Turkey and its Dissonance with NATO
Turkey’s dissonance with NATO alliance is not novel and it has had differences at copious times in history. The first uneasy period was when Turkey fought with Greece over Cyprus. Secondly, the approach towards intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina was different as Turkey wanted NATO to act more aggressively against Serbia but the military alliance delayed the intervention until 1995. Turkey’s troubled ties with NATO has carried well into the 21st century as it blocked EU-NATO cooperation during the 2007-08 Kosovo mission.
Herein Ankara’s incongruity with the military alliance will be explored to understand why Turkey is acting at odds with NATO. How NATO’s own response has given a boost to President Erdogan to continue with his aggressive foreign policy outlook and finally, what does Ankara’s actions mean.
Turkey’s differences with other NATO members:
President Erdogan’s adventurist foreign policy outlook could be held responsible for the conflict with NATO members. For instance, Turkey signed a defence deal with Russia back in 2017 for the delivery of S-400 missile defence system. The deal puts Turkey at odds with the alliance as it became the first NATO member in history to procure Russian defence system. Not only does the deal go against what NATO was built for but it also contributed Ankara’s rancorous relationship with Washington.
Turkey also acted at odds with NATO when it not only violated the UN arms embargo by protecting the vessel which was carrying weapons into Libya, but it threatened French Frigate ‘Courbet’ with a targeted radar and thereby forced it to withdraw. These two incidents showcase that not only is Turkey causing embarrassment to the alliance, but its behaviour is akin to that of an adversary rather than an ally.
What drives the behaviour:
Domestic factors are primarily responsible for the foreign policy behaviour:
1. Just as the world is inching towards resurgent nationalism with the rise of right-wing governments, Turkey too is more nationalistic than it was 20 years ago. The rise of nationalism can be attributed to the rise in prosperity leading to the birth of a new middle class, infrastructure development like transportation, irrigation, and lastly military buildup.
2. The domestic political system today resembles an authoritarian setup with the elimination of freedoms, tight control over the media and judiciary. Democracy is eroding as the parliament which is meant to restraint the exercise of power by the executive has been stripped of the authority and in addition to that, dissent and freedom of expression has been criminalized under President Erdogan.
The above three factors are giving rise to Ankara acting more aggressively at the international stage which is exemplified by its quarrels with NATO member-states. The aggressive posture on the world stage could be an attempt to fend off domestic challenges through a hyper-nationalistic narrative. For example, an agreement signed with Libya to delineate maritime boundaries caused great anxiety among Greece and Cyprus with which Ankara has maritime disputes.
The director general in Turkish Foreign Ministry said, ‘this agreement amounts to a political message that Turkey cannot be sidelined in the Eastern Mediterranean and nothing can be really achieved in the region without Turkey’s participation’. This showcases how international conflicts are being employed to mask the political challenges Erdogan faces at home and to create the belief that Turkey is a great power in its own right.
How NATO’s soft response fuels Turkey’s behaviour:
Firstly, US tried to deter Turkey from procuring the Russian made S-400 missile defence system by offering to sell its Raytheon Patriot missile system in 2013 but the fact is the deal came short of fulfilling Ankara’s needs as the American goliath refused to transfer sensitive technology. When Turkey bought Russian made S-400 missile defence system, America responded by kicking Turkey out of its F-35 program as it feared with the use of S-400 Russia could gather secrets regarding the Jet and exploit it. Moreover, kicking Turkey out of the deal, not only caused rift among the two but it also permitted Moscow an opportunity to sell its Su-35 fighter jet which is a rival to F-35.
America imposed sanctions a little too late as they came a year after procurement and even then, they felt short on the scale of severity. So even though sanctions would be damaging to the Turkish defence sector, but the impact would be much narrow. So, these two actions indicate that even though US and Turkey have issues which are causing stir among both the sides, but Turkey is too important as a NATO member and this allows President Erdogan to get away with policies which are in contrast with its NATO alliance membership.
The Turkish-French conflict wherein the Turkish warship flagged its radar on to the French frigate under NATO command was trying to inspect a Tanzanian cargo ship suspected of carrying arms to Libya. The result was that the French government suspended its NATO mission and went with the EU mission instead. Considering the incident, NATO did not leave any comment and US wanted to preserve its relationship with Turkey despite disagreements which conveys that even though NATO is annoyed with Turkey, it did not want to spoil the relationship.
France wanted to call out Turkey for its behaviour, but it could not do anything as there is no formal mechanism to punish members who violate rules and regulations. Turkey is a key ally as it has the second largest military and given its geography, it is an essential partner on the Black and Mediterranean seas. NATO did not take any strict action against Ankara for its misadventures against the alliance which enabled President Erdogan to get away with policies which hurts NATO.
What does Turkey’s action mean?
Turkey’s disputes with NATO member states indicates that it is vying to protect its interests, enhance influence at regional and the international level. For instance, the decision to buy S400 missile defence system from Russia demonstrate that it is not overly dependent on the America for its security needs and in procuring the weapon system, it displayed that it will not shy away from acting independently when the national interest demands it. The conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean with Greece and Cyrus over maritime boundary are guided by its ‘Mavi Vatan’ or ‘Blue Homeland’ maritime strategy and through it is aiming to secure energy sources available in the region.
Recent conflicts with member-states signify that although Ankara is part of the alliance, the decisions it takes on the international stage are based only on national interest which is to say that its foreign policy is based on realism. Turkey has shifted from a democratic socialistic country when it joined NATO back in 1952 and under President Erdogan it is now an authoritarian, nationalistic country which is flexing its muscle in the region without caring for the interest of the alliance it is a part of. NATO’s reaction to the disputes arising between members seems to denote that NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. This clearly gives President Erdogan an opportunity to continue with the foreign policy behaviour wherein Ankara is acting on its own interest while ignoring the interest of the alliance.
Conclusion:
Turkey’s dissonance with NATO is driven by domestic factors such as resurgent nationalism, rise of authoritarianism which culminated in Ankara flexing its muscle at the international stage. With the rise of nationalistic elements, Ankara is reminiscent of its glory days and is trying to relive them through an aggressive foreign policy outlook.
Furthermore, NATO’s response to Turkey’s misadventures has been rather soft which stems from the fact that it has been an important ally which enabled the alliance to contain Soviet Union during the cold war and to limit Russia’s rise in the modern era. The reaction permits President Erdogan to carry on without taking the alliance interest into account.
End notes
1)http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_en/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/ARI73-2018-Gursoy-Toygur-Turkey-in-out-NATO-turbulent-alliance-Western-institutions
2)https://www.americansecurityproject.org/natos-turkey-problem/
3)https://tass.com/defense/1171181
4)https://carnegieeurope.eu/2020/01/29/how-far-can-turkey-challenge-nato-and-eu-in-2020-pub-80912
5)https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-libya-eastmed-tensions-explain-idUSKBN1YT0JK
6)https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-turkey-sanctions-exclusive-int-idUSKBN28K2TZ
7) https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/14/us-sanctions-turkey-over-russian-s400.html
8) https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-offers-to-sell-fighter-jets-to-turkey-2019-7?IR=T
9) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-france-turkey-analysis-idUSKBN2481K5
10) https://icds.ee/en/nato-will-suffer-as-allies-quarrel-in-the-eastern-mediterranean/
11) https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/comment/erdogan-s-actions-mean-turkey-s-ultimate-destiny-lies-towards-the-east-and-not-with-nato-1.924957
Pic Courtesy-Osman Koycu at unsplash.com
(The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)
