Tag: NATO missile shield

  • Missile system may put Ankara on the front line against Iran

    Missile system may put Ankara on the front line against Iran

    ISTANBUL // Driven by concerns that a proposed Nato defence shield could ruin its own efforts to improve ties with neighbouring Iran and to boost its regional role, Turkey is demanding changes to the alliance’s plans for the missile system.

    This photo claims to show a missile launch during Iranian war games outside Semnan, about 240 kilometers east of Tehran. Iranian Army / AP Photo
    This photo claims to show a missile launch during Iranian war games outside Semnan, about 240 kilometers east of Tehran. Iranian Army / AP Photo

    Ankara has not ruled out the possibility of failing to find an agreement during a Nato summit meeting starting today.

    “If there is an agreement, great,” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, said earlier this week. “If no agreement can be reached, there is nothing for us to say.”

    A stand by Turkey against the project at the two-day summit meeting of the 28 Nato member states in Lisbon would be sure to trigger new concerns about a suspected re-orientation of Ankara’s foreign policy away from the West. But Mr Erdogan’s government argues it is only trying to preserve its national interests within Nato.

    The prime minister made it clear his government was aware of its obligations as a member of the Western defence bloc, which Turkey joined in 1952 and where decisions are taken with the consent of all member states.

    “Without a doubt, this is a step to be taken as a Nato member”, Mr Erdogan said about participation in the missile project.

    Nato wants to install a missile system in Europe in defence against potential attacks with ballistic missiles on the continent from countries like Iran or North Korea.

    A previous plan for a Nato missile shield in eastern Europe drew criticism from Russia, but the alliance hopes that it can win Moscow’s support for the new plan.

    As the only Nato member bordering Iran, which has a military missile system and is suspected by the West of conducting a secret programme to develop nuclear weapons, Turkey plays an important role in the alliance’s plans.

    Experts say Nato missiles deployed in Turkey would be able to shoot down Iranian missiles shortly after their launch. James Townsend, the United States’ deputy assistant secretary of defence for European and Nato policy, was quoted by Turkish media last month as saying that Turkey was “very much along the front lines” of a potential conflict with ballistic missiles.

    Turkey is concerned that the missile shield could put Ankara back into a frontline position similar to that it occupied during the Cold War, when it was Nato’s south-eastern outpost on the border with the Soviet Union.

    Another concern is that the missile plan could spoil Ankara’s relations with Iran and might be used in a US-led military confrontation that it does not want to be a part of. Mr Erdogan said he raised Turkey’s “sensitivities” in a conversation with Barack Obama, the US president, during the G20 summit in Seoul last week.

    Mr Erdogan said Turkey would insist on receiving the command over the missiles deployed on its territory. “It has certainly to be given to us,” Mr Erdogan said about the command. “Otherwise it will be impossible to agree to such a thing.”

    As an alliance project like the missile defence system would have a joint Nato command, rather than a national one, news reports suggested that Mr Erdogan was trying to make sure that Turkey would have a place in that command mechanism and that important parts of the missile system would be based in Turkey.

    The Turkish prime minister also renewed his government’s demand that no country would be singled out as a source of threat in a document, describing the new Nato strategy for the coming 10 to 15 years, which is to be adopted in Lisbon.

    Ankara is concerned that naming Iran as a threat to the alliance could undermine its own efforts to improve ties to Tehran. Relations between the two countries have flourished in recent years. Earlier this year, Turkey, in cooperation with Brazil, hammered out an agreement with Tehran that was designed to defuse the row surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. The West rejected the deal, however, prompting Turkey to vote against fresh Iran sanctions in the United Nations Security Council. Next page

    Missile system may put Ankara on the front line against Iran.

  • At Turkey’s Insistence, NATO Will Not Name Iran As a Missile Threat

    At Turkey’s Insistence, NATO Will Not Name Iran As a Missile Threat

    (Editor’s note: Adds comment from NATO official)

    (CNSNews.com) – Ahead of a key summit this week, NATO’s secretary-general has confirmed that the alliance will not identify Iran as a threat requiring the deployment of a NATO-wide missile defense umbrella in Europe.

    missile launchMDAAAAnders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment indicates that Turkey, a NATO member, will get its way on the matter. Turkey’s Islamist-leaning government has deepening political and economic ties with Tehran, and it has insisted that Iran not be singled out in NATO documents.

    NATO decisions require consensus, and Turkey’s unhappiness about naming Iran as a threat risked causing political difficulties ahead of the summit in Lisbon. At the summit, NATO will unveil a new “Strategic Concept” for the transatlantic alliance to replace one formulated in 1999.

    As part of the Strategic Concept, NATO leaders are expected to agree that a core mission should be defending the alliance’s territory against the threat of ballistic missiles, paving the way for U.S. missile defense facilities to be deployed in Europe in the coming years.

    That threat has long been seen – by Washington and European allies – as emanating from Iran, which possesses well-tested short- and medium-range missile arsenals. Tehran twice last year test-fired its most advanced missile, the solid-fueled two-stage Sejil-2, which boasts a range of around 1,200 miles, potentially threatening an area incorporating Israel, the Gulf states, Turkey, parts of Central Asia and southeastern Europe.

    Turkish foreign ministry officials told media organizations last month that neither Iran nor Syria should be cited as threats in official NATO documents relating to the missile shield, because doing so would cause problems between Turkey and those neighbors.

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul reiterated that stance this week, telling the BBC’s Turkish service that Turkey would “definitely not accept” the mentioning of one country, Iran.

    Two weeks ago, Turkish media reported that the government in Ankara had revised a secret threat assessment document, removing Iran, Russia and several other countries from the list of potential security threats, and adding Israel.

    Potential Article 5 threat

    The Strategic Concept to be adopted in Lisbon on Friday and Saturday is based on a report drafted by an expert panel led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

    The report warned that Iran’s suspect nuclear activity and ballistic missile stockpile “could create a major Article 5 threat to the Alliance in this decade.” (Article 5 of NATO’s Charter states that an attack on any member is considered an attack on all.)

    “Defending against the threat of a possible ballistic missile attack from Iran has given birth to what has become, for NATO, an essential military mission,” the report said.

    But in Brussels on Monday, Rasmussen said in reply to a question about Iran that it was not necessary to name any country as posing a threat.

    “The fact is that more than 30 countries have – or are aspiring to get – missile technologies with a range sufficient to hit targets in the Euro-Atlantic area. And we want to protect ourselves against any such threats,” he told reporters.

    “So there is no reason to name specific countries because there are already a lot of them.”

    The Obama administration also appears to be backing away from mentioning Iran in the context of the missile defense threat.

    U.S. envoy to NATO Ivo Daalder – a foreign policy advisor to the 2008 Obama-for-president campaign – presented “The case for NATO missile defense” in a New York Times op-ed published Monday, referring numerous times to the missile “threat” and “danger” but not identifying its source by name.

    Until recently, Rasmussen appeared content to ascribe the principal threat to Iran.

    “It is a fact and based on public information from Iran herself that Iran has at her disposal missile technology with a range which make it possible for them to hit targets in Europe if they so wish,” he told a Brussels press conference on June 10.

    “We face a common threat,” he told reporters in Washington on September 7. “In the European neighborhood, we have at least one country, Iran, with ambitions when it comes to missile technology.”

    During a speech in Rome on Sept. 17, Rasmussen said that “Iran … already has missiles that can hit NATO territory and Russia too, which is expanding their range, and which is in violation of its international obligations with regards to its nuclear program as well.”

    But the references to Iran vanished in recent weeks, following Turkey’s vocal objections.

    During a speech in Brussels on Oct. 8, Rasmussen spoke at length about missile defense without mentioning Iran once.

    Similarly, Rasmussen raised missile defense but made no reference to Iran during a monthly press briefing at NATO headquarters on Oct. 11; in an Oct. 12 New York Times op-ed; at a press conference in Brussels on Oct. 14; and at a press conference in New York on Sept. 22.

    ‘More than 30 countries’

    On several of those occasions, Rasmussen reiterated that “30 countries” or more posed a potential threat to NATO territory. The assertion also appears on a document recently posted on the NATO Web site, which devotes almost 2,000 words to the need for NATO missile defense – but does not mention Iran.

    At a press conference last Wednesday, NATO spokesman James Appathurai was asked about the evident reluctance to name Iran.

    “There are at least 30 countries, more than 30 countries, acquiring, that have or are acquiring ballistic missile capability,” he replied. “So this is not just about one country. It’s about a growing and, in essence, generic potential threat to our territory.”

    Again without naming Iran, Appathurai said NATO allies “are not ignoring specific countries, because they exist, but as I say it’s 30-plus countries, and I think allies want to look at it in that sense.”

    NATO’s press office would not provide a list of the countries.

    “It is clear that the threat is real, therefore we don’t see a need to list them all,” a NATO official said Tuesday. “Obviously there are classified NATO reports with more detailed information but these are not open to the public.”

    The Claremont Institute’s missile threat database lists only 19 countries that possess ballistic missiles. Excluding NATO members and allies, countries too far away to pose a threat (Taiwan, South Korea), and countries whose missile programs are obsolete (Iraq, Serbia), the number drops to nine – China, Egypt, India, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and Syria.

    Data compiled by the Center for American Progress (CAP) comes a little closer to the “more than 30” cited by NATO, listing 28 countries with ballistic missile capabilities.

    But 17 of them are countries possessing Scud or similar weapons with a maximum range of 300 kilometers (186 miles). Eliminating NATO members or aspiring members and countries that are too distant to pose a potential threat to NATO territory reduces those 17 to just six – Armenia, Belarus, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

    The other 11 countries cited by CAP are those with medium- and long-range missiles capabilities. Once NATO members (the U.S., Britain and France) are discounted, the number drops to eight – Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.

  • Erdogan Discusses Missile Defense with Obama Ahead of NATO’s Summit in Lisbon

    Erdogan Discusses Missile Defense with Obama Ahead of NATO’s Summit in Lisbon

    Erdogan Discusses Missile Defense with Obama Ahead of NATO’s Summit in Lisbon

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 207

    November 15, 2010

    By: Saban Kardas

    Turkey’s reserved position on the US-led missile shield ahead of NATO’s Lisbon Summit on November 19-20 continues to remain a major issue affecting Turkish-US relations. Since the US values this project as part of its overall policy on the Iranian nuclear program and its agenda of transforming NATO, Turkey’s rather reluctant attitude has raised questions about its commitment to the Alliance and its relations with the United States (EDM, October 21).

    There is growing consensus among foreign and domestic observers that pressure has been building on Turkey to clarify its position, especially at a time when most other NATO members (as well as Russia) seemingly adopted a cooperative position. If Turkey still treats NATO as the centerpiece of its defense and security policies, according to the argument, Turkey cannot diverge from its allies at this critical juncture.

    Earlier, Turkish officials dismissed any suggestion that Turkey is being pressured to support the project. However, one cannot deny the requirement of acting in concert with its allies, which is increasingly forcing Turkey to make a decision. In preparation for the Lisbon Summit, President Abdullah Gul convened a meeting, bringing together Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and other top officials (Anadolu Ajansi, November 5). Recent statements by Turkish leaders reflect a broad consensus at the apex of the Turkish state, formed through such meetings. Overall, it appears that Turkey is unlikely to yield to pressure, and will perhaps continue to negotiate until the Lisbon summit to have its demands recognized by its allies.

    The missile shield also emerged on the agenda during Erdogan’s meeting with President Barack Obama at the G20 Summit in Seoul, where he conveyed Turkey’s sensitivities regarding the project (www.cnnturk.com, November 13). Commenting on his meeting with Obama, Erdogan reiterated Ankara’s position on the missile shield. First, he emphasized that as a NATO member, Turkey would take part in the project provided that it is developed within the NATO umbrella. Second, in Ankara’s view, the plans for the missile shield should not list any country as the potential target. Third, the project should provide protection for the entire Turkish territory as well as other members, underscoring the principle of the indivisibility of security. Moreover, the US needs to offer Turkey clarifications about the location of the system, and the technical details about its deployment and decision-making procedures.

    Erdogan also added that Turkey has yet to reach a decision. However, Erdogan underlined that he found the US responsive to Turkish demands for further clarification in the ongoing talks, and the points he listed would constitute the basis of Ankara’s position. At the Lisbon summit, Turkey will be represented by Gul, Davutoglu and Defense Minister, Vecdi Gonul. Depending on whether NATO officials satisfy Turkish concerns, Ankara would make a decision on participation in the program.

    During a hearing in the Turkish parliament on the foreign ministry’s budget, Davutoglu, ruled out any pressure on Turkey, yet admitted that NATO is justified to make contingency plans against the threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles. However, Davutoglu made a nuanced point, which he has been reiterating for some time. Davutoglu accepts that as a member of the Alliance, Turkey will act in coordination with its allies, but he emphasized that as an equal partner, or “owner” as he described it, of the Alliance, Turkey wants its voice to be fully heard since decisions in NATO are taken collectively (Anadolu Ajansi, November 12, Hurriyet Daily News, October 30).

    In other words, Davutoglu believes that Turkey’s role in NATO is not solely confined to saying “yes” or “no” to a decision already taken; rather it wants to take part in making critical decisions that will affect the future of the Alliance as a whole. Davutoglu rejects the presentation of Turkey as an outlying country that needs to be convinced by the rest of the allies. Rather, Turkey is at the center of Alliance and wants to actively shape its threat perceptions. In that regard, the missile shield debate has a broader meaning for Turkish foreign policy. It provides a major test for the sustainability of Davutoglu’s new foreign policy doctrine that emphasizes independent action and agenda-setting in international affairs.

    Likewise, Davutoglu maintains that the US-led missile shield should not undermine Turkish relations with its neighbors. As Erdogan emphasized, Turkey opposes mentioning any country as the target of the anti-ballistic system. Although ballistic missile programs of many countries are cited as posing a risk of proliferation, hence they are used in justifying developing a NATO missile shield, it is no secret that Iran has been viewed as the most immediate source of such a threat. Since Turkey raised reservations about referring to Iran as a potential threat during an earlier NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels last month, there have been signs of acknowledging Ankara’s concerns by US and NATO officials. In an interview, NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, declined to name Iran as a potential threat that the planned missile shield is designed to counter (The New York Times, November 2).

    Turkish concern over the impact of the missile shield for relations with its neighbors again shows how another pillar in the new Turkish foreign policy affects Turkey’s thinking on this issue. Turkey has been working to overcome historical rivalries and build friendlier relations with its neighbors, as summarized in the “zero-problems-with-neighbors” doctrine. Turkey is concerned that if the proposed missile shield ends up singling out Iran or Syria, it might compromise its regional policy. Therefore, Davutoglu has been repeatedly arguing that NATO should avoid taking action that might draw new lines of division, making Turkey a “frontier country” as in the Cold War.

    Granted, Turkey so far has refrained from categorically rejecting the project, which adds some degree of predictability to its response in Lisbon. Turkey also has laid out its priorities unequivocally, which seem to be appreciated by other NATO members. It will be up to the other Allies to reach a common understanding with Turkey, so that a joint position is adopted in Lisbon.

    https://jamestown.org/program/erdogan-discusses-missile-defense-with-obama-ahead-of-natos-summit-in-lisbon/

  • NATO missiles in Turkey would defend Israel’s ‘crimes’

    NATO missiles in Turkey would defend Israel’s ‘crimes’

    RIA Novosti

    missile

    17:25 16/11/2010 MOSCOW, November 16 (RIA Novosti) – The possible deployment of NATO missile defense systems in Turkey is solely aimed at defending Israeli interests, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

    “There are dubious intentions behind the story which raised concerns in regional and Islamic countries. We are not a threat to regional countries, and the countries in our region, except the Zionist regime, are not a threat to us,” Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted by the ISNA news agency as saying.

    “The measure aims at supporting the Zionist regime and protecting it against its crimes,” Mehmanparast said, adding “we hope that regional nations would prevent such measures.”

    Iran has already expressed its concerns on the issue to Turkey, “our friend and neighboring country,” the spokesman said.

    Turkish media reported last week that Ankara would agree to deploy NATO missiles on its territory only on Turkey’s own terms. It said the system should be built by NATO, rather than the United States, that the shield should protect all the alliance’s member states, and that Ankara would not allow NATO to turn Turkey into the alliance’s frontline state, as it was during the Cold War.

    Earlier this month, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said Turkey would not agree to host a missile shield that targeted Iran, Turkey’s trade and political ally.

    “Mentioning one country, Iran… is wrong and will not happen. A particular country will not be targeted…We will definitely not accept that,” Gul said in an interview with the BBC’s Turkish service.

    Turkey is expected to announce its final decision on the missile defense shield during the NATO summit in Lisbon on November 18-19.

  • “Details Of Nato Missile-Defense Systems To Be Discussed Later”

    “Details Of Nato Missile-Defense Systems To Be Discussed Later”

    The U.S. permanent representative for NATO Ivo Daalder said that first a decision would be made, and details would be taken up later regarding the NATO missile-defense systems.

    daalder

    When asked his comment on the statement of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan who said that without direct command over any NATO missile-defense systems in his territory, it would be impossible to accept such a deal, Daalder said, “the NATO decision on cooperation with regard to missile defense is going to be a decision that focuses on making a commitment to get the capability in place to protect NATO’s European territory and populations against ballistic-missile threats.”

    “That’s the nature of the decision. All the details of how we’re going to implement that, including the command and control issues, are issues that will be addressed afterwards. First, we have to make a fundamental decision that NATO should have the capacity to build a system that can protect its population and territories,” said Daalder.

    Daalder said, “with that decision, we expect and want a decision to create the command-and-control backbone, the software backbone, that NATO would fund, and that would be controlled like — as part of any other NATO command structure.”

    In an earlier statement, Erdogan said, “if missile shield system is thought to be installed in our territories, its command should definitely be in our hands, otherwise it is impossible for us to accept such a thing.”

    The system will be debated in the NATO Summit which will take place in Lisbon on November 19-20.

    AA

  • “Turkey to Make Its Choice on NATO Missile System on Its Own Vision”

    “Turkey to Make Its Choice on NATO Missile System on Its Own Vision”

    davutoglu4Turkish foreign minister said on Monday that Turkey would make its choice on NATO’s missile defense system on its own vision. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu responded to questions at a program broadcast in Haber Turk TV.

    Regarding the missile defense system to be fulfilled by NATO, Davutoglu said Turkey did not want history to become abnormal again.

    Davutoglu underlined that Turkey was included in measures which NATO would take as a security organization. He said Turkey was an active member of NATO which is included in decision making process and one of the steering countries.

    Davutoglu said Turkey would not like to see any neighboring country within “definition of threat or target”, adding that, “if a member country says, ‘we perceive threat from the x country, it is the responsibility of all member countries to assume a stance against this threat. However, such a threat is not in question today.”

    Assessing the comments that there was opposition in Turkey against the system called as “missile shield” and that this was perceived as an imposition of the United States, Davutoglu said, “we should assess the issues in conjunctural sense. We will consider general tendency in Turkey and make decision accordingly.”

    Davutoglu said discussions on NATO shifted to another axis when compared with the past, “those are dynamic discussions. Those discussions should be assessed in line with national interests,” he said.

    Asked if a crisis is to erupt in the Lisbon summit of NATO, Davutoglu said, “why has NATO felt the need for a new strategic concept?Because it needed to make a new assessment in a way to include all those discussions. Turkey’s retired ambassador Umit Pamir is among those who wrote down the strategic concept. Thereby, this is a process which Turkey has active contribution.”

    “There is an expectation that a choice should be made between Iran and the United States. There is an expectation that the government will make a choice and would sour relations with the other party. Turkey makes its choice not over the relations it established with other countries, it makes the choice on its own vision,” Davutoglu said.

    “If you assume a right position, if your principles are strong, the elements seen as disadvantage for you turn into advantage in time,” Davutoglu said, and underlined that no international actor could disregard Turkey any more.

    Davutoglu said Turkey has been exerting efforts since 2005 for a diplomatic solution about nuclear talks, adding that, “we made this for our own national interests. We did not want to solve the nuclear problem to gain ‘diplomatic prestige’. Turkey is one of the strongest economies of the region. We don’t want walls, sanctions and restrictions around this economy.

    AA