Role Essay, Research Paper NATO After the Cold War and Changing Role OUTLINE 1. Introduction 2. NATO s main functions 3. NATO s new missions after Cold War
Role Essay, Research Paper
NATO After the Cold War and Changing Role
2. NATO s main functions
3. NATO s new missions after Cold War
4. NATO in the 21 th century
5. Europe after the Cold War
6. NATO s relations with OSCE and WEU
(1) After the end of World War II, all involved countries, with no exception of being victorious or defeated, have started seeking of the prevention of a new disaster by reconstructing and maintaining the security and peace primarily in Europe. All huge and disastrous events (such as World Wars) which affected whole world were originated from the uncomfortable conditions and conflicts in the continent. Thus the main task was to settle a mechanism that would eliminate any emerging threat against the continental security and maintain the order and peace. For this purpose, in 1949 West European countries established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in order to protect the member countries against any possible attack which was primarily expected from the East European Countries led by the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, NATO s primary goal was to circumvent any aggression held by the iron-curtain countries. Military deterrence (by developing high-tech and nuclear weapons and locating them to the eastern frontier of the Alliance, Germany and Turkey) was the main strategy in preventing any large-scale attack from the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries. By the end of Cold War many debates were made and still is going on whether the Alliance completed its mission in the territory. In spite of all, The North Atlantic Treaty has continued to guarantee the security of its member countries ever since. Today, following the end of the Cold War and of the division of Europe, the Alliance has been restructured to enable it to participate in the development of cooperative security structures for the whole of Europe. It has also transformed its political and military structures in order to adapt them to peacekeeping and crisis management tasks undertaken in cooperation with countries which are not members of the Alliance and with other international organizations.
Table 1: The 19 Member Countries of the North Atlantic Council (NAC)
Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark
France Germany Greece Hungary
Iceland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands
Norway Poland Portugal Spain
Turkey United Kingdom United States
Through initiatives such as the creation of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) and Partnership for Peace (PfP), and the establishment of a new Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), the member countries of NATO have opened the way for new forms of partnership and cooperation with other countries within the framework of the Alliance. On 27 May 1997, in Paris, NATO and Russia signed a historic agreement on their future relations. A few days later a NATO-Ukraine Charter was initialed in Sintra, Portugal, where NATO and Partner countries met to inaugurate the EAPC. A Dialogue with the Mediterranean countries, initiated in December 1995, is also being further developed. New structures and procedures designed to further the internal adaptation of NATO are being introduced. As part of this process, the development of the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) within the Alliance, and the implementation of the concept of Combined Joint Task Force (CJTFs) are also being pursued.
In July 1997, Heads of State and Government met at Summit level in Madrid to take decisions on opening NATO to new members and on future policies in all these fields. Further initiatives were taken at the Washington Summit in April 1999.
2. NATO s main functions
NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Alliance has worked since its inception for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe based on common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This central Alliance objective has taken on renewed significance since the end of the Cold War because, for the first time in the post-war history of Europe, the prospect of its achievement has become a reality.
+ It provides an indispensable foundation for a stable security environment in Europe, based on the growth of democratic institutions and commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes. It seeks to create an environment in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any European nation or to impose hegemony through the threat or use of force.
+ In accordance with Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, it serves as a transatlantic forum for Allied consultations on any issues affecting the vital interests of its members, including developments which might pose risks to their security. It facilitates coordination of their efforts in fields of common concern.
+ It provides deterrence and defense against any form of aggression against the territory of any NATO member state.
+ It promotes security and stability by pursuing permanent and active cooperation with all its Partners through Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and through consultation, cooperation and partnership with Russia and Ukraine.
It promotes understanding of the factors relating to international security and of the objectives of cooperation in this field, through active information programs in Alliance and Partner countries as well as through initiatives such as the Mediterranean Dialogue.
3. NATO s new missions after Cold War
NATO is a security organization able to adapt to changeable conditions without any act of turning. Actually, it is not new. As from the administrative, structural and ideological point, NATO, also protected this adaptability in the Cold WAR. For example, NATO can still continue to exist since there is no statistics in NATO which we saw in Warsaw Pact.
Since NATO is not a tool of cold war or a tool of struggle between blocks; the question of whether we need NATO or not is not a product of logical concept. It is knotted in the point of how will NATO adapt to new threats. Today, in the first stage NATO keeps its priority on whatever can cause damage to Europe s security. NATO is still the best organization to adapt to problems in Europe. In this framework, NATO s new mission is;
a. To structurally change to answer any possible crises occurring inside or near Europe, such as genocide, micro nationalism, border disputes and problems of stabilization of potential instability sources such as refugee migrations and expand terrorism.
b. To play a catalytic role on subjects like safety of Mediterranean and East Europe.
c. In a medium that the global structure hasn t formed, NATO takes the intermediary role in continuing the ties beyond the Atlantic since Europe can t handle all the load of possible and probable security by itself.
d. If required, to form a united and experienced security base to provide multilateral support to threats in and around Europe.
e. It can be considered to form an example infrastructure for a future global common security system.
4. NATO in the 21st century
4.1. Europe after the Cold War
By the collapse of Soviet Union and the end of Cold War, European system has shifted from bipolarity to multi-polarity and has entered the new era called neo-Westphalian system . Improving relations with and helping the newly emerging Central and Eastern European countries to establish democratic and respectful regimes to human rights and rule of law have become the significant steps toward a new stable and peacefully united Europe. In this new neo-Westphalian system Western democracies pay effort to undermine the old-fashioned relationships of hostility with their former adversaries and try to conduct partnership during the process of settlement of a new peaceful era.
NATO still has a significant standing point in these new process. However, there are many different, even contrary, opinions on the structure of NATO and relationships between its members, especially between US and Western countries. Some authors argue that the US should withdraw its hands from the continent and European allies should give more importance to the integration with Russia rather than with other small and less significant states. According to them, Europe should not depend on America any more, but stand on its own. Yet, the Kosovo case once again showed the European countries incapability of eliminating the conflict without US support and proved the idea of forming transatlantic defense cooperation that is argued to serve best NATO s security needs and political interests.
There are several international organizations, outside of the NATO, in which both Western and Eastern European countries are involved. The common goal of these institutions is to provide peaceful resolution for possible conflicts which are mostly taken place in new emerging states and are originated from the multi-ethnic structure of those states and disputes, to assist the conduction of democratic regimes in new states, to prevent any crime committed against humanity. OSCE, WEU, CIS, the Council of Europe are the examples of these organizations that we are going to examine and refer to their relations with NATO.
4.2. Other Security Organizations and their relationships with NATO
4.2.1. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), formerly known as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), was initially a political consultative process involving participating states from Europe, Central Asia and North America. It became an Organization in January 1995.
Launched in 1972, the CSCE process led to the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. This document encompassed a wide range of standards for international behavior and commitments governing relations between participating states, measures designed to build confidence between them, especially in the politico-military field respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and cooperation in economic, cultural, technical and scientific fields.
Alliance interaction with the OSCE
As the only forum which brings together all the countries of Europe, as well as Canada and the United States, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) represents a key component of Europe’s security architecture. It provides a comprehensive framework for cooperation in the areas of human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, the rule of law, security and economic cooperation.
The Alliance has actively supported the CSCE/OSCE since its creation, and was among the proponents of the institutionalization of the CSCE process agreed at the Paris CSCE Summit Meeting in 1990. At its Rome Summit in November 1991, the Alliance confirmed its commitment to the CSCE process, and defined the roles of the CSCE and the Alliance, in the development of dialogue and cooperation in Europe, as complementary. Recognizing that the security of the Allies was inseparably linked to that of other states in Europe, the Alliance regarded dialogue and cooperation between the different institutions dealing with security as an important factor in helping to defuse crises and to prevent conflicts.
The importance ascribed to the CSCE by NATO was further underlined at Oslo, in June 1992. Foreign Ministers of the Alliance stated their preparedness to support peacekeeping activities under the responsibility of the CSCE, including by making available Allied resources and expertise. This important decision paved the way for increased NATO interaction with the OSCE, especially in the context of the Alliance’s new tasks such as peacekeeping operations.
From December 1991 onwards, NATO’s dialogue and cooperation with its Partner countries in Central and Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union took place in the framework of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC). The NACC obtained tangible results in a number of important areas, including the promotion of good neighborly relations, disarmament and arms control, and cooperation in peacekeeping. The process provided a substantial contribution to the strengthening of cooperation among NATO Allies and Partner countries and in so doing supported the CSCE/OSCE role in these fields.
A stronger, more operational partnership between NATO and its NACC partners began to take shape in 1997, with the replacement of the NACC by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The EAPC provides the overall framework for cooperation between NATO and its Partner countries, including Partnership for Peace (PfP) and raises it to a qualitatively new level. A body known as the Political-Military Steering Committee/Ad Hoc Group on Cooperation in Peacekeeping, working within the EAPC framework, provides an important institutional link to the OSCE. A representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office regularly attends its meetings and gives briefings on current OSCE issues of relevance to the Group. This formalized arrangement is particularly important in the field of peacekeeping. It provides evidence of the complementarily and transparency which characterizes the development of cooperation in the field of peacekeeping which is now taking place in the EAPC and PfP framework.
Since its Budapest Summit in December 1994, the OSCE has been involved in a broad and comprehensive discussion on all aspects of security aimed at devising a concept of security for the 21st Century.
In December 1996, in their Lisbon Summit Declaration on a common and comprehensive security model for Europe for the 21st century, OSCE Heads of State and Government reaffirmed that European Security requires the widest cooperation and coordination among participating states and among European and transatlantic organizations. They also stated their intention to strengthen cooperation with other security organizations. The Alliance has contributed to OSCE discussion of the security model in this context.
In their 1997 Madrid Declaration on Euro-Atlantic security and cooperation, NATO Heads of State and Government recognized the OSCE as the most inclusive European-wide security organization. They emphasized the essential role it plays in securing peace, stability and security in Europe and underlined the importance of the principles and commitments adopted by the OSCE as a foundation for the development of comprehensive and cooperative European security structures.
In Madrid, NATO also expressed its continued support both for the OSCE’s work on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the 21st Century and for giving consideration to the idea of developing a Charter on European Security in accordance with the decisions taken at the 1996 Lisbon Summit of the OSCE.
The Common Concept for the Development of Cooperation between Mutually Reinforcing Institutions, as agreed at the OSCE Ministerial in Copenhagen in December 1997, features a list of principles and commitments for the development of cooperation between mutually reinforcing organizations and institutions within the Platform for Cooperative Security. Within the relevant organizations and institutions of which they are members, participating states commit themselves to work to ensure the organizations’ and institutions’ adherence to the Platform. As a first set of practical steps towards the development of cooperation between the OSCE and those organizations and institutions, the Common Concept prescribes regular contacts, including meetings, through a continuous framework for dialogue, increased transparency and practical cooperation. This includes the identification of liaison officers or points of contact, cross-representation at appropriate meetings, and other contacts intended to increase understanding of each organization s conflict prevention tools. NATO and the OSCE have been developing their relations on the basis of the Common Concept.
At the OSCE Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC), NATO member states, in association with other participating states, tabled a number of substantive proposals addressing issues such as the exchange of information on defense planning; non-proliferation and arms transfers; military cooperation and contacts; global exchange of military information; and stabilizing measures for localized crisis situations. Between 1993 and 1995 all of these proposals contributed to the development of a number of agreed OSCE documents. The Alliance also made proposals for the updating of the Confidence and Security Building Measures (CBS s) contained in the OSCE’s Vienna Document and this contributed to the completion of a revised and improved version of the document, which was agreed in December 1994 (the Vienna Document 1994)
4.2.2. The Western European Union (WEU)
The Western European Union has existed since 1954 and today includes 10 European countries Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. It has a Council and Secretariat formerly located in London and based in Brussels since January 1993, and a Parliamentary Assembly in Paris. The WEU has its origins in the Brussels Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective self-defense of 1948, signed by Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
With the signature of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, the exercise of the military responsibilities of the Brussels Treaty Organization or Western Union was transferred to the North Atlantic Alliance. Under the Paris Agreements of 1954, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy acceded to the Brussels Treaty and the Organization was renamed the Western European Union. The latter continued in being in order to fulfill the conditions and tasks laid down in the Paris Agreements.
The Western European Union was reactivated in 1984 with a view to developing a “common European defense identity” through cooperation among its members in the security field and strengthening the European pillar of the North Atlantic Alliance.
In August 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, Western European Union experts met in The Hague to consider joint action in the Gulf to ensure freedom of navigation in the oil shipping lanes of the region; and in October 1987 WEU countries met again to coordinate their military presence in the Gulf following attacks on shipping in the area.
Meeting in The Hague in October 1987, the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union, made up of Foreign and Defense Ministers of the member countries, adopted a “Platform on European Security Interests” in which they affirmed their determination both to strengthen the European pillar of NATO and to provide an integrated Europe with a security and defense dimension. The Platform defined the Western European Union’s relations with NATO and with other organizations, as well as the enlargement of the WEU and the conditions for the further development of its role as a forum for regular discussion of defense and security issues affecting Europe.
Following the ratification of the Treaty of Accession signed in November 1988, Portugal and Spain became members of the Western European Union in 1990 in accordance with the decisions taken in 1987 to facilitate WEU enlargement. A further step was taken in November 1989 when the Council decided to create an Institute for Security Studies, based in Paris, with the task of assisting in the development of a European security identity and in the implementation of The Hague Platform.
A number of decisions were taken by the European Council at Maastricht on 9-10 December 1991 on the common foreign and security policy of the European Union and by the member states of the Western European Union on the role of the WEU and its relations with the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance (set out in the Maastricht Declarations). These decisions were welcomed by the North Atlantic Council when it met in Ministerial Session on 19 December 1991. They included extending invitations to members of the European Union to accede to the WEU or to seek observer status, as well as invitations to European member states of NATO to become associate members; agreement on the objective of the WEU of building up the organization in stages, as the defense component of the European Union, and on elaborating and implementing decisions and actions of the Union with defense implications; agreement on the objective of strengthening the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance and the role, responsibilities and contributions of WEU member states in the Alliance; affirmation of the intention of the WEU to act in conformity with positions adopted in the Alliance; the strengthening of the WEU’s operational role; and the relocation of the WEU Council and Secretariat from London to Brussels. A number of other proposals were also examined including a new role for the WEU in armaments cooperation.
On 19 June 1992, the Foreign and Defense Ministers of WEU member states met near Bonn to strengthen further the role of the WEU and issued the “Petersburg Declaration”. This declaration set out, on the basis of the Maastricht decisions, the guidelines for the organization s future development. WEU member states declared their preparedness to make available military units from the whole spectrum of their conventional armed forces for military tasks under the authority of the WEU. These tasks, the so-called “Petersburg missions”, consisted of humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; and tasks of combat forces in crisis management including peacemaking. In the Petersburg Declaration, WEU members pledged their support for conflict prevention and peacekeeping efforts in cooperation with the CSCE and with the United Nations Security Council.
The first application of provisions set out in the Maastricht Treaty with regard to the WEU (Article J.4.2 of the Treaty of European Union) occurred in November 1996. At that time the Council of the European Union adopted a decision requesting the WEU to examine urgently how it could contribute to the EU’s humanitarian efforts in support of the refugees and displaced persons in the Great Lakes region in Africa. WEU-EU cooperation was also undertaken in relation to the planning of evacuation operations, supporting African peacekeeping efforts, and mine clearance.
Provisions established in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty were subsequently re-examined at the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) in 1996/97. At its Ministerial meeting in Madrid in 1995, the WEU agreed on a specific “WEU contribution to the European Union Intergovernmental Conference of 1996″. This document assessed the organization s development since Maastricht; set forth several options for the future EU-WEU relationship; and listed a number of agreed principles and guidelines to assist the IGC on European defence arrangements. It was formally submitted by the WEU to the Council of the European Union.
As a result of the Inter-Governmental Conference on 16and 17 June 1997 in Amsterdam, EU Heads of State and Government agreed on revisions to the Maastricht Treaty with implications for the future Common Foreign and Security Policy of the Union and EU-WEU relations. In particular, the Petersburg missions, as defined by the WEU at the Ministerial meeting in June1992, were included in the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The Amsterdam Treaty stipulates that the WEU is an integral part of the development of the European Union, providing the latter with access to an operational capability, notably in the context of the Petersburg missions. The WEU should support the EU in framing the defense aspects of the common foreign and security policy; and the EU should, accordingly, foster closer institutional relations with the WEU “with a view to the possibility of the integration of the WEU into the EU, should the European Council so decide”.
The Amsterdam Treaty also states that the “Union will avail itself of the WEU to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defense implications”. The European Council has the competence to establish guidelines in respect of the WEU for those matters for which the EU would avail itself of the WEU. In such cases, all EU member states, including those who are not full members of the WEU, are entitled to participate fully in the tasks in question. In the same vein, the EU Council, in agreement with the institutions of the WEU, would adopt the necessary practical arrangements to allow all EU member states making a contribution to participate fully and on an equal footing in planning and decision-taking in the WEU.
The Protocol to Article 17 of the Amsterdam Treaty states that the EU will draw up, together with the WEU, arrangements for enhanced cooperation between them within a year from the entry into force of the Treaty. The WEU, in its “Declaration on the Role of Western European Union and its Relations with the European Union and with the Atlantic Alliance”, adopted by WEU Ministers on 22 July 1997, took note of the parts of the Treaty of Amsterdam pertaining to the WEU. The WEU Declaration also set out the formers understanding of its role and relations with the EU as well as with the Atlantic Alliance. In its introduction, it states that the WEU is an integral part of the development of the European Union, providing it with access to operational capability, notably in the context of the Petersburg missions, and is an essential element of the development of the ESDI within the Alliance, in accordance with the Paris Declaration and with the decisions taken by NATO Ministers in June 1996 in Berlin.
Since Amsterdam and the WEU Declaration of 22 July 1997, further steps have been taken in developing WEU-EU relations. In September 1997 the WEU Council introduced measures to harmonize as much as possible the six-monthly presidencies which rotate between members countries in both the WEU and the EU. At their meeting in Erfurt in November 1997, EU Ministers endorsed a decision enhancing the operational role of WEU observer countries, in line with the provisions contained in Article 17.3 of the Amsterdam Treaty. These arrangements, aimed at facilitating EU-WEU cooperation in crisis management, will come into effect upon entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty.
Since 1991, the WEU has developed a framework under which an increasing number of European countries have become associated with its activities. In the second WEU Maastricht Declaration of 1991, the WEU invited states which are members of the EU to accede to WEU, on conditions to be agreed in accordance with Article XI of the modified Brussels Treaty, or to become observers. Simultaneously, other European members of NATO were invited to become associate members of WEU “in a way which will give the possibility to participate fully in the activities of WEU”. The Petersburg Declaration defined the rights and obligations of those states which are members of the European Union and NATO, as future members, observers or associate members. At the Rome Ministerial meeting on 20 November 1992, WEU members agreed to enlarge the organization and invited Greece to become its tenth member, subject to parliamentary ratification. Greece joined the WEU formally in 1995. Iceland, Norway and Turkey, as member countries of NATO, were granted Associate Member status; and Denmark and Ireland, as members of the European Union, became Observers. Following their accession to the European Union on 1 January 1995, and after completion of parliamentary procedures, Austria, Finland and Sweden also became WEU Observers.
On 9 May 1994, at their meeting in Luxembourg, the WEU Council of Ministers issued the “Kirchberg Declaration”, according the nine Central and Eastern European countries which had signed “Europe Agreements” with the EU the status of “Associate Partners” (as distinct from the Associate Membership of Iceland, Norway and Turkey). Slovenia became the tenth Associate Partner country in 1996.
The Kirchberg meeting thus created today’s system of variable geometry with three different levels of membership, as well as observer status. The Western European Union thus embraces the following categories of membership and affiliation :
+ Members (all WEU members are also members both of NATO and of the EU);
+ Associate Members (NATO but not EU members);
+ Associate Partners (neither NATO nor EU members), and;
+ Observers (members of NATO and/or the EU).
Further to the decisions taken at Maastricht and Petersburg, steps have been undertaken to develop the WEU’s operational capabilities in order to provide the organization with the necessary tools to undertake the Petersburg missions. In this context, a WEU Planning Cell was set up, under the authority of the WEU Council, to carry out planning for possible WEU operations and to establish and to keep up-to-date the list of Forces Answerable to WEU (FAWEU). The WEU has no standing forces or command structures of its own. Accordingly, the military units and command structures designated by WEU members and associate members can be made available to WEU for its various possible tasks. They include both national units and several multinational formations, such as the Eurocorps; the Multinational Division Central; the UK/NL Amphibious Force; Eurofor and Euromarfor; the Headquarters of the First German-Netherlands Corps; and the Spanish-Italian Amphibious Force.
Other measures aimed at developing the WEU’s operational capabilities include the establishment of the Satellite Centre in Torrejon, Spain, inaugurated in April 1993, to interpret and analyze satellite data for the verification of arms control agreement, crisis monitoring and management in support of WEU operations; the creation of a Situation Centre (which became operational in June 1996) to monitor crisis areas designated by the WEU Council and the progress of WEU operations; and the creation of a Military Delegates Committee and the reorganization of the military structure of the WEU headquarters in 1998, in accordance with decisions taken by WEU Ministers at their meetings in Paris and Erfurt in May and November of 1997.
Cooperation between the Western European Union and NATO has underpinned the process of the reactivation of the WEU and has become progressively more intensive and more frequent. On 21 May 1992, the Council of the Western European Union held its first formal meeting with the North Atlantic Council at NATO Headquarters. The Secretary General of the WEU now regularly attends ministerial meetings of the North Atlantic Council, and the NATO Secretary General is invited to WEU ministerial meetings. The North Atlantic and WEU Councils meet four times a year, with the possibility of further meetings if necessary. A Security Agreement has been agreed between NATO and WEU to facilitate the exchange of classified information. Other examples of enhanced practical cooperation include WEU access to NATO’s integrated communications system on the basis of a NATO-WEU Memorandum of Understanding; and regular consultations between the secretariats and military staffs of both organizations.
An important further step towards closer cooperation between NATO and WEU was taken during the January 1994 NATO Summit in Brussels. The 16 member countries of the Alliance gave their full support to the development of a European Security and Defense Identity which would strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance while reinforcing the transatlantic link and would enable European Allies to take greater responsibility for their common security and defense. They expressed their support for strengthening this European pillar of the Alliance through the Western European Union, which was being developed as the defense component of the European Union. In order to avoid duplication of capabilities, NATO agreed to make its collective assets available, on the basis of consultations in the North Atlantic Council, “for WEU operations undertaken by the European Allies in pursuit of their Common Foreign and Security Policy”. In addition, Heads of State and Government endorsed the concept of Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTFs) as a means of facilitating contingency operations. They directed that the concept should be implemented in a manner that provides separable but not separate military capabilities that could be employed by NATO or the WEU and would respond to European requirements and contribute to Alliance security. At the same time, they reaffirmed that the Alliance is the essential forum for consultation among its members and the venue for agreement on policies bearing on the security and defense commitments of Allies under the Washington Treaty.
At their meetings in June 1996, Foreign and Defense Ministers decided that, as an essential part of the internal adaptation of NATO, a European Security and Defense Identity should be built within NATO. This would enable all European Allies to make a more coherent and effective contribution to the missions and activities of the Alliance as an expression of their shared responsibilities; to act themselves as required; and to reinforce the transatlantic partnership. Taking full advantage of the CJTF concept, this identity would be based on sound military principles, would be supported by appropriate military planning and would permit the creation of militarily coherent and effective forces capable of operating under the political control and strategic direction of the WEU. At the Summit meeting in Madrid in July 1997, NATO Heads of State and Government welcomed the major steps taken on the creation of the European Security and Defense Identity within the Alliance, implementing the important political decisions made by Foreign and Defense Ministers in June 1996, and tasked the North Atlantic Council in Permanent Session to complete its work expeditiously in cooperation with WEU.
The WEU has also contributed to efforts undertaken by the international community in the context of the Yugoslav and Albanian crises, both by mounting WEU operations and by conducting a joint operation with NATO to support the efforts of the United Nations to end the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia.
In July 1992, the member countries of the WEU decided to make available naval forces for monitoring compliance in the Adriatic with UN Security Council Resolutions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Similar measures were also taken by the North Atlantic Council in a Ministerial Session held on the margins of the OSCE Summit in Helsinki on 10 July 1992 in coordination with the WEU.
At a joint session on 8 June 1993, the North Atlantic Council and the Council of the Western European Union approved the concept of combined NATO/WEU embargo enforcement operations under the authority of the two Organizations. A single commander was appointed to head the combined NATO/WEU task force in the Adriatic. The implementation of this decision is described in more detail in the section Evolution of the Conflict.
On 5 April 1993, the WEU Council of Ministers decided to provide assistance to Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in their efforts to enforce the UN embargo on the Danube. The assistance took the form of a civilian police and customs operation coordinated with other organizations and in particular with the EU and the CSCE. Following the termination of the UN sanctions, both the Adriatic and Danube operations were ended.
In early July 1994, the WEU responded to a request to provide support to the EU Administration being established in Mostar by dispatching a police contingent. The aim of the WEU police contingent was to assist the Bosnian and Croat parties in Mostar to set up a unified police force for Mostar. Following the termination of the EU Administration’s mandate in July 1996, an EU Special Envoy was appointed until the end of the year. The WEU police contingent continued to provide assistance until the transfer of the Envoy’s executive powers to the local authorities on 15 October 1996.
In 1997, the WEU Council, in the context of the Albanian crisis, decided to deploy a Multinational Advisory Police Element (MAPE) to complement the action of the Multinational Protection Force created and deployed by several European countries under the authority of the UN Security Council (Resolution 1101). The MAPE’s mission, the first WEU operation to be directed by the WEU Council with the support of the WEU Secretariat and Planning Cell, is to give the Albanian police authorities the necessary information and advice on appropriate aspects of policing and restoring order, as well as on their responsibilities in the electoral process. Deployment started in May 1997, with WEU Members, Associate Members, Observers and Associate Partners all contributing to this mission. In response to requests by the Albanian government, the MAPE’s mandate was subsequently extended in September 1997 and again in April 1998, on this last occasion until April 1999 subject to a mid-term review in October 1998.
The WEU maintains relations with a number of other countries and regions. A dialogue with Russia provides for political consultations and practical cooperation on subjects of mutual interest. An example of practical cooperation is the supply of Russian imagery to the WEU Satellite Centre. The WEU is also developing a dialogue with Ukraine on the basis of a joint WEU/Ukraine communiqu of September 1996. The WEU also maintains a dialogue with six non-WEU Mediterranean countries (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia). This provides an opportunity to inform those countries about WEU activities and to exchange views on subjects of mutual interest, such as the experience gained from peacekeeping operations. In the context of efforts by the international community, the WEU is also undertaking work to assist African countries in developing effective peacekeeping capabilities.
4.2.3. Council of Europe
The Council of Europe (COE), established in 1949 to promote increased unity and quality of life in Europe. COE member states are “committed to pluralist and parliamentary democracy, the indivisibility and universality of human rights, the rule of law and a common cultural heritage enriched by its diversity.” The COE is active in setting standards and monitoring respect for human rights; promoting judiciary and law enforcement, training civil servants and lawyers, and aiding in democratic education; and helping to combat crime and drug abuse.
4.2.4. French-Initiated Stability Talks
At the initiative of French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur in 1994, France proposed a set of talks, called the Conference on Stability in Europe, designed to contribute to good
neighborly relations in Central and Eastern Europe. The talks began with a conference in Paris in late May 1994 of foreign ministers or other representatives from 57 countries or international organizations. The purpose has been described as designed to help settle potential border disputes and solve problems involving minorities for potential new candidates for membership in the EU. The French have organized two “regional tables” to promote rapprochement among European states, and accords reached in the round tables would be enshrined in the “Stability Pact” and registered with CSCE/OSCE. NATO Foreign Ministers have welcomed this initiative, stating that it can make a substantial contribution to stability in Europe. Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev warned the May conference that the proposed “Stability Pact” might conflict with CSCE; French Foreign Minister Juppe said the conference would disappear within a year when the “Pact” was inaugurated, and denied that the conference was duplicating existing organizations such as CSCE, Council of Europe, or WEU.
Deutch, John; Arnold Kanter, and Brent Scrowcroft. November/December 1999. Saving NATO s Foundation. Foreign Affairs, vol. 78, no. 6, 55-67.
Drew, S. Nelson. January 1995. NATO from Berlin to Bosnia: Transatlantic Security in Transition . McNair Paper 35 (www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/macnair/m035ch07.html)
Havel, Vaclav. May 13, 1997. NATO s Quality of Life . New York Times (www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/havl/nato.htm)
Kent, Randolph and Mackinlay, John. May/June 1997. International Responses to Complex Emergencies: Why a new approach is needed? NATO Review, 27-29.
Kugler, Richard L. 1995. Defence Program Requirements . In NATO Enlargement: Opinions and Options, Jeffrey Simon (Ed), Washington D.C. National Defence University Press, Fort McNair, 184-207.
Kupchan, Charles A. Summer 1999. Rethinking Europe . The National Interest, 73-79.
Morrison, James W. April 1995. NATO Expansion and Alternative Future Security Alignments. McNair Paper 40 (http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/macnair/m040cont.html)
NATO s (formal) Web Page; http://www.nato.int
Okman, Cengiz, October-November 1998, Savunma , vol 3, 54-55, 73
WEU s (formal) Web Page; http://www.weu.int/eng/
|◯||How Has NATO Survived The Cold War|
|◯||Nato Vs Serbia Essay Research Paper If|
|◯||Cold Weather Concrete Essay Research Paper Cold|
|◯||Expansion Of Nato Essay Research Paper NATO|
|◯||Nato Burden Sharing Essay Research Paper NATO|
|◯||Cold War Essay Research Paper Explain the|
|◯||Cons Of Nato Expansion Essay Research Paper|
|◯||Objections To And Advantages Of NatoMembership For|
|◯||Nato A Pact For Peace Or|
|◯||Why Was The|