Arms Control Association (ACA) British American Security Information Council (BASIC) Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) Nuclear Policy Paper No. 5 April 2011 1 Mustafa Kibaroglu Turkey, NATO & and Nuclear Sharing: Prospects after NATO's Lisbon Summit In the run-up to the Lisbon summit meeting of NATO on November 19-20, 2010, where the new Strategic Concept of the alliance was adopted, the status of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in five European countries, namely Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey was a significant topic of debate, and remains so afterwards. Some have suggested the speedy withdrawal of these weapons while others have endorsed their extended stay on the continent for as long as there are nuclear threats to the alliance.2 Turkey, as a host, has long been supportive changes in the deployment of theater of retaining U.S. nuclear weapons on its nuclear weapons in other NATO states is territory for various reasons and also more doubtful. expected others to continue to deploy these weapons as part of the burden sharing and This being the case for the allied countries solidarity principles of the alliance. Turkey in general, and from Turkey’s perspective in believes that the presence of U.S. nuclear particular, this paper will present primarily weapons in Europe strengthens the U.S. the views in the political, diplomatic, and commitment to transatlantic security, and military circles in Turkey with respect to the contributes to the credibility of the extended prolonged deployment of the U.S. tactical deterrent. It therefore maintains a policy nuclear weapons on Turkish soil. It that implicitly supports deployment in concludes that Turkey, preferably together Turkey, one that has remained the same for with other NATO members, should take the decades, and continues under the current initiative in asking the United States to draw Justice and Development Party (known as them down and remove them entirely, in the AKP, for its Turkish acronym) government. interests of Turkish security and alliance Whether it would survive significant cohesion. Nuclear Policy Paper No. 5 - Kibaroglu – Turkey, NATO & and Nuclear Sharing page 1 Turkey’s official stance toward the location, the Incirlik base near Adana on the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons on its eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey.5 All soil other nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from the bases mentioned above. Moreover, It is not the practice of NATO members to the Turkish Air Force no longer has any discuss nuclear deployments in Europe; operational link with the remaining tactical details remain classified. Even the identity nuclear weapons deployed at Incirlik.6 F- of host states is a secret, so there are 104s have not been in service since 1994. F- inevitable tensions for any politician to 4s are still in service after modernization of admit to such deployments. But Turkey has some 54 of them by Israeli Aerospace unique sensitivities that have prevented Industries in 1997. Yet, only the F-16 discussion even in private of its hosting of “Fighting Falcons” of the Turkish Air Force U.S. nuclear warheads. Turkey’s stance is participate in NATO’s nuclear strike largely unchanged since the first U.S. exercises known as “Steadfast Noon,” nuclear weapons were deployed in Turkey during which crews are trained in loading, 3 in February 1959. unloading and employing B61 tactical nuclear weapons. The Turkish aircraft in Profile of U.S. nuclear weapons in Turkey these exercises serve as a non-nuclear air By the mid-1980s, “the United States [had] defense escort rather than a nuclear strike 7 store[d] some 500 nuclear warheads in force. Turkey, and as many as 300 of them [were] Significance of nuclear weapons for Turkey bombs for aircraft. U.S. nuclear bombs [were] stored at four airbases—Eskisehir, Even in the absence of an imminent nuclear Murted, Erhac, and Balikesir—for use by threat to Turkey’s security, the view among four Turkish Air Force units. The Turkish both civilian and military Turkish security squadrons consisting of nuclear-certified elites does not seem to have changed since aircraft as F-104s, F-4s, and F-100s, [were] the Cold War. One explanation for the armed with four types of bombs with yields uniformity of their views lies in the prestige up to a couple of hundred kilotons. The U.S. attributed to nuclear weapons. There are Army also [had] nuclear weapons in specific reasons that explain why Turkish Turkey, [which were] allocated for support government officials and civilian and of the Turkish First and Third Armies. military bureaucrats want to retain U.S. Custodian detachments at Cakmakli, nuclear weapons on Turkey’s soil, first and Ortakoy, Corlu, Izmit, and Erzurum store[d] foremost being the perceived threat from the about 190 warheads for obsolete 1950s- still uncertain international security vintage Turkish Army Honest John short- environment. Turkish government officials’ range missile launchers (four battalions) and views were expressed (in not-for-attribution 4 32 eight-inch guns.” notes) as follows: Turkey still hosts U.S. tactical nuclear “Nuclear weapons continue to preserve their weapons on its territory, albeit in much critical importance for the security of the smaller numbers. They are limited to one [North Atlantic] alliance, yet they are page 2 Nuclear Policy Paper No. 5 - Kibaroglu – Turkey, NATO & and Nuclear Sharing regarded more as political weapons. Our potent symbol of Turkey’s belonging to the country is committed to the vision of a West and the U.S. nuclear weapons world free of nuclear weapons, and thus we stationed in Turkey have been seen, in this support every effort in that direction. … respect, as a symbol of Turkey’s privileged Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that status within NATO. In this context, there is attaining such a goal will not be possible an unexpressed fear that an American any time soon, and that more time and decision to withdraw nuclear weapons from patience will be needed to realize this Turkey could weaken Turkey’s position objective. Hence, so long as these weapons within the alliance, and hence undermine to do still exist in other parts of the world, it is an extent the attraction of NATO member- indispensible for NATO to preserve a safe, ship in the minds of many. This perspective secure, and effective nuclear arsenal that remained prevalent in the higher echelons of will be capable of deterring all sorts of the Turkish state mechanism through enemies in order to ensure the security of all dozens of governments formed by various of its allies. … [In NATO’s new Strategic political parties coming from different ideo- Concept] our country want[ed] to see an logical dispositions and diverse worldviews explicit confirmation of the commitment [of for half a century. It has been so even with the alliance] to the preservation of an the AKP in power since 2002, which has effective and credible deterrent by way of brought a new approach to Turkish foreign maintaining a combination of conventional policy making by opening many of the and nuclear weapons capability. In addition taboo-like issues to public debate. The AKP to that, our determination for the government has taken a series of bold and preservation of the transatlantic link and courageous steps in Turkey’s long- solidarity as well as fair risk and burden established security strategies, such as the sharing to continue to constitute the Cyprus issue as well as the relations with fundamental principles of the nuclear Middle Eastern neighbors in particular, in a- strategy of the alliance will persist.”8 ccordance with the “zero conflict” doctrine, which is a brainchild of the current Foreign The above quote emphasizes that while Minister Ahmed Davutoglu. Notwith- Turkey supports nuclear disarmament, in standing its reformist attitude toward many the foreseeable future it wants to maintain traditional foreign policy issues of Turkey, nuclear weapons on its soil for both security the AKP government as well has preferred 9 and political reasons. to shy away from displaying its well-known pragmatism in the area of U.S. nuclear Logic behind deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons that are stationed in Turkey. weapons in Turkey The decision to deploy nuclear weapons in There is, indeed, a very simple logic Turkey was first taken at the North Atlantic connecting Turkey’s membership within Council meeting of the alliance during the NATO and the deployment of U.S. nuclear Paris summit in December 1957. At that weapons on its territory. For a long time, the time, there was the right-wing and conser- Turkish political and security elite10 has vative Democratic Party (known as DP, for viewed Turkey’s NATO membership as a Nuclear Policy Paper No. 5 - Kibaroglu – Turkey, NATO & and Nuclear Sharing page 3 its Turkish acronym) government under the This all ensured that politicians focused Premiership of Adnan Menderes, which upon issues that were related to the most came to power with the first multi-party immediate concerns of the ruling elite, such general elections in the country in 1950 and as strengthening the economy and consolidated its government with the maintaining order in the country. Strategic following general elections in 1955. Prime matters, such as the hosting of U.S. nuclear Minister Menderes was said to be lukewarm missiles (Jupiters) or the atomic bombs to the idea of deploying nuclear weapons in stationed in several bases all over Turkey, Turkey, possibly due to the possible were left to the military and maybe a negative consequences of such a decision handful of civilian experts who had no for Turkey in its relations with the Soviet desire whatsoever to discuss these issues Union, which had expressed its oppo- publicly, for fear of losing control.