RSS

Over the last twenty years, the European Union has established itself as the primary stabilizing structure throughout the European hemisphere. This is most visible in the Balkans, where after years of Western military engagement EU-Membership now offers the best hope for sustainable long-term economic and political stability.

During the lengthy process of gaining EU-Membership, citizens will need clear public messages from the EU that their local politicians and societies are on the right path and that - even more importantly - the EU still cares enough to help them back on track if necessary. But due to the success of these missions and the resulting reductions of their military presence, the West will lose a very important tool for reassuring those societies.

The EU is currently planning to transform the ALTHEA-Mission into a training mission, limited in scope and future tasks. This is exactly the time to start thinking for the long term when ALTHEA has to declare "mission accomplished" and its soldiers are finally sent home. Regular military exercises, exchange of staff officers and cross-participation in seminars and courses on all levels and grades, might fill the gap and help to keep the message of ongoing European interest in the region alive.

Unfortunately, the EU and the ESDP are lacking the necessary instruments for this kind of institutionalized co-operation. Instead, Bosnia and Herzegovina would have to rely on ad-hoc agreements with individual states willing to invest money and resources, outside or in addition to, existing EU-Membership-Programs. Essentially relying on ad-hoc arrangements based on national interests (and funds) which might be diminished over time, this bilateral co-operation would remain a fragile arrangement, thereby limiting its potential for long term reassurance. In addition, all bilateral co-operation runs the risk of becoming desynchronized with European Commission's efforts towards the group of applicants for European Membership status. So what to do instead?

Looking for alternatives, there is an institution the EU could draw on as an example of how best to organize regular mil-to-mil co-operation, how to help new democracies on their way towards membership of Western institutions, how to reassure the population and how to establish transparency for all participants on processes and criteria for membership: NATO's Partnership for Peace Program.

The achievements of this endeavor were multiple: NATO gained time to prepare itself internally for enlargement while at the same time helping candidates to transform their armed forces and political structures in accordance with the criteria set by Western Nations. NATO's "open door policy" was explicitly linked to their wish of supporting the development of democracy, the market economy and the rule of law in the states of Central and Eastern Europe. The PfP structure also provided a successful instrument for testing the willingness, and proving the final readiness, of candidates to join the Alliance. NATO Members were also able to prepare their PfP Partners for participation in common military missions and allowed them to become familiar with NATO structures, regulations and procedures. All this was achieved with only minimal bureaucratic effort. The EU could easily set up a similar structure in order to engage with Bosnia in a more coherent, multilateral and institutionalized way.

Such an institutionalized approach would offer even more prospects if implemented as part of an extended offer, i.e. broadened to other addressees of the European Union's Neighborhood Program. By linking ESDP with Neighborhood Policy, this might even help to improve one of its often criticized weaknesses - namely a lack of incentives for co-operation - despite the explicit intention to encourage reform processes in Europe's wider periphery. Such a link could be successful in broadening the potential capabilities available for future ESDP missions, as the PfP has already been helping NATO in its attempt to gain reliable and interoperable Partners for its own crisis management.

Therefore, even though it may be more difficult to agree and implement a comparable structure for mil-to-mil co-operation within the European Union, there are good reasons to take a closer look at the Partnership for Peace - NATO's most successful tool for broad co-operation with its partners - as it usefully provides the conceptual base for a unique European approach in terms of a "Partnership for Europe".

Dr Olaf Theiler is a national specialist in NATO's Operations Division in the International Staff of NATO HQ in Brussels, Belgium. A longer version of this article appeared at Security Community.

Related Material from the Atlantic Community:

• Richard Gowan and Daniel Korski: European Union, Get Serious in Iraq
• Camille Grand: Sarkozy's Three-Way NATO Bet
• Guillaume Levy: NATO needs Europe to be a Better Security Partner

December 9, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Looking at the PfP from the "receiving end" makes you less confident. Take Georgia for example. It's joined the PfP in 1994, just after the Soviet empire broke apart. But little happened since then in terms of NATO-membership process. And of course taking part in the PfP brought little help and zero protection when the country fell victim to aggression, even if self-provoked. One could of course reverse the argument and say that Georgia has perhaps done too little to be helped, nevermind protected. But still, in such partnerships partners are not equal. Georgia's example demonstrates that the PfP should not be seen as the first step towards NATO-membership, simply because the way to that is long, uphill and twisted. Just as the EU's neighbourhood policy is not neccesarily designed as a waiting room for future EU-members. Both seem to be experiments in buffer-zone building .

December 10, 2009

Hans Reuther-Fix

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

In our current economical environment and the crisis thereof, it seems that even sovereign countries are now " trying to escape the burning casino, to only find themselves in a smoking boat".
"Should this boat catch on fire", could one then contemplate NATO in partnership with a top down management structure through military means
to provide creditable governance.
The prospect of Centralized Economics collapsed 14 years ago and our
Free Market Economics, as practised, are not too far behind it, which seems
to be common knowledge by now.
NATO, as it seems, appears to be the confused link in a chain of a dynamic
which promotes the return to real value and civility.
NATO is determined to keep reminding of a still existing conflict between
East and West, while there are no Russian troops whatsoever in Eastern Europe, while Western Europe is armed " to its teeth".--50000 Allied troops in Germany alone, not to forget all the nuclear capabilities surrounding them.----
Every economist is convinced, that for export oriented Europe the future
for sustainable development is definitely in the East.
So, why this bogeyman hunting to the East and what is with this military umbrella commanded from across the Atlantic, when in case of a conflict Europe again will be lying in rubbles.--- Not to forget that this was also the case in European Russia.----
NATO and its nobility of peacekeeping would be quite commentable,
if the price for membership would not involve " torturing" on behalf of
a member, who was involved in a far away war.
I think it is time to end this " Schirmherschaft " over all of Europe.

Nobody has any intensions to dispute America's contributions to a
New Europe and Russia's European roots should not be forgotten
at all. Unfortunately, Great Britain still can not admit to not sharing
those credentials.

HRF

Tags: | athens/NATO |

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org