SECURITY IN
THE GULF REGION: THE FUTURE OF NATO’S ISTANBUL COOPERATION INITIATIVE
PROF. DR. FIRUZ DEMIR YASAMIS
DIRECTOR OF
RESEARCH AND ADVANCEMENT
AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY IN THE EMIRATES
UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
(90) (532) 3619156
(971) (56) 2744538
(971) (4) 4499554
ABSTRACT
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative has been established by NATO in 2004 to
develop the relations with the Gulf Region. So far, four countries in the
region have signed the document and become a partner: Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates’ Bahrain and Kuwait. Two other countries in the region Saudi Arabia
and Oman have expressed their interest in the ICI but so far did not signed the
document. Although the region is oil rich and energy security is the top issue
on the international security challenges there are structural deficiencies in
the accord to provide an effective security is the region. The dilemma is
emanating from the gap of expectations of both sides. The partner countries
request is the security guarantee to be provided to them by NATO. However according
to the ICI document what NATO can offer is only military training. ICI partners
and NATO have shown some examples of cooperation till now. Kuwait opened a
regional coordination center, UAE and Qatari air forces joined air strikes
against DAESH is Syria nd and NATO’s Ocean Shield Operation against pirates in
the regional high seas. After 10 years elapsed in the ICI, an assessment has to
be made the fate and future of the ICI. This paper aims at forecasting the
future of ICI under the given political conditions of the region.
Key words: NATO, Arabian Gulf, Security, ICI.
Introduction
This paper aims at
forecasting the future of Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) established in
2004 to set up a framework for the relations between NATO and some Arabian Gulf
countries namely the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. Oman and Saudi Arabia have
the observer status and these countries have not yet signed the partnership
document yet. The intended relations, although not specifically spelled out in
writing, covers the areas of security in the Gulf Region in other words Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.
At the first instance,
such a political and military alliance makes sense since the region is oil rich
and energy security is a major security concern for most NATO members. On the
other hand, secure and safe out flow of oil to the World markets is crucial for
the ICI and GCC countries.
The fate of the
alliance, realistically speaking, will depend on the success to be achieved on
the above stated expectations of the parties. If the expectations are met the Alliance
will go ahead and be further enhanced, deepened and solidified. On the
contrary, the established system will die down in time. The main expectation
for NATO is to help regional security in terms of military training as foreseen
in the ICI document, whereas, the main expectation of the ICI countries is the security
guarantee offered by NATO to the countries in the region. The partner
countries’ top request is the security from external regional
threats. On the other hand, all NATO is offering in the security field is “military exercises and related education and
training” as stated in Istanbul Cooperation Initiative document. NATO does
not have more to offer for regional security.
However, the forecasting
the future of the ICI is not that simple. The regional issues are too complex
and varied thus making to reach a dependable forecast is almost impossible.
This paper will try to examine the issues and factors involved and, if
possible, will make policy proposals.
Main Questions to be
Answered
In this paper three main
questions will be answered. The first question is the degree of performance
shown by the ICI; the second question is how the situation in the region now
is; the third question is what has changed during the last ten years of
implementation period and the fourth and last question is what will be the fate
of the ICI in the future.
Literature Survey
One of the most
comprehensive studies is done by Robert Hunter (2010). The title of his book is
“Security in the Persian Gulf” and the book is published by the Rand
Corporation. Hunter says: “Of course, in this particular
region, development of a comprehensive and effective security structure may not be possible: Differences
among states and religious and other groupings may prove to be simply too deep
and pervasive. But that has also been true in other parts of the world when
efforts first were made. The hope is that rational calculus of the best means
of advancing individual interests will lead to acceptance that at least some
forms of structured cooperation related to security will prove more worthwhile
to all concerned than a state of anarchy. What follows is, thus, an effort to
spell out some of the key factors in getting from”. Hunter proposes arms control and confidence building measures are very
important to save the future of the ICI. Within this framework he lines up the
policy measures to be taken: the arms control
and missiles in the region; establishment of political and military commissions;
development of an incidents-at-sea agreement; development of another freedom-of-shipping
agreement; establishment of a framework for counter piracy cooperation; a
practical cooperation for counterterrorism; development of a list of arms
prohibited to sale in the region; limiting the sales and supplies of weapons and
integration of all instruments of power and influence.
Rebecca More (2012) in
her article clearly discriminates the socio-political differentiation of
partner countries: “The pursuit of cooperative relationships with
non-liberal democratic states is not necessarily inconsistent with such an
approach. Indeed, given that the vast majority of contemporary security
challenges will now emanate from outside of Europe, NATO must engage a broad
and diverse group of partners if it is to address these challenges effectively.
Utilizing partnership as a means of securing and strengthening the foundation
for a liberal security order, however, will require that NATO engage in some
differentiation between partners... Under the new framework, partnership is no
longer limited by geography or constrained by outdated structures. NATO has in
effect redefined what it means to be a partner.” More
concludes: “In the wake of September 11, the focus shifted to equipping NATO
politically and militarily for the war on terror. More recently, NATO’s
assumption of new Europe: the Alliance should not waste the opportunity to
identify a role for these partners in furthering the liberal values that have
always been NATO’s core mission.”
One of the most
pessimistic approaches has been exhibited in the article of Jørgensen (2013). “…
NATO’s partnership programs in MENA are not as successful as NATO, according to
the Alliance’s repeated references to the role of strengthened partnerships,
would want them to be. First of all, it is hard to evaluate the utility of the
programs, because they have no clearly stated visions, the reaching of which
they could be evaluated on. Secondly, and related to the first problem, there
is no clear picture of an added value in having the partnership programs,
neither from NATO’s perspective or from the perspective of the partner
countries. Thirdly, due to the regime type of many partner countries and the
indigenous populations hatred of the West, there seems to be a deep--‐rooted
distrust of NATO’s motifs in MENA. Lastly, internal divisions on NATO’s role in
MENA now and in the future, coupled with one NATO member state’s diplomatic
disputes with a partner country, ensures that, at least for the moment, ICI but
especially MD does not work as combined programs for dealing with MENA states.”
Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Future of ICI
There is a drastic
improvement for the security concept developed since the end of the World War
2. The security concepts such as "balance of power" and “deterrence”
representing the realist outlook and “collective security", “arms
control”, "peaceful coexistence", “non alignment”, “neutrality”,
“equal security” and “common security” representing the liberal outlooks to the
security issues. All these concepts were somehow successful to prevent the
emergence of a new World War which will definitely mean the end of human kind
on this Globe. The stockpiles of nuclear arsenal are more than enough to
destroy everything that we have on this planet.
Insufficiency of the Existing Security Concepts
Although they were successful in the past, these concepts are now found
to be not satisfactory to deal with the security issues in the World. Firstly,
the security threats are not only military nature in our own today. There are
new threats to the humanity which are not less significant than any military
threat such as: poverty, ecological and environmental catastrophes, national
economic insecurity and instability, corruption and bribery, infectious diseases
and environmental degradation, war and violence within States, religious
extremism, the spread and possible use of radiological, chemical and biological
weapons, terrorism, transnational organized crime, human trafficking, child
trafficking, woman trafficking, drug trafficking, food and water security,
cyber security and energy security. Therefore, security issues should not be confined
only to the military threats but should also cover threats mentioned above. Secondly, even for the military threats a new
concept is developed by NATO: The Cooperative Security Concept. This new
approach attaches an accelerated priority to the partnership responsibilities
requesting more active and functional solutions to the threats against overall security
and humanity. Basing upon more constructive dialogue among the partners, called
smart solutions, the new concepts urges member countries to develop more and
better relations with the partners of the NATO in a smarter manner since
financial possibilities are not abundant anymore.
Achievements by NATO
NATO foreign ministers have established a different “partnership policy”
with non-member countries in April 2011 in Berlin which bases upon the
decisions accepted in the Lisbon Summit in
addition to the policies pursued since 90s such as “Partnership for
Peace” (PfP), “Euro- Atlantic Partnership Council” (EAPC), “the Mediterranean Dialogue (MD)”, and “the
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative” (ICI).
Within this framework
there are several positive factors for NATO to contribute to the enhancement of
cooperative security concept. First of all, NATO has deep interest in the regional
matters particularly for the Gulf Region. Secondly, NATO is expanding its
mission to the region with a desire for a better cooperation with the regional
actors with a well established military power, political and organizational
structure. “NATO’s training mission in IRAQ”, “ISAF Program” in Afghanistan, “the
Mediterranean (MD) Dialogue” and “the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative” (ICI), “Partnership
for Peace (PfP) Program”, “the Senior Civil Emergency Planning Committee”, “Individual
Partnership and Cooperation” approach, “Tailored Cooperation Packages” and
several others are the examples in this regard.
The Problems of the Gulf
Region and the Middle East
The problems of the Gulf
Region cannot be isolated from the problems of the Middle East. The region is
producing two third of the oil produced in the World. Therefore, the Region is
the essential source of energy for the World economy and particularly important
for those countries that are oil dependent thus causing various type of players
of the energy game have special interest in the Region. Players of the game are mainly state actors
in the region and outside the region having major interest in the region and
non state actors such as al Qaeda, DAESH and other terrorist organizations aspiring
a wide range of political ambitions ranging from re-establishment of the
Caliphate, to toppling down of the governments in power to the establishment of
a new religious state based upon Islamic Shari’a principles.
Deficiencies of NATO
NATO has basic
deficiencies as well. Firstly, NATO is based upon regular armies and
conventional military principles. Other actors in the region are using
asymmetric warfare strategies and tactics. Another main deficiency of NATO is
the strong relations between the USA and Israel whereas the partner countries
have serious differences of interest and opinion in regional security issues
thus creating a lack of trust between the NATO and partner countries in the ICI
Program.
Turkey: A bridge between
NATO and ICI Countries?
However, such a
situation may lead to new roles for the European members of NATO. For instance and
Turkey could have played a major role in this regard. This role seems do not
exist at the moment because of pro-Ikhvan (Muslim Brotherhood) policy of the
Turkish Government. Turkey’s backing for Mursi in Egypt has seriously curtailed
the potential role of Turkey in the Region.
Deficiencies of ICI
Countries
There are several
deficiencies for the ICI countries as well. Especially, the differences in the
national security priorities of partner countries reflecting it into
differences in foreign policies thus hampering further cooperation among the
partners. The support and refuge provided by some partner countries to Ikhvan
officials and military and economic aid to DAESH type terrorist organizations through
either formal or non-formal channels have become major source of concerns for
the partner countries causing lack of trust among the partners. Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia and the UAE have recalled their ambassadors from Qatar.[1]
Further negotiations to straighten the relations are not progressing effectively
at the moment. Proposed and agreed meetings are being postponed or cancelled at
the last minutes. Therefore, it would not be mistaken to state that mutual
confidence and trust are severely hampered in the region presently.
Impact of Iran
Iran, which is not a
member in the ICI, also is a major player in the region and is a very crucial
factor for the assessment of the fate of the ICI. Iran is a Shia based country.
On the other hand, the ICI or rather GCC countries are mainly Sunni societies
with the exception of Bahrain. Therefore, the relations between Iran and Arabian
monarchies in the region are not promising for the future. Iran has strong
interest in Bahrain where the majority Shia population is governed by a
minority Sunni government. In Syria where the majority of population is Sunni
and governed by Esad family – an Alawite family which a sub section of Shia sect-
therefore preferred and supported by Iran whereas Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE
are against the Esad regime in Syria. Furthermore, the Iran’s tendency to
develop nuclear armament and long range missiles are seen as a serious threat
not only by Israel but also by Gulf Countries. In addition to these potential
security threats, the cyber wars between USA-Israel and Iran and then between Iran
and Saudi Arabia are the real examples of animosities among the countries in
the region.
Impact of Muslim
Brotherhood
Impact of Muslim
Brotherhood in the region also contributes considerably to the complexities of
relations in the region. The aims of the Ikhvan movement are not secret for the
countries in the region: to gain political control in Muslim countries by
redesigning the political power structure. This objective seemed to be
detrimental for the national security of the countries in the region. The
Ikhvan Movement is forbidden and people supporting the Movement have been
jailed. Claiming that Qatar is supporting Ikhvan Movement by allowing Qaradawi,
the leading cleric, and supporters to operate in Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia
and Bahrain suspended their political cooperation with Qatar and re-called
their ambassador to lower the level of diplomatic relations. Recently, Qatar
has expelled some Ikhvan leaders but not Qaradawi who is from Egypt originally but
is a Qatari national living in Qatar for long years. This basic issue is one of
the most important factors in creating mutual distrust among the ICI partner
countries.
Impact of DAESH [2]
The impact of DAESH has
been great in the regional security concerns. Sudden and quick appearance of
DAESH and the size of area in Iraq and Syria controlled by DAESH have shocked
most of the countries in the region. The whole political and military picture
and existing balances have changed. The DAESH is trying to create a new State
covering the territories of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. The new State will
be governed on Shari’a basis under the leadership of the re-instituted Caliph.
The DAESH case has materialized the potential security dangers by a vivid
example. The governments in the region are at further stake. DAESH is now
controlling considerable amount of territory in Syria and Iraq with a big
ambition on Jordan and then to Lebanon to establish a sea port on the
Mediterranean. Therefore, not Syria and Iraq but also Jordan and Lebanon is
under the threat of DAESH militants. Turkey is also threatened by DAESH through
its sleeping cells in Turkey. The DAESH success and the lack of any effective
western reaction have created serious question marks about the MD and the ICI
thus complicating the regional security concerns to the maximum extent
possible.
Changing Borders and
Upcoming New States
What is happening in
Syria -if not anything else- is the basic declaration of nullifying the political
borders established in the Middle East by Sykes-Picot Agreement after the First
World War. It seems to be almost impossible to return to the old borders in the
region and not only borders will be changed but new states should be expected
to be formed soon.[3]
The Kurdish segment of the new states has already established a safe haven in
the Northern Iraq and now is trying to establish other milestones/cornerstones
of the Great Kurdistan to be established over the territories of Iraq, Syria,
Turkey and Iran. The insistence on Kurdish town of Kobani (Ayn al Arab) on the
Turkish border proves this intention. Therefore, new states are being planned
in the Region at the moment. The lack of vision over Syria’s future seems to be
not coincidental but rather intended to allow such radical political transformations
in the Region.
Lack of Adequate Vision
in NATO
Another important concern is the lack of vision
of partnership on behalf of NATO and partner countries. For NATO the potential
areas/topics of cooperation range from 200 to 500. However, these areas are not
spelt out in the legal documents of MD and ICI. Therefore the scope of both MD
and ICI is not known by NATO and partner states. Well intentional statements
are taking place in the official documents; however, there is no specific
action plan to be performed by both parties. This lack of vision over the ICI
can curtail the development of cooperation and collaboration among the
participating countries and the NATO. Despite these potential areas of
cooperation the concept of security guarantees for partner countries is not
taking place. Recent events in Egypt and Libya (not a member of MD) are proving
that NATO cannot offer a security guarantee for the partner countries which see
such a guarantee as the major expectation from the ICI accord. However there
are positive examples in military cooperation such as UAE and Qatari planes are
attacking against DAESH forces in Syria.
Competition for Leadership among States in the
Region
Another significant factor in analyzing the
fate of ICI is the leadership competitions among the local partners. The non-homogenous
political structures and economic conditions in the partner countries are
causing the leadership struggles in the Region. This competition negatively
affects the cooperation and cooperation for regional security.
Differences in Political Philosophies
The political philosophies of the NATO and
partner countries are different. The definition of democracy which is one of
main anchorage points for NATO is creating confusion among the partners which
are mainly in monarchic political structure refusing the concept of political
parties. Similarly, NATO, in principle, is a strong advocate of not only democracy,
but also for individual liberties and the rule of law principle. These
conceptual differences are creating obstacles for both sides. On the other hand, the internal
stability concerns within the partner countries are the top priority in their
national agenda and come before the concerns over democracy and individual
liberties. The case of Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen are the examples
to be further analyzed in this regard.
Other Players in
the Region: Russia’ China, India and the EU
Another restraint is coming from the non-NATO
member countries such as Russia, China, India and Iran. Iran’s case has been
explained earlier. Russia is interested in the region and is playing a decisive
role over the Syrian Crisis by supporting the existing regime. Russia seems to
be trying to get her influential position before the collapse of the Soviet
Union by inserting pressures to the regional security issues. Another player is
China which is dependent on oil coming from the Region. Therefore, for her
economic security China perceives herself as the natural ally of the countries
in the region. If given any chance China seems to be ready to set up political
and military institutions with the GCC countries. Likewise, India has similar
intentions over the Region. Rapidly growing economy of India also seems to be
ready to take further active roles in the GCC region. Therefore, there are
players other than NATO in the region which are ready to take initiative and
even risks.
The recent policies of
the European Union (EU) indicate that the real borders of the EU are not
confined to the continent but go further up to the territories of important
sources of production materials and other markets. These new policies make the
EU another major role player in the region. The EU has already opened liaison
offices in the capitals of GCC countries. The major obstacle for EU, despite
her common defense and foreign policy principles, is the strong ties between
Israel and some EU countries.
Insufficiency in Concrete Projects
I should also take
attention to the insufficient amount of concrete projects and implementations
carried out by NATO in the Region. Despite 500 potential areas of cooperation,
so far no specific project which contributes directly to the enhanced security
for the region has been undertaken by NATO with the exception of ICI Center to
be established in Kuwait and NATO’s Ocean Shield Operation against the pirates
in international waters. However, the number of concrete examples can be
increased with the establishment of a common intelligence organization, working
on other security issues such as eradication
of poverty, ecological and
environmental catastrophes (global warming, climate change, sea level rise),
national economic insecurity and instability, corruption and bribery,
infectious diseases and environmental degradation, war and violence within
States (insurgency and non-stability creating acts of subversive groups), the
spread and possible use of radiological, chemical and biological weapons,
combating with terrorism and terrorist organizations, transnational organized
crime, human trafficking, child trafficking, drug trafficking, food and water
security, cyber security and energy security.
Impact of Israel
The case of Israel
should be taken into consideration for a perfect forecasting. Partner countries
are strong backer and financer of the Palestine which is having war with Israel
for decades. The ‘Mescid al Aqsa’ in Jerusalem is very important for all
Muslims and comes second after Mecca in the hierarchy of Islamic holy places.
After the occupation of the Palestine by Israel, the relations with Arab
countries came to a non-returnable point. Israel is still enlarging its
territory against Palestine including Jerusalem which is now the Capital of the
State of Israel. The strong ties between
Israel and the USA and some EU countries will also contribute to the distrust
for regional security cooperation.
Subversive Groups
in the Region
Another security
issue facing some of the partners in both MD and ICI is the internal threats to
the regimes in power. The Arab Spring has shown these threats to whole World.
Beginning in Tunisia, the flame of wide spread uprising and political change
requests has covered Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen. Governments have been toppled
and leaders have been force to leave the countries seeking refuge in other
countries. In these countries, internal security is totally collapsed. Only in
Bahrain, the regime was successful in staying in the power with the help of the
other Sunni governments in the region.
Lack of Mutual
Trust and the Issue of Hidden Agendas
The above given
examples have created strong suspicions in the partner countries about the real
aims of NATO, the USA and other Western countries. ‘Hidden agendas’ of NATO have
been rumored with other conspiracy theories. All these unfavorable events have
contributed to the mutual distrust between the NATO and partner countries.
Naturally the mistrust will result in lesser amount of political cooperation
and collaboration for regional security purposes.
Different Foreign
Policy Priorities of NATO Countries
It is a known fact
that member countries of NATO may have different priorities and interests
regarding to the international security issues. The relations with the Eastern
Europe (newly independent states of ex-Soviet Commonwealth) countries or with
Russia; or relations with China and other emerging powers of Southeast Asia may
have more importance when compared to the relations with MD and ICI countries
for some members. This affects the fate of the issue or institution in concern
simply because NATO decision making procedure is consensus based in other terms
the unanimity is the way to decide which is highly unlikely to obtain in some
cases. Therefore, issues like MD and ICI might be overlooked by some members
thus causing the ineffectiveness in solution finding activities. For instance,
Germany declined to accept to make military intervention in several Middle East
disputes.
Relations between
Turkey and Israel
The status of the Israel-Turkey
relations is also another factor to be taken into account while forecasting the
fate of the ICI. Israel is a strong supporter of the NATO Alliance whereas some
NATO members led by the USA have already declared their preference for Israel
over her Arab neighbors. However, Turkey’s relations (which has the second
biggest army in the Alliance after the USA) with Israel within this context are
severely curtailed. The Blue Marmara vessel was carrying humanitarian aid to
the Palestinian people who are badly affected by the Israeli embargo was raided
by Israeli commandos and 9 Turkish citizens were killed. Turkey’s preference
has always been with Palestinians while having good military and political
relations with Israel. After the Blue Marmara case the relations were strained
and the level of diplomatic representation is lowered.
Conclusion and Suggestions
As for the
conclusion, two different approaches can be used: pessimist outlook indicating
that under the given facts ICI and particularly MD cannot be successful to meet
the expectations of both sides and optimist outlook indicating that in
international relations incremental approach is the essential mode to develop
the relations and having something in the hand is better than having nothing.
Pessimist outlook
is attempted to be summarized in an article written by Jean-Loup Samaan titled
“NATO in the Gulf: Partnership without a
Cause?” Authors says: “Eight years
after NATO initiated its engagement with Gulf countries through the Istanbul
Cooperation Initiative (ICI), the results have been modest, not to say
disappointing … Lessons from its eight years of existence show that the issue
at stake is not the purpose of the partnership but rather its methodology”.
However, it should
be underlined that ICI and particularly MD do not have clearly spelt out
vision, mission and performance indicators. These factors are extremely
important to assess the future developments. Therefore, it is suggested that a
concrete set of action program along with performance objectives and criteria
should be developed jointly with the NATO and partner countries.
There is mistrust
among the peoples of the partner countries causing lack of popular support for
the cooperation. Public diplomacy can play an important role in informing the
public at large on the main characteristics of the partnership program.
NATO, in general,
is based of western political thoughts and principles such as democracy,
secularism, human rights and rule of law. On the other hand, the partner
countries are monarchic in nature and based upon Islamic Shari’a principles.
Therefore, a scientific study should be developed to consolidate the western
political ideals with the eastern ones. It should be openly declared that
security issues are beyond the political regime types and NATO can easily
cooperate with the countries based upon Islamic principles. This will help to
diminish the deeply rooted mistrust between the parties.
Optimist
outlook finds the developments as encouraging although not perfect. Basing upon
the existing framework a better solution can be found. Optimists believe that
smart solutions developed by the NATO are mainly due to the shortage of
financial resources. In the Gulf case the financing the regional security is
possible due to the richness of the countries involved. Leaving the financial
aspects aside, new models of cooperation can be developed.
About a
year ago a Conference has been organized by the American University in the
Emirates and NATO in Dubai titled as “NATO’s Approach to Gulf Cooperation:
Lessons Learned and Future Challenges”. The
e-book with the same title will be published soon by the Emirates Center for
Security and Strategic Studies including the papers submitted to the Conference.
As indicated in the Conclusion part of the upcoming book a consensus has been
achieved in the Conference on the following principles:
ü “Clear progress has already
been achieved through the ICI, both in the political dialogue with Gulf
countries and in practical dimensions with ICI partners. NATO has increased its
offer of cooperation to ICI countries each year since the launch of the initiative
in 2004, and with the establishment of a single Partnership Cooperation Menu
(PCM) for all of NATO’s partners, it has considerably expanded the number of
activities accessible to ICI countries.
ü Although it is sometimes
unpredictable and frustrating as an ally, and despite several failures in the
past, the USA still has an abiding commitment to shared values of freedom,
democracy, human rights and security with NATO members and Gulf countries.
ü In the future, concrete and
practical cooperation projects in areas of interest to the Gulf States should
be pursued; i.e. in nuclear security, energy security, maritime security and
piracy, and cyber security. This will align NATO’s ICI partnership with the
security needs of Gulf States, and will bring benefits to both sides. There
should be more formal and regular contacts in this regard in the future.
ü Economic, financial and
budgetary crises are affecting the defense priorities of the USA, which
necessarily affect NATO priorities in turn (such as the size and orientation of
the US Army, and placing more emphasis on the Middle East and Asia Pacific regions).
This does not mean that the United States will lose interest in Europe, but the
Middle East and the Gulf will remain important US priorities. The outbreak of the Arab Spring has already
pressure on US policy towards the region, and cooperation will continue to be
framed by the Arab-Israeli dispute and the nuclear issue with Tehran.
Additionally, the Syrian case will play an important role in the policies of
the US toward the Middle East.
ü There
are reservations among the leaders of the Gulf countries concerning the role of
NATO in the region. These countries like to see that the NATO and the USA be
ready to take more responsibilities for the defense of the Region, not only to
the threats such as anti-ballistic
missiles and nuclear and cyber wars but also to regional security threats such
as energy security, piracy in high seas, and maritime security. Dealing with
these kinds of challenges to regional security seems to be beyond the capacities
of the states taking place in the Gulf Region.
ü NATO
should develop a more concrete strategic vision for the security of the Gulf
commensurate with the importance of the region, especially to energy security.
Partnership must be reciprocal, comprehensive and not unilateral. NATO should
not view its regional partners as potential financers, whilst at the same time
the ICI/GCC countries should not expect all the major sacrifices and
responsibilities to be shouldered by the Alliance alone.
ü Cooperation
and collaboration between the ICI and GCC countries and NATO in future should
be based upon the principles of collective security and cost- and
burden-sharing.
ü As agreed at the Chicago
Summit in 2012 by the Heads of States and Governments, and clearly stated at
the Lisbon Summit, the vitally important energy security component of NATO’s
policies and activities require further deliberation and elaboration.
ü NATO activities must not be
perceived as being intrusive, and the Alliance mustn’t be seen as seeking to
take advantage of the current phase of domestic changes taking place in a
number of countries in the Middle East. Such misperceptions could backfire and
undermine many years of work undertaken jointly by NATO and the ICI countries
to correct such misperceptions, build mutual understanding and trust, and
thereby contribute to long-term regional security and stability.
ü NATO
should give priority to public diplomacy to eliminate misperceptions and
conspiracy theories in the region. Gulf public opinion
must be better-informed concerning NATO policies toward the region. There is a need to continue
building trust and to maintain a dialogue-based public diplomacy strategy
alongside NATO’s cooperative activities with ICI countries. NATO and the US have
lost credibility and trust among some groups in the Middle East—especially as a
result of previous administrations’ unilateral actions. This can feed
conspiracy theories and perceptions of a “hidden agenda.” However, public
diplomacy can play a very effective role in combating such views.”
This
paper aimed at forecasting the future of the ICI. Theoretically speaking, the
answer to be given to the question is dependent upon the strategies used in the
game by the parties involved. The available strategies are: maximax principle,
maximin principle, minimax principle, zero sum principle, win-win strategy and
randomization principle.
The “maximax principle” aims
at achieving the best of the best possible outcomes. The “maximin principle” is
designed for pessimist players; instead of expecting the best of best the
player aims at the best of the worst possible outcomes which can also be called
as the “opportunity cost” to minimize the regret at the end. Some players may
choose the “zero-sum game” (win-lose) strategy which produces no value added at
the end of the game. However, it is possible to change the zero game strategy
into win-win strategy allowing each player to benefit from the game. However,
in most of the cases the randomization strategy is chosen by the players. No
clearly defined strategy exists for the players.
To me, it looks like the last strategy of
randomization is being used by the parties involved meaning that there is no
clear strategy (or, methodology) used.
If I am
asked which option I would vote for, my answer would be: “I am an optimist”.
REFERENCES
A.M. Kishk. (2013) “Reinforcing Security
between the GCC States and NATO: Propositions and Obstacles”. Paper submitted
to the Conference on “NATO’s
Approach to Gulf Cooperation: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges”. 22
October 2013. Dubai.
Carlo Masala and Peter Faber. (2005)
“The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and Possible Next Steps Ahead”, NATO Research
Paper. NDC. No 21. 2005.
Cuneyt Yenigun. (2013) “Gulf Security, NATO and
the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative”. Paper submitted to the Conference on “NATO’s Approach to Gulf Cooperation: Lessons Learned
and Future Challenges”. 22 October 2013. Dubai.
David Aaron and others. (2011) “The
Future of Gulf Security in a Region of Dramatic Change: Mutual Equities and
Enduring Relationships”. The RAND Corporation. ISBN: 978-0-8330-5913-0.
Firuz D. Yasamis. (ed) (2014) “NATO’s Approach
to Gulf Cooperation: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges”. Upcoming by EC hSSR
in the UAE in 2014.
Holger Mölder. (2007) “The Evolution of
NATO’s Partnerships Strategy: Peace or Clash of Civilizations?” Paper prepared
for the 6th Pan-European Conference on International Relations in Turin from 12
to 15 September 2007 (Session 1-23: Cooperation and Conflict in Transatlantic
Relations).
Jakob Aarøe Jørgensen. (2013) “The Mediterranean
Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative”. 2013. http://dpsa.dk/papers/Troubled%20Partnerships%20in%20the%20Middle%20East(1).pdf
Kurt
Volker. (2013) “Keynote Address to the
Conference”. Paper submitted to the Conference on “NATO’s Approach to Gulf Cooperation: Lessons Learned
and Future Challenges”. 22 October 2013. Dubai.
Laure,
Borgomano-Lou.(2005) “NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative:
Prospects for Development”. NATO Research Paper. NDC. No 21. 2005.
Mustafa Dolatyar, M. (2011) “Sustainable
Security in the Middle East: NATO’s Role?” Turkish Policy Quarterly. Vol. 10.
No 3.
Pierre Razoux. (2010) “What Future for
NATO’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative?”. NATO Research Paper. NDC. No
55. 2010.
Rebecca R. Moore. (2012) “Lisbon
and the Evolution of NATO’s New Partnership Policy”. Perceptions, Spring 2012,
Volume XVII, Number 1, pp. 55-74.
Robert E.
Hunter. (2010) “Building Security in the
Persian Gulf”. RAND Corporation. 2010. ISBN 978-0-8330-4918-6.
Rolf Schwarz.(2013) “NATO and Gulf Regional Security
Cooperation”. Paper submitted to the Conference on “NATO’s Approach to Gulf Cooperation: Lessons Learned
and Future Challenges”. 22 October 2013. Dubai.
Steve F. Larrabee. (2013) “NATO’s Role in the
Middle East and the Arabian Gulf”. Paper submitted to the Conference on “NATO’s Approach to Gulf Cooperation: Lessons Learned
and Future Challenges”. 22 October 2013. Dubai.
Şefik V. Altay. (2013) “A Statement on Energy
Security”. Paper submitted to the Conference on “NATO’s Approach to Gulf Cooperation: Lessons Learned
and Future Challenges”. 22 October 2013. Dubai.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder