|
Nato settles turkey rift { February 17 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/17/international/europe/17IRAQ.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/17/international/europe/17IRAQ.html
February 17, 2003
NATO Settles Rift Over Aid to Turks in Case of a War
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN with STEVEN R. WEISMAN
BRUSSELS, Feb. 16 — Resolving a bitter dispute that pitted the United States against France and Germany over military plans on Iraq, NATO agreed tonight to an American request to supply Turkey with equipment to defend itself in the event of a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
The settlement was reached at NATO headquarters in Brussels after several days of tough negotiations amid mounting concern that the alliance might rupture on the eve of a possible war.
Some officials said they hoped that the NATO agreement could pave the way for resolving the much more contentious dispute over authorizing the use of force against Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. But for now, European and American officials were pleased that one of the nastier disputes in NATO's history had been patched up.
"Alliance solidarity has prevailed," said George Robertson, the NATO secretary general.
But in a sign of possible fraying of support for the United States in the Middle East, a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo broke up today after failing to reach agreement calling for an emergency Arab summit meeting to press Mr. Hussein to comply with the United Nations disarmament demands.
The NATO decision brought widespread relief throughout the alliance.
The United States is "very pleased" by the agreement "to come to the defense of Turkey," said R. Nicholas Burns, the American ambassador to NATO. "We worked very hard to make sure that our core alliance responsibility of reaching out to an ally in a time of crisis was secured."
The dispute was resolved when it was agreed to have the military staff of the NATO Defense Planning Council, which does not include France, make plans for Turkey's defense, specifically by sending Awacs air reconnaissance planes, Patriot missiles and chemical and biological warfare defense teams to Turkey.
France had objected to such a step on the grounds that the Security Council had not yet authorized the use of force against Iraq. Shifting the decision to the planning council rather than NATO itself was a way of circumventing French opposition.
Germany went along with the compromise, and the last holdout, Belgium, agreed to go along under pressure from other NATO members. Belgium dropping its long-held demand that any NATO decision be linked to authorization of force by the Security Council.
After the announcement tonight, France, Germany and Belgium issued a joint statement reiterating their opposition to military action unless authorized by the Council.
Despite the NATO breakthrough, there were no signs today that the Council dispute was closer to being resolved. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, once again warned that the Bush administration wanted the Council to authorize the use of force within "weeks, not months" if Iraq continued to fail to comply on weapons inspections.
With millions of demonstrators in major cities in Europe and the United States protesting plans for a war, the Bush administration has shown no signs of abandoning that position. Ms. Rice said that it was "fine to protest" but that the demonstrators were ignoring the threat posed by Iraq.
In addition, in what appeared to be a reflection of the administration's growing impatience over its dispute with the allies, Ms. Rice warned that the rift between the United States and its Council allies was "playing into the hands" of Mr. Hussein and coming across as similar to the "appeasement" of Hitler in the 1930's.
But Ms. Rice also said the United States would continue trying to persuade the Europeans of the need for quick action on Iraq.
It was possible, she said, that France and others might be persuaded to act if Iraq defies the United Nations in the next few weeks on inspectors' demands to interview scientists freely and carry out unimpeded flights over Iraq.
Ms. Rice's comments were on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" and "Fox News Sunday."
Administration officials said over the weekend that the current plan for the United States is to set the "benchmarks" for Iraq in the next two weeks to test its willingness to disarm. Britain and the United States also plan to introduce a new resolution in the Security Council, as early as Tuesday, declaring Iraq to be in defiance of its obligations and to declare that it must now face "serious consequences" — code words for military force.
Aides to President Bush acknowledge that with France, Germany, Russia, China and other nations oppose such a resolution, there are not enough votes now to pass it. But the administration hopes that if Iraq fails the new tests, those countries might recognize the situation and at least not veto a resolution with "serious consequences" in it.
It takes 9 of 15 votes to pass a Security Council resolution, and France, Russia, China, the United States and Britain have veto power.
The NATO accord settled a dispute that administration officials had said was more about symbolism than substance.
In December, Washington asked the alliance to supply Patriot missiles, Awacs planes and chemical and biological warfare defense systems to Turkey. The package was intended as an incentive to persuade Turkey to authorize its own troops to take part in an Iraqi invasion and to allow American forces to use it as a base.
The administration was also hoping that help from NATO would bolster the Turkish government's political standing in the face of widespread popular opposition to a war.
NATO, which was established in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union, has a tradition of responding to many such requests by consensus, so that if any one nation objects, the decision is held up.
France and Germany, joined by Belgium, argued that the equipment should be supplied informally by individual alliance members but not by a formal decision of NATO. Indeed, although Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany has adamantly opposed the American stand on Iraq, he also allowed Patriot missiles to be loaned to the Netherlands, which would then ship them to Turkey.
From the European point of view, the United States demand of NATO was intended to serve as a political gesture for Turkey. Indeed, a senior administration official said a week ago that the primary objective was to "send a signal of resolve" to Mr. Hussein in Baghdad.
Some NATO officials said France was the main obstacle in the impasse, and that as soon as it was decided to shift the decision to the planning council, to which France does not belong, it took only a short time to authorize what Turkey needed. France won praise from some officials for agreeing to let the decision be made in this way.
Despite the NATO move, there continued to be signs today of difficulty in enlisting Turkey in support of a war against Iraq. Turkey was to vote on Tuesday on allowing American troops to use the country as a base of attack. But senior Turkish officials, apparently unhappy with American offers of economic aid, indicated today that they might postpone the vote.
The Turkish foreign minister, Yasir Yakis, had come to Washington to negotiate the package. Last month, some administration officials said Turkey would be offered a $4 billion aid package, but other reports have put the figure much higher. A Turkish official said in Ankara that Mr. Yakis's talks had not gone well.
Administration officials nonetheless expressed confidence that Turkey would eventually back an American-led war against Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald D. Rumsfeld and Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary, have invested much time and effort to court the Ankara government.
In another arena in the Middle East, there were signs that the Arab coalition that the United States has sought to enlist in the war was also becoming shaky.
The Arab foreign ministers in Cairo decided not to call an emergency meeting of Arab leaders to press Iraq to comply with United Nations disarmament demands, after Syria argued that the pressure should be placed on the United States instead.
The foreign ministers issued a communiqué saying Arab nations should deny support for a military action against Iraq. But several crucial Arab states, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, are already cooperating with the United States in building up forces against Iraq.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
|
|
