Backstage view of a quiet victory on the F-16s

“If we attach such an amendment to the defense budget, you’ll be satisfied, but, for us, it will open Pandora’s box,” a top senator told Greek-American congressmen in early November, urging them to understand the sort of dangerous precedent the imposition of conditions on Turkey through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would create for global arms sales.

The warning was indicative of how difficult this attempt would be in the face of the deeply entrenched arms sales procedure. In the end, the pragmatic senator did not avoid the precedent, since it is the first time that the explanatory text of the defense budget mentions overflights in the context of two NATO allies.

The conditions introduced in the text are a bipartisan message whose final adoption in the budget was always going to be extremely unlikely; otherwise, we would be celebrating for days. The “Greek bloc” knew that very well, but, carefully weighing the options, decided that what was really important was to convey a message. And the message was conveyed. Nowadays, everyone in Washington talks about Turkey’s unacceptable actions in the Aegean; a year ago, almost no one mentioned them.

The timeline

The amendment about the conditional sale proposed by Senator Bob Menedez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did not make the Senate’s final defense budget text in mid-October. It appeared equally probable that the similar amendment tabled by Rep. Chris Pappas in the House was very unlikely to be included in the House’s version. And this for reasons far wider than the dispute between Greece and Turkey, as the aforementioned senator explained.

The Turks are celebrating the imminent sale; lawmakers in crucial posts are wondering why Ankara is acting so cocky over the F-16 sale. This is the period immediately preceding the midterm elections, with the whole US political scene in flux and uncertainty over the outcome and its consequences. So, no one can make promises, especially binding ones, and no one wants to displease anybody. In this climate, Pappas is asked to water down his amendment and table it again. The people who do the asking want the amendment to be presented in a way that will “outline” the problem but will not be as binding for the president and will not upend the framework of international arms sales. The amendment was recast to emphasize the obligations NATO members have toward their allies when they use US-made weapons.

However, the timing does not favor Greece and the Greek lobby. On the week the revised amendment is presented, Turkey mediates again to revive the agreement on Ukrainian cereals and its diplomacy gains points. Important Congress officials evaluate this and try to buy time: They ask for a new draft but it is obvious that they want to back down, this time actually because they do not want to displease Turkey and undermine its role as mediator between Russia and Ukraine. Thus, only days before the midterms, the Greek lobby’s efforts grind to a halt.

Nowadays, everyone in Washington talks about Turkey’s unacceptable actions in the Aegean

But when it becomes apparent that Menendez will remain chairman of the all-powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the situation changes. The difficult task of adopting an amendment that would place conditions on the sale of F-16s to Turkey no longer appears so essential. “Why waste precious political capital on this when Menendez will block the sale anyway?” the Greek lobby wonders. But, after all the groundwork undertaken, representatives and senators are willing to listen to the arguments and it would be a shame not to capitalize on the favorable climate in Congress. Maybe a joint letter, or any kind of action. There is a furious exchange of messages, since something like that has not been attempted before. How to proceed?

Α laborious process

Proposals are made, rejected and reformulated. It is a laborious process, with the intended interlocutors difficult to get hold of, busy as they are trying to manage a war and to preserve US democracy from Donald Trump, who has just announced his third candidacy for the White House. And let’s not forget about the congressmen who must deliver defense contracts to their constituencies.

Representative Gus Bilirakis undertakes to convince his fellow Republicans that it is essential to send a message; Nicole Malliotakis, also a Republican, insists on briefing her colleagues on what a likely sale of F-16s to Turkey would mean. On the Democratic side, Rep. Chris Pappas, having already fought for the conditionality of the sale, is the right person to collect signatures and send letters. All Greek Americans and friends of Greece in the Congress, such as Representatives John Sarbanes and Frank Pallone and Senator Chris Van Hollen, contribute. Greek-American businessmen make the difficult calls, even some super-rich ones not involved in politics but who are the constituents of members of the two chambers’ leadership and/or part of important committees.

The Greek-American lobby also coordinates with Greece’s Ambassador in Washington Alexandra Papadopoulou. This methodical effort takes several weeks and bears fruit. A few days before the defense budget is finalized, there is a consensus in Congress that Turkey must get the message, either through the budget preamble or the attached explanatory note. The exact text is the province of the rather slow-moving and secretive Armed Services Committees in both the House and Senate. There’s renewed uncertainty. What will the text contain? Will something go wrong at the last moment? When the final text finally emerges, on Tuesday, December 13, and the reference to Turkish overflights in the Aegean is in, victory has been achieved, however narrow.

A difficult negotiation

After the conclusion of technical talks between Turkey and the US on the sale of F-16 fighters and upgrade kits, the request is sent to the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees, which will now be informed of the content of the negotiations. In the Senate, Chairman Menendez’s opposition has been expressed; ranking member Jim Risch’s (R-Idaho) position, as expressed to Kathimerini a couple of Sundays ago, indicates that this new phase will be more difficult for Turkey and may be lengthy as well. Both senators never opposed the Pappas amendment, they just thought the issue should be managed differently.

In the coming weeks, the process in Congress will reach a critical stage and both the Greek side and the “no jets for Turkey” coalition are finalizing their next moves.

Speaking on the conditionality provision, which was at the heart of the Pappas amendment, Bilirakis told Kathimerini: “While this provision in its entirety was not included in the final NDAA text, we were still able to send a strong message to Turkey with inclusion of language that condemns unauthorized territorial overflights of another NATO ally’s airspace. This statement, in conjunction with strong bipartisan and bicameral opposition to any F-16 sale to Turkey, makes me confident that Turkey will not be rewarded anytime soon for its continued aggressive and destabilizing actions in the region.”

“NDAA language clearly states that NATO nations should not conduct unauthorized flyovers in another NATO ally’s airspace,” adds Maliotakis. “It’s a good start, but we must continue to be vigilant and explain to our colleagues that [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan cannot be trusted with American military jets. His aggressive rhetoric and actions towards Greece, alignment with Iran’s [President Ebrahim] Raisi and Russia’s Putin, and undermining of counterterrorism efforts in Syria are all reasons why a sale should be denied.”

In the same vein, Pappas says that “the language included in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act sends a clear message that the United States Congress is united in the belief that any unauthorized overflights of a NATO ally’s sovereign land are unacceptable. This is critical. I will continue to work with members of both parties to press this issue in the 118th Congress, and fight to hold the Erdogan government accountable for violating both US law and the standards of the NATO Aliance. Turkey’s membership in NATO cannot and should not shield the Erdogan government from being held responsible for its behavior by US policymakers.”