Vol. 7, No. 19, July 2011
Table of Contents:
To Our Readers
Bulgaria and the Missile Defense
Shield - Realities and Opportunities
Iliya Nalbantov
Libya – a Local Problem Solved on
an International Level
Diliana Evtimova
Events
To Our Readers
This is the 19th issue of the Security Focus and
Security Sector Watch Newsletter. It opens the
Bulgarian discussion for missile defense shield building
and the political and geostrategic aspects of the theme. Additionally, we are also
continuing our initiative with young authors invitation
for giving their opinion on live questions from the
security area. The current issue is hosting the
Students' Club of Political Sciences at the Sofia
University 'Kliment Ohridski' and the Libya crisis
problem. As
usual we have also noted some events related to the
security sector governance. We believe that in this way a
better understanding for the security sector
transformation and governance in its wider context will
be achieved.
From the publishers
Bulgaria
and the Missile Defense Shield - Realities and
Opportunities
Iliya Nalbantov*
Each time when the missile defense
theme is raised in the Bulgarian public space, its
importance for Russia is inevitably marked in the media.
When discussing this topic, the vast
majority of the Bulgarian population shares the view
that Bulgaria has close historical relations to Russia
and there is no need for challenging these relations
with unnecessary actions.
The common Bulgarian public opinion
about the missile defense of the Bering Strait, which is
situated much closer to NATO, is considering this
problem as business of those involved, but not something
related to us. This difference in perception shows the
emotional commitment of the Bulgarian society with
anything problematic for Russia. Obviously, it will take
time to overcome this perceptions formed under the
systematic Russian ideological influence of more than a
century.
This is a huge problem for the
Bulgarian governments, which have limited opportunity to
do what is good for Bulgaria and to keep the
geopolitical balance of the big powers. Most vividly
this was shown recently in relation to the potential
deployment of radar systems on Botev peak, the Balkan
Mountains.
Why Russia opposes so aggressively
the deployment of missile defense components in
Bulgaria, whilst officially announcing the building of
independent air-space defense?
The answer to this question is
associated with overcoming perceptions formed under the
systematic impact of extreme ideological tools used by
Russia to form internal models of political perception,
directly serving the monolithic of the power authorities
that is common for every big power.
Also, another factor is that any act
diminishing the influence of Russia in the European area
of warmer seas is perceived as a direct attack against
the state.
In the past, Moscow has always been
careful in providing power tools that can enhance the
defense capabilities of smaller countries.
A good example for this is the
building of a missile defense system in Bulgaria during
its membership in the Warsaw Pact.
Bulgaria has never received the
integrated components for Command & Control of Air
Defense Weapon Systems separated between the Air and
Land Forces.
This example clearly shows that in
the past, Bulgaria has had a systemic problem of
interaction between political factors and national
analytical expertise involved in the shaping of the
security and defense policy and mainly has been a
‘consumer’ not a ‘shaper’.
For sure, there will be a check-up in
the near future whether this problem has been overcome
since Bulgaria became a member of NATO and the EU. One
potential check-up will be the way Bulgaria takes part
in the building of the European missile defense.
Many roundtables and conferences
conducted since 2001 prepared the public opinion for
Bulgaria’s ultimate statement to commit to participation
in this project. At the political level, this commitment
was confirmed by the Bulgarian Parliament in 2011.
However, this higher form of
political sanction meets resistance in its
transformation into practical action. There is not
ultimate evidence that the responsible executives take
the necessary steps for Bulgaria to exploit the
potential of anti-missile defense as a source of an
added value for the technological development of the
country.
In any case, the summit of NATO in
2012 will report the progress on this issue made by the
member states and by NATO.
During the summit, the Bulgarian
politicians responsible for the committed participation
of Bulgaria in the collective system of defense and
security should give definite confirmation that the
country builds a systematic, expertise and technological
potential in order to join the project.
Bulgaria should present compelling arguments that the
country will not allow external, unilateral dependencies
of the national defense capabilities in the use of this
system and shared responsibility for collective defense
and security.
In other words, the possibilities
offered by the policy of the Alliance should become
realities that serve directly the interests of the
Bulgarian society and economic developments keeping at
the same time a geopolitical regional balance.
*Iliya
Nalbantov is the Managing Board Chairman of the George
C. Marshall Alumni Club and Program Director of George C. Marshall
Association – Bulgaria.
Libya – a
Local Problem Solved on an International Level
Diliana Evtimova*
In year 1969, Muammar
Gaddafi seized the power in Libya, establishing a kind
of totalitarian regime known as Jamahiriya. After years
under the absolute power of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan
people revolted on 15 February 2011 organizing great
many demonstrations in different parts of the country.
The rebellion swiftly developed into armed civil war
dividing the country.
The Libyan uprising is
not a fanatic idea relevant to jihad – it is a call for
help. The citizens of Libya want to establish a
different kind of public power built upon the basic
principles of rule of law, mainly with the respect to
human rights. The Libyan nation should become a
sovereign of its own power. Thus, state compulsion will
be avoided and converted into a legitimate authority
which would legitimize the power of its holder to exert
it upon the people.
In this crucial moment
for the Libyan people the United Nations has provided a
swift response to the will of the Libyan people with the
very aim to protect them, even by means of armed
intervention on the territory of their own country.
Permitting foreign interference into internal state
policy of one’s country sounds quite alarming, but this
statement had to be marked as expired, while living in
the era of globalization when every local problem find a
resolution on an international level. Given this, the
consequences of the Libyan crisis cannot be left to take
their own course. The United Nations has its own
adequate response to the complicated situation evolved
in the boundaries of the Libyan country. The
international organization is morally obliged to
interfere. Therefore, its attempt to bear the
responsibility to preserve national identity of the
Libyan people and world peace is highly rightful and
justified.
On 17 March 2011 a
Resolution 1973 was adopted by the UN Security Council.
The international organization voted to authorize
military action in order to retrieve national peace,
protecting Libyan citizens. The member states approved a
no-fly zone over Libya, authorizing ‘all necessary
measures’ to protect civilians. In conclusion, by a vote
of 10 in favour to none against, several ideas were
adopted.
At first, Security
Council demanded on an immediate ceasefire in Libya in
order to protect the revolt civilians, outnumbered by
Gaddafi’s subordinates and mercenaries. This measure had
been taken accordingly to the military situation in the
country. As T. Hobbes ones said: “During the time men
live without a common power to keep them all in awe,
they are in that conditions called war; and such a war,
as if of every man, against every man.” In this sense,
the Security Council is trying to avoid the situation of
violation of fundamental human rights of the rebelled
nation.
Moreover, as a measure of precaution, the international
organization imposed a no-fly zone in order to avoid
further mass murders, which actually means a ban of all
flights in the country’s airspace. A ban was imposed on
all Libyan-designated flights. The arms embargo was
strengthened, avoiding shipment to anyone in
Libya.Prohibitions entered into force on 17 March 2011.
All of the precautions
adopted are fully justified, but what is interesting is
the actions that every single member state undertook
after the meeting of the UN Security Council.
Apparently, France was the country to take an active
part in the intervention in Libya. Given this, the
state’s secret political interests revealed. The problem
must be seen from a geopolitical point of view since
Libya is situated in the North Africa in a combination
with country’s outlet on the Mediterranean Sea. France
and actually the whole Europe is trying to strengthen
its influence over the Mediterranean Basin. The strategy
of Europe is to displace the ascendancy of USA over
North Africa – the very aim is to achieve
Europeanization in this region and to utilize France as
a political leverage. But still, there is another point
of view to this situation. Recently, the French
President popularity ratings fall near record lows and
the active humanitarian intervention in Libya is seen as
a chance for Nicolas Sarkozy to restore the lost votes.
In sharp contrast to the
policy of France is the USA approach to the Libyan
conflict. After years spent in war in Iraq, spending 2.1
billion dollars per day, the state cannot afford to take
an active part in the military action. Furthermore, the
USA is trying to change its leadership policy since
China has registered higher economic growth. Given this,
the Federal Republic is trying to take the world lead in
innovation, economy and education. In spite of this, the
USA, as a country of a great power, cannot remain
passive or abstain about this kind of issue.
Not surprisingly, the
vote was not unanimous – five countries abstained
(Russian Federation, Germany, China, Brazil and India).
The abstentions are explained by countries’ deeply
desire for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. But
this statement reveals some hidden political caution. As
to start with Germany, the state cannot indulge in
military support in Libya because of the great number of
constitutional limitations about country’s military
defense, established after the Second World War. Russian
Federation was one of the states which abstained in this
conflict, but the country’s precautions are different
from the other nations. Russia wants a resolution
different from an Islamic one, given the wars in
Chechnya. Furthermore, Russia has a priority in being in
good terms with USA, ever since the Federation has been
selling petrol in dollars. In this sense, a strong
interference in this situation may be seen as attempt
for challenging the leadership of the USA.
The countries involved
in the conflict are trying to implement their own
individual political interest. Yet, the current military
intervention can be viewed as an act of humaneness
rather than an act of individual interest. An
organization like the United Nations, which main goals
are directed towards preserving world peace, cannot
remain passive about mass murders and crimes against
humanity, present in Libya, only because of the extreme
views of one person. Recognizing the urgent need to
protect innocent civilian population, the humanitarian
intervention of NATO under the approval by the United
Nations can only be seen as an imminent act of justice.
*Diliana
Evtimova is the Vice President of Students’ Club of
Political Science and a first year student of Political
Sciences at the Sofia University 'St. Kliment Ohridski'.
