Turkey and NATO

In this article, we shall examine the relationship between Turkey and NATO. We will explore the history of Turkey and its contributions within the international organization. Then, we shall discuss more recent events in Turkey, which include but are not limited to the July 2016 coup, and the subsequent actions following the failed coup. It will be within this framework that we shall explore new questions surrounding Turkey and NATO, with additional attention to whether Turkey should remain within NATO or not, giving concerns about rising authoritarianism in the country.

The History of Turkey in NATO

NATO is an international military alliance organization created during the early years of the Cold War to go against Soviet and communist expansion throughout the world. Spearheaded by the United States, this entity continues to play a role in international relations today, with 28 members a part of the international organization.

Turkey has had a long history within NATO. Ever since 1952, During the Cold War, the United States has viewed Turkey as an essential ally in the fight against the Soviet Union. Because of having Turkey as an ally, the United States were able to deploy planes from the country, and be traveling over the Soviet Union in an hour’s time (COughlin, 2016). This was a highly valuable ally during this period of time. However, the importance of the Turkey-NATO relationship extends well after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. More recently, Turkey is a much-needed ally in conflicts like the fight in Syria, as well as a loyal partner in the assurance of similar geopolitical interests in the Middle East (which include but are not limited to Iraq) (Coughlin, 2016).

Turkey continues to be an integral part of NATO today. Not only are do they offer a strategic positioning for NATO allies in the Middle East and Black Sea, but “Turkey’s military is a behemoth inside NATO, the second-largest standing force after the U.S., and guardian of an estimated 90 American B61 nuclear bombs. It’s also the key defender of NATO’s entire southern flank, and is vital to the U.S.-led coalition fight against ISIS in Syria” (Stewart, 2016).

Should Turkey Leave NATO?

One of the questions that has been asked by scholars, policymakers, and journalists since the failed coup in 2016 has been whether Turkey should no longer be a part of NATO. The reason for the question has to do with concerns about the ever-increasing authoritarian nature of the Turkish leadership following the failed coup attempt.

In fact, it has been argued that “Turkey and NATO are on a collision course” (Nabzi, 2016). One of the reasons? As Nabzi (2016) argues, “One end of their argument hinges on the belief — apparently shared to an extent by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish government — that the United States and NATO played a role in the unsuccessful coup attempt July 15.” For the Turkish government, they are upset at the United States government for not turning over Fethullah Gulen following extradition requests. In a television interview, Bekir Bozdag, Turkey’s Minister of Justice was quoted as saying that ““The US knows Fethullah Gulen carried out this coup. Mr. Obama knows this just as he knows his own name. I am convinced that American intelligence knows it, too. I am convinced the State Department knows it. … Other countries know it, too, because every country has an intelligence agency” (Nabzi, 2016). So, for the Turkish leadership, there seem to be accusations that the United States government had information about the coup.

However, such comments have not been met without rebuke from the United States and others. And this has led to question Turkey’s relationship with NATO. For example, as Gregory Copley noted, “Turkey has now formally declared the US (and therefore NATO) as its enemy” (Nabzi, 2016).

An Undemocratic Turkey in NATO

One of the other primary concerns within NATO countries is whether they can have an increasingly authoritarian state within NATO. For those who are looking to have Turkey leave NATO, the argument has been that NATO is an alliance of democratic states, and Turkey, continuing on the trajectory that it has begun, is not a good fit for the international organization (Nabzi, 2016). NATO itself does have within its charter expectations that countries within the international military organization will meet democratic conditions within their state. However, it should be noted that

This idea of ensuring that NATO countries are democratic has not been an isolated one, but rather, has been more recently espoused in some form by top political figures, which include U.S., Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry was quoted as saying that ““NATO also has a requirement with respect to democracy,” and went on to say that there would be additional scrutiny to the events in Turkey (Nabzi, 2016).

Along with Kerry, the general secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, also condemned the coup, but also mentioned the importance of democracy, law, and also human rights (Riegert, 2016).

Another issue for Turkey has been not only that the government is becoming more and more authoritarian, but it is also that Turkey’s relations with many NATO countries are upset with Turkey on a number of issues, that include their handling of the refugee crisis, as well as accusations that the government has not been as hard on some Islamist groups in Syria (Coughlin, 2016). Germany and Turkey are also in dispute over the Armenian Genocide, (Riegert, 2016), which Turkey vehemently denies was a genocide. More recently [in 2016] “…the Bundestag recognized the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire a century ago, which Turkey vehemently denies. German parliamentarians are therefore currently banned from visiting German soldiers in Incirlik. If this does not end soon, parliament could withdraw German soldiers from Turkey” Riegert, 2016).

Turkey’s Concerns With NATO

However, it is not just NATO members looking at whether Turkey should leave its organization. There is a movement within Turkey itself in which some are questioning the need for Turkey to be in the military alliance. For example, “Former senior officers from the military, like retired Rear Adm. Cem Gurdeniz, are among those questioning this membership. In an interview with daily Hurriyet, Gurdeniz said there had always been a struggle between “Atlanticists” and the “Eurasia camp” in the military. He said if the coup was successful, Turkey would have become part of “Atlanticist” plans to its detriment.” Gurdeniz also said that ““The losses incurred would have included the declaration of an independent Kurdistan, autonomy [for Kurds] in southeastern Anatolia and the loss of Cyprus,” and added that this “should play a balancing role between the Atlantic and Eurasia” (Nabzi, 2016). He felt that given these developments, NATO should not receive the benefits of Turkey being a member (Nabzi, 2016).

Furthermore, there has been underlying concern within Turkey about just how receptive NATO has been to their geopolitical interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. As it has been noted, “Too often, the Turks feel as though their unique concerns and geography are not respected within the North Atlantic Council, the governing body of the alliance” (Stavridis, 2016). There are concerns that NATO has not done enough to help Turkey with regards to the Islamic State and also Bashar al-Assad in neighboring Syria (Stavridis, 2016). Turkey has hoped that NATO would do more, but it has been to no avail (Bishara, 2016).

Plus, Erdogan is not happy with NATO’s response to the failed coup attempt. More specifically, “The Turkish government was displeased with what it regarded as this very restrained expression of solidarity. In interviews, Erdogan himself called for high-ranking foreign politicians to visit Turkey. Until now, NATO has not commented officially on the purge of suspected rebels from the Turkish military. The word from Brussels was that it is the right of every NATO member state to replace its own military leadership” (Riegert, 2016).

Arguments for Turkey Staying in NATO

Despite the push by some for re-examining Turkey’s relationship within NATO on account of authoritarianism in the country, there are others who believe that the military relationship with Turkey is much too valuable to end, particularly at a time with such instability in the Middle East.

NATO’s Missiles in Turkey

A key reason put forward by proponents of Turkey and NATO maintaining their relationship is due to the strategic positioning of Turkey for the NATO, and more specifically, NATO’s ability to establish a radar system in Kurecik, Turkey, as well as their ability and willingness to carry out a series of military exercises on the Black Sea (Nabzi, 2016). In addition, while “Incirlik is not a NATO facility[,]…the western Turkish port city of Izmir hosts one of the five NATO headquarters, which is responsible for coordinating major operations of land-based forces. The Allied Land Command, or LANDCOM, is subordinate to the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe. There is also an important US military airport in Izmir” (Riegert, 2016).

Turkey and Russia

Another concern if Turkey were to leave NATO would be whether it would then in turn further improve its ties with Russia, which would be of high concern to current NATO members. While Turkey and Russia were at odds over Russian incursions into Turkish territory during activity in the Syrian conflict, Erdogan has reached out to Russia since the failed coup, and it seems that there are attempts to strengthen relations between the two leaders. This poses a serious concern for NATO member states, who have been working to find ways to limit Russia’s influence in the Middle East and elsewhere.

However, for Turkey, there is a strong belief that they are much less concerned about staying in NATO per se than ensuring that they are on good terms with the United States. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that Turkey would end their relationship with NATO knowing that the United States is such an important part of the organization, unless they can find a way to maintain their bilateral relations with America; this relationship with the United States is the primary interest that Turkey has with NATO (Nabzi, 2016).

A Weakened Turkish Military

Another concern for NATO has been the state of Turkey’s military following the failed coup attempt. According to reports, “At least a third of its top officer ranks, 143 generals and admirals, were thrown into detention, and 10,000 officers of lesser rank were also arrested for suspected ties to the coup plotters. None, as yet, has been brought to trial. The air force has been hit the hardest. It faces a severe pilot crisis after 300 flyers, roughly half its duty roster, were purged. Such a massive shortage will be very difficult to recover from given the time it takes to train combat-ready crews. As many as five squadrons of F-16 fighters are reported to have been shut down” (Stewart, 2016).

As Stavridis (2016) argues, “[c]learly, there will be a strong negative impact on the ability of the Turkish military to perform its duties across the spectrum of alliance activities. Turkey has sent troops, aircraft, and ships to every NATO mission: to Afghanistan, the Balkans, Syria, Libya, and on counterpiracy missions. Unfortunately, it is likely that the military in the wake of the coup will be laser-focused on internal controversy, endless investigations, and loyalty checks — and simply surviving as an institution. This will have a chilling effect on military readiness and performance. While some operations have resumed at the crucial Incirlik Air Base, cooperation is already frozen across many U.S. and NATO channels.” Plus, for the Turkish government, given the coup attempt, the state leaders might be much less willing to work with others on military initiatives, given the higher level of distrust that exists (Stavridis, 2016).

Incirlik Airbase

In addition, it should also be noted that the role of air force members of the planned coup attempt “is particularly worrisome for NATO because of the crisis that flared around the major southern airbase of Incirlik, which plays a vital role in supporting U.S. and allied anti-ISIS air attacks in Syria. The base also houses NATO’s largest nuclear weapons storage facility — where those 90 or so B61 nukes are kept” (Stevens, 2016) (is should be noted that the United States has not confirmed that they have nuclear weapons here, but there is also no denial of this) (Stavridis, 2016).

This base has been of historical importance to the US-Turkish alliance, given its use for the storage of nuclear weapons. The base has also been instrumental for the United States, as it has launched strikes across the border against ISIS in Syria. However, “During the failed coup in Turkey in July, the American Embassy in Ankara issued an emergency message for their citizens warning that power had been cut to Incirlik. U.S. Air Force planes stationed there were prohibited from taking off or landing and the security-threat level was raised to the highest state of alert. Eventually, the base commander was arrested over alleged participation in the agitation and implicated in the coup. Whether the US could have maintained control of the weapons in the event of a lingering civil conflict in Turkey is still an unanswerable question” (Ali, 2016). Some argue that all was secure, and that it would be quite difficult to breach the base, and any hint of such a thing would cause an immediate reaction by the United States and NATO (Ali, 2016). But this does not ease concerns, particularly in those early hours of the coup attempt announcement.

So, with the government crackdown on the military, there are questions about Turkey’s military organization and power, and also what the future will look like for the military. Namely, how long will it take for Turkey to reorganize its military with effective leaders, and is NATO comfortable with the existing state of the government’s armed forces?  It has been argued that Turkey’s military may be in disarray for some time, particularly as the post-failed coup political events continue to unfold; “Former NATO supreme commander James Stavridis is concerned the crucial ally will become distracted.  “Unfortunately, it is likely that the military, in the wake of the coup, will be laser-focused on the internal controversy, endless investigations, and loyalty checks — and simply surviving as an institution,” the retired admiral said” (Stevens, 2016).

Plus, it does not seem that NATO has seriously moved on the idea of not having Turkey as a member, which may suggest that they are not in any hurry to move on such a decision to kick Turkey out of NATO (Idiz, 2016). Again, while NATO was talking about the need for democracy in Turkey shortly after the failed coup and then government crackdown (Coughlin, 2016), it seems that, to NATO, there is much to lose for them to remove Turkey from membership.

Conclusion

Questions remain as to what the future relationship between Turkey and NATO will look like. Despite growing tension between Turkey and NATO member countries over Turkey’s crackdown on over 100,000 people, and suppression of journalists and other non-state actors within the country, there is a belief that the military relationship between NATO and Turkey is far too valuable to end. Despite how some have framed Turkey as not being a serious contributor to NATO, others, such as James Stavridis, have pointed out that Turkey has helped NATO on “virtually every NATO operation with significant impact” (Bishara, 2016). On August 10th, 2016, the spokesperson for the NATO stated the importance of Turkey’s role in the international organization, saying that “Turkey is a valued Ally, making substantial contributions to NATO’s joint efforts.  Turkey takes full part in the Alliance’s consensus-based decisions as we confront the biggest security challenges in a generation. Turkey’s NATO membership is not in question. Our Alliance is committed to collective defence and founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, human rights and the rule of law. NATO counts on the continued contributions of Turkey and Turkey can count on the solidarity and support of NATO” (NATO, 2016). There is also arguments that Turkey can continue to play a vital role as a powerful actor in a number of Middle Eastern related issue (Bishara, 2016).

Then, on an interview aired on September 4th, 2016 with Fareed Zakaria, United States President Barack Obama iterated the US’ support for Turkey.

Nabzi argues that, “Whatever is being written or said on either side of the fence today, the truth is that Ankara’s NATO membership was never threatened following successful coups in Turkey in the past, when the Cold War was raging, and NATO could not endanger the strategic advantages Turkey provided against the Soviet Union. Turkey’s place on the map remains equally important today for NATO, if not more so. Retired Ambassador Unal Unsal, a former Turkish permanent representative to NATO, believes it would be difficult for the alliance to turn its back on Turkey at a time when the Middle East and the Black Sea region is in turmoil…” (Nabzi, 2016). More specifically, It has been argued that there is no way ISIS could be fought the same way without Turkey’s support (Bishara, 2016).

James Stavridis (2016), the retired four star U.S. Navy Admiral and former NATO supreme allied commander puts it this way: The highly unstable geopolitics of the Levant and NATO’s expanding security needs come together at a crossroads in Turkey. It is not only a nation, but a civilization as well, one that has an acute sense of its importance and history in the region. In a host of issues — from the Islamic State to Syria; Israel to oil and gas in the eastern Mediterranean; responding to radical Islam to stability in Egypt — Turkey has an enormous ability to influence events. Washington needs to be a good friend — supportive in real ways while providing advice and incentives (like membership in the European Union), which may help circumvent any tendency to overreaction that tramples on human rights in the drive for vengeance. It’s a hard balance to strike, but one that demands the full attention of the United States in the days ahead.”

However, there will continue to be questions on how this relationship could change in the coming months or years. For example, given the importance of the airbase in Incirlik to the United States and NATO, Turkey could try to use the importance of the base with regards to calls for the US to extradite Gulen. In addition, since Turkey has taken issue with US support of the Kurds in the Syrian Conflict, this might be another point in which Turkey could bring up (Riegert, 2016).

Turkey and NATO references

Ali, S. (2016). US Nukes in Turkey. Eurasia Review: A Journal of Analysis and News. September 1, 2016. Available Online: http://www.eurasiareview.com/01092016-us-nukes-in-turkey-oped/

Bishara, M. (2016). Turexit: Should Turkey leave NATO? Al Jazeera. 21 July 2016. Available Online: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/07/turexit-turkey-leave-nato-160721105010182.html 

Coughlin, C. (2016). Erodogan’s purge may give Nato no choice but to expel Turkey from the alliance. The Telegraph. July 19, 2016. Available Online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/erdogans-purge-may-give-nato-no-choice-but-to-expel-turkey-from/

Idiz, S. (2016). Will Turkey Be Expelled From NATO? Al-Monitor, in US News & World Report. July 27, 2016. Available Online: http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-07-27/will-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato

Nabzi, T. (2016). Will Turkey be expelled from NATO? Al-Monitor. July 26, 2016. Available Online: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/07/turkey-united-states-nato-coup-attempt.html

NATO (2016). NATO Spokesperson’s statement on Turkey. NATO. August 10, 2016. Available Online: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_134408.htm

Riegert, B. (2016). NATO and Turkey: Allies, not friends. DW.com. 02 08, 2016. Available Online: http://www.dw.com/en/nato-and-turkey-allies-not-friends/a-19444991

Stavridis, J. (2016). Turkey and NATO: What Comes Next Is Messy. Foreign Policy. July 18, 2016. Available Online: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/turkey-and-nato-what-comes-next-is-messy-coup-erdogan-incirlik-air-base-nuclear-weapons/

Stewart, B. (2016). Turkey’s purged post-coup military has NATO allies nervous: Brian Stewart. CBC. October 3rd, 2016. Available Online: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/turkey-coup-crackdown-military-1.3786844