NATO(-member) in Name Only? – The American Interest

Several developments this week demonstrate the continued deterioration of Turkeys relationships with traditional Western allies. The most shocking of the stories began to unfold when the state-owned Anadolu News Agency disclosed classified information about the whereabouts of soldiers from the United States and Europe who are fighting ISIS. As Al-Monitor noted:

The reportrevealedcrucial information on some of the US bases and on French and American soldiers in the region. The article and a detailed map appeared in AAs English version on July 18. On July 19, the leak spread to international media outlets. The US military told the press that publishing such sensitive informationwas professionally irresponsible.

Although President Recep Tayyip Erdoans chief foreign policy advisor, Ibrahim Kalin, denied any government involvement in the revelations about secret bases, the unwillingness of the president to remove the story from the webpages his ministries control speaks volumes. The Turkish state has indirectly sanctioned the dispersal of highly sensitive information that endangers the lives of American and European soldiers.

U.S. support for the Syrian Kurds remains the proximate reason for this tit for tat undertaken by the Turkish side. But there are more fundamental factors is Erdoans turn against the West. His governments once cavalier interest in pursuing EU membership has turned to outright hostility; he has revived neo-Ottoman foreign policy goals that turn Turkey to the east and the Islamic world; and he has domestically discredited Kemalism as a governing philosophy.

These large trends portend difficulties for the functioning of Europes web of alliances. As Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty notes the Parties may by unanimous agreement, invite any other European Stateto accede Turkey will not in the near future play ball on a controversial enlargement. This reality lends credence to President Trumps often crude avowal that NATO has in some important respects become obsolete. Meanwhile a new, assertive, but not very capable power is freelancing around the already fragmented Middle East and the Caucasus. The EU, having failed to bring Turkey into the fold when it was willing, must now learn to live with a hostile and aggressive new power on its fragile southeastern frontier.

Meanwhile, in the latest development of the ongoing saga of acrimony between Germany and Turkey, NATO itself has decided to step in and de-escalate things between its two feuding member states.The current dispute, whichbegana week ago with the arbitrary detention of a German human rights activist in Turkey, has snowballed with astonishing speed.Reutersreports:

The mediation offer by NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, announcedon Monday, came as Ankara itself sought to limit the economic fallout from thedamaging row with Berlin, dropping a request for Germany to help it investigate hundreds of German companies it said could have links to terrorism.

Readers may need to fight the urge to rub their eyes at that sentence. An argument over a single German detainee has caused a cascade of disputes, with the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaublethreatening to curtail investment in Turkey, and Ankara returning the favor bysubmittingto Interpol a list of 700 German companies Turkish authorities supposedly suspect of financing terrorism.Then came the further retaliatory action taken by Turkey with regard to Germanys military. The same Reuters article notes:

Adding to tensions is Turkeys refusal to let German members of parliament visit soldiers stationed at two air bases []

This has already led Germany to move troops involved in the campaign against Islamic State from Turkeys Incirlik base to Jordan. The risk of further decampments has sparked deep concern in NATO and now prompted it to intervene.

Yes, Germany is willing to move its troops out of NATO due to an inter-member political conflict which it cannot resolve. It would prefer to keep them in Jordan, a country which, on the whole, has shown itself to be a much more dependable ally in the fight against ISIS than the mercurial and self-serving Turkey.What more damming signal could there be for a defense alliance in distress than the inability of its members to coperate with each other on mutual defense?

After a few days of these increased tensions, Turkey capitulated in part, caving to economic pressure by retracting its list of terrorism-supporting companies. (It went even further to try to save face, saying the submission of the list to Interpol had arose from a simple communications problem.)

This suggests that Europe may still hold some leverage over Turkey, despite its Presidents growing unpredictability.Whatever Erdoans self-serving geopolitical machinations lead him to do, he cannot change the fact of his countrys economic interdependence with Europe.Yet the days when NATO could command the loyalty of its members, necessitating that they handle disputes with co-parties discreetly, are long past. Its ranks may continue to fill with members in name only.

View post:
NATO(-member) in Name Only? - The American Interest