TÜSİAD ve Georgetown Üniversitesi – Avrupa Güvenlik ve Savunma Kimliği ve Türkiye (İng.)

Intervention by Ambassador Onur Öymen,
Permanent Representative of Turkey to Nato

Panel

European Security and Defence İdentity and Turkey

Washington D.C., 9 May 2000

Turkish İndustrialist’s and Businessmen’s Association Washington
Office
and
Institute of Turkish studies of Georgetown University

 

Welcoming remarks

Thank you for your kind invitation. I have great pleasure to participate in this panel here today to share with you my thoughts on European Security and Defense Identity and Turkey.

European defence will be one of the most important and immediate issues in the NATO agenda in the next century.

In the new environment of the post cold war era, the nuclear threat on which the global security system was based has changed and the risk of nuclear war has decreased.  These new conditions made it imperative to reevaluate the question of European defence.
NATO’s and turkey’s role in 50 years of European peace

In NATO’s history of 50 years we have only success stories. If the cold war is over, if USSR and the Warsaw pact are dismantled, if there is peace in Bosnia today, it is because NATO has played an important role in these events through consistent and effective policies aimed at maintaining a credible deterrence.

This credibility of NATO has been built on the solidarity of the allied countries and on the unity of the organization.

Turkey has played an extremely important role throughout the cold war. Turkey’s military posture contributed to the security of Western Europe in a number of ways. Without Turkish alignment, the soviets could have concentrated more massively against the centre, which is against Germany and the rest of Western Europe. Turkish army tied down more than 30 Warsaw pact divisions the black sea and the Caucasus were important strategic approaches to the soviet homeland as a NATO ally. Turkey provided the alliance with the means to check the advance of the red army westward into central and Western Europe. The Turkish straits were important to the Soviet Union, not only for trade, but also for the deployment and logistical support of its Black Sea fleet into the Mediterranean.

To put it roughly, this meant that turkey risked its own security to help Western Europe in time of cold war and accepted to expose herself to pressures and animosity of a neighboring superpower to contribute to the European balance of military forces.
After the Cold War

After the end of the Cold War, we have witnessed important developments affecting the security of a great number of countries both in the positive and negative senses. On the one hand, we have seen local conflicts resulting from ethnic tension or nationalistic claims, as we have seen in the Caucasus and Balkans, causing death and misery for hundreds of thousands of people.

In our immediate neighborhood, people continue to suffer because of such conflicts that the international community has failed to prevent.

On the other hand we have witnessed positive developments like greater consciousness on interdependence among nations on security issues. One of the
Concrete examples of this is the establishment of new partnership between the west and the former eastern block countries.

After the cold war, the centre of gravity of security challenges shifted from the central front to the southern region of the alliance. Regional instabilities and other risks and threats like proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, disruption of the flow of vital resources  on the one hand, and some new opportunities for cooperation on the other, have introduced new perspectives into turkey’s foreign and security

Policy, encouraging her to assume a more active role in the balkans, the black sea basin, the caucasus, central asia and the middle east.

All these changes in international security environment of the post-cold war period had major consequences for nato. Nato gained a new identity and new functions. Although the core functions emanating from the washington treaty remain as valid as ever, nato has engaged itself in peacekeeping missions outside its area of responsibility.

Nato’s engagements in bosnia-herzegovina and kosovo was a historic landmark both for nato and for the european  security. These two  interventions have demonstrated the importance of nato’s solidarity for restoring peace and stability in europe and for ending to a certain extent human suffering. Nato’s interventions were necessary to stop bloodshed in both places. They may eventually help deterring other possible conflicts in europe as well.

I would like to underline one important point. One should not forget that these positive achievements and termination of the cold war were possible thanks to nato solidarity and cohesion. Dialogue with the other side and deterrence capabilities of the alliance have also played a significant role in this regard.
New risks and threats for nato and turkey

We are satisfied that the major threat resulting from the risk of a nuclear war is practically eliminated. But as i have said in the beginning, new forms of threats have emerged. Besides ejhnic and national conflicts, they include also the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The need to combat terrorism and organized crime, as well as cyber war risks may also endanger the security of nato and our partners.

Being situated in a geography, where many of such risks are abundant, turkey has reasons to urge her allies to spend more efforts for effective cooperation against these threats.

Today, our allies located in central europe are relaxed not only because of the practical elimination of nuclear threat but also because their nelghibours, former adversaries of nato, joined the community of democratic nations.  Some of them entered nato as new members, others may join our ranks soon.
Peace dividend and figures on defence spending
Unfortunately, we have not seen the same relaxation in our region besides, it is hard to predict the spread of democracy in our neighbourhood in the near future.

This environment has obliged turkey since decades to spend a much larger proportion of her gross national product for defence purposes than practically all the rest of other allies.

After the cold war, many nato countries have ben efitted from a peace dividend.

According to 1155, nato defence expenditures of 584 billion in 1985 went down to 454 billion in 1997.

Yearly defence expenditure of the united states was reduced by approximately 100 billion, germany 17 billion, uk 10 billion and france 5 billion dollars.

Two exceptions are turkey and greece.  I cannot explain the reasons for greece but the geographic and strategic position of turkey is a self explanatory fact as to why we need to maintain an effective deterrence and modern armed forces.

We hope that eventually there will be positive developments, peace and stability in the geographic environment of turkey and consequently a lesser risk of local conflicts and threats, which will enable turkey to benefit from this peace dividend as well.
Strategic geography of turkey

If we look at the geography of our region, one can see that neighbourhood of turkey has great potential for security problems in one of the most delicate parts of the world.

In fact, 13 out of 16 potential crisis areas identified by nato authorities are in the region surrounding turkey. One should not forget that since the end of world war ii, approximately one million people have lost their lives in local conflicts in regions next to turkey
After the end of the cold war, the risk of conflicts have increased in our region.

On the other hand, one should not forget that turkey is the only nato country having shores to the black sea, which is another strategic dimension.

A country in such strategic position has no choice but to have a carefully designed foreign policy together with a powerful and deterrent army.

To name some of them, i can mention arab-israeli conflict, gulf war, confrontation between iran and iraq, armenian-azerbaijani conflict problems between georgia, and   abkhazya   and   ossetia,   chechnyan   issue, confrontations and bloody wars in yugoslavia all these issues  create  instabilities  in  the  region.  Turkey’s contribution to peace and stability in this area is therefore important not only for her own security but also for the security of the alliance.
Turkey’s contribution to european security after the cold war

In short, turkey has contributed immensely to european security for more than half a century. She has also  supported  all  the  efforts  towards  the strenghtening the role of all european allies in the field of security and defence in doing so however, we have always made clear that this process should respect the fundamental principles of inclusiveness, transparency and the indivisibility of security this understanding was also  confirmed  at  the  washington  summit  which constitutes the basis for the further development of esdi. As you all know, para. 17 of the strategic concept clearly states that this process will have implications for the entire alliance and that all european allies should be involved in it building on the arrangements developed by nato and weu.
Esdi initiative

On the other hand, one should remember that the european union was created as an economic cooperation organisation. And later on a political dimension was added and now according to maastricht and amsterdam treaties, eu will also possess a security and defence identity.

This issue should be dealt with utmost care you remember that in june 1996 in berlin nac has decided to develop the european security and defence identity within nato.

We have to consider the esoi issue in a global context. The starting point of nato while dealing with esdi was to increase the share and responsibility of the european allies in the defence of europe. But the starting point of the eu initiative was to add a new dimension to the eu as such, that is to say the so-called european initiative is not a product of an intention to fill a gap in the european security but make the eu more important, more powerful international organisation.

When talking about the european security and the role to be played by  the europeans, one should not forget thai europe and the european union are two different concepts. While we highly appreciate the intention of european union to gain a security and defence dimension, at the same time we believe that the unity and integrity of all european allies  are of paramamount importance for european security.

For strategic, political and military reasons, it would not be appropriate to create dividing lines in the european security framework which might lead to different levels of security between the allies, members of the eu and non-members of the eu. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the eu should adopt an approach of inclusiveness and should be ready to accept the equal participation of all european allies in european union led operations, as appropriate.

This  is  particularly  important,  since  in  the foreseeable future european union will rely on nato assets and capabilities for the military operations it might conduct.

Looking at the problem from the eu perspective, it is not difficult to understand their logic and priorities. But we believe that in matters of security our starting point should be the overall interest of europe as well as the integrity of our alliance, including the security interests of non-eu allies.

We believe that eu has not finalised its internal discussion on the esdi and it will be very difficult for nato to  take  decisions  on the  basis  of  hypothetical assumptions.

Therefore, we believe that we should give some time to the eu to find solutions which might be also acceptable to us.

What we expect at the moment from the eu is to make up their minds particularly on the issues of transatlantic cooperation and participation of non-eu members not only on a conceptual basis but also on a concrete basis of cooperation.

Although  we  try  to  understand  institutional limitations of the european union, we believe thai those limitations cannot be considered as more important than fundamiental security concerns of allied countries.

In the light of possible developments in the european security environment a full cohesion among all allied countries, including with our north american partners is of particular importance.
Turkey’s particular position as regards esdi

If i may say a few words about particular position of turkey, i would like to remind you that in the last five decades turkey was a producer of security, rather than being a consumer in the atlantic alliance.

One of the main reasons  of our high defense spending and high readiness of our troops, and maintaining the second largest army among all allied countries, has been our commitment to nato goals and objectives. As you are aware, allies duly take into consideration the recommendations of nato authorities while shaping the structure and strength of their defence forces.

Turkey has also decided to make a contribution to the european headline goal. In this contexi, turkey has informed the member states of the european unjon about her decision to earmark a brigade size force to be used in crisis management operations that might be conducted by the union. However, we have not received any reaction from the eu to this offer which was conveyed officially on 10 february this year.

We expect that the european security and defense identity will be shaped in accordance with the principles set out in nato’s strategic concept as well as in line with other decisions adopted at the washington summit .

Therefore, we hope that the eu will develop its own structures on the basis of existing arrangements between nato and the weu.

Although it might be argued that nato and the eu are two  separate
And autonomous organizations, the decisions taken in one of them might as well affect the other.

 

 

What are turkey’s arguments for this position?

Besides, one cannot rule out the spill-over effects of non-article v operations  or the potential for transition to an article v situation where allies could be asked to honour their collective defence commitments. This is of particular importance if crisis management operations were to be conducted in the regions around turkey, as such operations might have direct or indirect implications on her vital security interests. Thus, the eu should take the views of all allies which are not members of the eu in situations where the security interests of these allies are most affected, including in the case of autonomous eu operations without recourse to nato assets.

It should also be remembered that in article 8 of the north atlantic treaty signed in washington dc on 4 april 1949, it is clearly stated that each party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the parties or any third state is in conflict with the provisions of this treaty, and undertakes not to  enter into any  international engagement in conflict with this treaty”.

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to argue that nato and eu are totally independent from each other particularly when matters of security and defence are involved. It is equally ironic that there are no direct relations between these two organizations which are located in the same city. We really need to intensify nato-eu cooperation, with the aim of developing, as a matter of urgency, the relations between the two organizations on a structural framework that would be transparent and reciprocal.

Furthermore, the principle of the indivisibility of security should be respected at all costs.  No security and defence arrangement in europe should exclude nato allies who are not yet members of the eu. Otherwise, developments might lead to dividing lines and different levels of security throughout the european continent, which will no doubt be detrimental to all.

If the new initiatives launched by the eu are really about capabilities, one cannot ignore the countries which have the means and the will to contribute to european security. In this context, turkey occupies a special place as she has the largest armed force in europe  her contributions to all operations and missions conducted so  far  should  have  demonstrated  her  impressive capabilities.

As recent experience, including the events in the balkans and the middle east have shown, security and economic implications of military operations do not have consequences only for those countries who have launched and conducted the diplomatic efforts but also the countries in adjacent regions.  It is therefore of utmost importance to involve these countries in the diplomatic efforts at an early stage as well as in all aspects of crisis management and military operations, including in the decision process.

So all european nato allies should fully participate in matters related to european security and defence identity and we believe that this is an additional reason why turkey has to join european union as a full member.

The success of nato in the last 50 years has to a large extent been possible due to the full and equal participation of all allied countries from both sides of the atlantic, which have contributed to the security of europe.  The high level of security and cooperation enables us to maintain high level of security and stability in europe unprecedented in the history of our continent.

Now we are witnessing new initiatives aiming to add an additional value to european security within the european union. As a candidate country aspiring for full membership in the near future, we can only be satisfied with european union gaining a security and defence dimension which will make the union a more important player in the international field.
Therefore, we have supported this effort from the outset as a positive and promising endeavour. However, in all initiatives related to security, everybody has to act with utmost care with a view to providing security to all interested countries, in this case particularly to all allies.

It is always nice to hear from our european union partners that this initiative is reinforcing security of europe and that of all allied countries. But it is important that all european allies have the same feeling. This can be achieved only with full and equal participation of these countries in the new european defence initiative.

Security is an area where nations can hardly delegate their authority. Thus, all interested countries should  be  active  players with equal  rights and responsibilities in this initlative.

Since we are talking about security of all, we should not build our arguments on institutional considerations of this or that organization. Security is always of higher importance than legal or institutional frameworks one should not forget that any military operatiqn led by some european countries may have the potential to trigger situations affecting the security, stability and economy of other countries.

We have witnessed a concrete example of this situation during the gulf war. Besides the security risks we have taken, the material losses of turkey because of this operation now well exceeds 35 billion dollars.

I am not arguing against the well-founded principles or justification of this operation. But i want to emphasize on the impact of an operation on other neighbouring countries.

It is important for all allied countries to share the responsibilities of such actions while participating fully in the decision-making and implementation of such actions.

We are aware that european community is at the stage of shaping its mechanisms within the framework of this initiative  i hope that during this process they will duly take into consideration the views expressed by turkey and other nato countries which are not yet members of the european union.
Trans-atlantic link and dci

Euro-american defense cooperation is in reality what we call the trans-atlantic cooperation this cooperation has so far been the backbone of the european security.
Nato operations in bosnia-herzegovina, particularly in kosovo have demonstrated the need for complimentarity of american, canadian and european forces.

Some concluded that kosovo was a demonstration of the weakness of european military power. I believe that it would be more appropriate to think positively and to empi-lasize the effectiveness and the necessity of this transatlantic cooperation.

The  reason  why  the  american  power  had  been overwhelming in kosovo was a result of the strategy chosen by nato to avoid allied casualties as well as to limit, to the extent possible, the collateral damage nato chose a strategy which required highly sophisticated weaponry.  Since the americans possessed this kind of technology, their contri8ution was much larger than those of the european allies.

You know thai our us colleagues are trying to link dci to esdi therefore, we have to think a little on dci from a broader angle it is true that the defence spending of our north american allies is higher than european allies are but the difference is not exaggerated.

In 1997, defence expenditures of us and canada put together were about 280 billions $ a year. Whereas, european allies spent that year 175 billions $. The proportion is 62%.

If we look back to the years of cold war, we would see that this gap was wider and in 1985 the north american defence expenditure was 378 billions $ whereas that of european allies was 2o6 billions $. The proportion is 54,5%.

There is a decrease on both north american and european defence expenditures since then. But obviously today the gap is smaller. And bearing in mind the global responsibilities of us as a superpower this difference should not be seen as too wide.

When it comes to the number of armed forces, the situation is reverse today the total of european forces is about 2,5 millions whereas that of us and canada is 1,5 millions.

Again,  compared to the  figures  of  1985,  the proportion between european and north american forces remained more or less the same. The share of european allies is even larger.

The comparison is a little more difficult in major weapon systems. If we take the worldwide deployment, of course us systems are by far superior to the rest of the allies, particularly in the areas of aircraft carriers, heavy bombers, big transport aircraft.  Satellite communications and missile systems.

To give you an example, us alone possesses twelve aircraft carriers, 84 submarines, 29 cruisers and roughly 4000 combat aircraft including those of the naw. Only the number of us combat aircraft is slightly over the aircraft possessed by the rest of the allies. But when we take into account the us forces deployed in europe, we notice that the american tanks on the european continent are less then 1/3 of german tanks and 1/2 of the turkish tanks.

It goes the same for armoured vehicles and artillery. In essence, the forces and military hardware that european allies all together posses are not inferior to the us capabilities deployed in europe one can always argue that in crisis times us can deploy more material from other parts of the world and bring to europe missiles which might change this pattern but the main problem is the lack of sophistication in the european forces, particularly in the field of satellite guided missiles, big transport aircraft, command and control systems, missile launching submarines and aircraft carriers.

Since european and north american allies are not competing with each other in all these areas, it would be difficult to expect from european allies to match the gap in a foreseeable future without spending enormous amounts of money upsetting the overall economic balance in europe.

Therefore, realistically speaking, european allies will continue to depend in the foreseeable future to a large extend the active and effective engagement of us forces  particularly  in  the  areas  requiring  high technology and large capacities.

It doesn’t mean that european allies should not upgrade their systems. We are all doing so some times forcing our financial means but the concepts like autonomous european force structure may have only a meaning for relatively small conflicts where europeans alone can easily control the situation without having a need to use highly sophisticated weaponry.

But there is an important point those countries suggesting other to upgrade their systems by buying some products should be ready to sell those products to others without restrictions.

Otherwise, there will be a contradiction in terms

A second point is the financial aspect of producing high technology material many european allies may have problems in financing such expensive procurements.

Therefore, the producers of sophisticated weapons should open their defence markets for less sophisticated products to othier allies with a view to providing them enough money to upgrade their armed forces.

To conclude, i would say that for the basic requirements of the european security and stability we would continue to need each other for a long period.

We need to consider dci issues from a broader angle taking into consideration all political, military, technical, financial and institutional perspectives.

Turkey’s defence capabilities

Turkey today is the seventh military power in the world. If you leave aside north and south korea because of their particular situation and practically no global role in terms of security, we have the fifth largest armed forces of the world.

As a matter of fact, between 1993 and 1997, turkey was  the third importer of major conventional weapons in the world. The amount of procurement of major conventional weapons by turkey between 1993 and 1997 is about 7 billion dollars. America is the major exporter of these systems and there is substantial cooperation between united states and turkey in the military field.

Turkey has reached a high level of sophistication in defence industries and is able today to produce f-16 aircraft together with general dynamics, and the engines of these aircraft together with general electrlcs we are also producing training and transport aircraft for military purposes. Under the license of german companies, we build frigates and submarines turkey is one of the few countries to produce these armament and equipment.  Military electronics industry is also well developed in turkey.

Turkey’s defence expenditure is around 10 billion dollar a year1 much below than that of the united states but well above than those of many european allies. Turkey is the sixth in nato as regards the military expenditures.  In  terms of  defence  expenditure as percentage of the gdp, turkey is the second country in the alliance, coming even before the united states which ranks as the third. Much of this expenditure goes to investment and procurement proportionally speaking, turkey is among the top nato countries, having a very high share of investment in defence expenditure.

Geography of turkey is also very special. We are the only nato country in europe having non-nato and non-osce countries as neighbours. All other nato countries have neighbours as either nato or osce countries.

Why is it so important? Because in osce you have a system of confidence and security building and mutual commitments for not posing a threat to other osce countries. This system is supported by a mechanism of inspection and verification.

Therefore, understandably one would not expect a surprise attack from an osce country.

European members of nato other than turkey have all profited in the last decade from this climate of security and enjoyed a peace dividend. If one compared the total defence expenditures of nato countries before and after the cold war, one would see a major diffierence.

Nato countries altogether spend today annually about 140 billion dollars less compared to what they were spending in 1955. Today, united states defence budget is about 100 billion dollars less. While that of the uk 17 billion, that of germany 10 billion and that of france 8 billion less.

One of the exceptions to thls trend is turkey, precisely and mainly because of the reasons i explained a minute ago.

Despite this fact i would like to remind you that turkey is the only country in its region which lived without engaging in a war with her neighbours in the last 75 years.

But to maintain peace in our region, one should not only maintain a strong army but upgrade the level of deterrence by modernizing the armed  forces and equipping them with sophisticated weapons.

This is one of the reasons why, as i said a moment ago, turkey is one of the major importers and producers of major conventional weapons. To illustrate this situation a little better, i can tell you that the total number of armed forces of our southern neighbours only was approximately 1.200.000 in 1997. S0 it is equal to the armed forces of the russian federation in the same year.

A few years ago, the defence expenditure of our neighbours reached to extraordinary levels   for example, yearly defence expenditure of iran in 1985 was 20 billion dollars iraq 18 billion dollars and syria 5 billion dollars so in 1985, our three southern neighbours spent a total of 43 billion dollars for their defence.

Although after the end of the iran/iraq war and as a result of the gulf war the yearly defence expenditure of these countries came down to about one fifth of their level in 1985, most of their previous investments help them to maintain a strong military potential.

So even without counting our other neighbours and particularly russia, a substantial number of countries in the region present an important military potential that turkey cannot ignore.

One can argue that their level of sophistication, training and moral cannot be compared to that of turkey and we can hardly put these countries together under any condition, as in the case of military planning for defence. In any event, turkey has to be prepared for worse case scenarios.

United states administration has repeatedly warned the americans and the international public at large about the dangers of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their use by conventional means such as aircraft and  missiles as well as   by terrorist organizations.

In a sense, all countries of the world, particularly nato countries, may be the targets of these weapons. That is why president clinton has decided to earmark 2 billion dollars for the next couple of years to prepare the american security forces to defend the country and american citizens against such a threat properly.

The same threat exists also for turkey and because of our geographic proximity, we are within the range of the missiles that are already there or to be deployed in the region.

All these do not mean that we expect an attack from our neighbourhood in the foreseeable future.  We are using our deterrence power to assist peace and stability in the region. However, no country can ignore potential risks and threats in its vicinity.

As a nato country, we have common approaches with our allies on issues which may affect the security of the alliance as such  but besides that, we have particularly close cooperation with the united states as america’s global and turkey’s regional interests do coincide

As a global power, the united states has not only interests but also responsibilities in a number of areas in the world. Among all these areas probably the middle east has a priority for understandable reasons.

As a regional power, turkey has interests in maintaining peace and stability in the balkans, the black sea, the caucasus, and central asia as well as in the mediterranean basin. But for turkey, the middle east is an area of particular interest. It is an area full of resources like oil and natural gas. But it is also an area with grave local and international problems.

Cohabitation of israel and arab countries in the same region is not only a problem fbr the region, but also a problem for the international community. Besides that. Among muslim countries of the region, there wfre also tensions, conflicts and wars.

Some of the countries of the region use terrorism as a tool ln their foreign policies. It is an area where there is proliferation of mass destruction which constitutes a major problem for the western community of nations.

Turkey and the united states have cooperated very closely in the last couple of decades to combine their efforts with a view to establishing peace and stability in the area. We strive to have good and mutually beneficial relations with arab countries of the region as long as they respect the legitimate security interests of turkey and those of their other neighbours

Lsrael is a country of the region with whom we share democratic values and common interests we have signed a free trade agreement with israel two years ago together with other agreements in the fields of military training, cooperation and defence industry.

 turkey, for a couple of decades was the only country in the region that recognized israel and conducted good relations both with israel and arab countries.
Turkey’s political importance in the settlement of
The conflicts

Turkey also has an important role to play in the settlement of the conflicts in the caucasus and the balkans. We have very close cultural and humanitarian ties with the countries of these regions. The complexity of the problems in these regions indicates the challenges we face in the field of security.

Turkey’s ability to assist peace and stability in its region helps undoubtedly the alliance particularly after the end of the cold war. This is the area among the entire neighbourhood of nato where there are risks and threats for the european security.  Therefore, it would be unthinkable to manage european security without taking all these into consideration and without enjoying the full cooperation and solidarity of turkey.

In the light of all these developments, we are of the opinion that turkey should be a part and parcel of all european security initiatives includlng those that are developing within the european union.

Answers to arguments against turkey

Before concluding, i would llke to add some thoughts concerning the arguments used by some against turkey.

One should not have the impression that turkey is demanding a lot from the eu. What we have been asking is our legitimate rights so that we can continue to contribute to european security and defence as a full and equal partner. In fact, nato has been the only security organisation capable of performing crisis management and peacekeeping operations in europe. In this context,19 allies have equal rights and responsibilities within nato for operations. Several speakers suggested that the eu initiative is not against nato and that it will not create unnecessary duplication. Therefore, this initiative should not be against the rights and responsibilities that these allies have been enjoying within nato eu initiatives should not lead to a weakening of the alliance and undermine the rights and responsibilities of european allies in the field of security and defence.

Nevertheless, there is indeed a need to strengthen the european pillar of nato. However, the european pillar of nato is not the european union. There are six european allies which are not members of the eu. On the other hand, four eu nations are not nato members.

The ratio of defence expenditures of a country is an important factor of its contribution to security and defense.  I would like to remind that turkey has the highest percentage of defense expenditure among all european allies but one. This requires a significant effort and  sacrifice,  and therefore turkey  deserves  t0 participate in all european security mauers with equal rights and responsibilities.

In conclusion, it would be more appropriate to spend sincere efforts to find the optimal arrangements that would take into account the legitimate security interests of all countries.  It is only through  this kind of constructive efforts we can make the european security and defence identity a success.
Conclusion
I hope that the 21st century will bring to all countries of europe and of the world peace, security and prosperity. For that matter, nato as the most efficient defence organisation ever established in the world should continue to play its leading role also in the decades ahead of us.

Our children should profit from the climate of peace stability in a changing world where threats and suspicions should be replaced with confidence and cooperation.

I spared some issues for your questions. I have not commented  upon  turkish/greek  relations, cyprus, terrorism, relations with the russian federation and the european union in my initial remarks.

Each of these topics can be a subject for an individual conference. In case you are interested, i would be pleased to answer your questions on these issues as well.