• No tags were found...


PARTNERSHIP20__Peace-supportoperations24__Defencereform29__Disasterpreparednessand response33__Security,science and theenvironment© Finnish Defence Forces36__ A true Euro-Atlantic security culture3 3

The essence of partnership and cooperation atthe multinational level consists of regularconsultations and cooperative activities designedto build transparency and confidence throughoutthe Euro-Atlantic area. At the bilateral level it callsfor the development of a practical workingrelationship between individual Partner countriesand NATO, tailored to their particular situationsand requirements.The Partnership process involves buildingdialogue and understanding between all thecountries involved, many of which are formeradversaries as members of opposing alliances, orhave had long-standing regional, territorial,political, ethnic or religious disputes. Jointactivities aimed at finding common solutions tocommon security challenges have led to importantachievements in overcoming past prejudices andin establishing a clear vision of the mutual benefitsto be gained from cooperation.Since the launch of the Partnership process,remarkable progress has been made, even if therehave been set-backs and difficulties, which wereperhaps unavoidable given the complex processof political, economic and social change takingplace in Central and Eastern Europe and theformer Soviet Union. The EAPC and the PfPprogramme have steadily developed their owndynamic, as successive steps have been taken byNATO and its Partner countries to extend securitycooperation, building on the partnershiparrangements they have created. As NATO hastransformed over the years to meet the newchallenges of the evolving security environment,Partnership has developed. To retain its dynamismand relevance to the Alliance, the activities andmechanisms of Partnership have had to beadapted to meet NATO’s new priorities (seechapter on “Essential mechanisms”).include Balkan countries still dealing with thelegacies of their past, the strategically importantbut underdeveloped countries of the Caucasusand Central Asia, and the Western European nonalignedstates. While some are in the process ofdeveloping their defence structures andcapabilities, others are able to contributesignificant forces to NATO-led operations and tooffer fellow Partner countries advice, training andassistance in various areas.Today, 20 Partners use the EAPC to consultregularly with the 26 Allies and to developcooperation on issues encompassing manydifferent aspects of defence and security. Theirmilitary forces frequently exercise and interacttogether; their soldiers serve alongside each otherin NATO-led peacekeeping operations; and Alliesand Partners are working together in commoncause against the threat of terrorism. No-one atthe time the Cold War ended would have predictedthis dramatic evolution in the Euro-Atlanticstrategic environment.The original objective of NATO’s partnership policywas to break down barriers and to build securitythrough dialogue and cooperation. Today, theobjectives are much more ambitious, for Partnercountries are engaged with NATO in tackling21st century security challenges, includingterrorism, the proliferation of weapons of massdestruction, and failed states.Equally, the Partnership has had to be deepenedand broadened to meet the aspirations of differentPartner countries and remain an attractiveproposition to them. Two rounds of NATOenlargement have changed the balance betweenAllies and Partners (see box). As of March 2004,there were more Allies than Partners – and theremaining Partners are a very diverse group. They6

A decision was also taken to put special focus onengaging with Partner countries in two strategicallyimportant regions, namely the Caucasus (Armenia,Azerbaijan and Georgia) and Central Asia(Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). NATO hasassigned a special representative for the tworegions as well as two liaison officers. Their role isto assist and provide advice in implementingrelevant aspects of Individual Partnership ActionPlans, where appropriate, as well as thePartnership Action Plans on Defence InstitutionBuilding and against Terrorism, and cooperationfocused on the PARP mechanism.Further PARTNERSHIP ACTION PLANSLaunched at the November 2002 Prague Summit,Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) are opento countries that have the political will and ability todeepen their relationship with NATO. Developed ona two-year basis, such plans are designed to bringtogether all the various cooperation mechanismsthrough which a Partner interacts with the Alliance,sharpening the focus of activities to better supporttheir domestic reform efforts.An IPAP should clearly set out the cooperationobjectives and priorities of the individual Partner,and ensure that the various mechanisms in usecorrespond directly to these priorities. NATO willprovide focused, country-specific advice on reformobjectives. Intensified political dialogue on relevantissues may be an integral part of an IPAP process.IPAPs will also make it easier to coordinate bilateralassistance provided by individual Allies and Partners,as well as to coordinate efforts with other relevantinternational institutions.Objectives covered fall into the general categories ofpolitical and security issues; defence, security andmilitary issues; public information; science andenvironment; civil emergency planning; andadministrative, protective security and resource issues.In November 2004, Georgia became the first countryto have an IPAP with NATO. IPAPs with Azerbaijanand Uzbekistan are currently under development.Armenia has also expressed interest in developingsuch a plan.> The Euro-AtlanticPartnership was furtherstrengthened at the June2004 Istanbul Summit.13

1131740535251611587411226192318NATO COUNTRIESBelgium (1)Bulgaria (2)Canada (3)Czech Republic (4)Denmark (5)Estonia (6)France (7)Germany (8)Greece (9)Hungary (10)Iceland (11)Italy (12)Latvia (13)Lithuania (14)Luxembourg (15)Netherlands (16)Norway (17)Poland (18)Portugal (19)Romania (20)Slovakia (21)Slovenia (22)Spain (23)Turkey (24)United Kingdom (25)United States (26)

333961314311836421291022324327920245382434283044464237PARTNER COUNTRIESAlbania (27)Armenia (28)Austria (29)Azerbaijan (30)Belarus (31)Croatia (32)Finland (33)Georgia (34)Ireland (35)Kazakhstan (36)Kyrgyz Republic (37)Moldova (38)Russia (39)Sweden (40)Switzerland (41)Tajikistan (42)the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia* (43)Turkmenistan (44)Ukraine (45)Uzbekistan (46)* Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name19

Peace-support operations> Partner countries are making an essentialcontribution to the International SecurityAssistance Force in Afghanistan.© Finnish Defence ForcesPartner countries have played a critical role in theNATO-led peace-support operations in the Balkansand they are now also making an essentialcontribution to NATO’s mission in Afghanistan.The participation of Partner countries in theseoperations enhances security in the Euro-Atlanticarea and beyond. It enables Partner forces to gainpractical experience of working together withAllied forces to help restore stability to crisisareas. It also helps ease the burden of themultiplication of missions on members of theAlliance. Moreover, Partner involvement in aNATO-led operation underscores a broadinternational consensus to help manage crisesand prevent the spread of instability.Soldiers from a large number of Partner countrieshave become used to working alongside NATOcounterparts, learning how the Alliance operates incomplex and difficult circumstances. This, morethan any other single factor, has been critical inimproving relations and building confidence andunderstanding between military forces, which untilthe end of the Cold War, formed hostile alliancesconfronting each other across a divided continent.Today, NATO and Partner countries are workingtogether in the field to confront the challenges ofthe 21st century.The Afghanistan missionNATO has been leading the InternationalSecurity Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistansince August 2003. The mission of this UNmandatedforce is to assist the Afghan authoritiesin efforts to bring peace and stability to thecountry, which is recovering from two decades ofcivil war, and to prevent it from being used againas a base for terrorists.The original mandate limited ISAF operations toKabul and the surrounding areas but has sincebeen expanded beyond the capital under a newUN mandate. ISAF’s presence has graduallybeen extended into the north of the country bythe establishment of Provincial ReconstructionTeams (PRTs) – teams of civilian and militarypersonnel working in the provinces to extend theauthority of the central government and tofacilitate development and reconstruction.Preparations to expand further into regions westof Kabul got underway in the autumn of 2004.Moreover, extra troops were deployed for eightweeks to support the electoral process in therun-up to and during the presidential electionsthat took place in October 2004.20

In September 2004, ten Partner countries wereparticipating in ISAF, some supplying valuablespecialised forces such as military police anddemining teams. Moreover, Partner countries inCentral Asia have been instrumental in ensuringthe logistic supply of ISAF forces as equipmentmust cross several Partner countries beforearriving in Afghanistan. Relationships developedthrough the Partnership for Peace have laid thebasis for Allies to draw up bilateral agreementsfor the transit of material across these states andthe basing of forces and supplies on theirterritory. For example, Germany and Uzbekistanhave concluded a formal agreement on the useof the military airfield in Termez, near the borderwith Afghanistan, to help ensure an air bridge toKabul and northern parts of Afghanistan; anagreement between the Netherlands and theKyrgyz Republic allows Dutch F-16 fighteraircraft to operate from the airport in Bishkek;and France has a similar agreement withTajikistan, allowing it to operate a logistics hub inDushanbe. Given the diverse ethnic make-up ofAfghanistan, several Central Asian Partners alsohave influence on important local actors, whichthey can use in support of ISAF objectives.Bosnia and HerzegovinaTroops from 14 Partner countries were part ofthe Implementation Force (IFOR) that deployedto Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the signing ofthe Dayton Peace Accord on 14 December 1995.With a mandate from the United Nations toimplement the military aspects of the peaceagreement, IFOR’s mission was to secure anend to hostilities; to separate the armed forces ofthe war-torn country’s newly created entities (theFederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina andRepublika Srpska); and to transfer territorybetween the two territories.IFOR was replaced by the smaller StabilisationForce (SFOR) in December 1996. In addition todeterring a resumption of hostilities andpromoting a climate in which the peace processcould move forward, SFOR’s mission wasextended to include support for civilian agenciesinvolved in the international community’s effortsThe type of assistance being provided byPartners to ISAF, an operation far from NATO’straditional perimeter, is one of the reasons whyPartnership is so important for the Alliance.The Balkan operationsEver since the initial deployment of the Alliance’sfirst-ever peacekeeping mission to Bosnia andHerzegovina, Partner countries have been anintegral part of the NATO-led peace-supportoperations in the Balkans. Over the years, asmuch as 10 per cent of troops participating in theNATO-led peace-support operation in Bosnia andHerzegovina and 18 per cent of peacekeepingtroops making up the Kosovo Force (KFOR)have been contributed by Partner countries andother non-NATO countries.© SFOR> A Swedish SFOR peacekeeper and his dog check theground for mines.21

to build a lasting peace in the country. Thepeacekeeping troops helped refugees anddisplaced persons to return to their homes andcontributed to reforming the Bosnian militaryforces. As the security situation graduallyimproved, the number of peacekeepers in thecountry was progressively reduced from the60,000 troops that were originally deployed tosome 7,000 in 2004.The NATO-led operation in Bosnia andHerzegovina was brought to an end in December2004, when responsibilities for maintainingsecurity were handed over to a follow-on missionled by the European Union. The successfulaccomplishment of SFOR’s mission is testimonyto the wisdom of taking a broad, long-termperspective on peacekeeping and reconstruction.It is also a vindication of the patience andpersistence that Allies and Partner countrieshave shown in the entire Balkans region over thepreceding decade, and which they continue toshow with regard to Kosovo.The termination of SFOR has not meant the endof NATO’s engagement in Bosnia andHerzegovina. NATO has retained its own militaryheadquarters in the country, which is focusing onhelping the Bosnian authorities with defencereform and in preparing the country formembership of the Partnership for Peace. It isalso working on counter-terrorism, apprehendingwar-crimes suspects and intelligence-gathering.KosovoA NATO-led peacekeeping force deployed to theSerbian province of Kosovo, after a 78-day Alliedair campaign against targets in the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia had forced the Milosevicregime to agree to the international community’sdemands to withdraw Serbian forces fromKosovo, to end the violent repression of ethnicAlbanians and to allow refugees to return.The conclusion of a Military TechnicalAgreement between NATO and Yugoslavcommanders allowed the Kosovo Force (KFOR)to deploy to the province in June 1999 under aUN mandate. Its mission is to deter renewedhostility, establish a secure environment andsupport the international humanitarian effort andthe work of the UN Interim AdministrationMission in Kosovo (UNMIK).At full strength, KFOR’s initial deploymentnumbered some 43,000 troops. Progressivetroop reductions have more than halved thisfigure. In October 2004, the 18,000-strong forcewas made up of troops from most NATO memberstates, nine Partner countries and two other non-NATO countries, namely Argentina and Morocco.In close cooperation with UNMIK, KFOR ishelping build a secure environment in Kosovo inwhich the growth of democracy can be fosteredwith international aid. Civil reconstruction isunderway and a measure of security and normallife has been re-established in the province.However, as the outbreak of inter-ethnic violencein March 2004 demonstrated, significantchallenges remain and there is a continued needfor a robust military presence in Kosovo.Working togetherOne of the key aims of the Partnership for Peaceis to develop Partner country forces so that theyare able to work together with NATO forces inpeacekeeping activities (see also pp. 10-11).Bilateral programmes and military exercises helpPartner countries to develop forces with thecapacity to participate in peacekeeping activitiesalongside NATO forces. Learning to speak thesame language, English, and developinginteroperability are of key importance.Increasingly, their military forces are adapting tothe Alliance’s operational norms to help ensureeffectiveness in the field and are adoptingprocedures and systems compatible with thoseused by NATO. The Operational CapabilitiesConcept plays a major role in this respect.A Partnership Coordination Cell, establishedat SHAPE in 1994, supports the NATO strategiccommands in the coordination of PfP trainingand exercises.22

The participation of Partners and other non-NATO countries in NATO-led peace-supportoperations is guided by the Political-MilitaryFramework. It is facilitated by the InternationalCoordination Centre established at SHAPE inOctober 1995 to provide briefing and planningfacilities for all non-NATO troop contributingcountries. Individual participation by the variousstates is subject to a financial and technicalagreement, which is worked out between eachtroop-contributing country and NATO, onceproposed contributions to such operations havebeen assessed. Each Partner country assumesresponsibility for the deployment of itscontingents and for providing the supportneeded to enable them to function effectively. Insome cases, support is also made available on abilateral basis by a NATO member country.South America, Argentina has contributedpeacekeepers to both SFOR and KFOR, andChile has also contributed to SFOR. Amongcountries participating in NATO’s MediterraneanDialogue, Jordan and Morocco have contributedpeacekeepers to SFOR and KFOR, and Egyptianpeacekeepers have served in the NATO-ledforces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Another Arabcountry, the United Arab Emirates, has alsocontributed a large contingent to KFOR. FromSouth-East Asia, Malaysia has contributed toboth IFOR and SFOR. And, as part of exchangeprogrammes with the United Kingdom, Australianand New Zealand soldiers were seconded bytheir countries to serve as peacekeepers in theBalkans. A small team of New Zealanders is alsoserving as part of ISAF.Although most non-NATO countries thatcontribute troops to NATO-led peacekeepingoperations belong to the PfP programme andcome from Europe, several troop-contributorsare from other continents and some have noformal relationship with the Alliance. FromRussian peacekeepersFor over seven years, until their withdrawal fromSFOR and KFOR in summer 2003, Russia providedthe largest non-NATO contingents to thepeacekeeping forces in the Balkans, where Russiansoldiers worked alongside Allied and other Partnercounterparts to support the internationalcommunity’s efforts to build lasting security andstability in the region.Russian peacekeepers first deployed to Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 1996, where they were part of amultinational brigade in the northern sector, conducting daily patrols and security checks and helping withreconstruction and humanitarian tasks. Having played a vital diplomatic role in securing an end to the Kosovoconflict, despite differences over NATO’s 1999 air campaign, Russian troops deployed to Kosovo in June1999, where they worked as part of multinational brigades in the east, north and south of the province as wellas helping run the Pristina airfield and providing medical facilities and services.23

Defence reformWith the end of the Cold War, the threat of anEast-West confrontation disappeared. Massarmies and huge stockpiles of weapons andmunitions were no longer needed. Many lookedforward to a peace dividend resulting fromreduced defence expenditures. However, carryingout defence reforms is neither cheap nor easy.Moreover, NATO and Partner countries were soonfacing new security challenges and having toadapt their armed forces to the changed securityenvironment, which would inevitably haveeconomic consequences.NATO member countries have been graduallyreducing levels of military personnel, equipmentand bases, and transforming their forces so thatthey are better able to meet today’s defenceneeds. Many Partner countries are just beginningthis long and difficult process, often with scarceresources and limited expertise. They face thedaunting task of restructuring and retrainingmilitary forces which formed part of a heavilymilitarised environment and are no longeraffordable or appropriate in the context ofdemocratic change. In transforming their armedforces, a key priority is also to develop capabilitiesthat will enable them to make effectivecontributions to crisis-management andpeacekeeping operations in the Euro-Atlanticarea. Another important aspect of defencereform is to ensure that its consequences areproperly managed.One of the most important contributions ofthe Partnership for Peace has been the PfPPlanning and Review Process (PARP, see p. 11)with its goal-setting and review mechanisms,complemented by programmes developedbilaterally between NATO and individualPartner countries, which enable NATO countriesand Western European Partners to shareexpertise and provide assistance in tackling theextensive conceptual and practical problems ofdefence reform.Promoting comprehensivedefence reformBuilding effective institutionsEffective and efficient state defence institutionsunder civilian and democratic control arefundamental to stability in the Euro-Atlantic area,and essential for international securitycooperation. In recognition of this, a newPartnership Action Plan on Defence InstitutionBuilding, endorsed by the heads of state andgovernment of EAPC countries, was launched atthe Istanbul Summit in June 2004.This new mechanism aims to reinforce efforts byPartner countries to initiate and carry forwardreform and restructuring of defence institutions tomeet domestic needs as well as internationalcommitments. It defines common objectives forPartnership work in this area, encouragesexchange of relevant experience, and helps tailorand focus bilateral defence and securityassistance programmes.The Action Plan’s objectives include: effective andtransparent arrangements for the democraticcontrol of defence activities; civilian participation indeveloping defence and security policy; effectiveand transparent legislative and judicial oversight ofthe defence sector; enhanced assessment ofsecurity risks and national defence requirements,matched with developing and maintainingaffordable and interoperable capabilities;optimising the management of defence ministriesand other agencies which have associated forcestructures; compliance with international normsand practices in the defence sector, includingexport controls; effective and transparent financial,planning and resource allocation procedures in thedefence area; effective management of defencespending as well as of the socio-economicconsequences of defence restructuring; effectiveand transparent personnel structures andpractices in the defence forces; and effectiveinternational cooperation and good neighbourlyrelations in defence and security matters.24

Implementation of the Action Plan will makemaximum use of existing EAPC and PfP tools andmechanisms. The PARP mechanism will serve asa key instrument for implementing the ActionPlan’s objectives and it will be adapted to fulfil thisrole. Effective implementation necessitatesdeveloping common understanding of standardsand concepts related to defence, defencemanagement and defence reform. Achieving this“conceptual” interoperability requires a majorinvestment in education and enhanced efforts toshare relevant knowledge and experience amongAllies and Partners.Case study: UkraineThe cooperation programme NATO hasdeveloped with Ukraine in the area of defencereform is more extensive than with any otherPartner country. It demonstrates the wide range ofcooperative activities available to Partnercountries in this area.When Ukraine declared independence in 1991, itinherited parts of the military structure and armedforces of the former Soviet Union. Ukraine hasasked for NATO’s support to help transform itsCold War inheritance into a smaller, modern andmore efficient force, capable of meeting the newsecurity needs of the country, as well assupporting Ukraine’s chosen role as an activecontributor to European stability and security.Priorities for NATO in this endeavour are tostrengthen the democratic and civilian control ofUkraine’s armed forces and to improve theirinteroperability with NATO forces.After joining the Partnership for Peace in 1994,increasing contacts and cooperation with NATOallowed Ukraine to draw extensively on adviceand practical assistance. Cooperation wasintensified with the signing of the Charter on aDistinctive Partnership between NATO andUkraine in 1997. A year later, a Joint WorkingGroup on Defence Reform was established tofacilitate consultation and practical cooperation ondefence and security sector reform issues. And inApril 1999, a NATO Liaison Office wasestablished in Kyiv to support these defencereform efforts.Participation in the Partnership for Peace benefitsUkraine’s reform efforts and its drive to improveinteroperability. The PARP mechanism isparticularly important in that it has helped identifykey requirements for defence-planning purposes.A crucial element has been the technicalassistance and advice provided for the conduct ofa defence review, which has helped Ukraine drawup a roadmap for defence reform. Such a defencereview is a complex, objective analytical process,which aims to identify a country’s defencerequirements based on its national security policy;seeks to balance these requirements againstavailable resources; and produces proposals forforces and capabilities to provide best value forthe taxpayer’s money. The outcome of a reviewprovides the conceptual framework for further> NATO’s Chairman ofthe Military Committee(centre) visits Kyiv,Ukraine, in February2004, to reviewprogress in military-tomilitarycooperationand defence reform.25

eform which, by definition, will take a sustainedeffort over a longer period.Other key aspects of cooperation include helpingUkraine to develop a new security concept andmilitary doctrine, more effective and transparentdefence budgeting and planning, and strengthenedcivil-military relations, including increasing the roleof civilians in Ukrainian defence structures.Ukraine’s restructuring and transformation effortsare also being supported through structured adviceon military downsizing and conversion andprofessionalising the armed forces, and onestablishing rapid reaction forces. Activities are notlimited to the armed forces or the defence ministry,but also cover support for the Ukrainian borderguards and troops attached to the interior ministry.Training and education are key elements of thedefence transformation process. Senior Ukrainianofficers regularly participate in courses open toPartner countries at the NATO Defense Collegein Rome, Italy, and the NATO School atOberammergau, Germany. Military personnel alsogain hands-on experience of working with forcesfrom NATO countries and other Partners through awide range of activities and military exercises.To help Ukraine manage the consequences ofdefence reform, NATO has financed andimplemented language and management coursesin cooperation with Ukraine’s National CoordinationCentre, which is in charge of social adaptation ofredundant military servicemen. Moreover,assistance from individual Allies for demilitarisationprojects is being channelled through the PfP TrustFund mechanism (see p. 28).Managing the consequences ofdefence reformIn launching defence reforms, it is essential thatadequate steps are taken at the outset to managetheir consequences and mitigate any negative sideeffects.Military personnel who lose their jobs needto be assisted to reintegrate into civilian life. Theclosure of military bases can impact severely onlocal communities and economies, so plans for theredevelopment of the sites are needed. Stockpilesof redundant or obsolete weapons and munitionspose serious security risks and environmentalhazards, and have to be disposed of safely.NATO has launched a number of initiatives toprovide advice and expertise to Partner countriesin these areas. While it can only provide limitedfunding for projects and programmes, it seeks tohelp secure additional funding by working andsharing information with other internationalinstitutions and non-governmental organisations,as well as with individual countries willing to offerbilateral assistance.Retraining soldiersOver five million personnel have been releasedfrom the armed forces of Partner countries sincethe end of the Cold War. There is an urgent needto provide possibilities for retraining and foralternative employment. In early 2000, NATOoffered to play a role in assisting Partner countriesin their efforts to retrain military personnel andfacilitate their reintegration into civilian life.A NATO team of experts was put together toprovide national authorities with advice, analysisand guidelines on personnel retraining policies andprogrammes. Activities supported includecounselling for soon-to-be-released militarypersonnel on how to find a job or start a business,language training, and the establishment ofretraining centres.In Southeast Europe, where an expected3,000 military sites and bases will be closed andan estimated 175,000 people will lose their jobsby 2010, there is considerable interest in suchprogrammes. Romania and Bulgaria – stillPartner countries at the time – became the firstcountries to benefit from this type of assistance;by 2004, some 20,000 officers in each countryhad participated in retraining programmes.Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia* and Serbia and Montenegro areexploring possibilities for cooperation with NATOin this area. Moreover, NATO supports retraininginitiatives in Russia and Ukraine.26

Supporting discharged personnelOperational since March 2002, the NATO-RussiaCentre for the resettlement of discharged militarypersonnel is helping tackle the social aspects ofdownsizing in the Russian military by providingreleased military personnel throughout Russia witha focal point of retraining and reintegrationassistance. Based in Moscow, the Centre expandedits activities into the regions in 2003, establishinglocal offices in Yaroslavl, St. Petersburg, Chita,Perm, Kaliningrad and Rostov on Don.The Centre has set up web sites to provide practical information on retraining and employment possibilitiesas well as advice on how to start a small business. It also offers direct training courses, trains resettlementspecialists, and organises conferences to exchange information on these issues. Already in its first18 months of operation, it had trained 210 trainers who are now engaged in resettlement activities and hadinitiated training of some 200 students in areas such as computer skills, management and accounting.Converting military basesUnder a NATO initiative for the conversion ofmilitary sites in Southeast Europe, a NATO expertteam is providing advice and recommendations tohelp national authorities find productive new usesfor military bases that are to be converted tocivilian use. The initiative also seeks to promoteregional cooperation and the sharing of informationamong the participating countries, which includeseveral Partners and two new NATO members:Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Moldova, Romania,Serbia and Montenegro, and the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia.*Several pilot projects are helping develop astrategic approach to military base closures andsite redevelopment. Key priorities are to ensureenvironmental clean-up and to promote jobcreation and the diversification of localeconomies in areas where the military bases arethe only major employer. Some bases are beingconverted for use as, for example, residentialdevelopments, educational establishments,healthcare centres, prisons, and parks or wildlifepreservation areas.Destroying mines, munitions and weaponsPfP Trust Funds (see box p.28) assist Partnercountries in the safe destruction of stockpiles ofsurplus anti-personnel mines, munitions and smallarms and light weapons. Tailor-made projects aredeveloped with individual countries to ensure thatthe destruction process is safe, environmentallyfriendly and in line with international standards.Where possible, projects aim to use localresources and facilities in order to reduceoperating costs as well as to train local people inthe destruction process, helping create jobs andteach new skills.By early 2005, thanks to such projects, some1.6 million anti-personnel mines had beensuccessfully destroyed in Albania; 12,000 landminesand 7,000 tonnes of surplus munitions and rocketfuel had been disposed of in Moldova; 400,000 antipersonnelmines had been eliminated in Ukraine;1,200 landmines had been destroyed in Tajikistan;and over 300 missiles had been dismantled inGeorgia. Further demilitarisation projects areplanned for Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia andMontenegro, and Ukraine.27

PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE TRUST FUNDSThe PfP Trust Fund policy was originally establishedin September 2000 as a mechanism to assist Partnercountries in the safe destruction of stockpiled antipersonnelmines. In this way, it intended to supportsignatory countries in implementing the Ottawaconvention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling,production and transfer of anti-personnel mines andtheir destruction.Building on the success of several mine-destructionprojects, the scope of the Fund has been extended toinclude other demilitarisation projects aimed atdestroying munitions and small arms and lightweapons. More recently, use of the Fund has beenbroadened to support Partner countries in managingthe consequences of defence reform throughinitiatives such as retraining and the conversion ofmilitary bases. Trust Funds can also be established infavour of Mediterranean Dialogue countries.Under the Fund, NATO members work withindividual Partner countries to identify andimplement specific projects. In each case, a NATOor Partner country takes the lead in sponsoring anddeveloping the project proposal, and in identifyingpotential contributors. The Partner country thatbenefits directly from the project is expected to takean active part in this work and to provide maximumsupport to the project within its means. NATOexperts provide advice and guidance.Funding is provided by NATO member and Partnercountries on a voluntary basis. Contributions mayalso include equipment or contributions in kind.Often, the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency,based in Luxembourg, serves as the executing agencyfor projects and is responsible for the implementationof technical and financial aspects.Further information: old missilesSome 300 old anti-aircraft missiles havebeen safely destroyed in Georgia, thanksto a PfP Trust Fund project completed inearly 2005. Missiles stored at thePonichala and Chaladid bases weredismantled, the warheads removed andthen transported to another location to beexploded in a controlled manner.The project significantly increasedsecurity in the areas where the missileswere stored and also preventedenvironmental contamination that theseweapons could otherwise have caused.28

Disaster-preparednessand responseDisasters, man-made or natural, can happenanytime and any country could be faced withhaving to deal with the consequences of acatastrophe. Major civil emergencies also posepotential risks to security and stability. While everycountry is responsible for dealing with emergenciesthat occur on its territory and taking care of victims,the magnitude and duration of a disaster situationmay be beyond the capacity of the affected countryand its repercussions may extend far beyond itsnational borders. International cooperation toaddress emergency situations and to strengthenresponse capabilities is therefore essential.Promoting effective coordinationEffective responses to disasters call for thecoordination of transport facilities, medicalresources, communications, disaster-responsecapabilities and other civil resources. All countriesare responsible for ensuring that plans are inplace at the national level for dealing withemergencies. However, given the potential crossbordercharacter of some disasters and the needto be able to respond effectively to calls forinternational assistance, cooperation and planningat the international level is indispensable.Cooperation with regard to disaster-preparednessand response, referred to in NATO as “civilemergency planning”, has been taking placebetween NATO countries for years. It wasextended to include Partner countries in the 1990sand makes up the largest non-military componentof Partnership for Peace activities. Based on aRussian proposal, a Euro-Atlantic DisasterResponse Coordination Centre (EADRCC) wasestablished in 1998 to coordinate responsesamong EAPC countries to disasters occurring inthe Euro-Atlantic area.Cooperation between NATO and Partner countriesin civil emergency planning includes activitiessuch as seminars, workshops, exercises andtraining courses, which bring together civil andmilitary personnel from different levels of local,regional and national governments. Otherinternational organisations, such as the UN Officefor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs andthe Office of the UN High Commissioner forRefugees (UNHCR), the International AtomicEnergy Agency and the European Union, are alsoimportant participants, as are non-governmentalrelief organisations.Thanks to the development of contingency plans,appropriate procedures and the necessaryequipment, as well as common training andexercises, NATO and Partner countries have beenable to coordinate assistance effectively, throughthe EADRCC, in response to several naturaldisasters. These include floods in Albania,Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, Hungary,Romania and Ukraine; earthquakes in Turkey;forest fires in the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia* and Portugal; and extreme weather inMoldova and Ukraine.> Red Crescent workers participate in a Partnershipfor Peace exercise.29

Flood assistanceWestern Ukraine has experienced 13 major floodsduring the last century. NATO and Partnercountries assisted Ukraine after severe floods in1995, 1998 and 2001.Since 1997, under a memorandum ofunderstanding on civil emergency planning anddisaster preparedness, a major programme ofcooperation in this area has brought direct practicalbenefits for Ukraine. A key focus has been to helpUkraine, whose western parts are prone to heavyflooding, to prepare better for such emergenciesand to manage their consequences moreeffectively. PfP exercises, including one held inUkraine’s Trans-Carpathia region in September2000, help test disaster-relief procedures such asconducting air reconnaissance, evacuating victimsand deploying water purification equipment.Moreover, a pilot project, concluded in 2001,brought together more than 40 flood andemergency experts from twelve different countriesto develop practical recommendations for aneffective flood-warning and response system forthe Tisza River catchment area.EURO-ATLANTIC DISASTER RESPONSE COORDINATION CENTREIn June 1998, a Euro-Atlantic Disaster ResponseCoordination Centre (EADRCC) was establishedat NATO headquarters, based on a proposal madeby Russia. The Centre, which is operational on a24-hour basis, acts as a focal point for informationsharingand coordinates responses among NATO andPartner countries to disasters in the Euro-Atlanticarea. It also organises major civil emergency exercises,which practise responses to simulated natural andman-made disaster situations as well as consequencemanagement actions following a terrorist actinvolving chemical, biological or radiological agents.The Centre works closely with international agenciesthat play a leading role in responding to internationaldisasters and in consequence management – theUN Office for the Coordination of HumanitarianAffairs and the Organization for the Prohibition ofChemical Weapons – and other organisations.Countries are encouraged to develop bilateral ormultilateral arrangements to address issues suchas visa regulations, border-crossing arrangements,transit agreements, customs clearance and status ofpersonnel. Such measures avoid bureaucratic delaysin the deployment of relief items and teams to anactual disaster location. Arrangements have also beenmade for a Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Unit,which is made up of a mix of national elements thatcountries are prepared to make available at shortnotice when a disaster strikes.Further information:

Refugee reliefWhile originally established to deal with naturaland technological disasters, the EADRCC was firstcalled upon to help organise a relief effort forrefugees, when international concern over theemerging humanitarian crisis in and aroundKosovo mounted during 1998. By year end, openconflict between Serbian military and police forcesand Kosovar Albanian forces had left many ethnicAlbanians dead and forced more than 300,000from their homes.The EADRCC became involved immediately uponits creation in early June 1998, when the UNHCRasked for help to transport 165 tonnes of urgentlyneeded relief items to refugees in Albania. Overthe next few months, as the crisis evolved, aneffective basis for cooperation between theEADRCC and UNHCR was established. EADRCCpersonnel also made several trips to the region todevelop a better understanding of the situation.This groundwork made it possible to intensify andbroaden involvement in the relief effort, when thecrisis escalated in spring 1999 with the launch ofAllied air strikes and the forced expulsion ofhundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians bySerbian forces.The Centre served as a focal point for informationsharingamong EAPC countries and helpedcoordinate responses to requests for assistance.Relief items such as medical supplies andequipment, telecommunications equipment, shoesand clothing, and tents for over 20,000 peoplewere dispatched. The EADRCC also channelledaid to the region from non-Partner countries suchas Israel, which provided a fully staffed andequipped field hospital, and the United ArabEmirates, which helped repair Kukes airfield innorth-eastern Albania.> The Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response CoordinationCentre supported refugee relief operations during theKosovo crisis.Aircraft, helicopters, cargo-handling teams andlogistical advice were provided to help with thetransport and distribution of aid. The EADRCCalso played a significant role in the coordination ofpriority humanitarian flights by bringing togetherkey actors in the air-traffic management field todevelop appropriate procedures and by arrangingfor air-traffic experts to be assigned to the UN AirCoordination Cell.The EADRCC acted in addition as an interlocutorwith other NATO and non-NATO bodies, on behalfof the two countries most affected by the crisis,Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia,* by articulating and explaining specificconcerns. One such issue was the urgent need toestablish mechanisms allowing evacuation to thirdcountries, to act as a humanitarian safety valve, asthe refugee crisis intensified.31

Preparing for terrorist attacksThe events of 11 September 2001 brought homethe urgency of cooperation in preparing forpossible terrorist attacks on civilian populationsusing chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear(CBRN) weapons. The Partnership Action Planagainst Terrorism (see p. 15) encourages thesharing of related information and participation incivil emergency planning to assess risks andreduce the vulnerability of civilian populations toterrorism and weapons of mass destruction.Minimum standards are being developed fortraining, planning and equipment. Field exercisesare organised regularly in the framework of thePartnership for Peace to ensure that countrieswork together as effectively as possible inresponding to a terrorist attack and managing itsconsequences. Specifically, this involves improvingthe interoperability of the different teams that woulddeal with medical and first aid issues and withdecontamination and clean-up. Another key issuebeing examined is how best to handle publicinformation in such stressful emergency situations.A Civil Emergency Planning Action Plan has beenagreed to assist national authorities in improvingtheir civil preparedness for possible terroristattacks with CBRN weapons. NATO and its Partnercountries have prepared and are continuouslyupdating an inventory of national capabilities thatwould be available in the event of such an attack.These involve everything from medical assistanceto radiological detection, to identificationlaboratories, to aero-medical evacuationcapabilities. Stockpiles are being developed of themore critical items that might be needed. Work onimproving border-crossing procedures aims toensure assistance can arrive as quickly as possiblein an emergency.“Dirty bomb” exerciseAn exercise simulatingan international responseto a terrorist attack usinga “dirty bomb” (aradiological dispersaldevice) was held inOctober 2003 in Piteşti,Romania (a Partnercountry at the time).Some 1,300 Romanianand 350 internationalpersonnel took part.32

Security, scienceand the environmentTwo distinct NATO programmes bring togetherscientists and experts from NATO and Partnercountries on a regular basis to work on problemsof common concern. Collaboration is a traditionamong scientists and a requirement for scientificprogress. The networks created also fulfil apolitical goal of building understanding andconfidence between communities from differentcultures and traditions.The Security Through Science programme of theNATO Science Committee aims to contribute tosecurity, stability and solidarity among countries byapplying science to problem solving. It supportscollaboration, networking and capacity-buildingamong working scientists in NATO, Partner andMediterranean Dialogue countries. The SecurityThrough Science programme concentrates itssupport for collaboration on research topics relatedto defence against terrorism or countering otherthreats to security. Another objective is to promotethe sharing and transfer of technology to helpPartner countries address their particular priorities.Applying science to securityDefence against terrorismThe fight against terrorism has become a key priorityfor Allies and Partners alike. NATO is supportingscientific research into developing effective methodsto detect chemical, biological, radiological andnuclear weapons or agents, and improving physicalprotection against them. Research is also beingpromoted into improved possibilities for the safedestruction of such weapons, for decontamination,and for medical responses including chemical andvaccine technologies.Workshops and seminars are being organised tobring together scientists to look at issues such asreducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure(including energy, communications, transportationand life-support systems); protecting against ecoterrorismand cyber-terrorism; improving bordersecurity; combating illegal trafficking; and developingmore effective means for explosives detection.The programme of the Committee on theChallenges of Modern Society (CCMS) deals withproblems of the environment and society bybringing together national agencies to collaborateon short and long-term studies in these areas. Itprovides a unique forum for sharing knowledgeand experience on technical, scientific and policyaspects of social and environmental mattersamong NATO and Partner countries, in both thecivilian and military sectors. A number of keysecurity-related objectives guide its work.Wider issues – such as understanding the roots ofterrorism, the social and psychologicalconsequences of terrorism, and how to strengthenthe resilience of populations against the terroristthreat – are also being examined with a view todeveloping policy recommendations.Countering other threats to securityWhile less obviously dangerous, other sources ofpotential threats to security and stability include thescarcity of non-renewable resources andenvironmental degradation – such as desertification,land erosion or pollution of common waterways –which can lead to regional or cross-border disputes.Solving such problems often requires not onlyscientific know-how but also multilateral action. Tomeet this need, NATO supports projects and studiesthat promote the application of scientific bestpractice and involve the key countries concerned.33

The world would also be a safer place if one wereable to forecast natural disasters, mitigate theireffects or better still prevent them. This is a keyarea of interest for many Partners. NATO hasconducted a number of projects aimed at reducingthe impact of major earthquakes in terms of loss oflife, material damage, and economic and socialdisruption. Such projects look into ways ofincreasing the earthquake resistance of buildings,for example, or involve collecting data on theseismological and geological characteristics of aregion to develop seismic hazard maps, which helpurban planners decide what type of building can bebuilt where. Projects aimed at developing moreefficient early warning and flood managementsystems are also being promoted.The reliance of modern society on the provision ofsafe food or on secure and reliable informationmeans that their availability must be assured.These are also key areas for further study in theeffort to make society more secure.ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITYThe cross-border character of environmental issueshas led the international community to take anactive role in initiating environmental projects notonly to further social and economic development,but also to promote security and stability. Suchprojects are a key focus under the Committee on theChallenges of Modern Society (CCMS) programmeand an important part of the Security ThroughScience programme.A significant step towards promoting the linkbetween environmental issues and security andstability was taken in 2002 with the launch of ajoint Environment and Security (ENVSEC)initiative by the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe, the United NationsEnvironment Programme and the United NationsDevelopment Programme. The initiative focuses onvulnerable regions such as the Balkans, the Caucasusand Central Asia.As the Security Through Science and CCMSprogrammes are involved in promoting securitythrough scientific and environmental cooperationwith Partner countries in these regions, they are nowassociated with ENVSEC. Activities are coordinated,information shared and results disseminated to therelevant authorities in the regions, which will lead toa much greater impact of activities.Seismic Damagefor all types of residentialbuildings in BishkekChannels, riversLakesDestroyed buildings, %0‹ 10%10-20%20-30%30-40%40-50%50-70%70-85%85-95%› 95%EarthquakeassistanceEarthquakes pose asignificant threat inhighly populatedareas of CentralAsia. In a NATOsponsoredproject,Turkish earthquakescientists arehelping counterpartsfrom Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic to establish risk maps for the capitals, Tashkent and Bishkek.These maps will serve as decision tools for urban planning and strengthening of existing buildings.34

NATO Public Diplomacy Division1110 Brussels, BelgiumWeb site: www.nato.intE-mail:© NATO 2005The production of this brochure is foreseenin all NATO and partner languages.Please check availability or contact the Distribution Unit:NATO Public Diplomacy Division – Distribution Unit1110 Brussels, BelgiumTel: +32 2 707 5009Fax: +32 2 707 1252E-mail: distribution@hq.nato.intSTPART_ENG0405

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines