Since United States President Barack Obama’s announcement in September of a new missile defense structure in Europe that will provide missile defense capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defense against the threat of missile attacks than the program proposed by former President George W. Bush, US delegations have been visiting various NATO capitals, including Ankara. The US delegations have explained the deployment plans and have heard the reactions of concerned members of the alliance.
Obama said the change of gears was based on an “updated intelligence assessment” about Iran’s ability to hit Europe with missiles.
Turkey is the only NATO member country bordering Iran, which has been involved in a serious dispute with the international community over its alleged nuclear arms program while testing long-range missiles as a show of force.
The Hürriyet daily reported early this week that a US delegation headed by Ellen Tauscher, under secretary of state for arms control, was in Ankara in November proposing that Ankara host radars, a component of NATO’s missile shield project.
She also suggested that while deploying radars on Turkish territory, anti-ballistic missiles could be deployed in some other European countries.
The same report stated that Turkey had reservations about the deployment plans. It is understood that Turkey seeks the deployment of all systems to all relevant countries instead of hosting radars though the missile systems have not yet been deployed in any given country.
Turkey was engaged in a series of talks with both the US and Israel over the establishment of a missile shield in its territory in the early 2000s. But concerned about its neighbors’ perception that Turkey would target them, Ankara opted for a NATO missile shield program instead, although the alliance’s project has been moving slowly. But NATO has accelerated its missile shield project -- something that Turkey is a party to as the member of the alliance -- in recent years.
While Ankara has been actively involved in NATO’s missile shield program, the rationale behind its search for the acquisition of costly long-range missiles should be questioned.
One reason for Turkey’s ill-defined arms procurement policies in general has been its unaccountable military, which is not under any civilian, democratic oversight. The other reason is Turkey’s historic mistrust of NATO, in which it is a member, as well as of its close ally, the US, in particular since its arms embargo following the Turkish operation in Cyprus to avert a possible Greek invasion of the island.
However, there is a need for the Turkish military to overcome its mistrust toward the alliance as well toward the US. Above all, civilian, democratic oversight of arms procurement is vital to prevent unnecessary arms purchases.
Turkey has recently extended the deadline for a response regarding its tender for the purchase of 12 long-range aerial missiles until Jan. 15, 2010. US Lockheed Martin and Raytheon joined forces in the project, offering Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) and PAC-3 systems, while Chinese and Russian companies are also expected make bids in the scheme.
