NATO

For other uses, see the military alliance.

50°52′34.16″N 4°25′19.24″E

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord

Flag of NATO
NATO countries shown in blue
Formation	4 April 1949
Type	Military alliance
Headquarters	Brussels, Belgium
Membership	26 member states and 14 major allies
Official language	English, French
Secretary General	Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
Chairman of the Military Committee	General Raymond Henault
Website	http://www.nato.int/

NATO 2002 Summit in Prague.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization/Organisation (NATO); Template:Lang-fr; (also called the North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance, or the Western Alliance) is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. With headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, the organization established a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

History

Beginnings

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March, 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. This treaty established a military alliance, later to become the Western European Union. However, American participation was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the Soviet Union, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.

These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

"Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response must include military action. It is however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the article limits the organization's scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement.

In 1954, the Soviet Union suggested that it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe. The NATO countries, fearing that the Soviet Union's motive was to weaken the alliance, ultimately rejected this proposal.

The incorporation of West Germany into the organization on 9 May 1955 was described as "a decisive turning point in the history of our continent" by Halvard Lange, Foreign Minister of Norway at the time. Indeed, one of its immediate results was the creation of the Warsaw Pact, signed on 14 May 1955 by the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia, and East Germany, as a formal response to this event, thereby delineating the two opposing sides of the Cold War.

The unity of NATO was breached early on in its history, with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France from 1958 onward. De Gaulle protested the United States' strong role in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom, and also for the expansion of NATO's coverage to include geographical areas of interest to France, most notably Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.

Considering the response given to be unsatisfactory, and in order to give France, in the event of a East German incursion into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being drawn into a NATO-Warsaw Pact global war, de Gaulle began to build an independent defense for his country. On 11 March 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean fleet from NATO command; three months later, in June 1959, de Gaulle banned the stationing of foreign nuclear weapons on French soil. This caused the United States to transfer two hundred military aircraft out of France and return control of the ten major air force bases that had operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967.

In the meantime, France had initiated an independent nuclear deterrence programme, spearheaded by the "Force de frappe" ("Striking force"). France tested its first nuclear weapon, Gerboise Bleue, on 13 February 1960, in (what was then) French Algeria.

File:Usaf-france-map.jpg

Map of Major USAF bases in France before Charles de Gaulle's 1966 withdrawal from NATO military integrated command.

Though France showed solidarity with the rest of NATO during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, de Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defence by removing France's Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command. In 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. This withdrawal forced the relocation of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) from Paris to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by 16 October 1967. France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defense of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout this period. France rejoined NATO's Military Committee in 1995, and has since intensified working relations with the military structure. France has not, however, rejoined the integrated military command and no non-French NATO troops are allowed to be based on its soil. The policies of current French President Nicolas Sarkozy appear to be aimed at eventual re-integration.

The creation of NATO necessitated the standardization of military technology and unified strategy, through Command, Control and Communications centers (aka C4ISTAR). The STANAG (Standardization Agreement) insured such coherence. Hence, the 7.62×51 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale's FAL became the most popular 7.62 NATO rifle in Europe and served into the early 1990s. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base.

Détente

Main article: Détente

During most of the duration of the Cold War, NATO maintained a holding pattern with no actual military engagement as an organization. On 1 July 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opened for signature: NATO argued that its nuclear weapons sharing arrangements did not breach the treaty as U.S. forces controlled the weapons until a decision was made to go to war, at which point the treaty would no longer be controlling. Few states knew of the NATO nuclear sharing arrangements at that time, and they were not challenged.

On 30 May 1978, NATO countries officially defined two complementary aims of the Alliance, to maintain security and pursue détente. This was supposed to mean matching defenses at the level rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact's offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms race.

However, on 12 December 1979, in light of a build-up of Warsaw Pact nuclear capabilities in Europe, ministers approved the deployment of U.S. Cruise and Pershing II theatre nuclear weapons in Europe. The new warheads were also meant to strengthen the western negotiating position in regard to nuclear disarmament. This policy was called the Dual Track policy. Similarly, in 1983–84, responding to the stationing of Warsaw Pact SS-20 medium-range missiles in Europe, NATO deployed modern Pershing II missiles able to reach Eastern capitals within minutes. This action led to peace movement protests throughout Western Europe.

KAL 007 and NATO deployment of missiles in W. Europe

With the background of the build-up of tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, NATO decided, under the impetus of the Reagan presidency, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missles in Western Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6 minutes striking distance from Moscow, the capital of the "Evil Empire", as Reagan had termed it. Yet support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted whether the push for deployment could be sustained. But on Sept. 1, 1983, the Soviet Union would shoot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, a Boeing 747 with 269 people aboard, in international waters just past the west coast of Sakhalin Island - an act which Reagan characterized as a "massacre". The barbarity of this act, as the U.S. and indeed the world understood it, galvanized support for the deployment - which stood in place until the later accords between Reagan and Mikhael Gorbachev

The membership of the organization in this time period likewise remained largely static. In 1974, as a consequence of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Greece withdrew its forces from NATO's military command structure, but, with Turkish cooperation, were readmitted in 1980. On 30 May 1982, NATO gained a new member when, following a referendum, the newly democratic Spain joined the alliance.

In November 1983, NATO maneuvers simulating a nuclear launch caused panic in the Kremlin. The Soviet leadership, led by ailing General Secretary Yuri Andropov, became concerned that the maneuvers, codenamed Able Archer 83, were the beginnings of a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in East Germany and Poland were placed on alert. Though at the time written off by U.S. intelligence as a propaganda effort, many historians now believe that the Soviet fear of a NATO first strike was genuine.

Post-Cold War

The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO. This caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's purpose, nature and tasks. In practice this ended up entailing a gradual (and still ongoing) expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, as well as the extension of its activities to areas that had not formerly been NATO concerns. The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east, and also that NATO would never expand further east.

As part of post-Cold War restructuring, NATO's military structure was cut back and reorganised, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe agreed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and signed in Paris in 1990, mandated specific reductions. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union on the military balance in Europe were recognised in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, signed some years later.

On 28 February 1994, NATO also took its first military action, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft violating a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Operation Deny Flight, the no-fly-zone enforcement mission, had begun a year before, on 12 April 1993, and was to continue until 20 December 1995. NATO air strikes that year helped bring the war in Bosnia to an end, resulting in the Dayton Agreement.

Between 1994 and 1997, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbors were set up, like the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which finally happened in 1999.

On 24 March 1999, NATO saw its first broad-scale military engagement in the Kosovo War, where it waged an 11-week bombing campaign against what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. A formal declaration of war never took place. Yugoslavia referred to the Kosovo War as military aggression, being undeclared and contravening the UN Charter. The conflict ended on 11 June 1999, when Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milošević agreed to NATO’s demands by accepting UN resolution 1244. During the crisis, NATO also deployed one of its international reaction forces, the ACE Mobile Force (Land), to Albania as the Albania Force (AFOR), to deliver humanitarian aid to refugees from Kosovo. NATO then helped establish the KFOR, a NATO-led force under a United Nations mandate that operated the military mission in Kosovo. After the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence the commander of NATO forces in Kosovo said February 20 2008 he does not plan to step up security in the tense north despite violent attacks by Kosovo Serb which forced the temporary closure of two boundary crossings between Kosovo and Serbia. No added NATO security in Kosovo

Debate concerning NATO's role and the concerns of the wider international community continued throughout its expanded military activities: The United States opposed efforts to require the U.N. Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the ongoing action against Yugoslavia, while France and other NATO countries claimed the alliance needed U.N. approval. American officials said that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia. In April 1999, at the Washington summit, a German proposal that NATO adopt a no-first-use nuclear strategy was rejected.

After the September 11 attacks

NATO Defense Ministers' Summit in Poiana Braşov, 13-14 October 2004

The expansion of the activities and geographical reach of NATO grew even further as an outcome of the September 11 attacks. These caused as a response the provisional invocation (on September 12) of the collective security of NATO's charter—Article 5 which states that any attack on a member state will be considered an attack against the entire group of members. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included the first two examples of military action taken in response to an invocation of Article 5: Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour.

Despite this early show of solidarity, NATO faced a crisis little more than a year later, when on 10 February 2003, France and Belgium vetoed the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its right to break the procedure but said it supported the veto.

On the issue of Afghanistan on the other hand, the alliance showed greater unity: On 16 April 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all 19 NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATO’s history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. Canada had originally been slated to take over ISAF by itself on that date.

In January 2004, NATO appointed Minister Hikmet Çetin, of Turkey, as the Senior Civilian Representative (SCR) in Afghanistan. Minister Cetin is primarily responsible for advancing the political-military aspects of the Alliance in Afghanistan.

On 31 July 2006, a NATO-led force, made up mostly of troops from Canada, Great Britain, Turkey and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition.

Expansion and restructuring

The NATO Secretary General, the U.S. President, and the Prime Ministers of Latvia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Estonia after a ceremony welcoming them into NATO on 29 March 2004.

New NATO structures were also formed while old ones were abolished: The NATO Response Force (NRF) was launched at the 2002 Prague Summit on 21 November. On 19 June 2003, a major restructuring of the NATO military commands began as the Headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic were abolished and a new command, Allied Command Transformation (ACT), was established in Norfolk, Virginia, USA, and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) became the Headquarters of Allied Command Operations (ACO). ACT is responsible for driving transformation (future capabilities) in NATO, whilst ACO is responsible for current operations.

Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Northern European and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (see Baltic Air Policing) and also Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. They were first invited to start talks of membership during the 2002 Prague Summit, and joined NATO on 29 March 2004, shortly before the 2004 Istanbul Summit.

A number of other countries have also expressed a wish to join the alliance, including Albania, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Montenegro and Ukraine. From the Russian point of view, NATO's eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War has been in clear breach of an agreement between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President George H. W. Bush which allowed for a peaceful unification of Germany. NATO's expansion policy is seen as a continuation of a Cold War attempt to surround and isolate Russia.

The 2006 NATO summit was held in Riga, Latvia, which had joined the Atlantic Alliance two years earlier. It is the first NATO summit to be held in a country that was part of the Soviet Union, and the second one in a former COMECON country (after the 2002 Prague Summit). Energy Security was one of the main themes of the Riga Summit.

At the April 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO agreed to the accession of Croatia and Albania and invited them to join. The rest were rejected.

ISAF

Main article: International Security Assistance Force

In August 2003, NATO commenced its first mission ever outside Europe when it assumed control over International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. However, some critics feel that national caveats or other restrictions undermine the efficiency of ISAF. For instance, political scientist Joseph Nye stated in a 2006 article that "many NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan have "national caveats" that restrict how their troops may be used. While the Riga summit relaxed some of these caveats to allow assistance to allies in dire circumstances, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S. are doing most of the fighting in southern Afghanistan, while French, German, and Italian troops are deployed in the quieter north. At the hands of the escalation of the fighting, France has recently accepted to redeploy its bombers in the south to help the other countries. It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless it is willing to commit more troops and give commanders more flexibility." If these caveats were to be eliminated, it is argued that this could help NATO to succeed.

NATO missile defense talks controversy

For some years, the United States negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic for the deployment of interceptor missiles and a radar tracking system in the two countries. Both countries' governments indicated that they would allow the deployment. The proposed American missile defence site in Central Europe is believed to be fully operational in 2015 and would be capable of covering most of Europe except part of Romania plus Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey.

In April 2007, NATO's European allies called for a NATO missile defense system which would complement the American National Missile Defense system to protect Europe from missile attacks and NATO's decision-making North Atlantic Council held consultations on missile defense in the first meeting on the topic at such a senior level.

In response, Russian president Vladimir Putin claimed that such a deployment could lead to a new arms race and could enhance the likelihood of mutual destruction. He also suggested that his country should freeze its compliance with the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)—which limits military deployments across the continent—until all NATO countries had ratified the adapted CFE treaty.

Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the system would not affect strategic balance or threaten Russia, as the plan is to base only 10 interceptor missiles in Poland with an associated radar in the Czech Republic.

On July 14, Russia notified its intention to suspend the CFE treaty, effective 150 days later.

Pre-emptive nuclear strike

One group of generals suggest that the West must have the option to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks in the face of challenges in the post 9/11 world. This is found in a manifesto for a new NATO by five senior military NATO officers and strategists, American General John Shalikashvili, German General Klaus Naumann, Dutch General Henk van den Breemen, French Admiral Jacques Lanxade, and British Field Marshal Lord Inge, and discussions with active commanders and policymakers.

"The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible.....The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

Governance amendments

The manifesto calls for an overhaul of NATO decision-taking methods including:

• a new pact drawing the US, NATO and the European Union together in a "grand strategy"
• a new "directorate" of US, European and NATO leaders to respond rapidly to crises
• an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with NATO.
• A shift from consensus decision-taking in NATO bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.
• The abolition of national caveats in NATO operations
• The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings"

Membership

There are currently 26 members within NATO.

Date	Country	Expansion	Notes
April 4 1949	Belgium	Founders
	Canada
	Denmark
	France		France withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966 to pursue an independent defense system.
	Iceland		Iceland, the sole member that does not have its own standing army, joined on the condition that it would not be expected to establish one. However, it has a Coast Guard and has recently provided troops trained in Norway for NATO peacekeeping.
	Italy
	Luxembourg
	Netherlands
	Norway
	Portugal
	United Kingdom
	United States
18 February 1952	Greece	First	Greece withdrew its forces from NATO’s military command structure from 1974 to 1980 as a result of Greco-Turkish tensions following the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
	Turkey
9 May 1955	Germany	Second	(as West Germany; Saarland reunited with it in 1957 and the territories of Berlin and the former German Democratic Republic reunited with it on 3 October 1990)
30 May 1982	Spain	Third
12 March 1999	Czech Republic	Fourth
	Hungary
	Poland
29 March 2004	Bulgaria	Fifth
	Estonia
	Latvia
	Lithuania
	Romania
	Slovakia
	Slovenia
TBA 2009	Albania	Sixth
	Croatia

At the NATO summit in Bucharest (April 2008) Albania and Croatia were officially invited to start accession talks with the alliance.

Map of NATO countries chronological membership.

Membership of NATO in Europe.

Future membership

Article X of the North Atlantic Treaty describes how non-member states may join NATO:

The Parties may by unanimous 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 instrument 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.

Note that this article poses two general limits to non-member states: (1) only European states are eligible for membership and (2) these states need the approval of all the existing member states. The second criterion means that every member state can put some criteria forward that have to be attained. In practice, NATO formulates in most cases a common set of criteria, but for instance in the case of Cyprus, Turkey blocks Cyprus' wish to be able to apply for membership as long as the Cyprus dispute is not resolved. Cyprus opposes Turkey's admission to the European Union for the same reason.

In April 2008, Greece also blocked a membership invitation to the Republic of Macedonia over a more-than-a-decade long dispute regarding the latter country's name.

Membership Action Plan

Main article: Membership Action Plan

As a procedure for nations wishing to join , a mechanism called Membership Action Plan (MAP) was approved in the Washington Summit of 1999. A country's participation in MAP entails the annual presentation of reports concerning its progress on five different measures:

• Willingness to settle international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of armed forces
• Ability to contribute to the organization's defense and missions
• Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership
• Security of sensitive information, and safeguards ensuring it
• Compatibility of domestic legislation with NATO cooperation

NATO provides feedback as well as technical advice to each country and evaluates its progress on an individual basis.

NATO is also unlikely to invite countries such as Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland, where popular opinions do not support NATO membership. NATO officially recognizes the policy of neutrality practiced in these countries, and does not consider the failure to set a goal for NATO membership as a sign of distrust .

Country	Partnership for Peace	Individual Partnership Action Plan	NATO membership declared as goal	Intensified Dialogue	Membership Action Plan	NATO membership
Albania	1994-02	-		-	April 1999	Invited: April 2008, Expected: 2009
Croatia	2000-05	-		-	May 2002	Invited: April 2008, Expected: 2009
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	1995-11	-		-	April 1999	Vetoed by Greece on 03 Apr 2008, Only conditional invitation.
Georgia	March 1994	2004-10		September 2006	Expected December 2008	-
Montenegro	2006-12	-		April 2008	Expected April 2010	-
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2006-12	January 2008		April 2008	-	-
Ukraine	1994-02	-		April 2005	Expected December 2008	-
Serbia	2006-12	-		-	-	-
Azerbaijan	1994-05	May 2005		-	-	-
Armenia	1994-10	December 2005		-	-	-
Kazakhstan	1994-05	January 2006		-	-	-
Moldova	1994-05	May 2006	-	-	-	-
Finland	1994-05	-		-	-	-
Sweden	1994-05	-		-	-	-
Turkmenistan	1994-05	-		-	-	-
Kyrgyzstan	1994-06	-		-	-	-
Russia	1994-06	-		-	-	-
Uzbekistan	1994-07	-		-	-	-
Belarus	1995-01	-		-	-	-
Austria	1995-02	-		-	-	-
Switzerland	1996-12	-		-	-	-
Ireland	1999-12	-		-	-	-
Tajikistan	2002-02	-		-	-	-
Cyprus	Pending resolution of the Cyprus dispute	-	-	-	-	-
Malta	Former signatory, 1995–1996; membership reactivated in 2008	-		-	-	-

Debate about membership

Albania

Albania was among the first Eastern European countries to join the PFP programme. Since 1992, Albanian politicians have considered admission to NATO a top priority. In this regard Albania has been extensively engaged with NATO since 1994, and has maintained its position as a stability factor and a strong ally of USA and EU in the troubled and divided region of the Balkans. In addition to the political will, the overwhelming majority (95% ) of the Albanian population supports NATO membership.

Albania was invited to join NATO on 3 April 2008. Full admission to the alliance is expected to happen in 2009.

Croatia

The Croatian government considers NATO membership a top priority,. However, although a 2003 opinion poll showed that about 60% of Croatians were in favor of NATO membership, the support for membership declined after 2003 dropping to only 29% in 2006. In 2007 it increased somewhat. For the time being it is not clear how Croatia will make the final decision about the membership i.e. will an act of parliament suffice or should a referendum be held. On 23 March 2007 the Croatian president Stjepan Mesić, Prime minister Ivo Sanader and President of parliament Vladimir Šeks declared that Croatian constitution does not call for a referendum on this issue. In 2006 the Croatian government was planning to start a media campaign to promote the benefits of membership. A May 2007 poll commissioned by the government showed that NATO membership was backed by 52% of the population (9 points up from March) and 25% was against.

Recently a newspaper report suggested that a Slovenian military air base in Cerklje ob Krki, a town near the Croatian border, would be transformed into a NATO base. When in 2010 the base becomes operational the military planes stationed there will have to use Croatian air space. Local inhabitants and environmentalists from both sides of the border have been expressing their concerns about this plan.

On 4 January 2008 Croatian Prime minister Ivo Sanader reached a coalition agreement with partners from HSS and HSLS to form a new government. According to a provision of the said agreement Croatia's entry into NATO will not be decided on a referendum against wishes of 72 % Croatians which are demanding referendum

At the NATO summit in Bucharest on April 3, 2008 Croatia received the invitation to join the alliance. Full admission to the alliance is expected to happen in 2009.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina expects to be invited to the Membership Action Plan at the 2008 Bucharest Summit and to join NATO between 2012 and 2015.

Finland

Finland is participating in nearly all sub-areas of the Partnership for Peace programme, and has provided peacekeeping forces to the Afghanistan and Kosovo missions. Polls in Finland indicate that the public is strongly against NATO membership and the possibility of Finland's membership in NATO was one of the most important issues debated in relation to the Finnish presidential election of 2006.

The main contester of the presidency, Sauli Niinistö of the National Coalition Party, supported Finland joining a "more European" NATO. Fellow right-winger Henrik Lax of the Swedish People's Party likewise supported the concept. On the other side, president Tarja Halonen of the Social Democratic Party opposed changing the status quo, as did most other candidates in the election. Her victory and re-election to the post of president has currently put the issue of a NATO membership for Finland on hold for at least the duration of her term. Finland could however change its official position on NATO membership after the new E.U. treaty clarifies if there will be any new E.U.–level defense deal, but in the meantime Helsinki's defense ministry is pushing to join NATO and its army is making technical preparations for membership, stating that it would increase Finland's security.

Other political figures of Finland who have weighed in with opinions include former President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari who has argued that Finland should join all the organizations supported by other Western democracies in order "to shrug off once and for all the burden of Finlandisation". An ex-president, Mauno Koivisto, opposes the idea, arguing that NATO membership would ruin Finland's relations with Russia. Finland has received some very critical feedback from Russia for even considering the possibility of joining NATO.

Montenegro

Montenegro joined the PFP programme at the 2006 Riga Summit. In November of 2007, Montenegro signed a transit agreement with NATO, allowing the alliance's troops to move across the country. Montenegro then signed an agreement with the United States, in which Montenegro will destroy its outdated weaponry as a precondition for NATO membership. In late 2007, Montenegro's Defence Minister Boro Vučinić said that Montenegro would intensify its accession to the alliance after the 2008 Bucharest summit. Montenegro has received support for its membership from many NATO countries, including Romania and Turkey. It was announced that Montenegro would adopt an Individual Partnership Action Plan in March of 2008.

Nearly all present political currents support NATO admission. The exceptions include the Serb List political alliance which cites the NATO 1999 bombing campaign of the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and opposes recognition of independence of neighbouring Kosovo, as well as the Liberal Party of Montenegro which favors military neutrality to the type of Iceland. According to an October 2007 poll, 32.4% of Montenegrins are in support of NATO membership, 40.7% are opposed and 26.9% are without opinion.

Serbia

During the 2006 Riga Summit Serbia joined the PFP programme. While this program is often the first step towards full NATO membership, it is uncertain whether Serbia perceives it as signalling her intent to join the alliance (NATO fought Bosnian-Serbian forces during the Bosnia war and Serbia during the 1999 Kosovo conflict). An overwhelming Serbian majority opposes NATO membership. Recently the DS party of Serbia which is seen as overwhelmingly pro-EU has given hints that it is also wished to integrate the country into NATO. Although they remain silent on the issue, it is facing a problem from its coalition partners DSS and NS which are diametrically opposed to NATO membership. Recently these parties have begun verbal attacks on NATO for its presence in the Serbian province of Kosovo accusing them of establishing a NATO state, governed from Camp Bondsteel. Although current Serbian priorities do not include NATO membership, the Alliance has offered Serbia to enter the intensified dialogue programme whenever Serbia is ready to do so (as of April 2008). An earler poll (September 2007) showed that 28% of Serbian citizens supported NATO membership, with 58% supporting the Partnership for Peace.

As of NATO's open support to Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, support for NATO greatly succumbed and the only political party which supports NATO integration is the minor opposition Liberal Democratic Party. The Democratic Party abandoned its pro-NATO attitude, claiming the Partnership for Peace is enough.

Sweden

In 1949 Sweden elected not to join NATO and declared a security policy aiming for: non-alignment in peace, neutrality in war. A modified version now states: non-alignment in peace for possible neutrality in war. This position was maintained without much discussion during the Cold War. The Swedish government decided not to participate in the membership of NATO because they wanted a neutral position in war status. Since the 1990s however there has been an active debate in Sweden on the question of NATO membership in the post-Cold War world. While the governing parties in Sweden have opposed membership, they have participated in NATO-led missions in Bosnia (IFOR and SFOR), Kosovo (KFOR) and Afghanistan (ISAF).

The Swedish Centre Party and Social Democratic party have remained in favor of non-alignment. This view is shared by Green and Left parties in Sweden. The Moderate Party and the Liberal party lean toward NATO membership. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated on September 18, 2007 that Swedish membership in NATO would require a "very wide" majority in Parliament, including the social democrats, and coordination with Finland.

These ideological divides were visible again in November 2006 when Sweden could either buy two new transport planes or join NATO's plane pool, and in December 2006, when Sweden was invited to join the NATO Response Force.

A 2005 poll indicated that more Swedes were opposed to NATO membership than there were supporters (46% against, 22% for).

Ukraine

At the beginning of 2008, Ukrainian President, Prime minister and head of parliament sent official letter to apply for MAP.

Ukraine Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko declared that Ukraine would have an Action Plan on NATO membership by the end of March 2006, to begin implementation by September 2006. A final decision concerning Ukraine's membership in NATO is expected to be made in 2008, with full membership possible by 2010.

The idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO has gained support from a number of NATO leaders, including President Traian Băsescu of Romania and president Ivan Gašparovič of Slovakia. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Alexander Grushko, announced however that NATO membership for Ukraine was not in Russia's best interests and wouldn't help the relations of the two countries.

Current public opinion in Ukraine on NATO membership is not clear. A poll commissioned by the government showed that 47 percent support joining NATO and 45 are opposed., but on the other side a poll taken by Interfax has showed that less than 20% of respondents are in support of Ukraine joining NATO, with 57% against . Protests have taken place by opposition blocs against the idea, and petitions signed urging the end of relations with NATO. Newly appointed Defense Minister and former Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov has stated Ukraine will not join NATO as long as the public continues opposing the move. . This has also been confirmed by a March 6, 2008 agreement between the parliamentary coalition and opposition parties which says that any international agreements regarding Ukraine’s entry to NATO must be decided by referendum Currently the Ukrainian Government started an information campaign, aimed at informing the Ukrainian people about the consequences of membership.

April 4 2008 at final press conference of summit in Bucharest NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared in a press conference that, without doubt, Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO. Within the NATO Ukraine working Commission, NATO officials reassured Ukraine officials that they are willing to invite their country to join the Alliance.

Cooperation with non-member states

  NATO member states

  Partnership for Peace countries

  Mediterranean Dialogue countries

Euro-Atlantic Partnership

Main articles: Partnership for Peace and Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council

A double framework has been established to help further co-operation between the 26 NATO members and 23 "partner countries".

• The Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme was established in 1994 and is based on individual bilateral relations between each partner country and NATO: each country may choose the extent of its participation. The PfP programme is considered the operational wing of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership.
• The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) on the other hand was first established on 29 May 1997, and is a forum for regular coordination, consultation and dialogue between all 49 participants.

The 23 partner countries are the following:

Former Soviet republics: Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan

Countries that (though militarily neutral) possessed capitalist economies during the Cold War: Austria Finland Ireland Sweden Switzerland Nations that (though militarily neutral) possessed socialist economies during the Cold War: Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina (as part of Yugoslavia) Croatia (as part of Yugoslavia) Montenegro (as part of Yugoslavia) Serbia (as part of Yugoslavia) Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (as part of Yugoslavia)

• Malta joined PfP on April 26, 1995, but its new government withdrew on October 27, 1996. Malta's Membership in PfP was reactivated on April 3, 2008.
• Cyprus's admission to PfP is resisted by Turkey, because of the Northern Cyprus issue. Because of this Cyprus is not participating in ESDP activities that use NATO assets and information.

Individual Partnership Action Plans

Launched at the November 2002 Prague Summit, Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) are open to countries that have the political will and ability to deepen their relationship with NATO.

Currently IPAPs are in implementation with the following countries:

• Georgia (29 october 2004)

Structures

Political structure

Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer meeting George W. Bush on March 20, 2006.

Like any alliance, NATO is ultimately governed by its 26 member states. However, the North Atlantic Treaty, and other agreements, outline how decisions are to be made within NATO. Each of the 26 members sends a delegation or mission to NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. The senior permanent member of each delegation is known as the Permanent Representative and is generally a senior civil servant or an experienced ambassador (and holding that diplomatic rank).

Together the Permanent Members form the North Atlantic Council (NAC), a body which meets together at least once a week and has effective political authority and powers of decision in NATO. From time to time the Council also meets at higher levels involving Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers or Heads of State or Government (HOSG) and it is at these meetings that major decisions regarding NATO’s policies are generally taken. However, it is worth noting that the Council has the same authority and powers of decision-making, and its decisions have the same status and validity, at whatever level it meets.

The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and, when decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.

The second pivotal member of each country's delegation is the Military Representative, a senior officer from each country's armed forces. Together the Military Representatives form the Military Committee (MC), a body responsible for recommending to NATO’s political authorities those measures considered necessary for the common defence of the NATO area. Its principal role is to provide direction and advice on military policy and strategy. It provides guidance on military matters to the NATO Strategic Commanders, whose representatives attend its meetings, and is responsible for the overall conduct of the military affairs of the Alliance under the authority of the Council. Like the council, from time to time the Military Committee also meets at a higher level, namely at the level of Chiefs of defence, the most senior military officer in each nation's armed forces. The Defence Planning Committee excludes France, due to that country's 1966 decision to remove itself from NATO's integrated military structure. On a practical level, this means that issues that are acceptable to most NATO members but unacceptable to France may be directed to the Defence Planning Committee for more expedient resolution. Such was the case in the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The current Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is Ray Henault of Canada (since 2005).

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, presided by José Lello, is made up of legislators from the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance as well as 13 associate members. It is however officially a different structure from NATO, and has as aim to join together deputies of NATO countries in order to discuss security policies.

List of officials

Secretaries General

1	General Lord Ismay	United Kingdom	4 April 1952–16 May 1957
2	Paul-Henri Spaak	Belgium	16 May 1957–21 April 1961
3	Dirk Stikker	Netherlands	21 April 1961–1 August 1964
4	Manlio Brosio	Italy	1 August 1964–1 October 1971
5	Joseph Luns	Netherlands	1 October 1971–25 June 1984
6	Lord Carrington	United Kingdom	25 June 1984–1 July 1988
7	Manfred Wörner	West Germany/Germany	1 July 1988–13 August 1994
8	Sergio Balanzino	Italy	13 August 1994–17 October 1994
9	Willy Claes	Belgium	17 October 1994–20 October 1995
10	Sergio Balanzino	Italy	20 October 1995–5 December 1995
11	Javier Solana	Spain	5 December 1995–6 October 1999
12	Lord Robertson of Port Ellen	United Kingdom	14 October 1999–1 January 2004
13	Jaap de Hoop Scheffer	Netherlands	1 January 2004–present

Deputy Secretary General of NATO

#	Name	Country	Duration
1	Sergio Balanzino	Italy	1994–2001
2	Alessandro Minuto Rizzo	Italy	2001–present

Military structure

NATO E-3A flying with US F-16s in a NATO exercise.

NATO’s military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and split into two Strategic Commands both commanded by a senior U.S. officer assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO. The Strategic Commanders are responsible to the Military Committee for the overall direction and conduct of all Alliance military matters within their areas of command.

Before 2003 the Strategic Commanders were the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT) but the current arrangement is to separate command responsibility between Allied Command Transformation (ACT), responsible for transformation and training of NATO forces, and Allied Command Operations, responsible for NATO operations world wide.

The commander of Allied Command Operations retained the title "Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)", and is based in the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) located at Casteau, north of the Belgian city of Mons. This is about 80 km (50 miles) south of NATO’s political headquarters in Brussels. ACO is headed by SACEUR, a U.S. four star general with the dual-hatted role of heading U.S. European Command, which is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. SHAPE was in Paris until 1966, when French president Charles de Gaulle withdrew French forces from the Atlantic Alliance. NATO's headquarters were then forced to move to Belgium, while many military units had to move.

ACO includes Joint Force Command Brunssum in the Netherlands, Joint Force Command Naples in Italy, and Joint Command Lisbon, all multinational headquarters with many nations represented. JFC Brunssum has its land component, Allied Land Component Command Headquarters Heidelberg at Heidelberg, Germany, its air component at Ramstein in Germany, and its naval component at the Northwood Headquarters in the northwest suburbs of London. JFC Naples has its land component in Madrid, air component at Izmir, Turkey, and naval component in Naples, Italy. It also directs KFOR in Kosovo. JC Lisbon is a smaller HQ with no subordinate commands. Lajes Field, in the Portuguese Azores, is an important transatlantic staging post.

Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is based in the former Allied Command Atlantic headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. Allied Command Atlantic, usually known as SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic), after its commander, became ACT in 2003. It is headed by the the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), a U.S. four-star general or admiral with the dual-hatted role as commander U.S. Joint Forces Command (COMUSJFCOM). There is also an ACT command element located at SHAPE in Mons, Belgium.

Subordinate ACT organisations include the Joint Warfare Centre (JWC) located in Stavanger, Norway (in the same site as the Norwegian NJHQ); the Joint Force Training Centre (JFTC) in Bydgoszcz, Poland; the Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre (JALLC) in Monsanto, Portugal; and the NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC), La Spezia, Italy.

NATO bases

Further information: Category:Military facilities of NATO

NATO bases can be divided into two categories: national military facilities of NATO members, sometimes located in another NATO member country, such as Dutch and British army bases in Germany during the Cold War, and multinational bases with NATO multinational units in residence.

Multinational NATO bases with NATO specific units include NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen in Germany where a jointly funded fleet of E-3 Sentry AWACS airborne radar aircraft is located, and, in 2008, Pápa in Hungary, where the C-17s of the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability will be located.

Research and Technology at NATO

NATO currently possesses three Research and Technology organisations:

• NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC), reporting directly to the Supreme Allied Command Transformation;
• Research and Technology Agency (RTA), reporting to the NATO Research and Technology Organisation (RTO);
• NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A), reporting to the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Organisation (NC3O). The SHAPE Technical Centre (STC) in The Hague (Netherlands) merged in 1996 with the NATO Communications and Information Systems Agency (NACISA) based in Brussels (Belgium), forming the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A). The agency comprises around 650 staff, of which around 400 are located in The Hague and 250 in Brussels. It reports to the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Board (NC3B).
• NATO ACCS Management Agency (NACMA), based in Brussels, manages around a hundred persons in charge of the Air Control and Command System (ACCS) due for 2009.

List of NATO operations

During the Cold War:

• Operation Gladio

In Yugoslav Wars (1991–2001):

• Operation Sharp Guard (June 1993–October 1996); enforcement of arms embargo and economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
• Operation Deliberate Force (August–September 1995); bombing of the Republika Srpska during the Bosnian War.
• Operation Joint Endeavor (December 1995–1996); first peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Operation Joint Guard/Joint Forge (December 1996–December 2004); second peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Operation Allied Force (March–June 1999); bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.
• Operation Essential Harvest (August–September 2001); disarmament of ethnic Albanian militias in the Republic of Macedonia.

Other:

• Operation Active Endeavour (since October 2001); Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general. It began on October 4, 2001 as one of the NATO responses to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
• International Security Assistance Force (since August 2003); ISAF, a security operation in Afghanistan, was put under NATO command in August 2003, due to the fact that the majority of the contributed troops were from NATO member states.
• Baltic Air Policing (since March 2004); Operation Peaceful Summit temporarily enhanced this patrolling during the 2006 Riga Summit.
• NATO-Sponsored Training of the Iraqi Police Force (since February 2005); part of the Multinational Force in Iraq.

See also

• Icelandic NATO Riot
• Western European Union
• International organisations in Europe
• Atlantic Council
• Silence procedure
• NATO Medal
• NATO phonetic alphabet
• NATO summit
• NATO Tiger Association
• List of NATO country codes
• Ranks and insignia of NATO

Further reading

• Asmus, Ronald D. Opening NATO's Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era Columbia U. Press, 2002. 372 pp.
• Bacevich, Andrew J. and Cohen, Eliot A. War over Kosovo: Politics and Strategy in a Global Age. Columbia U. Press, 2002. 223 pp.
• Eisenhower, Dwight D. The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower. Vols. 12 and 13: NATO and the Campaign of 1952 : Louis Galambos et al., ed. Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1989. 1707 pp. in 2 vol.
• Daclon, Corrado Maria Security through Science: Interview with Jean Fournet, Assistant Secretary General of NATO, Analisi Difesa, 2004. no. 42
• Ganser, Daniele Natos Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, ISBN 0-7146-5607-0
• Gearson, John and Schake, Kori, ed. The Berlin Wall Crisis: Perspectives on Cold War Alliances Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. 209 pp.
• Gheciu, Alexandra. NATO in the 'New Europe' Stanford University Press, 2005. 345 pp.
• Hendrickson, Ryan C. Diplomacy and War at NATO: The Secretary General and Military Action After the Cold War Univ. of Missouri Press, 2006. 175 pp.
• Hunter, Robert. "The European Security and Defense Policy: NATO's Companion—Or Competitor?" RAND National Security Research Division, 2002. 206 pp.
• Jordan, Robert S. Norstad: Cold War NATO Supreme Commander—Airman, Strategist, Diplomat St. Martin's Press, 2000. 350 pp.
• Kaplan, Lawrence S. The Long Entanglement: NATO's First Fifty Years. Praeger, 1999. 262 pp.
• Kaplan, Lawrence S. NATO Divided, NATO United: The Evolution of an Alliance. Praeger, 2004. 165 pp.
• Kaplan, Lawrence S., ed. American Historians and the Atlantic Alliance. Kent State U. Press, 1991. 192 pp.
• Lambeth, Benjamin S. NATO's Air War in Kosovo: A Strategic and Operational Assessment Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 2001. 250 pp.
• Létourneau, Paul. Le Canada et l'OTAN après 40 ans, 1949–1989 Quebec: Cen. Québécois de Relations Int., 1992. 217 pp.
• Maloney, Sean M. Securing Command of the Sea: NATO Naval Planning, 1948–1954. Naval Institute Press, 1995. 276 pp.
• John C. Milloy. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, 1948–1957: Community or Alliance? (2006), focus on non-military issues
• Powaski, Ronald E. The Entangling Alliance: The United States and European Security, 1950–1993. Greenwood, 1994. 261 pp.
• Ruane, Kevin. The Rise and Fall of the European Defense Community: Anglo-American Relations and the Crisis of European Defense, 1950–55 Palgrave, 2000. 252 pp.
• Sandler, Todd and Hartley, Keith. The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century. Cambridge U. Press, 1999. 292 pp.
• Smith, Jean Edward, and Canby, Steven L.The Evolution of NATO with Four Plausible Threat Scenarios. Canada Department of Defense: Ottawa, 1987. 117 pp.
• Smith, Joseph, ed. The Origins of NATO Exeter, UK U. of Exeter Press, 1990. 173 pp.
• Telo, António José. Portugal e a NATO: O Reencontro da Tradiçoa Atlântica Lisbon: Cosmos, 1996. 374 pp.
• Zorgbibe, Charles. Histoire de l'OTAN Brussels: Complexe, 2002. 283 pp.

External links

General

• NATO including Basic NATO Documents
• NATO: A Pledge for Peace and Progress - Canadian War Museum
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding NATO
• History of NATO – the Atlantic Alliance—UK Government site
• NATO searches for defining role
• The Globalization of Military Power: NATO Expansion (CRG)
• CBC Digital Archives—One for all: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
• NATO at Fifty: New Challenges, Future Uncertainties U.S. Institute of Peace Report, March 1999
• NATO at 50
• The Impact of NATO forces in Afghanistan An analysis of the effects of the U.S. led occupation on the political and social climate of Afghanistan.

Components and Agencies

• Template:PDFlink
• NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) Official Website
• NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A) Official Website
• Joint Warfare Centre
• NATO Defense College