***

1) Military neutrality was rushed through Parliament without prior debate and was part of a political trade-off since it was the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) that motioned for it. Therefore, military neutrality is not a permanent category. The Declaration of the Serbian Assembly should be ignored or simply cancelled by the new majority in the Assembly. Also, a country cannot be neutral towards just one military alliance, since neutrality means that a country remains neutral when two or more opposing sides clash. If neutrality is perceived as nothing but a hostile anti-NATO attitude this is unacceptable, as such a neutrality will not be recognized by any country.

BUT: The Declaration on Neutrality was voted in by both ruling and opposition parties in the Assembly and only a couple of minor parties and MPs question its purpose today. The people of Serbia are overwhelmingly in favour of neutrality. However, military neutrality does not mean that Serbia will be neutral to other military alliances whose influence in the world is growing, like the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

2) Serbian Army is using NATO weapons standards, and is describing them as the highest standard there is. Army reform was done according to NATO standards. Serbian Army HQ is modelled after NATO standard, as is brigade structure.

BUT: NATO standards have nothing to do with membership in NATO, just like reforms modelled after any other organisation do not necessarily mean integration into that organization.

3) Being a NATO member state is cheaper than being neutral: unless it joins NATO, Serbia will have to increase its defence spending in order to keep a span of military capabilities. On the other hand, if it joined a collective system of defence, the army could specialize and professionalize which would save money from the budget. So, NATO membership pays off. If it stays outside of NATO, Serbia will only regress and its technological development will be stopped.

BUT: Joining NATO means specializing and investing into certain branches of the armed forces for someone else’s needs. This creates inequality within the army, officers are laid off and tensions are heightened by the inequality. At the same time, other branches are lost and Serbian Army would not be able to defend the country on its own. By cancelling certain corps (eg. Patrolling the skies) Serbian would effectively let NATO defend those parts of territory and would be forced to pay dearly for the services. For a small country this practically means that it would not have an army, but a military formation functioning as a «screw» in NATO machinery. It would turn out that the country had the army not because of its own interests and goals, but to serve NATO. Heavy financial burden of NATO membership should not go unmentioned.

4) Membership means attracting foreign investment. There is a direct link between NATO membership and economic growth of its members: NATO membership brings key economic stability and influx of foreign investment, as it testifies to a country’s full political and economic stability which in turn encourages investors to freely invest into its economy. For example, FDIs into Romania grew as much as 141% after the country joined NATO in 2004. By joining NATO, Serbia would send a strong signal to potential investors that its territory is safe for investment.

BUT: There is no evidence of dependence between attracting foreing investments and NATO membership. Eastern European countries that joined NATO became EU members at about the same time, so it is arguable that investments grew because they became part of the largest economic area and because they fulfilled EU membership conditions. The latest economic crisis, that originated in the US and spilled over across Europe is in fact the strongest counter-argument to the thesis that a country’s progress is linked to NATO membership (see Greece, Romania, Estonia, etc.)

5) NATO membership is a precondition to EU membership. None of the transition countries ever got to EU membership without joining NATO first. No one will tell us: “You know, first you have to join NATO, then the EU“, but they will surely sayi: “EU entry goes hand in hand with NATO“. One should keep in mind that people voted for a “European Serbia” in the last elections.

BUT: NATO officials themselves have confirmed this is not a condition. EU and NATO membership conditions are significantly different, as is the accession procedure itself.

6) Opposing NATO is an expression of nationalism, anti-European sentiment and anti-Western feelings: to be against NATO today means being an autistic nationalist.

BUT: Serbia does not want confrontation with NATO, but is opposed to joining the Alliance, just like Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland – hardly the anti-Western countries.

7) The most powerful alliance in the world guarantees protection: Srbija would be in a collective defence system, which should increase the country’s security. If, for example, it were attacked, this would be treated like an attack on all NATO member states. Likewise, if any other NATO country were attacked, this would mean Serbia was under attack. By symbolically contributing to NATO operations, Serbia would enhance its political credibility, image and position in Washington, as well as in Brussels and other European capitals. So, better to sit at the table, than be served on the table: as this is the most powerful military alliance, it is in every country’s best interest to be part of its security structure and not be out of its boundaries.

BUT: Serbia is not under any threat of aggression from anyone outside of NATO. On the other hand, Serbia’s voice inside NATO would not be heard if it wanted to prevent an offensive action by NATO, and it would practically be forced to participate. Besides, there is not only the right to collective defence, but a duty to collectivelly defend. Serbia would have to “defend“ NATO member states if they came under attack.

8 NATO membership is inevitable: this is an alliance that most European states belong to, and the only organization that tightly bonds them to the mighty American ally. NATO is already in Kosovo and Bosnia, and Montenegro is aiming for membership. So, a large percentage of Serbs is already essentially linked to NATO, and Serbia must not remain an isolated island.

BUT: One third of European countries are outside of NATO: from the most westernly like Ireland, through the most northerly like Sweden and Finland to the most southerly like Malta and Cyprus and the most easternly like Russia, Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus, but also the most centrally located Austria and Switzerland. Serbia is not an “isolated island“ outside of NATO. Europe has been living with many “isolated“ islands for decades.

9) NATO (KFOR) is a guarantor of security in Kosovo. NATO soldiers are protecting Serbs in Kosovo.

BUT: NATO went into Kosovo after aggression against Serbia. It did not defend Serbs on several occasions (200,000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo in 1999 and in 2004) NATO is also training the “Kosovo Security Force“ which it wants to turn into an army of “Independent Kosovo“.

10) NATO bombing is no argument, because one should not look to the past: Recently, the Serbian minister of defence went to Turkey to sign important agreements, and Serbs were occupied by Turks for 500 years. We should recall that the Allies bombed Belgrade in 1944, killing 10,000 people in one city only – Leskovac. We forgot and forgave. We should go ahead and look to the future.

BUT: Serbia is the only European country bombed by NATO intent on taking part of its territory. Also, NATO is still engaged in stealing Kosovo away from Serbia, so it is not the past. Training of the future “Independent Kosovo“ army is ongoing.