German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock traveled to Turkey this Friday and met with Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. Germany-Turkey bilateral relations are of the utmost importance and thus it was a timely visit. As my esteemed colleagues have already examined in detail many of the key issues that were discussed by the leading politicians, this contribution tries to focus on just one agenda item: the future of NATO and Turkey's potential role in its modernization.
NATO is at a crossroads. Some analysts go so far as to claim the organization is basically facing an identity crisis or, to put it differently, is searching for a new identity. Will it remain just a defense body deterring aggressors from targeting member countries' territories or in an adverse case scenario, trigger Article 5 and come to the rescue of that attacked member state?
The article in question is a delicate balancing act in any case. Does it only refer to military aggression by a third party or does the same apply in the aftermath of atrocities of a terrorist nature like 9/11? We shall revisit that point further below.
Then there is the so-called question of "values." Should members strictly agree on the defense side of membership or is there a wider picture attached in a sense considering the European Union declared that NATO is a value-based institution as well?
And finally, what about social, political and societal inclusion? In order to equally and fairly represent all current 30 member states, NATO must accept that this necessitates operating according to the principle of diversity – diversity resulting in unity. This leads us straight to the gist of this piece: Every NATO member state is equal and each of these members must adhere to the strict conditions enabling membership. These conditions are strict in a sense of cherishing, supporting – and defending should the need arise – all other members in the name of democracy. So, if we agree on the need to reform NATO, reevaluating Article 5 is crucial since a broader definition would rephrase the wording of what classifies an "armed attack," which until now almost exclusively referred to armed military interventions, to include terrorist group activities, too. Hence it would call for joint responses against a much broader defined range of violent threats whether big or small.
The issue of NATO expansion popped up every now and then in the past. But it seemed as if the status quo was rather beneficial to all its members first of all but also to safeguarding world peace and avoiding any future renewed Cold War (or "hot" war in the worst case). Even the Baltic Sea dimension, which backs NATO's eastern flank due to security concerns voiced by a number of nations in close proximity to Russia, didn't change the rhetoric on Sweden and Finland's membership bid. Hence it is fair to assume that without the war in Ukraine, today’s expansion would never have seen the political light of day.
And thus, everything changed.
But the question many security experts have on their minds is this: With the decision to welcome Sweden and Finland into the alliance and more so, its long-term consequences – will East-West relations stabilize once again or will this usher in a new yet constant potential threat to that very stability?
Assuming that the Republic of Turkey continues to talk to Stockholm and Helsinki and that both candidate countries eventually modify their often lukewarm attitudes vis-a-vis supporting Turkey's decadeslong fight against the PKK terror clan (which is responsible for over 40,000 deaths) and more recently the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ) (which is responsible for trying to install a dictatorship through a failed coup attempt six years ago), NATO expansion might be a done deal once all national parliaments have given their respective green lights.
Putting all these issues into a wider perspective, one aspect becomes ever more interesting: The question of who should, or could, oversee the transformation of today's NATO into NATO 2.0?
It is not just about Sweden and Finland or their confusing attitudes toward Turkey's unique exposure to terrorist threats. Nor is it solely about their reluctance to accept that terrorists being harbored in another country may one day turn their backs on that very safe haven and resort to violence and heinous attacks, even if thousands of kilometers away from their original target. FETÖ, the PKK and its satellites – including the "re-branded" or "old" Syrian offshoot, the YPG – and others pose a serious security threat to Sweden, Finland and all 30 current NATO member states.
What this debate boils down to concerns all current members and that of course includes Germany. In this context, Foreign Minister Baerbock's visit is of great relevance because in many countries, and Germany is unfortunately no exception, terror supporters freely gather and demonstrate – often in broad daylight and under police protection. They launder money and try to lure unwitting youngsters away from their families to supposedly "fight for freedom," not telling those recruits the ultimate aim is to destroy all such freedoms. If Berlin starts to better appreciate Turkey's successful yet sad fight against first the PKK, then FETÖ – sad as the barbaric terrorists killed tens of thousands of innocent citizens including children – a first step will have been taken. In line with the German intelligence agency’s recent report that 14,500 PKK sympathizers reside on German soil and acknowledgment for the first time that they pose a threat to Germany and not just Turkey, things could finally be on the move.
If NATO then accepts the fact it has to modernize itself as discussed earlier in this opinion piece, the time will come for one nation to step up and step in: Turkey.
With its decades of experience in destroying terror networks and establishing peace at home and even in neighboring countries, with its challenging but fascinating geopolitical dimensions, its 360-degree foreign policies based on dialogue (let us recall the grain corridor success story), its socially and culturally modern yet diverse societal setting, its aspiring and highly educated youth and its relentless efforts to work with and within Europe, the United Nations and most definitely NATO, Turkey is a model candidate to nominate the successor to Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg when the time comes for him to retire from his position, most probably at the end of September this year.
Turkey knows terror requires a tough response, think the PKK and FETÖ. But Turkey also knows diplomacy must be employed until the last possible second, consider Russia and Ukraine.
There is no better-suited member than Turkey to fulfill the leading role among what in all likelihood will soon be 32 NATO member states.
