What the coup in Turkey means for NATO
Julia Li, jl2558@gmail.com
As members of Turkey’s military attempted to stage a coup on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government on July 15, 2016, world leaders were quick to warn the Turkish President not to use the coup as a pretext to strengthen his power. However, while the fate of the nation’s membership in NATO has been questioned and criticized by world leaders and top ranking Turkish officials, realistically, NATO should not suspend Turkey’s membership in the alliance primarily due to the militarily and geopolitically strategic role the nation currently and has historically played in the alliance. From July 15 to end of August 2016, President Erdoğan has detained over 26,000 people accused of being a part of the plot.1 Among those accused is US-based cleric Fethullah Gulen whom Erdoğan blames for orchestrating the coup. Erdoğan’s massive crackdowns have drawn criticism about whether or not the response violates due process and the preamble of the North Atlantic Treaty (also known as the Washington Treaty) that all parties are founded on the principles of democracy.
However, NATO leaders have also overwhelmingly condemned the coup attempt with NATO’s Secretary-General welcoming “the strong support shown by the people and all political parties to democracy and to the democratically elected government,” and calling on Turkey to “ensure full respect for democracy and its institutions, the constitutional order, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms.” 2 John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, also denounced the putsch, calling Turkey “both a NATO ally and a key member of the coalition to defeat Dae’sh” (also known as ISIS or ISIL) while also urging “restraint by the Turkish government and respect for due process.”3 German chancellor Angela Merkel additionally told Erdoğan that Ankara must stick to the rule of law while adding her country’s concern about Erdoğan’s support to reintroduce the death penalty, a move that is “in no way compatible” with Turkey’s goal of joining the European Union.4 The question, thus, is whether Erdoğan’s response to the coup is in line with Turkey’s duties as a democratically elected government and as a member of the alliance. While world leaders are justified in warning Erdoğan against violating due process, a Turkish exit from NATO would threaten the legitimacy of the alliance as a whole and would be detrimental for NATO’s military strategy in the region.
As the precedent stands, NATO and the US have always embraced Turkey as a strategic asset, overlooking Turkey’s abuse of democracy. This was made most clearly during the Gezi Park protests where Erdoğan sent the Turkish police to use tear gas on peaceful demonstrators which killed several. His crackdown on both protestors, media, and those within Turkish state institutions mirrors the corruption exhibited in the President’s reaction to the coup. Nonetheless, Turkey has never been the exception. The preamble of the North Atlantic Treaty mentions democratic values. However, in 1949, NATO allowed Portugal to become a member while being ruled by Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, a dictator. This disregard of non-democratic values happened again, continually after successful coups in Greece and Turkey when NATO did not suspend the memberships of the countries even under military rule. And while Turkey is criticized, specifically by European Union leaders, of bringing back capital punishment, the death penalty in no way violates the Washington Treaty.
Not to mention, the death penalty is legal in the United States, and while Erdoğan has come out in support of the death penalty, he has asserted that the issue will be decided democratically through the Turkish Parliament.5 Whether or not Turkey upholds its democratic values is becoming less and less important as NATO leaders continue to agree that the risk of alienating Turkey is worth tolerating Erdoğan’s authoritarian tendencies. If NATO were to suspend Turkey’s membership due to its abuse of democracy, it would have happened during the 2013 antigovernment Gezi Park protests or because of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Similarly, Erdoğan’s crackdown of those accused and media outlets, and his request for the US to extradite Fethullah Gulen, although criticized of being excessive, violates neither the Washington Treaty nor the Membership Action Plan (MAP). Erdoğan is also accused of violating the preamble of the Treaty (which does not qualify Turkey for immediate suspension of membership), but the coup attempt reaffirms that parties of the alliance are at even greater of an obligation to support Turkey. Article 5 states that an attack against one or more parties “shall be considered an attack against them all.”6 It is true that the coup attempt was an internal threat and may not warrant the defense of all other NATO countries, but NATO leaders have still come out in support of Turkey’s democratically elected government. Because the collective defense clause essentially is the glue of the alliance, a suspension of Turkey’s membership would threaten the legitimacy of the alliance as a whole.
NATO leaders have made it clear that Turkey’s role as a political ally is paramount to NATO’s leniency of Erdoğan’s authoritarianism. Turkey is essential to NATO’s current strategic concept just as it has always played an important geopolitical role — during the Cold War, as it was right up against the Soviet sphere of influence, and currently, as it lies right above the Middle East and against the Black Sea. Turkey is also the only member of the alliance that has a Muslim majority and has the second largest military in NATO.7 Turkey is also home to 20 NATO installations, major land based forces, and the Allied Land Command (LANDCOM) in Izmir which is the subordinate counterpart of the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Without LANDCOM, the mobility of NATO troops is severely inhibited. However, far more importantly, Turkey houses the Incirlik airbase. Incirlik is positioned only 70 miles from Syria and 700 miles from Iraq — close enough to hit. Incirlik also holds 2000 US troops, has played crucial roles in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan wars, and has a significant number of nuclear weapons, more than any other NATO base.8 Historically, Incirlik has been used in the Cold War as defense against the Soviet Union, in 2003 when it was used as the headquarters for Operation Northern Watch, and currently as an intelligence base for the coalition against ISIS.9 In addition to Incirlik, Turkey also holds a radar installation as a part of NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) which has installations in Romania, Germany, and Spain.10 This recent installation is further evidence that despite the controversies surrounding Erdoğan since he took office in 2014, NATO and the US have little intention of cutting Turkey off as an ally. Without Turkey, NATO loses all of its major military facilities, bringing about the question of what will happen to the nuclear weapons located at the Incirlik air base. The uncertainty of the future of the weapons and the prospect of Erdoğan being in complete control of the weapons is great enough of a threat to provide oversight for Erdoğan, at least until Turkey’s 2019 presidential elections. And without Turkey, NATO will be exposed for being an alliance of predominantly Christian member states and will suffer in out of area operations. Specifically, NATO will find its efforts against the Islamic State far more difficult; the destabilization of Turkey alone would be enough to embolden Russia and ISIS to act more aggressively, respectively in the region and specifically in border countries including Syria.
To say that Turkey has been a no-conflict member of NATO is certainly a stretch of the imagination; the accusations of Turkey and Erdoğan’s regime violating human rights and democratic values do not go unwarranted. At any rate, the threat of revoking Turkey’s NATO membership is a moot point. The Washington Treaty makes no mention of having membership suspended or consequences for misbehavior. According to Article 13 of the treaty, membership can only be terminated by the party itself. 6 Erdoğan is the only one that can decide if Turkey will continue to be a part of NATO, but it is not a simple decision for him. Turkey has always benefited politically and militarily from being a part of the organization. Historically, Turkey needed NATO in the face of Soviet aggression which still continues to be a risk today. There simply is no better alternative for Turkey besides the European Union, which a Turkish exit from NATO would likely close the door on.
The relationship between NATO and Erdoğan has certainly and will continue to be strained, but neither has a solid alternative to each other. The relationship has always been this way and will move forward as an alliance, not a friendship. Whether or not continued Turkish membership in the organization is a benefit for Turkey or NATO is something that can only be determined over time. The coup may not be the greatest test of Turkey’s relationship with NATO. Rather, the 2019 presidential elections where Erdoğan will likely decide to run for another 5 year term will be the true indicator of the President’s authoritarianism. The West will be closely monitoring the legitimacy, fairness, competitiveness, transparency, and results of the elections. It is only in a situation where Erdoğan “pulls a Putin” and conducts a power switching operation by consolidating control as Putin did from 2008–2012 when President Dimitri Medvedev appointed Putin Prime Minister (which he could attempt in 2024 if he continued his presidency from 2019–2024). With approval from Parliament, Erdoğan could essentially hold power as Turkey’s Prime Minister for an unlimited amount of time. Thus, Erdoğan’s true intentions, democratic or not, can only be manifested through time. And with Turkey beginning to work towards reconciling relations with Russia, NATO should not suspend Turkish membership, but rather do what is within reason to keep the country in the alliance.
