Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorIvanov, Ivan Dinev
dc.dateWinter 2011
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-29T18:25:43Z
dc.date.available2012-08-29T18:25:43Z
dc.date.issued2011-12
dc.identifier.citationStrategic Insights, v.10, issue 3 (Winter 2011), 39-51. Topic: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10945/11509
dc.descriptionThis article appeared in Strategic Insights, v.10, issue 3 (Winter 2011), 39-51. Topic: North Atlantic Treaty Organizationen_US
dc.descriptionApproved for public display, distribution unlimiteden_US
dc.description.abstractThis study surveys the involvement of NATO’s Euro-Atlantic partners (EAPs) and new members in various international operations; it argues that the alliance’s success in drawing new participants into international operations is largely determined by three different groups of variables: (1) the prospects for membership; (2) the presence of unresolved disputes with neighboring countries and; (3) the degree of internal political divisions in these transitional societies. This article will examine these three variables. First, it will show that when NATO upgraded its relationship with prospective members and signaled high chances for membership, these nations significantly increased their participation in international operations. Second, it will discuss how the presence of unresolved conflicts could effectively paralyze integration into NATO as was the case of Macedonia and Georgia thus constraining these countries’ involvement in Afghanistan. Finally, it will illustrate how deep political divisions in Ukraine led to a plummeting public approval for membership and subsequent withdrawal of support for NATO-led operations. The three variables together point to the conclusion that the alliance was overall fairly effective in persuading the new members to participate more actively in peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and humanitarian missions. At the same time, it has had a mixed record in engaging its Euro-Atlantic partners (EAP) to become involved in various international efforts. Although NATO’s incentives have facilitated EAP’s contributions to peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and humanitarian missions, these incentives have not always proven sufficient to overcome neighbors’ opposition or domestic resistance to membership.en_US
dc.publisherMonterey, California. Naval Postgraduate Schoolen_US
dc.relation.ispartofStrategic Insights, v.10, issue 3 (Winter 2011), 39-51. Topic: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
dc.relation.ispartofseriesStrategic Insights
dc.rightsThis publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States.en_US
dc.titleNATO's Relations with New Members and Partners Contributions to Peacekeeping, Counterterrorism, and Humanitarian Missions; Strategic Insights, v. 10, issue 3 (Winter 2011), 39-51. Topic: North Atlantic Treaty Organizationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.corporateCenter for Contemporary Conflict
dc.contributor.corporateNaval Postgraduate School (U.S.) Monterey, California
dc.contributor.departmentNational Security Affairsen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record