DIPLOMACY ДИПЛОМАЦИЯ

STRATEGIC EQUILIBRIUM IN THE BLACK SEA REGION IN THE CONTEXT...
create some prerequisites for Turkey’s getting back to the already mentioned traditional
Turkish policy of isolating NATO, along with the non-littoral NATO Member States, from
some more visible participation in the balance-seeking process in the Black Sea. In the
current context, the only Black Sea naval format that has some prospects for development
in the future is the Turkish national Black Sea “Harmony Operation”, which is coordinated by
the naval center in Eregli, Turkey. A particular characteristic feature of this format involves
the fact that this operation is not labeled “regional” and does not involve the participation of
all six littoral Black Sea countries, Bulgaria included. Bearing in mind the most likely lack of
interest on the part of Georgia and Ukraine to participate in a format in which Russia takes
part, as well as Bulgaria’s and Romania’s position in relation to the Black Sea “Harmony
Operation”, this format is doomed to remain only bilateral between Turkey and Russia. It
is fairly probable that, in its endeavors to preserve the strategic balance in the Black Sea
between itself and Russia alone, Turkey could make an attempt to restrict the naval role of
NATO, or of the non-littoral NATO Member States in the Black Sea, including in the context
of the Montreux Convention restrictions. In the 21 st century, Turkey has already imposed a
similar restriction. After the 2008 war in South Ossetia, Georgia, Turkey refused to allow a
transit passing through the Straits of two American humanitarian ships heading for Georgia
on the grounds of tonnage restrictions (where the tonnage did not have to exceed a total of
45 000 tons).
Over the years, the Bulgarian policy, which is largely shared by Romania, has been clear
and consistent. Bulgaria has always considered the Black Sea to be a region in the European
and the Euro-Atlantic context and has, quite consistently, insisted upon an inclusive approach
in the regional security area, including a more tangible NATO and EU presence in the Black
Sea. The Allies’ decision that was made in Warsaw in relation to a more adapted front
presence in the Black Sea involves measures which relate particularly to the conduct of
enhanced military exercises and drills aimed at ensuring greater visibility, by adhering at
the same time to the restrictions of the 1936 Montreux Convention concerning the mode
of navigation through the Straits. In its capacity of a NATO Member State and being one
of the six littoral Black Sea countries, Bulgaria is prepared to be an active participant in the
implementation of these measures. They are all defensive in nature and are supposed to be
implemented under the conditions of full transparency. Their main objective is to ease the
tension and reduce the military incident risks, as well as to build stability and predictability
in this region. The objectives set by virtue of the Warsaw decisions are in full harmony with
the meaning of the message that the Bulgarian prime minister has conveyed in relation to
NATO’s role in the Black Sea, namely: easing the tension, participation of all NATO Allies,
and not restricting the adapted front presence format to the three littoral Black Sea NATO
Member States.
Bulgaria will continue to defend its position on NATO’s role in the Black Sea, led by
the conviction that the implementation of all values of the North Atlantic Alliance is going
to guarantee security and stability. NATO’s Open Door Policy is an instrument employed
in the process of building a new and sustainable security architecture in the Black Sea
region. After NATO had submitted a membership invitation to Montenegro and had signed
afterwards the relevant Membership Protocol, it should continue to work for meeting the
commitments it has already made in relation to the integration of the other countries having
NATO-membership aspirations. Another instrument employed in the process of building the
new strategic security environment is aimed at extending the scale of practical cooperation
DIPLOMACY 18/2016
149