DOCSLIB.ORG

Case Study of the European Security Architecture: NATO and OSCE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case Study of the European Security Architecture: NATO and OSCE REPORT Case study of the European Security Architecture: NATO and OSCE Project: GLOBE – The European Union and the Future of Global Governance GA: 822654 Call: H2020-SC6-GOVERNANCE-2018 Funding Scheme: Collaboration Project DISCLAIMER This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research & Innovation programme under Grant Agreement no. 822654. The information in this deliverable reflects only the authors’ views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Due date: 2020-11-30 Submission date: 2020-11-27 Lead beneficiary: Fundación ESADE Authors: Ana Sánchez Cobaleda ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have made it possible for this study to be completed. In particular, I would like to thank Ms. Miriam Álvarez de la Rosa, Mr. Diego Borrajo, Ms. Marian Caracuel, Ms. Isabel Cortina, Mr. Daniel Fiott, Mr. Jorge Hevia, Ms. Stephanie Hofmann, Ms. Alexandra Issacovitch, Mr. Antonio Missiroli, Mr. Fernando Moreno, Mr. Alexandros Papaioannou, Mr. Alfredo Pardo, Mr. Fidel Sendagorta, and Mr. Thierry Tardy. Additionally, I would also like to thank Ms. Marie Vandendriessche, Mr. Sergio Marín and Mr. Tirso Virgós, from EsadeGeo. Page 1 from 109 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5 2 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION ................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 The Cold War aftermath (1989-2001) ........................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Fragmented system, scattered actors .................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 The impact of the Balkan wars ............................................................................................. 12 2.2 The consequences of 9/11 (2001-2014) ..................................................................................... 17 2.3 Rethinking the European security leadership (2014-2020)......................................................... 23 3 THE STATE OF PLAY IN EUROPEAN SECURITY ......................................................................... 29 3.1 NATO at present: membership, objectives, and challenges ....................................................... 29 3.1.1 Current membership ............................................................................................................ 29 3.1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 30 3.1.3 Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 33 3.2 The OSCE at present: membership, objectives, and challenges ............................................... 37 3.2.1 Current membership ............................................................................................................ 37 3.2.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.2.3 Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 41 3.3 The EU as a security actor at present: membership, objectives, recent developments, and challenges ..................................................................................................................................... 45 3.3.1 Current membership ............................................................................................................ 45 3.3.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 48 3.3.3 Developments ...................................................................................................................... 50 3.3.4 Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 57 4 INTERORGANISATIONAL RELATIONS IN EUROPEAN SECURITY ............................................ 61 4.1 Comparing the three actors ........................................................................................................ 61 4.2 EU-NATO interaction .................................................................................................................. 66 4.2.1 Evolution and functioning of the relationship ....................................................................... 66 4.2.2 Main areas of cooperation.................................................................................................... 69 4.2.3 Main obstacles to cooperation ............................................................................................. 77 4.3 EU-OSCE interaction .................................................................................................................. 79 4.3.1 Evolution and functioning of the relationship ....................................................................... 79 4.3.2 Main areas of cooperation.................................................................................................... 84 4.3.3 Main obstacles to cooperation ............................................................................................. 86 5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................... 95 Page 2 from 109 LIST OF ACRONYMS AOB Any Other Business ATU Action against Terrorism Unit CARD Coordinated Annual Review on Defence CBM Confidence and security Building Measures CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear CDP Capacity Development Plan CERT/EU EU’s Computer Emergency Response Team CFE Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy CIVCOM Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management CPCC Civilian Planning on and Conduct Capability CSCE Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe CYOC Cyberspace Operations Centre DDR Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration DSG-CSDP Deputy Secretary General for CSDP and Crisis Response EaP EU Eastern Partnership EC European Community EDA European Defence Agency EDAP European Defence Action Plan EDF European Defence Fund EDI European Deterrence Initiative EDTIB EU’s Defence Technological and Industrial Base EEAS European External Action Service ENP European Neighbourhood Policy ESA European Security Architecture ESCD Emerging Security Challenges Division ESDC European Security and Defence College ESDI European Security and Defence Identity ESS European Security Strategy EU European Union EUAM European Union Advisory Mission EUFOR European Union Force EUGS European Union Global Strategy EUISS European Union Institute for Security Studies EULEX European Union Rule of Law Mission EUMC EU Military Committee EUMM European Union Monitoring Mission Georgia EUMS EU Military Staff EUNAVFOR European Union Naval Force EUPAT European Police Advisory Team EUPM European Union Police Mission EUPOL Proxima EU Police Mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia EUTM CAR European Union Training Mission Central African Republic EUTM Mali European Union Training Mission Mali EUTM Somalia European Union Training Mission Somalia FAC Foreign Affairs Council FCAST Future Combat Aerial System Hybrid CoE European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats IcSP Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace IGO Intergovernmental Organization Page 3 from 109 IHEID Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies IMS International Military Staff INTCEN Intelligence and Situation Centre ISAF International Security and Assistance Force ISPD Integrated approach for Security and Peace Directorate JISD Joint Intelligence and Security Division JSCC Joint Support Coordination Cell MBT Main Battle Tank MPCC Military Planning and Conducting Capability MRTT Multirole tanker-transport MS Member States NAC North Atlantic Council NACC North Atlantic Cooperation Council NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NCIA NATO’s Communication and Information Agency NCIRC NATO’s Computer Incident Response Capability NRC NATO-Russia Council NRF NATO’s Response Force ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe PACE Parallel and Coordinated Exercises PCA Partnership and Cooperation Agreement PCC Prague Capabilities Commitment PESCO Permanent Structured Cooperation PfP Partnership for Peace PJC Permanent Joint Council PMG Politico-military Group PSC Political Security Committee SAP EU's Stabilisation and Association Process SECDEFPOL Security and Defence Policy Directorate SHADE-MED Shared Awareness and De-confliction Mechanism SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe SITCEN Joint Situation Center SMM Special Monitoring Mission SPMU Strategic Police Matters Unit TEU Treaty on European Union UN United Nations UNOMIG United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia UNSC United Nations Security Council VJTF Very High Readiness Joint Task Force WEU Western European Union WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction WPS Women, Peace and Security WWI First World War
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reducing Nuclear Risks in Europe a FRAMEWORK for ACTION
    Reducing A FrAmework For Action Nuclear Risks e dited by Steve AndreASen in Europe And iSAbelle williAmS Featured essay: “the race between ­Cooperation and catastrophe” by sam NuNN Reducing Nuclear Risks in Europe a FrameWork For acTIoN Edit eD by STeve aNDreaSeN aND ISabelle WIllIamS Featured essay: “The race between ­Cooperation and catastrophe” by sam NuNN Nuclear ThreaT INITIaTIve Washington, D.c. t he Nuclear threat INItIatIve NTI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a mission to strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and to work to build the trust, transparency, and security that are preconditions to the ultimate fulfillment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s goals and ambitions. www.nti.org The views expressed in this publication are the authors’ own and do not reflect those of NTI, its Board of Directors, or other institutions with which the authors are associated. © 2011 the Nuclear Threat Initiative All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys- tem, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher and copyright holder. c over phoTo oF a u.S. aIr Force F-16 FIghTINg FalcoN aIrcraFT courTeSy oF The u.S. aIr Force. phoTo by maSTer SgT. WIllIam greer/releaSeD. ii T able oF coNTeNTS Acknowledgments v Authors and Reviewers vii summary coNteNt executive summary: Reassembling a More Credible NATO Nuclear Policy and Posture 1 Joan Rohlfing, Isabelle Williams, and Steve Andreasen featured essay: The Race Between Cooperation and Catastrophe 8 Sam Nunn chaPters 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Doubling NATO: Functional and Geographical Enlargement of the Alliance Ergodan Kurt Old Dominion University
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Graduate Program in International Studies Dissertations Spring 2010 Doubling NATO: Functional and Geographical Enlargement of the Alliance Ergodan Kurt Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Kurt, Ergodan. "Doubling NATO: Functional and Geographical Enlargement of the Alliance" (2010). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, International Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/4bgn-h798 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds/75 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Program in International Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOUBLING NATO: FUNCTIONAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL ENLARGEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE by Erdogan Kurt B.A. August 1996, Turkish Military Academy M.A. July 2001, Naval Postgraduate School A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2010 Approved by: ©2010 Erdogan Kurt. All rights reserved. ABSTRACT DOUBLING NATO: FUNCTIONAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL ENLARGEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE Erdogan Kurt Old Dominion University, 2010 Director: Dr. Regina Karp This dissertation studies NATO expansion as institutional adaptation. More specifically, it examines the interaction between NATO's functional and geographical enlargement. This study asserts that there is a close relationship between NATO's new functions and its enlargement.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Partnerships and the Arab Spring: Achievements and Perspectives for the 2012 Chicago Summit by Isabelle François
    TRANSATLANTIC PERSPECTIVES 1 NATO Partnerships and the Arab Spring: Achievements and Perspectives for the 2012 Chicago Summit by Isabelle François Center for Transatlantic Security Studies Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Center for Transatlantic Security Studies Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Center for Transatlantic Security Studies (CTSS) serves as a national and international focal point and resource center for multi- disciplinary research on issues relating to transatlantic security. The Center provides recommendations to senior U.S. and inter- national government and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials, publishes its research, and conducts a broad range of out- reach activities to inform the broader U.S. national and transatlantic security community. CTSS develops and conducts education and orientation programs for U.S. and allied military officers, government civilians, and interna- tional partners on issues relating to NATO and transatlantic security and defense. In partnership with both U.S. and international govern- ments and with academic and private sector institutions engaged in transatlantic security issues, the Center builds robust and mutually beneficial relationships. Cover: Chicago Skyline from Lake Michigan Photo by Esben Ehrenskjold NATO Partnerships and the Arab Spring: Achievements and Perspectives for the 2012 Chicago Summit NATO Partnerships and the Arab Spring: Achievements and Perspectives for the 2012 Chicago Summit By Isabelle François Center for Transatlantic Security Studies Institute for National Strategic Studies Transatlantic Perspectives, No. 1 National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. December 2011 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Summit Warsaw 2016: a Primer
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 7640, 4 July 2016 NATO Summit Warsaw By Louisa Brooke-Holland 2016: a primer Summary The NATO summit in Poland begins on Friday 8 July 2016. The Secretary General of NATO expects it to be a ‘landmark’ summit. NATO faces challenges on two fronts: to the east from Russia and to the south from ongoing conflict in Middle East and North Africa. The Summit will see NATO adopt further measures, building on those made at its previous summit in 2014, to deter Russia from any militarily aggression against its members. This includes the deployment of four multinational battalions to the Baltic States and Poland (one of which will be led by the UK). In addition the summit will discuss how the Alliance address instability in North Africa and the Middle East, including countering Daesh/ISIS and the refugee and migration crisis. This will include a joint statement with the EU. Members are expected to reaffirm the commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Other topics include missile defence and cyberspace as an operational domain. Montenegro will be at the Summit as an observer nation, while it awaits the formalities of joining NATO as the 29th member of the Alliance to be completed. Key information Poland hosts the next summit meeting of NATO heads of state and government in Warsaw on 8-9th July. Decisions are issued in declarations and communiqués throughout the two day summit. The last summit hosted by the UK in Newport in Wales in September 2014. Defence and Foreign Ministers of the 28 members of the Alliance meet regularly between summits.
    [Show full text]
  • Nato Enlargement: Qualifications and Contributions—Parts I–Iv Hearings
    S. HRG. 108–180 NATO ENLARGEMENT: QUALIFICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS—PARTS I–IV HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 27, AND APRIL 1, 3 AND 8, 2003 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 90–325 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:42 Nov 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 90325 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Staff Director ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:42 Nov 12, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 90325 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1 CONTENTS Thursday, March 27, 2003—Part I Page Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia, opening statement .................
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE of CONTENTS 1. Prologue
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Prologue .………………...…………………………………………………….page 4 Chapter I Theoretical Framework 2. International relations theories………... …………………...............................page 5 3. Conceptualizing NATO enlargement: an integrated approach……………...…page 9 Chapter II The history and identity of NATO 4. NATO general overview………………………………………...…………...page 11 5. NATO during the Cold War…………………………………...……………..page 13 6. NATO after the Cold War…………………………………...……………….page 17 Chapter III NATO Enlargement 7. Historical Background……………………………………………………….page 23 8. Drivers of enlargement………………………………………………………page 30 9. NATO’s first enlargement round…………………...…………………….....page 32 10. NATO’s second enlargement round………………………………..………...page 35 Chapter IV Black Sea and NATO 1. Black Sea and NATO………………………………………………………..page 40 2. The Black Sea in the context of NATO enlargement…….……………..…...page 41 3. Wider Black Sea Area – Security issues and threats……….………….…....page 43 4. Significance of the Black Sea…………………….……………………….....page 44 5. NATO’s interest in the WBSA……………………….…………………..….page 45 Chapter V Perspectives on the enlargement 1. Russia’s perspective on the enlargement……………………………………page 52 2. Turkey’s perspective on the enlargement…………………………………...page 54 3. NATO Bucharest Summit 2008…………………………...………………..page 57 Chapter VI Study Case, Ukraine 1. Ukraine’s Political Situation…………………………..…………………...page 62 2. NATO and the Orange Revolution …………………………………………page 63 3. Opinion polls on NATO’s enlargement ………………...……………….....page 64 4. Ukraine’s latest status regarding the North Atlantic Alliance……...…….....page 66 5. Conclusions………………………………………………………………….page 73 1 Chapter VII Study Case, Georgia 1. The Rose Revolution…………………………….………………………....page 78 2. Georgia and US, NATO political relations…….…………………………..page 81 3. Georgia as feasible NATO member……….……………………………....page 83 4. Russian – Georgia War 2008; ……….…………………………………....page 85 5. The Aftermath of the 5 days War……….………………………………....page 87 6.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Enlargement & Open Door
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization Fact Sheet July 2016 NATO Enlargement & Open Door NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. It states that any decision on enlargement must be made “by unanimous agreement”. NATO enlargement has helped increase stability and prosperity in Europe. It is aimed at promoting stability and cooperation, and at building a Europe united in peace, democracy and common values. Free choice NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. Each sovereign country has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty or alliance. This fundamental principle is enshrined in international agreements, including the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. NATO membership is not imposed on countries. Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave should they wish to. Process of Accession European countries that wish to join NATO are initially invited to begin an Intensified Dialogue with the Alliance about their aspirations and related reforms. Aspirants may then be invited to join the Membership Action Plan, a programme which helps nations prepare for possible future membership. Participation does not guarantee membership, but is a key preparation mechanism. To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Summit Guide Brussels, 11-12 July 2018
    NATO Summit Guide Brussels, 11-12 July 2018 A stronger and more agile Alliance The Brussels Summit comes at a crucial moment for the security of the North Atlantic Alliance. It will be an important opportunity to chart NATO’s path for the years ahead. In a changing world, NATO is adapting to be a more agile, responsive and innovative Alliance, while defending all of its members against any threat. NATO remains committed to fulfilling its three core tasks: collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security. At the Brussels Summit, the Alliance will make important decisions to further boost security in and around Europe, including through strengthened deterrence and defence, projecting stability and fighting terrorism, enhancing its partnership with the European Union, modernising the Alliance and achieving fairer burden-sharing. This Summit will be held in the new NATO Headquarters, a modern and sustainable home for a forward-looking Alliance. It will be the third meeting of Allied Heads of State and Government chaired by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. + Summit meetings + Member countries + Partners + NATO Secretary General Archived material – Information valid up to 10 July 2018 1 NATO Summit Guide, Brussels 2018 I. Strengthening deterrence and defence NATO’s primary purpose is to protect its almost one billion citizens and to preserve peace and freedom. NATO must also be vigilant against a wide range of new threats, be they in the form of computer code, disinformation or foreign fighters. The Alliance has taken important steps to strengthen its collective defence and deterrence, so that it can respond to threats from any direction.
    [Show full text]
  • SECURITY COOPERATION with the Mediterranean Region and the Broader Middle East © JFC Naples
    © JFC Naples SECURITY COOPERATION with the Mediterranean region and the broader Middle East © JFC Naples A Jordanian Navy patrol boat passes ships from NATO’s mine countermeasure force, during an exercise organised under the Mediterranean Dialogue in the Gulf of Aqaba in March 2005 NATO is developing closer security partnerships with countries in the Mediterranean region and the broader Middle East. This marks a shift in Alliance priorities towards greater involvement in these strategically important regions of the world, whose security and stability is closely linked to Euro-Atlantic security. The current drive towards increasing dialogue and cooperation with countries in these regions builds on two key decisions taken at NATO’s summit meeting in Istanbul in June 2004. Allied leaders decided – ten years after the achieve better mutual understanding between launch of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue – NATO and its Mediterranean partners and to to invite countries participating in the dispel misperceptions about the Alliance. Dialogue to establish a more ambitious and expanded partnership. The Dialogue fosters In parallel, a new, distinct but complemen- links with seven countries stretching from tary initiative was launched at the Istanbul western North Africa around the south- Summit to reach out to interested countries in ern Mediterranean rim to the Middle East: the broader Middle East region. The Istanbul Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Cooperation Initiative aims to enhance Morocco and Tunisia. Through political dia- security and stability by fostering mutually logue and practical cooperation, the Dialogue beneficial bilateral relationships, particularly aims to contribute to regional security and in the context of the fight against terrorism stability, and to promote good and friendly and countering the proliferation of weapons of relations across the region.
    [Show full text]
  • MICROCOMP Output File
    III 106TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. RES. 208 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United States policy toward the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, in light of the Alliance's April 1999 Washington Summit and the European Union's June 1999 Cologne Summit. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER 28, 1999 Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. KYL, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. HELMS) submitted the fol- lowing resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions NOVEMBER 3, 1999 Reported by Mr. HELMS, without amendment NOVEMBER 8, 1999 Considered, amended, and agreed to RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United States policy toward the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, in light of the Alliance's April 1999 Washington Summit and the European Union's June 1999 Cologne Summit. Whereas NATO is the only military alliance with both real defense capabilities and a transatlantic membership; 2 Whereas NATO is the only institution that promotes a uniquely transatlantic perspective and approach to issues concerning the security of North America and Europe; Whereas NATO's military force structure, defense planning, command structures, and force goals must be sufficient for the collective self-defense of its members, capable of projecting power when the security of a NATO member is threatened, and provide a basis for ad hoc coalitions of willing partners among NATO members to defend common values and interests; Whereas
    [Show full text]
  • The Necessary Adaptation of NATO's Military Instrument of Power
    Adaptation of NATO’s Broeks Military Instrument of Power The necessary adaptation of NATO’s Military Instrument of Power Adaptation of NATO’s Broeks Military Instrument of Power Peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region are threatened by growing instability on the southern and eastern flanks of NATO. It is Russia’s military posture and provocative military activities that have put deterrence and collective defence again high on the Alliance’s agenda. Since the Russian annexation of the Crimea in 2014 NATO has started to adapt to ensure that its deterrence and defence posture remains credible, coherent and resilient. Military exercises have been stepped up and enhanced air policing has been initiated in the Baltic and Black Sea regions. Cyber defence, and defence against missile attacks have been strengthened, while the trend of declining defence budgets has been reversed. Lieutenant General Jan Broeks* enhanced Forward Presence, Lithuania: demonstrating solidarity, determination, and ability to act by triggering an immediate Allied response to any aggression PHOTO MCD, GERBEN VAN ES * The author was Director General of NATO's International Military Staff from mid 2016 until mid 2019. Since September 2019 he has retired from active service and now supports NATO in his capacity of Senior Mentor. Sprekende kopregel Auteur BroeKS s of 2014 the Euro-Atlantic security security. These factors can all have long-term Aenvironment has become less stable and consequences for peace and security in the predictable as a result of a series of actions taken Euro-Atlantic region and for stability across the by Russia: Russia’s illegal and illegitimate globe.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Security and Defense Policy: NATO's Companion
    The European Security and Defense Policy NATO’s Companion —or Competitor? NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Robert E. Hunter The research described in this report was conducted jointly by RAND Europe and the International Security and Defense Policy Center of RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agencies under Contract DASW01-01-C-0004. ISBN: 0-8330-3117-1 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. Cover designed by Stephen Bloodsworth © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2002 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 102, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] FOREWORD Few issues have been more vexing to American policy analysts and political leaders than the emergence of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) in the last two-thirds of the 1990s and con- tinuing into the new century.
    [Show full text]