Introduction
Parties in international relations should live in harmony and refrain from making decisions that may harm them. However, according to Nau, they may have differences or conflicts where military action is called upon in some situations. This situation raises the question of why Turkey chose to shoot down the Russian airplane knowing very well that such an action was against the commitment by the two states to the discourse of maintaining good international relations. This paper investigates this issue.
Relations between Turkey and Russia before the Shoot down of Russian Airplane
Russia and Turkey have had good international relations before the shoot down of the Russian warplane. Turkey sources most of its energy (60% of natural gas) from Russia. It also has a deal worth $20 billion for the construction of nuclear power plant with a Russian-owned firm. However, the relationships have been accompanied by accusations of ill motives since the war in Syria broke out. This situation has been a matter of concern since the two nations have different opinion and diplomatic stands on the conflict in Syria.
Turkey is an ally to the NATO forces. Therefore, Russian attacks on Ukraine have also had an impact on how Turkey views Russia in terms of commitment to ensuring good international relations between various member states to the international system. This case raises the question of whether Turkey downed the Russian warplane because it breached the sovereignty of its airspace or because of its dissatisfaction with Russia’s involvement in Syria. Turkey is particularly concerned about Russian attacks targeting Turkish tribesmen fighting to topple President Assad in Northern Syrian.
The Shoot down Decision and its Implications
Turkish army works under directions from the top leadership. Therefore, the president must authenticate any attacks that target a given nation. The authority to make a declaration for war rests on Turkish president’s powers. Indeed, Turkey has already noted violations of its airspace by Russia before, including a decision that it has reached to respond to any breach of its sovereignty. Hence, the decision to shoot down the Russian plane was a directive from the president who must have arrived at it in conjunction with other top ranking national security officials. However, the immediate direction on the particular plane to attack rests on the Turkish army upon the identification of the target that breaches the sovereign integrity of Turkish airspace.
According to Business Standard, Armed with an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, a fighter jet (F-16) owned by Turkey downed Sukhoi Su-24 jet that was owned by Russia on its way back to Khmeimim airbase. The plane was flying at an altitude of 6000 meters. The two nations had different accounts of events that led to the attack. The Turkish authority claimed that the aircraft was brought down after being warned for 10 times to depart from airspace of Turkey. Therefore, the decision to attack it was due to reluctance to heed to instructions and that Turkey had the right to defend the autonomy of its airspace.
President Putin of Russia accepted that the shot down aircraft belonged to Russia. However, he quickly noted that it was shot 4km inside Syria. He further noted that the missile downing the plane was fired from the ground, but not from the air as Lee confirms. Apart from accusing Turkey of backing the ISIS, President Putin claimed that Turkey was insulting Russia. Indeed, Russia has conducted several bombings on some selected targets in Syria along the border with Turkey. This move has been accompanied by several accusations of violation of the airspace, thus making it obvious that the violation that led to the down shooting was deliberate. It is also uncertain that due to the rising tensions between the two nations, the Russian plane never crossed the airspace, but Turkey wanted to assert its position on Russia’s involvement in Syria. This dilemma may not get a direct and obvious solution, considering that the two nations released radar trajectories supporting their respective positions. While it is known that Turkey shot down the Russian warplane, the explanations offered for reasons of taking the decision are unclear. To unfold the dilemma surrounding the whole situation, an understanding of relations between the two nations prior to the attack is necessary.
Russia’s recounts of the circumstances that led to the attack raise the question of whether Turkey’s action was pre-planned. The US had already warned that the breach of Turkish airspace sovereignty by Russia had severe consequences. Hence, Turkey and allies that form NATO were aware of the decision to attack any plane within its airspace territory. Was the plan to attack a specific plane on a particular day available before? Russia claims that this situation was the case. Fraser and Akkoc assert, “Turkey was allowing a trade in oil with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to continue, suggesting the shooting down of the jet was in response to Russian attacks on ISIL oil installations”. In this context, the Russian foreign minister termed the action as a planned provocation. However, with knowledge and anticipation of the violation of Turkish airspace, it is debatable that Turkey was more likely to have deployed mechanisms for airspace surveillance to detect any such violations and/or establish in strategies for stopping the act. Therefore, the attack may not have been pre-planned as Russia claims.
Turkey made a decision to attack any target that posed threat to its airspace. Indeed, Turkey is described by geographical boundaries that engulf a group of people who come from single or multi-ethnic backgrounds believing that they were born and brought up within the nation. According to Schrock-Jacobson, such people have the sovereign rights to protect the territorial integrity of their nation. Where such integrity is broken, different nations engage in war. Under the discourse of international relations, Melenikov asserts that a nation has the right to respond to an attack on its territorial integrity. Even though Turkey did not seek consent from NATO, as it was the case, attacking the Russian airplane was the right decision to take if Russia continued to stray its airspace, despite giving it 10 warnings and/or having instructed it to stop such an action.
Turkey may lose its trade relations with Russia. Indeed, Russia is yet to resolve on whether to terminate its multibillion deals concerning the installation of nuclear power plant with Turkey. Therefore, it will have to source its natural gas elsewhere. The question whether Russia did anything wrong before shooting depends on information about the position of the plane when it was shot. Although NATO’s meeting that was held after the shooting confirmed that the Russian plane had violated Turkish airspace, although Russia and nations that support its mission in Syria do not agree on this matter. This case means that the information to justify the position of any of the parties is inadequate. After the shooting, the relationship between the two nations was pre-occupied with suspicion.
Conclusion
In November 2015, a Turkish fighter jet hijacked a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 jet. Turkey claimed that Russia had violated its airspace integrity. Russia denied this position by claiming that Turkey shot the jet while it was within the Syrian airspace. This matter has led to a stalemate that threatens the nations’ international relations.
Bibliography
Business Standard. “Turkey shoots down Russian jet near Syrian border.” Business Standard. 2016. Web.
Fraser, Isabelle, and Raziye Akkoc. “Turkey shooting down plane was ‘planned provocation’ says Russia, as rescued pilot claims he had no warning.” World News. 2016. Web.
Lee, Jason. “Turkey Shot Down A Russian Warplane: Why It Would Happen and Why It Matters, Explained.” Vox World. 2016. Web.
Melenikov, Ishmael. “The World is Interdependent.” International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics 55, no.12(2009): 102-109.
Nau, Henry. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, Ideas. New York, NY, Palgrave, 2008.
Schrock-Jacobson, Gretchen. “The Violent Consequences of The Nation: Nationalism and the Initiation of the Interstate War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 56 no. 5(2012): 825-852.