The Largest Security-Cleared Career Network for Defense and Intelligence Jobs - JOIN NOW

Military

Partnership for Peace

CSC 1997

Subject Area - General

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Title: Partnership for Peace

 

Author: Major Patrick Kanewske, United States Marine Corps

 

Thesis: As a NATO program, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) will continue to be a major contributor to the improved economic and security climate in Europe.

 

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. 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 an effective force in Eastern European stabilization through interaction and cooperation with member states. 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.

 

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.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

INTRODUCTION 1

AREA OF RESEARCH 1

DISCUSSION 2

 

PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE (PFP) 4

MISSION OF PFP 4

SCOPE OF PFP 5

PFP'S BIRTH IN NATO 7

NACC: BUILDING BLOCK TO PFP 10

PFP MEMBERSHIP PROCEDURES 12

PFP RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES 14

PFP GROWTH THROUGH MULTI-NATIONAL EXERCISES 18

PfP Exercises in 1994 19

PfP Exercises in 1995 20

PfP Exercises in 1996/1997 22

PFP EXERCISES IN THE FUTURE 23

 

PFP CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEACE IN EUROPE 25

MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOEs) 25

C4 INTEROPERABILITY WITH OTHER NATIONS 26

EUROPEAN PEACE IN THE FUTURE 28

CONCLUSION 31

BIBLIOGRAPHY 33


 

 

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).



[1] Study on NATO Enlargement (NATO Publications, September 1995).

[2] NATO Handbook (Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press, October 1995).

[3] Study on NATO Enlargement (NATO Publication, September 1995).

[4] Partnership for Peace, downloaded from SHAPE Home Page, NATO InterNet Site (http://www.shape.nato.int).

[5] NATO: How it Works (Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press).

 

[6] NATO and the Partnership for Peace: Security Shared (Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press).

[7] Study on NATO Enlargement (NATO Publications, September 1995).

[8] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

 

[9] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

[10] Partnership for Peace (PfP), NATO Fact Sheet No. 9, downloaded from NATO InterNet Site (http://www.nato.int).

 

[11] NATO and the Partnership for Peace: Security Shared (Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press).

 

[12] Partnership for Peace, downloaded from SHAPE Home Page, NATO InterNet Site (http://www.shape.nato.int).

[13] Study on NATO Enlargement (NATO Publications, September 1995).

 

[14] NATO Handbook (Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press, October 1995).

[15] NATO Handbook (Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press, October 1995).

[16] Partnership Coordination Cell, downloaded from SHAPE Home Page, NATO InterNet Site (http://www.shape.nato.int).

 

[17] Partnership Coordination Cell, downloaded from SHAPE Home Page, NATO InterNet Site (http://www.shape.nato.int).

[18] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

 

[19] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

[20] Sgt. Timothy A. Streaty, "All for One," Marines, November 1996.

 

[21] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

[22] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

[23] NATO/PfP Exercise Program Summary: 1994-97, (Mons: PfP Office, 1996).

[24] PfP Training and Education Guidance to NATO Nations (Mons: PfP Office, 1996).

 

[25] NATO/PfP Exercise Program Summary: 1994-97 (Mons: PfP Office, 1996).

[26] PfP Training and Education Guidance to NATO Nations (Mons: PfP Office, 1996).

 

[27] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

[28] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

[29] Work Plan for Dialogue, Partnership and Cooperation 1996/1997 (North Atlantic Cooperation Council press release, December 1995.

[30] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

 

[31] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

[32] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

 

[33] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).

[34] Mindy Belz, "Madeline Albright's Utopian Universalism," World Magazine, 25 January 1997.

[35] Partnership for Peace (PfP) (United States Department of Defense, March 1996).



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list


One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger - by Matthew Yglesias