Turkey’s objections to Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership are yet another conflict between Turkey and the rest of the alliance. On our response platform NUjij we were asked whether Turkey should not be expelled from NATO. If that were possible, NATO itself would not benefit at all.
Never before has a NATO member been kicked out of the organization by the other member states. This was never even threatened, not even when NATO member states Turkey and Greece found themselves on the brink of a mutual war in 1974. Until now, conflicts between NATO countries have always been resolved diplomatically.
In the charter NATO also does not describe a procedure with which a member state can be expelled from the organisation. Other international organisations, such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Council of Europe, do.
NATO has captured that the main aim is to ensure freedom and security in the member countries. Excluding a Member State in the event of a crisis would directly contradict that aim.
NATO can normally only do something if all members agree unanimously† In fact, all thirty current member states have veto powers, which they can use to block decisions on their own.
However, it seems contradictory that a possible exclusion is a decision with which all Member States must agree. That would mean that a country could avoid its own suspension or exclusion by simply voting against itself.
In a situation where a country would agree to its own exclusion, it would be much more logical and easier to leave NATO itself.
Member States can choose to leave NATO themselves† A country must then notify the United States, as depositary (administrator) of the NATO treaty, of its desire to do so. There is a one-year reflection period, after which a country can permanently leave NATO.
Since its founding in 1949, no member state has left NATO altogether† However, some countries have (temporarily) put their contributions and commitment to NATO on the back burner.
France, for example, withdrew militarily from the organization in 1966 after it became a nuclear nuclear power. The French did remain a political member of NATO. It took until 2009 for France to rejoin militarily.
Greece also withdrew militarily in 1974, after the invasion of Cyprus by fellow NATO member state Turkey. There was, however, no mention of a possible suspension or exclusion of Turkey. Greece became a full member again in 1980, partly through the intervention of the US.
NATO’s main article is Article 5: an attack on one member state is considered an attack on all member states† When a NATO member state is attacked, the other members are obliged to help. That article has only been invoked once. The US did this after the attacks in New York on September 11, 2001. Turkey also heeded that call, meaning it has so far always adhered to NATO rules. held.
Turkey’s attitude about Finland and Sweden’s membership is yet another conflict on a long list† Turkey and NATO were diametrically opposed due to military actions in Libya and Syria, Turkey’s role in the Syrian refugee crisis, the Turkish government’s response to the alleged coup in 2016 and the close cooperation between Turkey and Russia.
According to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey is defending its own interests within NATO. The country has every right to do so under the NATO statute. It to block the accession of Finland and Sweden may irritate other Member States, but is not against the rules.
It is virtually impossible that Turkey will be expelled from NATO† Turkey has been of great importance to the organization since its accession to NATO in 1952.
Through Turkey, NATO has control over strategic waters such as the Black Sea, the Bosphorus, the Dardanelles and the Mediterranean. Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is extra important for NATO to be able to keep an eye on those waters.
Turkey also has about 425,000 active military after the US the largest army of all NATO member states. That is not an insignificant quality in a military alliance.
Turkey is strategically and geographically of great importance to NATO.
Turkey is strategically and geographically of great importance to NATO.
–
–
–
NATO also desperately needs Turkey to tackle the problems in the Middle East, such as the aforementioned war in Syria and the accompanying refugee flow. Turkey is a kind of buffer between the Middle East and Europe.
Although cooperation is not without conflict, the alternative to NATO is a much bigger specter. The organization is therefore very committed to keeping Turkey on board, something Erdogan wants to take full advantage of.
–
