Atlantic Voices Vol. 4, No. 8 (August 2014)

ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION

Atlantic Voices, Volume 4, Issue 8 1

- Mikk Raud, Genaro Aguilera-Reza

In light of the events in the past six

months in Ukraine, discussions on NATO

Partnerships and possible enlargement have

become highly relevant. Russia’s aggressive

foreign policy towards former Soviet space has

increased the need for small aspiring countries

to accelerate their full accession to NATO.

At the same time, NATO must focus not

only on Europe, but actively advance its con-

nections around the world. Already established

global ties need to be well maintained and new

partnerships actively sought. It is therefore

important for NATO to divide its resources

and attention in proportion with the arising

needs, without neglecting one or another.

This month’s edition of Atlantic Voices

gives an in-depth overview of NATO’s rela-

tionships with its long-standing partners Geor-

gia and the Republic of Macedonia. Moreover,

moving to the other side of the Atlantic, possi-

ble strategic cooperation with influential pow-

ers in Latin America is under observation.

NATO Headquarters (Photo: NATO)

NATO Partnerships and

Open Door Policy

Volume 4 - Issue 8 August 2014

Contents:

NATO-Georgia Partnership Before the Wales Summit In September 2014 Lavinia Lupu offers an interesting insight about the relations between Georgia

and NATO and the way this has led to a firm path towards membership.

The Cooperative Approach: Securing the Republic of

Macedonia’s Path Towards NATO

Jordan Tasev examines the cooperation that NATO and Macedonia have main-

tained and also explains the aspects of a partnership between the two.

Enlargement of the Transatlantic Link: NATO's Global Partnership with Latin America Genaro Aguilera-Reza explores the possibility of NATO to expand its current

network of partners towards Latin America.


NATO-Georgia Relations: A Review

NATO-Georgia cooperation began in 1992

when Georgia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation

Council, which in 1997 became the Euro-Atlantic Part-

nership Council. This is a forum that brings together

the 28 Allies and 22 partner countries and provides the

political framework for NATO’s cooperation with

partner countries in the

Euro-Atlantic area. In

1994, Georgia joined the

Partnership for Peace, a

NATO programme of

practical bilateral cooper-

ation between NATO and

partner countries, accord-

ing to their individual

needs.

Georgia started the

NATO integration pro-

cess in 2002 at the NATO

Summit in Prague. On this

occasion, Georgia declared

its aspiration to become a NATO member and to de-

velop an Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP)

with NATO. Two years later, Georgia became the first

country to agree to IPAP with NATO in order to assist

Georgia in achieving NATO standards and successfully

implementing democratic reforms.

Based on the progress made by Georgia since the

start of the implementation of IPAP, the Allies decided

at the Bucharest Summit that Georgia, together with

Ukraine, would both become NATO members:

“NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-

Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We

agreed today that these countries will become members

of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contribu-

tions to the Alliance’s operations and MAP is the next

step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to

membership. Today we make clear that we support

NATO-Georgia Partnership Before the Wales Summit in September 2014

By Lavinia Lupu

A fter years of negotiating while facing all

kinds of internal and external pressures,

Georgia finally achieved one of its first

goals. On June 27, 2014, together with Moldova and

Ukraine, Georgia signed the Association Agreement

(including Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Ar-

ea) with the European Un-

ion (EU).

Indeed, the signing of

the Association Agreement

with the EU is a victory for

Georgia, an important step

towards deeper political

association and economic

integration with the EU,

with great impact on the

regional level. But the exul-

tation triggered by this

event was somehow over-

shadowed by the announce-

ment made by NATO Secre-

tary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He said on

June 25, at the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting in

Brussels, that the upcoming NATO summit in Wales

“will not be about a Membership Action Plan (MAP);

but about more support to bring Georgia closer to

NATO. And it will be a substantive package.”

However, one of the goals of the Georgian

leadership was to receive a MAP at the upcoming

NATO summit in Wales. This is why NATO’s deci-

sion was by far “not really what the Georgian authori-

ties aspired to.”

Considering these remarks, this article outlines

first a brief historical overview of NATO-Georgia

relations. After this, it focuses on the significance of

the latest dynamics concerning the NATO-Georgia

Partnership before the upcoming NATO Summit in

Wales.

Georgian Orthodox priest offers a blessing to Georgian soldiers in 2011 (Photo:

Atlantic Council)


these countries’ applications for MAP.”

In the same year, Georgia and Russia experienced a

short episode of armed conflict. NATO expressed its

concern on “Russia's actions during this crisis” and stated

that “Russian military action has been disproportionate

and inconsistent with its peacekeeping role, as well as

incompatible with the principles of peaceful conflict reso-

lution set out in the Helsinki Final Act, the NATO-Russia

Founding Act and the Rome Declaration.” At the same

time, NATO proposed in September 2008 to establish

the NATO-Georgia Commission with the aim of deepen-

ing the political dialogue and cooperation between

NATO and Georgia and of supervising the process started

at the Bucharest Summit in April 2008. Ultimately, the

NATO-Georgia Commission aimed at assisting Georgia in

recovering from the August

2008 conflict with Russia. In

December 2008, the Allied

Foreign Ministers agreed to

the development of an An-

nual National Programme

under the auspices of the

NATO-Georgia Commission. Thus, the Alliance decided

to maximize its assistance and support for Georgia’s re-

form efforts.

Assessing the Current State of Relations Between

NATO and Georgia

Becoming a NATO member is one of the top for-

eign and security policy priorities of Georgia. Moreover,

Georgia enjoys a pro-NATO domestic consensus. The

results of a recent report indicate that 72% of the Geor-

gian population supports a Euro-Atlantic future. Since

Georgia declared its aspiration to become a NATO mem-

ber at the NATO Summit in Prague, it has been strug-

gling to meet the requirements of the Alliance, namely to

implement the necessary reforms in order to achieve the

Euro-Atlantic standards. This is why when Georgia re-

lates to its efforts to join NATO it often invokes the fol-

lowing elements: the conduct of free and fair parliamen-

tary and presidential elections during the last two years,

the progress made on reforms and Georgia’s contribution

to NATO operations.

In the last two years, Georgia faced two critical

tests: the parliamentary elections in 2012 and the presi-

dential elections in 2013. Before these two events,

NATO underlined the importance of holding free and

fair elections. In the final Chicago Declaration, NATO

stated that “We stress the importance of conducting

free, fair, and inclusive elections in 2012 and 2013.”

The way these two elections were held under-

lined Georgia’s progress towards democracy. The final

reports released by OSCE/ODIHR show that the

Georgian parliamentary and presidential elections were

freely and fairly held. The democratic transfer of pow-

er in Georgia and the peaceful cohabitation process are

the elements that prove, according to the NATO Sec-

retary General, that “Georgia’s democratic process

continues to mature, and in that way, Georgia serves as

a model for the wider region.”

At each important

high-level meeting, Geor-

gia is praised because of

the progress made on re-

forms, especially in the

security and defense sec-

tor. For example, during

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili’s visit to

NATO Headquarters in February 2014, Secretary

General Anders Fogh Rasmussen praised Georgia’s

efforts in implementing important reforms: “Georgia is

a strong and committed NATO partner. You are im-

plementing important reforms. And today we see a

more mature democracy in your country, after free

and fair presidential elections last year.”

This is just one example of how NATO per-

ceives and addresses Georgia. This kind of discourse

has remained unchanged since 2012, when at the Chi-

cago Summit, the Alliance “welcomed Georgia’s pro-

gress since the Bucharest Summit to meet its Euro-

Atlantic aspirations through its reforms, implementa-

tion of its Annual National Programme and active po-

litical engagement with the Alliance in the NATO-

Georgia Commission.”

Another important thing that counts when talk-

ing about NATO-Georgia relations is Georgia’s nota-

ble contribution to NATO operations and Euro-

Atlantic security. According to official data, Georgia is

currently the largest non-NATO troop contributor to

At each important high-level meeting, Georgia is praised because of the progress made on reforms,

especially in the security and defense sector.


the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)

in Afghanistan and serves as a transit country for

ISAF supplies. Georgia expressed its desire to con-

tribute to the new NATO-led mission to train,

advise and assist Afghan forces after 2014 and to

participate in the NATO Response Force in 2015.

Georgia also supports Operation Active Endeav-

our, NATO’s only Article 5 operation on anti-

terrorism held in the Mediterranean. As General

Knud Bartels said during NATO’s Military Com-

mittee’s visit to

Georgia on February

11-12, 2014, “this

dynamism in terms

of military engage-

ments is a significant

demonstration of

Georgia's commit-

ment to NATO.”

Based on these

facts, Georgian offi-

cials state on each

o c c a s i o n t h a t

“Georgia has clearly

shown progress re-

quired from a NATO

aspirant country, therefore we [Georgians] have an

expectation that the progress made by us will be

adequately assessed at the upcoming NATO sum-

mit in Wales.” In other words, “when the aspirant

countries are performing, when they are contrib-

uting to the common security… and when we

[Georgians] have public support [within the coun-

try] to the Euro-Atlantic integration, we need vali-

dation from NATO that we are doing the right

things.” From a Georgian perspective, the best way

to “adequately reflect the progress made is to grant

a Membership Action Plan to Georgia.”

But Georgia is already a delicate subject

within NATO, because there has never been a full

consensus concerning its membership in the Alli-

ance. Just to remember the disagreement on

granting Georgia a MAP during the NATO Bucha-

rest Summit when the United States, Canada and

most East European states were in favour of giving

Georgia a MAP, but Germany, France and other

West European countries were against. After many

debates, during the Bucharest Summit, the Allies de-

cided that Georgia, together with Ukraine, will be-

come NATO members: “We agreed today that these

countries will become members of NATO. MAP is

the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct

way to membership. Today we make clear that we

support these countries’ applications for MAP.” Ac-

cording to NATO

officials, Georgia

will become a

NATO member, but

the exact moment is

not known. In this

paradigm, it is a

question of when and

not if.

One of the

most important rea-

sons for the lack of

consensus within

NATO on Georgia is

Russia, which has

always declared that

it strongly opposes such a perspective for Georgia.

For Russia, Georgia within NATO means that NATO

has reached the closest possible point, right next to its

borders. For example, the Russian Minister of For-

eign Affairs said on December 4, 2013, while attend-

ing a session of the Russia-NATO Council that Russia

was convinced that NATO enlargement “not only

preserves the division lines that all of us have commit-

ted to dismantle, but it also amounts to transposition

of those lines further into the East. No one should

take steps that pose a danger to partners’ security.”

Another example of Russia’s position towards this

subject is the answer offered by Aleksandr Grushko,

Russia’s Ambassador to NATO, to the question of

NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, during this

year’s edition of Brussels Forum: “Will you accept

Georgia’s right to choose NATO membership if this is

the Georgian decision and if NATO accepts? Would

Georgian Foreign Minister Maia Panjikidze and Secretary General Anders Fogh

Rasmussen, June 24, 2014 (Photo: NATO)


you accept that?” His answer was “No. I was absolute-

ly very clear; we are against. We believe that this is a

huge mistake. This is my country’s position.”

On this topic, NATO Secretary General, in an

interview for Foreign Affairs, stated that “NATO en-

largement is not a threat against Russia. On the con-

trary: through enlargement of NATO, we have estab-

lished a zone of security, stability, and prosperity in

Eastern and Central Europe. And Russia has profited

significantly from that. And apart from all this, it’s

not for Russia to decide whether an individual nation

wants membership in NATO, or partnership with

NATO, or a non-alliance policy. That's for each spe-

cific nation to decide.”

In the same interview, the NATO Secretary

General referred to Georgia and its objective to join

NATO, saying that “they do

not fulfil all the criteria at

this moment”. But this does

not mean that NATO will

not stay firm in its decision

taken at the Bucharest Sum-

mit that “Georgia will be-

come part of NATO, provided, of course, they fulfil

the necessary criteria… They [Georgians] have a clear

aspiration. And we stand ready to assist them in ful-

filling the necessary criteria.” The fact that the NATO

Secretary General stated again that the Alliance would

stay firm in its decision taken at the Bucharest Summit

is a very important affirmation both for Georgia and

NATO. For Georgia, this kind of statement repre-

sents an attestation that NATO stands by Georgia and

supports its Euro-Atlantic goal. For NATO, this as-

sertion repeated both at the level of public discourse

and in the official Summit final declarations proves

credibility, coherence and political responsibility.

At the end of his remark on Georgia, the

NATO Secretary General also emphasized that

NATO’s position towards Georgia and its Euro-

Atlantic aspiration “will not be changed by what we

have seen in Ukraine.” This statement should be per-

ceived by Georgia as an assurance that NATO sustains

its Euro-Atlantic goal no matter what external events

take place. At the same time, it could mean that Rus-

sia’s position towards Georgia’s future membership in

NATO does not count, thus removing any interpreta-

tions that Russia has a veto to any NATO aspirants

that were part of the U.S.S.R. What Lies Ahead for the NATO-Georgia Part-

nership? Georgia will not receive a MAP at this year’s

NATO Summit in Wales. Instead, NATO will offer

Georgia a “substantive package” of measures to

strengthen cooperation.

NATO Secretary General’s Special Representa-tive for the Caucasus and Central Asia, James Ap-

pathurai, visited Tbilisi on July 9 to discuss this topic.

He declared that the package would enhance security

for Georgians and that it would concretely move

Georgia towards NATO. This would probably mean closer political cooperation, training the Georgian

armed forces, more Geor-

gian presence in NATO’s

discussions and, a clear con-

firmation that Georgia is moving closer to NATO.

But given Russia’s

aggression on Ukraine and

the annexation of Crimea, will this “package” have a clear impact on Georgia’s

security? This is a sensitive topic for Georgia and the

best example to prove it is mentioning the suggestion

of the Georgian Minister of Defence that in response

to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, NATO Allies should deploy “defensive assets” in Georgia: “Air defence and

anti-armor capabilities are something we need to put

in Georgia and Russians will understand that you are

serious.” This proposal reflects not only Georgia’s

security concerns about the critical situation it finds itself in after Russia’s aggression on Ukraine, but also

Tbilisi’s perception on NATO and how it should react

toward a partner country in times of crises.

Deploying defence assets by NATO on a part-ner country’s territory would be something unprece-

dented. First of all, this is because Georgia is not a

NATO member, but a partner. This reality implies

the following consequences: Georgia is not protected

under Article 5, it does not participate in the NATO decision making process, and it has no access to classi-

fied information. On the other hand, NATO’s Strate-

gic Concept “Active Engagement, Modern Defence”

One of the most important reasons for the lack of consensus within NATO on Georgia is Russia,

which has always declared that it strongly opposes such a perspective for Georgia.


identifies “cooperative security” as one of NATO’s

three essential core tasks together with collective

defence and crisis management. Partnerships are seen as a valuable way for

promoting Euro-Atlantic security, they enable the

cooperation with NATO members, thus becoming

a win-win situation, both for NATO and its part-

ners. The package proposal offered by NATO to

Georgia should not be perceived as an attempt to

move away from the decision taken at the Bucha-

rest Summit that Georgia will become a NATO member. Rather, it should be seen as proof that

NATO stands by Georgia by finding solutions so as

to help Georgia move closer to NATO. This is

why Georgia should continue working to achieve

its reform agenda and its democratic consolidation. NATO always refers to Georgia as being a

“special partner” or a “strong and committed part-

ner”, thus reflecting their good political dialogue

and practical cooperation. Moreover, NATO

states on each occasion that it actively supports Georgia’s territorial integrity, its democratic pro-

gress and its ongoing process of implementing the

necessary reforms (such as reform of the armed

forces, security sector reform, level of interopera-

bility, defence planning, etc.) in order to meet the required Euro-Atlantic standards. Together with

the package proposal, these are indicators that the

upcoming NATO Summit in Wales will properly

recognize Georgia’s progress and the fact that it is on the right path.

About the author

Lavinia Lupu is a Research Fellow within the

Centre for Conflict Prevention and Early Warning

in Bucharest, Romania. She is a PhD candidate at

the National University for Political Studies and Public Administration in Bucharest, where her

work is focused on conflict transformation, recon-

ciliation in inter-ethnic conflicts, inter-ethnic con-

flicts in the post-Soviet space. She holds a MA in

Conflict Analysis and Resolution and a Visiting International Fellowship in Azerbaijan.

Bibliography Books:

Ronald D. Asmus, A little war that shook the world. Geor

gia, Russia and the future of the West, Palgrave Macmill

an, New York, 2010

Reports: Georgia, Parliamentary Elections 1 October 2012,

OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission F i n a l

Report, Warsaw, 21 December 2012

Georgia, Presidential Election 27 October 2013 O S C E /

ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report,

Warsaw 14 January 2014 Articles:

John C.K. Daly, What does Russia’s annexation of Cri

mea mean for Georgia’s efforts to join NATO?

04/02/2014 issue of the CACI Analyst

Interviews:

NATO is back. A conversation with Anders Fogh Rasmus sen, Foreign Affairs, March 21, 2014

Surveys:

Luis Navarro, National Democratic Institute (NDI) Georgia,

Public attitudes in Georgia: Results of a April 2014

survey carried out for NDI by CRRC –Georgia

Sites: European Commission, Memo, The EU’s Association Agree

ments with Georgia, the Republic of Mo ldov a and

Ukraine, Brussels, 23 June 2014

NATO, Public opening remarks, 25 June 2014

PM calls for NATO MAP for Georgia, 26 February 2014 MAP for Georgia not on agenda of upcoming N A T O

Summit, June 26 2014

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, NATO-Georgia relat

ions

Chicago Summit Declaration, 20 May 2012

Statement, meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the l evel of Foreign Ministers held at NATO Headquarters,

Brussels, 19 August 2008

NATO-Georgia Commission

NATO’s relations with Georgia

Foreign Ministers praise Georgia’s reform efforts, 4 Decem

ber 2013 NATO Secretary General praises Georgia’s reform

efforts, 5 February 2014

NATO Military Committee acknowledges Georgia’s pro

gress in defence reforms, 11-12 Febru ary 2014

British Foreign Secretary Holds Talks in Tbilisi, 8 May 2014 Bucharest Summit Declaration, 3 April 2014

NATO’s relations with Russia

Georgia sets sights on NATO Membership Action Plan, Jan

uary 16, 2014

Appathurai: ‘Substantive Package’ to solidify NATO-Georgia

ties Alasania Calls for NATO ‘Defensive Assets’ in Georgia, 1

May 2014


Join the ‘Future NATO’ Twitter Debate

NATO‘s Emerging Leaders are discussing the future of the Alliance, in preparation of the Cardiff Summit in September 2014.

Please contribute by comments, shares and usage of the hashtag #FutureNATO!

Find more information and get in touch with us in Facebook:

facebook.com/FutureNATO/info


By Jordan Tasev

T he upcoming NATO Summit in 2014 has

“Future NATO” as its overarching theme

for the whole event. As part of this broad

topic, there will be huge focus on NATO Partner-

ships, their role and diversity. The overarching

goal is to make sure that NATO will be ready for

whatever the future holds.

2014 is an

important year for

NATO and marks

the 20th anniversary

of the two key and

fundamental part-

nership formats: the

Partnership for

Peace and the Medi-

terranean Dialogue.

The Partnership for

Peace was estab-

lished in 1994 in

order to help the

participants developing a relationship with NATO,

allowing them to choose their own priorities, ways

of cooperation and the time frame of progress.

Under this program, the participant is allowed to

touch upon every field of NATO. Currently, there

are 22 countries in the Partnership for Peace pro-

gram. The Mediterranean Dialogue program was

also started in 1994. At present, there are seven

countries involved: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,

Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. The objectives

of this dialogue are to contribute to regional secu-

rity and stability, achieve mutual understanding

and dispel any misconceptions about NATO

among Dialogue countries.

Furthermore, the biggest NATO operation

– ISAF in Afghanistan is coming to an end. This

operation has included participation from 49 coun-

tries. For the first time, the Alliance had close coop-

eration with the biggest number of its partners, both

on and off the field. Invaluable lessons were learned

and foundations for better, global partnerships were

laid.

The new security landscape created in Europe

will also have a strong impact on the NATO Open

Door Policy. Although already agreed that this Sum-

mit will not be an en-

largement Summit, there

will be strong support to

the aspiring countries.

Acknowledgement of the

new situation is expected

and encouragement for

increased cooperation

with Ukraine and Moldo-

va is almost a necessity.

Learning from the previ-

ous Summits, encourage-

ments for full member-

ship of Republic of Mace-

donia and Montenegro and a MAP for Bosnia and

Herzegovina once they solve their respective prob-

lems are expected too. Their future is part of the

transatlantic family and full membership of the Alli-

ance.

NATO’s Open Door Policy is based on Article

10 of its founding treaty: “The Parties may, by unani-

mous agreement, invite any other European State in a

position to further the principles of this Treaty and to

contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area

to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may

become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instru-

ment of accession with the Government of the United

States of America. The Government of the United

States of America will inform each of the Parties of

the deposit of each such instrument of accession”.

A squad of Macedonian soldiers patrolling in Kabul, Afghanistan in 2008

(Photo: J. S. Rafoss)

The Cooperative Approach: Securing the Republic of Macedonia’s Path Towards NATO


NATO’s enlargement is aimed at promoting

stability and cooperation, building whole and free

Europe, united in peace, democracy and common

values. The NATO Open Door policy and the en-

largement policy is an ongoing and dynamic process

which brought NATO from the 12 founding members

to 28 member countries in 2009.

The case of the Republic of Macedonia will be

analysed to assess the value, benefits and the im-

portance of the NATO Open Door Policy and NATO

Partnership programs for the aspiring countries.

The Republic of Macedonia has been a long

term partner of NATO since 1995 and became an

aspiring country for membership in 1999. First of all,

the approach of the Republic of Macedonia towards

the NATO Partnership must be defined. Going

through the 15th Membership Action Plan (MAP)

cycle and using all mechanisms that NATO offers, the

Republic of Macedonia interprets the NATO Partner-

ship Policy as a member country of NATO and not as

a partner of NATO.

The country cooperates with NATO through

the Partnership for Peace and the Euro – Atlantic

Partnership Council. Using the available mechanisms,

the Republic of Macedonia has advanced in the inte-

gration processes. It has successfully reformed its se-

curity sector and reached the basic conditions for

NATO membership. Reforming the defence and se-

curity sector, civil emergency planning, transfor-

mation of the Army, increasing human resources and

potential, improving legislation and reaching budget-

ary requirements from 2,2% until the economic crisis

are just a few of the results of effective usage of the

Partnership for Peace. The Republic of Macedonia is

actively engaged with all available mechanisms for

practical cooperation with NATO. Using these tools,

the Republic of Macedonia reached the level of

NATO membership in 2008.

For the development of the Republic of Mace-

donia and the successful integration processes speaks

to the fact that from being an importer and consumer

of security from its independence, the Republic of

Macedonia has become a country that exports security

since 2002 with the participation in the NATO led

ISAF mission in Afghanistan. As a part of this mission,

the Republic of Macedonia achieved significant suc-

cess, sending dozens of rotations and reaching high

level of efficiency.

During the ISAF mission, our troops have

maintained physical security of the main base in Ka-

bul. Lessons learned are of immense importance. We

have learned to cooperate with our partners and al-

lies. As part of the Adriatic Charter, we participated

together with troops from Albania and Croatia to the

British and German contingent. Furthermore, in

2010, the Republic of Macedonia participated with

teams of instructors for training in the Military by

assisting a police school in Afghanistan as part of the

86th Brigade of the National Guard of Vermont. This

mission is the first jump in quality which was made by

the Republic of Macedonia in its international com-

mitment. According to the White Paper on Defence,

the Republic of Macedonia has participated in ISAF

with a total of 3500 personnel, the biggest rotation

reaching a number of 250 soldiers.

Furthermore, the country will continue its ac-

tive participation after 2014 in operation “Resolute

Support”. The mission will be to train, advise and as-

sist the Afghan security forces. As part of the

“Resolute Support”, the Republic of Macedonia will

fully undertake its duties underlined by the NATO

operational plans for the mission. The Republic of

Macedonia is also continually active as a logistical cen-

ter for the KFOR mission in Kosovo ever since the

1999 NATO intervention.

It is of immense importance to state the bene-

fits which the Republic of Macedonia receives by par-

ticipating in the international missions. Increased

knowledge, experience and expertise are invaluable

for the future development of the Ministry of Defence

and the Army.

On the road towards Euro-Atlantic integration

the Republic of Macedonia also learned and reaped

the benefits from regional cooperation. As men-

tioned, the country was and is still part of the Adriatic

Charter. This initiative was formed in 2003, with the

support of the United States in the spirit of US-Baltic

charter.


Starting together with Albania and Croatia, the

initiative was enlarged in 2008 with Bosnia and

Herzegovina and Montenegro becoming new

members and Serbia and Kosovo observer coun-

tries.

As a user of the NATO Partnership mecha-

nisms, the Republic of Macedonia reached this suc-

cess and will continue to participate in the missions

led by NATO. Instead of previous physical protec-

tion missions, the Republic of Macedonia will par-

ticipate with expertise

by contributing instruc-

tors and training.

As announced by

the Minister of Defence

Mr. Talat Xhaferi after the meeting in Skopje on

14 November 2013 with the Deputy Assistant Sec-

retary of Defence of the US Mrs. Evelyn Farkas:

“Our priority is the engagement for full member-

ship of the Republic of Macedonia to NATO and

EU and in this context for us remains of highest

priority to continue with our participation in the

international missions led by NATO, UN and EU”.

The Republic of Macedonia will continue with its

engagement in international missions.

The best example of this is the participation

in a mission with the National Guard of Vermont

in Senegal. Senegal, beside all its problems, is a

huge security exporter. Until now, Senegal has

participated with 3500 personnel in the UN led

missions, however, they are still in need of instruc-

tors, training, preparation and expertise to im-

prove their capacities and capabilities for interna-

tional missions. Once again, the Republic of Mace-

donia will definitely complete the jump in quality

and will continue with fulfillment of the strategic

goals which are foreseen with these politics.

The NATO Open Door Policy was one of

the key mechanisms that gave the opportunity to

the countries of the Western Balkans to cooperate.

This cooperation brought security, stability and

development of the region. The countries learned

the benefit of working together towards the com-

mon goal of full Euro-Atlantic integration.

The US-Adriatic Charter highlights the amazing

accomplishments of the countries on their way to-

wards the Euro-Atlantic integration. Also, in continu-

ation is promoting and supporting stability and full

Euro-Atlantic integration of the region. Sharing the

same values and having the same goals is of invaluable

meaning for the region after long years of conflicts.

Going through the MAP processes, reforms and

regional and international cooperation has helped the

Republic of Macedonia to ad-

vance and develop as a country.

Participation in international

missions has allowed us to learn

to cooperate with partners both

on and off the field and to learn the most from the

cooperation. Cooperative Approach to Security is a

hihgly valued concept and is included in every main

paper and strategy of the country that is in the direc-

tion of finishing the remaining work towards integra-

tion to NATO and EU . Learning and gaining all the

benefits from it, the Republic of Macedonia will un-

doubtedly continue on this road.

Jordan Tasev has graduated from the Institute for

Security, Defence and Peace Studies in Skopje. He is

currently a member of the Presidency of the Euro-

Atlantic Council of Macedonia, where he has com-

pleted an internship and is working as office manager.

Bibliography

International Security Assistance Force http://www.isaf.nato.int

NATO Deputy Secretary General Ambassador Alexander

Vershbow, Looking towards the Wales Summit White Paper on Defence http://www.morm.gov.mk/ wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BELA-KNIGA-NA-ODBRANATA.pdf Fact sheet on Adriatic Charter http://www.state.gov/p/

eur/rls/fs/112766.htm

About the author

The NATO Open Door Policy was one of the key mechanisms that gave the opportunity to the

countries of the Western Balkans to cooperate.


Balkan SAYS Security Architecture Youth Seminar

24 – 27 October 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia

The Balkan SAYS 2014 seminar will gather and connect students, young professionals and future leaders, who will, through interesting round tables, debates and workshops, seek for new ways of dealing with regional

security issues. Main focus will be on topics as follows:

• Regional security and cooperation through the lens of possible future Western Balkans integration into the Euro-Atlantic family;

• The role of youth in Peacebuilding and Reconciliation;

• Impacts and consequences of the catastrophic floods in the Western Balkans and more.

See more at: facebook.com/BalkanSAYS


Enlargement of the Atlantic Link: NATO's Global Partnership with Latin America

By Genaro Aguilera-Reza

N ATO is actively looking for strategic part-

ners in order to contribute to security and

stability in different areas of the

world. Unfortunately, Latin America has been ne-

glected by the Alliance. In recent decades, Latin

America has grown economically and the region is

now internationally engaged more than ever, while

having some of the largest and best equipped armies

in the world. Countries like Mexico and Colombia,

which have friendly relations

with both the United States and

countries that refuse any type of

Western influence in Latin

America, such as Venezuela and

Ecuador, could serve as a bridge

between the Atlantic Alliance

and other countries in this re-

gion. One of the possible rea-

sons why Latin American coun-

tries have not been the ones

taking the initial steps in creating

a partnership is the fear of

“neocolonialism” that some leaders in South America

have been denouncing for decades. It is a crucial time

for Latin American nations to understand that there is

much to learn from a strategic partnership with

NATO where the benefits outnumber the risks of fall-

ing into “neocolonialism”. In other words, both

NATO and Latin American countries need to realize

the importance of working together.

Currently, NATO has a network of partners

and talks are held and information is shared with a

wide range of countries in very diverse areas of the

globe. NATO's global partners include nations such as

Australia, Pakistan, Mongolia and Japan which lie very

far from NATO's area of responsibility, sphere of in-

fluence and of the Atlantic Ocean itself. Nonetheless,

these partnerships contribute to maintaining peace

and stability in different regions of the world. Howev-

er, there has been little or no interest in Latin Ameri-

ca despite its large Atlantic coast and strategic posi-

tion in world trade. The question is open, why

NATO has developed partnerships in many places,

but has not extended its network of cooperation into

Latin America?

An unprecedented event took place in January

2014 when NATO signed a cooperation agreement

with Colombia, marking the first collaboration be-

tween the Alliance and a

Latin American country.

Diana Quintero, Colom-

bia's Vice Minister has

stated that “[Colombia] has

approached NATO in or-

der to be one of its global

allies and this invitation is

in response to NATO’s

goal of sharing good prac-

tices and experiences with

other countries” (Tase,

2014).This demonstrates

the interest that this South American nation has in

establishing a system of cooperation with NATO simi-

lar to those that Japan, Australia or Mongolia already

enjoy. This agreement between NATO and Colombia

could be an initial step in upgrading the status of some

Western-friendly Latin American nations to eventual-

ly become part of NATO's global partners. This arti-

cle will study the cases of Colombia and Mexico and

how they could contribute to the Alliance. It will then

proceed to demonstrate the ways that NATO can help

strengthen these nations’ military structures and share

information in order to improve stability in the area.

Colombia and Mexico are among the most

Western friendly countries in Latin America, both

sharing stable economies comparable to those of East-

ern and Central Europe. Moreover, both Colombia

NATO Deputy SG Ambassador Alexander Vershbow and

the Defence Minister of Colombia (Photo: NATO)


and Mexico are two of the countries with the better

trained and most powerful armies in Latin America. At

the same time they suffer from unresolved problems with

drug trafficking and drug related violence. Therefore,

these two nations are good examples demonstrating how

bilateral cooperation can be beneficial to both NATO and

Latin American countries.

Colombia

After overcoming dec-

ades of internal struggle to

maintain its national security

by fighting drug trafficking

and terrorist groups such as

the Fuerzas Armadas Revolu-

cionarias de Colombia

(FARC), Colombia is now

enjoying a more peaceful en-

vironment and one of the

most stable economies in

South America. At the same time, decades of hostilities

have led to a generation of professionals trained in

fighting drug trafficking and terrorism who have arguably

become very respected experts in these fields. For exam-

ple, during the Mexican Drug War, a considerable num-

ber of Colombian intelligence was used to combat drug

violence and drug trafficking in Mexican cities, such as

Ciudad Juarez and Monterrey, where crime dropped dra-

matically. A similar case occurred in Central American

countries, such as El Salvador and Panama, where positive

results were also obtained (FIP, 2012).

Colombia and the United States have a long history

of cooperation at a regional level. During the Clinton-

administration, the Plan Colombia, which served the pur-

pose of dismantling the powerful Medellín and Cali car-

tels and fighting army and police corruption, was a great

success. In a similar way, the U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) has an office located in Bogotá

which serves as a strategic tool to fight drug trafficking in

the Andean region. According to Geopolitical Monitor,

“the United States has also supported Colombia in its risk

management efforts, the transformation of its armed forc-

es, and (…) have also signed an agreement to establish an

overall assistance and cooperation plan covering four

countries [in Central America]” (Tase, 2014).

In 2014, NATO and Colombia signed a security

cooperation agreement that was “aimed at exchanging

intelligence information in order to improve the capa-

bilities on both sides of the Atlantic to face common

threats, particularly transnational crime” (Sanchez A,

2014). NATO made an excellent step, as this bilateral

agreement will be very fruitful for the Alliance and the

South American nation.

Despite the evident ben-

efits for the region,

many neighboring coun-

tries, such as Venezuela

and Bolivia, did not

share this positive view

and publicly denounced

both Colombia and the

Alliance (AVN, 2014).

Providing the civilian pop-

ulation with clear and full

information of the agreement with NATO could make

the public more open for discussing and accepting

the Alliance’s presence in their country.

The possibilities of cooperation for Colombia

and NATO are extensive. The Atlantic Alliance can

obtain a great source of information from Colombia in

order to better fight drug trafficking in Europe and

elsewhere. This is especially true given that much of

the cocaine plaguing Europe originates from South

America while using smuggling routes across the Atlan-

tic Ocean to make its way into Western African na-

tions, and is eventually carried over in Southwest Eu-

rope and the Balkans to reach the other European mar-

kets. This should be a major issue for the Alliance as it

directly poses a security threat to the Euro-Atlantic

societies while undermining regional stability and con-

taminating the Atlantic Ocean with criminal activity.

NATO could also benefit from collaboration

with the Colombian anti-drug trafficking experts in

Afghanistan. Afghanistan has become one of the

world’s main producers of heroin, a substance that

eventually reaches European markets, creating a major

addiction problem, especially in countries like the

United Kingdom and Italy, where “there are 100,000

or so heroin users in Milan, a city that the police now

Drug Bust in Mexico (Photo: Council on Foreign Affairs)


calls the European heroin capital.” (McDonald,

2013; Simons 1989). The possibility of using the

experience that Colombia has obtained during its

own drug trafficking crisis and putting it in the

context of Afghanistan could be a great way to

alleviate the problem which originates from Cen-

tral Asia.

There is no doubt that Colombia could

make a great contribution to NATO's Global

Partnership Program. The current bilateral agree-

ment between Colombia and NATO is a good

start to spark same

trend in other West-

ern-friendly countries

in the region. At the

same time, these types

of agreements contrib-

ute to the overall secu-

rity of the Atlantic

Ocean as well as

NATO's sphere of in-

fluence.

Mexico

Mexico is another country that NATO

should consider for establishing a security cooper-

ation agreement that could eventually lead this

nation to become a part of NATO’s Global Part-

nership Program. This Latin American country

possesses the second largest economy in the re-

gion, is the largest US trading partner in the de-

veloping world and already takes part in a trade

agreement with Canada and the United States. In

fact, economists predict that Mexico will surpass

Brazil as the largest economy in Latin America

(Rey Mallen, 2014). It is difficult to understand

why NATO has taken so long to promote cooper-

ation with Mexico as it is so deeply connected

geographically, culturally and economically with

the United States and other nations in the Euro-

Atlantic area.

Mexico has welcomed aid from the United

States in the past decade to fight its war against

drug trafficking in the form of the Plan Merida,

which has achieved somewhat positive results.

Similarly, the DEA has an extensive history of cooper-

ation with the Mexican government. For example,

earlier in 2014, an operation led by the Mexican Ma-

rines aided by DEA intelligence managed to capture

Chapo Guzman, the world's most powerful drug lord

and the second richest man in Mexico. Although there

has been a considerable degree of cooperation with

Mexico, especially from the United States, that has

not been the case with NATO or EU. NATO needs to

understand the necessity of building stronger ties with

this Latin American nation.

Dr. David G. Hag-

lund has written about the

hypothetical possibility of

Mexico becoming a mem-

ber of NATO. Although

this would be extremely

difficult, if not impossible,

he does, however, manage

to get many interesting

points across. To name a

few factors, Mexico lies

closer to the area of influ-

ence of NATO as it is part of North America, as op-

posed to nations that have direct ties with the Alli-

ance, such as Armenia or Azerbaijan, that are geo-

graphically much further apart. Similarly, Mexico has

a longer Atlantic coast than most European NATO

members which would serve the purpose of keeping a

more secure Atlantic Ocean. It is unlikely that Mexi-

co will join NATO in the near future, but it is im-

portant to keep in mind that Mexico is a North Amer-

ican nation that has much to contribute to the overall

security in the region and beyond.

In spite of Mexico's isolationist military pos-

ture, there is much that this nation could benefit from

obtaining a security cooperation agreement with

NATO, especially with its ongoing drug war prob-

lem. The Armed Forces of Mexico could benefit from

training in specific fields in counter terrorism to fight

drug cartels, as these criminal organizations use tactics

that terrorist groups have also used, such as car bombs

and grenade detonations in public, among other

methods (Durbin, 2013). Additionally, Mexico could

Armed Forces Day in Mexico (Photo: Secretaria de Marina)


enjoy better access to new military technology. Mexi-

co has been lagging behind in the use of drones which

could serve very well in inspecting and keeping

mountainous regions, jungles and deserts under sur-

veillance in order to locate illegal crops or the hiding

places of cartel members. As a matter of fact, Mexi-

can drug cartels have started to use drone technology

to smuggle drugs into the United States (Lopez,

2014).

The need for a cooperation agreement with

NATO is evident as both Mexico and the Alliance

need to increase their security. Additionally, the

United States and Canada benefit enormously from

having a stable and secure southern neighbor. Their

economies and nations are very well connected and

Mexico could contribute to the overall security in

North America (Sands, 2012). Surprisingly, neither of

the two North American NATO members has been

actively pursuing such cooperation whereas Spain has

led the effort in the past by requesting Mexico obtain

an observer status in NATO exercises.

Conclusion

Despite the great benefits of NATO having

closer ties with Latin America, the Alliance has been

hesitant to pursue global partnerships in the region.

Recently, NATO has signed a cooperation agreement

with Colombia which can set the pace for future ne-

gotiations with other nations in Latin America. The

advantages for both Latin American countries and

NATO in helping each other are ample. The gains for

both parties range from anti-drug trafficking exper-

tise, information sharing, military training, and

providing a larger area of influence to secure the At-

lantic Ocean. It is an indisputable advantage for

NATO to have closer ties with Latin American coun-

tries that have a lot in common with Europe and

North America and also share coasts with the Atlantic

Ocean. Establishing strong partnerships and coopera-

tion with Colombia and Mexico should be taken into

serious consideration in the near future.

Genaro Aguilera-Reza is a native of El Paso-Ciudad Juarez in

the US-Mexico border area. He is a candidate for a MA in Inter-

national Migration from the University of Kent - Brussels School

of International Studies. He holds a B.A. in International Rela-

tions from the University of Arkansas where he focused his re-

search on the Middle East and Latin America. He is currently an

intern at the Atlantic Treaty Association in Brussels.

Cox, Joseph. "New Cocaine Routes Are Wreaking Havoc in West Africa." Vice News 1 July (2013).

Daalder, I & Goldgeier, J "Global NATO"Foreign Affairs (2006).

Durbin, Kirk J. "International Narco-Terrorism and Non-State Actors : The Drug Cartel Global Threat." Global Security Studies 4.1 (2013).

FIP, Staff. "Primera Conferencia Colombiana Sobre Política de Drogas."Fundacion Ideas Para La Paz (2012)

Haglund., David G. "Pensando Lo Imposible: Why Mexico Should Be the Next New Member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." Latin American Policy 1.2 (2010)

Hurrel, Andrew. "Security in Latin America." International Affairs - Royal Institute of International Affairs 74.3 (1998)

Ing, David. "Mexico and Spain Seek Closer Ties, NATO Obs erver Status for Mexico." IHS Jane's Defence Weekly (2014).

Lopez, Oscar. "Mexican Drug War News: DEA Reveals Cartels Use Drones To Transport Drugs From Mexico Into US." Latin Times (2014).

McDonald, Danny. "WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF BRITISH HEROIN ADDICTION?" VICE News 25 Apr. (2013)

Olivas, J., and B. Gaytan. "‘Importa’ Juárez Estrategia Colom biana Contra El Narco." El Diario De Juarez 3 Mar. (2014).

Preble, Edward, and John J. Casey. "Taking Care of Business— The Heroin User's Life on the Street." The International Journal of Addictions 4.1 (1969).

Rey Mallen, Patricia. "Will Mexico Surpass Brazil As Latin America’s Largest Economy? Intl. Business Times (2014).

Sands, Cristopher. "Why NATO Should Accept Mexico." Huff Post Canada 18 May (2012).

Sanchez, Alex. "Geopolitical Considerations of the NATO- Colombia Cooperation Agreement." E-International Rela tions (2014).

Sanchez, Julian. "Mexico, Colombia Y Centro America Se Unen Contra El Narco." El Universal 21 June (2013), Nacion

Simons, Marlise. "Rising Heroin Use and Addict Deaths Alarm Italy, Where Drug Is Legal." New York Times (1989).

Staff, AVN "Maduro Denounces NATO Warmongering Plans in Latin America." AVN 4 Jan. (2014).

Tase, Peter. "Colombia Looks to NATO and Beyond in Region al Defense." Geopolitical Monitor (2014).

About the author

Bibliography

This publication is coThis publication is coThis publication is co---sponsored by the sponsored by the sponsored by the

North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization

Atlantic Voices is always seeking new material. If you are a young

researcher, subject expert or professional and feel you have a valuable

contribution to make to the debate, then please get in touch.

We are looking for papers, essays, and book reviews on issues of

importance to the NATO Alliance. For details of how to submit your

work please see our website. Further enquiries can also be directed to the

ATA Secretariat at the address listed below.

Editors: Mikk Raud, Genaro Aguilera-Reza

ATA Programs

In cooperation with Latvian authorities, the Latvian Transatlantic

Organization will host the Riga Conference 2014 on 12-13 September.

As well as looking back at the implications of the NATO Summit in

Wales, the confer-

ence draws togeth-

er a variety of ex-

perts to provide a

thorough insight to the most heated topics in security policies. Among

others, Euro-skepticism with rising nationalism, the future of energy

markets, and dependence on information sector are only a few of the

issues that the conference will address.

The Atlantic Council of the United Kingdom is organizing a one-

day workshop at the Sage Gateshead, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK on 24

September 2014. The event titled “Soft vs Hard Diplomacy: NATO 65

Years On - NATO Summit Analysis” provides an opportunity to re-

examine the NATO’s current approach to soft and hard diplomacy. The

renowned speakers include MPs, NATO personnel and academics from

various universities.

The German Youth Atlantic Treaty Association is organising a

Young Leaders Seminar “NATO after Wales Summit” on 4-5 November

in Berlin. The main focus of the conference will be on NATO’s future,

energy security, cyber space and crises management.

Images should not be reproduced without permission from sources listed, and remain the sole property of those sources. Unless otherwise stated, all images are the property of NATO.

Atlantic Voices is the monthly publication of the Atlantic Treaty Associa-

tion. It aims to inform the debate on key issues that affect the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization, its goals and its future. The work published in Atlantic

Voices is written by young professionals and researchers.

The Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) is an international non-

governmental organization based in Brussels working to facilitate global

networks and the sharing of knowledge on transatlantic cooperation and

security. By convening political, diplomatic and military leaders with

academics, media representatives and young professionals, the ATA promotes

the values set forth in the North Atlantic Treaty: Democracy, Freedom,

Liberty, Peace, Security and Rule of Law. The ATA membership extends to 37

countries from North America to the Caucasus throughout Europe. In 1996,

the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA) was created to specifially

include to the successor generation in our work.

Since 1954, the ATA has advanced the public’s knowledge and

understanding of the importance of joint efforts to transatlantic security

through its international programs, such as the Central and South Eastern

European Security Forum, the Ukraine Dialogue and its Educational Platform.

In 2011, the ATA adopted a new set of strategic goals that reflects the

constantly evolving dynamics of international cooperation. These goals include:

◊ the establishment of new and competitive programs on international

security issues.

◊ the development of research initiatives and security-related events for

its members.

◊ the expansion of ATA’s international network of experts to countries in

Northern Africa and Asia.

The ATA is realizing these goals through new programs, more policy

activism and greater emphasis on joint research initiatives.

These programs will also aid in the establishment of a network of

international policy experts and professionals engaged in a dialogue with

NATO.

The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Atlantic Treaty Association, its members, affiliates or staff.

Atlantic Voices Vol. 4, No. 8 (August 2014)

Documents

Transcript of Atlantic Voices Vol. 4, No. 8 (August 2014)