<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kai-Helin Kaldas</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Evolution of Estonian Security Options During the 1990s</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Athena Papers</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO enlargement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">small state theory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sovereignty</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">structural realism</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Garmisch-Partenkirchen</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">92</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This paper illustrates the complex mental navigation that decision-makers need to perform to effectively steer a course for their small state, between the attraction of a successful alliance (NATO) and the appetites of a nostalgic former empire. It also implicitly considers the other structural pressures on newly independent countries; the question of legitimacy; the difficult transition from a command to a market economy; and the tension-filled relations between the Russian minority and the Estonian majority. Not to be forgotten are the gamut of ordinary challenges that face modern societies: environmental responsibility, agricultural policy, human resource and social development, health care, democratic turbulence -- all these factors are intimately intertwined with the general notion of security.
This study is original because it places the notion that NATO membership was not automatically the preferred solution back into consideration. Neutrality and alternative regional security arrangements were also considered very seriously by many of these newly independent states, an--as this publication shows--there was also significant lobbying in Estonia in favor of these options by regional powers that faced a security dilemma of their own. This paper sheds new light on the development of such security options, seen from an insider’s perspective. From an analytical point of view, these debates cannot be divorced from the strategic consequences for the region and wider Europe, nor from the domestic implications of pursuing a given course of action. 
This paper demonstrates how Estonia made the sovereign decisions that would guarantee its security, so as to secure the appropriate amount of “residual” sovereignty necessary for internal stability.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">David Greenwood</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A South-East European Defence Transparency Audit</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">audit</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">budget transparency</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Good governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MAP</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Membership Action Plan</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO enlargement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Partnership for Peace</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PfP</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11-33</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The article presents the major findings of a comprehensive study, led by the author in his capacity as Research Director at the Centre for European Security Studies, Groningen, The Netherlands. As a result of this ‘defence transparency audit’ eight countries in South East Europe (SEE) are ranked in terms of their information-disclosure policies, procedures and publications. As of 2002, the two NATO invitees earn highest ratings. The three SEE MAP (Membership Action Plan) countries follow. The troubled states of the old Yugoslavia – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro – come lower in the transparency ranking while Moldova sits in bottom place. In addition the article identifies useful examples of good practice in defence transparency and accountability in SEE.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Todor Tagarev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prerequisites and Approaches to Force Modernization in a Transition Period</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Information &amp; Security: An International Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense acquisition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense capabilities initiative</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">defense R&amp;D.</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">force modernization</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Force planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO enlargement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">partnership goals</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2001</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">30-52</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The new security challenges, in particular the challenges stemming from the wave of terrorist attacks and massive use of biological threats in September 2001, require novel ways of organizing and modernizing military forces. In the beginning of the Twenty First century militaries have to perform a broader spectrum of missions and tasks in cooperation with other agencies and other countries. For a country in transition, the search for effective modernization is complicated by resource constraints, lack of experience in market environment and relevant organizational culture. 
This article describes the application of common principles in modernizing Bulgarian military. It describes defense reform requirements with emphasis on the necessity to introduce rigorous defense resource management. The major challenge is to implement organizational and procedural changes, essential for the creation of a transparent, flexible acquisition process, compatible with acquisition systems and practices of NATO and EU member countries. The article provides details on the main elements of the new acquisition planning, listing current priorities and presenting an ongoing force modernization study. It covers also the role of research and development in modernization, as well as potential national and international cooperation activities.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>