Turkey's Request to NATO for Assistance

Senate Floor Statement of Senator Biden
Floor Statement: Turkey's Request to NATO for Assistance
Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Mr. BIDEN: I rise today to condemn in the strongest terms the rejection yesterday by France, Germany, and Belgium of Turkey's formal request for defensive help under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. This was the first invocation of Article 4 in the fifty-four year history of NATO.

Article 4 mandates alliance members to consult "whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened." Fearing a preemptive attack by Iraq, Turkey requested Patriot missile batteries, AWACS radar planes, and specialized units for countering chemical and biological warfare.
Sixteen of the nineteen NATO members voted to grant Turkey its request. France, Germany, and Belgium, however, refused, thereby blocking the request under the alliance's consensus principle. Paris, Berlin, and Brussels argued that even this kind of defensive action by NATO would appear to commit the alliance to war before the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq had issued their second report this Friday.

I have spoken at length on the situation in Iraq on the floor of this chamber and in many other venues. Today, therefore, I will restrict my comments to yesterday's action in NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC) and the potential ramifications for the future of the alliance.
Frankly, Mr. President, I am shocked and outraged at the behavior of France, Germany, and Belgium. I could easily give an emotional response, but I will not descend to the level of caricature and vitriolic insults that, unfortunately, one increasingly hears from Western European America-bashers.

Nor will I indulge in blanket criticism. France is this country's oldest ally and in the last twelve years took part in the Gulf War, the Kosovo air campaign, and in Operation Enduring Freedom. Germany too has participated in recent military and peacekeeping operations and on this very day, together with the Netherlands, is assuming command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan. Belgium is also contributing troops to peacekeeping in the Balkans.

This is, however, only part of the story. Recent history, unfortunately, gives us a foretaste of yesterday's action in the NAC. One might recall Belgium's refusal during the Gulf War to sell ammunition to NATO ally Great Britain. Or more directly applicable was the Bundestag speech early in 1991 by Mr. Otto Lambsdorff, then a leader of the German Free Democratic Party, opposing military shipments to NATO ally Turkey because of elements of Ankara's domestic policy.
Germany's action yesterday was particularly distasteful, since that country's postwar economic miracle or "Wirtschaftswunder" was to a considerable extent built by the sweat of Turkish guest workers. Aside from moral considerations, Mr. President, the refusal of assistance to Turkey by these three countries gravely undermines the solidarity that is the bedrock of the North Atlantic Alliance.

At first glance, their behavior is puzzling, since they surely know that the United States will stand by its Turkish ally and either unilaterally, or in conjunction with other NATO members, will provide the equipment that Ankara feels it needs.
Already one European ally has stepped up to the plate. The Dutch Foreign Ministry has declared that "the Netherlands is strongly opposed" to the French-German-Belgian move and "will go ahead with providing Patriot missiles to Turkey." The Dutch, in fact, have already sent an air force team to Turkey to prepare for the dispatch of the Patriot missile batteries, which will be manned by 370 Dutch military personnel.

So since Turkey will receive defensive assistance, the French-German-Belgian refusal can only be seen as a symbolic gesture - - a direct swipe at American leadership of the alliance - - but one with more than symbolic importance. U.S. Ambassador Nick Burns declared that it is causing NATO to face "a crisis of credibility."

I would use a metaphor to describe yesterday's action: Paris, Berlin, and Brussels are playing with fire. If the United States believes that NATO is a hindrance to its security requirements, it will continue to bypass the alliance, and NATO will quickly atrophy. No serious observer believes that the European Union has either the capability or the will to provide a credible military alternative to a NATO deprived of American muscle. A security vacuum would quickly develop on the continent, thereby undoing more than a half-century of common effort and endangering the EU itself.

Finally, Mr. President, let me address the faulty logic offered by France, Germany, and Belgium for their action yesterday. To repeat: their ambassadors argued that if NATO were to furnish Turkey with the defensive materiel it requested, it would appear that the alliance was committing itself to war before the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq had issued their second report this Friday.

Paris, Berlin, and Brussels might be interested to learn that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will brief the members of the Security Council this Thursday on the status of contingency planning by the United Nations for humanitarian assistance for Iraq in the event of war.
According to the argument used yesterday in the NAC by the French, Germans, and Belgians, the UN's action, therefore, is hastening the outbreak of war.

I fully anticipate that French President Chirac, German Chancellor Schroeder, and Belgian Prime Minister Verhofstadt will condemn Secretary General Annan for his recklessness.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.