The 7th IISS Regional Security Summit
The Manama Dialogue

First Plenary Session

Regional Security Cooperation

Saturday 4 December 2010
Ahmet Davutoglu
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Turkey

Dr John Chipman, Director-General and Chief Executive, IISS

It is now a great delight to welcome for the first time to the Manama Dialogue a person who has addressed the IISS in London and now we are so happy to have him in Manama, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, Professor Davutoğlu.  Thank you, Professor.

Ahmet Davutoğlu, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Turkey

Dear Chairman, my dear colleagues, Minister Sheikh Khalid, Minister Mottaki, dear participants, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to our hosts, especially His Majesty King Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa and His Royal Highness Prince Salman Bin Hamad Al Khalifa for this excellent hospitality, and congratulations for this seventh IISS Regional Security Summit Manama Dialogue. 

I had a bargain with my Chairman that I will finish in 13 minutes.  I will try.  Therefore, I will not read my statement, but I will make a short summary about how Turkey approaches the regional security environment.  I will be talking on three basic issues: the substance of regional security, the methodology of the security and the dimensions of regional security.  First about the substance.  When we have a meeting or conference on security, we usually refer to or imagine only ‘hard’ security; military security or issues related to the military and hard security.  But in our region, a substance of security based on hard power will not bring us to a sustainable peace.  There should be a much more comprehensive understanding of security.  Security in the sense of economic cooperation, security in the sense of cultural and political dimensions.  There, soft security is as important as hard security.  If we do not have economic, political, cultural and energy substance of regional security, there cannot be military or hard security in our region.  So the most important aspect we need to focus on is the substance; a comprehensive understanding of regional security.

Secondly, about the methodology.  How can we achieve this comprehensive security?  Again, I will refer to two aspects of this methodology.  One is preventive security.  When I say preventive security, I mean to prevent any crisis, any tension, any war in our region.  The second is visionary security.  These are interrelated.  If we respond to the crisis, we cannot establish a sustainable security.  When we came to power in Turkey in 2002, we declared a policy of proactive peace diplomacy.  What we meant by this is to prevent crises before crises emerge, not just to respond and react to a crisis, but more; trying to be proactive in securing the crisis.  Therefore, the first striking example of Turkish diplomacy for this is before the war in Iraq, we called for a regional summit of the neighbouring countries of Iraq in January 2003.  When we realised that there may be tension and crisis regarding our dear neighbour Iraq, we tried to have a regional commitment among the neighbours of Iraq, because we knew very well from history that an isolated approach to security cannot be sustainable.  This was an example.  We have other examples in our diplomacy and in this sense, proactive peace diplomacy is very important.

Usually, the main mistake of the international community is just reacting to crises.  If there is a hot issue or a blood tension, all of us focus on that problem, but if there is a frozen conflict and potential crisis, we ignore that.  So therefore, this approach of preventive security is important.  More important is visionary security.  What do I mean by visionary security?  If there is a concept of regional order in the minds of the political leaders and people of the region, there will not be crisis, or the risk of crisis will be minimal.  So we have to develop a new concept of regional order.  Instead of responding to these orders, clashes, tensions, there should be a new concept of regional order. 

This visionary security, from the Turkish perspective, has four principles.  One is security for all.  If we want to achieve security in our region, there should not be discrimination regarding any group of people or any country; it must be inclusive for all.  If we do not think that the security of a child in Gaza is as valuable as the child in Tel Aviv, there cannot be peace in this region.  We have to think that all the children of the region have the same right of security.  If there is a blockade against Gaza or any part of our region, there cannot be sustainable peace.  So security for all is important.

The second principle is political dialogue.  High-level political dialogue is essential for face-to-face relations and for confidence.  Unfortunately, in our region high-level political dialogue is absent or is not as required as we want to regional security.  Many of the leaders of our region do not see each other for many years, or foreign policymakers.  There should be more high-level cultural dialogue.  In Europe, for example, at least two or three times every year, European leaders come together.  We need to have such a high-level political dialogue in our region. 

The third and a very important principle is economic interdependency.  Economic interdependency is the best means of security, because if societies and countries are economically interdependent, even if there is a crisis, nobody would escalate the crisis because it would be against the interest of all of the countries in the region.  Therefore Turkey has started some new processes with our neighbours, like high-level strategic council meetings with Iraq, Syria, now with Lebanon, Jordan and we will also start with Egypt, where there are meetings co-chaired by the prime ministers or heads of state.  It is important to establish this economic interdependency, where 10‑12 ministers are sitting together and trying to establish economic interdependency between our countries.  Now we have another initiative to have a visa‑free free trade zone between Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.  If we have a visa‑free free trade zone, then people will know each other and that will create mutual confidence.

The fourth principle is multicultural coexistence; respecting each other.  That is the tradition of our region.  We have the oldest civilisational traditions and we need to prevent any cultural, ethnic, religious or sectarian tension in our region.  The destinies of the cities are important here.  For example, Jerusalem, Baghdad and Beirut.  Throughout history, all these cities were multicultural.  If somebody tries to purify Jerusalem or Beirut or Baghdad just based on one ethnicity or sectarian or religious group, that will create the biggest danger for security.  We want to have this historical multicultural character in our region.  All of our cities have been multicultural, multi-sectarian and multi-religious and that character should be kept.  There should not be any attempt to have culturally purified cities or regions or countries. 

The third aspect beyond this substance is if we have a comprehensive security approach.  If we have a visionary security and preventive security as a methodology, what are the dimensions of security or the issues of security in our region?  The first dimension is national security.  All nations have the right to protect its nation; national security is the right of all nations.  In our region there are some friendly brotherly countries which are facing many challenges in the sense of national security and sovereignty, like Iraq, like Lebanon, like Yemen, like Palestine, especially in the sense of Palestinian consolidation.  There should [be] strong regional commitment to support these countries.  The territorial integrity of all of these countries should be guaranteed and respected by all the neighbouring countries.  That is the main principle of international law; we need to respect territorial sovereignty.  Therefore, there should not be any intervention, but there should be friendly, brotherly, neighbourly support to Iraq, to Lebanon, to Yemen and to Palestine and in this sense, we need to give them a sense of security for their process of nation reconsolidation.  We should show full solidarity, respecting the national dignity of these countries which are facing some local national challenges.

The second dimension is the bilateral dimension.  We have to respect one geopolitical fact in our region: we do not have natural borders in this region.  This is a fact.  There are many cultural and economic continuities from one country to another.  Here, the principle is important.  If there is no natural border, will it create a problem for the countries related or will it be a potential area of cooperation?  Our understanding is that we have to respect borders.  There should not be any attempt to change the borders, but at the same time, we need to have trans‑border relations.  We need to make these borders as flexible as possible in order to have full economic interdependency.  The best example in our foreign policy today is Turkish‑Syrian relations.  10 years ago, the borders between Turkey and Syria were ‘protected’ by mines – by strict security measures – but neither country was feeling fully secure.  But today, there are no mines, there is no visa and we feel much more secure than before, because we know that the Turkish city Gaziantep and the Syrian city Aleppo have been sister cities for centuries.  The abnormality was those mines; those preventions; those walls between two countries.  If we want to feel secure, there should be mutual trust.  Today, thousands of people come and go without visas from Gaziantep to Aleppo and from Aleppo to Gaziantep without any security concern.  We do not need any military presence on our Syrian border; Syrians do not need any military presence on the Turkish border.  That was not the case 10 years ago.  How did we achieve this?  We realised that we need to respect our borders, but these borders should not be seen like iron walls. 

Again, regarding other countries, like Iraq’s relations with its neighbours, many of these borders are an issue, but we have to respect Iraqi territorial sovereignty and we need to develop these relations.  Like Syrian-Lebanese relations; like the Afghanistan‑Pakistan relations; like the Gulf countries and their relations with Iran; like Israel and the Arab countries’ relations.  There should be a new understanding of bilateral relations in order to achieve this sustainable security. 

The third dimension is not bilateral, but a more regional dimension.  The core of regional peace in our region is the Arab‑Israeli conflict.  This must be resolved.  Here, the rights of Palestinians should be respected and the state of Palestine should emerge as a respected member of the United Nations as soon as possible.  The international community has worked very hard for the last 60 years, but there is still no state of Palestine as a functioning international entity with full control over its territories.  It is now time to have a state of Palestine.  That is also important for the security of Israel.  If there are no recognised borders of a state, that state, whatever power it has, cannot feel fully secure.  Now it is time to complete the Middle Eastern peace process between Israel and Palestine, Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon. 

We do not want a new roadmap; we want to see the end of the road.  This region has suffered a lot because of this conflict.  It does not affect only Israel and the neighbouring countries; it affects Turkey; it affects other countries.  It is becoming a risk for our national security and for our national economy.  Because we have a vision, as I mentioned at the beginning, of regional order, whatever factor is affecting this vision of regional order is a security risk for us.  We do not want regional tension and war; we want regional order, and it is time to resolve this issue.

We need to have sub-regional cooperation areas in order to have regional order.  The GCC is one of the best examples of sub‑regional economic and strategic cooperation.  Therefore, Turkey has established a strategic dialogue with the GCC and we are very happy in the last two years to have made tremendous achievement in this sense.  We need to have a common approach in the regional dimension regarding drug trafficking, terrorism and piracy, because drug trafficking is not a national or just one or two countries’ problem.  There should be a regional cooperation; regional solidarity to fight against terrorism, drug trafficking and piracy.  These are threats to our national security strategies and also to our regional security perspectives.

Lastly is the global dimension of regional security.  Our region is the richest region in the sense of energy.  Our region is the place where all the main Abrahamic religious traditions emerged and still survive.  Our region is the place with the longest political traditions and civilisational traditions in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in Anatolia, in the Arabian peninsula and in Iran.  This is directly related to the global security environment.  Of course, one aspect regarding the interlinkages between regional and global dimensions is economic and energy security.  Whatever happens in our region regarding our energy will affect the global economy.  Therefore, there should be peace in this part of the world in order to contribute to the global economy.  The regional and global economies are interlinked in this sense. 

Again, parallel to this is the nuclear issue.  Of course, if there are questions, we can discuss details.  The nuclear issue is not only a regional issue; the nuclear issue is a global issue.  If we do not have a fair approach to this nuclear issue based on international law, it is difficult to solve it.  Regarding the nuclear programme of Iran, Turkey has had a consistent policy and will continue to have this policy.  From the first day, we declared three principles regarding this issue.  One is all nations have the right to obtain peaceful nuclear technology and energy, based on the principles of the NPT and the IAEA.  Technology does not belong to only one country or group of countries; it is not like natural gas: ‘This is my land and this natural gas is from this land, so it belongs to me.’  You can say this for gas and oil, but you cannot say this for technology.  All human beings contributed to technology and therefore all the nations have the right to obtain what technology we have today.  But it must be peaceful nuclear technology. 

The second principle is we are against nuclear weapons, wherever they are.  Nuclear weapons create a real risk for the survival of humanity.  Therefore, there should be a nuclear regime, as President Obama and other leaders declared last year, where nuclear weapons will not be in this world. 

Regarding our region, we do not want to see nuclear proliferation in our region and we do not want to see any nuclear weaponry power in our region.  Therefore, a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East is the essential backbone of our policy.  If we have such a problem or a disagreement, like in the case of the Iranian nuclear programme, the best way and the only way to solve this issue is diplomacy.  More diplomacy, more transparency, more international effort, more contributions from the Iranian side and from the international community is needed for a solution.  Therefore, we are very happy that next week the nuclear talks will restart between P5+1 and Iran.  We work very hard to contribute to this process and we will continue to support it.

The last dimension is the cultural dimension in the sense of the relationship between regional and global peace.  As I said, our region is the backbone of world civilisation and we should not allow a clash of civilisations in our region.  If there is cultural peace in our region, there will be cultural peace in the world.  This region can contribute a lot to the cultural, political and economic future of humanity.  Thank you very much.