Tweet
Likelihood of Turkish Intervention in War
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 29 November 2014, 13:25
NATO regional policy has the best prospects of all other doctrines of
the alliance because the main challenges are encountered in different
regions, and NATO cannot continue to implement its policy of military
operations without the assistance and support of new partners,
especially in the regions neighboring with or relatively far from
Europe.
NATO has several problems relating to treaty and concepts as NATO is
seen by the UN as a regional organization, and any advancement of the
troops of the alliance in different regions beyond the area of mandate
generates a high risk and counteraction of different states.
The problem is not the understanding of priorities of the global
security system but the shortage of resources and controversies among
leading and other NATO members. The question is whether the alliance
is capable of understanding the initiatives of the United States,
France and other states on military operations rapidly and in a
coordinated way.
Greece, for example, does not think that NATO should carry out an
operation towards Syria while Turkey insisted on more active
involvement of NATO. In this case, in fact, all the NATO members think
that a military intervention in Syria is meaningless and will have
severe consequences.
At the same time, while the United States, the United Kingdom and
France are taking an active part in support of several oppositions
groups, Germany and other states are quite reserved in their reaction
to this intervention.
The attitudes of NATO member states regarding the operations in Libya
and Mali were quite controversial and did not result in the
participation of those states which took a more active part in lasting
operations in NATO. NATO is cautious with the developments in the Near
East where the United States has limited its activity and will
possibly limit its presence as well.
NATO does not intend to develop new programs for new partners but
everyone understands that it is time to expand participation of new
partners in NATO operations. The problem of expenditures occurs
because part of new partners does not have money for broader
participation in operations despite the assistance of NATO member
states.
Therefore, the new partners need to seek for direct partnership with
member states to receive their assistance for operations. Experts
agree that it would have been more interesting to develop programs for
new members but at this stage the existing programs are universal and
suppose diverse participation, mostly voluntary for new partners.
The problems that had occurred over 14 years ago between Turkey and
the United States have not been resolved because Turkey puts forth
ambitious demands that often irritates most members of the alliance.
Turkey's policy which is at the same time directed at the expansion of
its regional influence, implementation of the "European project", i.e.
membership to the European Union, as well as provision of its national
security, occasionally leads to controversies with other NATO member
states, first of all the leading members of the alliance.
The United States is trying to maintain equal relations with Turkey,
and the reason is not only the interest of the Americans in the
services of Turkey in the Near East and other directions but also the
fears that Turkey will implement a policy that will not be in line
with the interests of the United States and NATO in these regions.
Experts agree that currently Turkey has assumed a tactics that rules
out distance and too problematic issues in its relations with the
United States and NATO, seeking for their support. At the same time,
Turkey has not given up on its policy of intensifying its influence in
the regions, including the Near East.
On the whole, the prospects of the U.S.-Turkish relations have not
been clarified and remain uncertain. The United States is considering
Turkey in the close perspective, trying to develop resolutions on
problems for several months and two or three years.
Currently, it is difficult to predict the development of the Turkish
policy on the Western community, as well as in respect to the regions.
Nevertheless, Turkey intends to stay loyal to NATO and the United
States, realizing the possibility of a negative effect of too many
problems in the domestic and economic spheres. Turkey is facing
certain economic problems and is reluctant to spoil its relations with
rich and strong partners.
One can suggest views of experts working for NATO and the European
Union on the possibility of the role and behavior of Turkey relating
to a possible military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as
well as the attitude of Turkey to development of NATO-Armenia
cooperation.
As a sovereign state, Turkey gives significant military and technical
assistance to Azerbaijan under the agreement on mutual assistance
according to which Turkey is entitled to military intervention in a
military conflict to help Azerbaijan. At the same time, it may happen
within the framework of international law if Turkey or its ally
undergoes aggression.
At this point, a major problem occurs - to what extent will it be
possible to consider Armenia an aggressor against Turkey or
Azerbaijan? In answer to the question to what extent NATO and the
United Nations will be objective in their assessment of such a
situation, experts said that NATO member states have all this
necessary information.
In fact, the agreement between Turkey and Azerbaijan is not legitimate
in terms of the NATO Charter but NATO is reluctant to bring up this
matter. The existence of such an agreement may cause a complicated
situation for NATO actions in case of occurrence of a military
conflict.
As a UN member, Turkey cannot launch military actions unless
aggression or UN sanctions are in place. Currently, Turkey is not
interested in a war, especially in the South Caucasus that may cause a
military conflict under an unclear vision.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33277#sthash.YTRGnHWP.dpuf
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 29 November 2014, 13:25
NATO regional policy has the best prospects of all other doctrines of
the alliance because the main challenges are encountered in different
regions, and NATO cannot continue to implement its policy of military
operations without the assistance and support of new partners,
especially in the regions neighboring with or relatively far from
Europe.
NATO has several problems relating to treaty and concepts as NATO is
seen by the UN as a regional organization, and any advancement of the
troops of the alliance in different regions beyond the area of mandate
generates a high risk and counteraction of different states.
The problem is not the understanding of priorities of the global
security system but the shortage of resources and controversies among
leading and other NATO members. The question is whether the alliance
is capable of understanding the initiatives of the United States,
France and other states on military operations rapidly and in a
coordinated way.
Greece, for example, does not think that NATO should carry out an
operation towards Syria while Turkey insisted on more active
involvement of NATO. In this case, in fact, all the NATO members think
that a military intervention in Syria is meaningless and will have
severe consequences.
At the same time, while the United States, the United Kingdom and
France are taking an active part in support of several oppositions
groups, Germany and other states are quite reserved in their reaction
to this intervention.
The attitudes of NATO member states regarding the operations in Libya
and Mali were quite controversial and did not result in the
participation of those states which took a more active part in lasting
operations in NATO. NATO is cautious with the developments in the Near
East where the United States has limited its activity and will
possibly limit its presence as well.
NATO does not intend to develop new programs for new partners but
everyone understands that it is time to expand participation of new
partners in NATO operations. The problem of expenditures occurs
because part of new partners does not have money for broader
participation in operations despite the assistance of NATO member
states.
Therefore, the new partners need to seek for direct partnership with
member states to receive their assistance for operations. Experts
agree that it would have been more interesting to develop programs for
new members but at this stage the existing programs are universal and
suppose diverse participation, mostly voluntary for new partners.
The problems that had occurred over 14 years ago between Turkey and
the United States have not been resolved because Turkey puts forth
ambitious demands that often irritates most members of the alliance.
Turkey's policy which is at the same time directed at the expansion of
its regional influence, implementation of the "European project", i.e.
membership to the European Union, as well as provision of its national
security, occasionally leads to controversies with other NATO member
states, first of all the leading members of the alliance.
The United States is trying to maintain equal relations with Turkey,
and the reason is not only the interest of the Americans in the
services of Turkey in the Near East and other directions but also the
fears that Turkey will implement a policy that will not be in line
with the interests of the United States and NATO in these regions.
Experts agree that currently Turkey has assumed a tactics that rules
out distance and too problematic issues in its relations with the
United States and NATO, seeking for their support. At the same time,
Turkey has not given up on its policy of intensifying its influence in
the regions, including the Near East.
On the whole, the prospects of the U.S.-Turkish relations have not
been clarified and remain uncertain. The United States is considering
Turkey in the close perspective, trying to develop resolutions on
problems for several months and two or three years.
Currently, it is difficult to predict the development of the Turkish
policy on the Western community, as well as in respect to the regions.
Nevertheless, Turkey intends to stay loyal to NATO and the United
States, realizing the possibility of a negative effect of too many
problems in the domestic and economic spheres. Turkey is facing
certain economic problems and is reluctant to spoil its relations with
rich and strong partners.
One can suggest views of experts working for NATO and the European
Union on the possibility of the role and behavior of Turkey relating
to a possible military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as
well as the attitude of Turkey to development of NATO-Armenia
cooperation.
As a sovereign state, Turkey gives significant military and technical
assistance to Azerbaijan under the agreement on mutual assistance
according to which Turkey is entitled to military intervention in a
military conflict to help Azerbaijan. At the same time, it may happen
within the framework of international law if Turkey or its ally
undergoes aggression.
At this point, a major problem occurs - to what extent will it be
possible to consider Armenia an aggressor against Turkey or
Azerbaijan? In answer to the question to what extent NATO and the
United Nations will be objective in their assessment of such a
situation, experts said that NATO member states have all this
necessary information.
In fact, the agreement between Turkey and Azerbaijan is not legitimate
in terms of the NATO Charter but NATO is reluctant to bring up this
matter. The existence of such an agreement may cause a complicated
situation for NATO actions in case of occurrence of a military
conflict.
As a UN member, Turkey cannot launch military actions unless
aggression or UN sanctions are in place. Currently, Turkey is not
interested in a war, especially in the South Caucasus that may cause a
military conflict under an unclear vision.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33277#sthash.YTRGnHWP.dpuf