DOCSLIB.ORG

Lisbon and the Evolution of NATO's New Partnership Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lisbon and the Evolution of NATO's New Partnership Policy Lisbon and the Evolution of NATO’s New Partnership Policy Rebecca R. MOORE* Abstract Key Words NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept identifies NATO, strategic concept, partnership cooperative security as one of “three essential policy, Partnership for Peace, Euro-Atlantic core tasks” to be achieved in part “through a Partnership Council, Mediterranean wide network of partner relationships with Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. countries and organizations around the globe”. To facilitate the construction of this broader Introduction network of partners, the Alliance adopted a new partnership policy in April 2011, designed Meeting in Berlin in April 2011, to facilitate “more efficient and flexible” NATO foreign ministers adopted a new partnership arrangements. The policy offers a partnership policy designed to facilitate number of new tools to foster the cooperative “more efficient and flexible” partnership security efforts deemed so critical under the arrangements with NATO’s growing new strategic concept and permits potential and increasingly diverse assortment of and existing partners an opportunity to shape partners. The new policy served to fulfill their own relationships with NATO. In so doing, however, it moves the Alliance toward a pledge taken at the Lisbon summit in less differentiation between partners and fails 2010 to enhance NATO’s partnerships to clarify the role of like-minded partners in further by “develop[ing] political preserving and extending the liberal security dialogue and practical cooperation with order that NATO’s initial partnerships were any nations and relevant organisations designed to enlarge. across the globe that share [the Allies’] interest in peaceful international 1 * Rebecca R. Moore is Professor of Political relations.” Although NATO has since Science at Concordia College in Moorhead, the early 1990s maintained multiple Minnesota. She is the author of NATO’s New partnership frameworks (e.g. Partnership Mission, (Praeger Security International, 2007) and co-editor with Gülnur Aybet of, NATO for Peace (PfP) Euro- Atlantic Partnership in Search of a Vision, (Georgetown University Council (EAPC), the Mediterranean Press, 2010) Dialogue (MD), and the Istanbul 55 PERCEPTIONS, Spring 2012, Volume XVII, Number 1, pp. 55-74. Rebecca R. Moore Cooperation Initiative (ICI)), the 2010 namely, the Mediterranean Dialogue, Strategic Concept issued at Lisbon makes which dated back to 1994 and the partnership a key component of NATO’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, created new strategy, by identifying “cooperative in 2004. NATO’s ability to engage security” as one of “three essential core these states in dialogue under the new tasks” to be achieved in part “through policy affirmed the importance of the a wide network of partner relationships Berlin agreement and the flexibility that with countries and organisations around it offered for engaging partners across the globe”.2 This heightened emphasis existing frameworks. on partnership reflected a growing At the same time, however, the Arab realization that partners are essential to Spring movements of 2011 highlighted addressing the increasingly global security one of the key challenges that has plagued challenges NATO currently confronts, many of NATO’s partnership efforts; as well as the emergence of a broad namely, that of undemocratic partners consensus within the Alliance that both whose domestic political practices are existing and prospective partnerships deeply at odd with the liberal democratic must become more functional. Indeed, values that NATO has pledged to the new policy was designed, not only to defend and which remain at the core of facilitate greater dialogue among partners its identity. Although the partnership outside and across existing partnership policy adopted in Berlin affirms that a frameworks; it also opens to all partners commitment to the values of “individual opportunities for practical cooperation liberty, democracy, human rights and with NATO that may previously have the rule of law” remains “fundamental” been available in only one of NATO’s to NATO’s partnership initiatives, the partnership structures. reality is that many of NATO’s existing Somewhat unexpectedly, NATO as well as potential partners, in the found itself with an opportunity to Middle East and beyond, are not liberal implement the new policy even before democracies. Indeed, non-democratic its final approval by NATO foreign partners have proved problematic in the ministers in April 2011. On March past, including in Central Asia where 27, 2011, just prior to the Berlin the success of NATO’s International meeting, NATO had agreed to assume Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has responsibility for Operation Unified depended to a considerable degree on Protector in Libya, a mission that regional partners which- despite their necessitated immediate dialogue with participation in NATO’s Partnership for regional actors participating in two Peace and Euro-Atlantic Cooperation of NATO’s partnership frameworks; Council- remain repressive authoritarian 56 Lisbon and the Evolution of NATO’s New Partnership Policy regimes. As NATO continues to reach adversaries to establish diplomatic out to an increasingly diverse group of liaisons to NATO and later established partners under the new policy, it will be institutional frameworks for dialogue forced to wrestle with the reality that and military cooperation in the form of many of those NATO has deemed it PfP and the North Atlantic Cooperation necessary to engage- such as China, for Council (NACC), which later became example- are not enthusiastic supporters the EAPC. At the time of their inception, of the liberal security order that NATO these institutions were designed to has sought to enlarge since the early serve largely as political instruments 1990s. for encouraging the growth of liberal Ultimately, the issue that NATO democratic values beyond NATO’s has yet to resolve revolves around the borders and building a new, integrated fundamental purpose of its partnerships. and democratic Europe. Although PfP While the 2010 Strategic Concept began as a means of engaging the states identifies cooperative security as a core of Central and Eastern Europe, short task to be fulfilled in part through the of permitting them full entry into the broadening and deepening of NATO’s Alliance, once the enlargement decision partnerships, cooperation cannot be had been taken, it quickly became clear an end in and of itself. Rather, NATO that both PfP and the EACP would serve will first have to clarify the longer-term as instruments for assisting prospective function that partnerships are intended members in implementing the liberal to serve. Indeed, to some degree, democratic practices expected of NATO disagreements within the Alliance in members. Moreover, active participation recent years over the form and function in PfP and EAPC activities became an of NATO’s partnerships reflect an important consideration in membership absence of consensus regarding NATO’s decisions. core function, including the extent to which its focus should be global rather With Macedonia, Bosnia, than regional in nature. Montenegro, Serbia, and Georgia still in the pipeline The Beginnings of as possible NATO members, Partnership partnership remains an important tool for completing The scope and function of NATO’s the unfinished process of partnerships has changed enormously European integration and since the early 1990s when the Allies partnership. first invited their former Warsaw Pact 57 Rebecca R. Moore With Macedonia, Bosnia, observed at the time, the Alliance Montenegro, Serbia, and Georgia still in would have to shift from a “geographic” the pipeline as possible NATO members, to “functional” approach if it was to partnership remains an important tool respond effectively to new challenges.4 for completing the unfinished process of Accordingly, NATO’s partnerships also European integration and partnership. took on a new dimension. Although Indeed, while all of these states are PfP/ partnership would remain an important EAPC members, NATO maintains tool in the European integration project, special partnership arrangements with it also came to be understood as a both Georgia and Ukraine in the form means by which NATO could “project the NATO-Georgia and NATO-Ukraine stability” outside of Europe, in part Commissions, created in part to assist by encouraging partners- both those these states in fulfilling their membership with and those without membership aspirations. Ukraine’s interest in NATO, aspirations- to contribute in some however, has faded under the current capacity to NATO’s military missions in regime, and Georgia is also unlikely to Kosovo, Afghanistan, and even Iraq. This accede to NATO anytime soon, given new partnership function overlapped concerns about antagonizing Russia, with the earlier integrative mission in so which NATO also counts as a partner far as prospective member states were put through the vehicle of the NATO-Russia on notice that they would be evaluated Council (NRC).3 in part based on their demonstrated ability to act as security producers and not simply as consumers of NATO The Impact of September 11 assistance. From NATO’s perspective, partnership was no longer simply about The focus of NATO’s partnership what NATO could do for partners but initiatives has also shifted since the rather what partners could do to enhance September 11 terrorist attacks in the security in the Euro-Atlantic area. United States. Indeed, NATO’s efforts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NATO's 60Th Anniversary Summit
    NATO’s 60th Anniversary Summit Paul Belkin, Coordinator Analyst in European Affairs Carl Ek Specialist in International Relations Lisa Mages Information Research Specialist Derek E. Mix Analyst in European Affairs April 14, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40454 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress NATO’s 60th Anniversary Summit Summary On April 3 and 4, 2009, the heads of state and government of the 26 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) met in Strasbourg, France, and Kehl, Germany for a summit marking the 60th anniversary of the alliance. The summit was one of three stops on President Obama’s first official visit to Europe as President. Alliance leaders used the anniversary summit to pay tribute to NATO’s past achievements and to reaffirm their commitment to the alliance as the preeminent transatlantic security framework. They also completed a new round of NATO enlargement, sought common positions on the range of challenges currently facing the alliance, and began to set the parameters for NATO’s future direction. The key issue facing the alliance is the ongoing mission in Afghanistan, where allied governments are struggling to reach a strategic consensus on how to stabilize the country. The deteriorating security situation in the country has caused many to question the ability of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to achieve its objectives and has exposed rifts within the alliance as to ISAF’s mission and the appropriate means to accomplish it. NATO’s strained relations with Russia are a second key issue.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • NATO and Afghanistan Beyond 2014
    Research Paper Research Division - NATO Defense College, Rome - No. 80 – July 2012 After Combat, the Perils of Partnership: NATO and Afghanistan beyond 2014 by Sten Rynning 1 Introduction NATO is set to terminate its combat mission in Afghanistan and establish Afghan security leadership by the end of 2014 – a process which the Alliance defined as “irreversible” at its Contents Chicago summit on 20-21 May 2012. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) will thus complete its mission after thirteen years, and become history. However, NATO Introduction 1 is not just packing up and going home. In 2010 the Alliance launched its proposal for an Enduring Partnership with Afghanistan, and in Chicago it declared: “Afghanistan will not The Road to Partnership 2 stand alone.” Afghanistan can count on NATO’s “enduring commitment” to the country, The View from Chicago 3 and NATO will now prepare “a new training, advising and assistance mission” that can 2 Into the Zone of Discomfort 4 begin in January 2015. Forward to a Modest Partnership 5 To the lay observer this may seem straightforward: after combat comes partnership. It could appear that NATO is gearing up for a substantial partnership. After all, the 6 Options for Change partnership comes with the label “enduring”, and partnership is clearly a key element in Conclusion 8 making transition possible. A substantial and ambitious Enduring Partnership is unlikely, however. People who have high hopes for NATO’s post-2014 role in Afghanistan are thus cautioned by this paper to revise their expectations downwards. There are many good reasons for this.
    [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]
  • Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe
    Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe Steven A. Hildreth Specialist in Missile Defense Carl Ek Specialist in International Relations September 23, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34051 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe Summary In early 2007, after several years of internal discussions and consultations with Poland and the Czech Republic, the Bush Administration formally proposed deploying a ground-based mid- course defense (GMD) element in Europe of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would have included 10 interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar deployed in a country closer to Iran, all to be completed by 2013 at a reported cost of at least $4 billion. The proposed European BMD capability raised a number of foreign policy challenges in Europe and with Russia. On September 17, 2009, the Obama Administration announced it would cancel the Bush- proposed European BMD program. Instead, Defense Secretary Gates announced U.S. plans to develop and deploy a regional BMD capability that can be deployed around the world on relatively short notice during crises or as the situation may demand. Gates argued this new capability, based primarily around current BMD sensors and interceptors, would be more responsive and adaptable to growing concern over the direction of Iranian short- and medium- range ballistic missile proliferation. This capability would continue to evolve and expand over the next decade. This report is updated for Senate consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R.
    [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 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]
  • 8Th RUSI Missile Defence Conference
    Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament Presentation by Mr Peter C.W. Flory NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment on 28 June 2007 Mr Chairman, Introduction & Summary I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Security and Defense to provide an overview of what we are doing in NATO to counter the increasing threat from ballistic missiles. This is an item of tremendous mutual interest – after all, 21 members of NATO, who are participating in NATO discussions on missile defense, are also members of the EU; a threat to NATO is a threat to the EU. So I welcome the opportunity to appear before you, and to address your questions and concerns. For some time, the NATO Alliance has been engaged in serious debate on how best to protect deployed forces, population centres and territory of NATO member states from ballistic missiles – possibly carrying chemical, biological or nuclear warheads. Earlier this year the United States announced it would seek to enhance both its defence and that of its allies by fielding ground-based missile defence assets in Europe. To that end, the US has begun discussions with Poland and the Czech Republic. Two other NATO Allies and European Union members, the UK and Denmark, already participate in the US missile defence system. 1 Discussions on extending the coverage of the US missile defence to Europe where it would cover most but not all Allies have put missile defence at the top of NATO’s agenda. Missile Defence goes to the heart of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, whereby Allies agree to come to the aid of each other when attacked.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe
    Order Code RL34051 Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe Updated July 25, 2007 Steven A. Hildreth Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Carl Ek Specialist in International Relations Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe Summary Successive U.S. administrations have urged the creation of an anti-missile system to protect against threats from rogue states. The Bush Administration believes that North Korea and Iran are strategic threats and questions whether they can be deterred by conventional means. The Administration has built long-range missile defense bases in Alaska and California to protect against North Korean missiles. The system has been tested, with mixed results, and questions have been raised about its effectiveness. The Administration has proposed deploying a ground-based mid-course defense (GMD) element of the larger Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in Europe to defend against an Iranian missile threat. The system would include 10 interceptors in Poland, and radar in the Czech Republic. Deployment of the European GMD capability is scheduled to be completed by 2013 at a cost of $4.04 billion. The proposed U.S. system has encountered resistance in some European countries and beyond. Critics in Poland and the Czech Republic assert that neither country currently faces a notable threat from Iran, but that if American GMD facilities were installed, both countries might be targeted by missiles from rogue states — and possibly from Russia. Some Europeans claim that GMD is another manifestation of American unilateralism, and assert that the Bush Administration did not consult sufficiently with NATO allies or with Russia, which the Administration argues was not the case.
    [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]
  • NATO Summit Guide Warsaw, 8-9 July 2016
    NATO Summit Guide Warsaw, 8-9 July 2016 An essential Alliance in a more dangerous world The Warsaw Summit comes at a defining moment for the security of the North Atlantic Alliance. In recent years, the world has become more volatile and dangerous with Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and destabilisation of eastern Ukraine, as well as its military build-up from the Barents Sea to the Baltic, and from the Black Sea to the eastern Mediterranean; turmoil across the Middle East and North Africa, fuelling the biggest migrant and refugee crisis in Europe since World War Two; brutal attacks by ISIL and other terrorist groups, as well as cyber attacks, nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile threats. NATO is adapting to this changed security environment. It also remains committed to fulfilling its three core tasks: collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security. And, in the Polish capital, the Alliance will make important decisions to boost security in and around Europe, based on two key pillars: protecting its citizens through modern deterrence and defence, and projecting stability beyond its borders. NATO member states form a unique community of values, committed to the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. In today’s dangerous world, transatlantic cooperation is needed more than ever. NATO embodies that cooperation, bringing to bear the strength and unity of North America and Europe. This Summit is the first to be hosted in Poland and the first to be chaired by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who took up his post in October 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends, Foes, and Future Directions: U.S. Partnerships in a Turbulent World: Strategic Rethink
    STRATEGIC RETHINK FRIENDS, FOES, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS U.S. Partnerships in a Turbulent World Hans Binnendijk C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1210 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9220-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report is the third in a series of volumes in which RAND explores the elements of a national strategy for the conduct of U.S.
    [Show full text]