NATO REVIEW 2011
Edition 1: Hungry for climate action?
Edition 2: Social media: power to the people?
Current Edition:
Why NATO's partners matter
In the next issue Small arms, big impact
 Videos
 RSS
 Subscribe
All archives - Schedule
LANGUAGE
Due to translations, the other language editions of NATO Review go online approximately two weeks after the English version.
© - About
  
 Subscribe
Why NATO's partners matter
A lot of column inches have been written in recent years about NATO's potential new members. But much less discussed have been the partners who often make significant contributions to NATO operations. Why do these countries do it? And how well does NATO partner with them and international organisations? NATO Review looks into how NATO partners up.
NATO is changing the way it works with its partners. Ambassador Dirk Brengelmann, Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy, explains what these changes mean to both sides.
Few countries have had such a frontline partnership role with NATO as Sweden. From Bosnia to Libya, it has participated continously in NATO-led operations. How does it see the changes in NATO's new partnership structures?
Who are NATO's partners? And what do they do? This photostory presents some facts and figures outlining the nations who work with NATO.
NATO has started an 'Enduring Partnership' with Afghanistan. As the transition to an Afghan lead in security begins, NATO Review asks if the fight against corruption in the country will become a key theme of this new partnership. What would failing to beat corruption mean - for Afghanistan and NATO?
Are NATO's partnerships becoming more or less important? Are they a cheaper way of offering security? And are they the key to a comprehensive approach to security? This video looks at how NATO's relationships are changing, why and who's benefiting.
Take the biggest political-military alliance in history, protecting over 900 million people. And then take the world's second biggest country, whose population has just moved past the 1 billion mark. How could these two work together? Michael Ruehle looks at what could be one of NATO's biggest ever partnerships.

Think back to the sports lesson during your school days. If yours was anything like mine, there would come a time when teams had to be picked for a team sport. Then a process of choosing team members, one by one, each team in turn, would take place. Many, including myself, would dread being the last to be chosen.

This would be one our first experiences in choosing partners. Who would fit in best? Who was the best at a skill? Or, frankly, sometimes simply who was the most popular? It would sometimes involve team consultation looking at who would help the team most.

Now imagine the roles reversed.

Think back to the sports lesson during your school days. If yours was anything like mine, there would come a time when teams had to be picked for a team sport. Then a process of choosing team members, one by one, each team in turn, would take place. Many, including myself, would dread being the last to be chosen.

This would be one of our first experiences in choosing partners. Who would fit in best? Who was the best at a skill? Or, frankly, sometimes simply who was the most popular? It would sometimes involve team consultation looking at who would help the team most.

Now imagine the roles reversed. Imagine where once you were waiting to be picked, you can now say which team you want to join. That is in a way what has happened in security. Partners are not waiting to be picked. They are picking themselves. And this can benefit the NATO alliance, which is more than happy to take on board reliable and stable new partners.

In this edition we look at why NATO needs partners, and why they need the Alliance. What are the benefits and motivations?

And are partnerships - rather than the more hazardous, demanding and sometimes complicated route of memberships - the new security deals of the 21st century?

Importantly, with the Cold War increasingly a distant memory, are old-style for us or against us' positions more difficult to sustain? And if so, doesn't that make partnerships, both formal and informal, something that we are all increasingly going to have to get used to?

We also look at whether the current environment - both economically and in terms of new security threats - has favoured the spread of partnerships.

We gather opinions from the military (including NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, General Abrial), analysts, non-governmental organisations and academics about what difference partnerships can make and where they are headed.

Paul King

Editor, NATO Review