{"title":"Paths to peace for NATO’s partnerships in Eurasia","authors":"Joshua B. Spero","doi":"10.7765/9781526137470.00018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the role of multilateral cooperative efforts and institutionalised security cooperation in the Eurasian area through a study of NATO’s PfP programme. In terms of measuring the capacity to increase Eurasian security, the general track record of the post-Cold War security institutions in non-traditional areas of societal democratisation, economic modernisation, civil and cross-border war prevention, and Eurasian integration presents a mixed picture.1 By focusing on the Eurasian politico-military partnerships created with NATO, it is possible to gain an understanding of how targeted policies supported by multilateral institutions can increase security in the Eurasian area. NATO’s PfP provides a myriad of programmes between NATO and non-NATO states utilising multilateral military cooperation to educate, train, exercise, and allow military staff and civilian officials to operate effectively together.2 Since its January 1994 inception, the PfP has created substantial security enhancements in Eurasia and contributed directly to the capacity of allied nations to deploy troops to the region in the post-September 11 anti-terrorist coalition. The PfP has evolved into an exemplary model of institutionalised civilmilitary cooperation among over forty European and Eurasian states. The success of the PfP has had an important impact feeding back into NATO, thus facilitating NATO’s own post-Cold War survival. None the less, the future of PfP will depend heavily on whether NATO can adapt adequately to the kinds of post-September 11 threats confronting both allies and partners. By incorporating the experiences of the PfP into NATO planning, the alliance may be in a stronger position to adapt to current and future challenges.3 Almost six years of PfP cooperative planning and operations in Eurasia have laid part of the foundation to counter such non-traditional threats as terrorism, the proliferation of WMD, ethnic conflict, resource depletion and narcotics trafficking in Eurasia. The PfP provides the principal mechanism through which NATO cooperates with individual and regional groupings of","PeriodicalId":107110,"journal":{"name":"Limiting institutions?","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Limiting institutions?","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526137470.00018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
This chapter examines the role of multilateral cooperative efforts and institutionalised security cooperation in the Eurasian area through a study of NATO’s PfP programme. In terms of measuring the capacity to increase Eurasian security, the general track record of the post-Cold War security institutions in non-traditional areas of societal democratisation, economic modernisation, civil and cross-border war prevention, and Eurasian integration presents a mixed picture.1 By focusing on the Eurasian politico-military partnerships created with NATO, it is possible to gain an understanding of how targeted policies supported by multilateral institutions can increase security in the Eurasian area. NATO’s PfP provides a myriad of programmes between NATO and non-NATO states utilising multilateral military cooperation to educate, train, exercise, and allow military staff and civilian officials to operate effectively together.2 Since its January 1994 inception, the PfP has created substantial security enhancements in Eurasia and contributed directly to the capacity of allied nations to deploy troops to the region in the post-September 11 anti-terrorist coalition. The PfP has evolved into an exemplary model of institutionalised civilmilitary cooperation among over forty European and Eurasian states. The success of the PfP has had an important impact feeding back into NATO, thus facilitating NATO’s own post-Cold War survival. None the less, the future of PfP will depend heavily on whether NATO can adapt adequately to the kinds of post-September 11 threats confronting both allies and partners. By incorporating the experiences of the PfP into NATO planning, the alliance may be in a stronger position to adapt to current and future challenges.3 Almost six years of PfP cooperative planning and operations in Eurasia have laid part of the foundation to counter such non-traditional threats as terrorism, the proliferation of WMD, ethnic conflict, resource depletion and narcotics trafficking in Eurasia. The PfP provides the principal mechanism through which NATO cooperates with individual and regional groupings of