Is NATO still a political organization?

(B2) The Atlantic Alliance has experienced serious crises in the past. What is happening today with the uncoordinated Turkish offensive in northeast Syria is out of proportion

A political and military break within the Alliance

That a member country of NATO (Turkey), with the consent of another (USA) — both main members of the Alliance — intervene in a sensitive area, disrupting the strategy patiently constructed by the Allies in the area , is quite extraordinary. That this is done without any delay or prior discussion between the Allies, in particular those present on the ground within the coalition against Daesh is even more astonishing. Add to that the Americans, whose political line is difficult to define and erratic (1). And you have a unique cocktail that raises many questions about the reliability of the Alliance.

Surrender to Russia: what a paradox

The first result of this intervention is already visible. The only valid international interlocutor in the area, at the political and military level, becomes Moscow. The United States has thus succeeded in placing Russia, the hereditary enemy, the raison d'être of NATO, in an essential position both politically and militarily, in one of its main fields of action: the Middle East. and the Gulf. Vladimir Putin can rejoice. He no longer needs to maneuver. By deserting the battlefield, the Allies offer him victory without fighting. Gorgeous. A tactical withdrawal = a strategic defeat.

A political scuttle

The second effect of the intervention is more imperceptible. Anger is brewing in the hushed circles of the Euro-Atlantic organization. This action constitutes, in fact, a breach in the very concept of the Alliance, which asserts itself as a political, solid, organized and indestructible entity. Its credibility is at stake, both at European and global level. The questions that arise are fundamental. What's the point of showing your muscles to Russia if you facilitate its action at the gates of Europe? Who will be able to trust tomorrow's allies who are changing colors overnight? Will the Allies themselves be ready to blindly follow the Americans tomorrow in a coalition? (2). Will NATO not be forced to retreat to its historical zone: Europe? Isn't the organization condemned in fact to wander without political aim, like a rooster whose head has been cut off?

Internal reflection needed

Say that " NATO is dead as the former adviser to François Mitterrand Jacques Attalli proclaims, it's going to work quickly. The force of attraction and inertia of the Euro-Atlantic organization remains because it has no equivalent or substitute. But what is certain is that in a few days, the United States and Turkey have erased the Western gains since the fall of the wall in 1989, highlighting the weaknesses and the friability of the Alliance. The Europeans are going to have to very quickly think about what they want to do. Are they ready to take over NATO to make it 'their' organisation? Are they ready to equip themselves, in parallel, with certain instruments of power, at least at the political level? It's not win...

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

---

A singular difference with the 2003 crisis

This is not NATO's first major crisis. She had experienced a similar crisis in the summer of 1974 with the Greek coup in Cyprus, followed by the Turkish military intervention (3). But that seems so far away: almost half a century. The 2003 crisis is more recent, when the USA and part of the allies went to Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime and another part, led by the Franco-Germans, refused. A real schism. Between Allies, words were harsh. The battle was tough, but politically and diplomatically. There was no Alliance country fighting the other indirectly on the ground. French and German had simply refused to participate in a military action which they considered contrary to international law and to their interests. They had not then sided militarily with Saddam...

---

1. The American government went in a few days from an authorization given to Turkey to intervene in Syria, to the threat of fierce reprisals if it continued its offensive, accompanied by a request to the Allies for significant sanctions, then to a mediation of ceasefire (temporary) and a request made to the Allies to assist Turkey.
2. The American failure to form a maritime coalition against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz is a harbinger of this state of affairs. Read : The American operation in the Strait of Hormuz: like a taste of diplomatic failure
3. Crisis which leads (among other things) to the establishment of a military embargo against Turkey by the United States and the withdrawal of Greece from the Alliance.