NATO
NATO
Last Updated: March 2007
Official Name:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Editor’s Note: The information in this article was compiled and edited from Fact Sheets and releases available in 2006 through the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs of the U.S. Department of State.
NORTH ATLANTIC COOPERATION COUNCIL
CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE (CFE) TREATY
BACKGROUND
NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is an international alliance of 26 countries of Europe and North America created to ensure the peace and security of the North Atlantic region. Signed April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty is NATO’s founding document that details the principles upon which NATO was established.
NATO was founded to fulfill its goal of safeguarding the freedom and security of its members by way of political and military means. NATO’s members consult together to address security issues of concern and work jointly to take whatever action is necessary to defend against threats. One principle that guides NATO is the policy that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all members. On September 12, 2001, this principle of collective defense was acted on after the terrorist attacks against the United States, when NATO invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty, declaring the attacks to be an attack against all of the NATO member countries. All NATO decisions are made by the member countries on the basis of consensus. The North Atlantic Council, or NAC, is the main decision-making body in NATO, made up of permanent representatives from each member country which meets regularly in discussion.
The NAC also consults with Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers, and Defense Ministers and establishes committees to provide advice on military policy and strategy to NATO’s political leaders.
Key Events in NATO History
April 4, 1949: The North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s founding document, was signed.
March 24, 1999: NATO began a 78-day air campaign against the military forces of Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic. Following the campaign, the Kosovo Force (KFOR), a NATO-led international peace-enforcement force, entered Kosovo to maintain security in Kosovo.
Sept. 12, 2001: NATO declared the terrorist attacks on the United States to be an attack against all NATO member countries within the terms of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
May 28, 2002: The NATO-Russia Council was established at the NATO-Russia Summit, strengthening the commitment between NATO and Russia.
May 21, 2003: The NATO alliance agreed to support Poland in its leadership of a sector in the stabilization force in Iraq.
August 2003: NATO took over command and coordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This is the first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area in NATO’s history.
August 2004: NATO established a Training Implementation Mission in Iraq.
Member Countries
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
U.S.-NATO RELATIONS
On September 12, 2001, NATO took the historic action of invoking—for the first time—Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This Article embodies the principle of collective defense—that an attack on one member is an attack on all. The Alliance backed up this action by sending five AWACs aircraft and a detachment of 200 personnel to the United States in October 2001. These aircraft logged 3,000 hours patrolling American skies and protecting North American airspace. In addition, NATO ships patrolled the Eastern Mediterranean to keep terrorists from infiltrating into Europe. All NATO Allies have participated in either Operation Enduring Freedom, the military campaign against al Qaeda and the former Taliban regime, or in the current International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
U.S. security today requires us to look closely at NATO, which is already the strongest security Alliance in history, and find ways to make it even stronger. To confront and eliminate such global threats as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we must ally with countries that share our values and act effectively with us. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe’s newest democracies have proven themselves as able partners, whether securing stability in the Balkans or fighting terrorism in Afghanistan.
The enlargement of NATO will cement these benefits for the United States and its Allies, making the whole of NATO much stronger than the sum of the capabilities of individual members. NATO enlargement will help to enhance the political and economic stability for all countries in the Euro-Atlantic area. By helping Europe’s newer democracies as they strengthen good governance, rule of law, and human rights, NATO will also facilitate a better long-term environment for American trade and investment.
NATO STRUCTURE
North Atlantic Council
The NAC is the principal forum for consultation and cooperation between NATO member governments on all issues affecting their common security. Its decisions are based on consensus, with each member having an equal right to express its views. The NATO Secretary General is chair. The NAC meets at least twice a year in ministerial session. It also meets weekly at the level of Permanent Representatives, who hold ambassadorial rank.
North Atlantic Council/Defense Ministers (NAC/D)
The NAC/D deals with overall issues of defense and meets twice yearly when member countries are represented by their Defense Ministers.
Defense Planning Committee (DPC)
The DPC deals with defense planning and other issues related to NATO’s integrated military structure. It is composed of all countries except France (which withdrew from NATO’s integrated military structure in 1966). Like the NAC, it meets regularly at ambassadorial level and twice yearly with Defense Ministers, normally in conjunction with the NAC/D.
Nuclear Planning Group
This group has authority for nuclear matters. All countries except France participate. Iceland participates as an observer.
Military Committee
The highest military authority in the alliance; is composed of the chiefs of staff of each country. Iceland, which has no military forces, is represented by a civilian member. The Military Committee advises the NAC and the DPC on military measures necessary for the common defense and provides guidance to the NATO commanders.
Regional Commands
The strategic area covered by the North Atlantic Treaty is divided into two regional commands: Allied Command Europe and Allied Command Atlantic, with a regional planning group for North America. With the exception of France and Iceland, all countries assign forces to the integrated military command structure. The NATO Defense area covers the territories of member nations in North America, in the Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer, and in Europe, including Turkey. However, events occurring outside the area which affect the preservation of peace and security in the treaty area also may be considered by the NAC.
NORTH ATLANTIC COOPERATION COUNCIL
The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was established in November 1991 to conduct NATO’s outreach program to the former Warsaw Pact states.
The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) joins the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and the newly free and independent states of Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the former Soviet Union in a program of political security dialogue, partnership, and cooperation. Subjects discussed in regular meetings between allies and partner states include defense planning and budgeting, democratic concepts of civil-military relations, defense conversion, and scientific and environmental topics. Members also discuss current political issues of common concern. In this way, the NACC complements the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), NATO, the European Union, and the Council of Europe in building a Euro-Atlantic community of stable, democratic, and market-oriented societies from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
As the advent of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union and the crumbling of communist control in Eastern Europe changed the nature of the European security challenge, NATO turned from a posture of confrontation with the East to one of dialogue and cooperation. The June 1990 Turnberry North Atlantic Council ministerial and July 1990 London NATO summit extended the hand of friendship to NATO’s former adversaries and called for the alliance to institute a liaison program with the Warsaw Pact states. The June 1991 Copenhagen North Atlantic Council ministerial developed this theme in its statement on “Partnership with the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.”
In their October 3,1991, joint statement, Secretary of State Baker and German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher proposed the institutionalization of the NATO liaison program in a North Atlantic Cooperation Council. The following month, the Rome NATO summit formally established the NACC as a forum in which allies could offer their experience and expertise to partner countries on security and related issues.
In its first year, NACC developed a solid basis of cooperation and dialogue. The first NACC ministerial, held on December 20,1991, in Brussels, brought together representatives of the 16 NATO allies, the Baltic states, the U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. Participants pledged to uphold CSCE principles, support arms control efforts, and work together in building a Europe whole and free.
The second NACC ministerial held on March 10,1992, in Brussels, admitted all the states of the former Soviet Union except Georgia (which joined the following month). Ministers adopted the first NACC work plan, which spelled out a program of intensified consultations and cooperative activities focused on security and related issues, including political, military, economic, scientific, and environmental subjects. Specific topics for cooperation included defense planning, conceptual approaches to arms control, democratic concepts of civilian-military relations, civil-military coordination of air- traffic management, defense conversion, and enhanced participation in NATO’s “Third Dimension” scientific and environmental programs. Ministers also pledged to cooperate in disseminating information about NATO in the partner countries and gave their support to the NACC’s ad hoc High Level Group charged with facilitating entry-into-force of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.
With the admission of Albania in June 1992 and the Czech-Slovak split in January 1993, membership in the NACC now stands at 38. Finland, Slovenia, and Sweden have attended recent ministerial meetings as observers.
A major step forward in NACC cooperation came at the December 1992 ministerial in Brussels. Ministers adopted a work plan for 1993 that included for the first time a provision for joint planning and training for peace-keeping Subsequently, the NACC established an Ad Hoc Group on Cooperation in Peace-keeping to coordinate activities in this area The NACC has welcomed the participation in Ad Hoc Group deliberations of three non-NACC states with extensive peace-keeping experience-Finland, Sweden, and Austria A representative from the OSCE also attends.
Building on the momentum of cooperation created by the NACC, NATO established in January 1994 a program within the framework of NACC called the Partnership for Peace (PFP). PFP activities complement other activities undertaken in the framework of the NACC and are designed to intensify political and military cooperation between the Alliance and members of the Partnership. The PFP is open to states participating in NACC and other OSCE states able and willing to contribute to the Partnership.
At their meeting in Brussels in December 1994, ministers reviewed progress on implementing PFP and held extensive consultations on regional issues. At the Noordwijk NAC in May 1995, the Secretary of State presented U.S. initiatives to “intensify the relationship between NATO and its partners,” including on ensuring democratic and civilian control of the military, widening the Partnership’s focus, and working more closely together on exercise planning.
The 1996 work plan, adopted by ministers at the December 6,1995, NACC Ministerial in Brussels, continues and expands NACC/PFP work on peace-keeping and other topics.
In its fifth year, NACC already has established itself as an important element in post-Cold War Europe’s security architecture. It will continue to develop as a complement to other European and trans-Atlantic organizations forging the links of a peaceful, democratic, and prosperous Euro-Atlantic community of nations.
NATO ADAPTATION/ENLARGEMENT
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined NATO on March 29, 2004 in Washington, DC. Secretary of State Colin Powell accepted ratification documents known as instruments of accession from the prime ministers of the seven nations, making their countries formally eligible to join the 55-year-old alliance. The United States is the depositary nation for the North Atlantic Treaty, which means that new members must submit their accession documents to a U.S. official.
Significance
The event marked an important step forward toward President Bush’s goal of a Europe “whole, free, and at peace.” With the addition of the seven nations, nearly 40% of NATO’s membership is comprised of former communist countries.
Invitation to Membership
In November 2002, at the Prague Summit, NATO leaders invited the seven nations to join the Alliance. The nations then were required to demonstrate that they could take on the new responsibilities and commitments of NATO membership. In May 2003, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution ratifying the NATO invitation and by February 2004, all 19 NATO allies had ratified similar resolutions.
Qualifying for Membership
The seven countries committed themselves to the shared values of freedom and democracy that are the foundation of the Alliance. The seven countries pursued rigorous political, economic and defense reforms. They already have contributed to NATO operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.
The U.S. and its NATO Allies decided at the Prague Summit that the invitees were ready to join based on their individual accomplishments under NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) and their contributions to the Global War on Terrorism. The MAP was created in April 1999 to help candidate countries to prepare themselves for membership in the Alliance. Under MAP, aspirants adopt an Annual National Program (ANP) that sets objectives and specific benchmarks for reform that will strengthen their country’s candidacy. The ANP reforms encompass a broad range of issues, including anti-corruption measures, protections for classified information, and establishment of coherent National Military Strategies. Aspirants receive practical and technical support from NATO, which regularly assesses their progress.
The total cost for the last enlargement is estimated at $1.5 billion over ten years; of this, the U.S. share is $400 million. The present round of enlargement is expected to carry similar costs, with greater benefits, as the previous round in 1999. That round of enlargement reduced the U.S. share of NATO’s budget and the costs of its Balkan operations.
Through their strong and unwavering support for the anti-terrorism coalition and assistance in bringing stability to Bosnia and Kosovo, current aspirants have already shown that they can make positive contributions to NATO operations. They have clearly demonstrated their willingness and ability to participate in the work of the Alliance. The three newest allies have sent troops to the Balkans, Afghanistan, and other peacekeeping operations. They have also made excellent progress in building their capabilities and thus their contribution to common defense.
NATO is committed to an open door policy: any European democracy that is willing and able to contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance. Enlargement is not a new phenomenon but an ongoing process, as illustrated by previous successful rounds of enlargement: Turkey and Greece in 1952, Germany in 1955, Spain in 1982, and the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999. Those countries not selected will continue to participate in MAP and work towards future membership.
Adding to NATO’s Security Capabilities
- Bulgaria: engineers and minesweepers;
- Romania: unmanned aerial vehicles and mountain troops;
- Slovakia: nuclear, biological and chemical defense units;
- Slovenia: mountain warfare troops;
- Estonia: military divers and mine countermeasures;
- Latvia: explosive ordnance disposal;
- Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia, and Slovenia will provide special operations forces.
NATO PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
A U.S. initiative, Partnership for Peace (PFP) was launched by the January 1994 NATO summit to establish strong links between NATO, its new democratic partners in the former Soviet bloc, and some of Europe’s traditionally neutral countries to enhance European security. It provides a framework for enhanced political and military cooperation for joint multilateral activities, such as humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, and crisis management and enables Partners to improve their interoperability with NATO. It enables PFP members to consult with NATO when faced with a direct threat to its security but does not extend NATO security guarantees. Participation in PFP does not guarantee entry into NATO, but it is the best preparation for states interested in becoming NATO members.
PFP’s utility has been demonstrated by the success of the NATO peace-keeping operations in Bosnia (IFOR and SFOR), in which 13 PFP Partners have worked side by side with NATO Allies. Twenty-seven countries: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakh-stan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Once a country has joined the PFP, it submits a Presentation Document to NATO explaining what resources it will contribute to PFP activities and the steps that it will take to meet PFP political goals, such as democratic control of the military. To date, all PFP countries except Switzerland have submitted Presentation Documents. A unique Individual Partnership Program (IPP), is then agreed to with the alliance. IPPs set forth shared objectives, (for instance, establishing democratic control over military forces; developing transparency in defense planning and budgetary processes; developing interoperability with NATO forces) and list activities planned to meet those objectives.
NATO has reached agreement on IPPs with all PFP Partners except Switzerland and Uzbekistan. Many Partners have submitted revised IPPs. Partners can assign personnel on a full-time basis to NATO Headquarters in Brussels and to the Partnership Coordination Cell (PCC) at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. Legislation which would enable Partners to accredit ambassadors to NATO is pending in Brussels. Partners may participate in an optional Defense Planning and Review Process (PARP) designed to evaluate and enhance a partner nation’s interoperability with NATO. Participating states work with NATO to develop interoperability objectives, which can be used to help refine IPPs. As of February 1997, 15 partners—Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Ukraine—are participating in PARP.
PFP Joint Military Exercises
1994. Three joint military exercises were held, including “Cooperative Bridge” in Poland marking the first time NATO forces had joined with former adversaries on the territory of a former Warsaw Pact state.
1995. Ten major field, maritime, search and rescue, and command post exercises were held.
1996. More than 14 major PFP exercises in the areas of search and rescue, humanitarian assistance, and peacekeeping were held. Numerous seminars, workshops, and bilateral “in the spirit of PFP” exercises also were held.
1997. More than 25 major and “in the spirit of PFP” exercises are planned. NATO is considering expanding the scope of PFP activities to include peace enforcement and Partner participation in the new Combined Joint Task Force concept.
CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE (CFE) TREATY
The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (or CFE Treaty), signed in Paris on November 19, 1990, by the 22 members of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, is a landmark arms control agreement that established parity in major conventional forces/armaments between East and West from the Atlantic to the Urals. It provides an unprecedented basis for lasting European security and stability. The original CFE Treaty (which is of unlimited duration) entered into force in 1992. Following the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the enlargement of NATO in the 1990s, the then 30 CFE States Parties signed the Adaptation Agreement at the Istanbul OSCE Summit on 19 November 1999, to amend the CFE Treaty to take account of the evolving European geo-strategic environment.
The CFE Treaty covers the entire land territory of the States Parties in Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains (ATTU). It thus excludes much of the territory of Russia and all the territory of the U.S. and Canada—all signatories of the original and Adapted Treaty. The conventional forces of all three countries that are stationed in Europe are subject to CFE limits. The 30 CFE States Parties are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
The original CFE Treaty set equal limits for East and West in the ATTU on key conventional armaments essential for conducting surprise attacks or initiating large-scale offensive operations. Those armaments/equipment include: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery pieces, as well as combat aircraft (except for naval air) and attack helicopters. In addition to limitations on the number of armaments in each category, the Treaty also provides for central zonal limits to prevent destabilizing force concentrations in Europe and for regional (“flank”) limits, which were modified by the Flank Agreement of May 1996. Whereas the original CFE Treaty established an East-West group structure for limiting NATO and Warsaw Pact conventional armaments, the Adapted Treaty provides for a system of national and territorial ceilings (the former limits the number of armaments each state may possess, while the latter limits the total number of Treaty-limited equipment present within a State Party’s borders); an accession mechanism for new States Parties; enhanced verification and transparency regimes; and honoring current Treaty commitments pending entry into force of the Adapted Treaty. The Adapted Treaty will facilitate NATO enlargement and reinforce the territorial sovereignty of individual States Parties.
The principal accomplishment of the CFE Treaty has been the large-scale reduction or destruction of conventional military equipment in the ATTU during the first 5 years the Treaty was in effect. By the end of the Treaty’s reduction period in 1995, when equipment limits took effect, the 30 States Parties completed and verified by inspection the destruction or conversion of over 52,000 battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery pieces, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. In addition, they have conducted/accepted over 4000 intrusive on-site inspections of military units/installations, and of specified areas.
Ratification by NATO Allies of the Adapted Treaty is awaiting Russia’s compliance with adapted CFE flank provisions and continued fulfillment of its Istanbul summit commitments regarding withdrawals of Russian forces from Georgia and Moldova. The Adapted Treaty will enter into force 10 days after instruments of ratification have been deposited by all States Parties.
ADRIATIC CHARTER
Secretary of State Colin Powell, together with his colleagues, Foreign Ministers Meta, Picula and Mitreva, signed the Adriatic Charter in Tirana, Albania, May 2, 2003. The Adriatic Charter, an initiative in the spirit of the 1998 U.S.-Baltic Charter, was proposed jointly by the Presidents of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to President Bush at the NATO Prague Summit in November 2002. President Bush welcomed the Adriatic initiative as a strong contribution toward his vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. The Charter builds on the achievements of the NATO Prague Summit by reinforcing continued U.S. support for the Alliance’s “Open Door,” underscoring the goal of Albania’s, Croatia’s, and Macedonia’s eventual full integration into NATO and other Euro-Atlantic institutions.
The Charter
- Underlines Albania’s, Croatia’s, and Macedonia’s dedication to strengthening their individual and cooperative efforts to intensify and hasten domestic reforms that enhance the security, prosperity and stability of the region.
- Notes the tremendous accomplishments already achieved by Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia on the path of Euro-Atlantic integration, outlines areas of continuing focus, and reiterates the intention of the United States to continue assisting the countries in implementing necessary reforms. Notes also that each aspirant country will be judged individually on its progress toward meeting standards for membership in Euro-Atlantic bodies.
- Reaffirms the parties’shared political commitment to strengthen democratic institutions, civil society, rule of law, market economies, and NATO-compatible militaries; to fight corruption and crime; and to protect human rights and civil liberties for all individuals in Albania, Croatia, Macedonia and the other countries of southeast Europe.
- Emphasizes close bilateral, regional and multilateral political, defense, and economic cooperation between the partners, and with their neighbors, as benefiting all the countries of southeast Europe by enhancing stability and accelerating the region’s integration into European and transatlantic institutions.
The Adriatic Charter members most recently met in Brijuni Croatia in November 2004, along with representatives from Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and seven neighboring NATO countries to discuss regional cooperation. The Adriatic Charter members are currently in the planning stage to send a joint medical team to ISAF in Afghanistan in 2005.
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Afghanistan
Afghanistan is NATO’s highest political and operational priority. With its expansion into eastern Afghanistan on October 5, 2006, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is now responsible for providing security assistance throughout the entire country. ISAF’s primary role is to support the Government of Afghanistan (GOA) in providing and maintaining a secure environment in order to facilitate reconstruction and development.
NATO’s ISAF force in Afghanistan, commanded by UK Gen. David Richards, assumed security responsibility for all of Afghanistan on October 5, 2006. With NATO’s expansion into the east, ISAF now has more than 31,000 soldiers from 37 nations. Of the approximately 20,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, approximately 12,000 are under ISAF command, mainly in Regional Command East, making the U.S. the largest single contributor to ISAF.
NATO is buttressing security support with development aid working through 25 ISAF Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) that assist local authorities in reconstruction and the maintenance of security throughout the country. There are 5 PRTs in the North (Kunduz, Meymana, Pol-e Khomri, Mazar-e-Sharif and Feyzabad); 4 in the West (Herat, Farah, Qala-e-Naw and Chaghcharan); 4 in the South (Kandahar, Lash-kar Gah, Tarin Kowt and Qalat) and 12 in the East (Bagram, Bamyan, Sharan, Ghazni, Gardez, Asadabad, Jalalabad, Panjshir, Mitharlam, Kowst Nurestan, and Wardak).
The U.S. currently leads 12 PRTs under ISAF: 10 in the East, 1 in the West and a joint PRT with Romania in the South.
Securing and reconstructing Afghanistan is a long-term endeavor that will require sustained investment. NATO is working in partnership with the Government of Afghanistan, and closely with the UN, EU, and other international organizations for Afghanistan’s long-term development and stability.
Bosnia
In Bosnia, NATO successfully completed its SFOR mission in December 2004. At the same time, the EU started its largest ESDP mission, Operation ALTHEA, in Bosnia, with nearly 7,000 EU troops deployed on the ground. The NATO Headquarters in Sarajevo remains in place to assist with defense reform and coordinate with the EU as well as continuing SFOR missions related to counterterrorism and the hunt for Persons Indicted for War Crimes. Since the creation of NHQ Sarajevo, BosniaHerzegovina has made dramatic progress in restructuring its military, creating a single defense ministry with a unified, national budget and laying the ground work for the establishment of a multiethnic military. Bosnia joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace in 2006 after receiving an invitation at the Riga Summit. NATO remains committed to providing assistance to the Bosnian armed forces and alliance members have generously contributed to the NATO South East Europe Trust Fund Initiative which assists the transition of redundant military personnel to civilian life.
Kosovo
More than 7 years after Operation Allied Force ended the Milosevic regime’s policy of ethnic cleansing, NATO remains firmly engaged in Kosovo. The NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) is the Alliance’s largest military mission in the Balkans and second largest overall behind Afghanistan, with over 16,000 troops from more than 25 countries participating. In addition to providing security in Kosovo, KFOR supports the UN in policing and other civilian functions that are focused on rebuilding a civil society. UN Special Envoy Ahtisaari will present his proposal for resolving Kosovo’s status following Serbia’s January 21, 2007 parliamentary elections at which time Kosovo will enter a new phase of its development. NATO participates in the Status process through its membership in the Contact Group Plus and will remain committed to maintaining peace and stability in post-status Kosovo.
Darfur
NATO is supporting to the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), by providing strategic airlift, and training in command and control and operational planning.
Early in 2005, the African Union (AU) began significantly expanding its peacekeeping mission in Darfur in an attempt to halt the continuing violence in the region. On April 26, 2005, the African Union asked NATO to consider the possibility of providing logistical support to its operation in Darfur.
Less than one month later, NATO’s North Atlantic Council agreed on initial military options for possible NATO support to the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), which included support in the areas of: strategic airlift; training, for example in command and control and operational planning; and improvement of the AU mission’s ability to use information in Darfur.
The first airlift flights began on July 1, 2005. By October 2005, NATO had airlifted almost 5,000 African Union peacekeepers into Darfur, significantly boosting the force on the ground. NATO has also trained several hundred AU officers in strategic-level planning and operational procedures, and provided support to a UNled map exercise.
NATO provided additional lift to rotate AU peacekeepers into and out of Darfur throughout the first half of 2006.
NATO Allies agreed to develop options for continued and enhanced support to the African Union, in response to a phone request by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on March 27, 2006.
The May 5, 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement raised hopes for a transition to peace in this conflict-ravaged region of Sudan.
Following consultations between NATO and the AU, AU Commission Chairperson Alpha Oumar Konare on June 2, 2006 sent a letter to Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer requesting additional assistance for AMIS including: certification of the troops that are earmarked for the mission; assisting the AU with lessons learned from AMIS; and supporting the AU in setting up a Joint Operations Center for AMIS.
NATO is considering possible support to the follow-on UN mission in Darfur.
Iraq
At the 2004 Istanbul Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to assist Iraq with the training of its security forces. In response to a request by the Iraqi Government, NATO has established a Training Mission in Iraq and is running a training centre for senior security and defense officials on the outskirts of Baghdad.
The aim of the Training Mission and the Joint Staff College at Ar-Rustamiyah is to help Iraq build the capability of its Government to address the security needs of the Iraqi people.
NATO is training and mentoring middle and senior level personnel from the Iraqi security forces in Iraq and outside of Iraq, at NATO schools and training centers. The Alliance also plays a role in coordinating offers of equipment and training from individual NATO and partner countries.
To date, approximately 2,500 midand senior-level officers have been trained under the auspices of NATO’s Training Mission in Iraq and in NATO facilities in Europe. In addition to the training center, NATO members have contributed to equipping the Iraqi army. With the donation in November 2005 of seventy-seven tanks and four tank-recovery vehicles, the total of NATO donations to the Iraqi Armed Forces in 2005 was 100 million.
Russia
The establishment of the NATO-Russia Council at the Rome Summit on 28 May 2002 opened a new chapter in NATO-Russia relations. The Council brings together the 26 NATO Allies and Russia as equal partners in areas of common interest to identify and pursue opportunities for joint action in 9 priority areas. These are: combating terrorism, crisis management, non-proliferation, arms control, theater missile defense, search and rescue at sea, mil-mil cooperation and defense reform, civil emergency planning, and new threats and challenges.
Chaired by NATO’s Secretary General, meetings of the NATO-Russia Council are held at least monthly at the level of ambassadors and military representatives; twice yearly at the level of foreign and defense ministers and chiefs of staff; and occasionally at summit level. There are currently some 21 subgroups meeting regularly at working level.
NRC accomplishments to date include implementation of an Action Plan on terrorism; two civil emergency planning exercises in Russia; work on developing a joint theater missile defense capability; ongoing development of capabilities to share military and civilian air pictures; reciprocal nuclear security exercises in Russia, the UK, and (shortly) U.S.; enhanced capabilities on mutual search and rescue at sea; regular political dialogue as well as exchanges of views on defense and security issues; and robust military-to-military cooperation, including three field training exercises to be held in 2006 and Russian naval participation in NATO’s maritime interdiction effort Operation Active Endeavor.
The U.S. seeks to deepen this relationship by increasing the interoperability of our military forces and civilian personnel in order to more effectively face the common tasks ahead. We hope that Russia joins us in seeking to make the NRC a success and ensuring that NRC cooperation results in tangible progress in areas where our interests coincide.
Ukraine
The world’s skies were made a little safer when the controlled destruction of 1000 Ukrainian man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) was completed on September 20, 2006 in northeast Ukraine, outside the city of Shostka. These weapons, deemed by Ukraine to be excess to its defense needs, were but the first installment in a 12-year weapons and munitions destruction project being undertaken by Ukraine and NATO in a NATO-Partnership for Peace Trust Fund initiative—the largest such multilateral destruction project of its kind.
The United States is the lead sponsor of the first three-year phase of this project to which it already has contributed over $3.64 million. 12 other countries and the European Union have pledged over 5.6 million (approximately $7.2 million). Ukraine is providing most of the operational funding and in-kind support. A total of approximately $27 million will be required from donors to complete the project. Additional contributions, including those from non-NATO members, will be welcomed.
In addition to the MANPADS that were destroyed, 15,000 tons of stockpiled excess and unstable munitions, including ammunition for automatic weapons, artillery shells, and mortar rounds, and 400,000 small arms and light weapons, are scheduled to be destroyed during the first phase. By the end of the twelve-year project, a total of 1.5 million small arms and light weapons, and 133,000 tons of munitions will have been safely destroyed.
The impetus for this extraordinary project is twofold. First, Ukraine has suffered several major explosions of unstable ordnance in some of its munitions depots. Controlled destruction of the remaining dangerous ordnance will reduce the public safety threat and health risk to Ukrainians who live near such depots. Second, the destruction of weapons and munitions that are no longer needed by Ukraine to defend itself will ensure that they are never obtained by illicit arms traffickers, criminals, or terrorists.