Partnership for Peace

Abstract

Conclusions Partnership for Peace (PFP) has gotten off to a highly successful start over the past two years with an accelerated growth in membership encompassing the Euro-Atlantic community, the rapid development of its own military structure, an ambitious program of exercises and education, and the early contribution of Partner states to NATO's Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia. To sustain this success and carry PFP beyond NATO enlargement, the Partnership process should be significantly enhanced with an emphasis on quality and not quantity and a better balance between military and civilian components of PFP. An enhanced Partnership should strengthen the political side of PFP, give Partner states a greater role in planning and decision-making and increase the presence of Partner nations at NATO headquarters, in NATO committees, and at lower-level NATO commands. Partner states should be expected to self-fund many of these enhancements, improve their own interagency coordination and civilian control mechanisms, and be prepared to meet new force requirements which reflect real world situations. A Propitious Beginning Partnership for Peace has become in two short years an active cooperative effort linking 42 countries, as well as a permanent cornerstone in NATO's security architecture. Its success surpasses all expectations present at the time of its formal adoption at the January 1994 NATO Summit in Brussels. Skeptics then derided PFP as a stalling tactic to defer NATO enlargement. Supporters were hopeful the program might attract at best a dozen adherents. Both judgments were off the mark in terms of PFP's accelerated growth in membership and military structure, its rapid development of a far-reaching program of training and exercise activities, and the early contribution of Partners to real military operations like NATO's IFOR in Bosnia. From the start, the response to PFP from former Warsaw Pact adversaries, several of the so-called European neutral states and from virtually all the independent nations of the former Soviet Union has been extremely positive. Romania, the first to sign the Partnership Frame-work Document on January 28, 1994, was joined within a year's time by 23 other countries. The Framework Document commits Partners to adhere to core NATO values of fundamental freedoms and human rights and of safeguarding peace through democracy. It confers the intent for Partner states to cooperate with NATO in insuring democratic control of defense forces, transparency in defense planning, and the development of compatible military forces able to undertake NATO missions in search and rescue, peacekeeping and humanitarian activities, or to operate under UN or OSCE authority. Russia signed the Framework Document on June 22, 1994 shortly after Sweden and Finland both adhered with the caveat that their membership in PFP did not connote membership in NATO. By the latest count, there are 26 Partner-ship members which, together with NATO states, link every Euro-Atlantic country from Vancouver to Vladivostok except Ireland and Switzerland. Indications are that the Swiss will join shortly. This growth in Partner members has been accompanied by the rapid establishment of an organi-zational structure to coordinate an ambitious program of military training activities. The Partnership Coordination Cell (PCC) opened its doors in June, 1994, in a building adjacent to SHAPE, the NATO Major Command in Mons, Belgium. Within two months the PCC had to move to bigger quarters. In less than two years, the PCC has become the largest multinational military headquarters in NATO-bringing together 36 nationalities under one roof. The PCC command group is headed by a Danish General directing a permanent staff element of NATO officers. Twenty-one partner states have assigned liaison officers to the PCC and individual NATO countries are also represented by liaison teams. …