This has become one of the most important events in the political security calendar. It was at this conference last year that president Putin chose to make his stinging attack on the United States’ foreign policy. This year's conference was extremely well attended by senior representatives from NATO, Europe and Russia. There were three Presidents, four Prime Ministers and three Deputy Prime Ministers as well as a host of Foreign and Defence Ministers. Yet again that there were no representatives of the UK government present. Not only is this a huge embarrassment but it increasingly gives the signal that our ministers are either not interested or simply not up to the task. If the American Secretary of Defence and the Secretary General of NATO think the meeting is important enough to attend, it is a national disgrace that neither our part-time Defence Secretary nor any of his junior ministers are willing to give up three days to attend an important international gathering. Presumably Des Browne thinks fighting the Scottish Nationalists is more important than fighting the Taliban!
The guest speaker at the opening conference dinner was the newly re-elected President of Serbia, Mr Boris Tadic. As expected, he concentrated on the situation in Kosovo and the possibility of its unilateral declaration of independence. He warned that the International Community was cutting corners and that the only route to legitimacy was through the Security Council of the UN. In a speech whose tone and content was echoed by the Russians throughout the conference he said “we must avoid precedents that could strike at the heart of European security” and “ if negotiations fail all three parties (Serbia and Kosovo and the EU) will pay a terrible price”. While there is no doubt that a great deal of this was intended for his domestic audience we must not underestimate the potential for the situation in Kosovo to boil over. While the generally pro-West Mr Tadic is firmly in control it must not be forgotten that his ultra nationalist rival in the presidential election gained 47% of the vote. The lack of attention given to this issue in the British media is quite astonishing and reflects the awful possibility that we may be sleepwalking into yet another Balkan crisis.
Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey give a forthright and at times combative performance which seemed largely designed for his domestic audience but which clearly reflected his frustration with France and Germany over Turkey's EU accession. In a wide-ranging speech he talked about Turkey's importance as an energy hub, a strategic player in NATO and a political ally of the West in a difficult region. He said that as a secular and democratic country Turkey could play a major role in maintaining stability in the region and its importance should be better appreciated by EU countries. He also made it clear that Turkey would not consider any option other than full EU membership and he reflected his country's irritation that “the rules were being changed in the middle of the game”. The EU accession process, he said, was legal and clear. Turkey was reforming yet there seemed to be those in European Union who would block Turkish membership in any event. There was a particularly telling exchange with one of the French representatives who said that the problem with Turkey was not whether or not it reformed its political system but the Islamic nature of the state itself. This produced a furious response from Mr Erdogan who said that he did not realise that the European Union had become “a Christian club”. This seemed to go to the very heart of not only the Turkish question but to the future of the EU itself. For the French and others the EU is much more about identity and commonality than political systems or economics. Considerations about building an EU personality and identity are given much greater importance than strategic considerations. If ever we needed an exposition of the drive to ever closer union at the expense of everything else this was it.
The prime Minister ranged widely over other foreign policy issues. Turkey maintains good relations with both Syria and Israel and seems to have been acting as facilitator on the Israel/Palestine issue. He outlined the three party contacts between the Israeli President, President Abbas and the Turkish government and said that Turkey intended to redouble its efforts in the region. On Iran ,Turkey was “following developments closely” and felt that a peaceful outcome to the current situation had become more likely. Iran needed to be more transparent but Turkey was willing to help seek a diplomatic solution to the current problems.(Turkey is currently having problems with Iranian gas supplies with exports being cut off as a result of Iran’s unusually cold winter and consequent domestic energy demands). On Afghanistan, where Turkey has twice commanded ISAF, Mr Erdogan warned that the relative stability was at risk of going backwards because of regional terrorist activity. He said that Turkey had been involved in a dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan and that while his country would continue its support of Afghanistan via NATO he was clearly frustrated that Turkey was not involved in EU security and defence policy mechanisms.
There was a long section on global terrorism which focused not surprisingly, on the PKK. He called on Europe to stop the PKK operating in the EU under different names and for the extradition of criminals sought by Interpol. Turkey, he said, was not interested “in an inch of territory belonging to Iraq” but that the PKK were a clear threat to Turkish civilians. The PKK made their money primarily by people and drug trafficking and those who did not cooperate in the fight against them would be contributing to the consequences of their operations.
The real importance of this session lay in the tense question and answer session which highlighted tensions with Russia over Chechnya and with France and Germany over EU membership. There are currently 2.7 million Turks living in Germany and the issue was given great prominence in the German media because of the recent fire in which several Turks were killed and where the international media carried extensive pictures of a baby girl being dropped to the ground by her parents. It is unclear whether the fire was started deliberately or not but there have been inevitable accusations about potential racial motives which have inflamed the debate. It was a fascinating if slightly uncomfortable encounter when a member of the French National Assembly said that the real problem of having Turkey in the EU was not simply about the numbers involved (the usual argument made) but the nature of Islam itself. Those watching on Turkish television would have been given the clear impression that however westernised, secular and democratic Turkey becomes its membership to the EU club will be blocked because of the religious nature of its society. It was a very clear reminder of the debate that we in Britain need to have about the direction of our foreign and security policies and the nature of our strategic alliances. The sort of exchanges that we witnessed on this issue would have been instructive for those Conservatives who maintain that the EU is “moving in our direction”.
