User:TashaMT/Partnership for Peace

Introduction
The Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program that was launched during the Brussels, Belgium summit on January 10 - 11, 1994. It was established to strengthen security cooperation with states in Central and Eastern Europe that were not part of the NATO alliance amidst security concerns in Eastern Europe after the Cold War and also due to the failure of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC). The final PfP document contains six areas of cooperation which encourages states to actively participate in the maintenance of international security.

In the process, neutral countries also faced a situation in which they had to reconsider maintaining military neutrality, therefore countries such as Finland, Sweden and Austria joined the Partnership for Peace in 1997.

In the following decade, over the course of the 2000s, the PfP has made great progress. In 2002, it began the Individual Partnership For Peace action plan in order to provide member states an opportunity to be granted further assistance for NATO without having to commit to becoming members of NATO. The program has additionally started an initiative for education, specifically military education. Over the course of its creation, the program has struggled with funding due to its ever-changing formation of members.

Background
Amidst the security concerns of the post-Cold War era, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was put into place as there was increasing concerns to pay attention to security issues in Eastern Europe. The NACC was first announced at the Rome summit in November 1991 as NATO's first attempt to incorporate the former Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies into a European security frameworks. This was intended to form diplomatic links between NATO and East European military officials on industrial and military conversations. After 1991, the NACC held annual ministerial meetings and regular consultations between Eastern and Western representatives of NATO's political, economic, and military committees. The objective of these meetings was to strengthen the relations between East and Western Europe, thereby contributing to the regional political and military stability. However, the council contained 36 members of considerable geographic, economic, and cultural diversity who were at times in political dispute with each other. Eventually, this caused limited actions on the NACC's primary mission. By 1993, a range of East European countries lost confidence in the NACC. The emergence of new states such as Croatia and Ukraine after the split of Czechoslovakia resulted in Slovakian Foreign Minister; Milan Kňažko urging the creation of a security framework that would facilitate cooperation on all levels with NATO. The shortcomings of the NACC in their insufficiency when dealing with fast-paced regional events, resulted in heightened pressure by NACC members for a membership into the NATO alliance and also the formation of an alternative program.

Purpose
On October 20 - 21, 1993, in Travemunde, Germany, a meeting for NATO defense ministers was held. In the meeting, the US proposed a program called the Partnership for Peace in response to the issues in Eastern Europe. This initiative was designed by the US Secretary of Defense Les Aspin who did not want to exclude Russia from international security arrangements. This was mainly an initiative launched to encourage states to build democracy and active participation towards maintaining international security. The program was also put in place in order to strengthen security cooperation with states in Central and Eastern Europe that were not part of the NATO alliance. In the NATO summit of January 10 - 11, 1994, the Partnership of Peace was established by NATO under the North Atlantic Council (NAC). It was claimed by former US President Bill Clinton that the partnership would give way for countries in Eastern Europe, including those that were part of the Soviet Union and even Russia itself to work together “for the best possible future for Europe”.

The Partnership for Peace Framework Document presented six areas of cooperation.


 * To ensure transparency in national defense proceedings and budgeting procedures
 * To allow defense forces to be controlled through democratic methods.
 * Under the jurisdiction of the United Nations or the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), states need to retain their ability and preparedness to contribute in constitutional behavior and operations.
 * To enhance the ability for states to provide humanitarian missions such as peacekeeping and search and rescue as the main goal through building a cooperative militaristic relationship with NATO and other states involved.
 * To build forces that can work with members of the NATO in the long run.
 * To consult with and report to NATO if threats made to the security, territory or sovereignty of a participating state are detected.

States were also promised offices at the NATO headquarters and at a Partnership Coordination Cell which was located near the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe). States participating in the initiative were to receive perks for cooperating, albeit less than states who had already had full membership in the NATO alliance. NATO along with the US government announced that the existing Alliance members would only need minimal contributions towards the cost of the initiative while the Partnership for Peace members would have to fund for most of the cost of the program. The Partnership for Peace also increased the possibility for participating states who were not part of the NATO alliance to be an official member, but never actually guaranteed a NATO membership. It was claimed that the Partnership for Peace was used to delay decisions regarding the move towards expanding NATO membership to non-NATO members in Europe. It was also perceived as a devised plot by the West to prepare Eastern European states for the formation of a European Union by turning them into democratic states through military cooperation. By August 1994, 22 states were part of the Partnership for Peace.

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. While the PfP provides a framework for cooperative relations with Russia, it did not include a membership into NATO. 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 Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (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 the PfP's planning and review process.

Austria
Austria's participation in PfP was strengthened in 1996. Their views on PfP focused 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.

Evolution of Partnership for Peace
In 2001, NATO granted ‘Membership Action Plans (MAP) to 9 of the 26 PfP countries, this program of assistance assures that member states have political advice by NATO. In 2002, NATO began the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) initiative during the 2002 Prague Summit. The goal of this plan was to provide member states of PfP a chance to be granted assistance from NATO to establish reform goals without the pressure of committing to NATO. In 2003: The Alliance assumed strategic command, control, and coordination of the mission and established a permanent International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters in Kabul. Since then, the operation has grown to about 120,000 troops from 47 countries. In 2004: During the NATO Summit in Istanbul, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was launched. During this summit, six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council were included. Over the course of the summit, NATO also established the less formalized partnership Partners across the Globe, which cooperate with NATO. In 2008, the Partnership for Peace had implications during the conflict in Georgia (formerly known as Sakartvelo). In August 2008, following a planned attack from Georgia against Tskhinvali. President Dmitry Medvedev referred to 8/08/08 as “Russia’s 9/11”. This was caused from an attempt to ‘’control the breakaway republic’’ as it accommodated peacekeeping bases of Russia. This event had implications for the program as it  perceived the representation of a former "U.S.-Georgia bilateral Train-and-Equip program" to an expansion for the program and its allies. . As of 2010, only 3 of the 22 current PfP countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro) had MAPs’’. Additionally, ‘’11 PfP countries were contributing about 2,000 troops to the operation, and four Central Asian and two Caucasus partners were providing logistical and/or host nation support".

Partnership for Peace Education Initiative
The Partnership for Peace has pushed for education programs amongst members of both NATO and The Partnership for Peace composed of professional military education. Its purpose is to ‘’contribute to peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region and beyond.’’ These education programs and training are mostly focused on Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

Struggles with funding
The Partnership for Peace has had ramification on its budget caused by the ever-changing formation of members. For instance, the average annual Wales Initiative Funding (WIF) established for the program was set at $43 million during the fiscal years of 1996 to 2005. In consequence of a decline in the number of countries participating in the program, to annual funding was reduced to $29 million in fiscal years 2006 through 2010. Another factor includes the reduction of distribution of WIF funding in the program amongst aspiring members of NATO.