English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

One of the major commitments agreed to by NATO member states at the Riga Conference in November 2006 was to strengthen and develop partnerships held between NATO and other states. A healthy partnership development and retention policy has been identified by NATO leadership as imperative in order for the Alliance to succeed in its self-defined mission of being a modern expeditionary force. In the view of Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer, “If we sustain the momentum of our partnership policy, it can be a major strategic tool for coping with 21-century challenges.” One particular goal of NATO’s partnership agenda is using partnership collectives, such as the Partnership for Peace (PfP), Mediterranean Dialogue (MD), and the Istanbul Cooperative Initiative (ICI) to develop capacities in countries that can be put to use in future NATO campaigns. The Political Guidance offered by the NATO Heads of State and Government in Riga on 29 November 2006 reflects this objective, and it aimed “to increase NATO’s ability to provide practical advice on, and assistance in the defense and security-related aspects of reform in countries and regions where NATO is engaged.” The centrality of partnerships in the Riga discussions clearly reflects the Alliance’s belief in the importance of these ties, for multiple reasons. An exploration of why NATO feels that partnerships are important raises many questions. What are NATO partnerships for? What do they provide for NATO that NATO cannot attain otherwise? What advantages do they bring to partners? Does the proliferation of partnerships—a veritable partnership industry seems to have emerged—risk diluting the label of “NATO-partner”? Does NATO need to develop new, pragmatic, flexible, cost-effective mechanisms and models (formal and informal) of partnership, or should it concentrate on improving existing mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation? Need NATO develop a more formal hierarchy of partnerships? Is there an organizing princi-

Future Visions of NATO Partnerships and Cooperation Programs