reparations to the Cypriots.

6. We regard the continued discriminatory acts, rules, and policy of Turkey towards the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, a violation of freedom of religion which is inconsistent with that country's aspirations to become a member of the European Union. We demand the reopening of the Theological School of Halki, the restoration of the confiscated property of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the respect for the property rights of Hellenes in Constantinople. The recent decision by the Turkish Supreme Court rejecting the ecumenicity of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople is contrary to European Union Laws.

7. We demand recognition by the U.S.A. and Turkish governments of the genocides against the Armenian, Assyrian as well as the Hellenic peoples.

8. We condemn the continuous violations of the Greek territorial space by Turkey.

9. We expect from the Republic of Bulgaria the return of the Holy Relics that were removed from the monasteries of Drama and Serres.

10. We demand the return of the Parthenon Marbles to the place of their origin.

11. The Kalash of the northern Himalayan region of the Hindu Kush Mountains of Pakistan are Hellenic descendants of the armies of Alexander the Great. The Kalash Indigenous people have sustained their ancient culture and traditions since the 4th century B.C., yet they are in danger of extinction. Being our Hellenic Macedonian brothers and sisters, we support their efforts to sustain their ethnic values and identity.

12. We support the Kalash proposal to “Bring the Glory Back” which is, to apply the rule of Law of Alexander the Great, as the guideline for the Security Council of the United Nations”.

13. The retrieval of bones of Greek soldiers, who fell in the battlefield during WWII battles in the mountains of Northern Epirus, is not an economic transaction, but a humanitarian issue and our national duty. The road of Albania to the European Union requires the RESPECT of Human, Political, Cultural, Religious and Educational Rights of the Greek minority.

14. The Albanians should cease all propaganda regarding the Chams if Albania is to proceed in its European integration.

15. We express our gratitude to the 364 University Professors for their declaration of historical truth.

16. The Greek Parliament should not ratify any agreement for the admission of the FYROM into NATO or the European Union even under any name that includes the term “Macedonia” or its derivatives.

17. We agree with the decision of the Greek Political Leaders of 1992, which excluded the name of Macedonia or any of its derivatives from any future name of “The FYROM”.