NATO's test with the PYD

Last week there were developments that could cause a crisis of trust in Turkey-US relations. The origin of these developments was Turkey's discomfort with US support for the PYD-YPG, which has long been the focus of actions aimed at Turkey's security. State Department spokesman John Kirby, in a press conference, vindicated Turkey's concerns by stating that the US does not see the YPG as a terrorist organization.

At the daily press briefing, to the question "how are they able to manage cooperation against DAESH despite this deep difference of opinion (on the YPG), given that Turkey regards the YPG as a terrorist organization but the US continues to cooperate with the YPG," Kirby gave an answer to the effect that the US does not regard the YPG as a terrorist organization and that the YPG's success (!) in the fight against DAESH confirms this approach, and then said he thinks that not all parties in a coalition have to think the same way.

The odd thing was that Kirby, who was aware of all of the YPG's successes (!) against DAESH, was unaware, in the same press conference, of the findings, put to him, in a report published by organs of the UN, that the YPG had destroyed many places inside Syria and tried to change the demographic structure. In response to the question put to him, Kirby said that he had not yet seen this report and that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on it.

Another statement, coinciding in time with Kirby's, was alleged to have been made by the NATO Secretary General. According to the claim, Stoltenberg, connecting by phone to a BBC broadcast, had said that "he did not think Turkey would make a great contribution to the international military coalition formed under US leadership for the war against ISIS." Again according to the claim, in the same broadcast the Secretary General said that Turkey has a large and powerful army, that it can protect itself even without NATO, and that it does not need NATO support. According to the report, which excited certain circles quite a lot, Turkey's operations against the bloody-handed terrorist organization PKK were also not acceptable because they did not remain within "the measures of defense," and they closed off the possibility of resolving the problem by peaceful and political means.

What came to my mind as soon as I read the news was that either the person who made the statement was not the NATO Secretary General, or the NATO Secretary General was unaware of NATO's founding purposes and its treaty, or the statement had never been made at all.

For NATO, by its very founding, is an organization established for the purpose of defense. The countries party to the NATO Treaty exercise, individually or collectively, the right of self-defense set out in the statute of the United Nations, which holds itself responsible for the preservation of international peace and security. In other words, NATO (leaving aside as a separate chapter the debate over whether this is really so) is an organization that aims to jointly ensure the territorial integrity and security of member states against an aggressor, and to contribute to international peace and security in this way.

The treaty that founded NATO is in fact an extremely short and clear treaty. The most important articles of the North Atlantic Treaty are Articles 4 and 5. Of these, Article 4 regulates the situation in which, if any one of the parties feels its territorial integrity or security to be in danger, it may call the other parties to the Treaty to a meeting for consultations, while Article 5, which gives NATO its essential character, makes the other states party to the treaty bound to automatic assistance if any one of the parties is attacked. In other words, when any one of the states party to the North Atlantic Treaty is attacked, NATO member countries are obliged to help the country attacked. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty has been invoked for the first and last time since the founding of the organization, after the September 11 attacks.

The US, attacked not by any state but by a terrorist organization, invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty; all the states party to NATO were obliged to support the US.

In today's world, where wars have changed form, the US having invoked Article 5 of NATO after a terrorist attack also appears consistent with NATO's process of redefining its areas of duty and responsibility after the Cold War. For at the summits it held immediately after the end of the Cold War, NATO listed international terrorism among the elements threatening the security of NATO member countries and of the world.

In this framework it is also possible for Turkey to call on NATO to act after terrorist attacks of Syrian or Iraqi origin. In such a case it is out of the question for NATO to give a reply such as "when Turkey is securing its own security, it does not need NATO," as in the statement Stoltenberg was alleged to have made.

Indeed, in July Turkey called NATO to a meeting on the basis of Article 4; the NATO Council that convened confirmed that Turkey is not alone in its struggle against terrorism and that the operations Turkey is conducting are supported by NATO. With all this out in the open, I did not consider it likely that Stoltenberg had made a statement as alleged. In the end, a statement was made by NATO saying that Stoltenberg had definitely not made such a statement.

Truly, this fake news served as a kind of litmus paper. When this statement alleged to have been made by Stoltenberg combined with the statement of the State Department spokesman, an interesting excitement and a love of the US and NATO arose among the socialist circles, who show anti-Americanism as their distinguishing trait, and among pro-PKK people.

This love of the US and NATO that appeared among these circles, which pride themselves on historically opposing Turkey's NATO membership and tend to regard NATO as the organization of imperialism and Turkey as imperialism's forward outpost, is nothing other than the emergence of a schizophrenic love that in fact existed but had been suppressed. Apparently these circles are uncomfortable not with NATO but with a NATO of which Turkey is a member.

There have been periodic crises of trust both in Turkey-US relations and in Turkey-NATO relations. The first to come to mind is the Turkey-US relationship, which nearly reached the point of rupture after Turkey's Cyprus intervention. The crises experienced in NATO because of Turkey in the context of the European Security and Defense Identity debates can also be recalled. Likewise, Turkey-EU relations can be brought up as well.

But Turkey's relationship with all three organizations rests on very strategic and deep historical ties. Even though it has gone through crisis periods from time to time, the relations have not been severed and have been able to be restored. What needs to be done, contrary to what Kirby stated, is to ensure that the allies agree on all issues, especially on terrorism and terrorist organizations. Just as it would not fit the law of alliance for Germany, for example, not to regard DAESH, which the US regards as a terrorist organization, as a terrorist organization, so it does not fit the law of alliance for the US not to regard the YPG and its political extension the PYD, which Turkey regards as a terrorist organization, as a terrorist organization. A contrary situation is unthinkable for allies. The crisis of trust in relations can also be repaired only within this framework, by a step the US will take.