User:TashaMT/sandbox

Purpose
After the Cold War, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was put into place as there was an increased concern to pay attention to security issues in Eastern Europe (Simon, 36-37). However, 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 an alternative program (Simon, 36-37).

On October 20-21 1993, in Travemunde, Germany, a meeting for NATO defence ministers was held where the US proposed a program called the Partnership for Peace in response to the issue (233-234, Borawski). This initiative was designed by the US Secretary of Defense Les Aspin who did not want to exclude Russia from international security arrangements (Gallis, 1-2). This was mainly an initiative launched to encourage states to build democracy and active participation towards maintaining international security (Gallis, 1-2). 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 (Ruhle and Williams, 66-67). In the NATO summit of January 10-11, 1994, the Partnership of Peace was established by NATO under the North Atlantic Council (NAC) (Simon, 36-37) (Gallis, 1-2). 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” (233-234, Borawski)

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


 * Ensure transparency in national defense proceedings and budgeting procedures
 * 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 behaviour and operations.
 * 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 North Atlantic Alliance 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.

(Partnership for Peace: Framework Document, reprinted in NATO Review, February 1994, pp. 29-30)

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) (233-234, Borawski). 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 (Ruhle and Williams, 66-67). 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 (Gallis, 1-2). 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 (Gallis, 1-2). 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 (233-234, Borawski). It was also perceived as a devised plot by the West as an incentive to turn Eastern European states into democratic states through military cooperation to prepare them for formation of a European Union (Ruhle and Williams, 66-67). By August 1994, 22 states were part of the Partnership for Peace (Gallis, 1-2).