1990s NATO
Topic A: Fall of the USSR
Chair: Alex Gedalin
Moderator: Ashley Wood
Vice Chairs: Kassie Blanchard, Conner
Steines
Crisis Staffer: Kevin Ford
April 10 – 13, 2014
Gedalin 1
Fall of the USSR
Introduction
Throughout the 1970’s and 80’s, the Soviet Union looked like one of the most powerful
and stable nations in the world. Beneath the surface, though, socioeconomic problems were
brewing. The Soviet Stalinist economic system was failing, as workers throughout the Soviet
Union had little to no incentive to actually do their work. Despite this, the union pushed forward,
working to outpace the West in amassing military power. As more and more investment was
poured into arms spending, the rest of the economy suffered. Growth declined, then stagnated,
and as the 1980s came to a close, the soviet party recognized the fact that its system could not be
reformed. Soon, Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Communist Part of the Soviet Union,
announced the creation of political pluralism in Russia, as well as the end of the Soviet
Communist Party’s period of domination.
As the Union began its reforms, the East and West quickly began negotiating an Open
Skies Treaty, as well as a cutback on forces in Europe. In 1989, Crowds of Germans swarmed
the Berlin Wall and began to dismantle it, symbolizing the beginning of the end of nearly 30
years of a divided Europe. Three Baltic states: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia embarked on the
road to independence. By the spring of 1990, the Warsaw Pact began to dismantle itself, and
NATO sent out a “Message from Turnberry,” extending a hand of cooperation and friendship to
all nations in the East. By July 1990, German reunification was moving along quickly, with the
formation of a monetary union between the East and West states noted to be a practical first step.
The movement towards democracy in Central and Eastern Europe proceeded rapidly over the
next year, but problems abounded. Yugoslavia faced a civil war in May of 1991, and a coup
Gedalin 2
arose in the Soviet Union in August of that same year. Nonetheless, reforms and dissolutions
pressed onward.
It is currently the autumn of 1991, and the East is continuing to collapse. NATO has been
jettisoned into an important period of multinational diplomacy, and is meeting to discuss actions
to be taken in response to changes in the East. This meeting of allied leaders is named “The
Rome Summit.” With the fall of the USSR itself nearing with each passing day, NATO must
come up with a response to this rapid transformation happening in the East. As NATO is a
military alliance, the biggest question it must ask itself is: how should NATO revise its military
and arms structure to best reflect these changes in the East? Addressing this issue, NATO must
come up with a plan of diplomatic action to assure a successful transition out of the Cold War era
and into one of prosperity. With the original purpose of protecting the security of member states
by countering military aggression, NATO’s mission at the end of the Cold War must adapt to
adjust its methods of promoting stability and security in the region. Additionally, NATO must
consider the security questions coming out of the Cold War with a focus on “fostering the
integration of Eastern European countries into a new world order.1” The status of Eastern
European countries is undetermined given the Soviet bloc has ceased to exist, but these “East
European states are not part of ‘The West’ either, nor [is] it conceivable they could join anytime
soon (eg. as members of the European community.)2”
1
Secretary General Manfred Wörner, "NATO Statement on Achieving Stability in Europe,"Making the
History of 1989, Item #53, http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/53 (accessed December 05 2013, 12:19
am).
2
Bitzinger, Richard A. "The Role of Military Power and Arms Control in Western Security in the 1990s."
The RAND Publication Series (1990): 1-44. Rand.org. The RAND Foundation. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3994.pdf>.
Gedalin 3
Background and Current Situation
History of Nato - Warsaw Relations:
Tensions between the East and West relating to the buildup of arms began with the end of
World War II and the creation of the atomic bomb. With the Soviet Union and the United States
leading the way, both sides began to develop large arsenals of nuclear warheads. Fears of a
nuclear exchange grew quickly, and both sides were prompted to begin negotiating limitations on
the testing and production of nuclear warheads. Many of these negotiations lead to agreements
based on the idea of deterrence, or the notion that a nuclear attack would lead to a reprisal from
the attacked country.
During the late 50s and early 60s, NATO adopted the doctrine of “Massive Retaliation”
based on the idea of deterrence. This gave NATO leaders the ability to focus on economic
growth rather than working to create and maintain large conventional forces. As the 60s rolled
onward, though, this strict strategy based on automatic retaliation was relaxed, and as conflicts
like the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and the Vietnam War expanded, a new period of
East-West relations began called détente. Détente was a period of relaxed tensions between the
two sides, and this sparked some
interest in changing the status quo of the conflict. John F. Kennedy’s strategy of “Flexible
Response” sought to replace the all-or-nothing response of nuclear exchange in the event of a
conflict, and NATO and Warsaw Pact members met at the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in order to “improve and intensify their relations and to contribute in Europe to
Gedalin 4
peace, security, justice, and cooperation.3” This conference led to the Helsinki Final Act, which
bound its signatories to “respect the fundamental freedom of their citizens, including the freedom
of thought, conscience, religion, or belief.4” Internally, Soviet rulers didn’t pay much attention to
these clauses, and attached more importance to the West’s recognition of the Soviets’ role in
Eastern Europe.
By 1979, the period of détente came to an end with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
and the introduction of SS20 Saber ballistic missiles into Eastern Europe. Under the new
leadership of President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher of the United Kingdom, NATO escalated Cold War tensions in an attempt to directly
oppose renewed Soviet aggression and force Soviet economic collapse through increased defense
spending. Some NATO members in Europe maintained reservations into the mid1980s about
Reagan’s “evil empire” rhetoric toward the Soviet Union, his increase in military spending, and
the deployment of Pershing missiles onto the continent.5 The Cold War seemed to reach new
heights as Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative, popularly referred to as “Star
Wars,” in 1983, and the aging Soviet leadership saw dangerous precedents being set. Many in
NATO fear a loss of all negotiations and easing of tensions accomplished during the period of
détente. However, in 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev ascended to General Secretary of the Communist
Party in the Soviet Union. This created extraordinary change in the dynamics of the Cold War.
3
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe Final Act. Www.osce.org. N.p., 1975. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true>
4
"NATO History." Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html>.
5
"1982." Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 31 Oct. 2001. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nato.int/docu/update/80-89/1982e.htm>.
Gedalin 5
Gorbachev instituted policies of perestroika, designed to reorder the Soviet economy and end
shortages, and glasnost, an opening of culture and liberal rights into Soviet society.6 Gorbachev
increasingly came to the realization that the Warsaw Pact could maintain a functioning economy
by matching NATO defense spending. Therefore, the end of the 1980s became the final phase in
NATO’s Cold War policy as the organization reengaged the Soviet Union with regards to
disarmament. Arms reduction led to the Reykjavik Conference of 1986 and the subsequent INF
Treaty that eliminated an entire class of intermediate and short-range ballistic missiles. Cutting
of military spending by Warsaw Pact nations encouraged demonstrations throughout Eastern
Europe. Therefore, the NATO policies of the 1980s seemed to be working by methodically
bringing about the fall of the Soviet Union through political, economic, and social means.
Arms Control and Disarmament
Arms control agreements promote stability on a regional level by increasing trust
between governments as a result of increased transparency surrounding each nation’s military
capabilities. A key element of the instability surrounding the Cold War involved the arm race
that ensued from the USSR and the United States’ perceptions of each country’s weapons
stockpiles. In fact, George Kennan openly admitted “the West overestimated the Soviet threat to
Western Europe in the late 1940s.7” Similarly, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara in 1989 acknowledged the U.S. “overestimated Soviet nuclear potential and
6
"1984." Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 6 Nov. 2001. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nato.int/docu/update/80-89/1984e.htm>.
7
Carls, Alice-Catherine. "U.S.—Soviet Relations: Myths and Realities." Cpjustice.org. The Center For Public
Justice, Sept. 1989. Web. Dec. 2013. <http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1073>.
Gedalin 6
intentions during the Cuban missile crisis.8” NATO seeks to enhance security in Europe through
a reduction of the threat created by nuclear arms and subsequently the increase in stability
promoted by the same measure.
However, there are key differences between arms control and disarmament that are
important for NATO delegations to understand. Complete or general disarmament is normally
defined as eliminating a country’s entire military capacity. Partial disarmament, on the other
hand, may consist of eliminating certain classes of weapons but not a country’s entire arsenal.9
Disarmament agreements as a whole explicitly disallow the possession and production of certain
weapons, while arms control agreements take the approach of limiting the testing, deployment,
and use of weapons. Arms control agreements seem to be the more realistic approach to limiting
military conflict, as it is nearly impossible to monitor all of the weapons a country deals with and
produces. Arms control agreements also encourage participating parties to manage their arms in
some sort of cooperation with each other, while disarmament agreements seem to negate
cooperation and often create tension between parties.
Past examples of arms control agreements include the Stockholm Conference on
Confidence-and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe (CDE) conference
agreement of 1986 to “increase openness and predictability about military activities in Europe10.”
The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe11, for example, aimed to stabilize and
8
9
ibid
"NATO Statement on Achieving Stability in Europe | Making the History of 1989."Making the History of 1989.
Omeka, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/53>.
10
"The Cold War Soviet and US Led Arms Control Agreements." Britanica.com. Encyclopedia Britanica, n.d. Web.
4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35537/arms-control/252829/The-Cold-War-Soviet-andUS-led-arms-control-agreements/>.
11
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe.
Www.osce.org. N.p., 1975. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.osce.org/library/14087>.
Gedalin 7
secure arms levels in Europe to eliminate risks.
The USSR and NATO
Gorbachev, “a popular figure in the West but a mistrusted one in his own country,12” in a
December 1988 address marked a significant point in the change in the USSR’s foreign policy
when he announced plans to “unilaterally [...] reduce Soviet military forces by 500,000, cut
conventional armaments massively, and withdraw substantial numbers of armaments and troops
from Eastern European countries.13”As far as relations with the United States, Gorbachev
declared he had “no 'finished blueprint' for his notion of a common European home14,”
acknowledging the role of both the Soviet Union and the US in European politics.
Former NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner said in an address to the Annual
Meeting of the World Economics Forum, “We are now living through a time of breathtaking
movement [...] The ever closer union of Europe, the economic and ideological decline of
Communism, Gorbachev's reform drive, the first disarmament agreement in human history, the
growing importance of economic power even overshadowing military power, the spreading
influence of democratic ideas and free market forces, the revival in superpower relations
everywhere the dynamic of history is plain to see.15”
The current NATO strategy is forward defense and flexible response, protecting
12
"1990." Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 31 Oct. 2001. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nato.int/docu/update/80-89/1990e.htm>.
13
ibid
14
James M. Markham. "Gorbachev Spurns The Use Of Force In Eastern Europe." The New York Times. The New
York Times, 07 July 1989. Web. 05 Dec. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/07/world/gorbachev-spurns-theuse-of-force-in-eastern-europe.html?pagewanted=2>.
15
"Stability in Europe-NATO’s Way Forward | Making the History of 1989."Making the History of 1989. Omeka,
n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/archive/files/nato-statement-2-1-89_c00e1ae541.pdf>.
Gedalin 8
vulnerable borders of allies, aiming to support “deterrence, defense, alliance unity,
nonproliferation, and crisis stability.16” Additionally, NATO should consider nontraditional
security challenges and pay attention to potential threats emerging from different geographic
areas in the ensuing decade.
16
Kuglar, Richard L. "NATO’s Future Role in Europe." The RAND Publication Series (1990): 1-44.Rand.org. The
RAND Foundation. Web. 05 Dec. 2013. <http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3923.pdf>.
Gedalin 9
Bloc Positions
Germany
A significant element of Germany’s foreign policy involves the military presence of
various countries in Germany since the end of World War II. In West Germany, six NATO allies
had military forces stationed, while Soviet troops were in East Germany. The United States’
forces made up the largest presence of NATO countries, with Britain and France also deploying
substantial forces.17 The most relevant threat to Germany leading up to the 1990s was “the
forward deployment of armored and highly maneuverable Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces.18”
After 1989, NATO, although originally focused on countering the power of the USSR, became
important to maintaining security in former Soviet satellite states and others saw NATO “as a
means to prevent the re-nationalization of German security policy.19”
France & Germany France holds a strong belief that Germany should be tied firmly into
Europe and is strongly concerned with the country’s policies. France believes that the integration
of Western Europe will eventually provide an identity separate from the blocs that have
dominated Europe since the war/ integration and inclusion will help overcome European
division.
United Kingdom, US, Canada
During the Cold War, the United Kingdom had prided itself on having a substantial
defense budget and contributions to NATO even throughout economic hardship. However, the
17
"North Atlantic Treaty Organization." Germany - International Cooperation. N.p., Aug. 1995. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4992.html>.
18
ibid
19
ibid
Gedalin 10
fall of the Berlin Wall led to a re-evaluation of their defense policy. The evaluation, titled
“Options for Change,20” reinforced the country’s desire to make contributions to NATO a top
military priority. Geopolitically, Soviet power was perceived to be the most recent challenge to
Europe’s balance of power, however, the ideological differences heightened concerns. By 1989,
NATO had acknowledged the decline in Soviet power, noting Soviet foreign relations had shown
“new flexibility, pragmatism and sensitivity to the security concerns of others.21 Within the
alliance, Britain acts largely as an intermediary with the United States and the rest of Europe.
Britain also believes in the power of the nuclear deterrent through its own policies as an
additional check on the USSR and has historically contributed to NATO’s nuclear strategy.22
Britain’s relationship with Germany includes its involvement in a forward defense strategy on
the intra-German border.
In Canada’s review of its defense policies in 1987, the government tried to “strengthen
Canada’s military and its commitments to NATO, pledging more troops and aircraft to Europe
than at any time since the early 1960s.23”
NATO prevents the US from becoming isolationist, especially now after Cold War
tensions have subsided, by integrating the country into European affairs and creating “mutual
20
Taylor, Claire. "A Brief Guide to Previous British Defense Review." Parliament.uk. N.p., 19 Oct. 2010. Web. 5
Dec. 2013. <www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05714.pdf>.
21
Williams, Phil. "British Naval Policy-The Next Five Years." The RAND Publication Series (1990): 1-44.
Rand.org. The RAND Foundation. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2009/N2954.pdf>.
22
ibid
23
Oliver, Dean F. "Canada and NATO." Canadian War Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.warmuseum.ca/education/online-educational-resources/dispatches/canada-and-nato/>.
Gedalin 11
commitments that help bind the transatlantic community of nations.24” The US has always
played a significant leadership role in NATO affairs and in contributions to military and political
endeavors. In the past 13 years, the US military buildup has placed a particular focus on
strengthening NATO forces, while also dealing with domestic political pressure to examine
burden sharing in contributions across the alliance25. Regarding Gorbachev’s most recent
comments, the US has exercised “cautious optimism,26” while other NATO countries almost
immediately cut defense spending. In 1989, the US decided to maintain the same ratio of US
forces to NATO forces in Europe, only dropping “its demand for compliance with the 3 percent
policy on May 17, 1990,27” a policy formally dropped one week later in response to the reduction
of the Soviet threat.
Nordic Bloc Norway, Denmark, Iceland
The Nordic bloc identifies together within NATO, especially because of each country’s
respective policies on nuclear weapons and armed forces. Norway has historically oriented its
security policies with those of Atlantic powers, especially with the United Kingdom before
NATO was formed. Ties between Norway and the UK are stronger than ties between Denmark
and the UK due to historical events, such as the British Expeditionary Force in Norway in 1940.
In peacetime, both Norway and Denmark prohibit nuclear weapons on their soil; this policy
24
Kuglar, Richard L. "NATO’s Future Role in Europe." The RAND Publication Series (1990): 1-44.Rand.org. The
RAND Foundation. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3923.pdf>.
25
Fiscarelli, Rosemary. "NATO in the 1990s: Shedding Replaces Burden Sharing."Foreign Policy Briefing. Cato,
n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-001.html>.
26
ibid
27
ibid
Gedalin 12
means domestic political groups may oppose NATO nuclear policies. With both Norway and
Denmark, the Soviet Union has been able to affect NATO policy to some extent by putting
pressure on Finland.28 Iceland does not have an armed forces system, thus contributing to NATO
financially and by committing civilian personnel.29 The 1951 Bilateral Defense Agreement with
the US is a significant component of Iceland’s approach to security.
Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy
The Spanish navy and air force, operating from bases located in the Balearic Islands and
southern Spain, afforded NATO a stronger position in the western Mediterranean. Italy feels that
the alliance should devote more attention to the southern region of Europe, and should heighten
security around the Mediterranean. Italy is concerned with the instability around the
Mediterranean and worries about threats to sea lines of communication. Spain’s history with
nuclear weapons policies concerning NATO originally aligned with that of the Nordic countries,
refusing to have NATO nuclear weapons on its land.30 Italy also holds a strong philosophical
attachment to nuclear arms control. Spain later accepted the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons. Due to an incident in 1966 involving three thermonuclear bombs being spilled
in Spain because of US plane collisions, agreements later made sure the US could not store
nuclear devices or parts on Spanish land. France disagrees with Spain and Italy’s anti-nuclear
weapon approach. The nation will make nuclear force spending a priority throughout the years
28
Lund, John. "Scandinavian NATO Policy-The Next Five Years." The RAND Publication Series (1990): 1-44.
Rand.org. The RAND Foundation. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2009/N2957.pdf>.
29
"Iceland and NATO." Mfa.is. Ministry for Foreign Affairs, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013. <http://www.mfa.is/foreignpolicy/security/iceland-nato/>.
30
"Spain-Participation in NATO." Mongabay. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.mongabay.com/history/spain/spain-participation_in_nato.html>.
Gedalin 13
following soviet dissolution. Politically, Spain did not share US fears of the Soviet military,
instead favoring increased trade and that “they have welcomed Moscow's support of Spain's
demand for the "decolonization" of Gibraltar.31” In the 1980s, Spain became more independent
regarding the US and the USSR.
Turkey
Turkey’s shared border with Iraq will play an important role in NATO involvement in the
Gulf War, from efforts to protect Turkish security to the bases in the country. Turkey and Greece
had historically bad relations, but began to improve in the late 1980s as Turkey sought to
modernize and become more involved in Europe.32
Belgium, Netherlands, & Luxembourg
The dissolution of the Soviet Union created limited to no change in the strategic
objectives of leadership in the Benelux countries. The INF Treaty committed Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Luxembourg to a short term reevaluation of military strategy. These countries
also professed a firm belief in arms reduction, detente, and decreasing defense commitments in
Europe. The fall of the Soviet Union brought an end to the desire by Benelux countries to
maintain a high volume of troops and weapons. The countries no longer placed emphasis on
heavy military investment given the elimination of the threat of a Soviet invasion of Western
Europe. Benelux supported greater economic integration of the newly liberal Eastern European
31
ibid
Athanassopoulou, Ekavi. “Turkey and Greece.” London School of Economics.
www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/.../reports/.../greece.pdf
32
Gedalin 14
countries rather than providing military support. These countries developed a comprehensive
economic program to facilitate commerce in Western Europe during the 1970s. Therefore, the
history of Benelux indicates that their NATO representatives would be interested in promoting
free trade agreements and inviting the Eastern European nations into the European Economic
Community.
Questions to Consider
1. What will be NATO’s main security purpose with the fall of the USSR?
2. How will the fall of the USSR affect stability in Europe?
3. How can NATO capitalize on the opportunity to form a new relationship with Eastern
Europe?
4. How will different blocs in NATO satisfy domestic pressure regarding defense spending?
5. How will NATO integrate Eastern European states, especially former Soviet satellite
states, into the balance maintained largely by the alliance?
6. What will nations be asked to commit to contribute to defense, such as defense spending
levels?
7. Which leaders will NATO seek to engage in the former USSR?
8. What will be the priority in arms control strategies?
9. How will a radically different situation in Germany affect the dynamic in NATO?
10. What other regions of the world will NATO be responding to in addition to changes in
Eastern Europe?
Gedalin 15
Recommended Sources
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_23847
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/soviet_end_01.shtml
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/1990/summarye.htm
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/research/natostrt.pdf
http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/formation-of-nato-and-warsaw-pact
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/07/world/gorbachevspurnstheuseofforceineasterneurope.html
?pagewanted=2&src=pm
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/1989/summarye.htm
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3994.pdf
http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/berlinwall
Gedalin 16
Bibliography
"1990." Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 31 Oct. 2001. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nato.int/docu/update/80-89/1990e.htm>.
"1982." Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 31 Oct. 2001. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nato.int/docu/update/80-89/1982e.htm>.
"1984." Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 6 Nov. 2001. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nato.int/docu/update/80-89/1984e.htm>.
Athanassopoulou, Ekavi. “Turkey and Greece.” London School of Economics.
www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/.../reports/.../greece.pdf
Bitzinger, Richard A. "The Role of Military Power and Arms Control in Western Security in the
1990s." The RAND Publication Series (1990): 1-44. Rand.org. The RAND Foundation. Web. 05
Dec. 2013. <http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3994.pdf>.
Carls, Alice-Catherine. "U.S.—Soviet Relations: Myths and Realities." Cpjustice.org. The
Center For Public Justice, Sept. 1989. Web. Dec. 2013.
<http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1073>.
Fiscarelli, Rosemary. "NATO in the 1990s: Shedding Replaces Burden Sharing."Foreign Policy
Briefing. Cato, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-001.html>.
"Iceland and NATO." Mfa.is. Ministry for Foreign Affairs, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/security/iceland-nato/>.
Kuglar, Richard L. "NATO’s Future Role in Europe." The RAND Publication Series (1990): 144.Rand.org. The RAND Foundation. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3923.pdf>.
Lund, John. "Scandinavian NATO Policy-The Next Five Years." The RAND Publication Series
(1990): 1-44. Rand.org. The RAND Foundation. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2009/N2957.pdf>.
Manfred Wörner. "Stability in Europe - NATO's way forward," speech, Davos, Switzerland,
February 1, 1989, NATO, Online Library, NATO (accessed May 14, 2008).
Markham, James M. "Gorbachev Spurns The Use Of Force In Eastern Europe." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 07 July 1989. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/07/world/gorbachev-spurns-the-use-of-force-in-easterneurope.html?pagewanted=2>.
Gedalin 17
"NATO History." Nato.int. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html>.
"North Atlantic Treaty Organization." Germany - International Cooperation. N.p., Aug. 1995.
Web. 05 Dec. 2013. <http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4992.html>.
Oliver, Dean F. "Canada and NATO." Canadian War Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.warmuseum.ca/education/online-educational-resources/dispatches/canada-andnato/>.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe Final Act. Www.osce.org. N.p., 1975. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true>
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Treaty on conventional armed forces in
Europe. Www.osce.org. N.p., 1975. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.osce.org/library/14087>.
Secretary General Manfred Wörner, "NATO Statement on Achieving Stability in
Europe,"Making the History of 1989, Item #53, http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/53
(accessed December 05 2013, 12:19 am).
"Spain-Participation in NATO." Mongabay. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.mongabay.com/history/spain/spain-participation_in_nato.html>.
"Stability in Europe-NATO’s Way Forward | Making the History of 1989."Making the History
of 1989. Omeka, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/archive/files/natostatement-2-1-89_c00e1ae541.pdf>.
Taylor, Claire. "A Brief Guide to Previous British Defense Review." Parliament.uk. N.p., 19 Oct.
2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. <www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05714.pdf>.
"The Cold War Soviet and US Led Arms Control Agreements." Britanica.com. Encyclopedia
Britanica, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35537/armscontrol/252829/The-Cold-War-Soviet-and-US-led-arms-control-agreements/>.
Williams, Phil. "British Naval Policy-The Next Five Years." The RAND Publication Series
(1990): 1-44. Rand.org. The RAND Foundation. Web. 05 Dec. 2013.
<http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2009/N2954.pdf
Gedalin 18