Antecedentes De La OTAN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Antecedentes de la OTAN La OTAN respeta el sistema de cumbres que se realizan periódicamente en sede de los países miembro. La Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (cuyo acrónimo en español es OTAN) es una organización internacional establecida en 1949 con el objetivo de colaborar en la defensa en los campos político, económico y militar. Nació a raíz de un acuerdo denominado Tratado del Atlántico Norte que fue firmado en Washington, D.C. el 4 de abril de 1949. El equivalente en inglés es North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Teóricamente destinado a ser una garantía de seguridad de los estados de Europa Occidental ante la Unión Soviética y sus aliados. El Pacto de Varsovia se creó más tarde, en 1955, para contrarrestar a la OTAN tras la admisión y el posible rearme de la República Federal de Alemania. Como le era propio a la coyuntura de la guerra fría las fuerzas de la OTAN actuaron sólo como fuerza disuasoria. Tras la desintegración de la Unión Soviética, la OTAN ha reformulado sus objetivos y actividades hasta apropiarse de la seguridad de todo el hemisferio norte. En este marco, se desarrolló la única operación de ataque a un país de la OTAN en toda su historia, el ataque contra Yugoslavia en 1999. Inicialmente, el ataque estaba destinado a parar la limpieza étnica en Kosovo, donde se realizó una gran cantidad de crímenes contra población civil, además de suponer el campo de pruebas del armamento radioactivo de baja intensidad (los proyectiles de uranio empobrecido). Tras la invasión de Afganistán por parte de EEUU, la OTAN ha llevado una misión encargada por la ONU llamada Fuerza Internacional de Asistencia a la Seguridad (ISAF). En Irak, simplemente se ha limitado a entrenar a las fuerzas de seguridad de este país. Las negativas de numerosos países europeos a que la OTAN actuara en Irak, encabezados por Alemania, disuadió a este organismo de involucrarse directamente en una guerra inicida por EE.UU y el Reino Unido. En septiembre de 2006, la OTAN puso en marcha la "Operación Medusa" sobre el sur de Afganistan, con el objetivo de acabar con los reductos talibanes en Panjwayee y Zhari, en Kandahar, donde los insurgentes poseían una fuerte presencia. Hasta el 10 de septiembre, se estima que han fallecido unos 400 supuestos talibanes, y 20 soldados extranjeros en Kandahar. Secretarios Generales de la OTAN • Hastings Lionel Ismay (Reino Unido): 4 de abril de 1952 - 16 de mayo de 1957. • Paul Henri Spaak (Bélgica): 16 de mayo de 1957 - 21 de abril de 1961. • Dirk Stikker (Países Bajos): 21 de abril de 1961 - 1 de agosto de 1964. • Manlio Brosio (Italia): 1 de agosto de 1964 - 1 de octubre de 1971. • Joseph Luns (Países Bajos): 1 de octubre de 1971 - 25 de junio de 1984. • Peter Carington (Reino Unido): 25 de junio de 1984 - 1 de julio de 1988. • Manfred Wörner (Alemania): 1 de julio de 1988- 13 de agosto de 1994. • Sergio Balanzino (Italia, interino): 13 de agosto - 17 de octubre de 1994. • Willy Claes (Bélgica): 17 de octubre de 1994 - 20 de octubre de 1995. • Sergio Balanzino (Italia, interino): 20 de octubre - 5 de diciembre de 1995. • Javier Solana (España): 5 de diciembre de 1995 - 6 de octubre de 1999. • George Robertson (Reino Unido): 14 de octubre de 1999 - 1 de enero de 2004. • Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Países Bajos): 1 de enero de 2004 - presente. ------------------------------ Diario Exterior .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

NATO Secretaries-General the Legacies of Joseph Luns and Jaap De Hoop Scheffer
NATO Secretaries-General The Legacies of Joseph Luns and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Ryan C. Hendrickson With the end of Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s term as NATO’s Secretary-General, the time is ripe for an initial assessment of his service as NATO’s chief diplomat. NATO’s secretary-general, an office that did not even exist until three years after the Alliance’s creation, has generated little academic scrutiny. In part, this dearth of research is understandable given the few official powers held by the Alliance’s political leader. The secretary-general is charged with promoting consensus among the Allies – a rather broad responsibility that provides few organisational tools to achieve this end. In addition, the secretary-general must oversee and manage Alliance summits and ministerial meetings, and chair meetings of the North Atlantic Council, but has no voting authority. Given this limited institutional authority, coupled with the political influence of the Alliance’s ‘great powers’ and the organisational authority wielded by NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), most histories of NATO provide little assessment of the secretary-general.1 Three individuals from the Netherlands: Dirk Stikker, Joseph Luns, and de Hoop Scheffer, have served as NATO’s chief political leader, yet each has left his own, quite different, legacy. De Hoop Scheffer’s record, at least at this first early juncture, is very different from those of his Cold War predecessors, and especially from that of his Dutch predecessor, Joseph Luns, who was NATO’s longest serving secretary-general. This essay provides a short comparison of the legacies of Luns and de Hoop Scheffer.
[Show full text]
Italy's Atlanticism Between Foreign and Internal
UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 25 (January / Enero 2011) ISSN 1696-2206 ITALY’S ATLANTICISM BETWEEN FOREIGN AND INTERNAL POLITICS Massimo de Leonardis 1 Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Abstract: In spite of being a defeated country in the Second World War, Italy was a founding member of the Atlantic Alliance, because the USA highly valued her strategic importance and wished to assure her political stability. After 1955, Italy tried to advocate the Alliance’s role in the Near East and in Mediterranean Africa. The Suez crisis offered Italy the opportunity to forge closer ties with Washington at the same time appearing progressive and friendly to the Arabs in the Mediterranean, where she tried to be a protagonist vis a vis the so called neo- Atlanticism. This link with Washington was also instrumental to neutralize General De Gaulle’s ambitions of an Anglo-French-American directorate. The main issues of Italy’s Atlantic policy in the first years of “centre-left” coalitions, between 1962 and 1968, were the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Italy as a result of the Cuban missile crisis, French policy towards NATO and the EEC, Multilateral [nuclear] Force [MLF] and the revision of the Alliance’ strategy from “massive retaliation” to “flexible response”. On all these issues the Italian government was consonant with the United States. After the period of the late Sixties and Seventies when political instability, terrorism and high inflation undermined the Italian role in international relations, the decision in 1979 to accept the Euromissiles was a landmark in the history of Italian participation to NATO.
[Show full text]
CORE View Metadata, Citation and Similar Papers at Core.Ac.Uk
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace at VSB Technical University of Ostrava VYSOKÁ ŠKOLA BÁŇSKÁ – TECHNICKÁ UNIVERZITA OSTRAVA EKONOMICKÁ FAKULTA KATEDRA EVROPSKÉ INTEGRACE Spolupráce Evropské unie a NATO v kontextu nových bezpečnostních hrozeb Cooperation of the European Union and NATO in the Context of New Security Threats Student: Bc. Martin Mlčoch Vedoucí diplomové práce: Ing. Radomír Kaňa, Ph.D. Ostrava 2016 Prohlášení Místopřísežně prohlašuji, že jsem celou práci, včetně všech příloh, vypracoval samostatně. V Ostravě dne 22. dubna 2016 … … … … … … … … … … … … vlastnoruční podpis autora Poděkování Na tomto místě bych rád poděkoval vedoucímu práce Ing. Radomíru Kaňovi Ph.D. a por. Ing. Lukášovi Esterkovi za věcné připomínky a cenné rady, čímž přispěli k vypracování této diplomové práce. Obsah 1 Úvod ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Vývoj NATO a Společné bezpečnostní a obranné politiky Evropské unie ....................... 6 2.1 Založení a vývoj NATO ................................................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Poválečná situace v Evropě a zrod NATO .............................................................. 7 2.1.2 Severoatlantická aliance v průběhu studené války .................................................. 9 2.1.3 NATO po ukončení bipolárního rozdělení světa ................................................... 17
[Show full text]
NATO and Japan: a Strategic Convergence? Post Cold-War Geopolitics: Russia, China, Anti-Piracy and Anti-Terrorism
Original Article NATO and Japan: A strategic convergence? Post cold-war geopolitics: Russia, China, anti-piracy and anti-terrorism David Scott Analyst-consultant, 7 Barrepta Close, Carbis Bay, St. Ives, Cornwall, TR26 2LL, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract In this article, I argue that NATO and Japan, from a parallel anti-Soviet Cold War position through common links with the United States, have directly moved towards each other since the 1990s. Each of them has gone more global. NATO’s ‘out of area’ operations have taken NATO eastwards from its previous focus on Europe and the Mediterranean, while Japan’s gradual multilateral activism have taken it westwards from its previous focus on East Asia. This has created geopolitical overlap between these two actors, most notably in Afghanistan but also elsewhere in the Indian Ocean. Common advocacy of liberal democracy, and overt concerns over jihadist and piracy destabilisation have brought these two actors together. NATO’s post-Cold War search for relevance meets Japan’s wider external security sensitivity, especially with regard to China’s rise. However, while NATO has adopted a flexible range of ‘Partnership’ frameworks, there have been long-running constitutional impediments to Japan deploying military forces outside its own immediate territory. It is precisely this impediment to further NATO- Japan interaction that the Japanese government has been removing during 2015. International Politics (2016) 53, 324–342. doi:10.1057/ip.2016.1; published online 4 March 2016 Keywords: NATO; Japan; geopolitics; Russia; China; anti-piracy Introduction Couched in high flowing rhetoricAUTHOR from North Atlantic Treaty Organisation COPY (NATO) figures about ‘Japan, the country in Asia with which NATO has the longest-standing relationship, a truly unique partner for the Alliance’ (Erdmann, 2007).
[Show full text]
What Is NATO?, 7698.65 KB
NATO transatlantic the Al to lia on n ti ce uc od tr n i n A Public Diplomacy Division 1110 Brussels - Belgium www.nato.int Order publications at [email protected] WIN11EN NATO w Forewordw 5 w Overvieww 6 w Respondingwtowchangew 11 w Awmajorwplayerwinwcrisiswsituationsw 17 w Extendingwsecuritywthroughwpartnershipsw 27 w PursuingwanwOpenwDoorwpolicyw 34 w Tacklingwnewwthreatswwithwnewwcapabilitiesw 37 w Organizationwdynamicsw 43 w AnwAlliancewthatwiswfitwforwpurposew 47 3 We, the political leaders of NATO, are determined to continue renewal of our Alliance so that it is fit for purpose in addressing the 21st Century security challenges [...] Our Alliance thrives as a source of hope because it is based on common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and because our common essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members. These values and objectives are universal and perpetual, and we are determined to defend them through unity, solidarity, strength and resolve. Strategic Concept Lisbon Summit, November 2010 4 “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Foreword Party of Parties so attached by taking forthwith, individual and in concert with the
[Show full text]
THE NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY from 1955-2005.Pdf
NATO Parliamentary Assembly 1955-2005 NATO Parliamentary Assembly 1955-2005 This book was produced with the generous assistance of the 50 Years parliaments of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, and Turkey. of Parliamentary Diplomacy Editor’s Note n 2004 the Assembly’s Standing Committee decided to There may be slight inconsistencies between articles. I commemorate the Assembly’s 50th anniversary. It was However, as we have aimed for articles based on personal rec- decided to hold a special plenary sitting during the 50th annual ollections, we have not attempted to reconcile occasional dif- session. To that end, during that session, which took place in ferences or discrepancies. Our goal was to retain the original Venice, a special meeting was held involving, for the first time, spontaneity of the authors’ perceptions and memories. the permanent representatives to the North Atlantic Council. This was an outstanding success, as a record number of session As with so many projects of this kind, the book has evolved participants – over a thousand – clearly showed. and become more substantial than was first envisaged. Contributions were generally longer than anticipated and as The Standing Committee also decided that the Assembly we began to see a whole picture of the project emerging, it should produce a commemorative book as an enduring way of became clear that it would merit a more visually appealing marking this important milestone in the Assembly’s history. and enduring format than was foreseen at the outset. This The volume should cover the entire span of the Assembly’s exis- had obvious financial implications, but several delegations tence, but focus specifically on the Assembly’s role from the end came forward with generous offers of assistance.
[Show full text]
An Introduction to the Transatlantic Alliance
NATO transatlantic the Al to lia on n ti ce uc od tr n i n A Public Diplomacy Division 1110 Brussels - Belgium www.nato.int Order publications at [email protected] WIN12EN NATO w Forewordw 5 w Overvieww 6 w Respondingwtowchangew 11 w Awmajorwplayerwinwcrisiswsituationsw 17 w Extendingwsecuritywthroughwpartnershipsw 27 w PursuingwanwOpenwDoorwpolicyw 34 w Tacklingwnewwthreatswwithwnewwcapabilitiesw 37 w Organizationwdynamicsw 43 w AnwAlliancewthatwiswfitwforwpurposew 47 3 We, the political leaders of NATO, are determined to continue renewal of our Alliance so that it is fit for purpose in addressing the 21st Century security challenges [...] Our Alliance thrives as a source of hope because it is based on common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and because our common essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members. These values and objectives are universal and perpetual, and we are determined to defend them through unity, solidarity, strength and resolve. Strategic Concept Lisbon Summit, November 2010 4 “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Foreword Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party of Parties so attached by taking forthwith, individual and in concert with the
[Show full text]
NATO:S Fortsatta Transformering Och Dess Betydelse För Sverige
Reformera eller vända om? - NATO:s fortsatta transformering och dess betydelse för Sverige Reformera eller vända om? - NATO:s fortsatta transformering och dess betydelse för Sverige för betydelse dess och transformering fortsatta om? - NATO:s vända eller Reformera MADELENE LindstrÖM, FREDRIK LINDVALL M AD ELE N E E Lindstr FOI är en huvudsakligen uppdragsfinansierad myndighet under Försvarsdepartementet. Kärnverksamheten är forskning, metod- och Ö M teknikutveckling till nytta för försvar och säkerhet. Organisationen har cirka 1000 anställda varav ungefär 800 är forskare. Detta gör , F R organisationen till Sveriges största forskningsinstitut. FOI ger kunderna tillgång till ledande expertis inom ett stort antal tillämpningsom- E råden såsom säkerhetspolitiska studier och analyser inom försvar och säkerhet, bedömning av olika typer av hot, system för ledning och DRIK hantering av kriser, skydd mot och hantering av farliga ämnen, IT-säkerhet och nya sensorers möjligheter. LIND V A LL FOI Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut Tel: 08-55 50 30 00 www.foi.se Försvarsanalys Fax: 08-55 50 31 00 FOI-R--2920--SE Användarrapport Försvarsanalys 164 90 Stockholm ISSN 1650-1942 December 2009 Madelene Lindström, Fredrik Lindvall Reformera eller vända om? - NATO:s fortsatta transformering och dess betydelse för Sverige FOI-R--2920--SE Titel Reformera eller vända om? – NATO:s fortsatta transformering och dess betydelse för Sverige Title Reform or turn back? NATO:s continued transformation and its impact on Sweden Rapportnr/Report no FOI-R--2920--SE Rapporttyp Användarrapport Report Type User report Månad/Month December Utgivningsår/Year 2009 Antal sidor/Pages 125 p ISSN Kund/Customer Försvarsdepartementet Forskningsområde 1. Analys av säkerhet och sårbarhet Programme area 1.
[Show full text]
Diplomacy at NATO After Iraq
Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Winter 2005-2006, Vol. 8, Issue 2. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AT NATO: AN ASSESSMENT OF JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER’S LEADERSHIP OF THE ALLIANCE Ryan C. Hendrickson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Eastern Illinois University By many standards, NATO stands today at a political crossroads. Although analysts disagree over the depth of the transatlantic political rift at NATO--largely stemming from differences over Operation Iraqi Freedom--it is clear that NATO’s collective goal of achieving political consensus remains challenging at this time.1 Under such difficult “systemic” political conditions, NATO’s current Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is charged with leading the alliance, whose job it is to promote transatlantic consensus. In previous eras of transatlantic discord, NATO’s former secretaries general have either implicitly understood or quickly discovered that their political influence among the allies is often quite limited. Those secretaries general who attempted to independently steer the alliance in directions they sought best have found their job(s) frustrating, and even worse, were marginalized politically within the alliance.2 This paper provides the first assessment of Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s leadership at NATO, who became Secretary General on 5 January, 2004. In focusing on two areas of recent NATO engagement during his leadership tenure, Iraq and Sudan, the paper examines how de Hoop Scheffer chose to steer the alliance through public diplomacy as secretary general. Although NATO’s secretaries general have historically exercised 1 Sean Kay, “What Went Wrong with NATO,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 18, 1 (2005): 69-83; Allan W.
[Show full text]
Vojenské Reflexie
ROČNÍK IV. ČÍSLO 1/2009 Akadémia ozbrojených síl generála Milana Rastislava Štefánika VEDECKO-ODBORNÝ ČASOPIS ROČNÍK IV. ČÍSLO 1/2009 2 AKADÉMIA OZBROJENÝCH SÍL GENERÁLA MILANA RASTISLAVA ŠTEFÁNIKA LIPTOVSKÝ MIKULÁŠ, 2009 Redakčná rada / Editorial board / vedecko-odborného časopisu AOS od 1. júna 2009 Čestný predseda: brig. gen. Ing. Marián ÁČ, PhD., náčelník Vojenskej kancelárie prezidenta SR Predseda: doc. Ing. Pavel BUČKA, CSc., prorektor pre vzdelávanie AOS GMRŠ Členovia: brig. gen. doc. Ing. Miroslav KELEMEN, PhD., rektor AOS GMRŠ plk. gšt. doc. Ing. Pavel NEČAS, PhD., prorektor pre vedu AOS GMRŠ plk. gšt. Ing. Ján PŠIDA, Stála delegácia SR pri NATO/EÚ Brusel Dr. Boleslav SPRENGL, rektor Wyzsa Szkola Bezpieczeństwa i Ochrony, Warszawa prof. Ing. Václav KRAJNÍK, CSc., prorektor pre vedu a zahraničné vzťahy Akadémie PZ Bratislava prof. Ing. Jozef HALÁDIK, PhD., prorektor pre vzdelávanie a rozvoj Akadémie PZ Bratislava Dr. h. c. prof. Ing. Marián MESÁROŠ, CSc., rektor VŠBM Košice prof. Ing. Vladimír SEDLÁK, CSc., prorektor pre vedu a zahraničné vzťahy VŠBM Košice prof. nadzw. dr. hab. Stanislav ZAJAS, prorektor pre vzdelávanie AON, Warszawa genmjr. v. v. Ing. Rudolf ŽÍDEK, vedúci KNB AOS GMRŠ doc. Ing. Radovan SOUŠEK, PhD., Univerzita Pardubice, ČR plk. nawig. dr. inž. Marek GRZEGORZEWSKI, WSOSP Deblin, Poland doc. Ing. Stanislav SZABO, PhD. mim. prof. , LF TU Košice doc. Ing. František ADAMČÍK, PhD., prodekan pre pedagogickú činnosť LF TU Košice plk. doc. Ing. Peter SPILÝ, PhD., vedúci Ústavu bezpečnosti AOS GMRŠ Šéfredaktor: Mgr. Silvia CIBÁKOVÁ, AOS GMRŠ Adresa redakcie/editorial board: Akadémia ozbrojených síl generála Milana Rastislava Štefánika Demänovská cesta č. 393 031 01 Liptovský Mikuláš tel.
[Show full text]
Nordatlantikvertrag-Organisation
Nordatlantikvertrag-Organisation Als NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, auch: Nordatlantikvertrag-Organisation, auf französisch l'Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord und auf spanisch Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte, abgekürzt OTAN) wird die Institution bezeichnet, die den Nordatlantikvertrag, ein militärisches Bündnis europäischer und nordamerikanischer Staaten, umsetzt. Der Sitz des Nordatlantikrats, des Hauptorgans der NATO, ist seit 1967 in Brüssel. Mitglieder Die NATO hat derzeit 26 Mitglieder. Zu den Gründungsmitgliedern, die somit seit 1949 der NATO angehören, zählen Belgien, Dänemark, Frankreich, Island, Italien, Kanada, Luxemburg, die Niederlande, Norwegen, Portugal, die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika sowie Großbritannien und Nordirland. Im Jahre 1952 traten die Türkei und Griechenland der Organisation bei und seit 1955 ist die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Mitglied der NATO. Spanien ist dem Bündnis 1982 beigetreten und 1990 erfolgte die Ausdehnung des NATO-Vertrags auf das gesamte Deutschland. Im Zuge der NATO-Osterweiterung wurden 1999 Tschechien, Polen, Ungarn sowie 2004 noch Estland, Lettland, Litauen, Bulgarien, Rumänien, die Slowakei und Slowenien Mitglieder der NATO. Besonderheiten bestehen hinsichtlich Frankreich, das seit 1966 nicht mehr in die Militärstrukturen der NATO integriert ist. Der Grund für Frankreichs Austritt lag daran, dass De Gaulle die Nato als Instrument amerikanischer Interessen nicht akzeptierte. Er wollte Frankreichs militärische Unabhängigkeit und Entscheidungsfreiheit bewahren und sich und seine französischen Truppen nicht unter US-Kommando unterordnen. Ebenfalls aus diesen Strukturen kurzfristig ausgeschieden waren Griechenland in der Zeit von 1974 bis 1981 und Spanien von 1986 bis 1999. Ein Sonderfall ist Island, das über keine eigenen Streitkräfte verfügt und sich stattdessen zu medizinischer Hilfeleistung verpflichtet hat. Inhalt des Nordatlantikvertrags Der Nordatlantikvertrag sieht ein Defensivbündnis ohne automatische militärische Beistandspflicht der Mitglieder vor.
[Show full text]
NATO Handbook 1995
NATO HANDBOOK October 1995 NATO OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND PR ESS BRUSSELS Reprinted edition, with amendments. NORTH ATLANTIC TREA TY ORGANISA TION {NATO) The North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington on 4 April 1949, created an Alliance for collective defence as defined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The Alliance links 14 European countries with the United States and Canada. MEMBER COUNTRIES Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The NATO Emblem, which appears on the cover of this book, was adopted as the symbol of the Atlantic Alliance by the North Atlantic Council in October 1953. The circle is the symbol of unity and cooperation and the compass rose suggests the common road to peace taken by the 16 member countries of the Atlantic Alliance. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS page PREFACE 11 What is NATO? 17 The Fundamental Tasks of the Alliance 18 Origins of the Alliance 20 NATO Today 21 PART I - THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ALLIANCE The Foundations of Eu rope’s New Security Environment 31 Security Architecture - A Broad Approach 39 The Alliance’s Strategic Concept 40 The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) 43 Partnership for Peace 50 NATO’s Role in Peacekeeping 58 Alliance Interaction with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)1 69 The European Security and Defence Identity 72 Arms Control 74 The Challenge of Proliferation 82 The Mediterranean 88 PART II - HOW NATO WORKS The Machinery of NATO 93 The Machinery of Cooperation 103 Fundamental Operating Principles 105 Joint Decision-Making 105 Political Consultation 107 Crisis Management 110 The Defence Dimension 111 Nuclear Policy 113 Economic Cooperation 114 Public Information 117 The NATO Security Investment Programme (Common Infrastructure) 119 ' Formerly CSCE.
[Show full text]