This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/world/middleeast/nato-backs-defensive-missiles-for-turkey.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 1 | Version 2 |
---|---|
NATO Backs Defense Plan for Turkey | |
(about 4 hours later) | |
BRUSSELS — NATO foreign ministers on Tuesday endorsed a decision to send Patriot missile batteries to Turkey, and expressed “grave” concerns about reports of heightened activity at Syria’s chemical weapons sites. | |
Turkey, which has supported the Syrian opposition to President Bashar al-Assad’s government, requested the batteries last month, fearing that it might be vulnerable to a Syrian missile attack, possibly with chemical weapons. | |
“Turkey asked for NATO’s support, and we stand with Turkey in a spirit of strong solidarity,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary general of the alliance, said in Brussels. “To anyone who would want to attack Turkey, we say, ‘Don’t even think about it.’ ” | “Turkey asked for NATO’s support, and we stand with Turkey in a spirit of strong solidarity,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary general of the alliance, said in Brussels. “To anyone who would want to attack Turkey, we say, ‘Don’t even think about it.’ ” |
In approving the decision, NATO said it would “augment” Turkey’s air defenses even as it sought to underscore the defensive nature of the mission, which it said was not intended to establish a buffer zone in northern Syria or a no-fly zone over the country. | |
The missile batteries, drawn from American, German and Dutch forces, will not be operational in Turkey for several weeks, diplomats said. NATO’s military arm will work with the nations as they decide how many batteries to deploy in Turkey and for how long. | |
NATO couched the decision as a statement of its resolve, but Mr. Rasmussen expressed a cautious, even minimalist, vision of the alliance’s role in dealing with humanitarian crises beyond its members’ borders. Mr. Rasmussen described the fighting in Syria, which has killed more than 40,000 people, as “absolutely outrageous” and said nations had a responsibility to find a political solution. But in contrast, he said, “NATO’s responsibility is to protect populations and territories of NATO allied nations,” and he emphasized that the alliance would not intervene in Syria to stop the violence. | |
“We have no intention to intervene militarily,” he said. | “We have no intention to intervene militarily,” he said. |
On Tuesday, NATO foreign ministers discussed reports by the United States that the Assad government might be taking steps to use chemical weapons and agreed that Mr. Rasmussen should read a statement expressing NATO’s concern. But the effect of that statement was somewhat undercut when France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, asserted during a news conference that such reports were unconfirmed. | |
The Patriot batteries in Turkey will be linked to NATO’s air defense system and will be under the alliance’s command and control. If a Syrian missile were to be fired at Turkey, longer-range radar systems would identify the missile’s trajectory and cue the Patriot batteries to take countermeasures. | The Patriot batteries in Turkey will be linked to NATO’s air defense system and will be under the alliance’s command and control. If a Syrian missile were to be fired at Turkey, longer-range radar systems would identify the missile’s trajectory and cue the Patriot batteries to take countermeasures. |
The response by the missile batteries would be nearly automatic, firing interceptor missiles to destroy the target by ramming into it, a tactic the military calls “hit to kill.” At least some of the Patriot batteries will be PAC-3 versions, the system’s most modern. | |
When used for antimissile defense, the Patriot interceptors fired by the batteries have a range of 16 miles, which means they would not be able to cross into Syrian airspace, according to a NATO diplomat. In the event of a Syrian missile attack and a successful Patriot intercept, the debris would fall on Turkish territory. But NATO officials said that would be far better than allowing it to proceed to its target. | |
Surveys are being conducted of 10 potential sites, mostly in southeastern Turkey, each of which could be defended by one or more Patriot batteries. But the alliance lacks enough batteries to cover all of the sites, so fewer will be protected, a NATO official said. | |
Russia, which has frustrated efforts to pressure the Assad government, has complained about the Turkish request for the missiles, apparently fearing that it might be a prelude to direct NATO involvement in the conflict. But as it became clear that the alliance planned to proceed anyway, Russian officials tempered their criticism. | |
“We are not trying to interfere,” Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said at a news conference at NATO headquarters. “We are just attracting attention to the fact that threats should not be overstated.” | |
Mr. Lavrov, in Brussels for a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, also played down reports of increased activity at Syria’s chemical weapons sites, saying that his government had previously asked the Assad government about the “rumors” and had been told they were baseless. | |