New nuclear trends to require new thinking for Turkey

The changing role of nuclear weapons in European security will require a serious reassessment of Turkey’s security policies in the near future, Turkish and foreign experts warned.

Discussions at a panel in Istanbul last week made clear there are a lot of uncertainties as to the future of nuclear weapons in Europe and the need for Turkey to seek answers to questions arising from this uncertainty. One such question is the course of action Turkey will take if any of the five NATO countries known to harbor U.S. nuclear warheads decide on the removal of these weapons.

Speaking at a panel organized jointly by the Istanbul-based Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies and the German Friedrich Ebert Stiftung think tank, a foreign expert recalled debates in the Netherlands and Germany over the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from their soils. “If the Netherlands and Germany decide to remove U.S. weapons, Belgium will not sustain them for long,” said Ian Anthony of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, or SIPRI. That will leave Italy and Turkey with U.S. nuclear warheads. The credibility of the alliance’s nuclear posture requires participation. Yet looking at the current political trends, solidarity and burden-sharing is diminishing, according to Anthony.

Turkey considers the existence of U.S. weaponry in European territory to reflect alliance solidarity and risk sharing, said a Turkish expert, speaking at the same panel. “If only two allied nations are left alone in this equation, there will need to be a serious reflection on what Turkey’s role will be in the future,” said an expert who asked to remain anonymous. “If only a few countries participate in the burden sharing, then the purpose of these weapons, which is to display solidarity, will not be met. Turkey will be asking if it will shoulder such a burden,” said the same expert.

Positive environment

Serious reflection is required on nuclear issues, not only on the part of Turkey but regarding all allied members, since NATO has currently embarked on a process of reviewing its role and mission for the next decade, parallel to an ongoing review of the main parameters of the Alliance’s nuclear policy for the 21st century. This exercise comes at a moment where the hope for nuclear arms reduction is growing. Hope has increased with U.S. President Barack Obama’s commitment to work for a world without nuclear weapons, as well as trends among nuclear states like France and the United Kingdom to pursue the further reduction of nuclear stockpiles.

Yet there is no reason to think that NATO will move away from being “a nuclear alliance,” according to Anthony, who penned a report last year on the future of nuclear weapons in NATO.

But finding a consensus among NATO members on the main tenets of a nuclear policy will prove to be a significant challenge. One of the problems will stem from the economic consequences of maintaining the nuclear posture. The enlargement of NATO has extended the distance between the places where weapons are stored and the periphery of the alliance, said Anthony, adding that the aircraft carrying these weapons not only have limited range but are aging. Yet in the present economic environment, it will be highly difficult for governments to convince their public for an expensive modernization program.

The Turkish expert, on the other hand, said since the Cold War is over, the emphasis has been more on non-Article 5 operations – military actions that are not directly related to the defense of an ally under attack, but military operations on non-member countries, like Afghanistan. Yet the Turkish government believes that the commitment for the protection of allied members from any attack should remain at the core of NATO’s mission. Therefore while planning on resource allocation, the requirements for non-Article 5 operations should not weight over the traditional elements of NATO’s mission, said the Turkish expert.

The challenge as to the nuclear policy will be finding the right balance between maintaining a posture of nuclear deterrence and disarmament. Although Turkey shares Obama’s nuclear-free world policy, there is no empirical evidence at this stage showing that disarmament is reciprocated by the proliferators of nuclear arms, said the Turkish expert. While there has been serious reduction of nuclear weaponry on the part of NATO after the Cold War, the same period has seen the resurgence of proliferation efforts, he said. He added that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses a potential threat to NATO members.

“A weakening in the alliance resolve will not give an incentive to proliferators to forgo their weapon programs,” he said, adding that NATO’s new strategy should not be based on dimming lights on the continuing relevance of nuclear weapons while highlighting support to arms control. “NATO should not shy away from a nuclear posture to convey its determination that aggression is an irrational option,” he said.

The situation is so complex that whatever Turkey decides it will be difficult to achieve the most rational and optimum outcome, said Ahmet Han, a Turkish academic. “On the one hand you have a divergence of views on nuclear issues between European Union and NATO. Then you also have different views within the European Union. Turkey is a member of NATO yet a candidate of EU. Turkey has special strategic relations with United States. None of the actors have converging views,” said Han, who is the director of Politics and International Relations Studies Center of Istanbul University.

If Germany, Netherlands and Belgium decide to move U.S. nuclear arms from their territory, Turkey will prefer to continue to keep them, Han told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review. But this will take place only if the EU does not give the message that doing so will harm Turkey’s accession process. For Turkey, the most convenient course of action is to benefit from NATO’s nuclear posture. Yet given the uncertainties about the future of NATO’s nuclear policies and the efforts in the Middle East to obtain nuclear arms, these factors might at one stage force Turkey itself to decide to become a nuclear power, said Han.