The First Crack in NATO’s Fortress? Slovenia Opens the Referendum Conundrum

Public domain image

By Biljana Vankovska

At NATO’s recent summit in The Hague (24–25 June), alliance leaders triumphantly announced a historic decision: all members will increase military spending to 5%  of GDP over the next decade. But behind the façade of unity lies deep unease. Hardly any member state was pleased with this decision rammed through by Washington. It’s no wonder some now say NATO stands for North Atlantic Trump’s Organization.

The summit itself was Trump’s private show. He basked in flattery, was affectionately called “Daddy,” and even received applause for unleashing open aggression against Iran in coordination with Israel – a country now 20 months into its genocidal campaign in Gaza. Commentators whispered that never before had so many war criminals gathered in one place, people who by any moral logic should be facing justice instead of clinking champagne glasses.

When the circus ended, many leaders quietly hoped that by 2035 this madness would be forgotten, that Trump would be long gone, and perhaps their countries wouldn’t be bankrupted by imperial delusions. Some hope for creative accounting; others pray for miracles. A small few rub their hands in glee, convinced that war profiteering will bring jobs and growth. Yet listening to the Spanish and Slovak prime ministers, and especially the Croatian president, it was clear they all felt like characters trapped in The Emperor’s New Clothes folktale.

Just as it seemed this farce would end without further drama – the most expensive, shortest, and emptiest NATO summit in history – came an unexpected act of resistance from one of Europe’s smallest states: Slovenia. The Left party (Levica), part of the ruling coalition, proposed a consultative referendum asking citizens if they support raising military spending to 3% of GDP. The proposal passed, not because of the ruling party’s votes, but thanks to the conservative opposition bloc led by Janez Janša – a staunch Atlanticist who used the vote to undermine Prime Minister Robert Golob.

Cornered, Golob played his own card: a second referendum asking Slovenians the “real question” – stay in NATO and pay up, or leave. At the moment, procedural chaos clouds when either referendum will be held, or whether political compromise will bury them both.

For those unfamiliar with Slovenia’s recent history, a reminder: this was the first Yugoslav republic to secede, where dissident circles had demanded a peaceful, demilitarized state. They rejected Yugoslavia’s military budget and envisioned neutrality. Yet when the federation collapsed, Slovenia swiftly turned its territorial defense unit into a national army. Later, wanting EU membership, it was told: No NATO, no EU. Slovenians weren’t happy about this blackmail, so their government held two referenda on the same day – 23 March 2003 – for NATO and the EU. The peace movement even published booklets titled “No NATO, Give Us Peace. ”Still, only 66% backed NATO, swayed by threats that otherwise their sons would face mandatory military service. The prevailing message was: No EU without NATO. The government campaigned heavily for YES votes in both referenda, framing them as a single package for national security, prosperity, and Western belonging.

Slovenia became a full NATO member on 29 March 2004, just days before EU accession. These referenda cemented Slovenia’s strategic orientation toward the West, but left a legacy of public unease about NATO membership – a skepticism now resurfacing amid debates over military spending and compulsory service.

Twenty years later, Slovenia is waking up from the neoliberal dream. Not only is it again paying for an army it doesn’t want, but the new demands are breathtaking: Levica calculates that allocating 3% of GDP equals 20% of the national budget. Mandatory service looms like a Sword of Damocles, as wars spread across Europe and beyond.

Robert Golob fears that Levica’s referendum will pass, so he counters with fear itself: Do you want to defend yourselves alone or stay under NATO’s umbrella – even if it costs everything? Janša, despite his Atlanticist loyalty, helped the referendum proposal pass as a tactical strike against Golob.

In the end, the two referendums could play out like this: Slovenians say NO to increased military spending, then YES to staying in NATO – subdued by domestic and international propaganda.

But why does this matter?

Because for the first time, citizens of a NATO member state will publicly debate the world’s most dangerous organisation. The question of war inevitably raises the old dilemma: more for bread or bombs? Does NATO truly bring security? Does membership guarantee prosperity and peace?

Slovenians, despite their pragmatism and self-interest, still possess a spark of broader awareness. Even opening one referendum, let alone two, could shatter taboos not just within Slovenia, but across Europe. It might inspire others caught in the trap of pleasing an Emperor who brags about his new clothes and immense power, when in reality he is naked and broke – in mind, morals, and treasury.

Let the games begin. Let the debate finally open, whatever the motives behind it.

Sometimes it takes a small state to shift the scales of public opinion across an entire continent.

Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia. She is a member of the No Cold War collective.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.