text:
Pakistan, NATO's relations with -
NATO's relations with Pakistan Prime Minister of Pakistan Yousuf Raza Gilani and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen (June 2010). Over recent years, NATO has developed relations with a range of countries beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. Pakistan is counted among these countries, which are referred to as "partners across the globe." NATO's relations with the country have developed progressively since the Alliance assisted Pakistan following the devastating earthquake in 2005. Political dialogue and practical cooperation have since expanded significantly, in particular on Afghanistan. Allied nations and Pakistan share a common interest in stability in the region and in defeating extremism. With NATO leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Afghanistan is an important focus of cooperation (see below), especially regarding the shared objective of bringing security and stability to the country. Several high-level political talks between NATO and Pakistan have also addressed other areas of concern, including narcotics trafficking in Afghanistan and Afghan refugees. Allied leaders at the May 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago reaffirmed that "countries in the region, particularly Pakistan, have important roles in ensuring enduring peace, stability and security in Afghanistan and in facilitating the completion of the transition process." NATO-Pakistan relations go beyond the Alliance's mission in Afghanistan. NATO and Pakistan have developed regular exchanges at various levels, including visits by senior officials and leaders in civil society. High-level political exchanges have taken place, including visits by the former and current NATO Secretary General. President Asif Ali Zardari has previously visited NATO Headquarters to address the North Atlantic Council on his vision for cooperation. Military consultations also take place, and NATO has opened selected training and education courses to Pakistani officers. Secretary General Rasmussen visited Islamabad in July 2010, when it was agreed to develop a Joint Political Declaration. However, developments in the country and the 26 November 2011 incident along the Afghan-Pakistani border hampered progress. President Zardari's participation in the ISAF meeting at the Chicago Summit on 21 May 2012 highlighted efforts on both sides to restore a full-fledged relationship. Past interactions have provided opportunities to support the democratically elected authorities, cooperate with the military, build trust and understanding, and promote a culture of cooperative security focused on areas of common interest, such as regional stability and the fight against terrorism. NATO also aims to multiply interactions with parliamentarians, opinion leaders and the civil society at large to encourage dialogue on NATO's policies. The Allies' adoption of a more efficient and flexible partnership policy in April 2011 paved the way to enhance practical cooperation and political dialogue with "partners across the globe" in the same fashion as with other partners. This means that Pakistan, like other partners, will have access to NATO's Partnership Cooperation Menu (PCM) should the country wish to develop a formal bilateral programme of cooperation with NATO. Cooperation on Afghanistan Instability, extremism and terrorism in Afghanistan pose a threat to both Pakistan and the wider international community. As Pakistan's then Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz put it during a visit to NATO on 30 January 2007, "Pakistan is committed to a strong, stable Afghanistan. The one country that will benefit the most, after Afghanistan itself, will be Pakistan." Although Pakistan has expressed reservations with some operational issues, dialogue on Afghanistan is continuing with the Alliance. Pakistan's support for the efforts of NATO and the international community in Afghanistan remains crucial to the success of the Alliance's mission. In early July 2012, NATO's Secretary General welcomed Pakistan's announcement that the ground supply lines to Afghanistan – which had been closed since November 2011 – were re-opening, allowing for the resumption of the transit of ISAF supplies through Pakistan. The work of the Tripartite Commission, a joint forum on military and security issues that brings together representatives from the NATO-led ISAF operation, Afghanistan and Pakistan, reflects the importance of NATO-Pakistan military-to-military cooperation in the context of Afghanistan. The Tripartite Commission meets regularly at various levels to exchange views and discuss security matters of mutual concern. It focuses on four main areas of cooperation: intelligence sharing, border security, countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and initiatives relating to information operations. The Joint Intelligence Operations Centre (JIOC), a joint initiative designed to improve intelligence coordination between Afghanistan, ISAF and Pakistan, opened in Kabul in January 2007. Evolution of relations After a devastating earthquake struck Pakistan in October 2005, NATO launched an airlift of urgently needed supplies and deployed engineers, medical units and specialist equipment to the country. In order to facilitate the relief effort, NATO established a massive air-bridge, in addition to utilizing the assets of the NATO Response Force (NRF). Following the end of the mission in February 2006, political dialogue between NATO and Pakistan intensified. Practical cooperation has gradually enhanced the relationship, starting with the opening of NATO training courses to Pakistani officers. Since 2009, NATO has developed a Tailored Cooperative Package (TCP) of Activities, listing a series of education and training opportunities open to Pakistani officers and representatives. Contacts between the Pakistani senior military leadership and NATO's authorities were also intensified in this context. In addition, NATO recently organised multiple activities aimed at making its role clearer to the Pakistani public, including visits of parliamentarians, opinion leaders and journalists. Pakistan and NATO's relationship continued to develop during devastating floods along the Indus River in July 2010. Responding to a request from Pakistan for help, NATO member nations, partner countries and other non-governmental organizations donated several hundred tonnes of humanitarian aid in the form of generators, food, boats, tents, clothing, medical equipment and supplies, field hospitals, blankets, mosquito nets and water purification systems. Coordinated by NATO's Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC), the Alliance provided airlift and sealift assistance, starting in August 2010, for the delivery of the donated goods. At their meeting in Berlin in April 2011, Allied Foreign Ministers listed Pakistan as one of NATO's partners across the globe. As such, in the framework of the establishment of a single Partnership Cooperation Menu (PCM) open to all NATO partners, Pakistan will be able to access a wide range of cooperation activities with the Alliance and develop a more effective individual programme. Milestones 2005 (March) Visit to Pakistan by Ambassador Alessandro Minuto Rizzo, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General. (October) Start of Pakistan earthquake relief operation; NATO airlifts supplies via two air bridges, from Germany and Turkey. (December) General Ahsan Saleem Hyat, Vice Chief of Pakistani Army Staff, visits NATO teams at Arja, Pakistan. 2006 (January) End of NATO's earthquake relief operation in Pakistan. Almost 3500 tons of relief supplies, over 7600 people moved, more than 8000 patients treated. In addition, roads cleared, schools and shelters built. (May) Alliance officials visit Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and other officials in Islamabad. (September) First Pakistani military officers and civilians attend courses at NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany. (November) First visit by top Pakistani officer, General Ehsan ul Haq, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to NATO Headquarters. 2007 (January) Opening of Joint Intelligence Operations Centre (JIOC) at ISAF HQ. The JIOC facilitates joint intelligence operations between ISAF and the Pakistani and Afghan armies. (January) Visit to NATO by Prime Minister of Pakistan; NATO and Pakistan agree on Afghanistan approach. (February) Visit of high-level Pakistani civil and military officials, as well as representatives of the think-tank community, to NATO HQ and commands. (May) First visit by a NATO Secretary General to Pakistan. NATO and Pakistan agree to hold regular high-level political exchanges. 2008 (January) NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer met President Pervez Musharraf in Brussels to discuss current security situation in the region and cooperation between NATO and Pakistan. (January) A visit by the Senate's Joint Standing Committee on Defence was organised to NATO HQ and SHAPE. Pakistani parliamentarians have also been invited by the NPA to its plenary meetings including in Berlin and Valencia (November) Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani meets NATO Secretary General at NATO Headquarters. 2009 (January) NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer visits Pakistan for meetings with President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani, Foreign Minister Qureshi, Defence Minister Mukhtar and General Kayani, Chief of the General Staff, as well as other senior officials. (January) The North Atlantic Council agree on the role of the Embassy of Turkey in Islamabad as the NATO Contact Point Embassy in Pakistan. This crucial step complements the practical cooperation framework to facilitate political exchange and working-level coordination. (May) Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Kayani visits NATO Headquarters for meetings with NATO's civilian and military leadership. (June) President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari visits NATO Headquarters for a meeting with the North Atlantic Council – the first elected President of Pakistan to address the Council. (August) A group of Pakistani opinion leaders visits NATO Headquarters and SHAPE. (October) A seminar on Pakistan is held, at which international experts on the country engage in discussion with NATO Ambassadors. (December) NATO and Pakistan establish an annual work programme or Individual Tailored Cooperation Package (TCP) of activities which provides the basis for practical cooperation. 2010 (February) Pakistani Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, meets the Secretary General and addresses the North Atlantic Council. (June) Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, accompanied by a large government and parliamentary delegation, meet the Secretary General and address the North Atlantic Council. (July) First visit by NATO Secretary General Rasmussen to Islamabad, during which an agreement is reached with the Government of Pakistan to jointly develop a political declaration as a framework for partnership. (August) Following Pakistan's request for help, NATO begins providing airlift and sealift assistance for the transport of humanitarian aid donated after the country's devastating floods. More than 700 tons of humanitarian items have been delivered on some 19 flights to assist the Pakistani population 2011 (September) EADRCC is activated at Pakistan's request in response to monsoon floods. (November) Pakistan closes ground communication lines for ISAF transit following an incident along the Afghan-Pakistani border. 2012 (May) President Zardari participates in the extended format ISAF meeting at NATO's Chicago Summit. (July) Pakistan announces the re-opening of ground supply lines to Afghanistan for the transit of ISAF supplies. natochannel.tv : NATO cooperation with Pakistan newYTPlayer('','81797'); On the incident in Pakistan 04 Oct. 2010 NATO Secretary General's blog On the incident in Pakistan 04 Oct. 2010 NATO Secretary General's blog NATO provides aid to Pakistan 03 Sep. 2010 NATO aid flight arrives 23 Aug. 2010 A NATO aircraft has delivered aid to Pakistan in the wake of the devastating floods that have hit the country. NATO's humanitarian relief to Pakistan 22 Aug. 2010 With the flooding crisis in Pakistan continuing NATO has responded to a call for assistance by flying aid to the capital Islamabad today Joint Press point by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the NATO Secretary General 04 Jun. 2010 Working Together 12 Nov. 2009 Afghanistan, Pakistan and ISAF forces are working together near the border in Kandahar province to improve relations and combat the free movement of insurgents and illegal materials.
Pakistan earthquake relief operation
Pakistan earthquake relief operation NATO airlifted close to 3,500 tons of urgently-needed supplies to Pakistan and deployed engineers, medical units and specialist equipment to assist in relief operations after the devastating 8 October 2005 earthquake. The earthquake is estimated to have killed 80,000 people in Pakistan and left up to three million without food or shelter just before the onset of the harsh Himalayan winter. The mission came to an end, on schedule, on 1 February 2006. Practical implementation of the NATO mission The evolution of NATO's assistance The participants Practical implementation of the NATO mission On 11 October, in response to a request from Pakistan, NATO launched an operation to assist in the urgent relief effort. NATO airlifted supplies donated by NATO member and partner countries as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees via two air bridges, from Germany and Turkey. 168 flights delivered almost 3,500 tons of relief supplies. The supplies provided included thousands of tents, stoves and blankets necessary to protect the survivors from the cold. In addition, NATO deployed engineers and medical units from the NATO Response Force to assist in the relief effort. The first teams arrived on 29 October. In just three months of operations, NATO achieved the following: NATO's air bridges flew almost 3,500 tons of aid to Pakistan with 168 flights. These flights carried in nearly 18,000 tents, 505,000 blankets, nearly 17,000 stoves/heaters, more than 31,500 mattresses, 49,800 sleeping bags, tons of medical supplies, and more; NATO's field hospital treated approximately 4,890 patients and conducted 160 major surgeries. Mobile medical units treated some 3,424 patients in the remote mountain villages; they also contributed significantly to the World Health Organisation immunisation programme that has helped to prevent the outbreak of disease; In the cities of Arja and Bagh, NATO engineers repaired nearly 60 kilometres of roads and removed over 41,500 cubic meters of debris, enabling the flow of aid, commerce and humanitarian assistance to the inhabitants of the valley. Nine school and health structures were completed and 13 tent schools erected. The engineers distributed 267 cubic meters of drinking water and upgraded a permanent spring water distribution and storage system to serve up to 8,400 persons per day; NATO engineers also supported the Pakistani Army in Operation Winter Race, by constructing 110 multi-purpose shelters for the population living in the mountains; NATO helicopters transported more than 1,750 tons of relief goods to remote mountain villages and evacuated over 7,650 disaster victims; NATO set up an aviation fuel farm in Abbottabad, which carried out some 1,000 refuellings for civilian and military helicopters. During the mission some 1,000 engineers and supporting staff, as well as 200 medical personnel, worked in Pakistan. NATO was part of a very large effort aimed at providing disaster relief in Pakistan. The Pakistani Army provided the bulk of the response, with the support of NATO, the UN and other international organizations and several individual countries. The evolution of NATO's assistance On 10 October, NATO received from Pakistan a request for assistance in dealing with the aftermath of the 8 October earthquake. The next day, the North Atlantic Council approved a major air operation to bring supplies from NATO and Partner countries to Pakistan. The airlift begins The airlift began on 13 October and the first tons of supplies arrived in Pakistan on October 14. On 19 October, NATO opened a second air bridge from Incirlik, Turkey, to deliver large quantities of tents, blankets and stoves donated by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Deployment of engineers and medical personnel On 21 October, in reponse to a further request from Pakistan, NATO agreed to deploy engineers and medical personnel from the NATO Response Force to Pakistan to further assist in the relief effort. A NATO headquarters was deployed to Pakistan on 24 October to liaise with Pakistani authorities and pave the way for the incoming troops. The first troops, the advance elements of the medical team, began arriving on 29 October, and immediately began treating hundreds hundreds of people a day. Engineering teams followed and began working in the area around Bagh in support of Pakistani efforts to repair roads, build shelters and medical facilities. NATO engineers also supported the Pakistani Army in Operation Winter Race, by constructing multi-purpose shelters for the population living in the mountains. On 9 November, NATO opened a sophisticated 60-bed field hospital, which provided a wide range of care including complex surgical procedures. On the same day, heavy-lift transport helicopters assigned to NATO for the operation, began flying, delivering supplies to remote mountain villages and evacuating victims. NATO also set up an aviation fuel farm in Abbottabad, which carried out refuellings for civilian and military helicopters, which were essential to the relief effort. Further requests for assistance On 27 October, Foreign Secretary of Pakistan Tariq Osman Hyder addressed a meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, asking for further assistance. He said that NATO could provide continued airlift, funds, logistic and airspace management, mobile fuel tanks, spare parts for helicopters and tactical aircraft, command and control, winterised tents and sleeping bags. That same day, NATO's Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre received from the UNHCR an urgent request for the transport to Pakistan of additional shelter and relief items stored in Turkey before the winter sets in. NATO's relief mission came to an end, on schedule, on 1 February 2006 and all personnel have left the affected zone around Bagh. The participants NATO's short-term relief mission was based on five elements : co-ordination of donations from NATO and partner countries through the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Relief Co-ordination Centre (EADRCC) in Brussels; the air bridge from Turkey and Germany for the transport of relief goods to Pakistan; five helicopters operating in the earthquake-affected area for the transport of supplies to remote mountain villages and evacuation of victims; medical support with a field hospital and mobile medical teams in the area of Bagh; engineer support operating in the area around Bagh in support of Pakistani efforts for the reparation of roads; and building of shelters, schools and medical facilities. The NATO Land Component in Pakistan was led by the Spanish and headquartered in Arja. It included: A headquarters element in Arja; Two light engineer units in the Bagh district (one Spanish and one Polish); An Italian engineer unit with heavy construction equipment; A unit of British engineers specialized in high-altitude relief work; A multi-national team of medics operating the NATO field hospital, including staff for inpatient and outpatient care, as well as mobile medical teams in the area of Bagh — led by the Dutch Army and including Czech, French, Portuguese and British personnel; Four Water Purification teams (one Spanish, three Lithuanian); Two civil-military cooperation teams from Slovenia and France. The NATO Air Component in Pakistan came from the French Air Defence and Operation Command and included: a German helicopter detachment; Luxembourg rescue helicopter; a French ground handling team; a fuel farm operated by a French unit at Abbottabad. The NATO HQ in Pakistan was comprised of personnel from NATO's Joint Force Command Lisbon, augmented by staff from NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). In total some 1,000 NATO engineers and supporting staff, as well as 200 medical personnel, worked in Pakistan during the operation.
Parliamentary Assembly, The NATO -
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is an interparliamentary organization, which brings together legislators from NATO member countries to consider security-related issues of common interest and concern. The Assembly is completely independent of NATO but provides a link between NATO and the parliaments of its member countries, helping to build parliamentary and public consensus in support of Alliance policies. Since the 1980s the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) has assumed additional roles by integrating into its work parliamentarians from NATO partner countries in Europe and beyond. Fostering mutual understanding The Assembly's principal objective is to foster mutual understanding among Alliance parliamentarians of the key security challenges facing the transatlantic partnership. Working with parliamentarians from member countries fostering dialogue among parliamentarians on major security issues; facilitating parliamentary awareness and understanding of key security issues and Alliance policies; providing NATO and its member governments with an indication of collective parliamentary opinion; providing greater transparency in NATO policies as well as collective accountability; Strengthening the transatlantic relationship. In fulfilling its goals, the Assembly provides a central source of information and a point of contact for member legislators and their respective national parliaments. Cooperating with parliamentarians in partner countries Since 1989, the Assembly has also had the following objectives: to assist in the development of parliamentary democracy throughout the Euro-Atlantic area by integrating parliamentarians from non-member countries into the Assembly's work; to assist directly those parliaments of countries actively seeking Alliance membership; to increase cooperation with countries which seek cooperation with NATO rather than membership, including those of the Caucasus and the Mediterranean regions; to assist in the development of parliamentary mechanisms, practices and know-how essential for the effective democratic control of armed forces. Member and associate countries The NATO-PA is made up of 257 delegates from the 28 NATO member countries. Each delegation is based on the country's size and reflects the political composition of the parliament, therefore representing a broad spectrum of political opinion. Delegates are nominated by their parliaments according to their national procedures. In addition to these NATO-country delegates, delegates from 14 associate countries, four Mediterranean associate countries, as well as observers from seven other countries take part in its activities. Interparliamentary assemblies such as the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the Western European Union Assembly also send delegations. The European Parliament is entitled to send ten delegates to Assembly Sessions and can participate in most Committee and Sub-Committee activities. Working by committee Most of the Assembly's work is carried out by its five committees and eight sub-committees, which cover the major security and policy challenges confronting the Alliance: democratic gouvernance, transatlantic defence cooperation, future capabilities, the civil and economic dimensions of security, science and technology, including energy and environmental security, partnerships and the Mediterranean and Middle East. The Sub-Committees meet several times a year on fact-finding missions designed to gather information for Sub-Committee and Committee reports. Sub-Committee reports, like those produced directly for the Committees, are amended and adopted by majority vote in the Committees. Each year, the NATO PA typically holds approximately 40 activities. These include two Plenary Sessions, a Standing Committee meeting, three to four Rose-Roth Seminars, two Mediterranean Seminars, sixteen Sub-Committee meetings and a variety of other meetings. The evolution of the NATO PA The idea to engage parliamentarians in transatlantic issues first emerged in the early 1950s and took shape with the creation of an annual conference of NATO parliamentarians in 1955. The Assembly's creation reflected a desire on the part of legislators to give substance to the premise of the Washington Treaty that NATO was the practical expression of a fundamentally political transatlantic alliance of democracies. The foundation for cooperation between NATO and the NATO PA was strengthened in December 1967 when the North Atlantic Council (NAC) authorised the NATO Secretary General to study how to achieve closer cooperation between the two bodies. As a result of these deliberations, the NATO Secretary General, after consultation with the NAC, implemented several measures to enhance the working relationship between NATO and the Assembly. These measures included the Secretary General providing a response to all Assembly recommendations and resolutions adopted in its Plenary Sessions. Promoting parliamentary democracy in Central and Eastern Europe In response to the fall of the Berlin Wall in the 1980s, the NATO-PA broadened its mandate by developing close relations with political leaders in Central and East European countries. Those ties, in turn, greatly facilitated the dialogue that NATO itself embarked upon with the region's governments. The Rose-Roth programme of cooperation with the parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) was initiated in 1990 by the then President of the Assembly, Congressman Charlie Rose, and Senator Bill Roth. The aim of the Rose-Roth Initiative was, initially, to strengthen the development of parliamentary democracy in CEE countries. Towards deeper relations with Russia and Ukraine At the end of the Cold War, the NATO PA made contacts with Russia and Ukraine. Its relations with these two countries were given a new impetus in 1997. The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and NATO, signed in May 1997, and the NATO-Ukraine Charter signed in July 1997, explicitly charged the Assembly with expanding its dialogue and cooperation with both the Russian Federal Assembly and the Ukrainian Rada. Mirroring the creation in May 2002 of the NATO-Russia Council, a major step forward in NATO's cooperation with Russia, the Assembly created the NATO-Russia parliamentary Committee to allow discussions "at 27". This committee, which meets twice a year during sessions, has become the main framework for direct NATO-Russia parliamentary relations. In 2002, the Assembly also decided to upgrade its special relationship with Ukraine by creating the Ukraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council. The Assembly's cooperation with the Verkhovna Rada was progressively strengthened in the run-up to the Ukrainian Presidential elections in 2004. Members of the NATO-PA were involved in election monitoring, supporting the international community's effort. Increasing cooperation with partners in the Middle East and North Africa The increasing attention to security in the Mediterranean region in the 1990s culminated in 1996 with the creation of the Assembly's Mediterranean Special Group (GSM). It is a forum for cooperation and discussion with the parliaments in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region focussed on political, economic, social and security issues. In 2004-2005, the Assembly decided to bolster its relations with parliaments in this region. At the Venice session, the Standing Committee created the new status of Mediterranean Associate Members, opening the door for increased cooperation with MENA parliaments.
Partners across the globe, NATO's relations with -
NATO's relations with partners across the globe NATO cooperates on an individual basis with a number of partner countries which are not part of its other partnership frameworks (i.e. the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council/Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative). Formally referred to as "partners across the globe" – but often simply as "global partners" – they include Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Mongolia. These countries develop cooperation with NATO in areas of mutual interest, including emerging security challenges, and some contribute actively to NATO operations either militarily or in some other way. Individual global partners choose the areas where they wish to engage with NATO, as well as the extent of this cooperation, in a spirit of mutual benefit and reciprocity. Over recent years, NATO has developed bilateral relations with each of these countries. Global partners now have the same access to partnership activities as other partners. Activities range from joint exercises and joint operations, to strategic-level training, and information, intelligence as well as technology exchange. The importance of reaching out to nations and organizations across the globe was underlined in the Strategic Concept adopted at the November 2010 Lisbon Summit. At Lisbon, Allied leaders declared their intention, as part of a focused effort to reform NATO's partnerships policy, to better engage with partners across the globe which contribute significantly to security. Following up on the Lisbon decisions, Allied foreign ministers approved a new partnerships policy at their meeting in Berlin in April 2011. In line with the new policy, all partners will be treated in the same way offering them the same basis of cooperation and dialogue. Moreover, are now more frequent opportunities for meetings in flexible formats, bringing together NATO and partners from across and beyond existing partnership frameworks, as well as other countries with which NATO may have no bilateral programme of cooperation. One such meeting was held at NATO Headquarters on September 2011 to discuss counter-piracy, involving representatives from 47 nations and organizations involved in counter-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean. Other similar meetings have taken place to consult partners on different issues, such as partnership or countering narcotics in Afghanistan. Support for NATO-led operations The significant contributions from partners across the globe to NATO-led operations have a direct, advantageous impact for international peace and security. In the Balkans, Argentinean and Chilean forces have worked alongside NATO Allies to ensure security in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Kosovo, Argentina has helped NATO personnel to provide medical and social assistance to the local population and has cooperated on peace agreement implementation since 1999. In Afghanistan, a number of global partners such as Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea, work alongside the Allies as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Other countries, such as Japan, support ISAF efforts of stabilization in Afghanistan without being involved in combat, by funding large number of development projects and dispatching liaison officers. Pakistan's support for the efforts of NATO and the international community in Afghanistan remains crucial to the success of the Alliance's mission, despite the different difficulties experienced over recent months. NATO remains committed to engage and cooperate with Pakistan in an effort to enlist support to stabilize Afghanistan. The participation of partners in NATO-led peace support operations is guided by the Political-Military Framework (PMF), which has been developed for NATO-led Partnership for Peace operations. This framework provides for the involvement of contributing states in the planning and force generation processes through the International Coordination Centre at Allied Command Operations. Building on lessons learned and reinforcing the habit of cooperation established through KFOR and ISAF, NATO Allies decided at the 2010 Lisbon Summit to review the PMF in order to update how NATO works together and shapes decisions with partner countries on the operations and missions to which they contribute. Typically, forces from global partner countries are incorporated into operations on the same basis as are forces from NATO member nations. This implies that they are involved in the decision-making process through their association to the work of committees, and through the posting of liaison officers in the operational headquarters or to SHAPE. They often operate under the direct command of the Operational Commander through multinational divisional headquarters. Regular meetings of the Council at Ambassadorial, Ministerial and Heads of State and Government are held to discuss and review the operations, as illustrated by the meeting on ISAF that will take place at the Chicago Summit in May 2012. Evolution of relations NATO has maintained a dialogue with countries which were not part of its partnership frameworks, on an ad hoc basis, since the 1990s. However, NATO's involvement in areas outside of its immediate region – including Afghanistan and Libya – has increased the need and the opportunities for enhanced global interaction. Clearly, the emergence of global threats requires the cooperation of a wider range of countries to succesfully tackle challenges such as terrorism, proliferation, piracy or cyber attacks. Dialogue with these countries can also help NATO to avert crises and, when needed, to manage an operation during all its phases. Since 1998, and according to a set of general guidelines for relations countries which were then referred to as "Contact Countries", NATO has invited nations across the globe to participate in its activities, workshops, exercises and conferences. This decision marked a policy shift for the Alliance, allowing these countries to have access, through the case-by-case approval of the North Atlantic Council, to activites offered under NATO's structured partnerships. Significant steps were taken at the 2006 Riga Summit to increase the operational relevance of NATO's cooperation with both countries that are part of its structured partnership frameworks and other partners across the globe. These steps were reinforced by decisions at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, which defined a set of objectives for these relationships and created avenues for enhanced political dialogue, including meetings of the North Atlantic Council with ministers of the countries concerned, high level talks, and meetings with ambassadors. In addition, annual work programmes (then referred to as Individual Tailored Cooperation Packages of Activities) were further developed. At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, Allies agreed to develop a more efficient and flexible partnership policy, in time for the meeting of Allied foreign ministers in Berlin in April 2011. To this end, they decided to: streamline NATO's partnership tools in order to open all cooperative activities and exercises to partners and to harmonise partnership programmes; better engage with partners across the globe who contribute significantly to security, and reach out to relevant partners to build trust, increase transparency and develop practical cooperation; develop flexible formats to discuss security challenges with partners and enhance existing fora for political dialogue; and build on improvements in NATO's training mechanisms and consider methods to enhance individual partner's ability to build capacity. As part of efforts to reach out across the globe to nations and organizations that share the Alliance's interest in peaceful international relations, NATO is also seeking to develop dialogue with countries that do not have a formal bilateral programme of cooperation. These include countries such as China, India, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Colombia.
Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism (PAP-T), The -
The Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism The Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism (PAP-T) is a framework through which Allies and Partner countries work to improve cooperation in the fight against terrorism, through political consultation and a range of practical measures. The PAP-T underlines the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as upholding the rule of law in combating terrorism. The Action Plan is the main platform for joint efforts by Allies and Partners in the fight against terrorism. It also reflects the determination of Allies and Partners to keep the Euro-Atlantic Partnership active and relevant to the changing security environment. How does cooperation work in practice? The PAP-T is a key element in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. It has also been offered to countries that participate in NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and other interested countries, on a case-by-case basis. Participating countries agree on the level of their participation individually with NATO. The Action Plan facilitates greater intelligence sharing and cooperation in areas such as border security, terrorism-related training and exercises, the development of capabilities for defence against terrorist attack and for managing the consequences of such an attack. Consultations and information sharing Allies and Partners consult regularly on their shared security concerns related to terrorism in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). They also exchange views and experience in seminars and workshops held under EAPC/PfP auspices. Partner countries may seek direct political consultations with NATO, individually or in smaller groups, on their concerns related to terrorism. In addition, NATO and Partner countries have established an EAPC/PfP Intelligence Liaison Unit at the Allied Strategic Command for Operations in Mons, Belgium, to facilitate more effective intelligence exchange. An increasing number of non-NATO countries share information on equipment development and procurement activities to improve their national capabilities to combat terrorism. Through the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) Defence Against Terrorism Programme of Work, Allies and Partners are developing technological capabilities and solutions for defence against terrorism. Operations and exercises Partner countries and other non-member countries are contributing to NATO-led operations and exercises that help combat terrorism. Russia and Ukraine have contributed frigates to Operation Active Endeavour, NATO's maritime counter-terrorism operation in the Mediterranean, and Mediterranean-rim countries are also providing intelligence to this operation. Moreover, a number of non-member countries are contributing to the fight against terrorism through their support for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan and in the Balkans. A range of exercises in combating terrorism are regularly undertaken as part of the PfP programme. Exercises organized by individual Allies and Partners "in the spirit of PfP" are also used to develop capabilities for combating terrorism. Assisting Partners' efforts against terrorism Under NATO's Political-Military Steering Committee, focused meetings are scheduled by Partners and Allies to address specific needs related to terrorism. Mentoring programmes are being developed on specific terrorism-related issues, in order to share specific experiences in combating terrorism. NATO/PfP Trust Fund projects are also supporting Partner countries by destroying surplus and obsolete munitions or hazardous materials that could pose a security risk in the hands of terrorists. NATO also supports Partner countries in conducting studies on infrastructure protection and other aspects of defence against terrorism. Allies work with Partners on defence and security-sector reform, primarily through the IPAP and PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP), to support efforts to develop efficient, democratically-controlled, properly-structured and well-equipped forces able to contribute to combating terrorism. Through these mechanisms, Partners can choose to make counter-terrorism a priority area and fix related objectives in coordination with the Alliance. Borders are one of the first lines of defence against terrorism. Under the PAP-T, NATO and Partner countries have been working to enhance various aspects of border management and security, including addressing the challenge of illegal trafficking. Partner countries participating in IPAP and/or PARP can choose to develop objectives in the area of border security. Courses on border security and management are also open to Partners at the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany, and in the PfP Training Centers in Turkey and Greece. Through the PAP-T, NATO and Partners also cooperate on air defence, air-traffic management, and improving the interoperability of their forces for joint counter-terrorism operations. Cooperation in the fields of logistics and arms control is also ongoing. Targeting terrorist finances The EAPC format of the Economic Committee has provided a forum for exchange of information and views on the economic aspects of the international fight against terrorism. This has included, in particular, regulatory provisions barring the financing of terrorist activity and analysis of the methods and sources of finance for terrorist groups. The NATO Defence College has also dedicated a number of events to examining the financial and economic aspects of the fight against terrorism. Civil emergency planning NATO and Partner countries share related information and actively participate in civil emergency planning activities to assess risks and reduce vulnerability of the civil population to terrorism and attacks using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents. This includes developing crisis-management procedures and active participation in field exercises. Allies and Partners have implemented a civil emergency planning action plan endorsed by the Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee (SCEPC). In particular, Partners associate themselves with the efforts being undertaken within the SCEPC and its planning boards and committees to work on all possible options to provide support, when requested, to national authorities in the event of a terrorist attack. Cooperating with other international organizations Through the PAP-T, NATO cooperates with a number of international organizations – such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. NATO is committed to cooperation with the United Nations, which has a primary role in the international community's response to terrorism, and works closely with the UN Counter Terrorism Committee. The PAP-T was communicated to the UN Security Council as an initial contribution to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373. Representatives of other international organizations are regularly invited to seminars and other activities organized under the PAP-T. Science and environment The Science for Peace and Security Programme (SPS) promotes scientific cooperation between NATO Allies, Partner countries and Mediterranean Dialogue countries. The programme offers grants to scientists across these countries to collaborate on priority research areas. Defence against terrorism is the first of three key priorities under the SPS work programme. Since the cooperative programme was redirected to security in 2004, over 230 activities have been initiated in a range of topical areas related to defence against terrorism. Special consideration is given to the social and psychological aspects of international terrorism and its root causes. Other areas include the rapid detection of chemical, biological, radiological nuclear (CBRN) agents and weapons, and rapid diagnosis of their effects on people, physical protection against CBRN agents, decontamination and destruction of CBRN agents and weapons, food security, explosives detection, eco-terrorism countermeasures and defence against cyber-terrorism. How did this policy evolve? Meeting at very short notice a day after the September 2001 attacks against the United States, ambassadors from NATO and Partner countries unconditionally condemned the attacks and pledged to undertake all efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism. The PAP-T is a manifestation of this resolve. It was launched by the North Atlantic Council in consultation with Partners at the Prague Summit in 2002. The programme continues to evolve and expand in line with the joint aims and efforts of Allies and Partners.
Partnership Action Plan for Defence Institution Building (PAP-DIB)
Partnership Action Plan for Defence Institution Building Effective civilian and democratic control over armed forces The Partnership Action Plan on Defence Institution Building (PAP-DIB) aims to reinforce efforts by Partner countries to reform and restructure their defence institutions to meet domestic needs as well as international commitments. Effective and efficient state defence institutions under civilian and democratic control are fundamental to stability in the Euro-Atlantic area, and essential for international security cooperation. Many Partner countries are just beginning this long and difficult process, often with scarce resources and limited experience. As a response, the PAP-BID is now in place to assist Partners in carrying out these reforms. What does this mean in practice? The Action Plan for Defence Institution Building defines common objectives for Partnership work in this area, encourages exchange of relevant experience, and helps tailor and focus bilateral defence and security assistance programmes for Partner countries, to support them in overcoming the difficulties of reforms. The Action Plan's objectives include: effective and transparent arrangements for the democratic control of defence activities; civilian participation in developing defence and security policy; effective and transparent legislative and judicial oversight of the defence sector; enhanced assessment of security risks and national defence requirements, matched with developing and maintaining affordable and interoperable capabilities; optimising the management of defence ministries and other agencies which have associated force structures; compliance with international norms and practices in the defence sector, including export controls; effective and transparent financial, planning and resource allocation procedures in the defence area; effective management of defence spending as well as of the socio-economic consequences of defence restructuring; effective and transparent personnel structures and practices in the defence forces; and effective international cooperation and good neighbourly relations in defence and security matters. How did it evolve? In recognition of the importance of civilian and democratic control of armed and security forces, the Partnership Action Plan for Defence Institution Building was launched at NATO's Istanbul Summit in June 2004, and endorsed by the Heads of State and Government of 49 NATO and Partner countries. Which NATO bodies have a central role? Implementation of the Action Plan will make maximum use of existing EAPC and PfP tools and mechanisms. The Planning and Review Process mechanism will serve as a key instrument for implementing the Action Plan's objectives and it will be adapted as required.
Partnership for Peace Planning and Review Process (PARP)
Partnership for Peace Planning and Review Process Launched in 1995, under the Partnership for Peace, the role of the Planning and Review Process (PARP) is to provide a structured basis for identifying partner forces and capabilities that could be available to the Alliance for multinational training, exercises and operations. The PARP also serves as a planning tool to guide and measure progress in defence and military transformation efforts. PARP is open to all PfP partners and, following the review of NATO's partnerships policy in April 2011, participation in PARP is being opened to all other partners on a voluntary and case-by-case basis subject to NAC approval. The PARP,also provides a planning mechanism for Euro-Atlantic partners that are European Union (EU) members, which assists them in developing capabilities for both NATO-led and EU-led operations. A biennial process, the PARP is open to all Partners on a voluntary basis. Countries that wish to join NATO must participate in the PARP as a pre-requisite to join the Membership Action Plan (MAP). Components In recognition of the value the Allies place on force planning, the 1994 Partnership for Peace (PfP) Framework Document committed NATO to developing a Planning and Review Process (PARP) with partner countries. Launched in 1995, the intent of the first cycle of this PARP was to provide a structured basis for identifying partner forces and capabilities that could be available to the Alliance for multinational training, exercises and operations. This process further enhances interoperability with Allied forces and promotes transparency. Over time, the PARP has developed in several ways in order to serve different purposes. In addition to improving interoperability and increasing transparency, the Alliance also uses the PARP to assess the progress of objectives and priorities in the defence and military fields set by Georgia and Ukraine in their Annual National Plans. The Alliance uses the PARP for the same purpose for partner countries with which NATO has Individual Partnership Action Plans or Membership Action Plans. Working mechanism The PARP is voluntary process. The decision to take part in it is up to each partner country. In order to participate, the interested Partner must first complete a PARP Survey, which clarifies the partner's forces and capabilities available to the Alliance, its wider defence plans, the structure of its forces and its budgetary plans. Based on this information, the staff from both the civilian and military sides of the Alliance then develops a package of draft Partnership Goals. Next, the partner participates in bilateral talks on these goals with the civilian and military staffs. They then amend them as necessary, followed by discussions between the partner and all of the Allies. Finally, once this process is complete, the Ambassadors of the Allies and the partner country approve the Partnership Goals. The PARP continuously reviews the progress of each country. To this end, the NATO staff produces a PARP Assessment, which analyzes the advancement of the partner in meeting the agreed Partnership Goals. The PARP itself is a two-year process. Based on an updated PARP Survey, the partners and NATO agree to the Partnership Goals in even-numbered years and the PARP Assessment in odd-numbered years. Evolution Allies and participating partners jointly developed and agreed to the current PARP procedures and the collective documents related to the PARP. These collective documents, which continue to guide the PARP, include the PARP Ministerial Guidance, which the Allied and partner defence ministers approve; the Consolidated Report, which gives an overview of partners' progress and contains a detailed section on the forces and capabilities that Allies could make available for crisis-response operations; and the Partnership Goal Summary Report. The PARP has moved beyond its primary focus on developing interoperability to also addressing the development of new capabilities. It has the additional function of providing a planning mechanism for the participating partners who are also European Union (EU) members. In this respect, it assists them in developing capabilities for both NATO-led and EU-led operations. In the past, the PARP was a vehicle for encouraging defence reform, but has now extended to the wider security sector. For countries that agree, Partnership Goals now also cover reform and development objectives for Ministries of Emergencies, Interior and Finance, as well as Border Guard Services and Security Services.
Partnership for Peace programme, The -
The Partnership for Peace programme The Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between individual Euro-Atlantic partner countries and NATO. It allows partners to build up an individual relationship with NATO, choosing their own priorities for cooperation. Based on a commitment to the democratic principles that underpin the Alliance itself, the purpose of the Partnership for Peace is to increase stability, diminish threats to peace and build strengthened security relationships between individual Euro-Atlantic partners and NATO, as well as among partner countries. Activities on offer under the PfP programme touch on virtually every field of NATO activity, including defence-related work, defence reform, defence policy and planning, civil-military relations, education and training, military-to-military cooperation and exercises, civil emergency planning and disaster-response, and cooperation on science and environmental issues. The essence of the PfP programme is a partnership formed individually between each Euro-Atlantic partner and NATO, tailored to individual needs and jointly implemented at the level and pace chosen by each participating government. Over the years, a range of PfP tools and mechanisms have been developed to support cooperation through a mix of policies, programmes, action plans and arrangements. At the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, as part of a focused reform effort to develop a more efficient and flexible partnership policy, Allied leaders, decide to take steps to streamline NATO's partnership tools in order to open all cooperative activities and exercises to partners and to harmonise partnership programmes. The new partnerships policy approved by Allied foreign ministers in Berlin in April opened all cooperative activities and exercises offered to PfP partners and some programmes offered in the PfP "toolbox" to all partners, whether they be Euro-Atlantic partners, countries participating in the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, or global partners. (For more details, see A-Z page on " Partnership tools ") The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council provides the overall political framework for NATO's cooperation with Euro-Atlantic partners and the bilateral relationships developed between NATO and individual partner countries within the Partnership for Peace programme. There are currently 22 countries in the Partnership for Peace Programme, see list by country or date . Framework Partner countries choose individual activities according to their ambitions and abilities. These are put forward to NATO in what is called a Presentation Document. An Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (previously called the Individual Partnership Programme) is then jointly developed and agreed between NATO and each partner country. These two-year programmes are drawn up from an extensive menu of activities, according to each country's specific interests and needs. Following implementation of the decisions taken at the Lisbon Summit, all partners will have access to the new Partnership and Cooperation Menu, which comprises some 1600 activities. Some countries choose to deepen their cooperation with NATO by developing Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs). Developed on a two-year basis, such plans are designed to bring together all the various cooperation mechanisms through which a partner country interacts with the Alliance, sharpening the focus of activities to better support their domestic reform efforts. Milestones 1990 (July) Allies extend a "hand of friendship" across the old East-West divide and propose a new cooperative relationship with all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. 1991 (November) The Alliance issues a new strategic concept for NATO, which adopts a broader approach to security, emphasizing partnership, dialogue and cooperation. (December) The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) is established as a forum for security dialogue between NATO and its new partners. 1994 The Partnership for Peace (PfP), a major programme of practical bilateral cooperation between NATO and individual partner countries, is launched. Partner missions to NATO are established. A Partnership Coordination Cell is set up at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) to help coordinate PfP training and exercises. 1995 An International Coordination Cell is established at SHAPE to provide briefing and planning facilities for all non-NATO countries contributing troops to NATO-led peacekeeping operations. 1996 A number of partner countries deploy to Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of a NATO-led peacekeeping force. 1997 The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) is created to replace the NACC. The operational role of the PfP is enhanced at the Madrid Summit. 1998 Creation of the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre and Disaster Response Unit. 1999 Three partners – the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland – join NATO. Dialogue and cooperation are included as fundamental security tasks in the Alliance's new Strategic Concept. (April, Washington Summit) PfP is further enhanced and its operational role strengthened, including introduction of: the Operational Capabilities Concept to improve the ability of Alliance and partner forces to operate together in NATO-led operations; the Political-Military Framework for partner involvement in political consultations and decision-making, in operational planning and in command arrangements; a Training and Education Enhancement Programme to help reinforce the operational capabilities of partner countries. Several partner countries deploy peacekeepers as part of the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo. 2001 (September) The EAPC meets the day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and pledges to combat the scourge of terrorism. 2002 The Partnership Trust Fund policy is launched to assist partner countries in the safe destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel mines and other munitions. (November, Prague Summit) Further enhancement of partnership including: a Comprehensive Review to strengthen political dialogue with partners and enhance their involvement in the planning, conduct and oversight of activities in which they participate; a Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism (PAP-T); Individual Partnership Action Plans, allowing the Alliance to tailor its assistance to interested partners seeking more structured support for domestic reforms, particularly in the defence and security sector. 2003 Some partner countries contribute troops to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. 2004 Seven partners – Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia – join NATO. (June, Istanbul Summit) Further steps are taken to strengthen Partnership including: a Partnership Action Plan for Defence Institution Building (PAP-DIB) to encourage and support partners in building effective and democratically responsible defence institutions; an enhanced Operational Capabilities Concept and partners are offered representation at Allied Command Transformation to help promote greater military interoperability between NATO and Partner country forces; a special focus on the Caucasus and Central Asia. 2006 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia become partners. 2008 (April, Bucharest Summit) - Malta returns to the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and joins the EAPC (Malta first joined the PfP programme in April 1995 but suspended its participation in October 1996). - Priority is given to building integrity in defence institutions and the important role of women in conflict resolution (as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 1325). 2009 Two partners – Albania and Croatia – become members of NATO. 2010 November, Lisbon Summit - Allies reiterate their commitment to the EAPC and the PfP programme, described in NATO's new Strategic Concept as being central to the Allies vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace. - Allies agree to streamline NATO's partnership tools in order to open all cooperative activities and exercises to all partners and to harmonise partnership. - Allies decide to review the Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP operations in order to update the way NATO works together with partner countries and shapes decisions on the operations and missions to which they contribute. 2011 Following up on the Lisbon Summit decisions, Allied foreign ministers meeting in Berlin in April 2011 approve a new more efficient and flexible partnerships policy. The revised Political-Military Framework for partner involvement in NATO-led operations is also noted by ministers.
Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement
Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement The PfP SOFA is a multilateral agreement between NATO member states and countries participating in the Partnership for Peace (PfP). It deals with the status of foreign forces while present on the territory of another state. The agreement was originally drawn up in in Brussels on 19 June 1995 to facilitate cooperation and exercises under the recently launched PfP programme. Basically, the PfP SOFA applies – with the necessary changes having been made – most of the provisions of an agreement between NATO member states, which was done in London on 19 June 1951. (Some provisions of this so-called NATO SOFA cannot be applied to Partner countries for technical reasons.) It is important to note that these SOFAs fully respect the principle of territorial sovereignty, which requires a receiving state to give its consent to the entry of foreign forces. Neither the PfP SOFA nor the NATO SOFA addresses the issue of the presence of the force itself – that would be defined in separate arrangements. Consequently, it is only after states have agreed to send or receive forces that the SOFAs concerned are applicable. What does this mean in practice? By acceding to the PfP SOFA, the parties to the agreement identify exactly what the status of their forces will be and what privileges, facilities and immunities will apply to them, when they are present on the territory of another state, which is party to the PfP SOFA. All states that are party to the agreement grant the same legal status to forces of the other parties when these are present on their territory. Therefore, once there is a common agreement, for example, regarding a certain operation, training or exercise, the same set of provisions will apply on a reciprocal basis. A common status and an important degree of equal treatment will be reached, which will contribute to the equality between Partners.
Partnerships : a cooperative approach to security
Partnerships : a cooperative approach to security
Partnerships : Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI)
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) Background ?? Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) NATO's Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, launched at the Alliance's Summit in the Turkish city in June 2004, aims to contribute to long-term global and regional security by offering countries of the broader Middle East region practical bilateral security cooperation with NATO. ? more News
Partnerships : NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue
NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue Background ?? NATO Mediterranean Dialogue NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue was initiated in 1994 by the North Atlantic Council. It currently involves seven non-NATO countries of the Mediterranean region: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. ? more News
Partnership tools
Partnership tools NATO has developed a number of partnership tools and mechanisms to support cooperation with partner countries through a mix of policies, programmes, action plans and other arrangements. Many tools are focused on the important priorities of building capabilities and interoperability, and supporting defence and security-related reform. Most of these partnership tools were originally developed in the framework of NATO's cooperation with Euro-Atlantic partners through the Partnership for Peace. However, with the reform of NATO's partnerships policy in April 2011, steps were taken to open the "toolbox" to all partners, across and beyond existing regional partnership frameworks. From 2012 onwards, all partners have access to a new Partnership Cooperation Menu, which comprises some 1600 activities. An Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme will be jointly developed and agreed between NATO and each partner country that requests one. These two-year programmes will be drawn up from the extensive Partnership and Cooperation Menu, according to each country's specific interests and needs. Building capabilities and interoperability Partner countries have made and continue to make significant contributions to the Alliance's operations and missions, whether it be supporting peace in the Western Balkans and Afghanistan, training national security forces in Iraq, monitoring maritime activity in the Mediterranean Sea, or helping protect civilians in Libya. A number of tools have been developed to ensure that partner forces are capable of participating actively in NATO-led operations. They include the following: The Planning and Review Process (PARP) helps develop the interoperability and capabilities of forces which might be made available for NATO training, exercises and operations. It also provides a framework to assist partners to develop effective, affordable and sustainable armed forces as well as promoting wider defence and security-sector transformation and reform efforts. PARP is open to Euro-Atlantic partners on a voluntary basis and is open to other partner countries on a case-by-case basis, upon approval of the North Atlantic Council. Under PARP, planning targets are negotiated with each country and regular reviews measure progress. PARP is conducted by Allies and participating partners together. (See also A-Z page on PARP) The Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC) Evaluation and Feedback Programme is used to develop and train partner land, maritime, air or special operations forces that are declared available for NATO-led operations and the NATO Response Force, so that they meet NATO standards. This can often take a few years, but it ensures that partner forces are effective and interoperable with Allied forces once deployed. Some partners use the OCC as a strategic tool to transform their defence forces. The OCC has contributed significantly to the increasing number of partner forces participating in NATO-led operations and the NATO Response Force. The Political Military Framework (PMF) sets out principles, modalities and guidelines for the involvement of all partner countries in political consultations and decision-shaping, in operational planning and in command arrangements for operations to which they contribute. A review of the Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP operations was launched at the Lisbon Summit to update the way NATO works together with partner countries and shapes decisions on the operations and missions to which they contribute. This review was conducted, in consultation with partners, in 2011. The Training and Education Enhancement Programme (TEEP) is the primary tool to promote training to support military interoperability, especially through collaboration among national institutions focused on operational/tactical level training for staff taking part in multinational headquarters. Beyond Euro-Atlantic partners, the TEEP has been open to countries from the Mediterranean and Gulf region (i.e. Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative partners) for a number of years, and steps are being taken to open the programme to other partners across the globe. The Military Training and Exercise Programme (MTEP) allows partners to take part in exercises to promote interoperability. Through the MTEP, a five-year planning horizon provides a starting point for exercise planning and the allocation of resources. The Bi-Strategic Command Military Cooperation Division, which is principally located at Allied Command Operation in Mons, Belgium, is responsible for supporting partner involvement in exercises. In addition, and on a case-by-case basis, Allies may invite partners to take part in North Atlantic Council-level Crisis Management Exercises that engage ministries in participating capitals, and national political and military representation at NATO HQ, in consultations on strategic management of exercise crises. (See also A-Z page on Education and training) The Partnership Action Plan on Terrorism ( PAP -T) is a framework through which Allies and partner countries work to improve cooperation in the fight against terrorism, through political consultation and a range of practical measures. It facilitates consultation and cooperation in areas such as intelligence-sharing, terrorism-related training and exercises, and the development of capabilities for defence against terrorist attack or for dealing with the consequences of such an attack. (See also A-Z page on PAP-T) Opportunities for cooperation between NATO and partners in the areas of armaments, air defence and airspace and air traffic management are provided through the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD), the Air Defence Committee (ADC) and the Air Traffic Management Committee (ATMC). Supporting transformation Several tools have been developed to provide assistance to partner countries in their own efforts to transform defence and security-related structures and policies, and to manage the economic and social consequences of reforms. An important priority is to promote the development of effective defence institutions that are under civilian and democratic control. Some of the main tools supporting transformation include the following: Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) offer partners the opportunity to deepen their cooperation with NATO and sharpen the focus on domestic reform efforts. Developed on a two-year basis, these plans include a a wide range of objectives and targets for reforms on political issues as well as security and defence issues. They are designed to bring together all the various cooperation mechanisms through which a partner country interacts with the Alliance. Since the launch of the IPAP in 2002, six countries have chosen to develop IPAPs with NATO. The development of IPAPs is open to all partners, on a case-by-case basis, upon approval of the North Atlantic Council. (See also A-Z page on IPAP) The Partnership Action Plan on Defence Institution Building ( PAP -DIB) aims to reinforce efforts by partner countries to reform and restructure their defence institutions to meet domestic needs as well as international commitments. (See also A-Z page on PAP-DIB) Education and training in a number of areas is offered to decision-makers, military forces, civil servants and representatives of civil society through institutions such as the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany; the NATO Defense College in Rome, Italy; and some 20 national Partnership Training and Education Centres. Moreover, the Education and Training for Defence Reform initiative supports the education of civilian and military personnel in efficient and effective management of national defence institutions under civil and democratic control. (See also A-Z page on Education and Training) In addition, a Professional Development Programme can be launched for the civilian personnel of defence and security establishments to strengthen the capacity for democratic management and oversight. Training provided under such a programme is closely aligned to the partner country's overall defence and security-sector reform objectives and harmonized and de-conflicted with the bilateral efforts of individual Allies and other programmes. Through the Partnership Trust Fund policy , individual Allies and partners support practical demilitarization projects and defence transformation projects in partner countries through individual Trust Funds. (See also A-Z page on Partnership Trust Funds) The Building Integrity Initiative is aimed at promoting good practice, strengthening transparency, accountability and integrity to reduce the risk of corruption in the defence establishments of Allies and partners alike. This includes developing a tailored programme to support the Afghan National Security Forces as well as supporting good practice in contracting and implementation of the NATO Afghan First Policy. (See also A-Z page on Building Integrity Initiative) Wider cooperation The NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) programme promotes joint cooperative projects between Allies and partners in the field of security-related civil science and technology. Funding applications should address SPS key priorities -- these are linked to NATO's strategic objectives and focus on projects in direct support to NATO's operations, as well as projects that enhance defence against terrorism and address other security threats. (See also SPS web site ) Disaster-response and preparedness is also an important area of cooperation with partners. The Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC)is a "24/7" focal point for coordinating disaster-relief efforts among NATO and partner countries. The Centre has guided consequence-management efforts in more than 45 emergencies, including fighting floods and forest fires, and dealing with the aftermath of earthquakes. Partners are represented on many of the Alliance's civil emergency planning groups and are also involved in education and training in this area. (See also A-Z pages on EADRCC and Civil Emergency Planning)
Partnership Trust Funds
Partnership Trust Funds Individual Allies and partners support practical demilitarization projects and defence transformation projects in non-NATO countries in the Euro-Atlantic area and beyond, through individual Trust Funds. Trust Fund projects assist with the safe destruction of stockpiles of surplus and obsolete landmines, weapons and munitions. Another priority is to help manage the consequences of defence transformation through initiatives such as the retraining of former military personnel and converting military bases to civilian use. The Trust Fund policy is an integral part of NATO's policy of developing practical security cooperation with partners. Any partner country having an individual programme of partnership and cooperation with NATO may request assistance. A specific Trust Fund is then established to allow individual NATO and partner countries to provide financial support on a voluntary basis. Originally, Trust Funds were developed in the framework of NATO's Partnership for Peace programme – NATO's programme of practical bilateral cooperation with non-member countries in Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia. However, over the years, use of Trust Funds has been extended to countries of the Mediterranean and broader Middle East region, which participate in NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, as well as to Afghanistan. More recently, with the launch of NATO's new partnership policy at the April 2011 meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Berlin, the Trust Fund mechanism was also opened to NATO's other partners across the globe. By August 2013, Trust Fund projects across 12 countries have helped to destroy: 140 million rounds of small arms ammunition; 4.4 million landmines; 2 million hand grenades; 621,000 pieces of unexploded ordnance (UXO); 557,000 small arms and light weapons; 28,000 tonnes of various munitions, including 8,300 tonnes of cluster sub-munitions (15 million sub-munitions); 9,300 rockets and missiles; 2,620 tonnes of chemicals, including rocket fuel oxidiser (melange); more than 1,100 man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS). In addition, some 11,800 former military personnel in three countries have received retraining assistance through Trust Fund defence transformation projects. The destruction of surplus stockpiles of arms and munitions reduces the threat to individual partner countries as well as the wider region. It also ensures that such materials are put beyond the reach of terrorists and criminals. Highlights Promoting the safe destruction of surplus and obsolete landmines, weapons and munitions Building capacity in areas such as demining and munitions stockpile management Supporting the retraining and transition to civilian life of former military personnel Specific Trust Funds established for each project to allow individual NATO and partner countries to provide financial support on a voluntary basis Projects open to all NATO partner countries Project development Projects may be initiated by either NATO member states or partner countries. Each project is led on a voluntary basis by a lead nation, which is responsible for gathering political and financial support for the project as well as selecting the executing agent for the project. There can be several lead nations, and a partner country can also take that role. The beneficiary host nation is expected to provide maximum support to the project within its means. Informal discussions with the NATO International Staff help determine the scope of the project. Project proposals set out in detail the work to be undertaken, the costs involved and the implementation schedule. The formal launch of a project is the trigger to start raising funds. Subject to completion of formal legal agreements, work can start once sufficient funds have been received. Trust Fund projects seek to ensure adherence to the highest environmental, health and safety standards, and recycling of materials is an integral part of many projects. Local facilities and resources are used to implement projects, where possible, so as to build local capacity in the Partner countries concerned, ensuring sustainability. NATO cooperates actively with other international organizations and other relevant actors on Trust Fund projects to ensure coherence and effectiveness, as well as to avoid duplication of efforts. For example, NATO has to date cooperated closely with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which acts as the executing agent for the retraining Trust Fund projects in the Balkans; the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); the European Commission (EC); and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Project oversight and implementation The NATO Support Agency (NSPA) – formerly the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) –plays an essential role in the development and implementation of Trust Fund projects. It offers technical advice and a range of management services and has often been appointed to act as the executing agent for demilitarization projects by lead nations. This involves overseeing the development of project proposals as well as the competitive bidding process to ensure transparency and value for money in the execution of projects. Once the project proposal is agreed by the lead nation and the host nation, it is presented to the Political and Partnerships Committee in EAPC (Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) format. This body serves as a formal forum to discuss the project and attract potential support and resources. ( More info on the NSPA website ) Evolution of Trust Fund policy The Trust Fund policy was established in September 2000 to assist Euro-Atlantic partner countries in the safe destruction of stockpiled anti-personnel landmines. It provided the Alliance with a practical mechanism to assist Partners to meet their obligations under the Ottawa Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their destruction. Initial success in the safe destruction of anti-personnel landmines led to an extension of the policy to include conventional munitions, as well as small arms and light weapons. In recent years, the scope of the Trust Fund policy has been further expanded to support wider defence transformation initiatives. It has also been extended geographically and is now open to all partner countries participating in NATO's structured partnership frameworks – Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council/Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative –as well as partners across the globe.
Paying for NATO
Paying for NATO Member countries make direct and indirect contributions to the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities. The greatest part of these contributions is indirect and comes through participation in NATO-led operations and missions, and in efforts to ensure that national armed forces are interoperable with those of other member countries. Member countries incur the deployment costs involved whenever they volunteer forces to participate in NATO-led operations. With a few exceptions, member countries also pay for their own military forces and military capabilities. Direct contributions to budgets managed by NATO are made by members in accordance with an agreed cost-sharing formula based on relative Gross National Income. These contributions represent a very small percentage of each member's overall defence budget, and finance the expenditures of NATO's integrated structures. Direct contributions generally follow the principle of common funding, that is to say, member countries pool resources within a NATO framework. There are three budgets that come under common funding arrangements: the civil budget; the military budget, and the NATO Security Investment Programme. Common funding covers collective requirements such as the NATO command structure, NATO-wide air defence, command and control systems or Alliance-wide communications systems, which are not the responsibility of any single member. Projects can also be jointly funded, which means that the participating countries can identify the requirements, the priorities and the funding arrangements, but NATO provides political and financial oversight. Financial management of these different types of contributions is structured to ensure that the ultimate control of expenditure rests with the member countries supporting the cost of a defined activity, and is subject to consensus among them. The North Atlantic Council, NATO's highest political decision-making body, approves NATO budgets and investments, and exercises oversight over NATO financial management. The Council takes into account resource considerations in its decision-making. The Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) advises the Council on resource policy and allocation. For example, when the Council decided to undertake the Libya operation, it did so with the benefit of a full evaluation of the costs from Allied Command Operations and the RPPB. The Budget Committee and the Investment Committee, which report to the RPPB, also review and approve planned expenditures. Voluntary, indirect funding of NATO When the North Atlantic Council unanimously decides to engage in an operation, there is no obligation for each and every country to contribute to the operation unless it is an Article 5 collective defence operation, in which case expectations are different. In all cases, contributions are voluntary and vary in form and scale, from for instance a few soldiers to thousands of troops, and from armoured vehicles, naval vessels or helicopters to all forms of equipment or support, medical or other ¹. These voluntary contributions are offered by individual Allies and are taken from their overall defence capability to form a combined Alliance capability. The two per cent defence expenditure guideline In 2006, NATO member countries agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to the Alliance's common defence efforts. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation. The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance and more so since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, after which the United States significantly increased its defence spending. The gap between defence spending in the United States compared to Canada and European members combined has therefore increased. Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organisation, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare. The effects of the financial crisis and the declining share of resources devoted to defence in many Allied countries have exacerbated this imbalance and also revealed growing asymmetries in capability among European Allies. France, Germany and the United Kingdom together represent more than 50 per cent of the non-US Allies defence spending, which creates another kind of over-reliance within Europe on a few capable European Allies. Furthermore, their defence spending is under increasing pressure, as is that of the United States, to meet deficit and indebtedness reduction targets. With disparities persisting and defence spending generally being reduced, significant and worrying deficiencies in some key capabilities have been revealed. While the two percent of GDP guideline alone is no guarantee that money will be spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, it remains, nonetheless, an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to devote to defence a relatively small, but still significant, level of resources at a time of considerable international uncertainty and economic adversity. The major equipment spending guideline National defence budgets cover essentially three categories of expenditures: personnel expenses and pensions; research, development and procurement of defence equipment; and, lastly, operations, exercises and maintenance. Budget allocation is a national, sovereign decision, but NATO Allies have agreed that at least 20 per cent of defence expenditures should be devoted to major equipment spending, perceived as a crucial indicator for the scale and pace of modernisation. Although investment across the Alliance in the development and procurement of defence equipment rose between 2003 and 2010 as a result of increases in spending by the United States, several other Allies also increased their equipment expenditures to meet the particular modernisation requirements associated with expeditionary operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Where expenditures fail to meet the 20 percent guideline, however, there is an increasing risk of block obsolescence of equipment, growing capability and interoperability gaps among Allies, and a weakening of Europe's defence industrial and technological base. 1. Even though all Allies may not contribute forces to an operation, Allies have agreed that the funding for the deployment of the NATO part of a NATO-led operation would be commonly funded. The direct funding of NATO's three budgets Direct contributions to NATO come principally in two different forms: common funding and joint funding. They can also come in the form of trust funds, contributions in kind, ad hoc sharing arrangements and donations. Several factors influence the choice of funding source to address a given priority. These include the required level of integration or interoperability, affordability at the national level, the complexity of the system involved, and the potential for economies of scale. Often, a combination of funding sources is used. The principle of common funding When a need for expenditure has been identified, countries in the Resource Policy and Planning Board discuss whether the principle of common funding should be applied – in other words whether the requirement serves the interests of all the contributing countries and should therefore be borne collectively. The criteria for common funding are held under constant review and changes may be introduced as a result of changing circumstances, for instance, the need to support critical requirements in support of Alliance operations and missions. Common funding arrangements principally include the NATO civil and military budgets, as well as the NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP). These are the only funds where NATO authorities identify the requirements and set the priorities in line with overarching Alliance objectives and priorities. Where military common funding is concerned - the military budget and the NATO Security Investment Programme – the guiding principle for eligibility is the "over and above" rule: "Common funding will focus on the provision of requirements which are over and above those which could reasonably be expected to be made available from national resources." Member countries contribute to NATO in accordance with an agreed cost-sharing formula based on Gross National Income. The civil budget The civil budget provides funds for personnel expenses, operating costs, and capital and programme expenditure of the International Staff at NATO Headquarters. It is financed from national foreign ministry budgets (in most countries), supervised by the Budget Committee and implemented by the International Staff. The civil budget for 2013 is €215,473,000. The civil budget is formulated on an objective-based framework, which establishes clear links between NATO's strategic objectives and the resources required to achieve them. There are four frontline objectives and four support objectives. The frontline objectives comprise support for: active operations; Alliance capabilities; consultation and cooperation with partners; and public relations. The four support objectives consist in: providing support to the consultation process with Allies; maintaining the facilities and site of NATO Headquarters (Headquarters operational environment); governance and regulation through the monitoring of business policies, processes and procedures; and Headquarters security. The military budget This budget covers the operating and maintenance costs of the international military structure. It is composed of over 50 separate budgets, which are financed from national defence budgets (in most countries). It is supervised by the Budget Committee and implemented by the individual budget holders. In all cases, the provision of military staff remains a nationally-funded responsibility. The military budget for 2013 is €1,448,799,776. The military budget effectively provides funds for the International Military Staff, the strategic commanders and the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control (NAEW&C) Force and, more specifically for: the Military Committee, the International Military Staff and military agencies; the two strategic commands and associated command, control and information systems; theatre headquarters for deployed operations and support of critical theatre-level enabling capabilities such as theatre medical capabilities or theatre engineering capabilities; the NATO Standardization Agency, the NATO ACCS Management Agency, the NATO Command and Control Agency and the NATO CIS Services Agency; the NATO static and deployable Combined Air Operations Centres, deployable ARS and radar systems, and deployable HQ communication systems; the Joint Warfare Centre (Norway), the Joint Force Training Centre (Poland), the Joint Analysis & Lessons Learned Centre (Portugal), the NATO Defense College (Italy), the Communications and Information Systems School (Italy), the NATO Programming Centre (Belgium), the Multi-Service Electronic Warfare Support Group (United Kingdom); the Scientific Programme of Work of the NC3A, Allied Command Transformation experimentation funds, the Research and Technology Agency (France) and the NATO Undersea Research Centre (Italy); limited partnership support activities and part of the Military Liaison Offices in Moscow and Kyiv. During a crisis-management operation, when an operational decision with financial implications is taken by the North Atlantic Council (NAC), the Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) is immediately consulted for the availability of funds. Effectively, this means that in the throes of a crisis, the RPPB can at times be in quasi-permanent session, as was sometimes the case for instance during the Libya operation (March-October 2011). The NATO Security Investment Programme The NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP) covers major construction and command and control system investments, which are beyond the national defence requirements of individual member countries. It supports the roles of the NATO strategic commands by providing installations and facilities such as air defence communication and information systems, military headquarters for the integrated structure and for deployed operations, and critical airfield, fuel systems and harbour facilities needed in support of deployed forces. The NSIP is financed by the ministries of defence of each member country and is supervised by the Investment Committee. Projects are implemented either by individual host countries or by different NATO agencies and strategic commands, according to their area of expertise. The 2013 ceiling for the NSIP is €700 million. Joint funding Joint funding arrangements are structured forms of multinational funding within the terms of an agreed NATO charter. The participating countries still identify the requirements, the priorities and the funding arrangements, but NATO has visibility and provides political and financial oversight. Joint funding arrangements typically lead to the setting-up of a management organisation within a NATO agency. NATO agency activities range from the development and production of fighter aircraft or helicopters to the provision of logistic support or air defence communication and information systems. NATO agencies also coordinate research and development activities or are active in the fields of standardization and intelligence-sharing. Jointly funded programmes vary in the number of participating countries, cost-share arrangements and management structures. Other forms of funding In addition to common funding and joint funding, some projects can take the form of trust fund arrangements, contributions in kind, ad hoc sharing arrangements and donations. The most important trust fund is the one supporting the sustainment of the Afghan National Security Forces. Management and control Financial management within NATO is structured to ensure that the ultimate control of expenditure rests with the member countries supporting the cost of a defined activity, and is subject to consensus among them. Under the overall authority of the NAC, various bodies exercise managerial control over all four of the principal elements of the Organization's financial structure: the International Staff, financed by the civil budget; the international military structure, financed by the military budget; the NATO Security Investment Programme; and NATO agencies. When cooperative activities do not involve all member countries, they are, for the most part, managed by NATO production and logistics programmes within NATO agencies. They have their own supervisory boards and boards of directors, as well as finance committees and distinct sources of financing within national treasuries. Financial regulations applied at NATO provide basic unifying principles around which the overall financial structure is articulated. They are approved by the NAC and are complemented by rules and procedures adapting them to specific NATO bodies and programmes. Financial management of the civil and military budgets The civil and military budgets are annual, coinciding with the calendar year. Each budget is prepared under the authority of the head of the respective NATO body and is reviewed by the Budget Committee composed of representatives of contributing member countries, and approved for execution by the NAC. Failure to achieve consensus before the start of the financial year entails non-approval of the budget and the financing of operations, under the supervision of the Budget Committee, through provisional allocations limited to the level of the budget approved for the preceding year. This regime may last for six months, after which the NAC is required to decide either to approve the budget or to authorise continuation of interim financing. When the budget has been approved, the head of the NATO body has discretion to execute it through the commitment and expenditure of funds for the purposes authorised. This discretion is limited by different levels of constraint prescribed by the Organization's financial regulations regarding such matters as recourse to competitive bidding for contracts for the supply of goods and services, or transfers of credits to correct over- or under-estimates of the funding required. Financial management of the NATO Security Investment Programme Implementation of the NATO Security Investment Programme starts from capability packages. These packages identify the assets available to and required by NATO military commanders to fulfil specified tasks. They assess common-funded supplements (in terms of capital investment and recurrent operating and maintenance costs) as well as the civilian and military manpower required to accomplish the task. They are reviewed by the RPPB and then approved by the NAC. Once they are approved, authorisation for individual projects can move forward under the responsibility of the Investment Committee. The "host nation" (a term which refers to either the country on whose territory the project is to be implemented, or a NATO agency or strategic command responsible for implementing a project) prepares an authorisation request. Once the Committee has agreed to the project, the host nation can proceed with its final design, contract award and implementation. Unless otherwise agreed by the Investment Committee, the bidding process is conducted among firms from those countries contributing to the project. The financial management system which applies to the NSIP is based on an international financial clearing process. Host nations report on the expenditure foreseen on authorised projects within their responsibility. Following agreement of the forecasts by the Investment Committee, the International Staff calculates the amounts to be paid by each country and to be received by each host nation. Further calculations determine the payment amounts, currencies and which country or NATO agency will receive the funds. Once a project has been completed, it is subject to a joint final acceptance inspection to ensure that the work undertaken is in accordance with the scope of work authorised. As soon as this report is accepted by the Investment Committee, it is added to the NATO inventory. Financial control With respect to the military and civil budgets, the head of the NATO body is ultimately responsible for the correct preparation and execution of the budget. The administrative support for this task is largely entrusted to the Financial Controller of the agency or NATO body. Each Financial Controller has final recourse to the Budget Committee in the case of persistent disagreement with the head of the respective NATO body regarding an intended transaction. The Financial Controller is charged with ensuring that all aspects of execution of the budget conform to expenditure authorisations, to any special controls imposed by the Budget Committee, and to the financial regulations and their associated implementing rules and procedures. He may also, in response to internal auditing, institute such additional controls and procedures as he deems necessary for maintaining accountability. The International Board of Auditors The independent International Board of Auditors for NATO (IBAN) is responsible for auditing the accounts of the different NATO bodies. Its principal task is to provide the NAC and member governments with the assurance that joint and common funds are properly used for the settlement of authorised expenditure and that expenditure is within the physical and financial authorisations granted. The Board's mandate includes not only financial but also performance audits, which extend its role beyond safeguarding accountability to the review of management practices in general. IBAN is composed of officials normally drawn from the national audit bodies of member countries. These officials are appointed by and responsible to the NAC. Bodies involved The North Atlantic Council approves NATO budgets and investments, and exercises oversight over NATO financial management. It takes into account resource considerations in its decision-making. The RPPB advises the Council on resource policy and allocation. For example, when the Council decided to undertake the Libya operation, it did so with the benefit of a full evaluation of the costs from Allied Command Operations and the RPPB. The Budget Committee and the Investment Committee, which report to the RPPB, also review and approve planned expenditures. The NATO Office of Resources brings together all members of the NATO International Staff working on resource issues. The office provides integrated policy and technical advice to the NAC and the Secretary General, NATO resource committees, and other NATO bodies. The office facilitates agreements on resource matters among member countries. The Resource Policy and Planning Board The Resource Policy and Planning Board (RPPB) is the senior advisory body to the NAC on the management of all NATO resources. It has responsibility for the overall management of NATO's civil and military budgets, as well as the NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP) and manpower. Both the Budget Committee and the Investment Committee report to the RPPB. The Budget Committee The Budget Committee is responsible to the Resource Policy and Planning Board for NATO's civil and military budgets. The civil budget covers all costs related to NATO's International Staff at NATO Headquarters in Brussels; the military budget covers all costs related to the International Military Staff at NATO Headquarters, the strategic commands and the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control (NAEW&C) Force. The Investment Committee The Investment Committee is responsible to the Resource Policy and Planning Board for the implementation of the NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP). The NSIP finances the provision of the installations and facilities needed to support the roles of the two strategic commands – Allied Command Operations and Allied Command Transformation - recognised as exceeding the national defence requirements of individual member countries.
Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina NATO conducted its first major crisis response operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) was deployed in December 1995 to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement and was replaced a year later by the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR). SFOR helped to maintain a secure environment and facilitate the country's reconstruction in the wake of the 1992-1995 war. In the light of the improved security situation in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider region, the Alliance brought SFOR to a conclusion in December 2004 and the European Union (EU) took on NATO's stabilisation role. NATO provides planning, logistic and command support for the EU-led Operation Althea, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements agreed between the two organisations. NATO is also maintaining a military headquarters in Sarajevo. It carries out a number of specific tasks related, in particular, to assisting the government in reforming its defence structures, working on counter-terrorism and apprehending war-crime suspects. Bosnia and Herzegovina became a NATO Partner country in December 2006 and is focusing on introducing democratic, institutional and defence reforms, as well as developing practical cooperation in other areas. Aim and implementation of IFOR and SFOR IFOR The Implementation Force (IFOR) was deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in December 1995 with a one-year mandate. IFOR operated under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, deriving its authority from UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1031 of 15 December 1995. This gave it a mandate not just to maintain peace, but also, where necessary, to enforce it. As such and strictly speaking, IFOR was a peace enforcement operation, which was more generally referred to as a peace support operation. This was also the case for SFOR. IFOR's aim IFOR aimed to oversee implementation of the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the accord ending the Bosnian War. Its main task was to guarantee the end of hostilities and separate the armed forces of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the one hand, and Republika Srpska, on the other. IFOR in the field IFOR oversaw the transfer of territory between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, the demarcation of the inter-entity boundary and the removal of heavy weapons into approved cantonment sites. As the situation on the ground improved, IFOR began providing support to organisations involved in overseeing the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, including the Office of the High Representative, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations. IFOR's goals were essentially completed by the September 1996 elections. As the situation was still potentially unstable and much remained to be accomplished on the civilian side, NATO agreed to deploy a new Stabilisation Force (SFOR) from December 1996. SFOR The Stabilisation Force (SFOR) operated under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, deriving its authority from UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996. As was the case for IFOR, it was a peace enforcement operation that was more generally referred to as a peace support operation. SFOR's aim SFOR's primary task was to contribute to a safe and secure environment conducive to civil and political reconstruction. Specifically, SFOR was tasked to deter or prevent a resumption of hostilities; to promote a climate in which the peace process could continue to move forward; and, to provide selective support within its means and capabilities to civilian organisations involved in this process. SFOR in the field FOR's activities ranged from patrolling and providing area security through supporting defence reform and supervising de-mining operations, to arresting individuals indicted for war crimes and assisting the return of refugees and displaced people to their homes. Keeping the peace SFOR troops carried out regular patrols throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina to maintain a secure environment. Multinational specialised units were deployed to deal with instances of unrest. SFOR also collected and destroyed unregistered weapons and ordnance in private hands, in order to contribute to the overall safety of the population and to build confidence in the peace process. In 2003 alone, SFOR disposed of more than 11,000 weapons and 45,000 grenades. SFOR was also one of several organisations involved in de-mining in Bosnia and Herzegovina. NATO forces carried out some de-mining themselves and helped to set up de-mining schools in Banja Luka, Mostar and Travnik. They also helped to establish a sniffer dog training school in Bihac. Furthermore, SFOR had Multinational Specialised Units (MSU) that assisted the EU Police Mission (EUPM). The EUPM is responsible for helping the Bosnian authorities develop local police forces that meet the highest European and international standards, through monitoring, mentoring and inspecting police managerial and operational capacities. Reforming defence establishments A key aspect of SFOR's work in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerned reform of the country's defence structures, which had been divided into three rival ethnic groups at the end of hostilities. Within the framework of a Defence Reform Commission, both SFOR and NATO worked to help Bosnia and Herzegovina build a unified command and control structure and to develop joint doctrine and standards for training and equipment that are compatible with NATO and Partnership for Peace (PfP) norms. In March 2004, a state-level Defence Minister brought the country's two separate armies under a single command structure. NATO's military headquarters in Sarajevo has a leadership role in the Defence Reform Commission and is continuing to work on defence reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Arresting war-crimes suspects Although the apprehension of indicted war criminals was officially the responsibility of the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO forces were instrumental in most arrests that have taken place. In total, SFOR brought 39 war-crimes suspects to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague (ICTY). SFOR also provided security and logistical support to ICTY investigative teams as well as surveillance of and ground patrolling around alleged mass graves. Through its military headquarters in Sarajevo, NATO remains committed to bring to justice all war-crimes suspects still at large. Contributing to reconstruction In addition to helping other organisations working on Bosnia and Herzegovina's reconstruction, SFOR launched its own Civil-Military Co-operation (CIMIC) projects in areas such as structural engineering and transportation. SFOR participated in the maintenance and repair of roads and railways in collaboration with the local authorities and other international agencies. This work was critical to providing freedom of movement throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Command of the missions As for all NATO operations, political control and co-ordination are provided by the North Atlantic Council, NATO's senior political decision-making body. Strategic command and control is exercised by NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. Command of IFOR Admiral Leighton Smith commanded IFOR (COMIFOR) from the start of the operation on 20 December 1995 until 31 July 1996. Admiral T. Joseph Lopez then took command until 7 November 1996, followed by General William Crouch from 7 November 1996 to 20 December 1996. The COMIFOR was based at operational headquarters in Zagreb, Croatia. Lieutenant General Michael Walker, Commander Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (COMARRC) acted as Commander for IFOR's land component throughout the operation. Command of SFOR Following the hand-over to SFOR in December 1996, the command structure, as directed by the North Atlantic Council (NAC), was broadened to include a deputy SFOR commander, a deputy operational commander and divisional commanders at the head of each MNTF (1,800 - 2,000 troops). This structure comprised 300 staff at HQSFOR at Camp Butmir in Sarajevo, led by the Commander of SFOR (COMSFOR) and three Multi-National Task Forces (MNTFs) working in different areas: MNTF-North (MNTF-N) based in Tuzla; MNTF-Southeast (MNTF-SE) based in Mostar; and MNTF-Northwest (MTNF-NW) based in Banja Luka. Restructuring of SFOR The NAC reviewed SFOR periodically at six monthly junctures to assess the force's effectiveness. On 25 October 1999 the NAC, based upon the improved security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, reduced and restructured SFOR. Headquarters remained at Camp Butmir in Sarajevo but MNTFs were reduced in size from divisions to brigades. Each MNTF still retained individual brigade commanders. In addition a Tactical Reserve Force of 1,000 battle-ready troops was created. As was the case with IFOR, every NATO member with armed forces committed troops to SFOR. Iceland, the only NATO country without armed forces, provided medical personnel. Outside of NATO countries, contributors were: Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (which all became NATO members at a later stage), Austria, Argentina, Finland, Ireland, Morocco, Russia, and Sweden; and by special arrangement with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. All forces incorporated into SFOR came under the command of COMSFOR and the NAC. Commanders of SFOR – COMSFOR Gen. William Crouch, US A 20 Dec 1996 - 30 Jul 1997 Gen. Eric Shinseki, US A 30 Jul 1997 - 23 Oct 1998 Gen. Montgomery Meigs, US A 23 Oct 1998 - 18 Oct 1999 Lt. Gen. Ronald Adams, US A 18 Oct 1999 - 08 Sep 2000 Lt. Gen. Michael Dodson, US A 08 Sep 2000 - 07 Sep 2001 Lt. Gen. John B. Sylvester, US A 07 Sep 2001 - 07 Oct 2002 Lt. Gen. William E. Ward, US A 08 Oct 2002 - 01 Oct 2003 Maj. Gen. Virgil L. Packett II, US A 02 Oct 2003 - 04 Oct 2004 Brig. Gen. Steven P. Schook, US A 05 Oct 2004 - 02 Dec 2004 The evolution of NATO's assistance A four-year war started in Bosnia and Herzegovina when Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia) broke up at the end of the Cold War. NATO's involvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina began in 1992. In June of that year, NATO foreign ministers stated that, on a case-by-case basis, the Alliance would support peacekeeping activities under the responsibility of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (subsequently renamed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). A month later, in July 1992, NATO began monitoring operations in the Adriatic in support of the UNSCR 713 and 757 imposing an arms embargo and sanctions in the former Yugoslavia. By October 1992, NATO AWACS aircraft were monitoring operations in support of UNSCR 781, imposing a no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina. And in November, NATO and the Western European Union began to enforce the sanctions and embargo imposed by UNSCR 787. By the end of the year, NATO declared that it stood ready to support peacekeeping operations under the authority of the United Nations. NATO's first ever military engagement After the United Nations authorised the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO began Operation Deny Flight in April 1993. On 28 February 1994, four warplanes violating the no-fly zone were shot down by NATO aircraft in the Alliance's first military engagement. At the request of the United Nations, NATO provided close air support to the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) on the ground and carried out air strikes to protect UN-designated safe havens. Air strikes were conducted against targets such as tanks, ammunition depots and air defence radars. NATO's air operations against Bosnian Serb positions in August and September 1995 helped pave the way for a comprehensive peace agreement. The operation, Deliberate Force, lasted for 12 days and helped shift the balance of power between parties on the ground. It also helped persuade the Bosnian Serb leadership that the benefits of negotiating a peace agreement outweighed those of continuing to wage war. On 14 December 1995, after negotiations in Dayton, Ohio, the General Framework Agreement for Peace was signed in Paris, France. The Dayton Peace Agreement establishes Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single, democratic and multiethnic state with two entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. And the first major crisis response operation IFOR was the Alliance's first major crisis response operation. It was set up to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, when NATO took over responsibility for military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina from UNPROFOR. IFOR's goals were essentially completed by the September 1996 elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, as the situation was still potentially unstable and much remained to be accomplished on the civilian side, NATO agreed to deploy a new Stabilisation Force (SFOR) from December 1996. Mission hand-over to the European Union At their Istanbul Summit in June 2004, NATO leaders decided to bring SFOR to a conclusion by the end of the year as a result of the improved security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider region. The SFOR mission was officially ended on 2 December 2004. In its place, a European Union-led force is deployed, known as Operation Althea. The Alliance is providing planning, logistic and command support for the EU mission, in the framework of a package of agreements known as "Berlin Plus". These agreements provide the overall framework for NATO-EU cooperation. NATO HQ Sarajevo The primary role of this NATO Military Liaison and Advisory Mission (NATO HQ Sarajevo) is to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina with defence reform. It also aims to help the country meet requirements for its participation in NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. NATO HQ Sarajevo undertakes certain operational tasks such as counter-terrorism while ensuring force protection, support to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, with the detention of persons indicted for war crimes, and intelligence-sharing with the European Union. In sum, the NATO HQ Sarajevo complements the work of the EU mission with specific competencies. Facts and figures Contributing countries Over the course of these missions, a total of 36 Allied and Partner countries contributed troops. In addition, soldiers from five countries that were neither NATO members nor Partner countries participated at different times, namely Argentina, Australia, Chile, Malaysia and New Zealand. Troop numbers IFOR IFOR was a 60,000-strong force that was deployed for one year. SFOR SFOR originally comprised 31,000 troops. By early 2001 they had been reduced to 19,000 and, in spring 2002, the decision was taken to reduce troops to 12,000 by end 2002. By 2004, they totaled 7,000. 1. Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.
Petroleum Committee
Petroleum Committee The Petroleum Committee is the senior advisory body in NATO for logistic support to Alliance forces on all matters concerning petroleum, including the NATO Pipeline System (NPS), other petroleum installations and handling equipment. The Petroleum Committee reports to the Logistics Committee on questions related to NATO petroleum requirements and how they are met in times of peace, crisis and conflict, including expeditionary operations. The Petroleum Committee was originally established as the NATO Pipeline Committee in 1956, but was renamed the NATO Petroleum Committee in March 2008 to better reflect its wider role and responsibilities. Its present name was adopted in June 2010 after a thorough review of NATO committees aimed at introducing more flexibility and efficiency into working procedures. At that time the Petroleum Committee also came under the Logistics Committee. Main tasks and responsibilities The Petroleum Committee is responsible for dealing with all matters concerning fuels, oils, lubricants and related products, as well as matters dealing with their receipt, storage, transportation, quality and issue. Specifically, the Petroleum Committee will: review, assess and evaluate, in conjunction with other NATO authorities, the overall Alliance military petroleum logistics organization, policy, plans, procedures and capabilities with the aim of enhancing the interoperability, performance, efficiency, safety, security and effectiveness of support to NATO missions and operations; maintain, in close coordination with NATO member countries, other NATO Committees and organizations, a NATO petroleum crisis management organization and procedures capable of addressing its needs in case of any event that affects the overall supply of petroleum products; develop standardization of petroleum products and handling equipment used by all naval, land and air assets in order to improve the operational efficiency, effectiveness and interoperability of NATO and NATO-led forces; improve the effectiveness of NATO forces through standardization of the facilities, equipment and procedures for handling fuels and lubricant products in routine and expeditionary operations; examine proposals for delivering emerging technologies and make recommendations for the research and development of new equipment in support of NATO's transformation process; liaise closely with civil standards organizations to gain the benefit of their knowledge and experience in supporting the interoperability of forces and equipment in accordance with the NATO Framework for Civil Standards; exercise policy control for the operation and maintenance of the NPS and all fuel storage facilities constructed within the NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP); develop and coordinate proposals concerning the joint civil/military use of existing and new NATO infrastructure petroleum facilities in order to lower capital investment and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) expenses during peacetime; liaise with relevant specialist bodies outside NATO on matters of mutual interest as appropriate; participate in the development of guidelines concerning environmental matters associated with the storage, handling and distribution of petroleum products; report to the Logistics Committee on petroleum logistic matters; participate in and contribute to the activities of the NATO Internal Task Force on Energy Security and assist in developing consolidated proposals to Allies; direct the work of its subordinate bodies in the specific fields of petroleum products and petroleum handling equipment; liaise with the Senior Resource Board, Infrastructure Committee and Civil Emergency planning Committee as appropriate develop in close coordination with other relevant Committees guidelines for civil-military cooperation on petroleum matters as required taking due account of civil standards as appropriate; and provide the focal point and forum for the consideration of all NATO-related petroleum matters. Working mechanisms The Petroleum Committee meets twice a year at NATO Headquarters or as otherwise required and submits annual reports to the North Atlantic Council. Meetings are held in two parts: one in restricted, NATO-only, session and one in open session with Partner, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and other non-NATO countries as deemed appropriate. These meetings are co-chaired by the Head, Logistics Capabilities (International Staff) and the Deputy Director of the Logistics and Resources Division (International Military Staff). The Petroleum Committee executes its work in conjunction with its two permanent Working Groups: NATO Fuels and Lubricants Working Group develops standardization of fuels, lubricants and associated products used by all naval, land and air assets in order to improve interoperability and the effectiveness of NATO forces. It meets once a year in open session with Partners and, if required, in restricted NATO-only session. Meetings are held in conjunction with the Army, Aviation and Naval Fuels and Lubricants Working Parties. Petroleum Handling Equipment Working Group improves the effectiveness and interoperability of NATO forces through the standardization of facilities, equipment and procedures for handling fuel and lubricant products. It meets once a year in open session with Partners and, if required, in restricted NATO-only session.
Pipeline System, NATO -
NATO Pipeline System NATO has a pipeline system designed to ensure that its requirements for petroleum products and their distribution can be met at all times. The NATO Pipeline System (NPS) consists of ten distinct storage and distribution systems for fuels and lubricants. In total, it is approximately 12,000 kilometres long, runs through 13 NATO countries and has a storage capacity of 5.5 million cubic metres. The NPS links together storage depots, military air bases, civil airports, pumping stations, truck and rail loading stations, refineries and entry/discharge points. Bulk distribution is carried out using facilities from the common-funded NATO Security Investment Programme. The networks are controlled by national organizations, with the exception of the Central Europe Pipeline System (CEPS), which is a multinational system managed by the Central Europe Pipeline Management Organization. The NPS was set up during the Cold War to supply NATO forces with fuel and it continues to satisfy fuel requirements with the flexibility that today's security environment requires. The NPS is overseen by the Petroleum Committee, which is the senior advisory body in NATO on consumer logistics and, more specifically, on petroleum issues. The Petroleum Committee reports to the Logistics Committee on all matters of concern to NATO in connection with military fuels, lubricants, associated products and equipment, the NPS and other petroleum installations. Structure and geographical reach The NPS consists of eight national pipeline systems and two multinational systems: The national pipeline systems the Greek Pipeline System (GRPS); the Icelandic Pipeline System (ICPS); the Northern Italy Pipeline System (NIPS); the Norwegian Pipeline System (NOPS); the Portuguese Pipeline System (POPS); the Turkish Pipeline System (TUPS), which comprises two separate pipeline systems known as the Western Turkey Pipeline System and the Eastern Turkey Pipeline System; the United Kingdom Government Pipeline and Storage System (UKGPSS). The two multinational pipeline systems are: the North European Pipeline System (NEPS) located in Denmark and Germany; the CEPS covering Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. This is the largest system. In addition to the national and multinational systems, there are also fuel systems in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. The optimum utilization of NATO petroleum facilities in peacetime is essential for the proper maintenance of the NPS and the necessary training of its staff. NATO members use the facilities to the fullest extent practicable for military purposes and use spare capacity for commercial traffic providing that does not detract from the primacy of the military use of the system. Historical evolution The NATO Pipeline System was set up during the Cold War to supply Alliance forces with fuel. In order to support the new missions of the Alliance, the emphasis has shifted away from static pipeline infrastructure to the rapidly deployable support of NATO's expeditionary activities. To this end, NATO has developed a modular concept whereby all fuel requirements can be satisfied through a combination of 14 discrete but compatible modules which can receive, store and distribute fuel in any theatre of operation. The concept also enables both NATO and Partner countries to combine their capabilities to provide a multinational solution to meet all fuel requirements. Even with the emphasis on expeditionary operations, the existing static pipeline infrastructure remains an important asset for the Alliance. Since the end of the Cold War, the NPS has been used to support out-of-area operations from the European theatre or using NATO airfields as an intermediate hub. The sudden increase in fuel demand mainly for airlift and air-to-air refueling can only be met by the NPS which remains the most cost-effective, secure and environmentally safe method of storing and distributing fuel to Alliance forces.
Piracy (Counter-piracy operations)
Counter-piracy operations Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, off the Horn of Africa and in the Indian Ocean is undermining international humanitarian efforts in Africa and the safety of one of the busiest and most important maritime routes in the world – the gateway in and out of the Suez Canal. NATO has been helping to deter and disrupt pirate attacks, while protecting vessels and helping to increase the general level of security in the region since 2008. On the request of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in late 2008, NATO started to provide escorts to UN World Food Programme (WFP) vessels transiting through these dangerous waters under Operation Allied Provider (October-December 2008). In addition to providing close protection to WFP chartered ships, NATO conducted deterrence patrols and prevented, for instance, vessels from being hijacked and their crews being taken hostage during pirate attacks. This operation was succeeded by Operation Allied Protector (March-August 2009), which continued to contribute to the safety of commercial maritime routes and international navigation. It also conducted surveillance and fulfilled the tasks previously undertaken by Operation Allied Provider. This operation evolved in August 2009 in Operation Ocean Shield. Operation Ocean Shield also contributes to providing maritime security in the region and is helping to reduce the overall pirate attack success rate. The latter has been significantly reduced since multinational operations began.. In order to respond to new piracy tactics, NATO has created greater synergies with other initiatives, recognised the continued need for regional capacity-building, within means and capabilities, and focused on areas where it provides added value. The March 2012 Strategic Assessment highlighted the need to erode the pirates' logistics and support base by, among other things, disabling pirate vessels or skiffs, attaching tracking beacons to mother ships and allowing the use of force to disable or destroy suspected pirate or armed robber vessels. NATO is conducting counter-piracy activities in full complementarity with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and with actions against piracy initiated by other actors, such as the European Union. Operation Ocean Shield – ongoing The mission, its objectives and scope Piracy and armed robbery are disrupting the delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia, as well as threatening vital sea lines of communication (SLOC) and economic interests off the Horn of Africa, in the Gulf of Aden and in the Indian Ocean. Building on the two previous counter-piracy missions conducted by NATO, Operation Ocean Shield principally focuses on at-sea counter-piracy operations. NATO vessels conduct, for instance, helicopter surveillance missions to trace and identify ships in the area, they help to prevent and disrupt hijackings and to suppress armed robbery. NATO has also agreed, at the request of the UN, to escort the UNSOA - United Nations Support Office for AMISOM - supply vessels to the harbour entrance of Mogadishu. The Alliance has broadened its approach to combating piracy by offering, within means and capabilities to regional states that request it, assistance in developing their own capacity to combat piracy activities. More recently, NATO has also taken on measures aimed at eroding the pirates' logistics and support bases. In sum, NATO's role is to prevent and stop piracy through direct actions against the pirates, as well as provide naval escorts and deterrence, while increasing cooperation with other counter-piracy operations in the area in order to optimise efforts and tackle the evolving pirate trends and tactics. This operation was approved by the North Atlantic Council on 17 August 2009 and the mandate has been extended until the end of 2014. Composition and command of the naval force The current rotation The Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2) is currently conducting Operation Ocean Shield under the command of Rear Admiral Eugenio Diaz del Rio (Spain). Throughout his six-month command, a number of ships will be joining the counter-piracy effort with the Spanish flagship ESPS Alvaro de Bazan. Among these are the TCG Gelibolu (Turkey) and HMNZS Te Mana (New Zealand)). The Royal New Zealand Navy Frigate HMNZS Te Mana joined Operation Ocean Shield on 23 January 2014 marking the second time a partner country has contributed to the operation, after Ukraine. Rear Admiral Eugenio Diaz del Rio is under the overall command of Vice Admiral Peter D. Hudson, Allied Maritime Command Headquarters Northwood (MARCOM), in the United Kingdom, which provides command and control for the full spectrum of joint maritime operations and tasks. From its location in Northwood, it plans, conducts and supports joint maritime operations. It is also the Alliance's principal maritime advisor and contributes to development and transformation, engagement and outreach within its area of expertise. Previous rotations June - Dec. 2013 – SNMG1 Rear Admiral Henning Amundsen (Norway) Flagship HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen (Norway) FF Esben Snare (Denmark) USS de Wert (USA) HNLMS Van Speijk (Netherlands) Frigate UPS Hetman Sagaidachny (Ukraine) January-June 2013 - SNMG2 Rear Admiral Antonio Natale (Italy) ITS San Marco (Flagship – Italy)*; USS Halyburton (United States)*; HDMS Iver Huitfeldt (Denmark)*; USS Nicholas (United States); HNLMS Van Speijk (The Netherlands); TCG Gokova (Turkey). * Ships initially assigned to the rotation. June- Dec. 2012 - SNMG1 Rear Commodore Ben Bekkering (Dutch Navy) HNLMS Evertsen (Flagship – the Netherlands) USS Taylor (United States) HNLMS Bruinvis (NL submarine) January-June 2012 - SNMG2 Rear Admiral Sinan Tosun (Turkish Navy) TCG Giresun (Flagship – Turkey); HDMS Absalon (Denmark); ITS Grecale (Italy); RFA Fort Victoria (United Kingdom); USS Dewert (United States); USS Carney (United States).* * Ships initially assigned to the rotation. June 2011-Dec. 2011 - SNMG1 Rear Admiral Gualtiero Mattesi (Italian Navy) ITS Andrea Doria (Flagship – Italy); USS Carney (United States); USS De Wert (United States); NRP D. Francisco De Almeida (Portugal). Dec. 2010- June 2011 - SNMG2 Commodore Michiel Hijmans (Royal Netherlands Navy) HNLMS De Ruyter (Flagship - Netherlands); HDMS Esbern Snare (Denmark) TCG Gaziantep (Turkey); and USS Laboon (United States). Aug. – early Dec. 2010 - SNMG1 Commodore Christian Rune (Denmark) HDMS Esbern Snare (Flagship, Denmark); HMS Montrose and RFA Fort Victoria (United Kingdom); USS Kauffman and USS Laboon (United States); ITS Bersagliere (Italy); and HNLMS Zeeleeuw (NL submarine). March-August 2010 - SNMG2 12 March-30 June: Commodore Steve Chick (UK) HMS Chatham (Flagship, United Kingdom) HS LIMNOS (Greece)-under national control from 30 May ITS SCIROCCO (Italiay)-under national control from 5 June TCG Gelibolu (Turkey) USS Cole (United States) 1st July-6 August: Commodore Michiel Hijmans (Royal Netherlands Navy) HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën (Flagship, The Netherlands) TCG Gelibolu (Turkey) USS Cole (United States) Nov. 2009-March 2010 - SNMG1 Commodore Christian Rune (succeeded Rear Admiral Jose Pereira de Cunha (PO) from 25 January 2010). NRP Álvares Cabral (outgoing flagship, Portugal) HDMS Absalon (incoming flagship, Denmark) HMS Fredericton (Canada) USS Boone (United States) HMS Chatham (United Kingdom) Aug. – Nov. 2009 - SNMG2 Commodore Steve Chick (UK) HS Navarinon (Greece) ITS Libeccio (Italy) TCG Gediz (Turkey) HMS Cornwall (United Kingdom) USS Donald Cook (United States) SNMG1 and SNMG 2 NATO has two Immediate Reaction Forces: the Standing NATO Maritime Groups composed of the SNMG1 and the SNMG2; and the Standing NATO Maritime Mine Countermeasure Groups (SNMCMG1 and SNMCMG2). The Standing NATO Maritime Groups are a multinational, integrated maritime force made up of vessels from various allied countries. These vessels (including their helicopters) are permanently available to NATO to perform different tasks ranging from participating in exercises to actually intervening in operational missions. These groups provide NATO with a continuous maritime capability for operations and other activities in peacetime and in periods of crisis and conflict. They also help to establish Alliance presence, demonstrate solidarity, conduct routine diplomatic visits to different countries, support transformation and provide a variety of maritime military capabilities to ongoing missions. SNMG1 and SNMG2 alternate between each other for the six-month rotations of Operation Ocean Shield and otherwise function according to the operational needs of the Alliance, therefore helping to maintain optimal flexibility. Their composition varies and they are usually composed of between six and ten ships from as many NATO member countries. SNMG1 and SNMG2 both come under the command of MARCOM, as do all Standing NATO Forces i.e., SNMCMG1 and SNMCMG2 since the implementation of the new NATO Command Structure, 1 December 2012. Past operations Operation Allied Protector (March-August 2009) The mission, its objectives and scope Operation Allied Protector helped to deter, defend against and disrupt pirate activities in the Gulf of Aden and off the Horn of Africa. From 24 March until 29 June 2009, the operation was conducted by SNMG1 vessels. As previously indicated, SNMG1 is usually employed in the Eastern Atlantic area, but it can deploy anywhere NATO requires. The first phase of Operation Allied Protector was undertaken as the force left for NATO's first ever deployment to South East Asia. It made a short visit to Karachi (Pakistan) on 26-27 April. However, with the increase in pirate attacks, on 24 April NATO had already decided to cancel the other two port visits planned to Singapore and Australia. As such, the second phase of the operation, which was meant to take place as SNMG1 made its return journey towards European waters end June, was brought forward to 1 May. From 29 June 2009, the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2) took over responsibility from SNMG1. It had conducted NATO's first counter-piracy operation – Operation Allied Provider (see below). Composition and command of the naval force 24 March-29 June 2009 SNMG1 Rear Admiral Jose Pereira de Cunha (PO) NRP Corte Real (flagship, Portugal) HMCS Winnipeg (Canada) HNLMS de Zeven Provinciën (The Netherlands) SPS Blas de Lezo (Spain) USS Halyburton (United States) 29 June-August 2009 SNMG2 Commodore Steve Chick (UK) ITS Libeccio (frigate, Italy) HS Navarinon (frigate F461, Greece) TCG Gediz (frigate F495, Turkey) HMS Cornwall (frigate F99, United Kingdom) USS Laboon (destroyer DDG58, United States) Operation Allied Provider (October-December 2008) The mission, its objectives and scope Allied Operation Allied Provider was responsible for naval escorts to World Food Program (WFP) vessels and, more generally, patrolled the waters around Somalia. Alliance presence also helped to deter acts of piracy that threatened the region. While providing close protection for WFP vessels and patrolling routes most susceptible to criminal acts against merchant vessels, NATO ships could use force pursuant to the authorized Rules of Engagement and in compliance with relevant international and national law. Allied Provider was a temporary operation that was requested by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, on 25 September 2008. NATO provided this counter-piracy capacity in support of UNSC Resolutions 1814, 1816 and 1838, and in coordination with other international actors, including the European Union. NATO defence ministers agreed to respond positively to the UN's request on 9 October, during an informal meeting held in Budapest, Hungary. Following this decision, planning started to redirect assets of SNMG2 to conduct anti-piracy duties. SNMG2 was already scheduled to conduct a series of Gulf port visits in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates within the framework of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI). As such, it started to transit the Suez Canal on 15 October to conduct both duties at the same time. Composition and command of the naval force At the time of the operation, SNMG2 comprised seven ships from Germany, Greece, Italy, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States, of which three were assigned to Operation Allied Provider: ITS Durand de la Penne (flagship, destroyer D560, Italy); HS Temistokles (frigate F465, Greece); HMS Cumberland (frigate F85, United Kingdom). The other four ships (FGS Karlsruhe-Germany; FGS Rhön-Germany; TCG Gokova-Turkey; and USS The Sullivans-USA) continued deployment to ICI countries. This was the first time a NATO-flagged force deployed to the Gulf. At the time of the operation, SNMG2 was commanded by Rear Admiral Giovanni Gumiero, Italian Navy, who was appointed to this post in July 2008. He reported to the Commander of Allied Component Command Maritime (CC-Mar) Naples. CC Mar Naples was one of the three Component Commands of Allied Joint Force Command Naples.
Political and Partnerships Committee (PPC)
Political and Partnerships Committee (PPC) The Political and Partnerships Committee (PPC) is the single politico-military committee responsible for all NATO's outreach programmes with non-member countries. It also handles NATO's relations with other international organizations. The PPC provides the North Atlantic Council with comprehensive and integrated advice across the entire spectrum of NATO's outreach policy. The committee meets in various formats: "at 28" among Allies; with partners in NATO's regionally specific partnership frameworks, namely the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative; with individual non-member countries in "28+1" formats; as well as in "28+n" formats on particular subjects, if agreed by Allies. The PPC was established in April 2010 and succeeded the Political Committee.
Procurement Organisation (NPO), NATO -
The NATO Procurement Organisation (NPO) A NATO Procurement Organisation (NPO) was established on 6 July 2012. This the first step in the creation of a framework for the execution of multinational armament procurement programmes within the Alliance. Until 2014, the NPO is in a design phase during which the structure and processes of the organisation will be developed in order to prepare for the effective execution of multinational procurement programmes. Main tasks and responsibilities During the design phase of the NPO, the aim is to establish a holding body in which multinational procurement programmes could be integrated. The Organisation will draw from the experience of current multinational procurement agencies such as the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency (NETMA), NATO Helicopter Management Agency (NAHEMA), NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance Management Agency (NAGSMA), NATO Medium Extended Air Defense System Management Agency (NAMEADSMA), and NATO Airborne Early Warning Programme Management Agency (NAPMA) which will continue to exist until the Agency's mission is fulfilled or participating nations decide to integrate into the new Organisation. A study assessing the possible merger of the NATO Support and Procurement Organisations, will also take place during the design phase. The Organisation's structure The NPO is a subsidiary body of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and was established by the North Atlantic Council. The Organisation's operations are overseen by an Agency Supervisory Board, its sole governing body, which during the design phase will be the Conference of National Armaments Directors. The executive body will be activated when a procurement programme joins the NPO. Evolution Following the design phase the organisational set up will be reviewed either to keep a separate NATO Procurement Organisation or an integrated NATO Support and Procurement Organisation.
Proliferation, Committee on -
Committee on Proliferation (COP) The Committee on Proliferation (CP) is the senior advisory body to the North Atlantic Council on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their associated delivery systems and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) defence. The CP is responsible for information sharing, policy development and coordination on the issues of prevention of and response to proliferation, bringing together experts and officials with responsibilities in this field. The CP was created following the June 2010 committee reform, replacing the Senior Politico-Military Group on Proliferation, the Senior Defence Group on Proliferation and the Joint Committee on Proliferation. The CP meets in two formats: politico-military, under the chairmanship of the Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, and defence format, under national North-American and European co-chairmanship. The Committee addresses the threats and challenges stemming from WMD proliferation, as well as the international diplomatic responses to them. In its defence format, it also discusses the development of military capabilities needed to discourage WMD proliferation, to deter threats and use of such weapons, and to protect NATO populations, territory and forces. It cooperates with other NATO bodies with competencies in the area of WMD and CBRN defence. It can meet in several ways: Plenary Sessions, Steering Group meetings, Points of Contact meetings, consultations with Partners in 28+1 and 28+n formats. Some of NATO's largest outreach activities take place under the auspices of the CP: the Annual NATO Conference on WMD Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, organized by the Committee in politico-military format, which gathers a broad range of non-NATO countries, including a number of partners across the globe from Asia and the Pacific. On average, 150 participants from more than 50 countries attend this conference every year. For the Committee in defence format, the main annual activity of this kind is the International CBRN Defence Outreach event, which has the objective of increasing engagement, exchanging views and sharing best practices on CBRN defence with a wide variety of NATO's partners.
Public Diplomacy (CPD), Committee for -
Committee for Public Diplomacy (CPD) The Committee on Public Diplomacy (CPD) acts as an advisory body to the North Atlantic Council (NAC) on communication, media and public engagement issues. It makes recommendations to the NAC on how to encourage public understanding of, and support for, the aims of NATO. In this respect, the Committee is responsible for the planning, implementation and assessment of NATO's public diplomacy strategy To support its objectives, members of the CPD share their experiences on national information and communication programmes and the perception of their respective public regarding the Alliance and its activities. The CPD discusses, develops and makes recommendations regarding NATO's public diplomacy strategy and activities, where appropriate, in conjuction with national information experts. The CPD was created in 2004, succeeding the Committee on Information and Cultural Relations (CICR), which was one of the Organization's first committees to be created. This reflected the importance given to information and awareness-raising by NATO's founding members. A modest information service was created as early as 1950 and was supported in its efforts by the creation of the CICR in 1953. Role of the Committee on Public Diplomacy The Committee on Public Diplomacy (CPD) steers the planning, implementation and assessment of NATO's public diplomacy strategy and advises the NAC on relevant issues. It analyzes the current and long-term challenges in encouraging public understanding of, and support for, the aims of Alliance. Members of the CPD discuss and exchange views and experiences on national information and communication programmes, in addition to sharing information regarding public perception of the Alliance. Together, they identify potential collective actions and, whenever needed, co-ordinate national actions to raise public awareness and understanding of NATO's policies and objectives. To improve and reinforce information dissemination in NATO Partner countries, the CPD also designates Contact Point Embassies (CPEs). Within non-NATO countries, the CPD agrees on an embassy from a NATO member country to act as the point of contact for information about the Alliance in the respective host country. Each CPE serves in this position on a rotational basis. In addition to its role in forming the policies that determine the way in which the Alliance communicates with the public, the CPD also maintains a collaborative dialogue with non-governmental organizations such as the Atlantic Treaty Association. Working mechanisms Representatives from each of the NATO member countries constitute the CPD, with the Assistant Secretary General of the Public Diplomacy Division serving as the Chairman and the Public Information Advisor representing the Director of the International Military Staff. For reinforced meetings, communication experts from the capitals of member countries or invited third parties also contribute to CPD discussions. During committee meetings, the CPD examines and approves an annual Public Diplomacy Action Plan or equivalent, which is used to implement the Public Diplomacy Strategy. The Committee may also make additional reports or recommendations to the Council as necessary. The CPD meets regularly, based on a calendar of planned NATO activities, in addition to coming together as needed in response to unexpected events. As regular meetings are normally limited to member countries, the CPD also meets in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) format in order to allow participation by representatives from Partner countries. Periodically, representatives from Contact Point Embassies in Partner country capitals also attend CPD meetings. The CPD reports to the North Atlantic Council. It is supported by staff from the Public Diplomacy Division and does not have any subordinate committees under its remit. Evolution of the Committee on Public Diplomacy The founding members of NATO understood the importance of informing public opinion. As early as August 1950, a modest NATO Information Service was set up and developed in the Autumn with the nomination of a Director. The service – similarly to the rest of the civilian organization of the Alliance – did not receive a budget until July 1951 and effectively developed into an information service in 1952 with the establishment of an international staff headed by a Secretary General (March 1952), to which the information service was initially attached. The Committee on Information and Cultural Relations (CICR) By that time, two entites existed: the Working Group on Information Policy and the Working Group on Social and Cultural Cooperation. These Working Groups were merged in 1953 to form the Committee on Information and Cultural Relations (CICR). The CICR was the precurser to the existing Committee on Public Diplomacy. The role of this committee was to address the challenges of communicating the Alliance's policies to the public. It held regular meetings with the NATO Information Service to exchange and share information on the development of NATO and national information and communication programmes. It was, nonetheless, made clear from the start that even if the NATO Information Service was later to develop into a coordinated service where programmes would be disseminated NATO-wide, it would never supersede national responsibilities and efforts in the information field. The CICR and the representatives' respective countries would continue to work in tandem with the International Staff to raise public awareness and understanding of NATO's policies and objectives. The Committee on Public Diplomacy (CPD) The CICR changed its name to the Committee on Public Diplomacy in 2004 when the Office of Information and Press became the Public Diplomacy Division, therefore better reflecting its aims and objectives. The CPD continues the functions of the CICR, giving advice on the methods and means used to communicate NATO policies and activities to a broad range of audiences with the goal of increasing the level of understanding and awareness of the Alliance.