Haphazardness and strategy are not usually two words that are linked. Yet, in relation to NATO’s so-called ‘global partnerships’1 the two seem highly complementary. Of the many changes brought about by the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, one was a clear demonstration of the global character of security in the 21st century, which prompted NATO to embark on a more ‘global strategy’ by attaching new importance to global security threats and by establishing partnerships that increasingly are linked with the term ‘global’. However, whether the ‘turn to the global’ can be wholly attributed to a paradigm shift following in the wake of 9/11, as is questioned in this volume, would suggest that NATO’s growing number of partners across the globe is the result of strategic planning following directly from the events on that fateful September morning. The chapter will show that this seems an improbable proposition.
- Global Partnership
- Cooperative Security
- Security Sector Reform
- Strategic Concept
- Strategic Bargain
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
There is a growing literature on the crisis of LWO. See, for example, G. John Ikenberry, ‘Power and Liberal Order: America’s Postwar Order in Transition’, International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 5, 2005, 133–152;
G. John Ikenberry, ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order’, Perspectives on Politics, 7, 71–87, 2009;
Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis and Transformation of the American World Order (Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2011).
See Dunne and Flockhart (eds.), Liberal World Orders (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013).
This argument is developed in the chapter by Emanuel Adler, ‘Resilient Liberal Practices’ in Dunne and Flockhart (eds), Liberal World Orders (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013).
Vivien Pertusot, ‘NATO Partnerships: Shaking Hands or Shaking the System?’, Focus Strategique no 31, May 2011, p. 10.
Rebecca Moore, ‘Lisbon and the Evolution of NATO’s New Partnership Policy’ Perceptions, xvii, 1, Spring 2012, pp. 55–74, p. 58.
Karl-Heinz Kamp, ‘Waiting for Another Day’ in The World Today, 62, 10, November 2006, p. 14.
Stephan Frühling and Benjamin Schreer, ‘The Natural Ally? The Natural Partner?–Australia and the Atlantic Alliance’ in Hákan Edström, Janne Haaland Matlary and Magnus Petersson (eds.), NATO: The Power of Partnerships (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 40–59.
Hákan Edstriim, Janne Haaland Matlary and Magnus Petersson (eds.), NATO: The Power of Partnerships, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
I am referring here to Francis Fukuyama’s famous proclamation of ‘the end of history’, Francis Fukuyama, ‘The End of History’ The National Interest, 16, 3–18, 1989.
Editors and Affiliations
© 2013 Trine Flockhart
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Flockhart, T. (2013). NATO’s Global Partnerships — A Haphazard Strategy?. In: Hallams, E., Ratti, L., Zyla, B. (eds) NATO beyond 9/11. New Security Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230391222_14
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-35152-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-39122-2