POLICY BRIEF GLOBAL POLITICAL TRENDS CENTER (GPoT)

NATO’S LISBON SUMMIT: NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT AND THE MISSILE DEFENCE by YALIM ERALP

December 2010 | GPoT PB no. 20

ABSTRACT The Lisbon Summit was important for two reasons. Firstly, the acceptance of a new strategic concept, the seventh since NATO was founded. The new concept comes after the Al Kaide attacks, the Afghan and

Iraq wars and a greater threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons. In addition, relations with Russia were reset, making them of strategic importance. The second important aspect is the acceptance of a missile defence system whereby all populations, territory and forces will be protected.

Every NATO summit in its own right is Afghanistan, the US and some important. Yet when a new NATO allies invaded Iraq, the strategic concept is adopted a proliferation of nuclear weapons summit can be considered as a became more acute and relations milestone. The Lisbon Summit with Russia had to be “reset.” The adopted the seventh strategic world is no longer unipolar. Power is concept since NATO’s inception, shifting to the East from the West. which means that almost every Moreover, the global financial crisis decade a new concept ihas been and defence costs are inevitably adopted. Given the changing linked. Now NATO forces are circumstances of the balance of engaged in “out of area” actions power among states this is and their defence requires new inevitable. force structures and weapons. Giles Merritt, Director of Security and After the 1999 Washington summit, Defence Agenda at the Atlantic The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Council of ‘s 18th International menace of Al Kaide necessitated Conference in Antalya on the adoption of a new concept. December 3, 2010 aptly pointed NATO became engaged in

out that new force structures and GLOBAL POLITICAL TRENDS CENTER (GPoT)

2 NATO’S LISBON SUMMIT: NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT AND THE MISSILE DEFENCE, YALIM ERALP weapons systems are necessary to omitted the word consensus. In meet the changing risks and addition, Article 10 of the Lisbon challenges. text puts greater stress on the threat posed by terrosim by indicating Last but not least, the public wants that it is a “direct threat.” to know why NATO is stil needed. NATO’s open door policy continues. However, there are two limitations, the first one geographic: only The Strategic Concept European democracies can be members. The second one, in my The Lisbon strategic concept is view, is political. How a potential shorter and punchier than the one candidate for membership affects adopted in Washington and one relations with Russia is the key. that the public can better understand. This is an important And this brings me to relations with change, as In times of financial Russia. Here the biggest difference crisis, public and parliamentary between the 1999 Washington support become all the more concept and 2010 Lisbon concept necessary. is relations with Russia. Paragraph 36 of the Washington text speaks of Regarding content, whereas the NATO-Russia Founding Act as the Washington text listed five core basis. In paragraphs 33 ve 34 of the tasks for the Alliance – security, Lisbon text, much consultations, stronger language is deterrence and NATO’s open door policy used on the defence, crisis continues. However, there importance of close management and are two limitations, the first relations with Russia, partnerships – the one geographic: only that cooperation new text has European democracies can with Russia is of narrowed those tasks be members. The second strategic importance. to three: collective one, in my view, is political. Indeed, this is the defence, crisis How a potential candidate consequence of the management and for membership affects “reset” of relations cooperative security. relations with Russia is the between the US and This numerical key. Russia. Russia is not a change does not member of NATO but mean that has a weight almost that of a consultations are left out, since member. paragraph five of the new text in indicates that NATO remains the Similarly, Paragraph 32 of the Lisbon unique and essential transatlantic text is much warmer on NATO-EU forum for consultations. If one were relations than the old strategic to search for differences in wording, concept, and the EU is now what catches one’s eye is that in considered an “essential partner.” the Washington text under crisis This is meaningful since President management the word consensus Obama has sometimes been exists whereas the new text has accused of ignoring the EU. Here of GLOBAL POLITICAL TRENDS CENTER (GPoT)

3 NATO’S LISBON SUMMIT: NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT AND THE MISSILE DEFENCE, YALIM ERALP course, Turkey- relations According to a document that remains a sticking point. appeared in the Wikileaks cables, there was a fear that Turkey might spoil the party. There was recognition that Turkey’s voice Missile Defence System would be louder. Turkey had said three things on the missile defence: For the implementation of the concept, political guidance will be a) The system should not be placed prepared. Naturally, the Lisbon against a certain country (which Summit and the strategic concept means Iran should not be named). should be read together with the summit declaration. Paragraph 37 b) It should cover all NATO territory. of the Declaration deals with Ballistic Missile Defence, which was c) It should be a NATO project the main menu of the Summit. under NATO command and Conceived in 2002 by President control. Bush, the system then intended to defend NATO deployed forces and According to a cable published by was to be fixed on the ground. It Wikileaks, Prime Minister Erdoğan was not a NATO project aimed at told President Barack Obama that protecting from ICBM’s. President “the project must be implemented Obama changed the concept to in a NATO context to diminish the also protect NATO European political cost that his government populations, territory and forces. will likely bear both in terms of President Obama has promoted a domestic politics and in Turkey’s less costly, more flexible and relations with Iran.” The American phased system of radars and anti- side wondered “how much NATO ballistic missiles that will be enough for will have Turkish leaders.” components in Obama said that for the first and at sea. time “we have agreed to Despite denials by (the phases of which develop a missile defence Turks that the US had are against short capability that is strong made a proposal to range missiles, enough to cover all NATO base an AN/TPY-2 medium range European territory and (transportable radar missiles and long populations as well as the surveillance) and range missiles and United States”. other missile defence ICBM’s.) The cost, assets in Turkey, a according to a NATO spokesman, secret cable from the US Embassy in will be 1.5 billion to be managed Ankara says the opposite. Indeed, over ten years. In President the cable reads the following: “We Obama’s words, for the first time have made the point to the Turks “we have agreed to develop a that a decision to not base the missile defence capability that is AN/TPY-2 radar in Turkey is strong enough to cover all NATO essentially a decision to opt out of European territory and populations missile defence coverage for Turkey; this would not be a political as well as the United States.” GLOBAL POLITICAL TRENDS CENTER (GPoT)

4 NATO’S LISBON SUMMIT: NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT AND THE MISSILE DEFENCE, YALIM ERALP consequence, but just a fact based are different. Should Turkey opt out on physics and geometry.” Turkey’s of the system, this would have main concern seems to be relations political consequences. Turkey has with Iran as Foreign Minister said that it is not threatened by Davutoğlu, called the Iranian Iranian missiles. However, Turkey Foreign Minister after the Lisbon was planning to set up its own Summit to brief him on Summit national missile defence system. If decisions, which, in my view, is an that were not for Iran, then one can unprecedented act. Another legitimately ask who then? unmentioned concern on the part of Turkey seems to be whether will benefit from the missile defence system. Turkey believes Global NATO that this would not be necessary As far as membership in NATO is since the system exists already for concerned, membership cannot Israel. be global at least for geographic The missile defence system has reasons: the Alliance is limited to been the main menu of President Europe. But the challenges are Obama’s NATO approach global and this forces the Alliance strengthening the transatlantic link. to act globally. To what extent the If Turkey had vetoed that system at Alliance will act globally will Lisbon, this would have depend on several factors. The first marginalised Turkey in is the war in Afghanistan. How will NATO and would Afghanistan and have damaged US- Pakistan look like after Turkey relations The costs of anti-ballistic Alliance forces leave immeasurably. Still, missiles will be borne is an important tough negotiations nationally as needs of each element. The second, are ahead of us until country are different. no less important the report on Should Turkey opt out of the factor, is relations with basing, command system, this would have Russia. If cooperation and control political consequences. with Russia goes well technical details are Turkey has said that it is not then the Alliance will presented to NATO threatened by Iranian tend to act more defence ministers. If missiles. However, Turkey freely globally. the radar is based in was planning to set up its Perhaps the litmus test Turkey, Patriot and own national missile lies in Russia’s THAAD systems will defence system. partnership in the probably be missile defence needed to protect system. If relations with the radars. It is said that radars will Russia sour, will the latter try to beef be provided by the US at no cost. up Collective Security Cooperation The US will provide the missiles Treaty Organisation as a rival to protecting the radars. Costs of anti- NATO? Or will it turn to Shanghai ballistic missiles will be borne Cooperation Organisation? How nationally as needs of each country will the EU’s military capacities fare

in the coming decade? The present GLOBAL POLITICAL TRENDS CENTER (GPoT)

5 NATO’S LISBON SUMMIT: NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT AND THE MISSILE DEFENCE, YALIM ERALP financial crisis does not augur well for the EU in the military field. Last but not least is the question of the cohesion of the Alliance. Giles Merritt believes that ”unthinking EU support for US ‘adventurism‘ is over;

Europeans would support the US when its strength is needed and US policies are acceptable.” This is in addition to Turkey’s new attitude. The challenges and risks are global; just how global they will be will largely depend on those factors.

YALIMERALP

Ambassador Yalım Eralp (retired) is a member of the High Advisory

Board at the GPoT, a faculty member in the Department of of Istanbul

Kültür University, and a diplomatic commentator at CNN TÜRK. In 1962 he received his bachelor’s degree from the Faculty of Political Sciences at Ankara University. His career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spanned from 1962 to 2000, during which time he worked in New York, Brussels, Washington, D.C., Rome, Vienna, and India, where he served as ambassador.

The opinions and conclusion

expressed herein are those of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of GPoT or Istanbul Kültür University.

GLOBAL POLITICAL TRENDS CENTER (GPoT)

6 NATO’S LISBON SUMMIT: NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT AND THE MISSILE DEFENCE, YALIM ERALP

ABOUT GPoT

GLOBAL POLITCAL TRENDS CENTER

Global Political Trends Center (GPoT) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution established under the auspices of Istanbul Kültür University in 2008.

Our mission is to conduct high quality, independent and innovative research and education, acting as a link between policy-making institutions, academia, civil society and the media.

The Center aims to achieve this by routinely bringing together opinion leaders, government officials and other policy-makers, analysts and members of the media from Turkey, the region and elsewhere. Our activities range from conducting projects and research that analyze the contemporary social,

political and economic trends in regional and international politics and producing policy recommendations, contributing to public debate through roundtable discussions and international conferences to publishing policy briefs and monographs, among others.

In accordance with its mission, GPoT Center has been active in virtually all fronts concerning not only Turkish foreign policy but the current regional and international agenda, including Turkey’s European Union accession process, the Cyprus issue, NATO, the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process, issues in the and North Africa, national and regional democratization, the Arab-Israeli Conflict and, most recently, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

CONTACT DETAILS

Global Political Trends Center (GPoT) Istanbul Kültür University Atakoy Campus, Bakirkoy 34 156 Istanbul, Turkey www.gpotcenter.org [email protected] Tel: +90 212 498 44 65 Fax: +90 212 498 44 05 GLOBAL POLITICAL TRENDS CENTER (GPoT)