A funeral ceremony for NATO, or a new beginning?

The London Summit meeting of NATO, celebrating its 70th anniversary, is simultaneously witnessing inquiries and analyses regarding whether the Alliance has expired. Will the London meeting serve as a funeral service for NATO—which French President Emmanuel Macron declared to be experiencing "brain death"—or will the possibility of gaining a new vitality emerge through a fresh and renewed mission assigned to it?

One of the two primary reasons behind Macron's outbursts is his opposition to Turkey's Operation Peace Spring and the alliance's standing by as a mere spectator; the other is actually Trump's position that the US contribution to NATO is excessive, alongside his demand that other alliance member countries also contribute to NATO's budget, which reaches 2.1 billion dollars. Macron is essentially dragging his feet to resist this demand from Trump. Germany, on the other hand, ultimately deemed this request justified and announced that it would meet it.

All the arguments Macron puts forward against such a demand can indeed be read, in the words of President Erdoğan, as "a sign of his own brain death," because the stance he expects from NATO regarding Turkey's Operation Peace Spring is tantamount to confessing his own wrongdoing. By publicly standing up for the PYD-PKK, which explicitly threatens the security of a member state and is considered a terrorist organization by all criteria, he not only disregards all the values agreed upon by NATO, but can also speak of the "brain death" of a NATO that does not agree with him. Furthermore, as Trump rightly noted, France needs NATO more than anyone.

In fact, this approach has indeed turned into a serious problem for NATO, and in my view, it needs to be settled decisively at this meeting in one way or another: viewing NATO not as an alliance that respects the common values and interests of all its members and contributing to it, but rather as an opportunity to serve one's own secret agenda and be exploited in every possible way. With such an approach, it is impossible to sustain not just an alliance of this magnitude, but even a criminal organization.

France's desire to exploit NATO without making any contribution has become typical. In the Mediterranean as well, it wants all of NATO's resources to be used for its own private ends. Back in 2011, as soon as the crisis in Libya erupted, it was the first to think of seizing control in Libya using NATO assets. Over time, it was demonstrated once again that what France was seeking in Libya was nothing other than oil. The support it has provided to the former general Haftar, who attempted a coup against the will of the people that emerged there, makes it complicit in all the crimes against humanity committed by Haftar, yet the shield of the EU and NATO keeps it protected for now—but for how long?

Now, together with Greece, they are attempting to mobilize NATO against the "Delimitation of Maritime Jurisdiction Areas" agreement signed by Turkey with Libya. Of course, there is nothing NATO can do regarding this agreement. Since they are already gathered, if they can extract a joint stance or a statement of condemnation, they will clearly count it as a gain, but there is nothing further they can do.

Turkey possesses the second-largest army in NATO, meticulously fulfills its obligations to the Alliance, and ranks among the top 8 members contributing the most to its budget. It is also among the top 5 countries providing significant contributions to NATO operations and missions in various regions to support regional and global peace and stability.

With this high level of participation, Turkey is a country that no longer allows its rights derived from its contributions to the alliance to be trampled upon, demands what is required, and seeks a voice in the alliance's future. The fact that the countries in this alliance do not perceive the threat of terrorism—one of Turkey's most significant threat perceptions—with the same sensitivity as Turkey and do not show solidarity, let alone perceiving it and showing solidarity, but rather become the source and supporter of this threat, are actually signs for Turkey that NATO is suffering from a serious illness.

Within the existing balance of trade-offs, Turkey owes nothing to NATO; on the contrary, NATO owes Turkey a great deal.

It has committed no fault against the rules of the alliance; on the contrary, faults are continuously being committed against it.

Perhaps in the past, Turkey lacked the power to collect what was due to it and was forced to turn a blind eye to the wrongs committed against it. But Turkey is currently not at a point where it will allow its rights to be trampled upon or turn a blind eye to the faults committed against it.

Turkey’s stance and word will be crucial regarding what the future of NATO will be, whether it will be unplugged or continue. But whatever the decision may be, it will have a decisive impact on the shaping of the world to come.