NATO Partnerships
Partnership for Peace
201. The Partnership for Peace (PfP) process was
set up in 1994 as a means of developing individual programmes
of practical defence and security cooperation. Its aims are to
promote transparency in defence planning and budgeting and democratic
control of the military, and to develop the capacity for joint
activity between NATO and the partner countries in peace-keeping
and other operations. The Partnership Framework Document includes
the commitment by the Allies to consult bilaterally with any partner
country which fears a direct threat to its territory, its political
independence or its security. The PfP works on the basis of individual
Partnership Programmes between NATO and partner countries tailored
to each country's needs and interests.
202. Participation in the Partnership for Peace is,
for some countries, a precursor to the process of membership but
it is said to be equally valuable in its own right in increasing
stability and strengthening NATO's relationships with countries
which border, or are strategically important to, its territory.
The current PfP members are listed in Annex C.
Mediterranean Dialogue
203. NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue was established
in 1994 as a means of engaging the countries of the southern Mediterranean
and promoting good relations with, and between, them. Six countries
initially joined: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and
Tunisia. Algeria followed in 2000. The seven countries participate
in a range of activities, including courses at NATO colleges on
issues such as peace-keeping, arms control and civil-military
cooperation in military planning. The southern Mediterranean region
faces instability from a number of sources, including the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, fundamentalism, the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. The region is also strategically important to the
members of NATO and to global energy security because of its geographic
location.
The NATO-Russia Council
204. NATO-Russia relations formally began in 1991,
when Russia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (renamed
the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1997), a forum created
to foster transparency and dialogue with the countries of the
former Soviet Union after the end of the Cold War. Russia joined
the Partnership for Peace in 1994, paving the way for more practical
cooperation and, in 1996, Russia deployed a major contingent to
the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
205. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual
Relations, Cooperation and Security provided the formal basis
for NATO-Russia relations and led to the development of a bilateral
programme of consultation and cooperation under the Permanent
Joint Council (PJC). However, lingering Cold War tensions prevented
the PJC from achieving its potential. Differences over the Kosovo
air campaign also impacted on relations. However, Russia played
a notable diplomatic role in resolving the Kosovo crisis and deployed
peacekeepers to support the Kosovo Force in June 1999. From 1999,
NATO-Russia relations began to improve significantly.
206. In 2002, the relationship was given new impetus
and substance with the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council.
The decision to establish the NRC was taken in the wake of the
September 2001 terrorist attacks, which reinforced the need for
coordinated action to respond to common threats. It demonstrated
the shared resolve of NATO member states and Russia to work more
closely together towards the common goal of building a lasting
and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic Areaa goal which
was first expressed in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act.
207. Since 2002, the relationship between NATO and
Russia is difficult and has been plagued by deep disagreements
over a wide range of policy issues, including NATO enlargement
and Russia's stalling democratic process. NATO-Russia relations
on smaller, pragmatic issues such as counter-terrorism remain
relatively strong, but it appears that political goals are drifting
further apart. Given Russia's continued possession of a large
nuclear arsenal, its vast energy resources, and increasing assertiveness,
the relationship between NATO and Russia is of huge significance
to the Alliance. Cooperation with Russia is desirable, but, at
present, the signs are not encouraging.
Global partnerships
208. All NATO countries recognise the enormous contributions
that non-NATO allies have made to Alliance-led operations in recent
years. The presence of Australian, New Zealand and Japanese forces
in Afghanistan is one positive example of such cooperation. What
NATO cannot seem to agree on, however, is the best way to reward
and further strengthen its relationship with these and other like-minded
countries. As with the enlargement issue, there are two distinct
points of view: those who favour a strengthened global partnership
programme with formal structures and clearly defined parameters,
and others who fundamentally reject the idea because of the difficulty
of managing such partnerships and the increased political role
it would require the Alliance to adopt. Whether progress can be
made at the Bucharest Summit in resolving these issues is unclear.
209. NATO operations in Afghanistan are the first
the Alliance has conducted outside the Euro-Atlantic area. They
represent a commitment by the NATO Allies to project stability
on the periphery of the Alliance and beyond. In tackling the sources
of insecurity at root, NATO has gone some way to recognising that
its interests are global in nature. This underscores the importance
of building and maintaining an intensive and cooperative network
of global partnerships.
210. NATO should continue to work closely with
nations beyond its borders and should work to enhance further
its relationships with Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Formalising
the relationship between NATO and these countries is desirable,
but this need not involve full membership of the Alliance. Extending
full NATO membership beyond the Euro-Atlantic area carries distinct
risks; there is a danger it could dilute the coherence of the
Alliance, create yet more questions about its role and purpose,
or complicate decision-making. However, NATO should continue to
embrace the concept of global partnerships and seek to intensify
cooperation with like-minded allies.
201