NATO’s Partnerships Old and New
Russia and NATO since 1991: From Cold War through Cold Peace to Partnership?
New York: Routledge, 2006
Since the re-emergence of Russia as an independent state in December 1991, debates and controversies surrounding its evolving relations with NATO have been a prominent feature of the European security scene. This is the first detailed and comprehensive book-length analysis of Russia-NATO relations, covering the years 1991-2005. This new volume investigates the nature and substance of the 'partnership' relations that have developed between Russia and NATO during this time. It looks at the impact that the Kosovo crisis, September 11th, the Iraq war and the creation of the NATO-Russia Council have had on this complex relationship. The author concludes that Russia and NATO have, so far, developed a pragmatic partnership, but one that may potentially develop into a more significant strategic partnership.
Renewing NATO's Partnerships: Towards a Coherent and Efficient Framework
Rome: NATO Defense College, 2006
(Forum Paper; 1)
The question of the future of NATO's partnerships has been gaining new momentum, particularly since the informal Ministerial at Sofia in April 2006, where NATO member countries agreed to establish a new partnership framework that could include Australia, Japan and South Korea. This paper examines what such a Strategic Partnership might entail and how it could interact with existing partnerships.
The NATO-Russia Partnership: A Marriage of Convenience or a Troubled Relationship?
Carlisle, PA: US Army War College, 2006
This monograph focuses on the Russian side of the relationship and seeks to uncover, as well as analyse, the reasons for Russia's growing ambivalence toward NATO and the growing sense of estrangement between these two key actors in Eurasian security.
Switzerland and the Partnership for Peace
Bern: Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, 2004
This brochure provides essential information about Switzerland's participation in the partnership with NATO; the reasons behind it, the objectives and the main focus of Switzerland's efforts.
NATO after Riga: A New Direction?
NATO's Nations and Partners for Peace, vol. 52, no. 1, 2007, p. 36-41.
Over the past decade, NATO Summits have turned into lavish two-day events, featuring meetings of the 26 Allies as well as of partner countries. The Riga Summit, however, held at the end of November 2006 in the Latvian capital, was different. NATO's partner countries were not present, a fact that turned the Summit into a less-than-24 hour event. There was neither a meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, nor of the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the NATO-Russia Council. The 26 NATO members decided to do it on their own. Not surprisingly, some observers mused whether this 'introverted' approach would condemn the event to obscurity: was it going to be a major Summit after all, or would it turn out to be just an unimpressive hilltop?
Crisis Management: A Fundamental Security Task: The NATO Experience and Euro-Atlantic Partnership
Military Technology, vol. 30, no. 9, 2006, p. 57-65.
Crisis management is one of NATO's fundamental security tasks. It can involve both military and non-military measures to respond to a threat, either national or international. A crisis can be political, military or humanitarian, and can be caused by political or armed conflict, technological incidents or natural disasters. Crisis management consists of the various means of dealing with these different forms of crises.
EU-NATO Relations: How Close to 'Strategic Partnership'?
European Security, vol. 15, no. 3, 2006, p. 235-258.
This paper analyses the developing relations of the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, both adapting to a new international security environment and building a network of interactions with each other. While the nature and functions of these two organisations remain different, their aims are becoming closer and new capabilities are being formed to achieve the same goals. The paper looks first at the declared level of cooperation with its benefits and limits, questioning whether this level corresponds to the practical one. It then envisages the modalities of EU-NATO practical cooperation in Bosnia and in Darfur.
Roadmap for a Renewed Security Partnership
International Spectator, vol. 41, no. 1, January-March 2006, p. 71-81.
The author points out that the war of words across the Atlantic over the Iraqi crisis has largely subsided, and that the EU and United States have cooperated effectively over Afghanistan, counter-terrorism, and, to a lesser extent, over Iran's nuclear programme. He also argues that there is now greater European appreciation of Washington's prime foreign policy concerns, namely terrorism and the spread of WMDs. Serious fault-lines persist, however, on issues such as Middle East democracy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The author proposes to revitalise the transatlantic relationship focusing on three areas on the common agenda: counter-terrorism, and in particular its civilian and developmental aspects; non-proliferation in the Middle East with the goal of building a regional security system (modelled on initiatives such as the OSCE or NATO's Partnership for Peace); and crisis management, exploring further intelligence-sharing and political coordination.
Granieri, Ronald J.
Allies and Other Strangers: European Integration and the American 'Empire by Invitation'
ORBIS, vol. 50, no. 4, Fall 2006, p. 691-707.
Current tensions between the United States and Europe have raised questions about the future of the transatlantic relationship, though historical analysis suggests that the good old days were not perfect either. This article considers the history of US-European relations and concludes that they have always been complex, as neither Americans nor Europeans have been sure how an integrated Europe would fit into an Atlantic partnership. It concludes that the future of the West depends on Europeans' developing on their own a clearer vision of the concrete shape and international role of the EU.
Russia's Relationship with NATO: A Qualitative Change or Old Wine in New Bottles?
Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, vol. 21, no. 3, September 2005, p. 332-353.
Since the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002, new opportunities have arisen for developing a different relationship from what existed in the past. Are NATO and Russia now partners in fighting common threats like global terrorism? There is a common view that the relationship has improved but there is no detailed analysis of how the relationship has changed and no agreement on whether the change is going to be fundamental. Because previous attempts by NATO to engage Russia have failed, scepticism is widespread. In fact, Russia' current view of NATO consists of contradictory elements and shows puzzlement about NATO's role and transformation in the post-Cold War world. Although the partnership is not always going to be smooth, Russia will prefer collaboration over confrontation.
NATO Needs Partners!
NATO's Nations and Partners for Peace, vol. 49, no. 5, 2004, p. 10-12.
NATO needs partners that who will contribute to addressing the unprecedented security challenges we are facing today, from terrorist attacks to 'failed states' to the spread of weapons of mass destruction. How can we, the transatlantic community of friends and like-minded nations, cope with these new challenges? First and foremost, by acknowledging one fundamental reality – projecting stability has become a precondition for our security.
Voronin, A. I.
Russia-NATO Strategic Partnership: Problems, Prospects
Military Thought; 2005, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p19-24
This article focuses on the strategic partnership of Russia and the NATO. Solid groundwork for a sound, long-term partnership between Russia and NATO was laid with the signing of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the NATO in 1997, when both sides stated their mutual commitment to building a durable peace in the Euro-Atlantic region. The sides’ obligations under the Act are crucial: NATO and Russia must not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goals of overcoming the vestiges of the earlier confrontation and competition, and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation.