 | Parts of this article (those related toLegacy andEvolution) need to beupdated. The reason given is: Missing information on the consequences of that one member (Russia) has invaded another member (Ukraine). Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(April 2024) |
Partnership for Peace | |
|---|---|
 | |
| NATO Headquarters | Brussels,Belgium |
| Type | Intergovernmental organisation |
| Membership | 18 participating states(incl. two suspended) |
| Establishment | |
• Founded | 1994 |
Website www.nato.int | |
ThePartnership for Peace (PfP;French:Partenariat pour la paix) is aNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program aimed at creating trust and cooperation between themember states of NATO and other states mostly inEurope, includingpost-Soviet states; 18 states are members.[1] The program contains six areas of cooperation, which aims to build relationships with partners through military-to-military cooperation on training, exercises, disaster planning and response, science and environmental issues, professionalization, policy planning, and relations with civilian government.[2][3] During policy negotiations in the 1990s, a primary controversy regarding PfP was its ability to be interpreted as a program that is a stepping stone for joining NATO with fullArticle 5 guarantees.
Amidst the security concerns inEastern Europe after the Cold War anddissolution of the Soviet Union, and also due to the failure of theNorth Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC), the program was launched during the summit inBrussels, Belgium, between January 10 and 11, 1994.[4] In the process, neutral countries also faced a situation in which they had to reconsider maintainingmilitary neutrality; therefore, countries such asAustria,Finland andSweden joined the Partnership for Peace field activities in 1997.[5]
In 2002, it began theIndividual Partnership Action Plan to provide members an opportunity to be granted further assistance from NATO without having to commit to becoming full members of NATO.[6] The program has additionally started an initiative for education, specifically military education. Over the course of its creation, the program has struggled with funding due to its ever-changing formation of members.[6]
Amidst the security concerns of thepost–Cold War era, theNorth Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was established in 1991 to pay attention to security issues in Eastern Europe.[7] The NACC was first announced at the Rome summit in November 1991 as NATO's first attempt to incorporate the formerSoviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies into European security frameworks. This was intended to formdiplomatic links between NATO and Eastern European military officials on industrial and military conversations.[3] After 1991, the NACC held annual ministerial meetings and regular consultations between Eastern and Western representatives of NATO's political, economic, and military committees. The objective of these meetings was to strengthen the relations between Eastern and Western Europe, thereby contributing to the regional political and military stability. However, the council contained 36 members of considerable geographic, economic, and cultural diversity who were at times in political dispute with each other. Eventually, this caused limited actions on the NACC's primary mission. By 1993, a range of Eastern European countries lost confidence in the NACC. The emergence of new states such as Croatia and Ukraine, along with the split of Czechoslovakia, led to Slovakian Foreign Minister,Milan Kňažko, urging the creation of a security framework that would facilitate cooperation on all levels with NATO.[8] The shortcomings of the NACC in their insufficiency when dealing with fast-paced regional events, resulted in heightened pressure by NACC members for a membership into theNATO alliance and also the formation of an alternative program.[3]
The concept of the PfP was first discussed by the Bulgarian societyNovae, after being proposed as an American initiative at the meeting of NATOdefense ministers inTravemünde, Germany, between October 20 and 21, 1993, and it was formally launched on January 10–11, 1994, at the NATOsummit in Brussels, Belgium.[9] According to declassified U.S. State Department records,[10]President Clinton characterized toPresident Yeltsin the PfP as a "track that will lead to NATO membership" and that "does not draw another line dividing Europe a few hundred miles to the east".[11] In September 1994 Clinton told Yeltsin that NATO would expand, but there was no timetable.[12][13] By that time, Yeltsin had claimed a Russiansphere of influence covering theCommonwealth of Independent States.[14] According to Russian foreign ministerAndrei Kozyrev, in 1993 Yeltsin had been led to believe that Partnership for Peace would be an alternative to NATO membership, not a program for it, although the head of theForeign Intelligence Service,Yevgeny Primakov, told him this was a way to begin NATO expansion. Yeltsin still authorized Russia to become a member of the PfP on 22 June 1994, but later said he felt betrayed after NATO declared that PfP was a path to membership in December 1994. In early 1995 he changed Russia's policy as being opposed to any NATO expansion.[15]
Between October 20 and 21, 1993, inTravemünde, Germany, a meeting for NATOdefense ministers was held. In the meeting, the US proposed a program called the Partnership for Peace in response to issues in Eastern Europe.[9] This initiative was designed by theUS secretary of defense Les Aspin who did not want to excludeRussia from international security arrangements.[16] This was mainly an initiative launched to encourage states to builddemocracy and active participation towards maintaining international security.[16] The program was also put in place in order to strengthen security cooperation with states in Central and Eastern Europe that were not part of the NATO alliance.[17] In the NATO summit held between January 10 and 11, 1994, the PfP was established by NATO under theNorth Atlantic Council (NAC).[3][16] It was claimed by Clinton that the partnership would give way for countries in Eastern Europe, including those that were part of the Soviet Union and even Russia itself to work together "for the best possible future for Europe".[9]
The PfP Framework Document presented six areas of cooperation, including:[18]
States were also promised offices at theNATO headquarters and at a Partnership Coordination Cell which was located near theSupreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).[9] States participating in the initiative were to receive perks for cooperating, albeit less than states who had already had full membership in the NATO alliance.[17] NATO along with theUS government announced that the existingalliance members would only need minimal contributions towards the cost of the initiative while the PfP members would have to fund for most of the cost of the program.[16] The PfP also increased the possibility for participating states who were not part of the NATO alliance to be an official member, but never actually guaranteed aNATO membership. It was claimed[by whom?] that the PfP was used to delay decisions regarding the move towardsexpanding NATO membership to non-NATO members in Europe.[9] It was also perceived[by whom?] as a devised plot by the West to prepare Eastern European states for the formation of aEuropean Union by turning them into democratic states through military cooperation.[17] By mid-October 1994, 22 states were part of the PfP.[16]
On April 26, 1995,Malta became a member of PfP;[19] it left on October 27, 1996, in order to maintain its neutrality.[20] On March 20, 2008, Malta decided to reactivate its PfP membership;[21] this was accepted by NATO at the summit inBucharest on April 3, 2008.[22] During the NATO summit inRiga on November 29, 2006,Bosnia and Herzegovina,Montenegro, andSerbia were invited to join PfP,[23] which they did[24] on December 14, 2006.[25]
Russia was suspended from the PfP in April 2014,[26] and Belarus was suspended in November 2021.[27][28]
| Country | PfP membership[24] | Notes |
|---|---|---|
 Armenia | October 5, 1994 | CSTO member |
 Austria | February 10, 1995 | EU member |
 Azerbaijan | May 4, 1994 | GUAM member |
 Belarus[a] | January 11, 1995 | CSTO member |
 Bosnia and Herzegovina | December 14, 2006 | |
 Georgia | March 23, 1994 | GUAM member |
 Ireland | December 1, 1999 | EU member |
 Kazakhstan | May 27, 1994 | CSTO member |
 Kyrgyzstan | June 1, 1994 | CSTO member |
 Malta | April 26, 1995[19][c] | EU member |
 Moldova | March 16, 1994 | GUAM member |
 Russia[b] | June 22, 1994 | CSTO member |
 Serbia | December 14, 2006 | CSTO observer |
 Switzerland | December 11, 1996 | |
 Tajikistan | February 20, 2002 | CSTO member |
 Turkmenistan | May 10, 1994 | |
 Ukraine | February 8, 1994 | GUAM member |
 Uzbekistan | July 13, 1994 |
Austria's participation in PfP was strengthened in 1996. Their views on PfP focused on maintaining the ability and readiness to contribute to operations "under the authority and/or responsibility of the United Nations and/or NATO and/or theOSCE". An important area of Austrian PfP contribution is private emergency planning. 30% of all PfP activities in this field came from Austria in 1997. In that year, Austria participated in 227 activities, including 14 peacekeeping operations involving 713 people, within the framework of the NATO/PfP program.[5]
Cyprus is the onlyEuropean Unionmember state that is neither aNATO member state nor a member of the PfP program.[29] TheParliament of Cyprus adopted a resolution in February 2011 in favor of PfP membership, but PresidentDemetris Christofias vetoed the decision, arguing that it would hamper his attempts to negotiate an end to theCyprus dispute and demilitarize the island.[30][31]Turkey, a full member of NATO, is likely to veto any attempt by Cyprus to engage with NATO until the dispute is resolved.[32]Nicos Anastasiades, who waselected President in 2013, stated that he intended to apply for membership in the PfP program soon after taking over.[33] His foreign ministerNikos Christodoulides later dismissed Cypriot membership of NATO or Partnership for Peace, preferring to keep Cyprus'foreign and defence affairs within the framework of the EU, i.e. theCommon Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).[34]
After the2023 presidential election, Anastasiades' foreign minister Christodoulides succeeded him as President. In November 2024, Christodoulides reversed his previous stance and revealed a plan to deepen Cyprus' relations with NATO and eventuallyjoin as a full member. Under the first phase of the plan, Cyprus would seek to join preparatory organizations linked to NATO, which would require progress in resolving the Cyprus dispute with NATO member Turkey and improvements toEU–Turkey relations.[35][36][37][38]
Kosovo has described PfP membership as a tactical and strategic objective of the government.[39] Kosovo submitted an application to join the PfP program in July 2012. However, fourNATO member states,Greece,Romania,Slovakia andSpain, do notrecognize Kosovo's independence and have threatened to block its participation in the program.[40][41] To be eligible to join, the Kosovar Armed Forces must be established[42] from theKosovo Security Force.
16 former member states of the PfP (namelyAlbania,Bulgaria,Croatia,Czech Republic,Estonia,Finland,Hungary,Latvia,Lithuania,Montenegro,North Macedonia,Poland,Romania,Slovakia,Slovenia andSweden) have subsequently joined NATO.
| Country | Joined PfP | Became full NATO member |
|---|---|---|
 Poland | February 2, 1994 | March 12, 1999 |
 Hungary | February 8, 1994 | |
 Czech Republic | March 10, 1994 | |
 Romania | January 26, 1994 | March 29, 2004 |
 Lithuania | January 27, 1994 | |
 Estonia | February 3, 1994 | |
 Slovakia | February 9, 1994 | |
 Latvia | February 14, 1994 | |
 Bulgaria | ||
 Slovenia | March 30, 1994 | |
 Albania | February 23, 1994 | April 1, 2009 |
 Croatia | May 25, 2000 | |
 Montenegro | December 14, 2006 | June 5, 2017 |
 North Macedonia | November 15, 1995[1] | March 27, 2020 |
 Finland | May 9, 1994 | April 4, 2023 |
 Sweden | March 7, 2024 |
During thepost-Cold War era, equal distribution of opportunities to contribute topeacekeeping operations was made, but the status of middle and neutral powers such asSweden,Finland, andIreland also decreased. Therefore, neutral countries also faced a situation in which they had to reconsider maintaining military neutrality in the current international politicalunipolar system. In June 1997, a senior NATO official said a broader role was aimed at working closer with NATO and finally joining the alliance. While the PfP provides a framework for cooperative relations withRussia, it did not include a membership into NATO. Although the PfP has made important contributions to crisis management, such as peacekeeping operations,Ireland andAustria are still not NATO members.[5]
In 2001, NATO granted participation in its Membership Action Plan (MAP) to nine of the 26 PfP countries. In 2002, NATO began theIndividual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) initiative during the2002 Prague Summit.[6] The goal of this plan was to provide member states of PfP a chance to be granted assistance from NATO to "establish reform goals" without the pressure of committing to NATO.[6]
In 2003, the alliance assumed strategic command, control, and coordination of the mission and established a permanentInternational Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters inKabul. Since then, the operation has grown to about 120,000 troops from 47 countries.[6]
During NATO's2004 Istanbul Summit, theIstanbul Cooperation Initiative was launched. During this summit, six countries of theGulf Cooperation Council were included. Over the course of the summit, NATO also established the less formalizedPartners across the Globe initiative.[6]
The 2008Russo-Georgian War had implications for the Partnership for Peace.[44] PresidentDmitry Medvedev referred to an attack by Georgia against a Russian military base inTskhinvali, the capital ofSouth Ossetia, as "Russia's9/11".[44] The subsequent expansion of the previously bilateralGeorgia Train and Equip Program, which had been established within the context of Georgia's participation in the PfP, was viewed with alarm in Moscow.[6][44]
As of 2023, Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only remaining participant in NATO's Membership Action Plan (MAP).[45]
The PfP has pushed for education programs amongst members of both NATO and the PfP composed of professional military education. Its purpose is to "contribute to peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region and beyond". These education programs and training are mostly focused onCentral Asia and theSouth Caucasus.[46]
The Partnership for Peace has had ramification on its budget caused by the ever-changing formation of members. For instance, the average annual Wales Initiative Funding (WIF) established for the program was set at $43 million during the fiscal years of 1996 to 2005. In consequence of a decline in the number of countries participating in the program, annual funding was reduced to $29 million in fiscal years 2006 through 2010.[6] Another factor includes the reduction of distribution of WIF funding in the program amongst aspiring members of NATO.[6]
Within hours of taking office, Mr.[Alfred] Sant withdrew Malta's membership in Partnership for Peace, a NATO military cooperation program that is so loosely defined that its sign-up list now spans the spectrum from Russia to Switzerland. [...] Mr. Sant says none of those moves should be interpreted as anti-European or anti-American, but simply as the best way of insuring Malta's security.
The cabinet has agreed to reactivate its membership in the Partnership for Peace which was withdrawn in 1996, the government said on Thursday.
At the Bucharest Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government welcomed Malta's return to the Partnership for Peace Programme. At Malta's request, the Allies have re-activated Malta's participation in the Partnership for Peace Programme (PfP).
So today, we are suspending all practical cooperation with Russia, military and civilian. In the NATO-Russia Council, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the Partnership for Peace.
| Internal relations |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Multilateral relations | ||
| Bilateral relations | ||
| Related | ||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
