The editors of the Wall Street Journal, citing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s crackdown on journalists, stop just short of calling for Turkey’s immediate ouster from NATO:
The Obama Administration has been mostly quiet throughout this crackdown and continues to entertain Ankara’s request to extradite Pennsylvania-based Muslim cleric Fetullah Gulen, the coup’s supposed mastermind. Turkey is a member of NATO and both the U.S. and the European Union believe they need Ankara to fight Islamic State in Syria and curb the flow of refugees to Europe.
Maybe so. But that does not relieve the West from the obligation of denouncing Mr. Erdogan’s repression. Mr. Gulen should not be extradited so long as he cannot expect a fair trial in Turkey. And Turkey should not remain a member of NATO if Mr. Erdogan continues on his increasingly lawless path.
That would make an interesting discussion topic. Is there some minimum set of characteristics for a country to be a viable member of NATO?
We know that NATO is not limited to liberal democracies. Both Greece and Turkey were military dictatorships when they were admitted in 1952, in fact if not formally.
We know that maintaining the 2% of GDP suggested military spending isn’t a requirement, either. Only a handful of NATO’s present members do so and Germany hasn’t done so since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We know that making a positive contribution to collective security isn’t a requirement. If it had been we would have stopped adding new members after admitting Germany in 1955.
Are there any disqualifications for NATO membership? There’s at least one—you can’t be Russia. That idea has been floated from time to time (most recently by Bernie Sanders) and always rejected out-of-hand.
Is being Islamist a disqualification for NATO membership? And why?
Might be helpful to read the NATO treaty available at nato.int. From my amateur read, while a nation can withdraw after a years notice, no one can be expelled.
With that out of the way, look at the map, Turkey is smack in the middle of areas the Administration thinks important, Ukraine to the North, Syria, Iraq, etc roughly to the South. So, we got no notice but do a delicate dance that keeps them on side yet does not result in heads in a basket.
NATO always reminds me of Groucho Marx’s wisecrack about not wanting to join a club that would have him as a member.
I wonder if they will write an editorial saying the US should be thrown out of NATO after Trump changes the law so that reporters can be sued for saying bad things about politicians (or at least Trump)?
Steve
In the US reporters careers are only damaged if they report correctly on the lies being told by the government to prompt war and similar machinations, eg Robert Parry.
Always reading comments by those who fear a President Trump. Folks, it’s all out in the open. He speaks his mind, he can’t even help but do that. No secret agenda to use the machinations of Government against anyone, aside from enforcing existing law. Don’t like that? Don’t blame the Chief Executive Officer. Change the law.
Oh, Yeah, Turkey, it’s strategically located and Erdogan’s not immortal.
So I would think, sure, keep them in but keep them dependent, militariy.