Lisbon and the Evolution of NATO’s New Partnership Policy

Year 2012, Volume: 17 Issue: 1, 55 - 74, 01.05.2012

Rebecca R Moore

Abstract

NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept identifies cooperative security as one of “three essential core tasks” to be achieved in part “through a wide network of partner relationships with countries and organizations around the globe”. To facilitate the construction of this broader network of partners, the Alliance adopted a new partnership policy in April 2011, designed to facilitate “more efficient and flexible” partnership arrangements. The policy offers a number of new tools to foster the cooperative security efforts deemed so critical under the new strategic concept and permits potential and existing partners an opportunity to shape their own relationships with NATO. In so doing, however, it moves the Alliance toward less differentiation between partners and fails to clarify the role of like-minded partners in preserving and extending the liberal security order that NATO’s initial partnerships were designed to enlarge

Keywords

NATO, strategic concept, partnership policy, Partnership for Peace, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.

References

• 1 “Active Engagement, Modern Defence, Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”, Lisbon, November 2010, at http://www.nato. int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf [last visited 12 January 2012].
• 2 Ibid.
• 3 The Alliance has not yet agreed to extend invitations to either Georgia or Ukraine to join NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP). Europe’s continued dependence on Russia for energy resources and fears of provoking a hostile Russian reaction have prevented some Allies from supporting such a step.
• 4 Lord Robertson, “NATO: A Vision for 2012”, Speech at GMFUS Conference, Brussels, 3 October 2002.
• 5 “NATO Elevates Mediterranean Dialogue to a Genuine Partnership, Launches Istanbul Cooperation Initiative”, at http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/06-june/e0629d.htm [last visited 10 January 2012].
• 6 See, for example, A. Elizabeth Jones, “Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Testimony before the subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia”, House International Relations Committee, Washington, DC, 29 October 2003 at http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2003/25798. htm. [last visited 15 January 2006]; See also U.S. Department of State Fact Sheet, “Frequently Asked Questions about U.S. Policy in Central Asia”, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, at http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/15562.htm [last visited 15 January 2006].
• 7 “Istanbul Summit Communique”, PR/CP (2004) 096, 28 June 2004 at http://www.nato/into/docu/ pr/2004/po4-096e.htm [last visited 12 January 2012].
• 8 “Partnership Action Plan on Defence Institution Building (PAP-DIB)”, Brussels, 7 June 2004 at http:// www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b040607e.htm [last visited 10 January 2012].
• 9 IPAPS are drafted every two years rather than annually as is required under MAP.
• 10 See NATO, “Individual Partnership Action Plans”, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/ topics_49290.htm [last visited 10 January 2012].
• 11 “First visit by Top Pakistani Officer to NATO”, NATO Update, 17 November 2006 at http://www.nato. int/docu/update/2006/11-november/e1117a.htm [last visited 12 January 2012]; Author telephone interviews with NATO International Staff members, August 2009.
• 12 Pakistan responded to the friendly fire incident by shutting down NATO’s supply routes to Afghanistan and removing the U.S. from an air base used to facilitate drone attacks. Anne Gearan, “Pakistan, U.S. Assume Less Cooperation in Future”, Associated Press at http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c1 1a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2012-01-02-US-Pakistan-US/id-3734a5528d454a6db26974b c2093d4ae [last visited 10 January 2012].
• 13 “Afghanistan and NATO’s Enduring Partnership”, at http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/ pdf_2011_04/20110414_110414-AfghanPartnership.pdf [last visited 12 January 2012].
• 14 “Riga Summit Declaration, Press Release (2006) 150”, 29 November 2006 at http://www.nato.int/ docu/pr/2006/p06-150e.htm [last visited 12 January 2012]; author telephone interview with U.S. Department of State official, January 2007.
• 15 “Bucharest Summit Declaration, Press Release (2008) 049”, 3 April 2008, at http://www.nato.int/ cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm [last visited 12 January 2012]; author e-mail interview with NATO International Staff Member, 20 January 2009.
• 16 Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Secretary General’s Monthly Press Conference”, 24 January 2011, at http:// www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_69914.htm [last visited 12 January 2012].
• 17 In the months preceding the Lisbon summit, Rasmussen appealed very explicitly for a NATO “security dialogue” with both China and India. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “NATO in the 21st Century: Towards Global Connectivity”, speech at the Munich Security Conference, 7 February 2010 at http://www. voltairenet.org/Speech-by-Anders-Fogh-Rasmussen-at [last visited 12 January 2012]; See also “NATOManaging Security in a Globalised World”, Speech by Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Catholic University of Lisbon, Portugal, 2 July 2010, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_64814.htm [last visited 12 January 2012]; “The New Strategic Concept: Active Engagement, Modern Defence”, speech by Rasmussen at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Brussels, Belgium, 8 October 2010, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_66727.htm [last visited 12 January 2012].
• 18 Author interviews with U.S. Department of State official and NATO International Staff, February 2011.
• 19 NATO, “Counter-piracy Operations”, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48815.htm [last visited 13 January 2012]; See also Nathan G.D. Garrett and Ryan C. Hendrickson, “NATO’s Antipiracy Operations: Strategic and Political Implications”, Atlantisch Perspectief, No.8 (2009), p. 4.
• 20 R. Nicholas Burns, “Briefing on NATO Issues Prior to Riga Summit”, Washington, D.C., 21 November 2006.
• 21 “Active Engagement in Cooperative Security: A More Efficient and Flexible Partnership Policy”, 15 April 2011, at http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_04/20110415_110415-PartnershipPolicy.pdf [last visited April 2011].
• 22 Ibid.
• 23 Ibid.
• 24 Ibid; author telephone interviews with U.S. Department of State official, February and August 2011.
• 25 “Political Military Framework for Partners Involvement in NATO-Led Operations”, 15 April 2011, at http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_04/20110415_110415-PMF.pdf [last visited 13 January 2012]; author telephone interviews with U.S. Department of State official in February, March, and August 2011, and with NATO’s International Staff in February and March 2011.
• 26 “Political Military Framework for Partner Involvement in NATO-Led Operations”; “NATO insists that the “NAC retains the ultimate responsibility for decision-making”.
• 27 “Final Statement”, Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the Level of Foreign Ministers, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, 7 December 2011, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-559613D4-7D4E1306/ natolive/official_texts_81943.htm?mode=pressrelease [last visited 13 January 2012].
• 28 Isabelle Francois, “NATO Partnerships and the Arab Spring: Achievements and Perspectives for the 2012 Chicago Summit”, Transatlantic Perspectives, No. 1 (December 2011), p. 2 and 7, at http://www. ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/trans-perspectives/CTSS-TransPers-1.pdf [last visited 13 January 2012.
• 29 Ibid, p. 7
• 30 Hillary Clinton, “Remarks to the Munich Security Conference”, 5 February 2011 at http://www.state. gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156044.htm [last visited 13 January 2012].
• 31 “Final Statement”, Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the Level of Foreign Ministers, 7 December 2011, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-59B2CA11-8BE393DF/natolive/official_texts_81943. htm?mode=pressrelease [last visited 7 January 2012].
• 32 Ibid.
• 33 Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Towards NATO’s Chicago Summit”, Speech at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, 30 September 2011, at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_78600.htm [last visited 13 January 2012].
• 34 “Final Statement”.
• 35 Author telephone interview with U.S. Department of State official, August 2011.
• 36 Isabelle François, “NATO Partnerships and the Arab Spring”, p. 11.
• 37 Ibid.
• 38 See, for example, Pauline Jones Luong and Erika Weinthal, “New Friends, New Foes in Central Asia”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 2 (March/April 2002); Quentin Peel, “America’s Muddle in Central Asia”, Financial Times, 1 April 2004.
• 39 “Active Engagement, Modern Defence”.
• 40 Rasmussen, “Toward NATO’s Chicago Summit”.
• 41 G. John Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan, Princeton, NY, Princeton University Press, 2011, pp. 348-352.