DOCSLIB.ORG

Salvaging the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty Regime: Options for Washington

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Salvaging the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty Regime: Options for Washington Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS Salvaging the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty Regime: Options for Washington Anne Witkowsky Sherman Garnett Jeff McCausland Arms Control Series Paper 2 • March 2010 Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS Salvaging the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty Regime: Options for Washington Anne Witkowsky Sherman Garnett Jeff McCausland Arms Control Series Paper 2 • March 2010 Acknowledgements We thank those officials who assisted us within the For facts on the Conventional Armed Forces in Eu- Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implemen- rope Treaty, we drew on Dorn Crawford’s pamphlet, tation and the Bureau of European and Eurasian “CFE: A Review and Update of Treaty Elements,” Affairs at the Department of State, and within the U.S. Department of State, March 2009. Office of International Security Affairs at the De- partment of Defense. We also thank Dorn Crawford, We express our gratitude to the Department of State Craig Dunkerley, Stephen Flanagan, Fiona Hill, Mi- for funding our work, and to the Center for Strate- chael O’Hanlon, and Theodore Piccone for taking gic & International Studies for hosting the project the time to review the draft of this paper and for the and supporting us. The views and recommendations helpful suggestions they provided. We thank Justi- expressed in this paper are, of course, our own. They nas Sileikis for his research and administrative sup- do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Gov- port. We appreciate Steve Pifer’s patient assistance ernment or the Department of State. with the editing and publication of this paper, and express our gratitude to Gail Chalef for her help in the paper’s production. FRE O IGN POLICY AT BROOKINGS • A r m s C o n t ro l s e r i es s A lvAg i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n A l A r m e d F o rC es i n e u ro p e t r e At y r eg i m e : o p t i o n s Fo r W A s h i n gto n ii Table of Contents Acknowledgments . ii Foreword . iv 1. Introduction and Summary of Recommendations . 1 2. Background and Context . 4 3. Key Interests . ........................................................... 11 4. Options . 17 5. The Way Forward After CFE . 22 Appendix I: Acronyms . 25 Appendix II: CFE Key Dates . 26 Appendix III: CFE Map . 28 End Notes . ................................................................ 29 About the Authors . 30 FRE O IGN POLICY AT BROOKINGS • A r m s C o n t ro l s e r i es s A lvAg i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n A l A r m e d F o rC es i n e u ro p e t r e At y r eg i m e : o p t i o n s Fo r W A s h i n gto n iii Foreword When the Obama administration took office in to take account of these changes. Due to Russia’s 2009, it made clear its view that arms control offers failure to fulfill side commitments it made at that a useful tool for advancing U.S. national security in- time, the new treaty remains unratified by NATO terests. In relatively short order, the President and members, and Moscow announced in December his administration stated their interest in reducing 2007 that it was “suspending” its observance of the the number and role of nuclear weapons; launched original treaty. negotiations to conclude a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START); announced a nu- Two years later, the CFE Treaty regime—a cor- clear security summit in Washington; and expressed nerstone of European security—remains in limbo. their desire to secure ratification of the Comprehen- This situation reduces transparency regarding mili- sive Test Ban Treaty. Washington has also grappled tary forces; creates uncertainty about the intentions with the threat posed by a nuclear North Korea and of some countries; raises questions about Europe’s a nuclear aspirant, Iran. broader security architecture; and may make the Obama administration’s desire to tackle the chal- This early focus on controlling and reducing nuclear lenge of reducing tactical nuclear weapons more dif- weapons is understandable. As the administration ficult. has entered its second year, it has begun consider- ing other arms control challenges as well. One is the For many years, Anne Witkowsky, Sherman Garnett question of conventional forces in Europe. To signal and Jeff McCausland have thought long, hard and its importance, in early February, Secretary Clinton creatively about conventional arms control in Eu- announced the appointment of Ambassador Vic- rope, both in the U.S. government and outside of toria Nuland as Special Envoy for Conventional it. In this paper, they offer options for how Wash- Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). ington might proceed to salvage the CFE Treaty re- gime. This work makes a superb contribution to a The CFE Treaty, signed in 1990, stabilized military discussion that is developing now within the U.S. relations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and government and NATO capitals. The Brookings resulted in the destruction of tens of thousands of Arms Control Initiative is pleased to publish it as pieces of military equipment. Subsequently, how- the second paper in its Arms Control Series, with ever, the end of the Warsaw Pact, collapse of the the goal of stimulating a parallel public discussion. Soviet Union, and NATO enlargement dramatically altered the European security landscape. In 1999, Steven Pifer CFE member states signed the Adapted CFE Treaty Director, The Brookings Arms Control Initiative FRE O IGN POLICY AT BROOKINGS • A r m s C o n t ro l s e r i es s A lvAg i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n A l A r m e d F o rC es i n e u ro p e t r e At y r eg i m e : o p t i o n s Fo r W A s h i n gto n iv 1. Introduction and Summary of Recommendations the issue (CSBMs) grew out of a particular security context in the 1980s, one dominated by bloc-to-bloc tensions Russia’s “suspension” of the implementation of the between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and conven- Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe tional force imbalances at the heart of Europe. CFE (CFE) since December 2007, and its recognition of specifically was part of a larger effort to address, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states ultimately transform, bloc-to-bloc military competi- following the Georgia-Russia conflict in August tion, one that included new policies toward Russia, 2008 cast a long shadow over the future of the CFE the former members of the Warsaw Pact and other Treaty. These actions make longstanding efforts to former Soviet states and, later, a transformed and ex- transition to the follow-on Adapted CFE Treaty dif- panded NATO. ficult at best. Some in Washington and Europe feel that new efforts are required to shake loose the log- The CFE Treaty adapted to the changes that followed jam. For others, the treaty has less and less relevance the fall of the Berlin Wall and contributed predict- to the evolving European security environment, and ability and transparency in military forces as Europe little should be done to save it. This paper examines a was transforming throughout the 1990s. Yet the fate set of issues crucial for understanding if and how the of the treaty is currently caught in the middle of the treaty matters, possible U.S. options to address the uncertain security environment in the eastern part of current dilemma, and the likely consequences if the Europe, the eventual shape of which remains one of treaty should fail to survive the current challenges. the continent’s most important strategic and security challenges. The larger context—and the broad poli- Any debate over the CFE Treaty must recognize the cies that the United States adopts to shape that con- broader European security context. Policymakers text and respond to these challenges—is central to should not set out to save this treaty simply for the this analysis, and to any decisions that the U.S. gov- sake of preserving arms control in Europe, as arms ernment takes for the way ahead on the CFE Treaty. control can never be an “end” in itself. Arms control grows out of a security context and helps to address The CFE Treaty and the related CSBM regimes the core dilemmas of that context through negoti- have become pillars in the architecture of the un- ated constraints upon the treaty parties. These di- divided Europe that the United States and its allies lemmas might also be addressed by adjustments to have sought to build since the Cold War ended. To levels and locations of weapons deployments, doctri- a certain extent, this vision of integration is at risk nal changes, and unilateral or alliance actions of one of being lost, and CFE’s complete unraveling would sort or another. signal deepening divisions in Europe. The Russians assert that the CFE Treaty has been overtaken by The CFE Treaty and the parallel European regime events and must be superseded by the 1999 Adapt- of confidence- and security-building measures ed CFE Treaty, which has not yet been ratified by FRE O IGN POLICY AT BROOKINGS • A r m s C o n t ro l s e r i es s A lvAg i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n A l A r m e d F o rC es i n e u ro p e t r e At y r eg i m e : o p t i o n s Fo r W A s h i n gto n 1 NATO members.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 14. Conventional Arms Control
    14. Conventional arms control ZDZISLAW LACHOWSKI and MARTIN SJÖGREN I. Introduction The year 2006 marked the seventh ‘lean year’ since the signing of the 1999 Agreement on Adaptation of the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty), and no signs of further progress were evident at the Third CFE Treaty Review Conference in May. The ‘hard’ conventional arms control regime remains stalled by disagreements between Russia and the West over political texts adopted at the 1999 Istanbul Summit of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).1 As a result, entry into force of the adapted CFE Treaty remains hostage to the completion of Russia’s promised military pullouts from Georgia and Moldova.2 The March 2006 Russia–Georgia agreement, supplementing their 2005 agreement on the with- drawal of Russian military bases and other facilities from Georgia, indicated further progress in the withdrawal process, but deadlock persists over Russian personnel and equipment in Moldova. In 2006 the OSCE continued to review and develop arms control-related endeavours, including confidence- and stability-building measures and other arrangements, to address the common risks and challenges facing Europe. Globally, progress on tackling ‘inhumane weapons’ continues, and Protocol V of the 1981 Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Convention on explosive remnants of war (ERW) entered into force.3 This chapter analyses the major issues and developments in conventional arms control in 2006. Section II discusses critical elements of the imple- mentation of the CFE Treaty. Arms control-related efforts to promote con- fidence, render assistance and foster stability in the OSCE area and elsewhere are addressed in section III.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO Expansion: Benefits and Consequences
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences Jeffrey William Christiansen The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Christiansen, Jeffrey William, "NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8802. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8802 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ■rr - Maween and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of M ontana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission X No, I do not grant permission ________ Author's Signature; Date:__ ^ ^ 0 / Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. MSThe»i9\M«r«f»eld Library Permission Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NATO EXPANSION: BENEFITS AND CONSEQUENCES by Jeffrey William Christiansen B.A. University of Montana, 2000 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 2001 Approved by: hairpers Dean, Graduate School 7 - 24- 0 ^ Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • The CFE Treaty One Year After Its Suspension: a Forlorn Treaty?, SIPRI
    SIPRI Policy Brief January 2009 THE CFE TREATY ONE YEAR SUMMARY w The prolonged crisis over the AFTER ITS SUSPENSION: 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe is a A FORLORN TREATY? refl ection of the wider spectrum of strategic, political, military and other issues that zdzislaw lachowski divide the OSCE community of states rather than a specifi c confl ict in its own right. On 12 December 2007 the Russian Federation offi cially declared that it The main protagonists— would no longer be bound by the restrictions under the 1990 Treaty on Con- Russia, the United States and ventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty). Russia explained its deci- NATO—share the guilt for the sion as being motivated by the treaty’s ‘divorce from reality’. Nonetheless, present confrontation and all of Russia assured the other parties to the treaty that it had no plans to build up them risk losing from it. Russia or concentrate heavy armaments on its borders. Over shadowed by other has ignored its political developments in Euro-Atlantic relations, the Russian ‘moratorium’ has commitments; the USA has long attracted little public attention and, consequently, the possible solutions to demonstrated its disinterest the issue have gathered little momentum. Now, one year after the suspen- and treated the CFE regime as a sion, it is time to reassess the condition and prospects of the CFE regime. pawn in the broader political Acclaimed as the ‘cornerstone of European security’, the CFE Treaty game with Russia. The European NATO states have regime remains by far the most elaborate conventional arms control regime aligned themselves with the worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty: Past, Present, and Uncertain Future
    NOTES ARTICLE 5 OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY: PAST, PRESENT, AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE Broderick C. Grady* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 169 II. THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY: ITS ORIGINS AND PRECEDENTS... 171 A. The Atlantic Charter .................................. 171 B. The Brussels Treaty .................................. 173 C. The Rio Pact ........................................ 174 D. The Formationof the North Atlantic Treaty ................ 175 MI. ARTICLE 5: CONTEXT AND MEANING ........................ 177 IV. THE LIMITATIONS ON ARTICLE 5: ARTICLE 6 AND THE UN CHARTER .......................... 180 V. ARTICLE 5: THE PRESENT: SEPTEMBER 11 AND THE INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 5 ............................................. 185 A. Problems with the Invocation After 9/11 .................. 185 B. Difficulties in Invoking Article 5 Against TerroristGroups ..................................... 187 C. Did Article 5 Need to Be Invoked at All? .................. 188 * J.D. 2003, University of Georgia School of Law; B.A. 1999, Washington & Lee University. 168 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. [Vol. 31:167 VI. THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ARTICLE 5: CONCLUSIONS ......... 193 A. Does the Invocation of Article 5 Have any Value as Legal Precedent? ............................. 193 B. Invoking Article 5 in the Future ......................... 197 20021 ARTICLE 5 OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY I. INTRODUCTION In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the United States government acted to combat terrorism and bring those who supported the perpetrators of the attacks to justice.' President George W. Bush created the position of Director of Homeland Security, naming former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge to the post;' Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, containing several anti-terrorism provisions;3 and throughout the country, officials took steps to tighten security at likely targets, including airports, sporting events, and government buildings." The United States was not alone, however, in responding to the tragedy of September 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to the Report by the Head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova Ambassador Michael Scanlan
    PC.DEL/1538/17 16 November 2017 ENGLISH only United States Mission to the OSCE Response to the Report by the Head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova Ambassador Michael Scanlan As delivered by Chargé d'Affaires, a.i. Michele Siders to the Permanent Council, Vienna November 16, 2017 Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States warmly welcomes you, Ambassador Scanlan, to the Permanent Council. Thank you for your substantive report on the work of the OSCE Mission to Moldova in support of achieving progress in the 5+2 settlement process, as well as Moldova’s reform agenda. The United States is a strong supporter of the output-based 5+2 process, and joined consensus on a Ministerial Council declaration in Hamburg last year endorsing this approach. We welcome the recent agreement by the sides on November 3 to reopen the Gura Bicului- Bychok bridge across the Nistru river and congratulate both sides on this achievement. This bridge will facilitate greater trade, thereby improving the lives of ordinary people, and symbolically help stitch the country together. The November 3 agreement also shows that substantive progress can be made when there is political will to do so. Both sides should capitalize on this political will and translate public commitments to the settlement process into additional concrete actions that could generate tangible results, before the end of this year. In this light, we call on the sides to build on this momentum and make progress on other confidence building measures in the “Package of Eight,” before the next 5+2 meeting in Vienna on November 27.
    [Show full text]
  • Greece and NATO Master's Thesis Presented
    The “Menace from the North” and the Suppression of the Left: Greece and NATO Master’s Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University Ioannis Pavlou, B.A. Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Studies The Ohio State University 2015 Thesis Committee: Georgios Anagnostou, advisor Anthony Kaldellis Copyright by Ioannis Nikos Pavlou 2015 Abstract In the aftermath of the Greek Civil War, the right-wing elements of Greece’s government felt that they needed to join NATO to protect Greek interests from the perceived threat posed by Communism and their Balkan neighbors. Throughout this period of time, the Greek state implemented several drastic and often undemocratic motions that led to measures against minority groups, suppressing left-wing politicians, and applying old nationalistic rhetoric such as the “Menace from the North” to the situation with the Communist regimes in their neighboring countries. During this time, Greek interests often were pushed aside in order to appease the United States and other members of NATO while at other points, Greece nearly went to war with their NATO ally Turkey over the future of Cyprus. Meanwhile, Greece’s new-found alliance with NATO led to an improvement of their military capabilities to the point where the highly nationalistic, anti-Communist army would seize control of the government in 1967 and form a Military Junta. During the seven years of military control, NATO continued to work with the Military Junta which in turn would have drastic consequences when Greece nearly went to war with Turkey over Cyprus.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit Decisions on Moldova and Georgia: Prospects for Implementation
    Kennan Institute Occasional Paper #284 The 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit Decisions on Moldova and Georgia: Prospects for Implementation The Kennan Institute The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars The Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies is a division of the Woodrow Wil- son International Center for Scholars. Through its programs of residential scholarships, meetings, and publications, the Institute encourages scholarship on the former Soviet Union, embracing a broad range of fields in the social sciences and humanities. The Kennan Institute is supported by contributions from foundations, corporations, indi- viduals, and the United States Government. Kennan Institute Occasional Papers The Kennan Institute makes Occasional Papers available to all those interested. Occa- sional Papers are submitted by Kennan Institute scholars and visiting speakers. Copies of Occasional Papers and a list of papers currently available can be obtained free of charge by contacting: Occasional Papers Kennan Institute One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004-3027 (202) 691-4100 This Occasional Paper has been produced with support provided by the Program for Research and Training on Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union of the U.S. Department of State (funded by the Soviet and East European Research and Training Act of 1983, or Title VIII). We are most grateful to this sponsor. The views expressed in Kennan Institute Occasional Papers are those of the authors. © December 2002 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Kennan Institute Named in honor of Ambassador Kennan’s relative, George Kennan “the Elder,” a nineteenth-century explorer of Russia and Siberia, the Kennan Institute is commited to improving American expertise and knowledge about the former Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • The OSCE and Roma1
    July 13, 2018 IN BRIEF The OSCE and Roma1 Roma are the largest ethnic minority in Europe and are present in most of the participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Eu- rope. Concentrated in post-communist Central and Southern Europe, the Romani population is esti- mated at over 12 million in EU countries, with sig- nificant numbers in former Soviet republics, the Balkans, and Turkey. Roma have been part of every wave of European immigration to North American since the colonial period. There may be as many as one million Americans with Romani an- cestry. The First International Commitments Relating Roma have historically faced persecution in Eu- to Roma and Human Rights rope and were the victims of genocide during The 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document was the World War II. In post-communist countries, Roma first international agreement to recognize explicitly suffered disproportionately in the transition from the human rights problems faced by Roma. In ad- command- to market-economies, in part due to en- dition to advancing human rights commitments, the demic racism and discrimination. Copenhagen Document included historic provi- sions relating to free and fair elections, the rule of Over the past three decades, Helsinki Commission- law, independence of the judiciary, and other ele- ers have led the effort in Washington to condemn ments of democracy. Upon its adoption, leading racially motivated violence against Roma, includ- experts on international human rights law hailed it ing pogroms, murders, other violent attacks, and as a new Magna Carta. police abuse. The Helsinki Commission has also advocated for recognition of the enslavement and The Copenhagen Document also included a spe- genocide of Roma and redress for sterilization cific reference to anti-Semitism.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in the Field of Arms Control and Confidence- and Security-Building Measures
    In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2011, Baden-Baden 2012, pp. 201-223. Pierre von Arx Recent Developments in the Field of Arms Control and Confidence- and Security-Building Measures The Interlocking Web of Arms Control Arrangements The participating States of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) have succeeded in establishing a unique set of complemen- tary, mutually reinforcing arms control arrangements, thus creating a culture of openness and transparency between states. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty), the Vienna Document (VD) on the Negotiations on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures (CSBMs), and the Open Skies Treaty have been key instruments for ensuring military pre- dictability, verifiability, stability, and transparency within the OSCE area. Together with the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security and regional and bilateral CSBMs, they form a solid and unique acquis of principles and commitments in the politico-military sphere. This web is cru- cial for the security of all participating States, irrespective of whether they are parties to a specific arrangement or not. Preserving, strengthening, and mod- ernizing this acquis, while ensuring full and equal compliance with all the commitments it entails, remains vital for achieving military stability, security, and co-operation. However, negotiations on two of these three key instruments have cur- rently reached a stalemate. The 2011 Annual Security Review Conference (ASRC), held from 29 June to 1 July 2011, confirmed the recent political dif- ficulties encountered with the Open Skies Treaty at the Opens Skies Con- sultative Commission, the enduring deadlock of the CFE Treaty, and the im- passe of the discussions on a “Framework for Negotiations to Strengthen and Modernize the Conventional Arms Control Regime in Europe”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Southern Flank of NATO, 1951-1959: Military Stategy Or Poltical Stabilisation? Chourchoulis, Dionysios
    The southern flank of NATO, 1951-1959: military stategy or poltical stabilisation? Chourchoulis, Dionysios The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author For additional information about this publication click this link. https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/702 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact [email protected] 1 THE SOUTHERN FLANK OF NATO, 1951-1959. MILITARY STRATEGY OR POLITICAL STABILISATION? Dionysios Chourchoulis Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen Mary University of London Department of History September 2010 2 ABSTRACT In 1951-52, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation established the Southern Flank, a strategy for the defence of the eastern Mediterranean in the Cold War involving Greece, Italy and Turkey. Among its many aims, the Southern Flank sought to mobilize Greece and Turkey as allies and integrate them into the Western defence system. Throughout 1950s, the alliance developed the Southern Flank and in 1959, it was finally stabilized as fractious Greek-Turkish relations were improved by the temporary settlement over Cyprus. These events are the focus of this thesis. It examines, among other things, the initial negotiations of 1951-52, the Southern Flank‟s structure and function and relative value in NATO‟s overall policy, and its response to the challenges of the eastern Mediterranean in the early Cold War.
    [Show full text]
  • OSCE Yearbook 2017 Yearbook on the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) IFSH 368 P
    Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy Hamburg (ed.) osC e !% Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg / IFSH (ed.) OSCE Yearbook !"#$ Yearbook on the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) • OSCE Yearbook osC e !"#$ Nomos Articles of the OSCE Yearbook are indexed in World Affairs Online (WAO), accessible via the IREON portal. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de ISBN 978-3-8487-4786-3 (Print) 978-3-8452-9042-3 (ePDF) British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978-3-8487-4786-3 (Print) 978-3-8452-9042-3 (ePDF) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg/IFSH (ed.) OSCE Yearbook 2017 Yearbook on the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) IFSH 368 p. Includes bibliographic references. ISBN 978-3-8487-4786-3 (Print) 978-3-8452-9042-3 (ePDF) 1. Edition 2018 ©NomosVerlagsgesellschaft,Baden-Baden,Germany2018.PrintedandboundinGermany. This work is subject to copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law where copies are made for other than private use a fee is payable to “Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort”, Munich.
    [Show full text]
  • Involvement of Non-Eu European Nato Members in Common Security And
    ANKARA ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ AVRUPA TOPLULUKLARI ARATIRMA VE UYGULAMA MERKEZĐ Araştırma Dizisi No: 37 INVOLVEMENT OF NONEU EUROPEAN NATO MEMBERS IN COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENSE POLICY: THE TURKISH CASE Dr. eyda HANBAY Ankara-2013 Involvement of NonEU European NATO Members in Common Security and Defense Policy: The Turkish Case ANKARA ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ YAYINLARI NO: 368 ISBN: 978605-136090-4 Ankara Üniversitesi Avrupa Toplulukları Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi, 2013 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Yayıncı izni olmadan, kısmen de olsa fotokopi, film vb. elektronik ve mekanik yöntemlerle çoğaltılamaz. Ankara Üniversitesi Avrupa Toplulukları Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Araştırma Dizisi ATAUM Kitap Yayın Komisyonu Prof. Dr. Tuğrul ARAT Prof.Dr.Çınar ÖZEN Doç. Dr. Sanem BAYKAL Deniz SENEMOĞLU (ATAUM) Demet Halime SEZGEN (ATAUM) ATAUM Yönetim Kurulu Prof.Dr.Çağrı ERHAN Doç.Dr.Sanem BAYKAL Doç.Dr.Erdem DENK Prof.Dr.Celal GÖLE Prof.Dr.Tuğrul ARAT Prof.Dr.Erel TELLAL Prof.Dr.Fethi AÇIKEL Prof.Dr.Hasan ŞAHĐN Yrd.Doç.Dr.Đlke GÖÇMEN Murat YAPICI (Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığı) Nazife GÜLGEN (Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı) Dr.Hakan KARABACAK (Maliye Bakanlığı) Pınar TANLAK (Avrupa Birliği Genel Sekreterliği) Kaya TÜRKMEN (Dışişleri Bakanlığı) Ankara Üniversitesi Avrupa Toplulukları Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Araştırma Dizisi No: 37 ANKARA ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ BASIMEVĐ Đncitaşı Sokak No: 10 06510 Beşevler / ANKARA Tel: 0 (312) 213 66 55 Basım Tarihi: ……………. II CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................... VI LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................VII
    [Show full text]