Münih NATO Okulunda “NATO’nun Kuruluş Politikaları ve Geleceği” Konulu Konuşma

Statement of Dr. Onur Öymen, Deputy Cairman of Republican People’s Party of Turkey on the Future of NATO at the NATO School of Oberamarau
22 April 2005

Dear Commander,
Dear Officiers,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a particular pleasure for me to be again with you to share my views on one of the most relevant topics of our times: The future of NATO. Previously I came to adress your school in my former capacity as the Representative of Turkey in NATO, now I will address you in my new capacity. I am actually a member of Turkish Pariament, and I am the Vice-Chairmen of Republican People’s Party, the main opposition party

I am sure that you have heard many times about new forms of threat that NATO is facing and the necessity to transform the Alliance to cope with this new threats. A former German Defense Minister Mr. Scharping who was the last speaker in a NATO meeting said that: Everything has been said but alas not yet by everybody. Now while presenting my views I will tgry not to repeat what you have already heard from other speakers.

To avoid too many technical details I will try to share my views with you rather from a political perspective.

In a period of globalization in the fields of technology, economy, finance and communications it would be difficult not to speak about military globalization. Indeed many problems and prospects that NATO is going to face in the coming decades could be presented from the perspective of military globalization.
The States will continue to be the main actors of international politics and they are affected by the trends of globalization. One of the characteristics of globalization is the accountability. The governments have to explain the people the merits of the transatlantic cooperation and why additional financial burdens are justified to cope with the new threats to our security.

From this perspective we can say that the future of NATO cannot be dissociated from the policies of the member states. NATO will be shaped, reorganized and restructured according the general political trends of its member countries.  Obviously Allied governments will be influenced by the preferences of their people.

During the cold war years NATO was generally considered by the public as a sort of secret military organization that is designed to deter a formidable threat coming from the Soviet Union.  There was little discussion in public about the internal structures, strategies and the budget of the Alliance. But now in a period of transparency people is deeply involved in all these questions and the governments are more and more accountable to the public. We have to persuade our people about the rightfulness of our policies and justify our military spengs. We should be in a position to answer their questions.

I will share with you this morning the some of the questions that we face in Turkey and I will try to find, together with you right answers to these questions.

First of all we have to proof that NATO is still relevant. In fact, after the end of the cold war, the most important question was whether NATO was still relevant. NATO was a product of the cold war and it was designed to deter the threats coming from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. When Soviet Union was dismantled and Warsaw Pact disappeared many people started to question whether NATO has a role to play any longer. Putin in a speech made in 2001 said that one should speak of dismantlement of NATO rather than its enlargement because there was no need to keep it after the Cold War. A number of articles were written in the Western media in the same direction.

But NATO allies, particularly those who are not members of the EU, including my own country argued that NATO was not a simple tool of the Cold War. NATO was the most successful defense organization in history and its main purpose was to provide a better security for all of its members. No wonder that after the Cold War most of the Warsaw Pact countries wanted eagerly to join the Alliance with a view to have a better security. They made NATO membership a priority issue of their foreign policy despite the fact that there was no direct threat to their security after the end of the cold war. Because they realized that new forms of threat are emerging like international terrorism, proliferation of mass destruction weapons, cyber terrorism, ethnic tensions, drug trafficking etc…

While explaining our people that NATO is still relevant we present them these new forms of threat.

Another major issue was the adaptation of NATO to the new realities of the world. This is a topic that will influence the future shape of the Alliance as well. For that matter NATO should have to adopt a new strategy with a view to evaluating new threats and to organize its military structures accordingly. For that matter a new strategic concept was adopted in the Washington summit of April 1999. I attended to that summit as Turkey’s Permanent Representative to NATO. This new strategy brought a new dimension to NATO while keeping the basic hardcore functions of the Alliance.

In the Washington Summit, new functions were added including crisis management and out of the area responsibilities to manage crises outside Europe. Until than to talk about engagements outside the borders of the NATO members was almost a taboo. But after the end of the Cold War it was understood that one could not provide an adquate security to the allied countries by disregarding new threats emerging outside the NATO zone. This much we can explain to the public. But it is more difficult to persuade the public on the way this new engagement is implemented. The questions we are facing are focused mainly on the burden sharing issue. We are asked whether all allies share the burden in an equitable way.

During the preparation of the new strategic concept in the Washington summit we, as the Turkish delegation worked hard to include in it the international terrorism among most important threats to be covered by the Article 5. This was not accepted by the majority and terrorism was not cited as a threat that may require an article 5 situation.

As a matter of fact, I remember that in NATO until the 11 September in the agenda of Council meeting there was no item referring to the fight against terrorism. And I must confess that all references to terrorism in NATO communiqués before 9/11 was included upon the insistence of the Turkish Delegation with the support of few countries. At that time we had difficulties in explaining our people why NATO was too reluctant to deal with terrorism.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I don’t remember any NATO Council meeting where fighting terrorism was not at the top of the agenda. Everything has changed after the 11th of September. A new evaluation and a new understanding has emerged in NATO and among Allied countries almost overnight. I will come back later to the issue of international terrorism.

Let me talk now a little more on the new situation that emerged after the end of the Cold War. There was an important transformation in NATO first in the field of enlargement. Still I wander whether it is correct to use the terminology of NATO enlargement. Sometimes it is wrongly interpreted as if NATO had an expansionist policy. What happened in reality was that the former Warsaw Pact countries were very much willing and eager to join the Alliance. Why these countries wanted to join NATO? One of the most eloquent statement in this regard was that of Latvian President Ulrike Freiberga during the Prague Summit: I quote : Our People has been tested in the fires of history, they have been tempered by suffering and injustice. They know the meaning and the value of liberty. They know that it is worth every effort to support it, to maintain it, to stand for it and to fight for it. We make a solemn pledge, a commitment here today, on this historic and solemn occasion that we will strive to our utmost to do our part to contribute not just to the to the strength of the alliance but to do whatever needs to be done to create a world whre justice and liberty are available to all.” Unquote.

Turkey supported strongly the NATO enlargement policy from the beginning. After the enlargement of NATO there was a new discussion: would it be possible to run such a alliance of 26 countries with the exising decision making mechanisms. In the beginning, some thought that we should better change the system of unanimity, keep it for major issues only and accept the rule of majority on secondary issues. Fortunately their views were not accepted. Because in the final analyses, you can not leave to the other countries to decide on matters related to your national defense and security.

Another issue was the threat assessment. A number of assessments have been made in the last 10-15 years by NATO authorities or by independent think tanks. One of the most relevant and recent document in this regard is the one prepared by SACEUR and SAC recently called the new strategic vision. This document was prepared practically from a military perspective only. After referring several aspects of the new security environment, it refers to the concept of early intervention to eliminate a threat. This concept is in line with the American strategy of preemptive strike. In our opinion  preemptive strike and international legitimacy are not always compatible with each other and the American intervention to Iraq was a case in point. Although the Americans tried hard, they were unable to get before the intervention a resolution from the UN Security Council. One of the most important problems for the international community, for NATO allies including Turkey was the issue of legitimacy. According to Turkish constitution only the Turkish parliament is authorized to invite foreign troops to Turkey and to send troops abroad and to declare war. For that matter there is a condition set forth in our constitution. The decision of the parliament should be based on international legitimacy. When the Americans asked us to permit their troops to come to Turkey and to open a front against Iraq from the Turkey’s Southern borders Turkish Parliament discussed it in the light of this legitimacy issue. At the end the Parliament decided not to permit the entry of American forces. The concept of preemptive strike may create in the future similar problems. This strategy is also hardly compatible with UN Charter which forbids war unless a country is attacked.  It means that the use of force was permitted only in the case of self defense. In the future NATO may face again this legitimacy problem.

I remember that we have discussed the same issue before intervening in Kosovo. Finally we all agreed on the legitimacy of the operation for humanitarian reasons. In fact, without NATO intervention we could face a new tragedy in Kosovo similar to what has happened in Bosnia a few years ago. But on Iraq not only there was no UN decision, there was not a common understanding among NATO nations on this issue. Therefore I believe that we have to take seriously the legitimacy issue in the future for the operations that NATO could be involved.

If we don’t use a preemptive strike strategies how we can avoid threats and bring peace and stability to the regions threatening our own security as well? We believe that NATO should not be seen only as the military arm of the transatlantic cooperation, we should address the political dimensions of the issues within the Alliance before considering the necessity to use force. What are the means to provide peace and security without using force? It is one of the most relevant questions particularly in our region. The Middle East  is one of the most unstable regions of the world where armed conflicts are always on the agenda. How we can build peace and stability in such a region? What is missing in this area? Politically speaking, we believe that the most relevant problem today is the lack of democracy. It is generally agreed in the world that there would be no war among democratic states. The experience we have after the WWII confirms this belief. In most of the other regions of the world democracy has spread in the last 20 years but not yet in the Middle East. The reason of that could be the subject of another seminar. We believe that we should give priority to spread democracy to this region. How we can do that? Most of the countries of the region are Muslim countries. And we know from our own experiences that in a Muslim country you can not have a democratic regime unless you seperate religion from the state. Secularism is the key word to bring democracy in a region where muslim countries have a dominant position. So we did it in Turkey in 1920s and 1930s by accepting secularism and by inserting  this concept in our constitution. Today Turkey is the only country in the region which has a secular constitution. I believe that in the future NATO should focus more on the political ways and means of solving international problems giving a special emphasis on spreading democracy.

Another issue is the proliferation of WMD’s and their delivery systems. Despite the unfortunate experience of the intelligence communities in Iraq WMD is a serious problem in our region and in the world. We believe that to eliminate these weapons we should have a principled policy. That is to say, with the exception of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, there should be no tolerance to any country possessing these weapons. I am afraid that at this moment this is not the case. I don’t want to comment more on this issue, but I must stress that it is cardinal issue for us because Turkey is practically the only NATO country within the range of missiles of some countries possessing these weapons. We believe that on WMD NATO should have a robust, unbiased principled policy.

Talking about the relevance of NATO in the future we have to refer to NATO-EU relations as well. We should remember, that  President Charles de Gaulle had said that NATO will disappear at the end of the Cold War, but EU will remain as an ever-lasting organization. As a mater of fact EU has gained a security and defense dimension after the Maastricht Treaty. In 1998 at St. Malo French President Chirac and the British PM Blair have decided to create a EU force to fulfil Petersberg Tasks. In the beginning the purpose of this initiative was relatively modest  and the main intention was to create a crisis management force. For that matter they envisaged to establish a force of 60,000 troops. But at a later stage, it is understod that this could not operate without proper assiatance of NATO. For that matter in the Washington Summit, a decision was taken to provide NATO assistance to the prospective EU force, but it is also decided that, while conducting security operations EU would care the security interests of NATO countries which are not members of the EU. It has been agreed that NATO-EU relations will be based on the system established between NATO and the WEU. But afterwards there was a different approach in the EU summits that followed NATO Washington meeting. This has created a difficult problem within NATO. The issue was more political than technical because it is understood that some EU countries are willing to preserve the ability of EU to deny the involvement of non-EU NATO countries in EU led operations where they would not need NATO contributions. Finally an agreement was reached after extensive talks between US,  Britain and Turkey on how to organize this cooperation. But it was not possible to formalize this agreement because Greece has put a reservation. It took one more year until the end of 2002 to finalize this agreement.

We thought the there was a final agreement on division of laber between NATO and the EU and the problem was over but apparently it was not. When you read the recent statementy of chancellor Schroeder in Verkunde meeting a few months ago you understand that our German friends has also some second thoughts on the respective roles of NATO and the EU in the security and defense area. The general understanding between NATO and the EU in the beginning was that NATO would be the organization of first choice. In case of a crisis it would be asked first to NATO whether she was willing to take part in this operation and if not then EU would be in charge. It is important to note that now Germans may have different feelings. We understand that Chancellor Schroeder have doubts about the NATO’s priority role in the crisis management operations and he gives the impression that he wants to give a certain priority to the EU as the most relevant organization not only in political and economic field but also in the defense area. He proposes the establishment of a sort of wise man committee to discuss such matters and prepare a report to NATO and to the EU. This statement of Chancellor Schroeder has created a lot of discussions in the western pres and diplomatic circles and a number of question marks about the future role of NATO. Our people are asking us the meaning of the approach of the chancellor.

Last but not least the role NATO should play in combating terrorism is probably  one of the most important issues while dealing with the future role of the alliance. It has been agreed in the Prague summit to build up a NATO rapid deployment force to be able among other tasks, to fight effectively international terrorism. Turkey took a leadership role in this new force and  organized the first exercise of this force. But the most important issue was not to provide enough capabilities but to have a common policy, a joint stand on issues like terrorism.

As a matter of fact to have adequate capabilities is necessary but not sufficient. We should also have a determination to combat all terrorist groups threatening the security of the allied countries. For that matter we have to prove that we maintain our solidarity that was the backbone of the Alliance during the cold war years.

Right after the 9/11 President Bush has said that America is determined to combat terrorism all over the world. And there is no grey area and that either you are with terrorists or with the US. We applauded him. But what happened after the Iraqi intervention? About 5000 PKK terrorists had been deployed in Northern Iraq. We were expecting our american friends to isolate, control, arrest and deliver them to Turkey. Unfortunately they failed to do so far and this was a big disappointment for Turkey. This problem remains open even today and it damaged to certain the credibility of our commitments against terrorism at least in the eyes of the Turkish public.

We are of the opinion the future of the Alliance will depend very much on our ability to prove our solidarity and to fulfill our commitments in every field, particularly on most important issues like combating terrorism.