Nicolas Sarkozy and NATO

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Nicolas Sarkozy and NATO Nicolas Sarkozy and NATO Ryan Hendrickson President Nicolas Sarkozy’s announcement that France seeks to reintegrate into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s military command is welcome news to an Alliance in challenging times. Many analysts have portrayed NATO as an organisation with profound policy differences during the presidency of George W. Bush. Moreover, NATO faces a growing insurgency in Afghanistan that will be difficult to defeat. Since President Bush came to office, broad transatlantic differences have surfaced between the United States and much of Europe, yet within NATO Headquarters, many of the more significant debates have been between the United States and France. In this context, Sarkozy’s interest in France’s heightened military integration has both valuable symbolic as well as practical significance for NATO’s future. This essay provides a brief summary of France’s recent history with NATO, and follows with a discussion of the potential gains that may result with Sarkozy’s proposals. France’s Evolution in NATO At NATO’s inception, France was one of Europe’s leading advocates for an Alliance that pledged American strategic and military interests explicitly to Europe. Although historians note that French views in 1948 and 1949 were shaped primarily by its fears of a resurgent German military rather than potential threats from the Soviet Union, France was still a critical founding member in encouraging this new military Alliance.1 After its creation, diplomatic relations between the NATO Allies were never as rosy as some post Cold War analysts suggest, although the common threat of the Soviet Union served as the catalyst for some degree of strategic cooperation.2 NATO’s most profound Cold War crisis that continues to have relevance today came with French President Charles de Gaulle’s call in 1966 for the removal of NATO’s political headquarters from France within one year’s time, and for France’s departure from the Alliance’s integrated military command. These demands, which resulted in the creation of NATO’s Defence Planning Committee – a military planning body that can operate without explicit French approval – has shaped France’s relationship with NATO since this time. Many analysts have examined France’s relations with NATO during and after the Cold War, most of which maintains that France continued to exercise considerable independence from the Allies since De Gaulle’s unilateralism.3 Notably, French President Jacques Chirac, however, made important advances to improve relations between France and the Allies in 1996. Yet when the Allies met at NATO’s 1997 Madrid Summit to discuss membership enlargement, French differences with many of them were significant, and were only resolved after last hour diplomatic efforts. Moreover, during NATO’s bombing campaign against Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 – Operation Allied Force – France was more willing than others to veto military targets that Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) Wesley Clark had selected. French military leaders have since criticized what they perceived as American military dominance of the operation.4 Thus, despite Chirac’s overtures, French independence was still alive and well. After the 11 September 2001 terrorist strikes on the United States, the Allies coalesced to invoke North Atlantic Treaty Article 5, indicating robust Alliance support for America’s challenge to address global terrorist movements. This transatlantic support, however, evaporated rapidly over the next year with President George W. Bush’s movement to war with Iraq. At NATO, these differences culminated in February 2003, when Secretary-General George Robertson failed to successfully utilize the Alliance’s silence procedure in an effort to gain consensus: Belgium, France, and Germany openly spoke out against American foreign 1 policy interests in Turkey. Later, Robertson turned to the Defence Planning Committee to help resolve this crisis.5 Since 2003, debates within NATO have followed along similar lines. In Alliance discussions in 2004 and 2005 over NATO’s role in Iraq and Sudan, the intra-Alliance discord is best described as policy differences between France and the United States.6 In 2006, differences over the placement of training operations for the NATO Response Force (NRF) pitted France against the U.S.7 While European opposition to the Bush administration’s policies toward Iraq shaped much of the transatlantic dialogue, at NATO it has often been France that has frequently quarreled with the United States on major strategic as well as tactical aspects of Alliance operations, which makes Sarkozy’s calls for change all the more novel and welcome. Sarkozy’s Rapprochement and Demands Given the Gaullist legacy evident in French foreign policy and the recent debates between France and the United States in Brussels, President Sarkozy’s calls for change potentially represent a meaningful break from the past. In September 2007, Sarkozy announced that France sought to fully reintegrate into all facets of NATO’s organisational structure.8 To be sure, one should not over-emphasise the degree of France’s ‘absence’ from NATO’s internal debates since 1966 as noted above. Nonetheless, for an Alliance that suffered considerably in the weeks leading up to the war in Iraq, and with NATO’s ongoing and ostensibly long- term challenge in Afghanistan, France’s call for a new relationship has important value to an Alliance in need of a political boost. Sarkozy later clarified his position on reintegration, noting that he sought American approval for an independent defence capacity for the European Union, and for France to obtain military leadership positions ‘at the highest level’ within NATO’s military command structures.9 Although these calls come with some potential risks to the Alliance, for a number of reasons Sarkozy’s calls should be welcomed. Courting Sarkozy French Input… For a variety of reasons the Allies should do as much as possible to respond reasonably to Nicolas Sarkozy’s requests. First, it must be recognised that France plays a major role in global security and has the ability to project force like few others in the Alliance. At the present time, France has approximately 13,000 troops deployed in a variety of security and peacekeeping operations. The breadth of France’s international presence speaks to its capability and willingness to project force beyond its borders (see Table 1). The relevant point is that in an era when so many of the Allies struggle both politically and financially with force projection, France has demonstrated its ability to conduct an array of operations abroad. One especially notable operation was its leadership of the European Union’s Operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2003, which according to a number of measures, would have never happened without French leadership.10 On another potentially important measure of national defence capabilities, military spending levels, France is also considerably different from most of the Allies. It has consistently spent more than 2 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on military expenditures, which is a goal that all of the Allies agreed to at NATO’s 2002 Prague Summit. As Table 2 indicates, France has maintained this spending level since 2002 and Sarkozy has reiterated his interest in continued spending on modernised defence forces. Although the measure of 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product has its analytical limitations since countries could still spend and invest wisely with smaller defence expenditures, it is nonetheless striking how different France is from others on this measure. For example, in 2 2005 Germany spent only 38 billion dollar on defence, or 1.4 per cent of its GDP. Belgium devoted a mere 1.1 percent of its GDP to military expenditures, or 4.2 billion dollar. Among Europe’s NATO Allies, only Bulgaria, France, Greece, Romania, Turkey, and the United Kingdom spend at or above the 2 per cent level. Within Europe, apart from the United Kingdom, France spends more in absolute dollars than all others.11 Indeed, in an era when investments in defence capabilities and force projection are viewed as critical measures for meeting current and future security challenges, France stands above many, and thus is and will be increasingly well-positioned to conduct global security operations. This gap in military spending and capabilities between France and most in Europe remains a real concern among both Americans and Europeans, but also speaks to the potential role for France within NATO and its attractiveness to the Allies in future security operations.12 Under Sarkozy, France has indicated its willingness to play a larger role in Afghanistan.13 Thus, when French political will matches with Alliance interests, France is positioned to make significant contributions to NATO, which benefits all members in current and future operations. …and Demands Apart from the potential utility of France’s military to the Alliance, which it is already demonstrating on a number of fronts, Sarkozy’s demands that run parallel to its reintegration into NATO represent only a minimal risk to the Alliance. His first concern, that the European Union works to develop an autonomous military capability, squares well with NATO’s needs. As has been suggested many times before by NATO’s current and previous Secretaries- General, the European Allies need to spend more on defence. If the principle of a militarily stronger EU serves as a catalyst for higher defence spending, then NATO stands to benefit as well. Moreover, with now 27 EU members, it is increasingly difficult to envision the European Union engaging in military operations that are not widely supported across Europe, and thus implicitly, by the United States.14 Given that some EU members are more closely aligned with the United States than others in Europe, it is difficult to see an EU mission that would not square with American interests.
Recommended publications
  • Nato Enlargement
    Committee Reports POLITICAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE REPORT NATO ENLARGEMENT Bert Koenders (Netherlands) International Secretariat Rapporteur October 2001 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: NATO ENLARGEMENT AND PRIORITIES FOR THE ALLIANCE II. NATO'S LAST ENLARGEMENT ROUND - LESSONS LEARNED A. CONTRIBUTION OF NEW MEMBERS TO EUROPEAN SECURITY B. THE MEMBERSHIP ACTION PLAN (MAP) III. STATUS OF PREPARATIONS OF THE NINE APPLICANT COUNTRIES A. ALBANIA B. BULGARIA C. ESTONIA D. LATVIA E. LITHUANIA F. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA G. ROMANIA H. SLOVAKIA I. SLOVENIA IV. FURTHER NATO ENLARGEMENT AND SECURITY IN THE EURO- ATLANTIC AREA A. RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA B. RELATIONS WITH UKRAINE V. NATO ENLARGEMENT AND EU ENLARGEMENT VI. CONCLUSIONS VII. APPENDIX I. INTRODUCTION: NATO ENLARGEMENT AND PRIORITIES FOR THE ALLIANCE 1. The security landscape in Europe has been radically altered since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the "velvet revolutions" of 1989 and 1990. Though the risk of an all-out confrontation between the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact and NATO no longer exists, pockets of instability, including military conflict, remain on the European continent. The debate on NATO enlargement has to be seen principally in the context of the transformation of NATO from a defence alliance into an organisation additionally charged with providing, or at least contributing to, comprehensive security. 2. NATO's adaptation to the changing security environment is mirrored in its opening up to the countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This has been reflected in the updating of the Strategic Concept, but also in a process that consists of developing and intensifying dialogue and co-operation with the members of the former Warsaw Pact.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.1 Defense Spending During the Cold War (1947-1991)
    Influencing NATO Shaping NATO Through U.S. Foreign Policy Justin Sing Masteroppgave Forsvarets høgskole Spring 2020 II *The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the the United States Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, or the Department of Defense. Summary An assessment of the influence of United States foreign policy impact on the decision of NATO members to formally accept policies which align with U.S. strategic goals. The assessment looks at the National Security Strategy and Defense Strategic documents of each United States Presidential Administration following the end of the Cold War to determine changes to U.S. commitment to NATO and the resultant changes to Alliance force posture and defense spending agreements. The paper also assesses the impacts of U.S. Administration changes in rhetoric, and of U.S. direct military action in specific NATO-led operations against the resultant decision of NATO members to accede to U.S. demands for increased defense spending. III *The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the the United States Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, or the Department of Defense. Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2 Method ............................................................................................................................ 3 3 United States Historical Perspective of the
    [Show full text]
  • The Nato-Russia Council and Changes in Russia's Policy
    THE NATO-RUSSIA COUNCIL AND CHANGES IN RUSSIA’S POLICY TOWARDS NATO A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY BEISHENBEK TOKTOGULOV IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SEPTEMBER 2015 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Bağcı Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Oktay F. Tanrısever Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık (METU,IR) Prof. Dr. Oktay F. Tanrısever (METU,IR) Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Bağcı (METU,IR) Prof. Dr. Fırat Purtaş (GU,IR) Assist. Prof. Dr. Taylan Özgür Kaya (NEU,IR) ii PLAGIARISM I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Beishenbek Toktogulov Signature : iii ABSTRACT THE NATO-RUSSIA COUNCIL AND CHANGES IN RUSSIA’S POLICY TOWARDS NATO Toktogulov, Beishenbek Ph.D., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Oktay F. Tanrısever September 2015, 298 pages The objective of this thesis is to explain the changes in Russia’s policy towards NATO after the creation of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) in 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prague Summit and Nato's Transformation
    THE PRAGUE SUMMIT AND NATO’S TRANSFORMATION NATO PUBLIC DIPLOMACY DIVISION 1110 Brussels - Belgium Web site: www.nato.int E-mail: [email protected] A READER’S GUIDE THE PRAGUE SUMMIT AND NATO’S TRANSFORMATION SUMMIT AND NATO’S THE PRAGUE PRARGENG0403 A READER’S GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 3 I THE SUMMIT DECISIONS 9 II KEY ISSUES 19 New members: Expanding the zone of security 20 New capabilities: Adapting to modern challenges 26 New relationships: Practical cooperation and dialogue 34 After Prague: The road ahead 67 © NATO 2003 NATO INVITEES Country* Capital Population GDP Defence Active Troop *Data based on (million) (billion expenditures Strength national sources Euros) (million Euros) Bulgaria (25) Sofia 7.8 16.9 494 (2.9% GDP) 52 630 Estonia (27) Tallin 1.4 6.8 130 (1.9% GDP) 4 783 Latvia (33) Riga 2.3 8.8 156 (1.8% GDP) 9 526 Lithuania (34) Vilnius 3.5 14.5 290 (2.0% GDP) 17 474 Romania (36) Bucharest 22.3 47.9 1117 (2.3% GDP) 99 674 Slovakia (38) Bratislava 5.4 24.9 493 (2.0% GDP) 29 071 ★ Slovenia (39) Ljubljana 2.0 22.4 344 (1.5% GDP) 7 927 III DOCUMENTATION 71 Prague Summit Declaration – 21 November 2002 72 Prague Summit Statement on Iraq – 21 November 2002 78 Announcement on Enlargement – 21 November 2002 79 Report on the Comprehensive Review of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and Partnership for Peace - 21 November 2002 80 Partnership Action Plan Against Terrorism - 21 November 2002 87 Chairman’s Summary of the Meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at Summit Level – 22 November 2002 94 Statement by NATO
    [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]
  • 'One In, All In?' NATO's Next Enlargement
    ‘One in, all in?’ NATO’s next enlargement TERRY TERRIFF, STUART CROFT, ELKE KRAHMANN, MARK WEBBER AND JOLYON HOWORTH In the wake of the war in Kosovo, and the subsequent downfall of President Milosevic, it was easy to see NATO as the most powerful military organization in the world. A large number of states that are geographically close to the alliance share this assessment and therefore quite naturally seek to benefit from NATO membership. Managing this persistent demand to enlarge, however, has confronted the alliance with a number of difficult political and strategic issues. At NATO’s Madrid summit in 1997, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (the so-called Visegrad Three) were invited to join, and they formally acceded to the alliance shortly before the 1999 Washington summit.1 The alliance also noted at Washington that it would consider further enlargement at its summit º meeting in Prague in November 2002. The NATO secretary-general, Lord Robertson, reiterated this claim in June 2001, saying that ‘NATO hopes and expects, based on current and anticipated progress by the aspiring members, to continue the process of enlargement at the forthcoming Prague summit. In other words, the so-called “zero option” is off the table.’2 There are currently ten official applicants for membership—Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mace- donia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (the so-called Vilnius Nine), plus Croatia— and there is a very real possibility that other states, such as Ukraine,3 might follow in the not too distant future. The question is not whether NATO will invite more states to become members at the Prague summit, but how many it will invite.
    [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]
  • MICROCOMP Output File
    S. HRG. 106±144 NATO'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY SUMMIT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 21, 1999 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 58±335 CC WASHINGTON : 1999 VerDate 11-SEP-98 14:44 Sep 20, 1999 Jkt 549297 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 58335 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey BILL FRIST, Tennessee JAMES W. NANCE, Staff Director EDWIN K. HALL, Minority Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-SEP-98 14:44 Sep 20, 1999 Jkt 549297 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 58335 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1 CONTENTS Page Cambone, Dr. Stephen A., research director, Institute for National Security Studies, National Defense University, Washington, DC .................................. 32 Prepared statement of ...................................................................................... 45 Grossman, Hon. Marc, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs ......... 14 Prepared statement of ...................................................................................... 50 Hadley, Hon. Stephen, partner, Shea and Gardner, Washington, DC ................ 31 Kramer, Hon. Franklin D., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs .................................................................................................... 19 Prepared statement of ...................................................................................... 53 Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Central European University the Limits of Rhetorical
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY THE LIMITS OF RHETORICAL ENTRAPMENT: NATO ENLARGEMENT IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE BY LIDIJA LEVKOVSKA SUBMITTED TO CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND EUROPEAN STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND EUROPEAN STUDIES SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR ERIN JENNE CEU eTD Collection BUDAPEST, HUNGARY 5 JUNE 2008 16 000 WORDS Abstract NATO enlargement has been recognized as the most successful policy the Alliance has embarked on since the end of the Cold War. The enlargement has been subject to many theoretical explanations aiming to explain the driving force behind the decision to expand the Alliance and extend invitations to former adversaries. Rationalist and constructivists theories of international relations confirmed to be puzzled by NATO’s decision to pursue eastern enlargement. The following work employs the “rhetorical action” conceptual lens, which explains the enlargement puzzle for the first and the second round of NATO expansion. However, the third round of enlargement questions the relevance of the “rhetorical action” and places this theoretical framework in the same group of theories that fail to fully explain the enlargement policy of the Alliance. This thesis will first examine how the argumentative strategies employed by the proponents to enlarge to candidate countries at the 1997 Madrid Summit and the 2002 Prague Summit succeeded in persuading opponents of enlargement to uphold to their commitments. Secondly, this thesis shows how ‘rhetorical action’ failed to influence the enlargement decisions taken at the Bucharest Summit in 2008. The third round of enlargement and the outcome brings the debate back to rationalist conceptual lens where the rational preferences dominate accession decisions of the Alliance by placing the emphasis on CEU eTD Collection preserving Alliance unity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reader's Guide to the Nato Summit in Washington
    THE READER’S GUIDE TO THE NATO SUMMIT IN WASHINGTON 23 - 25 APRIL 1999 ISBN 92-845-0132-6 Contents 1 Introduction How to use this Guide 7 2 Summing up the Summit The Washington Declaration 11 Washington Summit Communiqué 13 Achievements of the Washington Summit 25 3 NATO in the Balkans Statement on Kosovo 29 Chairman’s Summary of the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the Level of Heads of State and Government with Countries in the Region of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 31 Statement following the Meetings of Foreign and Defence Ministers 33 Extracts from the Washington Summit Communiqué on NATO’s Role in the Former Yugoslavia 35 NATO’s Role in Relation to Kosovo 37 NATO’s Role in Bosnia and Herzegovina 43 4 Strategy and Defence The Alliance’s Strategic Concept 47 Defence Capabilities Initiative 61 Background to the Strategic Concept 63 Development of the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) within NATO 65 The Combined Joint Task Forces Concept 67 Reform of NATO’s Integrated Military Command Structure 69 5 NATO’s Open Door Membership Action Plan 73 The Accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland 81 NATO’s Open Door Policy 83 6 NATO’s Partnership Activities Chairman’s Summary of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at Summit Level 87 Declaration of the Heads of State and Government Participating in the NATO-Ukraine Commission Summit 89 Further Development of the EAPC 91 Partnership for Peace - An Enhanced and More Operational Partnership 93 NATO and Russia 95 NATO and Ukraine 97 Mediterranean Dialogue 99 Civil
    [Show full text]
  • NATO After the End of the Cold War a Brief History NATO After the End of the Cold War a Brief History
    ZDEněK KřÍž NATO after the End of the Cold War A Brief History NATO after the End of the Cold War A Brief History Zdeněk Kříž Všechna práva vyhrazena. Žádná část této elektronické knihy nesmí být reprodukována nebo šířena v papírové, elektronické či jiné podobě bez předchozího písemného souhlasu vykonavatele majetkových práv k dílu, kterého je možno kontaktovat na adrese Nakladatelství Masarykovy univerzity, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno. All rights reserved. No part of this e-book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of copyright administrator which can be contacted at Masaryk University Press, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno. Masaryk University Brno 2015 This book was published within the project “Innovation of Bachelor Study Programmes for Better Employability” (reg. number: CZ.1.07/2.2.00/28.0238). This project is co-funded by the European Social Fund and by the national budget of the Czech Republic. For more information on the project see: http://www.fss.muni.cz/cz/site/struktura/projekty/inza. Scientific Editorial Board of Masaryk University: prof. PhDr. Ladislav Rabušic, CSc. Mgr. Iva Zlatušková Ing. Radmila Droběnová, Ph.D. Mgr. Michaela Hanousková doc. Mgr. Jana Horáková, Ph.D. doc. JUDr. Josef Kotásek, Ph.D. Mgr. et Mgr. Oldřich Krpec, Ph.D. prof. PhDr. Petr Macek, CSc. PhDr. Alena Mizerová doc. Ing. Petr Pirožek, Ph.D. doc. RNDr. Lubomír Popelínský, Ph.D. Mgr. David Povolný Mgr. Kateřina Sedláčková, Ph.D. prof. RNDr. David Trunec, CSc. prof. MUDr. Anna Vašků, CSc. prof. PhDr. Marie Vítková, CSc.
    [Show full text]
  • CRPT-105Erpt14.Pdf
    105TH CONGRESS EXEC. RPT. 2d Session SENATE 105±14 "! PROTOCOLS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON ACCESSION OF POLAND, HUNGARY, AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC MARCH 6, 1998.ÐOrdered to be printed Mr. HELMS, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany Treaty Doc. 105±36] The Committee on Foreign Relations to which was referred the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on Accession of Po- land, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, which were opened for sig- nature at Brussels on December 16, 1997, and signed on behalf of the United States of America and other parties to the North Atlan- tic Treaty, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof subject to seven declarations and four condi- tions as set forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of ratification. CONTENTS Page I. The Future of NATO and the Enlargement of the Alliance ....................... 2 II. Qualifications of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic for NATO Membership ................................................................................................ 8 III. The Cost of NATO Enlargement .................................................................. 17 IV. NATO-Russia Relations ................................................................................. 23 V. Senate Action ................................................................................................. 28 VI. Resolution of Ratification .............................................................................
    [Show full text]