Ankara's military intervention in northern Syria "worries" NATO. This is what Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on 11 October in London. A long-time member of the Atlantic Alliance - since 1952 - Turkey defies other NATO members with its unilateral intervention on the Turkish-Syrian border.
Added to this is a rapprochement with the interests of Moscow, which has become a key player in the Syrian conflict. At the risk of Turkey moving away from its historic NATO allies? Elements of an answer with Jean-Sylvestre Mongrenier, associate researcher at the French Institute of Geopolitics and the Thomas More Institute.
France 24: What is the official position of NATO on the Turkish offensive in Syria?
Jean-Sylvestre Mongrenier: This consists of a call for moderation. There is no support from the organization as such for this operation or support from other individual Member States. The only countries to officially support Ankara are Pakistan and Azerbaijan. In essence, NATO and its member countries "do with", hoping to preserve the future ...
What means of action does NATO have for Turkey? Are collective sanctions possible?
Unless new developments occur, there will be no sanctions at NATO level. The most important decisions are taken by consensus, and Turkey will not agree to impose sanctions on itself. Also, these are resting on the shoulders of the different member states (Germany, France and Spain announced suspending arms exports to Turkey that "could be used" in the offensive in Syria, Ed). It should be known that 90% of arms production in Europe is done by five states. So, these national embargoes are efficient - producing effects - but in the medium term. They have no immediate tactical effects.
Basically, there is no truly shared position within the European Union, let alone in NATO. On the other hand, the Atlantic Alliance has a hegemonic leader: the United States. If the Turkish-American relationship deteriorates further, it will have serious effects. Turkey could be marginalized within NATO, without a formal collective sanction.
Is Turkey's exclusion from NATO possible?
Legally no, the case is not planned. Of course, when the law is silent, the political decision can be imposed and "say the law". This is theoretically possible. Given the geostrategic importance of Turkey and its historical role in NATO, it would be a far-reaching decision, with likely aftershocks throughout the NATO structure and effects on transatlantic relations. NATO would emerge weakened, even marginalized.
But this is improbable in my opinion, because too much of risks and consequences, while the Turkish operation in northern Syria does not call into question the vital interests of NATO member states, even if it poses she problem. If Turkey fulfills its obligations in the context of collective defense and limits the scope of its operation in Syria, the other NATO member countries will seek to preserve the essentials.
At the theoretical level, the maintenance of NATO in the state can coexist with disagreements in other areas or domains. In the Atlantic Alliance everyone has their own national interests and not everything has been pooled. However, in the "world of life", it is not always easy to compartmentalize the different issues. The convergences must prevail over the divergences, but it becomes difficult with Turkey: just as in the field of values, the interests diverge. Hence a large gap and the difficult exercise of diplomacy of the Secretary General of NATO.
How can NATO respond to the ambiguity of Turkey, which is getting closer to Russia at the same time?
If Turkey remains nominally an ally, the exit from Western orbit and the acceleration effect of the decision to intervene in northeastern Syria require that other strategic options be explored. As I explained in a recent note for the Thomas More Institute, NATO membership of Bulgaria and Romania in the Black Sea Basin must be remembered. In this space, the situation is fundamentally different from the time of the Cold War, when Turkey was then the only NATO member open on the Black Sea.
On this point, military cooperation with Ukraine opens the field of possibilities. The same is true for the ongoing reinforcement of the United States military ties with Greece, or the potentialities of the diplomatic and energy "format" Israel / Cyprus / Greece - which is not yet a political-military alliance, but in the future? In the Middle East, Jordan and the Gulf States are also to be included in the strategic and geopolitical analysis.
If it is necessary to temporize with Turkey, it is important to prepare for the future. This calls for political resolution and agreement between the major Western powers.
What can be the future relations between Turkey and NATO after this military offensive?
In the short term, they will try to compose. In the longer term, it is a question of seeing if Turkey and its leaders really switch to the side of Russia and imagine their future in a Eurasian perspective, a Turkey as a terminal of a Sino-Russian Eurasia organized and structured by the " silk roads ". This would be a considerable change, and a number of factors play in this sense: resentment against the West, willingness to make Turkey a leading geostrategic actor, neo-Ottoman dream ...
For Turkey, playing in the hand of Vladimir Putin could also be a formidable trap: without solid and true Western alliance, it would be very poor against Russia. The previous Russian concessions are explained in particular by the fact that Vladimir Putin seeks to drive a wedge between Turkey and its allies, to weaken NATO. Once this goal is achieved, Turkey's power of attraction and negotiation will be singularly reduced.
As things stand, Recep Tayyip Erdogan must be recognized for his skill. In 2016 and in 2018, he obtained a green light from Vladimir Putin to intervene in the north-west of Syria. In 2019, he gets an orange light from Donald Trump to intervene in the Northeast. But in the longer term, cunning can not be substituted for force, and Turkey provokes the hostility of many people.