User:Setti7711/sandbox

Legacy of Partnership for Peace
During the post-Cold War era, equal distribution of opportunities to contribute to peacekeeping operations was made, but the status of middle and neutral powers such as Sweden, Finland, and Ireland also decreased. Therefore, neutral countries also faced a situation in which they had to reconsider maintaining military neutrality in the current international political unipolar system. In June 1997, a senior NATO official said a broader role was aimed at working closer with NATO and finally joining the alliance. The PfP provides a framework for cooperative relations with Russia, and cooperative relations with Russia do not include membership. Although the PfP has made important contributions to crisis management, such as peacekeeping operations, Ireland, like some US and European countries, is still not a PfP member.

Finland
Finland's cooperation with NATO and participation in the PfP demonstrates that it has gained access to information and gained influence on security-related decisions, and that Finland is doing its part in managing crises in the European-Atlantic region. It is hoped that a strengthened partnership with the EAPC will benefit the security and stability of the Baltic region. The Finnish government's 1997 defense white paper strongly advocated the development of interoperability to support international crisis management in line with the PfP concept. The 1998-2008 defense program began in May 1997 at the "Spirit of PfP" training in northern Norway.

Sweden
In 1994, Sweden's foreign minister declared that Sweden's policy could no longer be classified as neutral because the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the extinction of the Warsaw Treaty had eliminated two alliances to be classified as neutral. In 1996, 61% of the Swedish preferred to participate in future European defense cooperation, and 55% believed Sweden should strengthen its relationship with NATO. For Sweden, the PfP is an "essential component of the emerging European security order." In 1997, Sweden participated in 15 different PfP field exercises, three of which were held and adopted 35 different interoperability objectives within PfP PARP.

Austria
Austria's participation in PfP was strengthened in 1996. Their views on PfP focus on maintaining the ability and readiness to contribute to operations 'under the authority and/or responsibility of the United Nations and/or NATO and/or OSCE'. An important area of Austrian PfP contribution is private emergency planning. 30% of all PfP activities in this field came from Austria in 1997. In that year, Austria participated in 227 activities, including 14 peacekeeping operations involving 713 people, within the framework of the NATO/PfP program.

Framework Document
To become a NATO partner, each applicant must first sign the so-called Framework Document. The document is the same for everyone and contains the main objectives of the partnership.

(1) ensuring democratic control with, and transparency within, defense forces

(2) conducting joint field exercises to improve understanding and enhance cooperation in respect to OSŒ (former CSCE) and UN peacekeeping

(3) facilitating the development of force structures compatible with those of NATO.

Reference
Ishizuka, Katsumi. Ireland and the Partnership for Peace. Irish Studies in International Affairs 10 (1999): 185–200. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30001898.

RYNNING, STEN. “A Balancing Act: Russia and the Partnership for Peace.” Cooperation and Conflict 31, no. 2 (1996): 211–34. [Http://www.jstor.org/stable/45083815 http://www.jstor.org/stable/45083815].