CONTRIBUTIONS OF DR. ONUR ÖYMEN AT THE 16. ANTALYA SECURİTY AND COOPERATİON SEMİNAR
21 SEPTEMBER 2006
THE ROLE OF NATO AND EU IN THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE AND SECURITY
Mr. Chairman,
It is a particular pleasure for me to express my views on NATO-EU cooperation and also some regional developments in this important gathering, which became a valuable Turkish tradition. I would like to express my thanks and admiration to Ambassador Haluk Bayülken and to his distinguished colleagues Mr. Baykam and Mr. Odyakmaz for their relentless efforts in bringing together such a distinguished gathering every year.
To save time, I will not dwell on the historic background of NATO-EU cooperation. Still, I may perhaps recall one or two events, which show the level of progress we realized in the last couple of years. Shortly before the adoption of NATO’s New Strategic Concept in April 1999, it was almost a taboo to talk about NATO-EU cooperation in the meetings of both organizations so much so that in the NATO Council high level civil servants have been criticized for having a lunch together with some high EU bureaucrats. In NATO Councils’ agendas there was practically never an item referring to NATO-EU cooperation.
Everything has changed after the adoption of the New Strategic Concept and both organizations started to shape modestly a frame of cooperation. The concept was that the EU would profit from NATO’s infrastructure facilities, experience and planning capabilities, and in exchange EU would involve NATO countries who are not members of EU to Petersberg type crisis-management operations to be undertaken by EU Forces. The main shortcoming in the EU side was capabilities, because practically no EU country was ready to spend large sums of money and earmark new contingents to the European army to be established according to British-French agreement at St. Malo in December 1998.
In January 2001 NATO Secretary General and EU Presidency exchanged letters to define the scope and modalities of the cooperation. NATO-EU declaration on ESDP prepared the ground for the Berlin-plus arrangements. After long discussions a compromise was found towards the end of the year 2002 and a genuine cooperation started. Can we say that this cooperation progressed always smoothly? I am afraid we cannot, because the concept at the beginning was that EU would profit from NATO planning and other facilities without duplicating them, which means that EU would not profile as a second NATO.
But in the beginning of the year 2003, particularly as a result of the French insistence, EU tried to establish its own parallel institutions. Obviously, the ultimate purpose was to prepare the ground for a totally independent organization for the defense of the EU, which would undermine the dominant role of NATO in the European theatre. This situation provoked sharp criticism from the US government and a lot of efforts had to be spent to iron out these controversies.
At the end, NATO and EU embarked a sort of division of labor; NATO started to leave step by step its responsibilities to the EU in the Balkans starting with Bosnia and Herzegovina.
NATO assumed more important responsibilities particularly in Afghanistan, but still, the NATO mission over there was different from her engagement in Bosnia and Kosovo, where NATO Council assumed the responsibility of command of these operations, whereas in Afghanistan the operations were conducted mainly by a coalition of the willing under the leadership of the United States. As a matter of fact after the terrorist attacks in September 11 against the American targets, NATO declared an Article 5 situation for the first time in its history, meaning that NATO members accepted these attacks as if they happened against their own country and expressed their willingness to contribute to the US in a way each member states consider appropriate.
For one reason or another, the United States chose not to ask from NATO to assume full responsibility of the operation in Afghanistan and preferred to give NATO a limited role particularly in the defense of Kabul and its airport. Turkey has sent close to 1000 soldiers to take part in NATO contingent and assume the command of NATO forces in Kabul twice. But now there is a new situation and starting this summer NATO has assumed larger responsibilities in Southern Afghanistan, in sensitive areas where harsh combats are taking place with Taliban and Al-Qaida. NATO forces over there killed more than 500 Taliban fighters. This is the highest number of persons killed in any NATO operations so far. Few NATO members, with the exception of Poland, have expressed their willingness to send fresh troops to the region up to now. The Turkish Chief of Staff has publicly stated that Turkey will not send any troop to the combat zone and we have not heard about a EU contingent sent to Afghanistan yet.
NATO’s contribution to America-led coalition in Iraq was also marginal and limited to the training of Iraqi forces. Another sensitive zone was Southern Lebanon and despite the request of Israeli government NATO has not sent troops over there, and Turkey has expressed its unwillingness to send combat forces there and to engage to efforts to disarm Hezbollah.
We, as the main opposition party in the Parliament, have expressed our reservation to send troops to Lebanon. This was not our position when the Parliament had to decide to send Turkish troops to UN Peacekeeping Forces or NATO contingents. Why this time we are reluctant? First of all, we believe that our first priority is to defend our own country against terrorist attacks coming from Northern Iraq. Although we have engaged our troops and took risks in Afghanistan in the last few years to defend our American friends against the terrorist over there, we have realized that the Americans were reluctant to take concrete steps to eliminate PKK terrorism from Northern Iraq despite the promise of President Bush to eradicate all terrorist organizations all over the world. What is more surprising is that Americans are not willing to allow our troops to undertake operations alone in Northern Iraq to neutralize these terrorists. American representatives have repeatedly said it would not be appropriate to intervene militarily to Northern Iraq. So the only option is the political one. How can you fight terrorism politically? Have our American friends considered political option instead of fighting with Taliban? We believe that NATO will be more successful in case we base our policies on firm principles applicable for all and everywhere. A selective approach in combating terrorism reminding the Turkish saying “Long live the snake that does’nt bite me” may only diminish our solidarity and effectiveness.
At this moment Northern Iraq is the only place in the world where terrorist feel themselves in a safe heaven and continue to operate across the border to kill Turkish soldiers and civilians deliberately. Under these conditions it will be obviously very difficult to explain our people to send their children to combat missions to protect other countries against terrorism
Of course, there are other reasons for Turkey not to be engaged in Lebanon but the point I mentioned is a matter of principle to be discussed and solved with the American friends. Either they should do the job, or give us the possibility to do it.
What is our basic position in combating terrorism? I will tell you our position very clearly in a way I explained to the American ambassador a few days ago in Ankara. We believe that irrespective of perpetrators, irrespective of targets and irrespective of their motivation, we should condemn all terrorist attacks and join our forces to neutralize them. Against armed terrorists political methods, mediation, by proxy talks, appeasement policies are not acceptable options. We should all realize that the aim of terrorist organizations is not marginal adjustments of human rights standards or improvement of cultural rights. Almost all terrorist organizations have much more ambitions plans, not least the establishment of an independent state of their own.
The failure of solidarity among NATO allies in combating terrorism will be considered as a sign of weakness by terrorist organizations. Again, a failure of strong cooperation between EU and NATO in combating terrorism will be considered as a lack of solidarity and commitment. With this in mind, Turkey has proposed the establishment of an ad hoc committee between NATO and EU to discuss various ways of fighting terrorism. Unfortunately our proposal has not been accepted. We believe that it is high time to discuss all these matters, first in NATO, then between NATO and EU to adopt a position, which would lead to concrete actions. Otherwise I am afraid that both organizations will lose a lot of credibility and reliability. NATO’s legendary deterrence policy, which helped us to end the Cold War successfully, will disappear in case we are reluctant to commit ourselves to a strong cooperation in combating terrorism.
Thank you Mr. Chairman
16. Antalya Security and Cooperation Seminar – The Role of NATO and EU in the Preservation of Peace and Security
CONTRIBUTIONS OF DR. ONUR ÖYMEN AT THE 16. ANTALYA SECURİTY AND COOPERATİON SEMİNAR
21 SEPTEMBER 2006
THE ROLE OF NATO AND EU IN THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE AND SECURITY
Mr. Chairman,
It is a particular pleasure for me to express my views on NATO-EU cooperation and also some regional developments in this important gathering, which became a valuable Turkish tradition. I would like to express my thanks and admiration to Ambassador Haluk Bayülken and to his distinguished colleagues Mr. Baykam and Mr. Odyakmaz for their relentless efforts in bringing together such a distinguished gathering every year.
To save time, I will not dwell on the historic background of NATO-EU cooperation. Still, I may perhaps recall one or two events, which show the level of progress we realized in the last couple of years. Shortly before the adoption of NATO’s New Strategic Concept in April 1999, it was almost a taboo to talk about NATO-EU cooperation in the meetings of both organizations so much so that in the NATO Council high level civil servants have been criticized for having a lunch together with some high EU bureaucrats. In NATO Councils’ agendas there was practically never an item referring to NATO-EU cooperation.
Everything has changed after the adoption of the New Strategic Concept and both organizations started to shape modestly a frame of cooperation. The concept was that the EU would profit from NATO’s infrastructure facilities, experience and planning capabilities, and in exchange EU would involve NATO countries who are not members of EU to Petersberg type crisis-management operations to be undertaken by EU Forces. The main shortcoming in the EU side was capabilities, because practically no EU country was ready to spend large sums of money and earmark new contingents to the European army to be established according to British-French agreement at St. Malo in December 1998.
In January 2001 NATO Secretary General and EU Presidency exchanged letters to define the scope and modalities of the cooperation. NATO-EU declaration on ESDP prepared the ground for the Berlin-plus arrangements. After long discussions a compromise was found towards the end of the year 2002 and a genuine cooperation started. Can we say that this cooperation progressed always smoothly? I am afraid we cannot, because the concept at the beginning was that EU would profit from NATO planning and other facilities without duplicating them, which means that EU would not profile as a second NATO.
But in the beginning of the year 2003, particularly as a result of the French insistence, EU tried to establish its own parallel institutions. Obviously, the ultimate purpose was to prepare the ground for a totally independent organization for the defense of the EU, which would undermine the dominant role of NATO in the European theatre. This situation provoked sharp criticism from the US government and a lot of efforts had to be spent to iron out these controversies.
At the end, NATO and EU embarked a sort of division of labor; NATO started to leave step by step its responsibilities to the EU in the Balkans starting with Bosnia and Herzegovina.
NATO assumed more important responsibilities particularly in Afghanistan, but still, the NATO mission over there was different from her engagement in Bosnia and Kosovo, where NATO Council assumed the responsibility of command of these operations, whereas in Afghanistan the operations were conducted mainly by a coalition of the willing under the leadership of the United States. As a matter of fact after the terrorist attacks in September 11 against the American targets, NATO declared an Article 5 situation for the first time in its history, meaning that NATO members accepted these attacks as if they happened against their own country and expressed their willingness to contribute to the US in a way each member states consider appropriate.
For one reason or another, the United States chose not to ask from NATO to assume full responsibility of the operation in Afghanistan and preferred to give NATO a limited role particularly in the defense of Kabul and its airport. Turkey has sent close to 1000 soldiers to take part in NATO contingent and assume the command of NATO forces in Kabul twice. But now there is a new situation and starting this summer NATO has assumed larger responsibilities in Southern Afghanistan, in sensitive areas where harsh combats are taking place with Taliban and Al-Qaida. NATO forces over there killed more than 500 Taliban fighters. This is the highest number of persons killed in any NATO operations so far. Few NATO members, with the exception of Poland, have expressed their willingness to send fresh troops to the region up to now. The Turkish Chief of Staff has publicly stated that Turkey will not send any troop to the combat zone and we have not heard about a EU contingent sent to Afghanistan yet.
NATO’s contribution to America-led coalition in Iraq was also marginal and limited to the training of Iraqi forces. Another sensitive zone was Southern Lebanon and despite the request of Israeli government NATO has not sent troops over there, and Turkey has expressed its unwillingness to send combat forces there and to engage to efforts to disarm Hezbollah.
We, as the main opposition party in the Parliament, have expressed our reservation to send troops to Lebanon. This was not our position when the Parliament had to decide to send Turkish troops to UN Peacekeeping Forces or NATO contingents. Why this time we are reluctant? First of all, we believe that our first priority is to defend our own country against terrorist attacks coming from Northern Iraq. Although we have engaged our troops and took risks in Afghanistan in the last few years to defend our American friends against the terrorist over there, we have realized that the Americans were reluctant to take concrete steps to eliminate PKK terrorism from Northern Iraq despite the promise of President Bush to eradicate all terrorist organizations all over the world. What is more surprising is that Americans are not willing to allow our troops to undertake operations alone in Northern Iraq to neutralize these terrorists. American representatives have repeatedly said it would not be appropriate to intervene militarily to Northern Iraq. So the only option is the political one. How can you fight terrorism politically? Have our American friends considered political option instead of fighting with Taliban? We believe that NATO will be more successful in case we base our policies on firm principles applicable for all and everywhere. A selective approach in combating terrorism reminding the Turkish saying “Long live the snake that does’nt bite me” may only diminish our solidarity and effectiveness.
At this moment Northern Iraq is the only place in the world where terrorist feel themselves in a safe heaven and continue to operate across the border to kill Turkish soldiers and civilians deliberately. Under these conditions it will be obviously very difficult to explain our people to send their children to combat missions to protect other countries against terrorism
Of course, there are other reasons for Turkey not to be engaged in Lebanon but the point I mentioned is a matter of principle to be discussed and solved with the American friends. Either they should do the job, or give us the possibility to do it.
What is our basic position in combating terrorism? I will tell you our position very clearly in a way I explained to the American ambassador a few days ago in Ankara. We believe that irrespective of perpetrators, irrespective of targets and irrespective of their motivation, we should condemn all terrorist attacks and join our forces to neutralize them. Against armed terrorists political methods, mediation, by proxy talks, appeasement policies are not acceptable options. We should all realize that the aim of terrorist organizations is not marginal adjustments of human rights standards or improvement of cultural rights. Almost all terrorist organizations have much more ambitions plans, not least the establishment of an independent state of their own.
The failure of solidarity among NATO allies in combating terrorism will be considered as a sign of weakness by terrorist organizations. Again, a failure of strong cooperation between EU and NATO in combating terrorism will be considered as a lack of solidarity and commitment. With this in mind, Turkey has proposed the establishment of an ad hoc committee between NATO and EU to discuss various ways of fighting terrorism. Unfortunately our proposal has not been accepted. We believe that it is high time to discuss all these matters, first in NATO, then between NATO and EU to adopt a position, which would lead to concrete actions. Otherwise I am afraid that both organizations will lose a lot of credibility and reliability. NATO’s legendary deterrence policy, which helped us to end the Cold War successfully, will disappear in case we are reluctant to commit ourselves to a strong cooperation in combating terrorism.
Thank you Mr. Chairman
Bu belge Konferanslar, Konuşmalar arşivinde bulunmaktadır.