World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Foreign relations of NATO

Article Id: WHEBN0039063627
Reproduction Date:

Title: Foreign relations of NATO  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Foreign relations, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, NATO, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Atlantic Treaty Association
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Foreign relations of NATO

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) maintains foreign relations with many non-member countries across the globe. NATO runs a number of programs which provide a framework for the partnerships between itself and these non-member nations, typically based on that countries location. These include the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Partnership for Peace.


Five EU member states, all who have declared their non-alignment with military alliances, are not NATO members: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. Switzerland,[1] which is surrounded by the EU, has also maintained their neutrality by staying out of the bloc.


Azerbaijan, possibly making it even less likely that Armenia will eventually join NATO.[3]


According to a NATO diplomatic source in August 2009 some key officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels were pushing hard for engaging Azerbaijan on the membership question. "Turkey, Romania, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and the Baltic states" are among the members backing a fast track for Azerbaijan's NATO membership. While President Ilham Aliyev has generally supported non-belligerency (though not neutrality due to the unresolved conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh) since his rise to power in 2003, Azerbaijan has hosted NATO military exercises and high-profile meetings in 2009.[4] The unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh would present a major roadblock to membership. Azerbaijan made its policy of not being aligned with a geopolitical/military structure official when it became a full member of the Non-Aligned Movement in 2011.


Cyprus is the only EU member state that is neither a NATO member state nor a member of the PfP program. The Parliament of Cyprus voted in February 2011 to apply for membership in the program, but President Demetris Christofias vetoed the decision as it would hamper his attempts to negotiate an end to the nation's dispute with the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and demilitarize the island.[5][6] Turkey, a full member of NATO, is likely to veto any attempt by Cyprus to engage with NATO until the dispute is resolved.[7] The winner of Cyprus' presidential election in February 2013, Nicos Anastasiades, has stated that he intends to apply for membership in the PfP program soon after taking over.[8]


Finland participates in nearly all sub-areas of the Partnership for Peace programme, and has provided peacekeeping forces to both the Afghanistan and Kosovo missions. However, a 2005 poll indicated that the public was strongly against NATO membership.[9] The possibility of Finland's membership in NATO was one of the most important issues debated in relation to the Finnish presidential election of 2006.[10]

The main opposition candidate in the 2006 election, Sauli Niinistö of the National Coalition Party, supported Finland joining a "more European" NATO.[10] Fellow right-winger Henrik Lax of the Swedish People's Party likewise supported the concept. On the other side, president Tarja Halonen of the Social Democratic Party opposed changing the status quo, as did most other candidates in the election. Her victory and re-election to the post of president has currently put the issue of a NATO membership for Finland on hold for at least the duration of her term. Finland could however change its official position on NATO membership after the new EU treaty clarifies if there will be any new EU-level defence deal, but in the meantime Finnish Defence Forces are making technical preparations for membership, stating that it would increase Finland's security.[11] Currently no political party explicitly supports NATO membership.

Other political figures of Finland who have weighed in with opinions include former President of Finland Finlandization".[12] Another ex-president, Mauno Koivisto, opposes the idea, arguing that NATO membership would ruin Finland's relations with Russia. Finland has received some very critical feedback from Russia for even considering the possibility of joining NATO,[13] with a 2009 study suggesting this could have repercussions for Russia's relations with the EU and NATO as a whole.[14] In October 2009, Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen reiterated that Finland had no plans to join NATO, and stated that the main lesson of the 2008 South Ossetia war was the need for closer ties to Russia.[15] In September 2014, Finland signed an agreement with NATO that allows NATO and Finland to hold joint exercises on Finnish soil and permits assistance from NATO members in situations such as “disasters, disruptions, and threats to security.” [16] As such, Finland (and Sweden) participated in the 2015 NATO-led Arctic Challenge Exercise.[17]


Ireland has been a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme since 1999, and is a member of the alliance's Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), but has never officially applied to join as a full NATO member due to its traditional policy of military neutrality.[18] Ireland participates in the PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP), which aims to increase the interoperability of the Irish military, the Defence Forces, with other NATO member states and bring them into line with accepted international standards so as to successfully deploy with other professional military forces on peacekeeping operations overseas.[19]

Irish government policy for the deployment of troops to NATO-led missions requires that the missions be mandated by the United Nations (UN Security Council resolution or UN General Assembly resolution), cabinet-backed and approved by Dáil Éireann (the Irish parliament).[20] This is known as Ireland's "triple lock".[21] Ireland supplied a limited number of troops to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan (2001-2014) and supports the ongoing NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR), as these were sanctioned by UNSC resolutions.[22][23]

Public opinion in Ireland continues to favour a policy of neutrality in armed conflicts, and currently no major political party fully supports ascension into NATO.[24] There has been, and continues to be, a number of politicians who support Ireland joining NATO, mainly within the centre-right Fine Gael party, but the majority of politicians still do not.[25][26] It is widely understood that a referendum would have to be held before any changes could be made to neutrality or to joining NATO.[27] Former Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen said during a visit to the country in 2013 that the "door is open" for Ireland to join NATO at anytime.[28]


Kosovo[1] submitted an application to join the PfP program in July 2012, though its lack of recognition by four NATO member states could impede its accession.[29]


 Six soldiers dressed in camouflage and face paint sit on top of a green vehicle.
Moldovan soldiers participate in Exercise Peace Shield 2011 in Bulboaca with US and NATO experts

Moldova does not currently have plans to join NATO. It has participated in the Partnership for Peace programme and the Individual Partnership Action Plan. The former communist government was seen as more allied with Russia and is already a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In April 2009 Moldova announced it would not participate in the June NATO military exercises.[30][31] The new ruling party, the Alliance for European Integration, elected in the Moldovan parliamentary election, July 2009, has declined to so far take any action to either move it toward membership, or withdraw from the Commonwealth of Independent States, and denies plans to do either.[32] Moldova also has an ongoing internal conflict with the territory of Transnistria.


In April 2009, the Polish Foreign Minister, Radosław Sikorski, suggested including Russia in NATO. In March 2010 this suggestion was repeated in an open letter co-written by German defense experts General Klaus Naumann, Frank Elbe, Ulrich Weisser, and former German Defense Minister Volker Rühe. In the letter it was suggested that Russia was needed in the wake of an emerging multi-polar world in order for NATO to counterbalance emerging Asian powers.[33] However Russian leadership has made it clear that Russia does not plan to join the alliance, preferring to keep cooperation on a lower level. The Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, is quoted as saying "Great powers don't join coalitions, they create coalitions. Russia considers itself a great power," although he said that Russia did not rule out membership at some point in the future.[34]


Serbia originally determined in 2005, as Serbia and Montenegro, to join NATO. The subsequent independence of Montenegro and Kosovo have strained relations between Serbia and NATO. Serbia however joined the Partnership for Peace programme during the 2006 Riga Summit. While this programme is sometimes the first step towards full NATO membership, it is uncertain whether Serbia perceives it as signaling an intent to join the alliance. NATO historically fought Bosnian-Serbian forces during the Bosnia war and Serbia during the 1999 Kosovo conflict.[35]

Neću Nato Anti-NATO signs in Serbia in 2011

Following NATO's open support to Kosovo's declaration of independence in January 2008, support for NATO integration greatly dropped. An earlier poll in September 2007 had showed that 28% of Serbian citizens supported NATO membership, with 58% supporting the Partnership for Peace.[36] The only political parties which currently support NATO integration are the minor opposition Liberal Democratic Party and Serbian Renewal Movement. The Democratic Party abandoned its pro-NATO attitude, claiming the Partnership for Peace is enough.

Although current Serbian priorities do not include NATO membership, the Alliance has offered Serbia an invitation to enter the intensified dialogue programme whenever the country is ready.[37] On 1 October 2008, Serbian Defence Minister Dragan Šutanovac signed the Information Exchange Agreement with the NATO, one of the prerequisites for fuller membership in the Partnership for Peace programme.[38]


In 1949 Sweden chose not to join NATO and declared a security policy aiming for non-alignment in peace and neutrality in war. A modified version now qualifies non-alignment in peace for possible neutrality in war. As such, the Swedish government decided not to participate in the membership of NATO because they wanted to remain neutral in a potential war. This position was maintained without much discussion during the Cold War. Since the 1990s however there has been an active debate in Sweden on the question of NATO membership in the post–Cold War world. These ideological divides were visible again in November 2006 when Sweden could either buy two new transport planes or join NATO's plane pool, and in December 2006, when Sweden was invited to join the NATO Response Force.[39][40] While the governing parties in Sweden have opposed membership, they have participated in NATO-led missions in Bosnia (IFOR and SFOR), Kosovo (KFOR), Afghanistan (ISAF) and Libya (Operation Unified Protector).[41][42][43]

The Swedish Centre Party and Social Democratic party have remained in favor of non-alignment.[44][45] This preference is shared by the Green party, Left party and the Christian Democrats.[46][47][48] The right wing Moderate Party as well as the Liberal party are the only parties with representation in the parliament today that are in favor of NATO membership.[49][50] Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated on 18 September 2007 that Swedish membership in NATO would require a "very wide" majority in Parliament, including the social democrats, and coordination with Finland.[51] In September 2014, Sweden signed a host country agreement with NATO allowing for NATO forces to conduct joint training exercises on Swedish soil and for NATO member states' forces to be deployed in Sweden in response to threats to Sweden's national security.[52] In October 2014, an opinion poll found for the first time more Swedes in favor of NATO membership (37%) than opposed (36%).[53]


At the beginning of 2008, the [55]

Anti-NATO signs in Feodosiya in 2006

According to numerous independent polls conducted since 2002, Ukrainian public opinion on NATO membership is split, with the majority of those polled against joining the military alliance and many identifying it as a threat.[56][57] According to the FOM-Ukraine pollster, as of April 2009, 57% of Ukrainians polled were against joining the alliance, while 21% were in favor.[58] A Gallup poll conducted in October 2008 showed that 45% associated NATO as a threat to their country, while only 15% associated it with protection.[59]

Protests, such as the 2006 anti-NATO protests in Feodosiya, have taken place by opposition blocs against the idea, and petitions signed urging the end of relations with NATO. Influential Ukrainian politicians like Yuriy Yekhanurov and Yulia Tymoshenko have stated Ukraine will not join NATO as long as the public continues opposing the move.[60] This was also confirmed by a 6 March 2008 agreement between the parliamentary coalition and opposition parties which says that any international agreements regarding Ukraine’s entry to NATO must be decided by referendum. In 2008 the Ukrainian government started an information campaign, aimed at informing the Ukrainian people about the consequences of membership.[56][61]

The 2010 election returned Viktor Yanukovych as Ukrainian President and marked a turnaround in Ukraine's relations with NATO. In February 2010, he stated that Ukraine's relations with NATO were currently "well-defined", and that there was "no question of Ukraine joining NATO". He said the issue of Ukrainian membership of NATO might "emerge at some point, but we will not see it in the immediate future."[62] While visiting Brussels in March 2010, he further stated that there would be no change to Ukraine's status as a member of the alliance's outreach program.[63] He later reiterated during a trip to Moscow that Ukraine would remain a "European, non-aligned state."[64][65] Then, on 3 June 2010 the Ukrainian parliament voted to exclude the goal of "integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership" from the country's national security strategy in a bill drafted by Yanukovych himself.[66] The bill forbids Ukraine's membership of any military bloc, but allows for co-operation with alliances such as NATO.[67] "European integration" is still part of Ukraine's national security strategy.[66]

Global NATO

In 2006, the now United States Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder together with James Goldgeier conceived the term "Global NATO".[68][69] Subsequently ideas for membership of various states were floated: Brazil, South Africa, Singapore, India, Israel, and most frequently of Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Colombia.[68] The idea is to transform the Cold War institution into a "Global alliance of democracies".[70]


The issue of Australia NATO membership is often brought forward.[68][70][71][72] Australia is even referred to as a "de facto member of NATO".[73] Australia is referred to by NATO as one of their "partners across the globe", agreeing to work on crisis and conflict management, post-conflict situations, reconstruction and facilitating humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. NATO and Australia signed a joint political declaration in June 2012 followed by a signature of an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme in February of the next year.[74]

General Knud Bartels, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, stressed the need for "substantial and practical cooperation, to learn from each other, share best practices and develop common standards because NATO and Australia have a strong partnership and are committed to enhancing their abilities of working together in order to better tackle future global challenges".


A close strategic ally and trade partner of NATO members the U.S. and Spain, Colombia has been a strong supporter of the NATO and its actions. In 2009, the Colombian Government asked to be part of the ISAF and work with the Spanish contingent in the mine detection operations,[75] but this didn't materialize due to the internal conflict that Colombia faced. In March 2011, Colombia voted in favor of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, thus officially allowing for NATO military intervention in the Libyan Civil War.[76] In April 2012, Colombia was amended into the NATO ATP-56(B) which gave Colombia the "associate" status and to re-establish air-to-air fuel with NATO member countries.[77][78]

On 4 June 2013, Colombian President [80]

However, on the same day, a Colombian and NATO official both objected to NATO membership for Colombia. Foreign Minister Juan Carlos Pinzon stated his country merely wished to sign a cooperation deal with NATO,[81] and a NATO official noted that, "There is no immediate plan for establishing a formal partnership between the alliance and Colombia, but we are exploring the possibility of carrying out specific activities together...and we are currently developing a security of information agreement which would allow the exchange of classified information between the alliance and Colombia."[82]


Cooperation between Japan and NATO began in 1990, and Japan was one of the first "partners across the globe" when the relationship became more formalized.[83] Japan deepened their relationship in April 2013 with a joint political declaration, and in May 2014 signed accords relating to counter-terrorism and counter-piracy efforts.[84] Japan has also been involved in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and with stabilization efforts in the Balkans during the 1990s.[85]


In September 2011, The NATO alliance invited India to be a partner in its ballistic missile defence (BMD).[86][87] According to the reports a TOP NATO official stated addressing Indian representatives, "You have a missile threat that confronts you. We have a missile threat that confronts us. It’s a different one, but our ability to defend against it could be the same. We have cooperation on those kind of issues. [..]Democracies face challenges that are common. We need to work together and resolve. We need to cooperate, because individually we cannot deal with such threats. It is better to deal with such issues commonly than deal with them individually"[86] V. K Saraswat, the architect of Indian BMD program, subsequently informed, "We are analysing the report. It is under consideration."[87]

U.S. NATO Ambassador Ivo H. Daalder has suggested that India should turn away from its non-aligned role and join NATO. Voice of Russia analyst quoted Robert Pshel, head of NATO’s Information Office in Moscow as saying "I agree with Mr Daalder that many modern threats are global, and tackling them without emerging powers like India is hardly possible."[88] Daalder further stated, “The dialogue should be on how India's concept of its own security and of international security fits in with NATO's concept of international security and how NATO as an actor and India as a country can work together to promote security,”[89]

According to some reports The United States and India have already studied the possibility of a joint missile defence system, albeit former Defence Secretary Robert Gates stated that "talks were only in their early stages."[88] Boris Volkonsky of the Russian Strategic Research Institute was quoted as saying, "an ally like India would strengthen Washington’s hand in South and Southwest Asia and other world areas."[88] Some reports purported that there is one ulterior motive which is a common Indian and American fear of the "rising dragon of China".[88]

And while most members of the Indian strategic community readily admit that NATO’s Afghanistan mission coincides with India’s own strategic interest in stabilising that country, they do not necessarily conclude from this that India and NATO should develop closer cooperation. It is believed that many Indian analysts harbour doubts about the possible implications for their country’s international position should it develop closer ties with NATO. In a report published by NATO review it said, “The choice should be clear: exploiting NATO’s potential as a forum for consultation and cooperation is a 'win-win' situation, both for India and for the Alliance.”[90]


NATO-Mongolia Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme was approved on 19 March 2012 and it's the first application of the new policy for flexible partnerships with global partners.[91][92][93]


See also


  1. ^ Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia. The Republic of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence on 17 February 2008, but Serbia continues to claim it as part of its own sovereign territory. The two governments began to normalise relations in 2013, as part of the Brussels Agreement. Kosovo has been recognised as an independent state by 108 out of 193 United Nations member states.
  1. ^ Russia, NATO stage rival air-combat exercises May 25, 2015 Seattle Times
  2. ^
  3. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^ a b
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^ Waking the Neighbour: Finland, NATO and Russia: Keir Giles and Susanna Eskola, UK Defence Academy, November 2009
  15. ^ Deeper Russia Ties Is Georgia War Lesson, Finnish Premier Says Bloomberg Retrieved on 9 October 2009
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^
  33. ^ Ex-minister wants to bring Russia into NATO Der Spiegel Retrieved on 9 March 2010
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^
  37. ^
  38. ^
  39. ^
  40. ^
  41. ^
  42. ^
  43. ^
  44. ^
  45. ^
  46. ^
  47. ^
  48. ^
  49. ^
  50. ^
  51. ^
  52. ^
  53. ^
  54. ^
  55. ^ News of Ukraine :: Interfax – Ukraine
  56. ^ a b
  57. ^ Razumkov Centre poll Retrieved on 26 August 2009
  58. ^ FOM-Ukraine April 2009 survey, FOM-Ukraine Retrieved on 4 June 2009
  59. ^ Ukrainians May Oppose President’s Pro-Western Goals Gallup Retrieved on 26 August 2009
  60. ^
  61. ^ Itar-Tass
  62. ^ Yanukovych opens door to Russian navy keeping base in Ukraine Retrieved on 9 March 2010
  63. ^ Ukraine's Yanukovych: EU ties a 'key priority', Kyiv Post (1 March 2010)
  64. ^ Ukraine vows new page in ties with Russia Retrieved on 9 March 2010
  65. ^
  66. ^ a b Ukraine drops NATO membership bid, EUobserver (6 June 2010)
  67. ^ Ukraine's parliament votes to abandon Nato ambitions, BBC News (3 June 2010)
  68. ^ a b c NATO: the Australian experience
  69. ^ Global NATO, By Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeier, September/October 2006
  70. ^ a b Australia and NATO: A deeper relationship?
  71. ^ US turns the screws on NATO, lauds its ally Australia
  72. ^ Australia: A Global Member for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  73. ^ NATO enlargement needs US and Australian leadership
  74. ^
  75. ^
  76. ^ Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone over Syria
  77. ^
  78. ^
  79. ^
  80. ^ U.S. might support Colombia NATO bid: State Department official Raw Story
  81. ^
  82. ^ NATO Rules Out Colombia Membership
  83. ^
  84. ^
  85. ^
  86. ^ a b
  87. ^ a b
  88. ^ a b c d
  89. ^
  90. ^
  91. ^ NATO and Mongolia agree programme of cooperation
  92. ^ Finally A New Era in NATO-Mongolia Relations
  93. ^ Mongolia Wrestles With Dinosaurs, NATO and Politics
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.