Can We Tolerate an Islamist NATO Member?

I can’t decide whether Adm. James Stravidis’s op-ed at Bloomberg is accurate analysis, closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, wishful thinking, or some combination of all three. His thesis is that Turkey is just too strategically important to eject from NATO:

There is no understating how important it is that the U.S. and other NATO allies quickly mend fences with Turkey and help it through its regional crisis.

The Turks are under great strain from the fight against terrorists in Syria and Iraq, a rare instance of sustained warfare along NATO’s southern flank. Russia is moving ever closer to Turkey, coordinating military operations in the Middle East and agreeing to sell the Turks a top-of-the-line S-400 air-defense system, over protests from the U.S. and other NATO countries.

Domestically, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a highly polarizing figure who continues to fume over the failed coup against him last summer. More than 50,000 Turks have been jailed and 150,000 have lost their jobs, actions that will reverberate in Turkish politics for a generation. Crackdowns against “unruly journalists” and “suspect jurists” are common. And the independence movement among the Kurds of Iraq and Syria has put an end to hopes for progress on relations with Turkey’s own restive Kurdish minority.

Meanhwile, U.S.-Turkish relations have cratered following a string of confrontations that run from the profound to the petty. Erdogan continues to be obsessed with extraditing Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish cleric now living in Pennsylvania, whom he believes to have been at the heart of the coup. His security detail is under indictment in the U.S. after they beat a group of protesters in Washington. This month, a Turkish citizen working for the U.S. State Department was jailed, triggering visa retaliations back and forth between Ankara and Washington and dealing a staggering blow to the Turkish lira. And the U.S. is understandably concerned about Turkish moves in Syria, which seem to be more aligned with the interests of Russia and Iran than the U.S.

Let’s turn our minds back to the 1970s. We had strong relationships with the two major non-Arab Middle Eastern powers with Muslims majorities—Turkey and Iran. Iran was strategically important, too, until it became our implacable enemy and then it wasn’t. That’s the nature of strategy, a subject about which Annapolis grad Adm. Stavridis surely knows more than I. When a strategy becomes untenable, you change strategies.

There’s a basic question which I do not see Adm. Stravidis addressing let alone grappling with. That Turkey under Erdogan is no longer the secularist Kemalist country it was for its first 90 years. Under Erdogan it is an increasingly authoritarian Islamist state and as such has a lot more in common with Iran than it does with us. I don’t think he’s taking Turkey’s religious turn seriously. Like most secularist Westerners he assumes, incorrectly in my view, that Islamism is just a ploy.

Let’s talk about that question. NATO has accepted military dictatorships since its inception (PortugaL, Greece, Turkey). Can it tolerate an Islamist member? I don’t believe so but I’m willing to listen to arguments.

8 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    One big problem is that Erdogan believes the coup d’etat was supported by the US, and our refusal to extradite Fethullah Gulen tends to support that belief.

    I would agree that we cannot be in an alliance with an openly Islamist state. After all, the whole point of radical Islam is anti-Westernism, and most especially anti-Americanism. Saudi Arabia somehow manages to be Islamist and an American ally, but the alliance is one of necessity, and oil counts for a lot.

    But the loss of Turkey would be a strategic disaster. If Turkey aligned with Iran and Russia, our position in the Middle East would be greatly weakened. If Egypt were to join them, too, our position might become impossible.

    Egypt’s military junta is no friend of ours. They are still angry about our support for the Muslim Brotherhood and the removal and trial of Hosni Mubarak. If the tide starts running towards Russia, they most likely will join it.

  • Was there an unsuccessful coup or was there a successful purge? I’m not sure we really know.

    Your third paragraph touches on my very point. If Turkey is aligned with Iran and Russia it has done so for Erdogan’s reasons and it’s already lost.

    Honestly, I’m not much concerned by an alliance between Turkey and Russia or between Turkey and Iran or among all three. They are natural enemies, thrown together because of U. S. aggression and fecklessness. There can be only one.

  • TastyBits Link

    This should be a cautionary tale. An alliance with non-natural ally is not a good idea. At the time, there were reasons (good or bad) for bringing Turkey into NATO, but there is no good reason for bringing Eastern Europe into NATO.

    How likely is it that Ukraine will not go rogue sooner rather than later? This is why client states are created.

    Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel can be client states, simultaneously. Try it as allies, instead.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    A year ago I said was it worse to have Turkey as an unreliable ally or an enemy….

    What makes Turkey different then other past dictatorships in NATO is Erdogan has ambitions beyond Turkey. Read up on his sponsorship of Uyghurs in various Asian countries or his various actions in Iraq and Syria including support at times Al-Queda / ISIS. Like Dave I don’t worry about his “friendship” with Russia or Iran, Erdogan will stab them soon enough. My worry is Erdogan will start making trouble in the Balkans, it’s really the logical move for someone like Erdogan.

  • There’s a battle going on within Islam for where the Caliphate will be. Erdogan pretty obviously covets it for himself.

    Saudi presently has footholds in the Balkans and in the Caucasus as well as in South Asia. Iran is extending its influence as an alternative to KSA, Turkey as an alternative to either KSA or Iran. Look at Turkey’s support for Qatar as an example of how they’re driving wedges.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    No.

  • steve Link

    Of course we can. We can tolerate anything we want. I think the price is too high and the benefits seem too low, so we should probably avoid it.

    Steve

  • PD Shaw Link

    Generally agree w/ Steve. The problem is that the reason for NATO is not clear post-USSR, and Turkey’s strategic importance stems from that period, and we don’t know if that period is over or about to begin again.

    If NATO’s role going forward is to stabilize the Near East, then Turkey could have a role, but it’s not clear that a permanent role would be superior to ad hoc alliances in the region. I think the stability of NATO is as a strategic alliance, and intro-political/cultural disputes should not be a factor.

    OTOH, I’m not aware of what the costs of Turkish membership are though. We don’t seem troubled enough by Turkish demand regarding the coup, the tit-for-tat visa retaliations are hurting Turkey, and while I suspect that pressure will ultimately result in the release of the Turkish detail that attacked protesters, I don’t think this is a situation that would solely arise from NATO membership. I’m sure the costs are not zero, but arguably the costs are greater for committing to the defense of other NATO countries that are not spending 2% of GDP like Germany.

Leave a Comment