***

1) NATO bombing of 1999: By entering into NATO Serbia would indirectly legitimize the military intervention against FR Yugoslavia in 1999 and would also legitimize all possible decisions on the final status of Kosovo that contradict Serbia’s best interest. By joining NATO, Serbia would herself justify the aggression, recognize the secession of Kosovo and Metohija and accept the criminalization of its own defence.

2) Serbia could join the EU without joining NATO just like Ireland, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Malta and Cyprus. EU membership itself is a solid security guarantee. The EU has an autonomous common security and defence policy and its own armed forces, albeit underdeveloped. Besides, the fact that a country is in the EU is deterrent enough to third-party states, regardless of whether the country is a member of NATO or not. EU collaborates with NATO more and more in the area of security policy. The European Union would take into account the specifics of Serbia’s current position and accept it as a full member without conditioning it join NATO, as several neutral countries are in the EU. Nowhere in the Copenhagen Criteria, the set of rules for joining the EU, is NATO membership mentioned as a condition. The criteria for membership in these two organizations are completely separate and autonomous.

3) By joining NATO Serbia would be confronted with Russia and this would hurt Serbia’s strategic interests. Implementation of all the political (Kosovo) and economic (energy supplies) interests depending on the Russian Federation’s support would be jeopardized. Russia would no longer stand up for Serbia (over Kosovo and Metohija) in the UN Security Council, and Serbia would no longer be Russia’s key energy ally in the Balkans (Serbia would lose favourable contracts). Serbia has always been grateful to Russia for her support and has never joined any alliance formed by Russia’s enemies. Joining NATO without Russia’s support would be the first time Serbia has joined a military-political organization whose attitude toward Russia is not alway amiable.  If we do join NATO, and then it enters a conflict with Russia over Ukraine, for example, that means we would have to send soldiers to fight against Russia, a country so close to our hearts. Main goal of all pro-NATO figures in Serbia is for Serbia to turn against the Russian Federation, its strategic ally, a country Serbia has no open issues with.

4) Although by joining NATO Serbia would diminish chances that a country would strike at it with a conventional and symmetric attack, theoretically there would be increased chance of new transnational and assymetric threats like, for example, Islamic fundamentalists’ international terrorism: by entering into NATO we would become one of Al-Qaeda’s prime targets, as well as a target for other Islamic terrorists, with a strong foothold in the region. It is little known that the huge terrotist attack on UN compound in Baghdad in 2003 was justified by alleged cooperation of UN troops with Serb forces in Bosnia in the 1990′s. So, by entering NATO wars threats to Serbia’s security would be heavily multiplied, because it would become a target of all opponents of NATO’s aggresive policies. Enemies would then attack Serbia as one of the easy targets to hurt the whole alliance. To join NATO today would be equal to a security hazard. It would mean potential military confrontation with anyone who is not a member of this military organization.

5) Our biggest security challenge is Albanian separatism in Kosovo, and the security threats Serbia is facing today are in fact the result of NATO’s engagement.: therefore what NATO lobbyists are saying – that by joining NATO we would be safer. We would receive no guarantee that there would be no clash with Albanians, and if there were a clash, NATO countries would almost certainly side with them, just like America sided with Turkey, not Greece, when Turkey invaded Cyprus. One should not forget that Albania is already in NATO. NATO is training the Kosovo Security Force, which is why Spain left Kosovo. NATO was involved in the creation of Kosovo’s Ministry of Defence, the so-called Ministry of Security, one of key elements of any country.

In the end, why would be so terrifying to be “an island surrouned by peaceful NATO”? Why would it be dangerous if NATO is really a humanitarian organizaiton? It would even be good, since Serbia would be inside a secure defence ring. However, the argument boils down to this: we should join NATO to be near to and to succumb to power. This is nothing but an expression of servility, and no fancy political vocabulary can hide it.

6) Investments into Serbia do not come from NATO countries only:  for many investors NATO membership is irrelevant. Investments come when a country achieves economic, political and security stability, not by membership itself. Other international organizations measure the level of a country’s development (IMF, EU, WTO) and joining the EU is guarantee enough of a favourable investment climate.

7) Membership is more expensive than neutrality: Economic benefits from NATO membership would be enjoyed by lobbyists in the governmental and non-governmental sectors in Serbia, but NATO is a military organization that goes to war around the globe, and these wars cost money. NATO member states do not finance the organization only, but have to pay for their own myriad of soldiers in the world, which is ten-fold more. We have the examples of Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary. When they joined NATO, they were forced to buy expensive weapons and equipment for the sake of standardization. Americans forced them to buy US fighter planes, completely unnecessary for these countries’ defence. This led to the collapse of home military industries. On the other hand, these countries did not “share the spoils” in Afghanistan where US and British companies have monopoly.

8 NATO membership would be terrible for Serbia’s image in the world: If we join NATO, we will show to both ourselves and the world that we have no self-respect whatsoever, that we accept the secession of Kosovo and Metohija and that we agree to the break-up of Serbia. What would be Serbia’s image in the world if it joined a military alliance that had bombed it, demanding it to accept the amputation of part of its territory, the very part that is the birthplace of its identity? What sort of a people would go and fight for others’ interests and ignore terror that Serbs in the southern province endure? What would be the reputation of a country that has abandoned its biggest ally, Russia, and entered an alliance with those who destroyed and maimed it? Such a country would deserve to be despised. So, why get killed for others’ interests? Serbia is tired of wars and it has no use for them. Serbia wants peace and prosperity, and not new wars, especially not fighting in someone else’s wars. NATO does not give a “democratic” legitimacy. NATO did not bomb Serbia based on “democratic principles“, nor is it “building“ Kosovo on the basis of international law. The military-conquering character of NATO is not in line with Serbia’s peaceful policy. Democracy is only a sugarcoat here.

9) Serbia would not be confronted with NATO, but would take active part in the Partnership for Peace Program. Although not a NATO member state, Serbia could use the PfP to cooperate with NATO, just like other neutral countries and Russia. If defence reforms are needed, PfP is enough for cooperation in that field. On the other side, this program does not have a negative image, and neutral countries are in it.

10) There are also new securtiy alternatives that overcome “blocs”. Above all, it is the Russian initiative for dialogue on a new security architecture in Europe. Military neutrality in no way means that Serbia would have a passive military-security policy. It must be proactive in regard of goals, means and everyday state actions. The interests of Serbia as a country come first, its prosperity, the autonomy of action, the choice of how to cooperate and create strategic partnerhips based on state interests. Finally, creating a proactive policy of military neutrality must be aligned with the growing multipolar world. NATO’s influence and domination as a leader of a unilateral world and the policy of “global interventionism” are decaying: there is a growing number of powers that are ready to be part of the “division of zones of influence“. In Japan a party that has set anti-Americanism as a core of its policy is winning elections. The British are feverishly looking to get out of Afghanistan, Obama under pressure from Russia withdraws shields from Poland and the Czech Republic, o Hugo Chavez is portrayed as a liberator of Latin America in films.… The growing multipolarity, regrouping of movements and powers in the global scene, a self-conscious and determined Russia, undefined strategies and confusion among some NATO member states, these are only some of the recent phenomena that will, in the years to come, change political relations in the world. At the same time, the economically strenghtened Russia, China, India and Brazil are not yet a monolithic BRIC but they are aware of the need to break the global hegemony. They know that the USA look to all dots in the world as of “vital American interest“.