24-26 February 2012
THE LONDON SECURITY EXERCISE
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Director: Anjli Shah
Click here to download the Background Guide Part 1
Click here to download the Background Guide Part 2
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), tasked with ensuring global peace and security, will undoubtedly play a major role in the progress and development of the crisis in the Balkans.
The UNSC will be closely monitoring events occurring at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the question regarding the extension of its mandate should the crisis worsen. It will also take into consideration the question of the statehood of Kosovo, which will be severely influenced by Russian regional-power dynamics. As EU talks between Kosovo and Serbia were called off in October 2011, increasing the tensions in the region, it is likely that the UNSC will be keen to mediate, and to monitor the rising tensions in northern Kosovo. Should there be a need for military invasion (as may be likely within the crisis situation), the UNSC will have to decide whether or not to endorse an UN-backed military intervention. Effectively, the future of humanitarian interventionism could very well be decided within the UNSC when dealing with the crises in the Balkans.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
Director: Ed Longinotti
Click here to download the Background Guide
“U.S. policy toward the Balkans is focused on helping the states of the region cement peace and build stability and prosperity by deepening cooperation and advancing their integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions, including NATO and the EU”.
- US Department of State.
The United States (US) has consistently sought to build peace and foster reconciliation and reintegration in the Balkans, aims that continue to this day as can be seen above in the US Department States’ policy statement with regard to the Balkans. Furthermore, the US has matched its aims with real commitments. The US contributed 20,000 soldiers to IFOR (the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, 1995-6), one third of the total number of soldiers. US troops also averaged 15% of the successor to IFOR, SFOR (the 1996-2004 NATO peacekeeping mission). In addition, the US committed 7000 soldiers to KFOR (the NATO mission to maintain security in Kosovo, ongoing since 1999) at its peak.
Whilst significant progress has been made in the Balkans, the US commitment to the region has not waned. The US maintains good relations with all regional powers and considers them to be important actors in the ‘War Against Terror’. However, as a result of the progress that has been made the nature of US engagement in the Balkans today is overwhelmingly civil and diplomatic. There are no US troops in Bosnia where SFOR has been replaced by EUFOR since 2004 and a small number (c. 1000) remain in Kosovo through KFOR. US involvement in the Balkans is now focused on building institutions and fostering integration with the international community, for which the US provided U$280 million in aid. The US will continue to encourage and support peace and development in the Balkans, and believes that a US presence in the Balkans is still necessary to ensure the stability of the region.
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, CABINET
Director: Kavita Kalaichelvan
Click here to download the Background Guide
Russia has always shown special interest in the Balkans, especially when the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia violently broke apart and Russia, eager to secure its position as a major player in international diplomacy, sent policymakers to intervene. Tensions between Russia and the NATO have been numerous since the bombing of Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo War, in which Russia's exclusion from the Kosovo Force’s (KFOR) decision-making process, and isolation from NATO's main force were seen as an intentionally dealt blow. Since then the region has been central to Russia's struggle for influence with the West, as Russia's desire to expand its influence in the Balkans- in order to counterbalance the orientation of Balkan states towards NATO and the EU- remains unabashed by the end of the Cold War.
Russia's influence in the region is enabled mostly by its energy dominance. Energy is one of the main tools that shapes Russian foreign policy; both in the wider global, and narrower regional aspects. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Russia established her importance in the region as a major supplier of oil and gas to the countries of South Eastern Europe. Russian companies including, but not limited to Gazprom, Lukoil and Transneft have significant investments in several Balkans states with Lukoil investing $1.5 billion in the region. Coupled with the building of the South Stream gas pipeline and Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline, the Balkans play an important role as a hub for the supply of Russian gas to Europe. Russian interests in the Balkans are therefore an integral part of her relationship with Europe.
With a possible growth of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean increasing South Eastern Europe's strategic importance to Russia, it is only looking to further expand its diplomatic and economic influence in the region with its newfound prosperity and 'assertive' foreign policy under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. A crisis in the Balkan states, would be seen as an ideal opportunity for Russia to move Putin's strategic policy forward, demonstrating that it is and always will remain a great power. That would influence thinking throughout the former Soviet Union, sobering Eastern Central Europe while confronting the West, and potentially escalating existing tensions.
THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO, CABINET
Director: Kimberley Roessler
Click here to download the Background Guide
With a rich culture and an extensive history of conflict, Kosovo has played a critical role within the military and economic history of the Balkans. In 1989 Serbian President Miloševic took control of the province with the intention of maintaining control over Kosovo for ethnic, cultural, and political reasons. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) emerged in 1991 with the objective of taking an active role against the oppression of Kosovo-Albanians by Serbs.
In 1995 the Dayton agreement ended the Bosnian War but as the situation in Kosovo remained unaddressed, the KLA began attacking Serbian police officers. After the KLA was able to establish control over areas within the province, Milosevic sent Serbian troops back to KLA-controlled areas. 80 people were killed in the battle in 1998. As a result, NATO forces intervened in Kosovo without the consent of the UNSC and forced Milosevic to withdraw his troops. In 1999 NATO conducted an air campaign on Kosovo that lasted for 78 days. Due to the magnitude of the air raids, Serbia signed a UN-approved peace agreement with NATO on June 9, 1999. UNSC Resolution 1244 placed Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) and guaranteed Kosovo’s autonomy within the Republic of Serbia. Since the crisis of 1999, UNMIK has been responsible for managing the economic affairs of Kosovo.
The European Economic Commission provides substantial financial assistance to support Kosovo’s public budget. The European Union has also played a significant role in advancing economic development in Kosovo. Kosovo’s status as a UN mandate makes its economic trajectory unclear. Annual per capital GDP in Kosovo is around 1,100 Euros and the World Bank estimates that 37% of the population lives in poverty. The role that Kosovo plays within the EU is particularly contentious in light of the recent global financial crisis.
In 2008 Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia, thereby unleashing a storm of political and legal crises which remain unsolved to this day. Kosovo’s claims to independence- as recognized through the principle of self-determination- were initially accepted by the United Nations, but the final status of Kosovo remains unclear. Therefore, albeit Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence and boasts many key features necessary for statehood, the fundamental aspect of true independence- namely universal recognition of Kosovo by all states members of the international community- remains unfulfilled
THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA, CABINET
Director: Neha Jain
Click here to download the Background Guide
The end of the Union of Serbia and Montenegro marked the closing chapter in the disintegration of the old Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. May 2002 subsequently saw Serbia ratify an agreement by which a looser union between Serbia and Montenegro would be established; the two countries sharing only the defence and foreign ministries, as well as the federal presidency.
Nevertheless, bitter tensions and conflicts between Kosovo and Serbia continue. Striving to join the EU, Serbia was recommended as a candidate by The European Commission in October 2011. However, talks over this matter are conditional upon Serbia normalising ties with Kosovo. As of today, this is an unlikely prospect given continuing Serbian refusal to recognise Kosovo’s independence; a refusal which directly impacts Serbia’s chances to accede to EU membership.
Serbia has traditionally found an ally in Russia; a bond reiterated with both countries opposing Kosovo's independence. 2008 saw the strengthening of Serbia-Russia ties by the signing of a major energy deal, and in October 2009, Russia granted Serbia a one billion euro loan to help cover its budget deficit after the economy was hit hard by the global recession. With the support of Russia, Serbia’s policy decisions have the capabilities to affect the current building stability in the region.
THE FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
Director: Nora Radtke
Click here to download the Background Guide
Since gaining independence in 1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of the six states of the former Yugoslavian Republic, has been at the centre of the Balkan conflict. The state is categorized by an ethnic mix of Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks), the last of which were the target of ethnic cleansing by Serbs over the course of the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. With the assistance of NATO forces, the Bosnian War was resolved in 1995 and since then a strong international presence has been maintained in Bosnia and Herzegovina. United Nations peacekeeping forces have been on hand to assist with post-conflict reconstruction and judgments. Especially the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) have sought to establish the legal framework enabling individuals responsible for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to be effectively brought to justice.
Today, Bosnia and Herzegovina has enjoyed much development and betterment on the international stage. The state served as a member of the United Nations Security Council as of 2010, and has been pegged as a potential member of both the European Union and NATO. There are, however, still significant tensions within the country. Ethnic divisions between Bosniaks and Serbs are still evident, reinforced by local election results over the last decade in which nationalist parties regularly maintained seats in each ethnically divided region. While war may not be apparent, political tensions run rampant in the state and fears of independence movements by the different factions are commonplace.
The fragile nature of the state has led many to question the sustainability of the national economy and social well being of the people. Situated amongst several similarly unstable states in the Balkans, the stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina is vital for the maintenance of relative peace in the region.
