Partnership for Peace’s Influence as an Instrument of Continuity and Change in the Euro-Atlantic Region
There is a lot of truth to the Turkish proverb that reads: “Tell me who your friend is and I tell you who you really are!” The parallels between one’s own identity and identities of one’s peers and associates can be remarkably strong. This relationship appears to be at work also in the European political scene. Two organisations, NATO and the European Union, have created a gravitational pull which affects not only aspiring NATO members, but even those that do not aspire to membership. The attraction created by these two organisations helps Euro-Atlantic nations converge on common values including democracy, the market economy and human rights as never before and with virtually no ideological opposition. On its part, NATO has become a major “force for” rather than “source of security from Stockholm to Bishkek, demonstrating its value in shaping a broader security order and culture in the Euro-Atlantic area. In Secretary-General Solana’s words, NATO has moved from preventing the “worst case” to achieving the “best case” — a new security architecture for the Euro-Atlantic area.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Nick Williams, The Future of Partnership for Peace (Sankt Augustin: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 1996), p. 18.Google Scholar
- 4.Douglas Stuart, ‘NATO’s Future as a Pan-European Security Institution’, NATO Review XLI4 (1993), pp. 15–19.Google Scholar
- 6.Robert E. Hunter, ‘Enlargement: Part of a strategy for projecting stability into Central Europe’, NATO Review XLIII 3 (1995), pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
- 7.David Lightburn, ‘Nato and the challenge of multinational peacekeeping’, NATO Review XLIV 2 (1996), pp. 10–14.Google Scholar
- 8.Greg Schulte, ‘Bringing Peace to Bosnia and Change to the Alliance’, NATO Review, XLV 2 (1997), pp. 22–25.Google Scholar
- 9.Nikolay Slatinski and Marina Caparini, ‘Bulgarian Security and Prospects for Reform’, NATO Review XLIII 2 (1995), pp. 28–32.Google Scholar
- 10.For a more detailed account of the preparation of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to accession, see: Frank Boland, ‘Preparing For Membership’, Central European Issues, Romanian Foreign Affairs Review Vol. 5, No. 1(1999), pp. 28–35.Google Scholar