PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INTRODUCTION
AREA OF RESEARCH
This
paper examines a new organization involved in current North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) operations, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. This paper will explore: the mission and
scope of the PfP; the relation of PfP to NATO, the North Atlantic Cooperation
Council (NACC), and the United States; where the PfP has been in the recent
past and where it may go in the future; and PfP contributions to realizing a
lasting peace in NATO.
A
history of the PfP from January 1994 to the present is given. Future NATO exercises and operations are
explored to determine an appropriate PfP role. The United States' role in these multi-national exercises and operations
in the past and in the future is explored to determine interoperability
capabilities with the PfP nations. Finally, an analysis of the effectiveness of the PfP in NATO economic
and military affairs will determine if it is a benefit to NATO.
The
European Union (EU) and, its security apparatus, the Western European Union
(WEU) are other organizations attempting to solve the security problem in
Europe. A study of the EU and WEU and
their role in PfP and NATO affairs is beyond the scope of this paper and,
therefore, will not be discussed.
DISCUSSION
With
the increased emphasis on multi-national operations for the United States
military and its allies into the 21st Century, NATO is starting its fourth year
of comprehensive operational and communications exercises with the PfP nations. The number of PfP nations grows as NATO
takes a more comprehensive look at the former Warsaw Pact nations and other
non-aligned countries and their impact upon Eastern Europe and stability within
NATO.
The
PfP has become a key element in NATO's political and military cooperation
programs with non-NATO Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) countries. The OSCE, whose
membership comprises all European as well as North American countries and is
the most inclusive European security institution, deepens interaction,
cooperation, and stability in Europe and contributes to the overall goal of
transparency among European countries.[1]
With
PfP at the beginning of its development, its full potential not yet achieved,
and its continuing importance not affected by the overall goal of NATO
enlargement, the PfP program will continue to be a major contributor to the
improved economic and security climate in Europe and an effective force in
Eastern European stabilization. Additionally, as the United States continues to
participate in PfP exercises and operations, command, control, communications,
and computers (C4) interoperability with PfP nations will become incrementally
less difficult.
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE (PFP)
MISSION OF PFP
Partnership
for Peace is a major initiative by NATO directed at increasing confidence and
cooperative efforts to reinforce security in Europe. It engages NATO and participating partners in concrete
cooperative activities. Objectives of the Partnership include:
facilitation of transparency in national defense planning and budgeting
processes; ensuring democratic control of defense forces; maintenance of the
capability and readiness to contribute, subject to constitutional
considerations, to operations under the authority of the UN and/or the
responsibility of the OSCE; the development of cooperative military relations
with NATO, for the purpose of joint planning, training, and exercises in order
to strengthen the ability of PfP participants to undertake missions in the
fields of peacekeeping, search and rescue, humanitarian operations, and others
as may subsequently be agreed; and the development, over the long term, of
forces that are better able to operate with those of the members of the NATO
Alliance.[2]
PfP cooperation will be further developed in order to:
. help partners to further develop democratic
control of their armed forces and transparency in defense planning and the
budgeting process;
. enhance the network of military and
defense-related cooperation to provide effective support to partners in
adapting their defense arrangements to the new security environment;
. develop the cooperative features of PfP
through enhancing partners' involvement in developing, planning, and
implementing PfP activities, in particular by increasing their
capability/readiness to contribute with others in peacekeeping, humanitarian,
search and rescue, and other activities;
. strengthen the confidence-building and
transparent character of defense-related and military cooperation, both with
Allies and other partners; and
. compliment the development of interoperable
forces by adequate mechanisms to duly involve partners in planning and carrying
out joint peacekeeping operations.[3]
SCOPE OF PFP
Nations
that apply for PfP membership can individually determine the pace and scope of
desired cooperation. They can assign
permanent liaison officers to NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and to the
Partnership Coordination Cell (PCC) in Mons, Belgium. They may participate in PfP exercises and in relevant discussions
with allies at NATO. A Political
Military Steering Committee has been established to manage day-to-day
activities.
Each
nation must inform NATO of the resources it will contribute to PfP activities
and the steps it will take toward meeting PfP's political goals, including
democratic control of the respective nation's military and transparency of
defense budgets. The NATO members can
consult with any state actively participating in PfP in the event of a direct
threat to the security of that state. These consultations would not involve extension of nations to NATO's
security guarantee under Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty.
To
date, 27 countries have joined the PfP program: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic,
Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Of the countries of the former Soviet Union, only Tadjikistan has not
joined the Partnership.[4] These include not just countries of the
former Warsaw Treaty Organization, but also several neutral and non-aligned
states.
PFP'S BIRTH IN NATO
In 1994, the NATO Summit in Brussels launched
the Partnership for Peace. NATO is an
alliance designed to permit international cooperation between independent
sovereign states on a voluntary basis. There is no central NATO authority which can impose its view or opinion
on the member nations. Decisions are
taken with the common consent of all member nations.[5] The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in
Washington, DC, by the original 12 nations in 1949. Spain became the last nation to sign the treaty in 1982, rounding
out the current 16 member nations of NATO. With political reform in Central and Eastern Europe on the rise, and the
fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the NATO Summit in London extended a hand of
friendship and proposed cooperation to this region in 1990. In the same year, Germany was unified. As the Warsaw Treaty Organizations dissolved
in 1991, the NATO Summit in Rome adopted a new Strategic Concept and created
the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC).[6]
With
the end of the Cold War, a unique opportunity has developed to build an
improved security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic area. The aim of the improved security
architecture is to provide increased stability and security for all in this
area, without recreating dividing lines. NATO states view security as a broad concept embracing political and
economic, as well as defense, components. The Alliance has played and will play a strong, active ,and essential
role as one of the cornerstones of stability and security in Europe. NATO's fundamental purpose is to preserve
peace in the Euro-Atlantic area and to provide security for its members.
Enlargement
in the form of PfP membership in the NATO Alliance will contribute to enhanced
stability and security for all countries in the Euro-Atlantic area by:
. encouraging and supporting democratic
reforms, including civilian and democratic control over the military;
. fostering in the new members of the
Alliance the patterns and habits of cooperation, consultation, and consensus
building which characterize relations among current Allies;
. promoting good neighborly relations, which
would benefit all countries in the Euro-Atlantic area, both members and
non-members of NATO;
. emphasizing common defense and extending
its benefits and increasing transparency in defense planning and military
budgets, thereby reducing the likelihood of instability that might be
engendered by an exclusively national approach to defense policies;
. reinforcing the tendency toward integration
and cooperation in Europe based on shared democratic values and thereby curbing
the countervailing tendency towards disintegration along ethnic and territorial
lines;
. strengthening the Alliance's ability to
contribute to European and international security through peacekeeping
activities under the responsibility of the OSCE and peacekeeping operations
under the authority of the UN Security Council as well as other new missions;
and
. strengthening and broadening the
Trans-Atlantic partnership.[7]
Confronting
concerns about its political relevance in the post-Cold War era, NATO has
reaffirmed its place at the core of transatlantic security through its
sponsorship of PfP and the NACC. The
NATO international staff works to help Partners develop standard operating
procedures, understand the protocols of consultation, and achieve
interoperability with NATO forces.
The true measure of NATO's commitment to PfP,
however, may lie in the ordinary routines of association. NATO has extended to
the Partners the right to consultations if a direct threat to territorial
integrity or political independence emerges. In the first months of PfP's existence in 1994, NATO organized three
exercises for Partner nations in Poland, the Netherlands, and the North
Sea. In 1995, NATO sponsored ten PfP
exercises, and 150 exercise-related activities. NATO sponsored 14 exercises in 1996 and has planned for 25
exercises 1997. It is this type of
commitment that is the hallmark of an effective military relationship.[8]
As a result of NATO involvement in the PfP planning and
review process, many Partners are organizing their armed forces around NATO
force planning concepts. Smaller
Partners are learning NATO practices, and in the process proving that they can
significantly contribute to European security. Albania recently hosted a three-day multi-national search and rescue
exercise with formations from Italy, Germany, Britain, and the United States. Bulgaria organized for NATO a maritime
exercise to practice embargo techniques.[9]
NACC: BUILDING BLOCK TO PFP
Partnership
for Peace has been established within the framework of the NACC and builds on
the momentum of cooperation created by the NACC. PfP activities are fully coordinated with other activities
undertaken in the NACC framework. While
PfP focuses in particular on practical, defense-related and military
cooperation activities, the NACC provides a forum for broad consultations on
political and security related issues as well as for practical cooperation on
security-related economic questions, information, and scientific and
environmental matters.[10]
The
NACC met for the first time on 20 December 1991, and the Council now meets at
the Ministerial level twice a year. Political consultation and cooperation in the NACC framework occurs on a
regular basis and involves a wide range of NATO committees in meetings with
NACC Partners. Areas of consultation
and cooperation embrace political and security-related issues including conceptual
approaches to arms control; defense conversion; non-proliferation; security
aspects of economic development; defense expenditures and their relationship
with the economy; scientific and environmental matters; and information
programs. Military and defense-related
activities are embodied in the Partnership for Peace.[11]
At
the January 1994 NATO Summit in Brussels, summit leaders approved a Framework
Document and issued an invitation to the members of the NACC and the OSCE, able
and willing to contribute, to join the Partnership.[12]
The PfP and NACC can help to ensure that, in accepting new
members, the NATO Alliance will contribute to enhanced security and stability
in an undivided Europe. As the
enlargement process proceeds, NACC/PfP will continue to provide the fundamental
framework for developing relations with partner countries.[13]
PFP MEMBERSHIP PROCEDURES
The
PfP procedure begins with the signature of the PfP Framework Document by each
participant. The next step is the
submission by each Partner of a Presentation Document to NATO, developed with
the assistance of NATO authorities if desired, indicating the scope, pace, and
level of participation in cooperation activities with NATO sought by the
Partner. The Presentation Document also
identifies steps to be taken by the Partner to achieve the political goals of
the Partnership and the military and other assets that might be made available
by the PfP activities. It serves as a
basis for an Individual Partnership Program, to be agreed upon between the
Partner and NATO.[14]
Partners will make available personnel,
assets, facilities, and capabilities necessary and appropriate for carrying out
the agreed Partnership program. They
will fund their own participation in Partnership activities and will endeavor
to share the burdens of exercises in which they take part.[15]
Partners
which send permanent liaison officers to the Partnership Coordination Cell
(PCC) receive help with the military planning necessary to implement their
Partnership programs. To accomplish
this task, the PCC has assumed two functions: providing liaison and coordination of PfP military activities between
NATO and individual partner countries; and helping NATO military authorities
and countries implement PfP programs. These activities may include identification of interoperability
requirements in the field of planning and preparation of multi-national
exercises, development of specifications for multi-national training and
exercises, and contribution of their analysis and evaluation. Activities are designed to achieve a measure
of interoperability for operations for partners with NATO forces and within
NATO's Command and Control (C2) structure.[16]
The
PCC consists of a permanent staff, liaison teams from the PfP and NATO states,
and a representative from Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic (SACLANT). Officers assigned to the PCC are experienced
in operations, training, and exercises, and some have background in
peacekeeping. To date, Armenia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Russian Federation, Switzerland, the former
Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, and Turkmenistan do not participate in the
PCC.[17] PFP RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES
In
July 1994, President Clinton reaffirmed the United States commitment to
Partnership for Peace and the security of Europe and Eurasia when he announced
the Warsaw Initiative "to help America's new democratic Partners work with
United States to advance the PfP's goals." The program has significantly increased United States' funding and resources
for PfP. The Warsaw Initiative reflects
the strong belief that the reform movements in Europe must be bolstered by the
prospect of security cooperation with the West. The purpose of the program is to provide to partner nations
equipment and training to improve interoperability with NATO and Allies. The program differentiates among nations
based on their various levels of cooperation objectives, defense capability,
and needs. Some countries will receive
basic English language and non-commissioned officer training, as well as
tactical communications equipment. The
United States will provide others with advanced training and equipment to
enhance their already-established expertise.[18]
The United States has contributed to, benefited from,
and adopted a balanced approach to the
PfP exercise program. Where
appropriate, the United States is moving away from a bilateral to a
predominantly multi-national exercise program. Through multi-national exercises, the United States can provide greater
exposure to NATO methods at less cost and with better results with the reduced
exercise load. Exercises with multiple
countries reinforces regional ties, increases transparency among governments
and militaries, and builds confidence regarding other country capabilities and
intentions.[19]
Just
as the United States balances its exercise commitments among Partners, it
offers programs to all service branches of these countries. In previous years, exercises involved
primarily land forces. United States
military commands are now planning events for all military services. PfP navies participate in navigation and
salvage operations, and marines employ their skills in amphibious training
activities. In the Fall of 1996, U. S.
Marines trained at the company level in Camp Lejeune, NC as part of the ground
combat element of a coalition force that included 16 PfP nations.[20] U. S. Air Force units have conducted
reciprocal base visits and have provided support in materiel management and
maintenance techniques. At the same
time, United States planners try to incorporate training for multiple
operations into one exercise. For
example, peacekeeping exercises can include a medical training component, or
passage exercises may also involve demonstrations of search and rescue
capabilities.[21]
A particularly unique U. S. National Guard contribution to
the U. S. European Command (USEUCOM) Joint Contact Team
Program, under the guise of the PfP program,
is the State Partnership Program. The
United States National Guard Bureau has married United States states with
partner countries based on a large
population of a partner nationality in a state, or partners and states with
similar geography or industry. The
State Partnership Program has been well received and is expanding.[22]
United States STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
|
United States State
|
Partner Country
|
Alabama
|
Romania
|
Arizona
|
Kazakhstan
|
California
|
Ukraine
|
Colorado
|
Slovenia
|
Georgia
|
Georgia
|
Illinois
|
Poland
|
Indiana
|
Slovakia
|
Louisiana
|
Uzbekistan
|
Maryland
|
Estonia
|
Michigan
|
Latvia
|
Mississippi
|
Armenia
|
Montana
|
Kyrgyz
Republic
|
Nevada
|
Turkmenistan
|
North
Carolina
|
Moldova
|
Ohio
|
Hungary
|
United States STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (cont)
|
Pennsylvania
|
Lithuania
|
South
Carolina/New Jersey
|
Albania
|
Tennessee
|
Bulgaria
|
Texas
|
Czech
Republic
|
Utah
|
Belarus
|
West
Virginia
|
Azerbaijan
|
PFP GROWTH THROUGH MULTI-NATIONAL EXERCISES
The
PfP exercise program began in 1994 with exercise COOPERATIVE BRIDGE '94, a
company level peacekeeping exercise conducted in Poland. The most recent exercise, COMBINED ENDEAVOR
'96, dealt with operations at the battalion level conducted in Austria and
Germany in September 1996. To
date, more than two dozen
multi-national military training exercises have fostered a common understanding
of peacekeeping among NATO military forces and those of former Soviet Bloc or
non-aligned states.[23] These exercises are also designed to improve
the ability of NATO and the PfP forces to operate together in response to
crisis situations. Training focuses on
peacekeeping operations and interoperability at the company and platoon
levels. Future exercises will deal with
C4 interoperability at the battalion and regimental levels.
The
PfP military objective is to achieve the varying degrees of interoperability,
required by its bilateral arrangements, with its Partner nations. Against a backdrop of an offer over the
longer term of closer structural arrangements between Partner nations and NATO,
the objective of the PfP exercise program is to prepare forces for
peacekeeping, search and rescue, and humanitarian operations, and to undertake joint
planning, training, and exercises with NATO.[24]
PfP Exercises in 1994
The
PfP exercise program started in 1994, with exercises conducted in Poland,
Norway, and The Netherlands.[25] Successes were realized in the areas
of familiarity and interoperability, but several problems emerged. Some Partner Nations wanted to achieve full
conventional integration with NATO, while countries such as Austria, Finland,
and Sweden, and many of the former Warsaw Pact countries were only interested
in low-level low-intensity operations. There was confusion on the part of several Partner Nations from the
former Warsaw Pact on the standards of participation that had to be achieved in
order
for the PfP to reach its goals. NATO had dissimilar levels of experience in
training for and conducting Low Intensity
Conflict operations and found itself dealing with a role in which it had not
previously had to perform.[26] The PfP exercise program had a shaky start
in 1994, but the potential for what the PfP could become was always in focus.
PfP Exercises in 1995
In
addition to the eight NATO/PfP exercises conducted throughout Europe and the
United States in 1995, the United States and other allies sponsored bilateral
or national exercises "in the spirit of PfP." These exercises were extensive and included a wide-range of training
initiatives: search and rescue, humanitarian and disaster relief, maritime
exercises, and peacekeeping. Administered by the U. S. Atlantic and European Commands (USACOM/USEUCOM),
the United States sponsored 21 of these exercises.[27]
One
of the most important developments in the United States/PfP exercise program
has been attention to civil-military relations. In August 1995, the United States
hosted COOPERATIVE NUGGET 95, a NATO PfP
exercise on the company
level centered around a peacekeeping scenario, at Fort Polk, Louisiana. ELOQUENT NUGGET 95 was held in conjunction
with COOPERATIVE NUGGET 95 designed to provide a political component to the
exercise.
The
U. S. Joint Staff invited Ministry of Foreign Affairs, General Staff, and
Ministry of Defense representatives participating in the Planning and Review
Process (PARP) to the United States for the peacekeeping crisis action
simulation. PARP participants meet every
two years to identify areas in which they agree to work towards improving
interoperability between their military forces and those of NATO in the fields
of peacekeeping, search and rescue, and humanitarian operations. The simulation emphasized the interagency
process, primarily the distinct roles and responsibilities of civilian and
military institutions.
COOPERATIVE
NUGGET 95 participants agreed that the most important lessons were that these
types of political-military exercises strengthen the expertise and confidence
of civilians to interact effectively with the military.[28]
PfP Exercises in
1996/1997
The
Foreign Ministers and Representatives of the member countries of the NACC, with
the participation of observer countries, agreed to a Work Plan for
1996/1997. The plan builds on the foundations
and principles of dialogue, partnership, and cooperation already established,
in particular at the Rome Summit in November 1991, the Brussels Summit in
January 1994, and NACC Ministerial meetings.
The
Work Plan covers political and security related matters, political planning
consultations, economic issues, science, challenges of the modern society, and
information issues. Because Partnership
for Peace activities are undertaken in the NACC framework, the Work Plan
includes in its annexes the list of topics under which PfP activities will
occur, the list of activities agreed by the Ad Hoc Group on Cooperation in
Peacekeeping, and the list of PfP exercises.[29]
One
of the objectives of the 1996 USACOM and USEUCOM exercise program was better
realization of resources and commitments. Staffs at both commands acknowledged that exercises in the first years
of PfP occurred on a somewhat ad hoc basis. Wanting to immediately demonstrate the strength of United States
commitment to PfP, a number of NATO and national exercises were adapted to
include Partners. Now that NATO and
Partner countries together have better defined interoperability objectives, a
5-year exercise planning cycle is in place. This process allows troops, and more importantly, staffs, to undertake
progressively more complex tasks at greater magnitudes of participation,
building eventually to a multi-division exercise currently scheduled for 1997.[30]
U. S. National Guard and Reserve units
support the USEUCOM exercise and Joint
Contact Team Programs. In 1997, reserve
units from Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Alabama, with their PfP
counterparts under the State Partnership Program, will participate in three PfP
exercises focusing on medical, engineering, and peacekeeping training.[31]
PFP EXERCISES IN THE FUTURE
Partner
participation in the PfP exercise program has matured rapidly. The first series of exercises provided an
understanding of NATO exercise techniques. In the future, Partners will easily translate exercise lessons learned into
an
understanding of NATO operational procedures.
Although PfP has matured rapidly in the last three years,
Partners and members recognize that it has not yet reached its full
potential. The objective must be to
maintain the Partnership's impressive momentum. At the recent North Atlantic Council meeting in December 1996,
Allies recognized the need to focus also on political-military
cooperation. In addition, they agreed
to broaden and deepen the PfP planning and review process; for example, by developing
more detailed interoperability objectives. The meeting determined a number of other ways to intensify the
relationship between NATO and its Partners, including more opportunity for
Partners to shape security and economic decisions that affect them.[32]
While
Partners and NATO are planning PfP's further evolution, the Partnership Program
is already accomplishing what President Clinton intended: it is extending eastward the zone of
security, stability, and economic prosperity that Western Europe has enjoyed
for the past 50 years.[33] A comprehensive PfP exercise program in the
future will help ensure this evolution continues.
PFP CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEACE IN EUROPE
MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOEs)
Measures
of effectiveness can help illustrate an organizations ability to accomplish its
goals. The PfP program demonstrates
several qualitative measures to justify its effectiveness and its contributions
to the peace process in NATO and Eastern Europe.
The
Partnership for Peace program is a vehicle for non- NATO countries for
increased security, greater possibilities for a better economy, and, for some,
NATO membership -- all qualitative measures of effectiveness. NATO membership is the goal of some
countries that sign up to the PfP program. Using the PfP as a stepping stone to NATO, these countries are
indoctrinated into the democratic ways of handling their government and
military. The PfP nations expand their
security through increased awareness of how to co-exist with their neighbors
and peacefully exercise their militaries with member nations. Next, the PfP nations enjoy added security
by becoming members in a peacemaking and peacekeeping organization. The strength is truly in the numbers of
peaceful, democratic nations that have joined the PfP. Collectively, they look out for each other,
share in the burden of keeping the peace, and foster an atmosphere of harmony
and good will. Finally, most of the
countries that enter the PfP program have experienced years of economic
deprivation under the yolk of communist governments. Upon their break from the communist way of life, the countries
that have entered the PfP have seen marked increases in economic growth as a
result of increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and decreased
unemployment. PfP nations are
increasingly responding to the individual economic needs of fellow members,
bringing benefits to the stability of Europe. Although the road to this status is gradual, and often the economies get
worse before they get better, the PfP nations' economies are on the rise,
nonetheless.
C4 INTEROPERABILITY WITH OTHER NATIONS
Interoperability
between nations fosters a feeling of friendship and security. A major problem when working with the PfP
nations is the inability of the United States military to interoperate at all
levels. Current technology attempts to
aid the U. S. Armed Forces in interoperating with other countries during joint
and multi-national exercises and operations.
A
major goal of the PfP exercise program is to identify, test, and document C4
interoperability between NATO and PfP nations' military equipment. The objective is to achieve C4
compatibility. Before an exercise gets
underway, communications equipment and systems deploy to workshops, usually in
the same location as the Exercise Planning Conference and from the same nations
that will participate in the exercise. Site interconnectivity during these workshops and the exercises is
realized through the use of satellite communications (SATCOM) links, video
teleconferencing, and high data rate circuits. Equipment ranges from Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) to standard
service to Standard NATO Agreement (STANAG) equipment. United States participation typically comes
in the form of personnel deploying from the USEUCOM, service components in Europe, Defense Information Systems
Agency (DISA), Joint Interoperability Test Command, Electronic Systems Center,
and the Warrior Preparation Center. Recent participation during planning conferences and workshops from the
United States and Coalition/PfP forces numbered close to 600 people. Participation by the international community
in PfP exercises numbers in the thousands.
Although
at the ground floor of completely realizing its full potential, the PfP
exercises are contributing to the security in NATO and Eastern Europe through
their quest for C4 interoperability. The United States military possesses the technology and personnel needed
to eventually interoperate with the PfP nations.
EUROPEAN PEACE IN THE
FUTURE
Constructive,
cooperative relations of mutual respect, benefit, and friendship between the
Alliance and all non-aligned countries are a key element for future security
and stability in Europe. With the aid
of PfP, such relations will continue to be developed in a way that reflects common
objectives, complements and reinforces relations with all other states, is
transparent, and is not directed against the interests of third countries.
In
July 1997, President Clinton will attend a summit of NATO leaders in
Madrid. Questions about NATO expansion
and a security arrangement with Russia will dominate his second term as NATO
leaders decide which Eastern European nations are ready for membership, which
will be left out, and how to preserve good feelings with Russia in the process. The seemingly bureaucratic changes will have
much impact on future politics in places like Sarajevo, Belgrade, and
Sofia. A growing inclination to rely on
multilateral arrangements and multinational organizations is what will
characterize United States diplomacy for the next four years. The tendency of the current administration
to engage in the multilateral approach to problems in the world will put
increasing pressure on the United States, particularly in the area of peacekeeping.[34]
Recently,
NATO paved the way to expanding its 16 member alliance. By 1999, these new participants, expected to
include PfP members Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, will get a
security guarantee in which the Alliance considers that an attack on one member
is an attack on all. Another PfP
nation, Ukraine, has also embraced NATO's planned enlargement in a step likely
to enhance security even though their country stands no chance of gaining quick
membership.
Russia
has raised concerns with respect to the PfP program and the enlargement process
of NATO. In recent talks, progress is
emerging between NATO and Russia, but differences remain. There is no question that Russia has an
important contribution to make to European stability and security as a PfP
member. What remains is worry that NATO
expansion to Russia's borders will further incite Russian nationalism and
perhaps bring to power a strongly anti-Western leader, and fears that Russia
would react by becoming more aggressive toward countries not included in the
first batch of new members to NATO. Clearly, a solid partnership between NATO and Russia needs to be made
before the Madrid Summit this summer, which will decide the future of NATO
expansion and security measures with Russia.
In
March 1997, the Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, issued the following
Unilateral Statement: "In the current and foreseeable security environment, the
Alliance will carry out its collective defense and other missions by ensuring
the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability of reinforcement
rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat
forces." The future of peace in Europe
is uncertain, but with organizations like the PfP helping to capitalize on the
harmony envisioned by the NATO Secretary General, peace is much more
achievable.
United
States support for PfP is helping to fulfill the original intention of the
Marshall Plan -- to strengthen democracy and ensure stability so that fragile
economies can grow and prosper. Through
the years, the United States commitment to Europe has not changed, although the
ways in which it is engaged today are very different. Old institutions have evolved and new ones emerged to meet the
challenges of the post-Cold War era. PfP has firmly established itself as one of these new institutions by
performing a very specific and necessary role. A community based on shared values, democracy and free markets, is now
emerging in Europe. Partnership for
Peace contributes to this transformation by addressing an important third
element -- issues of defense and security. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry stated: "Partnership for
Peace, in and of itself, is changing the security picture in Europe."[35]
CONCLUSION
The
Partnership for Peace has come a long way in a short time and has already
provided concrete evidence of its potential. PfP is not just about military cooperation, nor is it simply a framework
for preparing Partner countries for further membership in NATO. Its ambitious objectives offer a broader and
deeper relationship with all Partners and NATO. What began as a series
of exploratory partnerships between NATO and non-NATO countries is now becoming
an intricate web of Partnership activities. These activities, while adding to the peace process in NATO, are
increasingly responding to the individual needs of Partner countries and
bringing real benefits to them and to the security and economic stability of
Europe as a whole. NATO countries are
continuing to build and strengthen this framework by firmly establishing
cooperative security approaches and C4 interoperability systems between the
Alliance and its Partner countries. These approaches will become a permanent feature of the security
structure which will take Europe beyond the start of the next century and
provide the stability needed for its future development.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Research material was gathered from articles
written on the subject in Parameters, Joint Force Quarterly, Marines, Defense
News, and World Magazine, and United States Department
of Defense, United States Information Agency, White House, NATO, and PfP
publications. Additionally, numerous
NATO fact sheets, press communiques, and speeches were found on the NATO Home
Page on the InterNet (http://www.nato.int). Information was also collected from the United States European Command
J6 (USEUCOM J6) office in order to determine the level of C4 interoperability
present between PfP nations and the United States. Additional research material was gathered from the Supreme
Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) PfP Office in order to determine the
course of PfP/NATO operations in the future.
1. Belz,
Mindy. "Madeline Albright's Utopian Universalism."
From World Magazine, 25 January 1997.
2.
Blank,
Stephen J. Prague, NATO, and European Security. April 17, 1996. Downloaded from NATO InterNet
Site
(http://www.nato.int).
3. Christman,
Daniel W. "NATO's Military
Future." From Joint Force Quarterly, Spring 1996.
4. Compton's
Interactive Encyclopedia, 1995. Under
"Communism."
5. Czerwinski,
Thomas J. "Command and Control at the
Crossroads." From Parameters, Autumn 1996.
6. Johnsen,
William T. NATO Strategy in the 1990s:
Reaping the Peace Dividend Or the
Whirlwind? May 25, 1995. Downloaded from NATO InterNet Site
(http://www.nato.int).
7. Joulwan,
General George A., Supreme Allied Commander
Europe
(SACEUR). NATO's Military Contribution to Partnership for Peace: The Progress and the
Challenge. North Atlantic
Treaty Organization,
1995. Downloaded from NATO InterNet Site
1996. (http://www.nato.int).
8. Ruhle,
Michael and Williams, Nicholas. "Partnership
for
Peace: A Personal View from NATO." From
Parameters,
Winter 1994-95.
9. Solana,
Secretary General Mr. Javier. Renewing the
Transatlantic Partnership: NATO Confronts
the Next
Century. Georgetown
University Speech, 20 February
1996. Downloaded
from NATO InterNet Site
(http://www.nato.int).
10. Streaty,
Sgt. Timothy A. "All for One." From Marines, November 1996.
11. Tigner,
Brooks. "New Plan for PfP is Nothing
New."
From
Defense
News, Vol. 11, No. 50, December 16-
22, 1996.
12. Trask,
David F. Democracy and Defense: Civilian
Control of the Military in the United
States.
United States Information Agency, April
1993.
13. A National
Security Strategy of Engagement and
Enlargement. The White House,
February 1995.
14. NATO and the
Partnership for Peace: Security Shared. NATO Office of Information and Press,
Brussels,
Belgium.
15. NATO at a
Glance. NATO Office of
Information and
Press,
Brussels, Belgium, 1996.
16. NATO
Handbook. NATO Office of
Information and Press, Brussels,
Belgium, October 1995.
17. NATO: How it
Works. NATO Office of
Information and
Press,
Brussels, Belgium.
18. NATO/PfP
Exercise Program Summary: 1994-97. PfP
Office, Mons, Belgium, 1996.
19. Partnership
Coordination Cell. Downloaded from SHAPE Home
Page, NATO InterNet Site
(http://www.shape.nato.int).
20. Partnership
for Peace. Downloaded from
SHAPE Home
Page,
NATO InterNet Site (http://www.shape.nato.int).
21. Partnership
for Peace (PfP). United
States Department of Defense, March 1996.
22. Partnership
for Peace Framework Document. NATO Summit, Brussels,
Belgium, 1994.
23. Partnership
for Peace: Invitation. NATO
Press
Communique
M-1(94)2, January 1994. Downloaded from
NATO InterNet Site (http://www.nato.int).
24. Partnership
for Peace (PfP) NATO Fact Sheet No. 9.
March
1996. Downloaded from NATO InterNet
Site
(http://www.nato.int).
25. Partnership
for Peace Training and Education Guidance
to NATO Nations. PfP Office, Mons,
Belgium, 1996.
26. Study on
NATO Enlargement. NATO
Publications,
September 1995. Downloaded from NATO
InterNet Site
(http://www.nato.int).
27. The North
Atlantic Treaty. Washington
D.C., April 4, 1949. Downloaded from
NATO InterNet Site
(http://www.nato.int).
28. Work Plan
for Dialogue, Partnership, and Cooperation
1996/1997. Press release by
North Atlantic
Cooperation
Council, December 1995. Downloaded
from
NATO InterNet Site (http://www.nato.int).