CIAO DATE: 01/2009
Volume: 7, Issue: 3
Summer Supplement 2008
Complete Issue (PDF)
PfP, EAPC, and the PfP Consortium: Key Elements of the Euro-Atlantic Security Community (PDF)
Jean-Jacques de Dardel
To many in the wider public, the Partnership for Peace, or PfP, is still more reminiscent of comic strip onomatopoeia than of a serious institution. Yet for anyone accustomed to military and international abbreviations, those three letters and their French equivalent, PPP, are worthy of an AAA rating. Since its inception about fifteen years ago, the Partnership for Peace has developed into a genuine success story, both in the quality and the quantity of its achievements. Although the necessities imposed by the sudden reshaping of the heretofore bipolar world with the end of the Cold War no doubt gave the new partnership a strong head start, it does seem that it quickly not only met all expectations, but even surpassed them. Indeed, the Partnership was widely seen, at first, as a transitional arrangement meant to enable a reorientation of many national security policies to allow nations time to adjust to the prerequisites of NATO membership. Yet the far-reaching concept of the Partnership for Peace, its à la carte principles, and its functional workings have not only allowed it to offer more than a mere stepping stone towards membership in the Atlantic Alliance, they have also ensured that the wider Partnership developed a life and a purpose of its own. In addition, some of its offshoots, such as the Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes, thrived on the spirit of the Partnership in a groundbreaking manner. Why all of this was able to happen is the first question to which we should turn our attention.
The PfP Consortium "Community of Experts" Approach to International Security Cooperation (PDF)
Walter L. Christman
The Partnership for Peace (PfP) Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes epitomizes a fundamental truth: “Long-term security and stability requires more than the transformation of our military forces in terms of new hardware. It also requires a mental transformation.” This assessment of the Consortium was provided by NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in his opening speech at its tenth anniversary celebration in Brussels on 18 June 2008, where he issued a call to reflect, take stock of what the Consortium had achieved, and look ahead.1 Citing it as a model for the future as NATO enlarges its concept of “Partnership,” the Secretary- General situated the Consortium in the context of three phases of the Alliance’s own evolution. First was the Cold War, when NATO concentrated on territorial defense and had no formal relations with countries outside the Alliance. The end of the Cold War afforded the opportunity to build an undivided Europe and required an “open community” approach. In this second phase, the Partnership for Peace became NATO’s standard “for successful military cooperation between NATO and non-NATO countries, between big and small countries, and between countries with different geographical regions and with different security traditions.” De Hoop Scheffer added that, “PfP not only brought them together—it also brought out the best in them.”
NATO and the South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia on Different Tracks (PDF)
Martin Malek
The Challenges of Being Ten: Reflections on the Uniqueness of the PfP Consortium (PDF)
Sean Costigan, Ernst Felberbauer, Peter Foot
The PfP Consortium is “unique” in the security studies field. But might that uniqueness, embodied in the institution’s creation in 1998—the fiftieth anniversary year of NATO—explain its struggles to see a future for itself as NATO turns sixty?
The PfP Consortium as a Change Management and Integration Tool: Ten Years of Experience (PDF)
Velizar Shalamanov
The PfP Consortium was born in 1999 at NATO’s Fiftieth Anniversary at the Washington Summit, although the idea of the Consortium was first tested in 1998 at ISF in Zurich.1 Bulgaria had the privilege of hosting the Second PfP Consortium Annual Conference in Sofia—the first gathering dedicated to the new initiative to define the roadmap for the future “troika council” that had been established to provide continuity between the annual conferences.
Whence and Whither the PfP Consortium? (PDF)
Frederic Labarre
The PfP Consortium is already a full ten years old. The time has come to look back on the road it has traveled, and to anticipate what lies on the road ahead. This essay will dwell upon the most significant achievements of the Consortium (in my eyes), as well as upon some shortcomings.
In doing so, it is useful to reflect on the notion of “PfP.” This shorthand method of referring to both partnership and peace obscures the meaning of these two very powerful words. As a “Partnership,” the Consortium requires the input of a variety of actors, and in this regard the support staff at the Marshall Center deserves most of the credit, as do the countries that have been generous with both their funding and logistical support over the years. Clearly, the United States, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria deserve most of the credit here.
But the notion of “Peace” brings into focus the actions of those countries, institutions, and individuals for whom the Consortium was intended. The PfP nations of ten years ago—many of whom are now members of NATO and/or the EU—have been indirectly led into the larger process of integration through the willingness of their institutions to interact with partner institutions in other countries. For the directors and project managers in these academies, institutes, and ministries, this has required an inordinate amount of faith and moral courage. Discovering and displaying the moral courage necessary to shed the established views and the momentum of habits of fifty (if not (seventy) years of Cold War has been difficult indeed, even on the “Western” side of the equation.
Initiation of the Consortium by US Secretary of Defense William Cohen during an intervention at the meeting of the Euro - Atlantic Partnership Council Defence Ministers (EAPC-D) in Brussels, Belgium, on June 12, 1998.
William Cohen
Vision of PFP in the 21st Century
Our ultimate goal for the 21st century should be a cooperative security network of Allies and Partners, with PFP as the cornerstone. Therefore, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to PFP's evolution as an independent framework for European security, worthy of membership in its own right, as well as its preparatory role for Alliance membership for those who desire it. While PFP will remain a primary vehicle for preparing aspiring NATO members for the military obligations that Alliance membership entails, it is not just a stepping stone and should not be portrayed simply in these terms. In other words, PFP is not a means to an end. It is an end in itself. As we continue the process begun in 1991 of recognizing that new challenges mean new missions for the Alliance, we should always look for opportunities for Partner participation in those missions. Thus the increasing role of Partners should be reflected in the updated Strategic Concept.
During the EAPC Meeting of Defence Ministers of 12 June 1998, US Secretary of Defence Cohen proposed the creation of a PfP Consortium of defence academies and civilian institutes of security studies. This Consortium should serve to strengthen defence civilian and military professionalism through enhanced institutional cooperation among the forty-four EAPC member states in defence education and training. Its activities should include an annual conference, a dedicated Internet website, a secretariat, and a journal or other appropriate publication to further its goals.
The Federal Republic of Germany cosponsored this proposal and agreed to the establishment of an Interim Secretariat at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen. The group of forty-four Defence Ministers at the EAPC meeting welcomed the initiative.
In support of this initiative, Switzerland proposed that the Consortium’s first conference be conducted in conjunction with the already planned ‘Third International Security Forum,’ to be held on 19-21 October 1998 in Zürich as part of the Swiss-sponsored PfP activities. This proposal was welcomed. The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies and the NATO Defence College were subsequently invited to serve as co-sponsors and co-organisers.
This Appendix develops an outline for a programme to improve and optimise training and education in the Partnership. It takes account of initial military advice.
A U.S. Vision of Europe (PDF)
Lisa Bronson
Thank you very much for this kind introduction and welcome.
I want to begin by thanking the conference organizers for what has truly been a splendid effort. I’d like to thank the Ministry of Defense and the Government of Estonia for agreeing to host the Third Conference of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) Consortium.
It has been a privilege to spend the last two days in your beautiful capital city. As I reflect upon the history of Tallinn, and Estonia as a whole, I am struck by how appropriate this site is for this conference. I think of the history of trade, invasion, and education. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Tallinn was a center of trade, salt and wine moving en route to Russia; bear hides, leather and linen moving from Russia to the west. This week Tallinn has reconnected with its rich history as a center of trade, but it has been a trade of ideas and techniques of teaching as seen in the working groups on Advanced Distributed Learning and Curriculum Development....
List of the PfP Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes Annual Conferences (PDF)