HOME WEB NEWS IMAGES CLASSIFIEDS YELLOW PAGESPOLLS - SURVEYS WIKI COUNTRIES PHOTOS US UK INDIA
Cities Stocks Weather Movies Coupons Travel Blogs Health Horoscope Maps ASIA EUROPE Classifieds Yellow Pages
|
|
This article is about the military alliance. For other uses, see NATO (disambiguation).
| | NATO Portal |
NATO 2002 Summit in Prague.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization/Organisation (NATO); French: Organisation du Traité de l\'Atlantique de 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,Boulevard Leopold III-laan, B-1110 BRUSSELS, which is in Haren, part of the City of Brussels. NATO homepage. Retrieved on 2006-03-07. 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.
Contents |
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.
| “ | 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.Fast facts. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 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.BBC On This Day "West Germany accepted into Nato" bbc.co.uk Indeed, one of its immediate results was the creation of the Warsaw Pact, signed on 14 May 1955 by the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, 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\' 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 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. 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 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 centres (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.
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 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 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.
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.Gorbachev\'s Lost Legacy by Stephen F. Cohen (link) The Nation, February 24, 2005.
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.In regards to the definition of aggression reached by consensus and approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1974 as Resolution 3314 (XXIX): "Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the UN." 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. 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.
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.NATO Update: Invocation of Article 5 confirmed - 2 October 2001 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, Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Montenegro and Ukraine. Representatives of the 26 legislatures of NATO agreed to the accession of Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Albania and invite them to join NATO at the April 2008 summit.Zoran Nikolovski. "Albania, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia get vote of confidence", Southeast European Times, 2007-12-10. Retrieved on 2007-12-26.
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.NATO Seeking to Weaken CIS by Expansion — Russian General (link) MosNews 01.12.2005Ukraine moves closer to NATO membership By Taras Kuzio (Link) Jamestown FoundationGlobal Realignment [1]Condoleezza Rice wants Russia to acknowledge USA\'s interests on post-Soviet space (Link) Pravda 04.05.2006
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.Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius (May 17, 2007). "The Globalization of Military Power: NATO Expansion". Centre for Research on Globalization. In 2008, Bucharest, Romania is scheduled in April to hold the NATO Summit.
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.LeMonde.fr : La France et l\'OTAN 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." J. NYE, "NATO after Riga", 14 December 2006, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nye40 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.Xinhua - English
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.BBC NEWS | Europe | Russia in defense warning to US
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.BBC NEWS | Europe | Nato chief dismisses Russia fears
On July 14, Russia notified its intention to suspend the CFE treaty, effective 150 days later.
One group of generals suggest that the west must have the option to launch to 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, General John Shalikashvili, General Klaus Naumann, General Henk van den Breemen, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, Lord Inge, and discussions with active commanders and policymakers."Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told", Guardian, 22 January 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-23. "Nato \'must prepare to launch nuclear attack\'", Telegraph, 23 January 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
"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."
The manifesto calls for an overhaul of NATO decision-taking methods including:
There are currently 26 members within NATO (out of which 21 are EU members).
| Date | Country | Expansion | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 4 1949 | .svg/58px-Flag of Belgium (civil).svg) Belgium | Founders | |
 Canada | |||
 Denmark | |||
 France | France withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966. From then on it has 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 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 |
Map of NATO countries chronological membership.
Membership of NATO in Europe.
Article X of the North Atlantic Treaty describes how non-member states may join NATO: North Atlantic Treaty, Washington D.C., 4 April 1949, [2], retrieved on February 22 2007.
| “ | 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 oppose Turkey\'s admission to the European Union for the same reason.
|
|
This article or section needs to be updated. Please update the article to reflect recent events, and remove this template when finished. |
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:
NATO provides feedback as well as technical advice to each country and evaluates its progress on an individual basis.NATO Topics: Membership Action Plan (MAP)
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.
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. "Poll: Croatians against NATO membership" in The Malaysian Sun, May 4 2006 the support for membership declined after 2003 dropping to only 29% in 2006. In 2007 it increased somewhat. N. RADIC, "Croatia mulls new strategy for NATO" in The Southeast European Times, 4 December 2006, [5] L. VESELICA, U.S. Backs Albania, Croatia, Macedonia NATO Bid, June 5 2006 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.CROATIA: Sanader Says There is No Need for Referendum on NATO Membership | seeurope.net 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.The Government is keeping the arrival of a NATO base to the border a secret. limun.hr (2007-05-17). Retrieved on 2007-06-18. 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.Dovršen koalicijski sporazum HDZ-a i koalicije HSS-HSLS. sarajevo-x.com (2008-01-04). Retrieved on 2008-01-05.
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.Minister Says Bosnia Hopes To Join NATO By 2015
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"Clear majority of Finns still opposed to NATO membership", Helsingin Sanomat. 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,EUobserver.com stating that it would increase Finland\'s security."Häkämies: Nato-jäsenyys Suomen etu", MTV3 Internet. Retrieved on 4-26-2007.
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"."Former President Ahtisaari: NATO membership would put an end to Finlandisation murmurs", Helsingin Sanomat. 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."Finland, NATO, and Russia", Helsingin Sanomat.
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, NATO sign transit arrangement Montenegro then signed an agreement with the United States, in which Montenegro will destroy its outdated weaponry as a precondition for NATO membership.Diplomatic Diary: Turkey\'s Gul meets with Pakistani leaders 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 moving towards NATO membership Montenegro has received support for its membership from many NATO countries, including Romania and Turkey.Romania wants Macedonia, Albania and Croatia to join NATOAnkara lends support to Montenegro’s bids for membership in NATO, EU It was announced that Montenegro would adopt an Individual Partnership Action Plan in March of 2008.Ever closer to the Alliance, Vijesti
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.[http://www.cedem.cg.yu/opolls/images/CEDEM_October07.pdf Political Public Opinion in Montenengro]
During the 2006 Riga Summit Serbia joined the PFP programme. While this programm is often the first step towards full NATO membership, it is uncertain whether Serbia perceives it an intent to join the allianceDragan Jočić, Minister of interior affairs of Serbia: Military independence is not isolation (in Serbian) (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 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.http://www.b92.net/eng/news/in_focus.php?id=96&start=0&nav_id=43417 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]
A September 2007 poll showed that 28% of Serbian citizens supported NATO membership, with 58% supporting the Partnership for Peace.Serbians Yearn for EU, Reject Joining NATO 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 favor of non-alignment. This view is shared by Green and Left parties in Sweden (The Left was in favor of joining the Warsaw pact[citation needed]). 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, "Sweden \'should join NATO plane pool\'" in The Local, November 11, 2006, [6] and in December 2006, when Sweden was invited to join the NATO Response Force. "Sweden could join new NATO force" in The Local, December 2, 2006, [7]
A 2005 poll indicated that more Swedes were opposed to NATO membership than there were supporters (46% against, 22% for). AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, "Swedes Still Opposed to NATO Membership: Poll" in DefenseNews, May 15, 2006, [8]
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.ForUm :: Hrytsenko: Ukraine’s NATO membership is just a forecast
The idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO has gained support from a number of NATO leaders, including President Traian Băsescu of Romania"Bulgaria’s capital to host NATO talks" and president Ivan Gašparovič of Slovakia.President Gašparovič meets Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister - The Slovak Spectator 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.News of Ukraine :: Interfax - Ukraine
Currently a majority of Ukrainian citizens oppose NATO membership, independently of their respective political views and beliefs.News of Ukraine :: Interfax - Ukraine 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.
Yes
No 
