Roadmap to NATO Accession : Preparing for Membership

This report draws heavily on the proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Lessons Learned and the Enhancement of the Membership Action Plan organized by the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, and the Bulgarian Ministry of Defense, with support provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The conference was held in Sofia, Bulgaria, on May 28–29, 2001. Jeffrey Simon is a senior research fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University. He is the author of numerous works on European security affairs, including NATO Enlargement and Central Europe: A Study in Civil-Military Relations. Dr. Simon can be reached at (202) 685–2367, by fax at (202) 685–3972, or via e-mail at [email protected]. A nation’s effective integration into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an arduous, time-consuming, and resourceintensive task. The nine countries now aspiring to Alliance membership should heed the problems that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have encountered since accession and redouble their efforts on defense integration and civil-military reforms in the Membership Action Plan (MAP) program. During the past year, MAP has become a more versatile instrument for forging defense and civil-military reform. With further strengthening, the process will help not only to inform Alliance decisions on choosing new members at the 2002 Prague Summit but also to ease post-accession challenges for invitees. Upon accession to the Alliance, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were disqualified from important bilateral assistance programs as NATO shifted attention to the nine MAP partners. After the next round of invitations, the United States and NATO need to keep the new allies eligible for and engaged in assistance programs after accession. The first MAP cycle (1999–2000) put NATO and its partners on a steep learning curve as they sought to implement a new and untested Annual National Plan program. This program, a core element in membership action planning, established standards but issued no assessments. In marked contrast, augmented NATO teams dealing with all aspects of MAP rationalized the planning process and generated real assessments that partners considered fair and frank during the second MAP cycle (2000–2001). MAP partners view the third cycle (2001–2002) progress reports as playing a critical role in the next enlargement decision. Indeed, while allied governments will rely heavily on MAP performance to begin membership negotiations, NATO should link the date of actual accession to the completion of specific (to be determined) core requirements from each of the five chapters. The MAP process has positively influenced the growth of interministerial coordination within MAP countries and enhanced international cooperation among those countries. MAP has become an increasingly important tool for member governments to build public support for NATO as well as parliamentary support for necessary resources. NATOrelated educational programs are necessary to help MAP partners implement public information strategies to build public opinion support for the Alliance. NATO and the European Union need to make further efforts to help MAP members delineate the relationship between the two organizations because some partners are finding it difficult to establish priorities for NATO and the European Union.