Münih NATO Okulunda “Irak’ta Gelişen Krizde NATO’nun Rolü” Konulu Konferans (İng.)

Statement of Mr. Onur Oymen at NATO School Oberamargau, June 30th 2005

Dear Commander,
Dear Participants,

It is a particular pleasure for me to be again in Oberamargau and to share with you my thoughts on the recent trends in crisis management and in particular on the role of NATO in Iraq.

As a matter of fact, crisis management has been included in NATO tasks in NATO summit of Washington in April 1999. I attended to that summit as Turkey’s Permanent Representative to NATO and participated to the preparation of the new strategic concept. This new s concept 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. Until than to talk about NATO engagement outside the borders of the Alliance was almost a taboo. But after the end of the Cold War it was understood that one could not provide an adequate security to the allied countries by disregarding new threats emerging outside the NATO zone.

One should however remember that the new strategic concept was designed in April 1999, that is to say, before the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. It means before the NATO’s commitment in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. Obviously those situations were not predictable in time of the adoption of the new strategic concept. Therefore the strategic concept of 1999 became somehow outdated after the Washington Summit.

During the summit we, as the Turkish delegation worked hard to include in the strategic concept the threats created by international terrorism to be covered by the Article 5. This was not accepted and terrorism was not cited as one of the most important threats the alliance may face 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. On the contrary after the attacks 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 terrorist attacks. A new evaluation and a new understanding had emerged in NATO and in Allied countries almost overnight.

In the new NATO strategy it is clearly stipulated that NATO can play a role in crisis management operation, not only in the Europe continent but also out of area. This does not necessarily means peace keeping operations. NATO can assume important roles in peace making operations as well. NATO led operations in Bosnia and particularly in Kosovo are concrete examples of that. These NATO led operations; with the participation of a number of non NATO countries was a major success.  In Bosnia, I must confess that we were a little too late. Before NATO intervened about 200.000 people have lost their lives. In Kosovo we have not repeated this mistake.

Today NATO troops are playing an important role in Afghanistan as well. Turkey has assumed twice the command of NATO force ISAF in Kabul. NATO has also assumed some responsibilities in the training of Iraqi security forces. But there is a difference between the NATO operations in Bosnia and Kosovo on one hand and the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq on the other.

Whereas in Bosnia and Kosovo the operations were conducted under full control of NATO, in Afghanistan, NATO led forces have only a limited role to play. There Americans lead the operations and they assumed the overall command responsibilities. Why it was so decided. I don’t have a ready answer for that. Probably our American friends thought that in case they had to ask the directions and instruction of the NATO council for the planning and conduct of the operations they might lose some time, speed and flexibility. Anyway, this is a question to be asked to Americans.

In Iraq Americans decided to intervene together with Great Britain and some other countries, forming a sort of coalition without making it a NATO operation.
On this issue the reasoning of our American friends is more easily understandable. Some major European NATO countries were not in favor of a military operation against Iraq and were thinking that we had to give more time to UN inspectors. Some countries, including mine were considering that a UN Security Council Resolution would be necessary for the legitimization of the operation.
In fact, our constitution permits our Parliament to invite foreign troops to Turkey and open a war only in case there is legitimacy in accordance with international law. Some other countries might have different reasons to react to the American military intervention to Iraq. Whatever the reason may be, there was no consensus in NATO for this operation and NATO could not operate without consensus. Still, it would be probably better in case our American friends spent more time to discuss the Iraqi problem in the NATO council and look for a mutually agreeable position.
As a matter of fact, in case we proceed to a genuine dialogue in NATO even the member countries who objected the American intervention to Iraq may show some understanding and readiness for cooperation on some concrete aspects of Iraqi problem. A concrete example is the position of President Chirac who said a while ago that I quote “  in Iraq, France wants to contribute to the stability and pursuit of the political process laid down in Resolution 1546. The holding of elections was a first step toward that objective, namely to restore to the Iraqi people full control over their own fate as quickly as possible.
We decided in Istanbul on how NATO would contribute to that goal, namely by training Iraqi security forces. France is playing its part in that, in keeping with the undertakings given. Beyond that, both at a bilateral level and within the framework of the European Union, France is concentrating its efforts on consolidating the rule of law and on training for the Iraqi police. On the strength of its proposals, it is now the leading contributor to the mission the European Union plans to undertake in the coming weeks.”
Turkey has also decided to participate to efforts to tarn the Iraqi security forces within the framework of NATO. As a matter of fact the training of Iraqi armed forces and police is of paramount importance for the future security and stability of the country Unless Iraq possess a strong and dependable force it would be practical impossible to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. Besides internal security, the border security is also of paramount importance. Today, unfortunately we are at the beginning of the training of Iraqi forces.
In Turkish Iraqi border there is practically no border guards from Iraqi side. This makes the border practically penetrable by terrorists groups. Unfortunately so far the PKK terrorists located in Northern Iraq could not have been eliminated. We expect from Iraqi security forces and American troops to give priority to the elimination of all terrorist groups including PKK. Any tolerance to any terrorist group may damage the overall security interests of the country. We are also expecting from our American friends to take concrete steps in this regard.
We are also concerned that over 100 Turkish lorry drivers were killed in Iraq by the insurgents because of the lack of internal security.
The success of the crisis management requires an early disarmament of all ethnic or religious groups. In Kosovo one of the first priorities of KFOR was to disarm former ethnic groups there were possessing all sorts of weapons. Only after a full disarmament that it was decided to establish a Kosovo Protection Force (KPC), for some public work activities, but under strict control of KFOR. They were allowed to carry only small side arms and by no means heavy weapons. This decisive action of NATO was instrumental in bringing peace to Kosovo.

Unfortunately in Iraq a similar action was not taken. For various reasons there was no policy of a complete disarmament of various ethnic and religious groups. This situation created a number of difficulties and some tribes possessing armed elements tried to guide the political situation in the country without waiting the outcome of the efforts aiming at the preparation of a new constitution. We believe that such a situation is hardly compatible with a democratization process. This is one of the most difficult problems to solve now. Because those ethnic or religious groups consider that possessing arms is a right acknowledged by all.
To be able to cope with the crises management situations in or outside NATO area we need not only capabilities, but also political will. The example I gave on the position of France on the training of Iraqi forces with the capabilities of NATO was a good example.
Not so good example is that we live today a crisis situation in Europe itself. To be able to project outside Europe our crisis management capabilities we have to ensure a stable situation within Europe. Unfortunately today we face a serious crisis within the European Union after the negative votes in the French and Dutch referenda at the end of May and beginning of June. As Prime minister of Luxembourg Mr. Junkers has said Europe is in deep crisis. This crisis will undoubtedly influence to foreign and security policy of the EU.
Since EU-NATO cooperation is of paramount importance, as we have seen the examples in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, it would be difficult to say that NATO would not be influenced by the recent crisis. Therefore, while addressing to crisis situations outside NATO we have to solve out internal crisis.
What were the reasons of the recent crisis in EU? Many believe that the unemployment and other social problems are at the roots of the crisis. Others mention the inability of political leadership in Europe to cope the day to day problems of the citizens with a long term vision. How the crisis will be solved? Some politicians suggested that while solving this crisis we have to put in the deep freeze the enlargement process of EU.
We disagree with that approach. As a matter of fact some of the candidate countries, particularly Turkey possess a number of assets for NATO, particularly in the areas of security and crisis management. To slow down the process of membership of Turkey will negatively affect the crisis management ability of NATO and of EU particularly in our neighborhood. As a matter of fact, a NATO-EU cooperation in Iraq, in the training of security forces and police will become an important requirement soon. As was the case in Bosnia, in Kosovo and Macedonia a genuine cooperation between the two organizations will produce positive results which will benefit Iraqi people and the entire region. Therefore the membership process of Turkey to EU should not be delayed.
To conclude my remarks I would like to say that NATO, thanks to its experience, qualified experts and capabilities, has and will have an important role to play in crisis management situation in the world and particularly in the immediate neighborhood of the Alliance. Iraq will be a case in pointy. We should all focus on ways and means to make this contribution as effective as possible.
Dear participants,
Those are some ideas I wanted to share with you. I will be prepared now to answer to your questions.
Thank you.