In 1999, NATO held its 50th Summit in Washington. The heads of state included Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac. Against a backdrop of tackling the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Kosovo, the leaders endorsed a report entitled ‘Towards a partnership for the 21st century’. Little could the leaders know at that time how important that issue would become.
In 1999, NATO held its 50th Summit in Washington. The heads of State included Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac. Against a backdrop of tackling the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Kosovo, the leaders endorsed a report entitled ‘Towards a partnership for the 21st century’. Little could the leaders know at that time how important that issue would become.
Last year NATO held its biggest ever summit in Chicago. The numbers were swollen due to the number of partners attending. Indeed there were more representatives from non-NATO countries than there were from NATO members. These ranged from Japan to El Salvador. From Mongolia to Switzerland. And from Sweden to Uzbekistan.
And it wasn’t just countries. The UN was represented by Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. The EU by President van Rompuy.
It was partnerships like these that had made the event so key. And the range of issues discussed – from the effects of liberation in Libya to the impact of the global financial crisis – had diversified too.
When you look at the difference between the Washington Summit and the Chicago Summit, it can be difficult to remember that they are separated by little over 13 years. But partnerships – and how best to use them – had made the two summits a world apart.
In this edition of NATO Review, we look into how partnerships could progress. We hear the thoughts of the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, General Jean-Paul Paloméros. And we look at some special cases – such as Ireland and Sweden – and see if and how partnerships have benefited both sides.
