SLOVENIA'S DIVERGENT VIEWS ON NATO/EU COOPERATION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LJUBLJANA 000063

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/31/2016
TAGS: MARR MOPS NATO PGOV PREL SI
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA'S DIVERGENT VIEWS ON NATO/EU COOPERATION
VS. COMPETITION MIRROR PARTY CLEAVAGES

REF: A. LJUBLJANA 23


B. LJUBLJANA 28

C. LJUBLJANA 42

Classified By: Ambassador Thomas B. Robertson for Reasons 1.4 (B,D)


1. (C) SUMMARY. The public debate in Slovenia over the
government's January 12 decision to send four trainers to the
NATO Training Mission in Iraq (NTM-I) has led to the
crystallization of two distinct views on the relationship
between NATO and EU security policy. The first sees NATO as
a critical institution for European security and sees
Slovenia's role within NATO and the EU as complementary. The
second sees the EU as a counterweight to American power and
advocates strengthening an autonomous European security
policy to diminish U.S. influence in Europe. This
strategic-conceptual faultline corresponds closely with the
political cleavage between the center-right
government(espousing the former view) and the center-left
opposition (espousing the latter). END SUMMARY.


2. (C) Immediately after the GOS's January 12 announcement
that it would send four soldiers to Iraq as part of NTM-I, a
vigorous debate ensued in the press, on the airwaves, and in
coffee shops and internet chatrooms around the country.
Proponents and opponents of the government's decision made
their case using a variety of arguments, but in the sea of
articles, op-eds, talk shows, and blogs devoted to the
subject, two general attitudes have emerged on Slovenia's
relationship to NATO and the EU. The first, espoused most
clearly by the Jansa government and members of Slovenia's
security and defense establishment, views NATO as the world's
pre-eminent security institution and seeks to address common
threats through the complementary use of NATO and EU
resources. The second attitude, articulated most clearly by
members of the center-left opposition as well as by a
majority of academics and media commentators, views the U.S.
as a hegemonic -- if not neo-imperialist -- power, which
ought to be held in check by a more "multilateral" European
security policy.


3. (U) An opinion poll published January 28 showed that 35.7
percent of Slovenes support the government's decision to send
military instructors to Iraq, while 56.6 percent are opposed.
When the general sample is subdivided by party affiliation,
however, a dramatic cleavage emerges. While 73.4 percent of
the supporters of the center-right Slovenian Democratic Party
(SDS) approved of the government's decision, 78.9 percent of
the supporters of the center-left Liberal Democratic Party
(LDS) opposed it.

-------------- --------------
Center-Left Accuses GOS of "Succumbing" to U.S. Pressure
-------------- --------------


4. (SBU) Among the most vociferous opponents of the GOS's
decision to send soldiers to Iraq is former PM Anton (Tone)
Rop, head of the LDS parliamentary deputies group. (NOTE:
While Rop is head of the LDS parliamentary deputies group,
Jelko Kacin is the head of the party. END NOTE.) Rop
immediately lambasted the decision after it was announced,
saying that "Prime Minister Janez Jansa, who has caved in to
outside pressure, will have to accept the political
responsibility for this nonchalant decision. This U-turn in
Slovenian foreign policy is thoughtless and harmful." On
January 19, appearing on the political talk show "Trenja" on
private broadcaster POP TV, Rop further insinuated that the
GOS had caved in to U.S. pressure and somewhat hysterically
called for Slovenian citizens to take to the streets in
protest. Speaking of his own government, Rop noted that "we
emphasized other policies, let us say the policies of France
and Germany."


5. (U) The LDS website (www.lds.si) quotes Rop at length on
the subject of sending troops to Iraq: "We (the previous
government) made the political decision that Slovenia would
not send troops to Iraq. We stuck with it. The current
government is the one that is sending soldiers to Iraq; it is
the one that is exposing Slovenia. With this we are paying
the price of the SDS's electoral campaign. The fact that
Slovenia is finally sending soldiers to Iraq is the success
of the U.S. Ambassador in Slovenia." In a January 13
interview for the print daily "Vecer," Rop also indicated
that although sending the four instructors was only a
"symbolic action," it nevertheless represents a "departure

LJUBLJANA 00000063 002 OF 002


from European policy."


6. (SBU) Remarkably, during a January 17 meeting of the
parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee, LDS tabled a
proposal to ask the government to disclose all "relevant
activities" of ambassadors of NATO states to Slovenia that
could have impacted the government's decision.

-------------- --------------
Jansa Government Stresses NATO/EU Complementarity
-------------- --------------


7. (U) Having justified its original decision of sending
trainers to Iraq by stressing Slovenia's commitments to the
UN, NATO, and the Iraqi government, the GOS pointedly
countered the opposition's arguments (outlined above) by
trying to prove that the decision to send trainers to NTM-I
was not in contradiction with EU policy, but rather that it
was complementary. The MFA took the rather unusual step of
publishing a statement on its website (www.gov.si/mzz)
responding to Rop's arguments in his January 13 interview
with "Vecer." The statement begins as follows: "The
Government of the Republic of Slovenia is not departing from
European policy with respect to Iraq; rather, it is
supporting and helping realize European policy." The
statement goes on to cite various UNSC resolutions calling
for the stabilization of conditions in Iraq as well as
Interim Iraqi President Allawi's request to NATO Secretary
General de Hoop Scheffer for NATO's help in providing
technical support and training for the Iraqi Security Forces.
The statement goes on to say "The decision of the Slovenian
government to deploy four members of the Slovenian Armed
Forces to the NATO Mission in Iraq is in accordance with the
direction and decisions of the European Union to continuously
support the efforts of the Iraqis to reconstruct and
contribute to the democratic development of Iraq."


8. (U) In numerous television appearances, both Prime
Minister Jansa and Defense Minister Erjavec have repeatedly
stressed the fact that NATO and EU policy are complementary
and that both support Iraq's democratic development. The PM
and other government representatives have also debunked the
idea that NATO's contributions to Euro-Atlantic security are
in any way contrary to the interests and policies of the EU.

--------------
Comment
--------------


9. (C) Though it is a small country, Slovenia is by no means
a monolithic whole. The difference in perspective, attitude,
and opinion between the inheritors of the socialist legacy on
the left, and the former dissidents now in power on the
right, is profound. In security policy, economic policy, and
in terms of their general attitude towards the U.S., the two
camps have divergent positions. The debate over sending
soldiers to NTM-I has cast these differences in stark relief,
especially with regards to the debate over NATO/EU primacy in
the security arena. In arguing that there is a conflict
between EU and NATO security interests, Rop and other members
of the center-left opposition have shown their true colors.
The GOS has calmly and forcefully rebutted these arguments,
arguing that Slovenia's security is inextricably tied to its
NATO membership, and that its commitments to NATO and
European security are complementary, rather than conflictual.
Slovenia's participation in NATO missions (ISAF, KFOR, and
now NTM-I) and EU missions (Operation Althea in Bosnia and
Herzegovina) proves this point.


10. (C) The fact that Slovenia's "chattering classes" often
line up with the opposition should not bias the USG view of
Slovenia's commitment as a partner and Ally. The Jansa
government has taken considerable heat from the opposition
for its "pro-U.S." policies. Despite this, Jansa has
remained resolute and has managed to maintain a high personal
popularity rating. Demonstrating statesmanlike conduct
throughout this oftentimes volatile debate, we see Jansa as a
reliable partner in the future and a lasting presence on the
Slovenian political scene.
ROBERTSON