BY BLERIM ABEDINI- INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT-(ISSD)
We know that securing a work is substantial need for growing a planning process. NATO has contributed for its member states to grow own society in political and economical plan. For decades under military security we may see states developed in many fields. Also new states as member of NATO can benefit from military security and then to become family member of EU which is promising more in economic increasing of candidate state. Below we may analyze that progress, by alluding to member states and not members of economic or military community.
The aspirations of the North Atlantic Alliance, with recent developments seem to take on renewed positions. Some members did not understand budget participation as an indispensable obligation. Their skepticism stems from the unnecessary being of members because of the social development that these states have achieved. European civilization has deep roots in the Middle Century and it is far from unreasonable wars. Europe has now assumed the role of a negotiator in conflicting states.
NATO on the Balkans has provided assurance to EU member states to develop their own economy, therefore, for safe foreign investment.
Directly here, the EU is presented as a promoter for the expansion of foreign capital in its member states.
New member states in the EU have increased GDP. This is especially apparent to the Balkan states in the EU, such as Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Croatia, GDP compared to the pre-accession period in the EU has been small. Thus, it is proved that Balkan countries have prospects in NATO and the EU. This journey is appropriate from the aspect of overall social progress.
Let see and analyze some developments in the states as member and non member of NATO and EU, located in the Balkan Peninsula.
Figure 1. Data taken from World Bank Group(International financial Institution), www.worldbank.org
Figure 2. Data taken from World Bank Group(International financial Institution), www.worldbank.org
If you look at both figures well, you may notice that in 2004, on the eve of NATO membership, Bulgaria has spent 9% of its budget on its army. While in 2017 you will notice that Bulgaria has spent somewhere over 2% of the country’s GDP for military spending, respectively for NATO. So, we conclude that Bulgaria has spent more on its own army before joining NATO.
Figure 3. Data taken from World Bank Group(International financial Institution), www.worldbank.org
Figure 4. Data taken from World Bank Group(International financial Institution), www.worldbank.org
From Hungary’s GDP charts and military spending, we see growth in GDP and lower spending on NATO over the years. Specifically, from 1995 to 2005, military spending is high. But with NATO membership in 1999, we have gradual GDP growth.
Still, Hungary does not meet its financial obligations towards NATO. It does not spend 1% of NATO in 2017, while GDP has reached 140 billion dollars. If we note for 1995, for armed forces (without NATO) it has spent 2.8% despite a very small 47 billion USD of GDP.
Figure 5. Data taken from World Bank Group(International financial Institution), www.worldbank.org
Macedonia’s GDP grows very slowly since 1999. Even before, since 1990, Macedonia is characterized by low GDP. But these data represent Macedonia as a state that is not a member of any community, whether economic or military.
Figure 6. Data taken from World Bank Group(International financial Institution), www.worldbank.org
Since the 1990s, Macedonia has reduced spending on the army, despite additional spending during the 2001 conflict, which was about $ 6 billion. After that we see a drop in the budget or GDP for its army. We can see that in 1999 it spent about 5% of its GDP on military spending. While in 2017 it fails to spend 1% of GDP for the needs of the national armed forces.
Versioni në gjuhën shqipe( kliko në titullin)