The meaning of Turkey's dissent within NATO

The objections, opposition and criticisms that Türkiye put forward before and during the Madrid Summit are of the kind that ensure it is seen as a dissident within NATO.

Indeed, Türkiye is in the position of the member that raises most loudly the aspects of an alliance it belongs to that constantly work against it, or the malfunctions that produce no solution for the benefit of other member countries.

In fact, NATO's history is not very unfamiliar with this kind of oppositional discourse from within. From time to time some member countries had great grievances about shouldering the responsibilities the union placed on them more than other countries did.

THE HISTORY OF OPPOSITION WITHIN NATO

Former US President Donald Trump had in effect spoken of NATO becoming dysfunctional, talking about how the entire financial burden of the NATO alliance was placed on the US, while Europe did not spend as much money on itself as the US spent for Europe's defense. In the atmosphere of tension this created, the odd images he gave during his face-to-face meetings with EU leaders, especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Macron, stayed in people's minds.

Likewise, French President Macron's criticism of NATO that "brain death has occurred" was also seen as a deep crack within NATO, but the development that led to his critical, even aggressive depiction was the US withdrawing its soldiers from Syria without consulting NATO. The truth of the matter is that Trump had made this decision largely by listening to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and in fact it was an extremely apt decision for regional peace, for a solution in Syria, and for NATO's healthier functioning; that the decision was not followed is another story. But after Macron said, "There is no coordination whatsoever in strategic decision-making between the US and the NATO allies. None. At the same time, another NATO member, Türkiye, is carrying out aggressive actions without coordination in a region where our interests are at stake," he spoke of NATO's brain death, and this depiction pleased Russian President Vladimir Putin very much, who described it as an apt depiction.

TÜRKİYE IS NOT NATO'S SUBJECT, BUT ITS MEMBER

Of course there are many disputes within NATO itself, and these disputes can lead some members directly to question NATO's functions. Türkiye has never raised these criticisms in NATO's history at any period as much as under Erdoğan's leadership. To claim that Erdoğan's political identity is decisive in this is one of the cheap tactics in efforts to discredit Erdoğan in Western public opinion.

There is no one who does not know that Erdoğan is not, and cannot be, an admirer of the West or a fearless defender of NATO. But for Erdoğan, and for the political tradition he comes from, what is fundamental is Türkiye's interests. Türkiye is not a hostage or captive in the hands of the NATO alliance; it is a member like all the other members of that alliance, and there are obligations as well as the rights arising from membership. Being in an alliance gives rise to mutual rights and obligations. Although Türkiye suffers some harm from NATO membership in the matters it criticizes, it also sees benefits it cannot ignore, and within this balance of harm and benefit it finds it useful to continue its NATO membership. But this is not a membership to be conducted with blind submission, and Türkiye is pushing all the limits of being a member that knows its rights, interests and responsibilities.

Opposition to NATO cannot be grounded by tying it to metaphysical foundations. Those who do so are trying to attribute to Türkiye, as a fate, other alliances against NATO that include Russia or other regional countries. There are serious problems within NATO as an alliance. There is no one who does not know that coups against Türkiye were supported by some NATO members. We are saying that Sweden, which is trying to become a member of the alliance, is still supporting the PYD-JPG-PKK terrorist organizations in Syria. But we also know that the alliance's greatest partner, the US, is in fact already giving far, far more of this support, in deed and openly.

Behind the stance we displayed toward Sweden and Finland there was also the attitude of "I am telling you, Sweden, so that you, US, may hear."

NATO'S EVILS DO NOT EXONERATE RUSSIA, DO NOT MAKE IT AN ALTERNATIVE

All of these are true, but all of this neither whitewashes Russia against NATO nor makes it an alternative. When we apply these standards to Russia as well, Russia, because of the crimes against humanity it has committed in Syria, in Libya, earlier in Chechnya and in Afghanistan, has no place to lie down in the Muslim world.

Getting closer to Russia than necessary against NATO in a way also makes you an ally of the genocidal Assad regime, which has massacred a million of its people in the most savage ways without batting an eye and deported 14 million. It will go on like this until the days when a way to say "neither this nor that" opens up.

Meanwhile, for those who claim that the reservation we placed in NATO on Sweden and Finland has no effect, that the concessions given are for show and will not be complied with, and even that FETÖ is not explicitly named a terrorist organization in the memorandum text, here is some brand-new news: NATO Secretary General Jehns Stoltenberg, at the joint press conference held after the ceremony of signing the accession protocols of the two countries to the Alliance with Swedish Foreign Minister Anne Linde and Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto, said plainly, "Russian aggression and of course the fight against FETÖ terror are at the very top of the NATO agenda." The foreign ministers too declared that they would comply with the memorandum text to the end, saying, "We take all of Türkiye's concerns seriously."

What more could they say, what more could happen?