Guardian Live Blog on NATO Meeting and other Middle East Issues

The Guardian is running a live blog which will include details from the NATO meeting on the Turkey-Syria crisis. You can find it here.

NATO Consultations Today on Syrian Shootdown of Turkish Jet

Turkey will this morning put its case before the Ambassadors of the North Atlantic Council. Turkish politicians have said that Turkey will seek an Article V mutual defence declaration from the Alliance that this was an attack on all of NATO. For example, according to the AP, Deputy PM Bulent Arinc told journalists that:

"No doubt, Turkey has made necessary applications with NATO regarding Article 4 and Article 5. It should be known that within legality we will of course use all rights granted under international law until the end. This also includes self-defense. This also includes retaliation many-fold. This includes all sanctions that can be applied to the aggressor state under international law. Turkey will not leave anything out on this issue. The public should be assured."

However, he also said that Turkey does not want to go to war over the incident. Further reporting from the Guardian yesterday showed Turkey increasing pressure on NATO for support, as it was said that Syria had also fired on search and rescue planes looking for the downed jet and its pilots. The Guardian also had some explanation of why Turkey is going to NATO:

Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "The downing of a plane by one of Turkey's neighbours is unprecedented. Turkey is going to Nato and the UN security council to appease Turkey domestic opinion."On the bilateral level, it has no tools left. All the Syrian diplomats have been expelled and Turkey has no representation in Damascus any more. Its only option is to seek support from Turkey's partners in the multilateral arena."Statements of solidarity from western capitals will help Turkey fulfil two objectives: they will assuage domestic public opinion and Turkey can also use the incident as proof that the situation vis-a-vis Syria will remain volatile and unsustainable as long as Assad is there."

The EU condemned the shooting down on Monday, but will not take more substantive action at this time. Russia, not surprisingly, appealed for restraint from NATO with Ria Novosti saying that Foreign Minister Andrei Zolotov had said that nothing should be done to make a political solution impossible. Which, given Russia's arming of the Syrian government, is pretty rich.

All in all it seems likely that NATO will offer support to to Turkey, and condemn the shooting down of their plane. But since Turkey admitted the plane had strayed into Syrian airspace and there is no evidence this is part of a wider attack on Turkey, let alone the Alliance, military action is very unlikely. This incident may, however, make Turkey more likely to offer covert support to rebel groups. It also reduces the political area Syria has for maneouvre.

ACUS on Why NATO Won't go to War with Syria

James Joyner at the Atlantic Council of the United States has written a blog post explaining why NATO will not use the Syrian downing of a Turkish jet as an Article V casus belli. it seems to NATO Monitor that this section of his post is particularly noteworthy:

Instead, the operative word that almost certainly disqualifies this incident from an Article 5 response is "attack." Turkey was engaged in aggressive action along its border with Syria during a particularly tense situation and flew into Syrian airspace. While shooting down the plane was almost certainly an overreaction--the Assad government has said as much--it's hardly an "attack."

Ultimately, like the "high crimes and misdemeanor" threshold for impeachment set forth by the US Constitution, it's a judgment call. In the former case,  the House of Representatives makes the call; in the latter, it's the North Atlantic Council.  

But it's virtually inconceivable that the NAC would deem this to be a qualifying "attack." First, Article 5 couches the response in terms of "the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." An overly aggressive defensive action by Syria--especially a one-off--would not seem to qualify. While the Turkish pilot would certainly have been within his rights to use deadly force to protect himself, a retaliatory strike at this juncture by Turkey--much less its NATO allies--would be in violation of the UN Charter. 

Second, borrowing language from Article 51, Article 5 specifies the rationale for the use of force as "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Given that the incident is already contained--that is, not likely to be followed by any sort of follow-on action by Syria absent further provocation--said security already exists. Indeed, a NATO or Turkish response would make the area more, not less, secure.

The whole piece is worth reading and the analysis seems very sound, especially given the quiet reaction to the incident from NATO foreign ministries to date.

Updated: NATO Ambassadors Will Meet Over Shot Down Turkish Plane

Updated 20.30 BST

Turkey has asked NATO Ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council for consultations over the Syrian shooting down of a Turkish F-4 jet. NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu confirmed that the North Atlantic Council will meet to discuss the case on Tuesday June 26.

The Turkish F-4 jet was shot down on Friday 22 June, with Syria claiming it was in Syrian airspace and Turkey saying it was conducting an open exercise to test their national radar systems over international waters.

Article 4 of NATO's founding treaty reads:

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Turkey has previously raised the possibility of invoking NATO in its defence after Syrian forces fired over the Turkish border. (See this previous NATO Monitor piece) While no automatic action will follow from the Article 4 consultation, the possibility of NATO assisting Turkey to guard against Syria does exist. 

However, Russia is standing by its Syrian ally, not least to guard its military access to the port of Tartus, the Russian Navy's only Mediterranean base. Any NATO action could have serious consequences for its relationship with Russia, so NATO leaders are likely to continue to act cautiously as they have been doing. The Telegraph website reports diplomats as saying that Turkey is not likely to seek NATO military action, but rather political support for action it chooses to take itself.

This air of caution is borne out by Guido Westerwelle's declaration that the main need is to avoid escalation. The US has issued a statement of support for Turkey, with no mention of NATO action. France has yet to ract at ministerial level. British Foreign Secretary William Hague, for example, issued a statement about the shooting down saying:

The Assad regime should not make the mistake of believing that it can act with impunity. It will be held to account for its behaviour. The UK stands ready to pursue robust action at theUnited Nations Security Council.

Since action in the UNSC gives Russia a veto over any action, this would imply that the UK wants a political rather than a military response to this incident. Careful action in a situation where numerous regional and global powers have an interest is to be applauded. However, NATO is also constrained by its inability to command a UN mandate in Syria, largely because of Russian and Chinese objections to NATO's overstretch in Libya, where a protection of civilians mandate was used to overthrow the Gaddhafi regime. NATO Monitor will watch for progress in this case on Tuesday.

Lord Browne Leads Excellent Debate on DDPR

Former Defence Secretary (Lord) Des Browne initiated a  debate in the Lords this week on the Defence and Deterrence Posture Review (DDPR),asking he government:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the outcome of the NATO Deterrence and Defence Posture Review and the implications of clarifying NATO's deterrence posture for European security and the relationship with Russia.

 It's a question worth asking, and one the government had done its best to ignore, not least because the outcome of the DDPR was a complete mess. As Lord Browne said;

As part of the necessary "real change", NATO spent the year before Lisbon rewriting the alliance's main doctrine-the strategic concept-but it did not finish the job in time for Lisbon. The alliance managed to agree that, "as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance".The apparent clarity of that statement masked an inability of member states to agree on key issues about NATO's nuclear deterrence. At the same time, NATO agreed to,"develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attack as a core element of our collective defence". However, that, too, hid significant differences about the role of ballistic missile defence in the alliance's future mix of capabilities.

Browne also highlighted the divisive nature of nuclear and missile defence politics in the Alliance, a theme NATO Monitor has regularly returned to in past posts. He also noted that no progress had been made at the Chicago Summit on the withdrawal of US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. Indeed, as he said, the Obama administration is now embarked on a upgrade programme for the B-61 bombs based in Europe and the US, which will make them more accurate and suited to warfighting, tailored deterrence policies.

NATO Monitor is bound to point out that this stands in stark contrast to President Obama's past undertakings that he would not introduce an y new nuclear capabilities into the arsenal, and to his Prague speech of 2009 calling for nuclear disarmament. It is also worth noting that President Bush, condemned for his nuclear weapons policies withdrew hundreds of B-61 bombs from Europe, while Obama has withdrawn none.

Several Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour peers spoke during the mini-debate, mostly in agreement with Lord Browne and agreeing that the government should stake out a strong position in favour of nuclear disarmament in NATO, and friendship and cooperation with Russia. All were concerned that the government had had nothing to say on the DDPR since it was initiated by the Lisbon Summit in 2010.

Ending the debate, Lord Howell of Guildford, an FCO minister, defended the government, the DDPR and the status quo:

The threats that we must be ready to counter come from many different directions and in many different forms. The capabilities available to us have certainly broadened. The DDPR has presented a timely opportunity to reassess NATO's defence and deterrence capabilities to ensure that they are able to respond to the modern, multipolar world. That means not only where they have come from and where we are now, which is the realistic moment that we live in, but the future as well.

 It was pleasing to see a peer of Des Browne's experience leading a debate, and recommending sensible security building policies grounded in arms control measures and cooperation with a potential adversary. It is deeply to be regretted that a president with a Nobel Peace Prize is unable to offer the same kind of leadership, leaving NATO with not one but three nuclear use doctrines.

The whole debate can be read at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2012-05-29a.1096.0&s=ddpr#g1107.0

Summit Fails to Overcome NATO-Pakistan Divisions

Pakistani President Zardari has left Chicago without agreeing to allow NATO supply convoys through Pakistan to restart.

Zardari met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and raised a number of issues that are important to Pakistan.  He said that before convoys can resume that the US must apologise for the cross border attack at Salala last year, which killed a number of Pakistani soldiers. He also said that US drone attacks against Taliban and other targets inside Pakistan must stop, as they violate Pakistani sovereignty and are causing political and social problems through the civilian casualties they bring. Finally, Pakistani sources said that the government wants $500 per truck compensation when convoys restart, although some sources have mentioned figures between $2500 and $5000 per truck.

Reports have said that the President framed these as issues of rebuilding trust:

In his nearly hour-long meeting with Clinton, Zardari said that the goal of establishing a long-term, sustained and durable Pakistan-US equation would remain elusive till the issue of trust deficit continues to haunt the relationship, said the presidential spokesman, Farhatullah Babar. 

"Bridging the trust deficit, the president said, was a must for Pakistan re-joining counterterrorism cooperation with the international community," Babar said after the meeting between Zardari and Clinton on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Chicago, which is being attended by leaders of more than 60 countries.

Following the meeting with Clinton, President Obama refused to meet with President Zardari, as did NATO Secretary General Rasmussen. NATO Monitor cannot understand why they would do this. The Guardian reported the White House as saying this was normal:

The White House national security spokesman, Ben Rhodes, asked at a press conference if Zardari had gone to Chicago under the misconception he would see Obama, replied that Obama's schedule was busy. He said issues such as the reopening of supply lines were not normally dealt with at presidential level. Rhodes said: "The invitation to attend this summit was extended by Nato of course. We obviously supported that. It's important for Pakistan to be here because as we contemplate the future of the region, they are obviously going to be a part of that picture.

Bringing the President of a country important to your war aims halfway round the world, only to refuse to meet him, can only be described as crassly bad diplomacy. It will weaken Zardari at home, and inflame anti-NATO and anti-US sentiment there. The US knew what the demands were before asking Zardari to fly to Chicago, so why were they so unprepared to meet them. Better that President Zardari had stayed home than this be the outcome.

NATO needs the Pakistani supply routes open now to save money, but in a few months time they will need them to bring soldiers and equipment out of Apkistan. Undoubtedly the price just went up steeply.

BBC Summary of NATO BMD Programme

Johnathan Marcus of the BBC has written a good summary of some of the issues surrounding NATO's BMD programme. You can read it here. It contains a great quote from Professor Ted Postol about the lack of missile threat to Europe:

However, a leading expert on missile defence technology, Professor Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, believes that this potential threat has been much overstated. 

"The fundamental long-term threat from Iran is from nuclear weapons. But for now Iran does not have the bomb. A ballistic missile without a nuclear weapon," he says, "is like a terrorist bomber without an explosive vest."

AP - NATO Summit in Three Paragraphs

The AP summarises the NATO Summit in three paragraphs. Good job!

Turkey Stands up for Itself in NATO

Turkey came close to blocking EU reps Jose Manual Barroso and Herman van Rompuy from attending the Summit in Chicago. The two received very invitations, but even now they are restricted to sections of the Summit dealing with Afghanistan, reports VOA.

Clearly Turkish anger at continued blocking of their negotiations to join the EU was behind this move, but it wasn't their first piece of muscle-flexing in the run-up to Chicago. Previously AFP had reported that Turkey refused Israel a place at the Summit:

The Turkish official, who requested anonymity, told AFP earlier Monday: "We have not agreed to this. We don't think Israel should take part in such a forum," adding: "NATO is an alliance to which Israel does not belong." 

Turkish press reports said Israel wanted to take part in the key summit as a participant in the Mediterranean Dialogue cooperation programme with NATO.

This was denied by NATO spokespeople who claimed that there had never been any intention to invite Israel, despite their place in the Alliance's Mediterranean Partnership. However, it is clear that there was at least the possibility that Israel would be represented at the Summit, even if no official invitation was ever sent. This row is the latest manifestation of the declining relationship between the two previously close partners.

It has also been reported recently that important Turkish politicians have publicly advocated Macedonian membership of NATO in the face of continued Greek refusal to countenance such a move.

It seems that these might be signs of Turkey's importance to the Alliance in a vital neighbourhood, and of the increasing confidence of the current government in NATO.

Are NATO's Global Partnerships the Way to Relevance?

George W Bush didn't really believe in NATO. After 9/11, when the Alliance announced it had invoked its Article V common defence clause for the first time, he (and the rest of America) essentially took no notice. What he believed in was coalitions of the willing. So, instead of letting NATO go to war with the US in Afghanistan, an informal coalition of allies did. The result was the sidelining of the Alliance, and a United States that felt it didn't have to listen to anyone before using military force. The same was later true of Iraq, although it is very doubtful that NATO would have agreed to that particular venture, and the US learned the limits of supposedly unfettered power in a very hard way. Bush's attitude fit the unipolar moment, at least for the right, and was symptomatic of how large Empires behave.

By the time President Obama was elected that moment had subsided and NATO ISAF was running security forces in Afghanistan (although notably not US counter terrorism operations). NATO Europe hoped it would be seen as more relevant. But ISAF was never NATO alone, many more countries were always involved. And European nations were both generally unwilling and also unable to project enough power alongside the US to be the only global allies.

Now the US is selling a vision of NATO where it will operate globally, with different partners for different missions. On May 17, James J. Townsend Jr., deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy, told Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service reporters about the partnerships plan:

The summit also offers a chance to celebrate NATO partnerships outside the alliance, which greatly extend the organization’s reach, he said. 

“NATO has established partnerships globally that not a lot of people know about,” Townsend said. “Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea have been very helpful to the alliance, particularly in Afghanistan, and in other places.”

The DoD reports Secretary Rasmussen as saying:

Tomorrow, on the second day of the summit, Rasmussen said, “we will meet 13 of our most active partners around the globe, from Europe to Asia and the Middle East, because today’s security challenges are global and they need global solutions.” 

NATO will continue to cooperate with partners from around the world, building on successes “so that we can provide more security for NATO, for our partners, and for the world,” he added.

Fred Kempe of the Atlantic Council of the US certainly believes that the creation of a web of partnerships around the global hub of NATO is the way forward. He has written recently that:

The expected discussions of NATO leaders this weekend about how best to wind down their decade-long Afghan military operation and about how to maintain sufficient defense capabilities, despite growing budget cuts, risk leaving the impression of an alliance in retrenchment or decline. That’s hardly an inspiring or helpful message for a U.S. president heading home to Chicago at the beginning of his re-election campaign. 

By contrast, NATO’s efforts to broaden and deepen cooperation with capable partner nations can be rolled out as a pro-active, forward-looking initiative that has NATO going on offense for a new era. So that no one misses his notion of NATO at the core of a global security network, President Obama and his allies will stage an unprecedented summit meeting with 13 partner nations – from South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia in Asia-Pacific to Jordan, Morocco, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East and North Africa. Also present will be five European states that aren’t members of the alliance but routinely contribute to alliance activities – Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. 

What they’ll be trying to do is give teeth to an agenda for NATO that I first saw discussed in detail by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in a major Foreign Affairs article in October 2009. He argued against those who wished to expand NATO into a global alliance of democracies. He said that would dilute the crucial importance of the U.S.-European connection, which still accounts for half of the world’s economy, and that none of the world’s rising powers would be likely to accept membership in a global NATO. An ideologically defined democratic alliance would needlessly draw institutional lines between the U.S. and, for example, China. 

“NATO, however, has the experience, the institutions, and the means to eventually become the hub of a globe-spanning web of various regional cooperative-security undertakings among states with the growing power to act,” he wrote. “In pursuing that strategic mission, NATO would not only be preserving transatlantic political unity; it would also be responding to the twenty-first century’s novel and increasingly urgent security agenda.” 

It would also rescue the alliance from geostrategic irrelevance.

There is no doubt that NATO's international command structures have been flexible enough to incorporate troops from many other nations in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan and in Libya. But the real question is political. Do NATO nations want to carry on doing this kind of mission. Very few wanted to participate in Libya, and even support for an Alliance role was very grudging. Afghanistan has come close at times to breaking Alliance unity for good. the caveats that some nations have placed on troop use have been deeply resented by those that played a fuller part. Some, such as Canada and the Netherlands, have terminated their participation there in frustration.

And the truth is that the more NATO strays from the defence of Europe, the less its member states have in common politically. Their goals are simply not the same. And that shows in what states are willing to do. the unity of the Cold War, when the mission was clear, and everyone understood it in simple terms, has long gone. Even the defence of Europe looks very different in Tallinn than it does in London or Lisbon or Ankara.

NATO is a finely honed military tool looking for a rationale to stay in existence. And this partnerships arrangement shows how difficult that search is proving.