1 / 8

Building Partner Capacity for Combating WMD: EUCOM

Building Partner Capacity for Combating WMD: EUCOM. Potential Partners. Criteria for Determining Relevance, Capacity, and Willingness. Potential Partners: Albania, Croatia, Montenegro. Political Degree of internal governance (capacity indicator)

kineks
Download Presentation

Building Partner Capacity for Combating WMD: EUCOM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building Partner Capacity for Combating WMD: EUCOM Potential Partners

  2. Criteria for Determining Relevance, Capacity, and Willingness Potential Partners: Albania, Croatia, Montenegro • Political • Degree of internal governance (capacity indicator) • Degree of regional influence (capacity indicator) • Ties to proliferating states (willingness indicator) • Geographic • Proximity to ungoverned spaces (relevance to threat) • Proximity to proliferation source (relevance to threat) • Proximity to established trafficking networks for other illicit commodities (relevance to threat) • CWMD Stance • Ability to control borders (capacity indicator) • Indigenous WMD programs (capacity indicator) • Technical/scientific capability (capacity indicator) • Congruence with U.S. CWMD priorities (willingness indicator) • Participation in regional and global nonproliferation initiatives (willingness indicator) • Willingness to enact and enforce export controls (willingness indicator)

  3. Albania: Regional Influence and Technical / Scientific Indicators For comparison: EU GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 27.897 US GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 42.007 Population (thousands, 2005)   3 130 GDP (million current US$, 2005)   8 379 GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 2.67 Rank in world trade, 2005 Exports Imports Merchandise  147 117 Commercial services 94 95

  4. Croatia: Regional Influence and Technical / Scientific Indicators For comparison: EU GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 27.897 US GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 42.007 Population (thousands, 2005)   4 444 GDP (million current US$, 2005)   37 412 GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 8.42 Rank in world trade, 2005 Exports Imports Merchandise  75 59 Commercial services 41 64

  5. Montenegro: Regional Influence and Technical / Scientific Indicators* For comparison: EU GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 27.897 US GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 42.007 *2005 data includes Serbia Population (thousands, 2005)   8 168 GDP (million current US$, 2005)   27 059 GDP Per Capita (thousands, 2005) 3.31 Rank in world trade, 2005 Exports Imports Merchandise  87 69 Commercial services 80 92

  6. Governance and CWMD Indicators

  7. Relevance Summary

  8. Implications of Willingness and Capacity Croatia Potential Regional Leader Potential Impediment Capacity Albania, Montenegro Least Likely BPC Partner Most Appropriate BPC Partner Willingness

More Related