From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinates: 50°52′34.16″N, 4°25′19.24″E

NATO Portal

NATO 2002 Summit in Prague.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); French: Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN); (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,^[2] the organization established a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on the 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.

"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.^[3] The NATO countries 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.^[4] Indeed, one of its immediate results was the creation of the Warsaw Pact, signed on 14 May 1955 by the Soviet Union and its satellite states, as a formal response to this event, thereby delineating the two opposing sides of the Cold War.

Further information: 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' hegemonic 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, de Gaulle began to build an independent defence 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. The last of these was the Toul-Rosières Air Base, home of the 26th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, which was relocated to Ramstein Air Base in West Germany.

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.

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 Soviet 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 standardisation of military technology and unified strategy, through Command, Control and Communications centres (aka C4ISTAR). The STANAG (Standardisation 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 standardised, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base.

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 defences 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 Moscow within minutes. This action led to peace movement protests throughout Western Europe.

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 manoeuvres simulating a nuclear launch caused panic in the Kremlin. The Soviet leadership, led by ailing General Secretary Yuri Andropov, became concerned that the manoeuvres, codenamed Able Archer 83, were the beginnings of a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in Eastern 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.

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.^[5]

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 began 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 neighbours 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, as being undeclared and contravening the UN Charter.^[6] The conflict ended on 11 June 1999, when Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milošević agreed to NATO’s demands by accepting UN resolution 1244. NATO then helped establish the KFOR, a NATO-led force under a United Nations mandate that operated the military mission 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.

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.^[7] 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.

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, the Former Yugoslav 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.^{[8][9][10][11]}

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.^[12]

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.^[13] 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."^[14] If these caveats were to be eliminated, it is argued that this could help NATO to succeed.

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.^[15]

In April 2007, NATO's European allies called for a NATO missile defence 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 defence in the first meeting on the topic at such a senior level.^[15]

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.^[16]

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.^[17]

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

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. From then it had remained solely a member of NATO's political structure. Its forces have not rejoined the military command.
	Iceland		Iceland, the sole member that does not have its own standing army, joined on the condition that they 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 territory of 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

Map of NATO countries chronological membership.

Membership of NATO in Europe.

Article X of the North Atlantic Treaty makes it possible that non-member states join NATO:^[18]

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.

This article or section needs to be updated. Parts of this article or section are no longer up to date. Please update the article to reflect recent events, and remove this template when finished.

Main article: Membership Action Plan

As a procedure for nations wishing to join NATO, 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 defence 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.^[19]

NATO is also unlikely to invite countries such as the Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland, where popular opinions do not support NATO membership. NATO officially recognizes the policy of neutrality practised 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	February 1994	-	Yes	-	April 1999	Expected April 2008[20]
Croatia	May 2000	-	Yes	-	May 2002	Expected April 2008[citation needed]
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	November 1995	-	Yes	-	April 1999	Expected April 2008[citation needed]
Georgia	March 1994	October 2004	Yes	September 2006[21]	Expected April 2008	Expected 2010
Montenegro	December 2006	-	Yes	-	Expected April 2010	Expected 2012 [citation needed]
Serbia	December 2006	-	No	-	-	-
Bosnia and Herzegovina	December 2006	(exp.2008)[22]	Yes	-	-	-
Ukraine	February 1994	-	Yes	April 2005	-	-
Azerbaijan	May 1994	May 2005	-[23]	-	-	-
Armenia	October 1994	December 2005	No[24]	-	-	-
Kazakhstan	May 1994	January 2006	No	-	-	-
Moldova	March 1994	May 2006	-	-	-	-
Finland	May 1994	-	No	-	-	-
Sweden	May 1994	-	No	-	-	-
Turkmenistan	May 1994	-	No	-	-	-
Kyrgyzstan	June 1994	-	No	-	-	-
Russia	June 1994	-	No	-	-	-
Uzbekistan	July 1994	-	No	-	-	-
Belarus	January 1995	-	No	-	-	-
Austria	February 1995	-	No	-	-	-
Switzerland	December 1996	-	No	-	-	-
Ireland	December 1999	-	No	-	-	-
Tajikistan	February 2002	-	No	-	-	-
Cyprus	Pending resolution of the Cyprus dispute	-	-	-	-	-
Malta	Former signatory, 1995–1996	-	No	-	-	-

The Croatian government considers NATO membership a top priority,^[25] and a 2003 opinion poll showed that about 60% of the Croatian citizens were in favor of NATO membership.^[26] Support for membership declined after 2003, was only 29% in 2006, but resurged during 2007.^[27][25] It is not yet known how Croatia will make the final decision about membership: through an act of parliament or via a binding referendum, but on 23 March 2007, Croatian president Stjepan Mesić, prime minister Ivo Sanader and president of parliament Vladimir Šeks declared that there is no need for a referendum, because they are convinced that the Croatian population supports entry to NATO.^[28] Earlier, in 2006, the Croatian government was planning a public campaign to promote the benefits of membership. A May 2007 poll conducted by the government shows growing support for NATO membership as 52% of the population (up 9% from March) supports membership and only 25% are against.^[29]

Recently, it was made public that a Slovenian military air base in Cerklje ob Krki, near the Croatian border would be transformed in a NATO base. In 2010 the base would become operational and it is expected that the military planes of this base will have to use Croatian air space.^[30] Local inhabitants and environmentalists from both sides of the border are expressing their concerns about this base.

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^[31] and the possibility of Finland's membership in NATO was one of the most major 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 defence deal, but in the meantime Helsinki's defence ministry is pushing to join NATO and its army is making technical preparations for membership,^[32] stating that it would increase Finland's security.^[33]

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".^[34] An ex-president, Mauno Koivisto, opposes the idea, arguing that NATO membership would ruin Finland's relations with Russia.^[35]

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.^[36] Montenegro then signed an agreement with the United States, in which Montenegro will destroy its outdated weaponry as a precondition for NATO membership.^[37]

During the 2006 Riga Summit Serbia joined the PFP programme. While this programme is often the first step towards full NATO membership, it is uncertain whether Serbia perceives it an intent to join the alliance^[38] (NATO fought Bosnian-Serbian forces during the Bosnia war and Serbia during the 1999 Kosovo conflict). An overwhelming Serbian majority opposes NATO membership.^[38] 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 most of the time (so as not to lose popularity) 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.^[39] As of now Serbia does not intend to join NATO and the idea has been shelved as a low priority in the Serbian governments plans.^{[citation needed]}

Unofficially a poll has not been taken to see just how many people in Serbia are in support for NATO, some believe this to be deliberate, choosing to "not know" how many people would voice their "support".^{[citation needed]} The DS party is taking an incredible risk to its popularity in the case of supporting NATO membership. Its confrontation with DSS will directly affect the two party's popularity.^{[citation needed]} The Serbian Ministry of Defense and the Serbian President are both from the DS party while the Prime Minister is of the DSS.

In 1949 Sweden elected^{[citation needed]} 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.^{[citation needed]} 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 favour of non-alignment. This view is shared by Green and Left parties in Sweden (The Left was in favour of joining the Warsawpact). The Moderate Party and the Liberal party lean toward NATO membership.^{[citation needed]}

These ideological divides were visible again in November 2006 when Sweden could either buy two new transport planes or join NATO's plane pool,^[40] and in December 2006, when Sweden was invited to join the NATO Response Force.^[41]

A 2005 poll indicated that more Swedes were opposed to NATO membership than there were supporters (46% against, 22% for).^[42]

Ukraine Defence 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.^[43]

The idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO has gained support from a number of NATO leaders, including President Traian Băsescu of Romania^[44] and president Ivan Gašparovič of Slovakia.^[45] 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.^[46]

Currently a majority of Ukrainian citizens oppose NATO membership, independently of their respective political views and beliefs.^{[citation needed]} Protests have taken place by opposition blocs against the idea, and petitions signed urging the end of relations with NATO. Former Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov has indicated Ukraine will not enter NATO as long as the public continues opposing the move.^[47] Plans for membership were shelved on 14 September 2006 due to the overwhelming disapproval of NATO membership.^[48] Currently the Ukrainian Government started an information campaign, aimed at informing the Ukrainian people about the consequences of membership. The likelihood of a referendum regarding membership is growing.^{[citation needed]}

     NATO member states      Partnership for Peace countries      Mediterranean Dialogue countries

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.^[49]
• 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.^[50]

The 23 partner countries are the following:

•  Malta joined PfP in 1994, but its new government withdrew in 1996. Because of this Malta is not participating in ESDP activities that use NATO assets and information.
•  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.

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.^[51]

Currently IPAPs are in implementation with the following countries:

•  Georgia (29 October 2004)
•  Azerbaijan (27 May 2005)
•  Armenia (16 December 2005)
•  Kazakhstan (31 January 2006)
•  Moldova (19 May 2006)

Intensified Dialogue with NATO is viewed as a stage before being invited to enter the alliance Membership Action Plan (MAP), while the latter should eventually lead to NATO membership.

Countries currently engaged in an Intensified Dialogue with NATO:

•  Ukraine (21 April 2005)
•  Georgia (21 September 2006)

The Mediterranean Dialogue, first launched in 1994 is a forum of cooperation between NATO and seven countries of the Mediterranean:^[52]

•  Algeria
•  Egypt
•  Israel
•  Jordan
•  Mauritania
•  Morocco
•  Tunisia

On 16 October 2006, NATO and Israel finalized the first ever Individual Cooperation Programme (ICP) under the enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue, where Israel will be contributing to the NATO maritime Operation Active Endeavour.^[53] The ICP covers many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises in the Mediterranean Sea.

Main article: NATO-Russia Council

NATO and the Russian Federation made a reciprocal commitment in 1997 "to work together to build a stable, secure and undivided continent on the basis of partnership and common interest."

In May 2002, this commitment was strengthened with the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council, which brings together the NATO members and the Russian Federation. The purpose of this council is to identify and pursue opportunities for joint action with the 27 participants as equal partners.

The Philippines has been a longstanding ally and friend of the U.S. The Philippines was designated a Major Non-NATO Ally on October 6, 2003 to allow the U.S. and the Philippines to work together on militar