With Turkey purchasing and taking delivery of the Russian S-400 air defense system, fresh arguments have risen. Many analyses have been made on the subject. Naturally, some are of vital significance and some are guiding. However, when generally considering the arguments made, it can be ascertained that there are certain voids. The same situation was prevalent when the matter concerned possible U.S. sanctions against Turkey. So, what are these important details we have overlooked?
What does the NATO agreement state?
Turkey and the U.S. are “allies” within the scope of the NATO treaty. However, especially recently, it seems they are only allies on paper. To be frank, if it weren’t for President Erdoğan’s rational policies on Trump, ties would have come to a breaking point long ago. Before we take a look at what caused these tensions, we should take a look at a few articles of the NATO pact.
The NATO treaty begins like this: “The Parties to this Treaty seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.” Article 1 seeks to settle any international dispute in which members may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered. Article 2 seeks “to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between members. Article 3 through “effective self-help and mutual aid,” seeks to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” Article 5 says “that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” And finally, Article 6 clearly states that Turkey’s territory is within this context.
The questions that need to be asked
Let’s take a look at recent developments within the scope of these articles.
In 2016, Turkey was subjected to a coup. Under Article 4, what sort of support did NATO counties provide?
Turkey was attacked from Syria almost every day. Furthermore, the attacks of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terror group have been ongoing for four decades.
According to Article 5, aren’t these attacks considered as being against NATO territory? But what did NATO do? It sanctioned Turkey through the U.S.’s internal politics. Doesn’t this contradict Article 1? Isn’t it completely against the spirit of the treaty for the U.S. to supply the PKK/YPG/SDF with thousands of truckloads of weapons?
Well then let’s move on to a more important question: When a NATO member has to protect itself because of the policies or weapons provided by a fellow member, why would NATO redeploy the Patriot missiles located in that country?
What is CAATSA?
CAATSA stands for Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
The U.S. Congress passed this act in 2017 to pave way for sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Trump had then pointed out that it went against the U.S. constitution but that he was signing it for security reasons.
The matter of the F-35 fighter jets and the real contradiction
The NATO treaty is as clear as day.
The whole world witnessed the U.S. president confessing that NATO-member Turkey’s request to purchase an air defense system from the U.S. had been denied.
With the weapons provided to the PKK by NATO member U.S., there have been countless attacks on Turkish territory throughout the years.
Turkey faced a coup attempt. So, while all this was happening, everyone seemed to forget we were NATO allies, but when we decide to buy the Russian S-400s suddenly everyone remembers that we are part of NATO. On Thursday evening, it was announced during a press conference that Turkey has been removed from the joint F-35 program.
Then let us ask one last question that international lawmakers need to answer: how can a country be a NATO member and simultaneously be sanctioned as an “adversary”?
