Enough is enough: NATO must suspend cooperation with Turkey
Under the brutally authoritarian rule of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, its diehard Islamist president, it has stood out as the alliance’s greatest liability.
By Ben Cohen
JNS
Aug 2, 2024
I don’t know the word for “chutzpah” in Turkish, but whatever it is, it applies in spades to recent comments from Fatih Ceylan, Turkey’s former Ambassador to NATO.
Speaking to Al-Monitor about the security implications of Turkey’s full-throated support for Hamas, Ceylan poured cold water on the proposition that Israel might carry out targeted killings of Hamas and allied terrorists based there, as it has done with spectacular success in Lebanon and Iran over the last week. After dismissing the likelihood of similar operations on Turkish soil, Ceylan added that were one to happen, “[I]n such a case, Turkey will certainly take this move to NATO.”
When it comes to NATO, Turkey—under the brutally authoritarian rule of its diehard Islamist president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—has stood out as the alliance’s greatest liability. Indeed, had Turkey not joined NATO in 1952, when it was ruled by a secular, Western-oriented government, there’s no question that it would even be a candidate for membership in the present day. What Erdoğan has done is to leverage Turkey’s membership to undermine the alliance from within, functioning almost as a fifth column.
In Syria, for example, Turkish forces have carried out strikes against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who are, in turn, backed by the United States—Ankara’s ostensible ally and the most powerful of NATO’s 32 members. In October 2023, the situation was so bad that the United States was compelled to shoot down a Turkish drone—one NATO member taking military action against another.
Erdoğan’s relationship with Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia is just as disturbing. Ankara was booted out of the U.S. F-35 fighter jet program in 2019 after it purchased S-400 missiles from the Russians. In the wake of Putin’s aggression against democratic Ukraine, Turkey has actively participated in busting the international sanctions on Moscow and aided corrupt Russian oligarchs in moving funds through Turkish banks.
Turkey has also been actively hostile to other NATO members, especially Greece. Half of the island of Cyprus has been illegally occupied by the Turks since 1974; earlier this year, Erdoğan showed up there to celebrate the 50th anniversary of that invasion. It has tried to stem NATO’s expansion, holding up Sweden’s application for membership, which was finally approved only last March. As my colleague at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Sinan Ciddi, memorably put it: “Pick your theater of vital security interests for the NATO alliance, and you’ll discover a Turkish connection that actively undermines it.”
So when Ceyhan breezily says that Turkey will raise any Israeli operations on its territory with NATO—hoping, no doubt, that doing so will trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which enshrines the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all—one might reasonably expect, given this woeful record, that the other NATO members will proffer a middle finger in Ankara’s direction.
Right now, the Middle East is in the most febrile state arguably since the State of Israel’s creation in 1948. As we sit on the cusp of a regional war that would pose an unmistakable existential threat to Israel, Turkey is doing everything it can to stoke the flames. Erdoğan is already known for his vicious rhetorical attacks on the Jewish state, laced with the crudest antisemitism. Since Hamas’s pogrom of Oct. 7, that has only gotten worse, with Erdoğan claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “worse than Hitler” and depicting Israel as a reincarnation of the Third Reich. Additionally, the Turkish president has taken special delight in feting the rapists of Hamas on his home turf, among them the late, unlamented Ismail Haniyeh, who was eliminated on July 31 with wonderful symbolism in Tehran. Haniyeh’s assassination unleashed another foul Erdoğan tirade, along with an announcement of a national day of mourning over the loss of his “brother.” To cap it all, he even threatened at the end of July to invade Israel, boasting: “Just as we entered Nagorno-Karabakh, just as we entered Libya, we might do the same to them. There is nothing we can’t do.”
As a result, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz aptly compared Erdoğan to the late Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein as he called on NATO to boot Turkey from its ranks. The problem with that proposal, however, is that there is no procedure within the alliance to expel a member—even when, as in Turkey’s case, said member makes an active mockery of NATO’s commitment to democratic values and the defense of open societies.
For that reason, NATO has to think honestly, bravely and creatively about Turkey’s future status. Honestly, because it is now painfully clear that Turkey’s stance undermines and contradicts NATO’s core purpose, and that needs to be said out loud. Bravely, because one or more states need to summon the guts to publicly question Turkey’s value to the alliance and get the United States on board—something that might be easier to achieve with a Republican, rather than a Democratic, administration. Creatively, because the absence of an expulsion mechanism means that member states need to figure out another way to get Turkey out of NATO.
That could mean refusing to take part in military exercises with Turkey; ending intelligence sharing with Ankara’s security services; shunning meetings with Turkish military officers; and providing usable intelligence to Israel about Turkey’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Erdoğan should also be challenged for his hypocrisy in not exiting NATO voluntarily. If he is the great Islamic leader that he claims to be, if he is aligning himself more and more with Iranian interests, if the murderers and marauders in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria and Iraq are his new best friends, then what on earth is he doing in NATO? Turkish NATO membership doesn’t serve his goals. Neither does it serve ours.
NATO has faced a few external tests since its formation, but Turkey is the biggest internal one since French President Charles de Gaulle withdrew from NATO’s command structure in 1966. It is also more dangerous since de Gaulle’s objections to U.S. domination of NATO didn’t drive France into the hands of the Soviets. To protect themselves and what the alliance stands for, NATO members have only one option: suspend cooperation with Turkey and do all they can to secure Turkey’s departure from an alliance that it only disgraces.
No comments:
Post a Comment