Eurasia Press & News
At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, 16 states were members of NATO . These are 12 countries that signed the North Atlantic Treaty on the creation of the bloc in 1949 – Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the USA and France. Four more countries joined the alliance in the 1950s-1980s – Greece and Turkey (since 1952), Germany (since 1955; on October 3, 1990, after the unification of Germany, the territory of the former GDR entered the bloc) and Spain (since 1982) .
In the early 1990s, in connection with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, the alliance began to create various mechanisms for consultations with the former countries of the Warsaw Pact (1955-1991). Thus, in 1991, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council was established (in 1997 it was replaced by the North Atlantic Partnership Council). In 1994, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program was adopted, the purpose of which is comprehensive interaction between the alliance and non-member states. In 1995, the alliance published a study stating that under the new conditions “a unique opportunity arose” for a new expansion of the bloc in order to “strengthen security throughout the Euro-Atlantic region.” At the Madrid summit in July 1997, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited to participate in the alliance, and then other states of the former socialist camp. Since the late 1990s, 14 countries have joined NATO: in 1999, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic; in 2004 – Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia; in 2009 – Albania and Croatia; in 2017 – Montenegro, in 2020 – North Macedonia. Thus, today NATO unites 30 countries.
In April 2008, at a meeting in Bucharest, the leaders of the alliance said that “in time, Ukraine and Georgia will be able to join the alliance.”
NATO Strategic Concept
The Strategic Concept 2022 provides a realistic assessment of the deteriorating strategic environment for NATO. “ Strategic rivalries, widespread instability and occasional upheavals define our broader security environment. The threats we face are global and interconnected.”. It is said that the Russian Federation is recognized as the most significant threat to the security of NATO member states. Other identified threats and challenges include: terrorism; conflicts and instability in the Middle East and Africa; widespread instability and its impact on the civilian population, cultural property and the environment; China’s stated ambitious goals and coercive policies; Cyberspace; new and breakthrough technologies; erosion of the architecture of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation; and the security implications of climate change.
The Strategic Concept reaffirms the defensive nature of the Alliance and its commitment to unity, cohesion and solidarity, strong transatlantic ties, shared democratic values and a common vision of “a world where sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights and international law are respected and where each country can choose its own path ». It states that Allies will maintain a global approach to peace and security issues and will work closely with partners, other countries and international organizations. Finally, the Strategic Concept confirms NATO’s indispensability for Euro-Atlantic security as a guarantor of peace, freedom and prosperity. Therefore, NATO Allies will continue to be united in protecting our security, values and democratic way of life.
True, NATO’s participation in the aggression against Yugoslavia and Libya refutes the defensive nature of this alliance. You can’t argue with these facts.
Cooperation with the Middle East
The US decision to eliminate Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on January 3 was again followed by the Trump administration’s strong demands for NATO members to play a more prominent role in the troubled region, especially in Iraq. The reaction of the Iraqi leadership to the assassination of Soleimani and calls for the withdrawal of American troops from the country have led the Americans to now call on their NATO allies to fill the vacuum. President Trump even coined a new acronym, NATOME—NATO in the Middle East. The American president has remained true to his line for the past three years and reiterated that NATO allies need to deploy more troops directly in the region, spend more on defense and become more involved in operations in the Middle East, as they have more direct interests there, than the United States. In the three decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the alliance has struggled to find its identity, but a poorly defined role in the Middle East, which is not of strategic interest to all 29 member states, is unlikely to breathe new life into NATO’s activities. The European Member States are not interested in any plan that would include an increase in the number of troops in the Middle East and direct participation in ground operations in numerous hot spots. is unlikely to breathe new life into NATO activities. The European Member States are not interested in any plan that would include an increase in the number of troops in the Middle East and direct participation in ground operations in numerous hot spots. is unlikely to breathe new life into NATO activities. The European Member States are not interested in any plan that would include an increase in the number of troops in the Middle East and direct participation in ground operations in numerous hot spots.
The lack of European and American media coverage of the ministerial meeting and the Iraq decision contrasted with Trump’s very high-profile statements in January. This may suggest that NATO members have been trying to give the alliance a breather while engaging in dialogue with a skeptical US administration. However, it may not be the best solution at the moment when fear and uncertainty are shaking the international system.
NATO and India
Just a few years ago, any mention of India and China as potential NATO partners would have raised eyebrows not only in Delhi and Beijing, but in many NATO countries.
Forging ties with India is not a veiled attempt to draw that country and other rising powers into the military-political orbit of the Alliance, nor is it an attempt to bypass the UN as the chief arbiter of global security affairs. The recommendation to use NATO for consultation and cooperation is not grandiose but pragmatic. In an era that is increasingly being shaped by the forces of globalization, a much stronger network of major players is needed to deal with common security challenges.
Afghanistan is a prime example. NATO led the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), bringing the Alliance not only to the border with China, but also greatly increased interdependence between it and India.
India is one of the major international donors to Afghanistan, where it also had a significant civilian presence, and therefore its strategic interests are not only the security provided by ISAF, but also the stabilizing effect that NATO involvement has on the region. In turn, NATO’s success in Afghanistan in the long term would depend on the success of the civilian reconstruction work being done by India and others. However, the victory of the Taliban led to the fact that both the NATO forces and the Indian presence in the country were reduced to nothing.
NATO is constantly working to adapt its policies and structures to these new realities. Today, the Alliance, which has 28 member states, maintains diplomatic and military relations with more than thirty countries of the world that are not members of NATO. The scale and intensity of these relationships vary depending on the specific interests of each partner country.
Some countries prefer a discreet mode of operation, holding occasional negotiations at the secretariat level or participating in seminars and courses. Others limit their engagement with NATO to political dialogue. Still others are opting for a much closer military partnership in order to be able to engage in challenging operations alongside NATO countries.
But all these relations with NATO are built voluntarily and “à-la-carte”. They do not include the obligation to defend each other that allies are bound to, but they do not compromise the individual foreign policy of the partner country, in particular, the tradition of non-alignment in the field of security.
However, many analysts in India are not sure how the development of a closer relationship with NATO could affect their country’s position in the international arena. As one eminent Indian expert pointed out at a conference in Delhi, India is too big a country to be just another Alliance partner.
While most strategists in India readily agree that NATO’s mission in Afghanistan is in line with India’s strategy of stabilizing the country, they do not conclude from this that India and NATO should develop closer cooperation.
On the contrary, apparently, many believe that with the withdrawal of NATO from Afghanistan, the interest of this organization in Asia will also disappear.
Finally, in view of India’s close bilateral relationship with all of the major Allies, and even more so in view of its increasingly close relationship with the United States, some do not see much added value in forging a closer relationship with the Alliance. believe that Switzerland’s long-term cooperation with NATO should demonstrate to even the most convinced skeptics that neither the policy of non-alignment nor the country’s neutrality should interfere with the country’s cooperation with NATO.
NATO sees its partnerships as a long-term strategic investment, not a short-term tactical one. This is evidenced by the history of NATO partnerships. And while the pace of development of these partnerships may vary, they all become more active over time.
And problems such as cyber attacks, energy security, nuclear proliferation, failing states and piracy are forcing states to look for additional frameworks that would allow them to not only discuss but also work together, including in the military sphere. NATO is one such framework, and the only one with over 60 years of experience in multinational military planning and cooperation.
It is only natural and inevitable that the Alliance should share its unique experience more widely. That’s why NATO’s engagement with the Indian Navy in the fight against piracy off the coast of Somalia is likely to be followed by closer cooperation in other areas. The new momentum is also evidenced by India’s high-level participation in NATO’s annual seminar on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. More than 50 countries from five continents, including India’s neighbors China and Pakistan, come to this seminar.
Cooperation between NATO and Colombia
U.S. President Joe Biden has officially given Colombia the status of “major non-NATO ally” (aka MNNA). This was reported on the website of the White House.
This status is given to close US allies who share strategic interests with them. MNNA allows you to participate in joint anti-terrorism initiatives and defense projects, conduct research with the US authorities, and receive US funding for certain tasks in the defense sector.
Including Colombia, 20 countries have the status of a major US ally outside NATO. Among them are Israel, Tunisia, Australia, Afghanistan, Argentina and Brazil. Under Joe Biden, Qatar also received MNNA status.
