目录（点击切换）
注意>>>【免费下载本报告完整版PDF，扫上面二维码,各大行业报告均有】
G|M|E
Policy Paper
Summary
NAIOS engagement with partner countries has
Played a key role in the evolution of the alliance.
Beyond laying the foundation for enlargement，放
has been instrumental to peacekeeping and stabili-
Zation efforts. At the same time, 让 has helped facili-
tate interoperabijlity of forces and exported standards
of democratic governance and military Profession-
alism. Yet，over time，NATIOS Partnership policy
has been hampered by increasingly outdated frame-
works, political barriers, and decreased institutional
bandwidth. Simultaneously security challenges have
increased in and near Europe, as well as across the
色obe, altering traditional conceptions of security in
the Euro-Atlantic area.
Responding to these changes， Several Euro-
pean NAIO members and partners have pursued a
networked appProach to security creating and joining
smaller groupings to tackle various challenges. Some
of these groupings address a speciftic problem within
or in connection with NATO structures, while others
operate outside ofthe alliance. This paper refers to the
former as flexible\"” and to the latter as “minilateral”
formats.
This has alowed European NAIO members and
partners to wotk toward common interests and PTior-
ities, enabling more Swift decisions making and filling
gaps in capabilities and readiness by sidestepping
institutional red tape. Meanwhile, NAITO has tried to
adapt its partnership Policy but it lacks a comprehen-
Sive approach for doing so. Yeb the global nature of
challenges facing the alliance requires a broader and
more efficient partnership agenda that builds on past
Successes and adapts to the current context.
February 2021
NATIO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg high-
lighted the importance of partnerships in the context
of these growing global challenges as he launched
NATIO 2030 last year一an initiative to identify Prior-
ities for the coming decade to help inform a new
Strategic concept. To ensure that the alliance and its
partners can effectively navigate the changing secu-
rity environment, it needs to rethink its Partnership
policy This should include a stocktaking of NATOS
partnership frameworks and consider more collabo-
rative and dynamic alternatives to the recent tendency
to over-bilateralize its partnership engagement，
This paper explores how NATIO can apply the
lessons of its Partnership history and successful exam-
Ples of minilateral and flexible arrangements to an
Updated approach. It proposes a dynamic issue- and
interest-based partnership policy that Places a greater
focus on relevant Political dialogue and consultation
with partners to help inform the alliances strategic
direction, particularly as it develops a greater political
competency resulting from the NATO 2030 Process.
The paper also considers the viability of more flex-
ible groupings of members and partners with shared
interests under the NAIO umbrella to address global
threats emanating from a broad set of actors and
circumastances一from geopolitical rivals to disruptive
technologies and natural disasters.
Signiticant institutional hurdles remain a chal-
lenge to an ambitious partnership rethink, but NAIO
must find new creative ways to think about coopera-
tive security to solidify its enduring relevance and to
address challenges that neither its members，nor its
Partners, can tackle on their own.
Arts and Keil: Flexible Security Arrangements and the Future of NATO PartnershipsG|M|E
Policy Paper
Introduction
NAITO has faced questions of relevance and resil-
ience Since the end of the Cold War Yet, as the alli-
ance exited abipolar world, it adapted and asserted its
crucial place in the transatlantic Space time and time
again. NAIO Policies toward partner countries Played
an important role in this evolution，integrating new
nations into the alliance，carrying out peacekeeping
missions in the Balkans，creating interoperability of
forces beyond member states for deployment in Places
like Afghanistan,， and exporting standards of demo-
cratic governance and Professional military conduct
to Partners，
Within the last decade，questions facing NATOS
purpose have gained new Urgency Russias resurgence
and growing assertivenesSs，culminating in the inva-
Sion of Ukraine, altered Europes concept of security in
thepost-Cold War context. Added to this, thelast four
years have heightened uncertainty among some Euro-
pean members regarding the United States long-term
commitment to their continents security. The damasge
will be hard to repair even 让the Biden administration
makes good on the promise of strengthening alliances
and international cooperation，Pparticularly as the
coronavirus pandemic and its knock-on effects wii
Preoccupy policymakers and resources for some time.
With no shortage of challenges across multiple
regions and domains，forging consensus among
NATOS 30 mempbers is hard enough. Adding NAIOAS
40 formal partners to this dynamic only compjlicates
the process of setting a joint agenda. This often results
in a policy Process reduced to the lowest common
denominator To avoid this trap and respond to an
increasingly complex threat environment through
networked cooperation，European countries have
been relying more on smaller groupings among them-
selves and with partners. Some of these groupings
address a Specific Problem within or in connection
with NAIO structures; they are labeled here as “flex-
ible\' formats. Those that operate outside NATIO struc-
tures are labeled as “minilateral ”formats.
(When NATIO talks of flexible formats, this usually
refers to its“+N ”format, in contrast to its more rigid
February 2021
regional Partnership frameworks一both of which
involveall members. In this paper theterm is extended
to address not just flexibility in the number of Part-
ners involved, but also the number of members. Thus，
the flexible formats looked at here include smaller
grouping of NAITO members.)
While these two types of coalitions of the willing”
are leaner more adaptable, and less cumbersome, they
also pose distinct challenges. They can create redun-
dancies or amplify divisions. They also Tisk eroding
larger Partnership endeavors， As such，they create
difficult questions for NATOS existing partnership
approach. Yeb as NAIO confronts a complex global
Security landscape，an effective Partnership agenda
will be more important than ever, To achieve this, 让
will have to reassess the ultimate Purpose of its Part-
nership policy to ensure this Supports its strategic
goals in the coming years and to demonstrate the alli-
ances relevance as the Primary forum for Euro-At-
lantic security cooperation ,
To inform this Process，this paper explores the
rise of minilateral arrangements and flexible formats
across the Euro-Atlantic space，evaluates their effi-
cacy and discusses the implications for NAIO and its
partners. Additionally it examines whatlessons can be
learned from this dynamic, specifically when it comes
to driving a more output-oriented Partnership policy
to meet current and future challenges.
The Evolution of NATO Partnerships
After the Cold War NATIOAS strategic focus Shifted
away from territorial defense toward external crisis
management and out-of-area operations，Tphis first
Played out in the Balkans and later in the Middle East
and North Africa，Meanwhile，NAIO enjarged as
countries in Eastern Europe joined the alliance while
others joined Partnership frameworks. IThese Part-
nerships played an important role in NAIOSs mission
to buttress democracy and security in Europe in the
1990s， They also advanced its mission to Project
Stability in the Middle East and Africa.
Today NAIO boasts a robust menu of partnership
formats and mechanisms,. Some一including the Part-
Arts and Keil: Flexible Security Arrangements and the Future of NATO Partnerships 3G|M|E
Policy Paper
nership for Peace Programme (PfP): and the corre-
sponding European-Atlantic Partnership Council
(EAPC), as well as the Mediterranean Dialogue” 一
date backto the 1990s. Others, like the Istanbul Coop-
eration Initiative”were Shaped by NATOS growing
focus on issues jlike counterterrorism in the 2000s.
The involvement of a broad set of countries in the
NATO-led Iternational Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) mission in Afghanistan gave rise to a new cate-
gory of partners labeled Partners across the Globe，
which were emphasized by the Strategic Concept
adopted at the Lisbon Summit in 2010.4
NATO\'S partnershnip mechanisms
are not CUFrrently achieving theFr 7
potential and are due for a rethinH.
While the EAPC (a forum for PfP countries), the
Mediterranean Dialogue, and the Istanbul Coopera-
tion Initiative were envisioned as mujtilateral formats，
the tools developed in the PfP itself prioritize bilateral
cooperation and are open to all NAIO partners In
2014，NAIO launched the Partnership Interopera-
bility Initiative to improve the quality of Partners
contributions to NAIO-led operations，missions，
and exercises. Within this framework, the Enhanced
OPportunities Partnerships program offers additional
Pathways for cooperation to six countries: Australia，
Finland，Georgia，Jordan，Sweden，and Ukraine.
Georgia，Ukraine，and Russia also all have separate
and additional frameworks for dialogue and cooper-
ation through the NAIO-Georgia Commission，the
1 Current members of PfP which was launched in 1994, include: Armenia，
Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia，
Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Malta, Moldova, Russia, Serbia，
Swedenm, Switzerland, Tajikistan， Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
2 ， Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia are part of
the Mediterranean Dialogue, which was initiated in 1994.
3 ， The ICL launched in 2004, includes Bahrain, Qatar Kuwait, and the
United Arab Emirates.
4 These are Afghanistan Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, South Korea，
Mongolia New Zealand, and Pakistan.
5 “NATO，Partnership for Peace programme”March 23, 2020.
February 2021
NAIO-Ukraine Commission, and the NAITO-Russia
Council.
NATOAs latest partnership effort has been dubbed
One Partner One Plan. Although it is stil in devel-
opment its aim would be to streamjline activities with
respective partner countries. As this initiative evolves，
ii remains to be seen howit will impact other Partner-
ship mechanisms or Partnerships more broadly There
are Concerns 让 could lead to further bilateralization of
Partnerships as well as one-size-fits all approaches that
Provide less flexibility for the Partner country.
Despite this impressive list NATOS partnership
mechanisms are Dot currently achieving their full
potential and are due for a rethink. Many major issues
are being neglected. This is not to say that partners no
longer Play arole in NATOSs operations and priorities.
Onthecontrary Some一such as Swedenand Finland一
are about as closely integrated in NAIOSs Planning as
they could possibly be short of membership. But，as
is also true with Georgia and Ukraine, most of these
activities take Place in bilateral or trilateral formats，
although these countries are also Part of other larger
partnership frameworks.
This reality reveals some flaws in NATIOS Part-
nership policy There are not only redundancies,， but
many ofthe broader frameworks have lost momentum
and purpose. Many formats lack clear Processes and
goals, ]umping together diverse groups of nations that
have very difterent hopes and expectations in how
they engage with NAITO. mm addition, formats like the
Mediterranean Dialogue andthe Istanbul Cooperation
Initiative, which aim to catalyze broader cooperation
beyond the traditional Euro-Atlantic area，continue
to fall short of their intended purpose and lack a
clear agenda for the future. While these frameworks
demonstrate their usefulness by building political ties
and space for dialogue, they are less effective when 站
comes to driving actual outcomes that benefit NAIOS
interests or Strategy or those of its partner countries.
NATIO tends to create new formats as the secu-
rity environment changes without first conducting a
Serious stocktaking and reformation of existing Part-
nerships mechanisms一a Process that has traditionally
Arts and Keil: Flexible Security Arrangements and the Future of NATO Partnerships 4
关于家用保管箱行业报告相关推荐:
粉未涂料行业报告,纸皮核桃行业报告,货货拉拉行业报告
评论已关闭！