NATO: The Latest Actor In the Refugee Crisis

The refugee crisis in the Mediterranean Sea has just seen the addition of another actor: NATO. With the German Chancellor’s initiative NATO has been called to patrol the waters of the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey. What are some of the implications of such a move for the ongoing crisis affecting a geographical area from the Middle East to the Mediterranean?

Humanitarian angle missing. According to Secretary-General of NATO Mr Stoltenberg, the mission “will be tasked to conduct reconnaissance, monitoring and surveillance of the illegal crossings in the Aegean Sea in cooperation with relevant authorities, and to establish a direct link with the European Union’s border management agency Frontex”. Specific details on practical aspects are not yet known but we see a recurring pattern. The choice of wording confirms that NATO will conduct a security-oriented operation in response to a crisis requiring humanitarian instruments. The fight against people smugglers seems to be a thin humanitarian veil trying to cover the real mission: stopping refugees and migrants from reaching European shores. The idea of fighting traffickers at sea is flawed as these traffickers are either not on the boats used by refugees or in case they are it would be hard to differentiate them from the rest of the passengers. The European Union’s Operation EU Navfor Med (or Sophia as it is now called) and the new enhanced Frontex agency missions are examples of border security missions presented as being the adequate response towards people in distress at sea. This part of the mission obviously has failed judging by the number of refugees having drowned in the Aegean Sea. A significant difference this time is that the mandate will allow NATO ships to push any intercepted boats back to Turkey’s territorial waters after Greece has declared Turkey “a safe country”. While NATO has previously taken part in humanitarian missions it can hardly be argued that this is its primary area of expertise. NATO’s hard security orientation has always been evident and even more today as it builds-up security assets in Eastern Europe. The decision of European countries to deploy their flagship military instruments with as a response to a foremost humanitarian crisis confirms that Europe is addressing the issue as a territorial invasion.

Sovereignty issues exacerbated. European partners and Germany in particular seek to address the shortcomings of European border protection in the geographic area of Southeast Europe. The main question is why does this response need to involve NATO, a military alliance, since a reinforced version of the Frontex mission involving quasi-military equipment is already in place. The EU realised that the only way to bind Greece and Turkey to their responsibilities is by using NATO’s overarching authority. Turkey and Greece are both NATO members which means they would both have to contribute to the smooth running of the operation. The presence of third parties therefore will supposedly not allow for the use of the refugee crisis as a tactic to pursue a specific political agenda. The SNMG2 maritime contingent is constituted of 3 ships originating from Germany, Canada and Turkey and can be further reinforced with more assets in the future. The inclusion of NATO in the surveillance of the Aegean may sound as a smart tactical move in order to bring military efficiency in an otherwise inconsistent European response until now. Furthermore it may be linked to the preparation of future NATO activities in the Turkish-Syria border. However, on the ground (or water rather) such a hasty move can shake an already frail stability in the Aegean between Greece and Turkey. The long-standing dispute over sovereignty of territorial waters and even islands in the Aegean Sea raises questions over its further militarization. From a Greek perspective, the prospect of having Turkish warships under the command of a German admiral patrolling so-called “grey areas” in the Aegean Sea could be considered as a dangerous precedent of sovereignty loss.

Creation of internal political turmoil. This brings me to the final point which is: such external developments could further add to a siege mentality already existing in an EU country literally on the verge of social disintegration. The emotional take of the territorial dispute from the Greek public cannot be ignored. The population is already in a defensive mode towards EU partners due to the effective loss of sovereignty caused by the bailout conditions and the tumultuous Eurozone negotiations of 2015. This has been followed by the scapegoating of Greece by its EU partners in the refugee crisis leading to calls for de facto suspension from Schengen. This practice has led to a number of threats and deadlines where Greece is required to implement a set of impossible measures. This is not to deny the current Greek government’s numerous shortcomings on the issue. However, the geography of the country is unique and makes it extremely difficult for a state with Greece’s current capacity to manage the numbers of refugees arriving at its shores. The internal crisis the government faces over pension reform and constant strikes paralysing the country adds to this flammable mix. Under these circumstances the de facto custody of Greece’s border protection by NATO with the involvement of Turkey and Germany can only add to the alienation of the population. Recent rumours about a possible closure of the northern borders passage are not helping. The perception of the Greek population of being under constant external pressure (helped by local media and even the Greek government) is a reality that can lead to extremes. The political and social consequences of a constantly unstable Greece could prove disastrous for the whole region of Southeast Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean as it acquires a global strategic importance.