North Atlantic Council. 1 st Topic: NATO s Enlargement Process

Transcription

1 North Atlantic Council 1 st Topic: NATO s Enlargement Process

2 TOPIC AREA A: NATO s Enlargement Process TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 3 Past NATO enlargements 4 The Enlargement Process 7 The current status of the Enlargement 15 Russia and the problems of NATO enlargement 21 Conclusion 23 Bibliography 24 North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 2

3 Introduction NATO's enlargement is an ongoing and dynamic process which has been a top priority on the agenda of the Alliance, since its constitution in Through six rounds of enlargement, during and after the end of the Cold War, NATO's membership has expanded from its original line-up of the 12 founding members, to The enlargement process has been based on the Open Door policy of the Alliance, which derives from Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. However, after the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, NATO recalibrated its strategy and reevaluated its goals for the future. In order to build a new policy on the enlargement and the subsequent preservation and strengthening of the Euro-Atlantic security, NATO published "The Study on NATO enlargement" in The Study set the new standards for the enlargement and established the modalities for the completion of this process 2. With the creation of new partnership programs such as the Membership Action Plan (MAP), aspirant members can be prepared for an eventual membership by closely cooperating with the Parties, participating in missions and fulfilling obligations by the side of NATO members and partner countries 3. The accession of new members to the North Atlantic Treaty is a complex and demanding process which is consisted of various stages ranging from intensified dialogue between NATO and aspirant members, to the ratification of the accession protocols of individual countries. During the last years, more and more countries deepen their ties and closely cooperate with NATO and wish to join the Alliance. Countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro are currently on the path of obtaining NATO membership while others work on democratic and/or military/defensive reforms in order to meet the standards of NATO membership. But NATO enlargement is facing some very important problems that could obstruct the expansion of the Alliance and may cause instability in the very subtle global balance of power. The Russian Federation is strongly opposing NATO s eastward expansion as it considers it as a real threat and a gathering danger to its geopolitical interests and national security, warning that any further NATO expansion that will undermine Russian national interests will be met with immediate answer North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 3

4 Chapter 1: Past NATO enlargements The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established in April 1949, by twelve countries, which also became NATO s founding members: the United States of America, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, United Kingdom, Portugal and Italy. The signing of the North Atlantic Treaty 4 connected North America and Europe, over the Atlantic, via a military alliance. NATO was created so as to protect Western Europe from a possible attack from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, thus creating a system of collective defense for its members 5. Article 10 of the Washington Treaty opened the door to European states willing to assume the responsibilities and obligations that derive from being a NATO member, thus creating a basic form of NATO s Open Door Policy 6 which will be discussed extensively on the following chapter. NATO enlargement during the Cold War The Cold War was not only a battle of conflicting ideologies; geostrategic interest was the base of any major decision between the two rivaling blocs. Since its constitution in 1949, NATO was, and continues to be, the keystone of Euro- Atlantic security, ensuring the stability and protection of the democratic states in Western Europe. The first round of enlargement, found NATO welcoming Greece and Turkey as its new members, on February 18, The great geopolitical importance of those two countries helped them achieve membership status, as it was deemed that both countries had to be immediately aligned to the West 7. Moreover, NATO membership would ensure stability in the relations between the two countries, which had experienced great animosity and several conflicts in the past. 4 The North Atlantic Treaty, establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was signed in Washington, D.C. on April 4, The system of collective or mutual defense of NATO derives from Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 of NAT reads as following: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. (source: Greece was the only non-communist country in the Balkans, but has just exited a destructive civil war which left the country heavily divided between conservatives and communists thus in great need of stability, and Turkey most importantly controlled the Soviet Union s only access to the Mediterranean. North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 4

5 On May 6, 1955, the second enlargement of NATO was a fact, with West Germany entering the ranks of the Alliance. The extremely important location of the country, along with its steadily growing economy and its emerging industrial power, made West Germany a valuable asset for the Alliance. The accession of Spain to NATO signaled the third enlargement of the Alliance, on May 30, After the restoration of democracy in the country in 1978, Spain joined its neighbor Portugal in NATO, thus enabling NATO to effectively control the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, a location of great strategic interest. This would be the last round of NATO s enlargement during the Cold War. Post-Cold War NATO enlargement The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact 8, sparked a great debate in the East and West about the purpose of existence of NATO in the post-cold War era. The main reason that it was created for; containing the Soviet block and the communist expansion in Europe, was no more, leading to many arguments that NATO had no reason to exist anymore. But events such as the Gulf War in , and the Bosnian War in , led NATO to a strategic re-evaluation of its purpose, tasks and area of action. NATO members opted for collaboration and partnership with their former Warsaw Pact adversaries in order to guarantee stability and security in the reformed European continent. Forums for dialogue and bilateral cooperation were established between NATO and ex-communist countries. The first expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War, although it is not considered as an enlargement round, was the admission of the reunified Germany, on October 3, The former East Germany was now unofficially a member of the Alliance through the whole of the reunified German state. Through the cooperation with NATO, some countries expressed their intention to join the Alliance. In 1995, the Study on NATO enlargement was released, setting the new conditions and criteria for the accession of new members to the Alliance. On March 12, 1999, following intensive talks based on the findings of the Study on NATO enlargement 9, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO, resulting in the fourth enlargement of NATO, and the first official after the end of the Cold War. In April 1999, NATO launched the Membership Action Plan (MAP), a mechanism to help prepare aspiring NATO members for possible membership. 8 The Warsaw Pact (or Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Defense) was a military alliance treaty based on collective defense, between eight communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. The members of the Warsaw Pact were: the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Albania. The Warsaw Pact was the main adversary of NATO during the Cold War, and was established in 1955 as an eastern answer to NATO. 9 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 5

6 After joining the MAP, a team of seven countries from the Vilnius Group 10 ; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia, were invited to start accession talks at the Prague Summit in 2002, and subsequently joined NATO on March 29, 2004, in what is known as the fifth round of NATO enlargement. Croatia, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which were also members of the Vilnius Group and participated in the MAP, were deemed as not ready to join NATO at the time. In April 2008, Croatia and Albania were invited to start accession talks, at the Bucharest Summit. Eventually, Croatia and Albania formally became NATO members on April 1, This was the sixth enlargement of NATO, and the final to date. Date Event Country 4 April 1949 Signing of the North Atlantic Treaty USA, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, France, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, The United Kingdom 18 February 1952 First Enlargement Greece, Turkey 9 May 1955 Second Enlargement West Germany (Joined as Germany on October 3, 1990) 30 May 1982 Third Enlargement Spain 12 March 1999 Fourth Enlargement Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland 29 March 2004 Fifth Enlargement Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia 1 April 2009 Sixth Enlargement Albania, Croatia Chart depicting the past NATO enlargements in chronological order, by date, enlargement and country The Vilnius Group, created in May 2000, was a group of NATO candidate countries, aiming on practical cooperation and exchange of information, and preparing its members for NATO membership, as well as providing practical and political support to NATO in strengthening security and stability in Europe. The group consisted of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia (joining the group in 2001), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. (Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 6

7 Chapter 2: The enlargement process The Open Door Policy The whole concept behind the enlargement process lies on Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 10 of the NAT, reads as follows: The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession. 12 The very essence of this article is that it creates the outline of the open door policy that the Alliance used throughout the years, giving as mentionedto any European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area, the opportunity to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty, and become a member of NATO. The goal of this policy is to extend the zone of Atlantic- European security and stability to other European countries, by keeping the enlargement process seemingly open to any European Country who wishes to join the Alliance 13. During the Cold War, the Open Door policy was more flexible to the accession of new members, mainly due to the fact that the main criterion for their selection was their geostrategic/geopolitical value to the Alliance. But with the end of the Cold War, and its aftermath, the Open Door policy s main philosophy basically remained the same, while the criteria associated with the selection of new members became far more selective and the process of accession fairly complex. With the 1995 Study on NATO enlargement, new prerequisites for acquiring a membership were set, and the modalities of the accession process were refined. New mechanisms were established to help aspiring NATO members to be prepared for a possible membership and to help them move on a carefully planned accession itinerary. Those mechanisms are consisted by a number of new partnership programs and dialogue fora (Partnership for Peace, North Atlantic Cooperation Council, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Individual Partnership Action Plans, Membership Action Plan etc.) which serve as a preparatory stage for countries who wish to join NATO. Despite of the fact that the mechanisms of the enlargement process have changed, the spirit of the open door policy remained the same throughout these years. The new Strategic Concept of the Alliance, adopted at the Lisbon Summit in 2010, reaffirmed the Allies commitment that NATO s door will remain 12 Source: 13 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 7

8 open to any European country willing and able to fulfill the commitments and obligations of a NATO member, and to contribute to the Euro-Atlantic security architecture; The door to NATO membership remains fully open to all European democracies which share the values of our Alliance, which are willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, and whose inclusion can contribute to common security and stability 14 The 1995 Study on NATO enlargement The enlargement of the Alliance is an ongoing and dynamic process 15 that transforms and adapts to the evolving and ever-changing global environment. After the end of the Cold War, NATO enlargement was part of a crucial debate concerning the future of the Alliance. The colossal changes witnessed by the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the fall of communism and the restoration of democracy in Europe as well as the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the reemergence of Germany forced the Alliance to reconsider and reevaluate its strategy for the future. In the context of this decision, NATO launched a research on the possibility of its expansion in the post-cold War environment, which resulted in the publication of the Study on NATO Enlargement on September 3, The Study concluded that the end of the Cold War provided a unique opportunity to build improved security architecture in the whole of the Euro-Atlantic area 16 and that NATO s enlargement would provide increased security and stability for all. Through the 1995 Study s principles on enlargement, it was made clear that the ability to contribute to the Alliance security was not anymore the sole and most important criterion for acquiring a membership 17. Most importantly, the Study set the main conditions, that if fulfilled would guarantee that the enlargement would be beneficial both to NATO and the EU. The first and most important condition was that the countries that aspired to be NATO members had to be prepared to join the Alliance. That means that, any country that wants to be a NATO member must fulfill some certain prerequisites that will make her suitable for obtaining a membership. These requirements included: The completion of their democratic reforms, and a stable democratic political system 18 ; 14 (2010), Strategic Concept for the Defense and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Chapter 27, pp (Source: 15 Source: Simon Jeffrey, (2000), NATO s Membership Action Plan (MAP) and prospects for the next round of enlargement, East European Studies (The Woodrow Wilson Center), no.58, p.19 (Source: 18 Chapter 1.A.3, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement (Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 8

9 To have settled ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes by peaceful and legal means 19 followed by a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts; The respect for human rights and the fair treatment of national minorities and their subsequent rights 20 ; The ability and willingness to contribute militarily in the collective defense and operations of NATO and to help strengthen the role of the Alliance in preserving the Euro-Atlantic security as well as to comply with every other obligation that derives from membership to NATO 21 ; A commitment to democratic civil-military relations and the establishment of civilian and democratic control over the military, followed by transparency in the defense planning and spending sector 22. As it is noted clearly throughout the Study, the ability of state to have resolved any kind of dispute is greatly valued when the Parties are taking under consideration whether to invite a country to join the Alliance, or not. Fulfillment of those requirements set by the Alliance will bring an aspirant member state closer to formal membership. The second precondition set forth by the Study was that; any possible enlargement would guarantee the continuation of the unhindered and smooth interoperability of the Alliance. It is very clear that by expanding its membership, NATO aims at strengthening the Alliance's effectiveness and cohesion 23 but also to enhance the Alliance s military capabilities in order to effectively perform its functions and to effectively undertake missions related to contemporary needs and emerging threats too (i.e. to undertake peacekeeping and other new missions ) 24. The third and last condition was that; the enlargement was not just a process of extending individual security guarantees to individual countries, but the desired effect would be to create and preserve a stable and secure environment to the whole of Europe at the base of the renewing and strengthening the Euro-Atlantic relationship, which nowadays is foundered on the NATO- EU relations. It is evident that NATO considers the enlargement of the European Union, as a parallel process to its own enlargement 25, which in many 19 Chapter 1..B.6, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement (Source: 20 Chapter 2.A.17, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement (Source: 21 Chapter 5, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement (Source: 22 Chapter 5.B.72 & Chapter 1.A.3, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement (Source: 23 Strengthen the Alliance's effectiveness and cohesion; and preserve the Alliance's political and military capability to perform its core functions of common defence as well as to undertake peacekeeping and other new missions; Chapter 1.B.4, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement (Source: 24 See above Reference According to Chapter 1.B.4, NATO enlargement should complement the enlargement of the European Union, a parallel process which also, for its part, contributes significantly to extending North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 9

10 cases works supplementary to the respective EU process 26. The value of those two parallel processes is measured by the level of security and stability, whilst both parts collectively bring in the intrastate relations of the new democracies of the ex-communist Eastern Europe, as a result of their membership in those two institutions. It has been argued that the expansion of NATO is the forerunner of the European Union s expansion, as it is seen as the first step in the alignment of a country to the Western system. The Study on NATO enlargement also encourages the aspirant countries to actively participate to its partnership programs, most notably the Partnership for Peace (PfP) 27 and the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) 28, which will both help prepare interested partners, ( ) for the benefits and responsibilities of eventual membership and serve as a means to strengthen relations with partner countries which may be unlikely to join the Alliance early or at all. 29 The role of those programs is crucial to the evolution of the enlargement process, as many countries, now members of NATO, have first actively participated in such programs and eventually earned their membership 30. Through practice, NATO has established three steps that are needed to be completed by the partner countries in order to acquire a NATO membership; the Individual Partnership Action Plans, the Intensified Dialogue and eventually the Membership Action Plan. Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) The Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) initiative was launched at the conclusion of the 2002 Prague NATO Summit. The IPAPs are developed on a twoyear basis and are designed to ensure a comprehensive, tailored and differentiated approach to the Partnership 31 and to support the domestic reform efforts of partner countries which possess the political ability and will, to further enhance their relationship with NATO. 32 These plans are not only created for countries aspiring to join NATO, but they are also developed in regard to security and stability to the new democracies in the East. (Source: 26 Many countries which had first joined NATO, joined the European Union in the future, indicating the close relationship of those two processes. As an example the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary joined NATO in 1999, and they subsequently became member-states of the EU in For more information on the Partnership for Peace program please visit: 28 The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) ceased its functions in 1997 and was succeeded by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. For more information on NACC, please visit: 29 Chapter 1.B.4, (1995), Study on NATO Enlargement (Source: 30 For example, Poland joined the PfP in 1994 serving as the first form of interaction with the Alliance. Eventually Poland was granted membership to NATO, in Source: 32 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 10

11 countries in need of the diplomatic resources and support to continue their domestic reforms. The IPAPs are not designed as a NATO integration mechanism but as time-phased action plans, developed specifically for each partner country, that create obligations toward the Alliance. Moreover, they give NATO the chance to have an increased involvement, with the consent of the respective partners, in the planning, conduct, and oversight of projects in which they (the partners) participate and to which they contribute. 33 An IPAP is created so that it clearly outlines the cooperation objectives and priorities of the individual partner country, and makes sure that the correct mechanisms are being implemented in order to serve the corresponding priorities. The IPAPs objectives mainly focus on addressing security, military, defense and political issues. 34 IPAPs are also a valuable tool in promoting the political dialogue between partner countries and members of the Alliance, and are also useful in coordinating the respective partner country s efforts with other relevant international institutions. 35 With the launching of the IPAPs mechanism, the Alliance urged their partners to participate in it; special attention was given to the strategically important regions of Caucasus and Central Asia. 36 On November 22, 2002, one day after the launching of the IPAPs, Ukraine agreed to an Action Plan with NATO. 37 Georgia was the first country to start implementing an agreed IPAP with NATO, on October 29, Azerbaijan was the second country to agree to an IPAP with NATO, on May 27, 2005, and updated its IPAP on March 7, Armenia agreed on one on December 16, 2005, 40 Kazakhstan on January 31, 2006, 41 and Moldova on May 19, The next countries to agree on an IPAP were Bosnia and Herzegovina (on January 10, ) and Montenegro (on June ). All of the aforementioned countries were already members of NATO s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, before implementing the IPAPs. Intensified Dialogue The Intensified Dialogue is considered to be the preliminary stage before the Parties and the partners can agree to a Membership Action Plan (MAP). It is an addition to the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP), as it offers the chance, to the partner countries, to engage to a more intense political 33 Source: 34 Source: 35 Source: 36 Source: 37 Source: FEE6CCD2/natolive/official_texts_19547.htm 38 Source: 39 Source: 40 Source: 41 Source: 42 Source: 43 Source: 44 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 11

12 exchange with NATO members 45. These series of dialogues cover the full range of political, military, financial and security issues relating to possible NATO membership, without prejudice to any eventual Alliance decision. 46 The Intensified Dialogue formula has its roots both on the 1995 Study on NATO enlargement and on the 1997 Madrid Summit. According to the findings and the conclusions of the 1995 Study on NATO enlargement, NATO members agreed that one of the steps to a possible enlargement would be intensified, individual dialogue with the interested partners 47. Between 1995 and 1997, the Alliance offered the chance of a dialogue with the interested partners, and talks were held, that helped both the Alliance; to obtain useful information about the capabilities and aspirations of the interested partners, and subsequently the Partners; to reach a better understanding on the procedures of the Alliance, as well as of what it is asked from them to be able to join NATO in the near future. In the 1997 Madrid Summit, NATO leaders decided to continue the Alliance s intensified dialogues with those nations that aspire to NATO membership or that otherwise with to pursue a dialogue with NATO on membership questions. 48 Currently two partner countries are engaged in an Intensified Dialogue with NATO; Ukraine (since April 2005) and Georgia (since September 2006). Membership Action Plan (MAP) The Membership Action Plan, often referred to as the MAP, is a program launched by NATO at the 1999 Washington Summit, which aims to help aspiring countries meet NATO standards and prepare for future membership. 49 To be more precise; the MAP is a tailored program for aspirants, designed to help build a roadmap to future membership, by offering active advice, assistance and practical support to strengthen their candidacies. 50 The goals that a MAP sets are based on the findings of the 1995 Study on NATO enlargement, meaning that the countries that agree to a MAP have to fulfill certain criteria that the 1995 Study had originally introduced. Such criteria include the democratic control of the country s armed forces, the peaceful and legal settlement of ethnic and territorial disputes etc. MAP s are tailored to suit each individual country s needs for reforms and unique situation, and are varied in length and set of goals. Countries currently participating in the MAP, on the way to membership preparation, have to submit individual annual national programs, which cover a wide array of issues such as political, economic and defense aspects. 51 The MAP offers to the participating countries, a feedback mechanism on their progress that includes both political and technical advice, as well as a provision for annual assessments from the North Atlantic Council (NAC), on the basis of an annual progress report. 52 Other 45 Source: 46 Source: 47 Source: 48 Source: 49 Source: 50 Source: 51 Source: 52 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 12

13 key elements of the MAP program are; a clearinghouse for coordinating security assistance by NATO and by member states 53 and a defense planning approach for aspirants which includes elaboration and review of agreed planning targets. 54 The North Atlantic Council is responsible for reviewing the candidacies and ultimately deciding which countries are to be invited to participate to the MAP. So far all the countries that have participated in the MAP have either joined NATO or are about to join the Alliance in the near future. Participation in the MAP has been decisive in helping prepare the seven countries that joined NATO in the 2004 enlargement 55 as well as Croatia and Albania, which joined NATO in Today, there are three countries participating in the MAP; Montenegro which was invited to participate in the MAP in December 2009, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which participates in the MAP since April , and Bosnia and Herzegovina that joined the MAP in April The accession process A very basic outline for the accession process of new NATO members can be found in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 10 only provides us with very basic information about how a new member is accepted to join the Alliance; the complete process itself is a very complex and demanding one indeed. The North Atlantic Council, as the principal political and decision making body of NATO, reviews the status of candidate members and upon consensus decides which country to invite in order to begin accession talks with the members of the Alliance. However, this is the start of the accession process which is highlighted by some major stages; the accession talks, the deposit of letters of intent to join NATO, the signing of accession protocols, the ratification of accession protocols, the invitation from the Secretary General of NATO to the candidate countries to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty, the accession of the invitees to the Treaty and the formal acquisition of NATO membership by the invitees. The first step for the accession of new members is the conduct of accession talks between the potential member and a NATO team. The accession talks are a series of meetings between a team of NATO experts and the representatives of the individual invitees, aiming to discuss and formally confirm their interest, willingness and ability to meet the political, legal and military obligations and commitments of NATO membership. 57 The talks are split into two sessions with each invitee; each session focuses on a special area of interest. The first session covers political, defense and military issues while the second session covers the more technical aspects of the accession such as legal 53 Source: 54 Source: 55 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia 56 FYROM is the only partner of the former Vilnius group to not have joined NATO until today. 57 Source: prague/more_info/membership.htm#top North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 13

14 issues and the contribution of the new member to the Alliance s common budget. 58 The result of these talks is a timetable submitted by each invitee, which designates the completion of the reforms that have been discussed in the earlier talks with the NATO experts and that many of which may continue long after the accession of the respective country to NATO. After the accession talks, the invitees have to send letters of intent to NATO, along with timetables which set the timeframe for the completion of the agreed reforms. The letters of intent serve as a confirmation of the invitee s interest, willingness and ability to join the Alliance and fulfill the obligations and commitments that derive from a NATO membership. The letter of intent is submitted by the foreign ministers of the invited countries, and is addressed to the Secretary General of NATO. With the submission of the letters of intent, NATO will prepare accession protocols for each one of the invited countries. 59 These protocols are in fact amendments to the North Atlantic Treaty that will be incorporated to the Treaty once signed and ratified by the Alliance s members. Once the accession protocols are signed, they have to be ratified by NATO countries, according to their national procedures and requirements. 60 After the signing and ratification of the protocols, and their subsequent acceptance to the North Atlantic Treaty, the Government of the United States of America is notified 61 as is procedure 62. The Secretary General of NATO then extends an invitation to the new countries to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty. 63 Following their invitation from the Secretary General, the invited countries will have to ratify their accession protocols according to their national procedures, and then to deposit their ratified accession instruments to the Government of the United States of America. Upon depositing their accession instruments to the Government of the USA, the invited members formally become full members of the Alliance. 58 Source: 59 Source: prague/more_info/membership.htm#top 60 Source: prague/more_info/membership.htm#top 61 The United States of America is the depository of the Washington Treaty. 62 The procedure according to Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. 63 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 14

15 Chapter 3: The current status of the enlargement Currently, there are three countries set to join NATO in the near future; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. However the enlargement debate doesn t stop on those countries; there are many countries that are either being engaged in intensified dialogue with NATO, others that have agreed and work on Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) or others that are just participating in NATO partnerships programs (i.e. Partnership for Peace) and that are active players in the NATO enlargement debate. These countries are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Finland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden and Ukraine. In this chapter we will briefly discuss about the current status of relationships between the aforementioned countries and NATO. Armenia Armenia is currently working on a renewed Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) 64, which was agreed with NATO in November 2011 and which was jointly agreed for a two-year period. 65 Armenia is also an active participant on the Partnership for Peace program (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). Although Armenia seeks to enhance its political and practical cooperation with NATO and further strengthen its relationship with the Alliance, it does not seek a full membership in the Organization. 66 There are many practical problems that hinder a possible accession of Armenia to NATO. First, Armenia s greatest concern is that a possible NATO membership will worsen its relationship with Russia; the latter being its main strategic partner. 67 Armenia is also a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a Russian interest military organization much like NATO. On the other hand, a possible Armenian membership to NATO may be vetoed by Turkey, which has not established diplomatic relationships with Armenia and is currently imposing an economic blockade on the country, along with Azerbaijan. 68 Azerbaijan 64 The first Individual Partnership Action Plan between Armenia and NATO was agreed in Source: 66 Source: 67 Russia maintains a military base in Armenia, which contributes to the country s security. 68 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 15

16 The framework of cooperation between NATO and Azerbaijan is based on the jointly agreed Individual Partnership Action Plan, which was established in May Azerbaijan has been one of the first countries from the former Soviet Union, to join the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program of NATO in 1995, and is also participating in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. 69 Until now, Azerbaijan has no intention of joining the Alliance. Through closer and more intense cooperation with NATO, Azerbaijan is seeking to achieve Euro-Atlantic standards and to come closer with the Euro-Atlantic institutions. 70 Although negative on the prospect of joining NATO, Azerbaijan s stance may be altered in the future; "if Azerbaijan's national interests require membership of those organizations, the country could become a member of NATO or even the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) - or remain neutral," Azerbaijani presidential aide Gasanov, argued. 71 Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently participating in the Membership Action Plan (MAP) program, and is set to join NATO sometime in the future. NATO invited Bosnia to join the MAP in April Bosnia and Herzegovina is also participating in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program since 2006, and eventually agreed on an Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO, in January Since 2008, the country has been engaged in an Intensified Dialogue with NATO on its membership aspirations, as well as on membership related military and political reforms. 74 However, there is one defensive aspect that is impeding the accession of Bosnia to the North Atlantic Treaty; the defense property issue. The North Atlantic Council will accept Bosnia s first Annual National Program only when all immovable defense properties identified as necessary for future defense purposes 75 have been officially registered as state property. 76 Cyprus Cyprus is the only European Union member state to not have join NATO nor to participate in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. In February 2011, the Cypriot House of Representatives voted for the affiliation of the country with the PfP program; however, the then Cypriot President D. Christofias exercised his veto right to block the parliament s decision. 77 After the national elections of 69 Source: 70 Source: 71 Source: 72 Source: 73 Source: efs/2008/01/11/nb Source: 75 Source: 76 Source: 5E1A703B/natolive/opinions_ htm?selectedLocale=en 77 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 16

17 February 2013, the new government of Nicos Anastasiades opted for a rapprochement with NATO, stating that Cyprus aims to join the Partnership for Peace program. 78 By joining the PfP, Cyprus can partially alleviate the pressure from Turkey, as the latter vetoes the participation of Cyprus in the joint meetings between the EU and NATO, under the pretext that Cyprus is not a participant in the PfP program of NATO. 79 On the other hand, Cyprus is also a very special case of a country, as its division serves as a confrontational matter between Greece and Turkey, both of the latter being members of NATO. Finland and Sweden Both of the Nordic states of Finland and Sweden are cooperating extensively with NATO (i.e. both are members of the NATO Response Force) and are debating the possibility of joining the Alliance, but so far there is no clear decision upon the future of both countries with NATO. Both governments briefly discussed in 2009 the possibility of joining their neighbors, Norway and Denmark, in NATO, in order to reinforce the Nordic defense cooperation. 80 The debate of joining NATO is sparking up due to the recent increase on the rearming of Russia. But, should a NATO membership is to be sought both of the countries are legally obligated by their constitutions as the accession issue should be resolved by referendum; in both of the countries those in favor of NATO membership are a minority. 81 Also both countries have limited military capabilities when opposed to NATO standards, which is making the accession a rather complex issue as military and defensive sector reforms are needed. On the other hand, Russia is concerned with NATO s post-cold War expansions and is vociferous in the possibility of NATO expanding its reach so close to its borders. As Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned; new participants emerging close to our border will change the parity and we'll have to take this into account and respond to that 82, in a summit of Nordic and Russian leaders in Norway on June FYROM The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 83, is currently participating in the Membership Action Plan, since April It is the only country of the 2000 Vilnius Group that has yet to obtain a membership to NATO. FYROM was one of the first countries to join the Partnership for Peace program, in November 1995 and has been a valuable partner of NATO providing host nation support to 78 Source: 79 Source: 80 Source: 81 Source: 82 Source: 83 Turkey recognizes FYROM with its constitutional name. North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 17

18 the troops of the Kosovo Force (KFOR). 84 Apart from the Vilnius Group, FYROM, along with Albania and Croatia has helped create the Adriatic Charter. At the Bucharest NATO Summit in April 2008, the members of the Alliance recognized the progress of FYROM towards becoming a NATO member, and unanimously decided that an accession invitation will be extended to the country only if the name issue with Greece has been resolved in a mutually acceptable manner The decision taken at the Bucharest Summit of 2008 has been reaffirmed more recently by the Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen on May 2013; the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will receive an invitation to join NATO as soon as the issue over its name has been resolved. They know that. 87 Georgia Georgia s accession to NATO is one of the country s top foreign and security policy priorities. 88 Since September 2006 Georgia is engaged in Intensified Dialogue with NATO, in order to deepen its political exchange with the Alliance and to help implement its Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP), which was agreed in October In order to help Georgia achieve its goal of NATO membership, the NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC) was established in September Also Georgia has been an active participant in the Partnership for Peace program (PfP), since it joined it in March At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO Allies unanimously decided that Georgia should become a member of NATO. 91 However the 2008 South Ossetia War between Russia and Georgia served as major impediment in Georgia s NATO membership, as it compromised the Georgian Army s poor military and defensive capabilities and further complicated NATO-Russian relations; as a result Georgia was not granted a Membership Action Plan so far. In May 2013, Georgian Prime Minister Ivanishvili stated that the aspiration of his government is Georgia to get a Membership Action Plan in However, in October 2013, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that Georgia would not become NATO member in 2014, but will continue to implement its Individual Partnership Action Plan, and cooperate closely with NATO. 93 Kazakhstan 84 Source: 85 Source: 86 Source: 87 Source: 5E1A703B/natolive/opinions_ htm?selectedLocale=en 88 Source: 89 Source: 90 Source: 91 Source: 92 Source: 93 Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 18

19 NATO and Kazakhstan are practically cooperating on certain areas, via the implementation of the latter s Individual Partnership Action Plan 94, agreed with NATO in January The IPAP is agreed for a two-year period. The cooperation between NATO and Kazakhstan takes place within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Council (EAPC). 95 Kazakhstan is also cooperating with NATO and other non-nato partners through NATO s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, which the country joined in May Kazakhstan is not aspiring to obtain a membership to NATO, but continues to cooperate with the Alliance and maintain good and stable relations with it, as it perceives that NATO is a possibly guarantor of the country s sovereignty and security. 96 Kosovo Kosovo is aspiring to join NATO, and despite the United States of America support 97 this scenario is not yet possible as it does fulfill two important requirements; a full member status in the UN and a capable national military force. In order to join the Alliance, or even participate in any partnership program of NATO such as the Partnership for Peace (PfP), Kosovo needs a UN membership which is a necessary condition for the acceptance of any new member. 98 Most importantly, four NATO members; Greece, Romania, Spain and Slovakia do not recognize Kosovo s independence something that could possibly hamper any membership effort. Kosovo does not have yet an organized national army effectively controlled by the government, and should it decide to form one this decision should be taken along with the consent of NATO, for an eventual transformation of the Kosovo Security Force (KSF) into Kosovo national army. 99 Montenegro Montenegro is currently working on a Membership Action Plan, which it had received in December After its independence from Serbia in June 2006, Montenegro joined the Partnership for Peace program (PfP) and eventually agreed to an Individual Partnership Action Plan in June 2008, before engaging in Intensified Dialogue with NATO in April The biggest debate upon the accession of Montenegro to the Alliance is the reform of the Montenegrin security agencies and defense sector in order to meet NATO standards 100, and to effectively fight instate corruption and organized crime. 101 Although Montenegro is believed to join the Alliance sometime in the near future, the opinion of the populace is ambivalent; the recent memories of the 94 Sources: 95 Sources: 96 Sources: 97 Sources: 98 Source: 99 Source: Source: Source: 5E1A703B/natolive/opinions_ htm?selectedLocale=en North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 19

20 1999 NATO bombings and its role on the eventual dissolution of Yugoslavia weight heavily on the conscious of the Montenegrins, resulting in an unclear image and hesitation for the future of Montenegro in NATO. Serbia Serbia has been a member of the Partnership for Peace program since December Although Serbia is not aiming at obtaining a NATO membership 102, in May 2013 handed a draft IPAP which was met with positive feedback from the Alliance and it is currently in the final stages of negotiating with NATO on agreeing on its first Individual Partnership Action Plan. 103 NATO membership is a very subtle issue within the Serbian society, something that is mainly accredited to the painful past associated with the Bosnian and mainly the Kosovo war, and the NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999 in specific. Ukraine The cooperation between NATO and Ukraine has been based on the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) which was established in Ukraine is engaged in Intensified Dialogue with NATO since April NATO and Ukraine agreed on an Action Plan in November 2002, in order for the country to complete democratic and military/defensive reforms so it can join the Alliance in the future. Ukraine has also been an active participant of the Partnership for Peace program since February At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO leaders welcomed Ukraine s aspiration for membership in NATO and agreed unanimously that Ukraine is to become a member of NATO. 105 A Ukrainian membership to NATO is seen by Russia as an attack to Russian interests and is a matter of strong debate in both countries. Also, the public opinion is against the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, while many perceive NATO as a threat to Ukrainian national interests. 106 Until 2010 Ukraine had an active policy of pursuing NATO membership. The election of Viktor Yanukovich marked a turnaround on Ukraine s Euro- Atlantic path, as Ukraine is not presently seeking membership to the Alliance, choosing a non-bloc status policy while also maintaining strong cooperation with NATO. 107 Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated in October 2013, that Ukraine will not join NATO in , however the door to NATO will remain open as was reaffirmed at the Chicago Summit in 2012, and as was originally decided at the Bucharest Summit in Source: Sources: Source: Source: Source: ProWestern-Goals.aspx 107 Source: Source: North Atlantic Council Topic Area A 20