From its founding in 1923, the Republic of Turkey has often been placed in an incredibly precarious position. The Soviet Union to its North felt strangled by its control over the Dardanelles, limiting Russian trade and assets from moving to and from the Black Sea. The Turkish possession in Europe held little benefit, in the eyes of some Southern Europeans becoming the last vestige of Ottoman Turkish imperialism in the Balkans.
Turkey quickly found itself in a position in which it could be used for containment by the Western Democracies, or as a path to expansion by Soviet powers. And once the country joined World War Two after the 1943 Cairo Conference, it began to fall into the orbit of the United States of America. Its new entanglement with the West was further solidified by the Truman Doctrine, an extension of military and economic aid to counter Soviet expansionism in response to Soviet claims on Turkish ports.
The country was a charter member of the United Nations and later joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1952, where they hoped to promote democratic values and prevent overall global conflict through political and militaristic means. Turkey became a cornerstone of Soviet containment, both as a base for US missile and air assets while being able to exercise control over the Dardanelles, thus enabling near-total NATO domination of the Mediterranean Sea throughout the entirety of the Cold War. NATO’s control of the region ensured safer trade routes, decreased Soviet expansionism, and the ability to move military forces in the region without serious threats.
Tensions between the United States and Turkey have been building since 2003, when Turkey denied the US access to Incirlik Air Force Base for the invasion of Iraq. While the two nations work together on several counterterrorism efforts, cracks in their alliance have become increasingly clear over the past few years, posing a threat to both nations and to the state of Western Democracy as a whole. .
The Republic of Turkey recognizes the Kurdistan Workers Party as having US-backed People’s Defense Units (a Kurdish militia) under their control. This later led to conflict over whom the United States should back in the Syrian Civil War. The Turks recognize the various Kurdish militias (including said People’s Defense Units) as terrorists and a general threat towards Turkey, while the United States pursued a policy of alignment and aid towards the groups. The Turkish government instead primarily backed (and is backing) various other Syrian rebel groups in the country’s northwest.
US-Turkish relations took another hit in the aftermath of Turkey’s 2016 Coup, which allegedly involved the Islamic preacher Hoca Fethullah Gülen, who has been in Pennsylvania since. The United States has exacerbated the situation by repeatedly denying extradition orders from Ankara.
In 2019, Turkey bombed a United States military base at the Northern Syria Buffer Zone, creating yet another hindrance to the countries’ relationship. According to a survey conducted in early 2017 and released in August, 72% of Turks now see the United States as a threat to their national security. Furthermore, the US was soon perceived as a greater threat to national security than Russia or China.
A 2019 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 73% of Turks had a negative view of the United States, the lowest among countries polled. The same study also showed that only 11% of Turks had confidence in the current US leader, President Donald Trump, with 84% having no confidence at all.
Interestingly, the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has generally expressed support for President Trump. likely viewing him as either similar or simply quite naive and unversed in foreign policy, unlike his challengers in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
Department of State memos have affirmed that Turkey indeed has aspirations to be able to operate outside of the orbit and oversight of the US in the hope of attaining self-sufficiency, evidenced by their willingness to deny the US and United Nations while still regarding NATO as a platform to advance and legitimize its interests. This can be seen both in their ongoing involvement in Syria and especially in Libya, where Turkey has backed the non-UN recognized House of Representatives (and Libyan National Army) while facing few or zero consequences from its NATO allies.
Thus, there are two reasonable options for the United States and NATO to pursue regarding Turkey and its role in the containment of the Russian Federation.
The first is to maintain the status quo of embracing Turkey as an ally in NATO, continuing to provide economic and military aid, and continuing joint efforts in the Middle East, which can be accredited with some gains and can also be assessed to have yielded little benefit to either nation or alternate partners in the region.
The Republic of Turkey has shown itself to be a crucial asset in the Muslim world, a bridge of sorts between East and West, which has been shown in the Balkans in the ‘90’s and during the Israel/Palestine conflicts. During the former, Turkey showed itself as what could be described as basically a tool by which NATO can more effectively cooperate with majority-Muslim nations, specially Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the latter, Turkey strongly supported the peace process between Israel and Palestine. Additionally, they were the first Muslim nation to formally recognize Israel, but as of late, relations have gradually weakened starting in the early 2000’s and continuing to today.
As of recent, the status quo has begun to prove itself to not be a beneficial route for either power - one that is simply more likely to cause a further deterioration of relations. Furthermore, outside of the goal of Russian containment, Turkey has contributed shockingly little to actual defense or mediation elsewhere.
A second option is a full removal of Turkey from NATO. Its president, Mr. Erdogan, has known interests in both neo-ottomanism and autocracy and has been willing to crack down on the press and social media, something quite undemocratic and in direct conflict with the goals of the organization.
Tom Rogan of National Review and Ted Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, both expressed support for the expulsion of the Republic of Turkey from NATO in a bid to reform and strengthen the alliance, making it better suited to the 21st Century.
This proposal presses the consequences of having an ally who is unwilling to work as an ally, particularly in their unwillingness to compromise and cooperate with NATO. The Republic of Turkey’s embrace of the Russian Federation is not puzzling, but should the status quo be maintained, NATO’s use of Turkey as a tool to contain Russian influence becomes increasingly pointless.
Persistent attempts by European nations to exclude the Republic of Turkey from Europe and the European Union risk leaving Turkey out in the cold. Mr. Erdogan's inward-looking regime in Ankara views this as increasingly attractive, especially as the Russian threat appears remarkably insignificant.
Thus, Turkey and Eastern Europe must learn to accept one another before Vladimir Putin exploits this division to his clear benefit. But no new action should be taken before Mr. Erdogan leaves office, to ensure that the trend towards Russia is not simply a single-administration goal, as to not hurt NATO any further.
However, NATO reform seems increasingly likely as threats in Eastern Europe evolve. The elimination of the responsibility of protecting Turkey could potentially be a serious step towards solidifying and consolidating the Atlantic alliance, which is especially important as the United States looks ready to pivot towards a Pacific-focused foreign policy, especially as a new cold war against the People’s Republic of China looks increasingly likely.
In order to face off against both new and old enemies, NATO needs serious streamlining, which includes ensuring its members are more willing to work towards common objectives. Furthermore, an uncooperative and squabbling alliance is little of a real barrier, particularly against a power like the Russian Federation that has been known to exploit division wherever it might be.
NATO policy traditionally exists in line with American foreign policy- it has since 1945 and is likely to continue in this manner. This means that NATO policy in Europe will likely focus on providing a solid barrier between Russia and democracy, while furthering cooperation with other alliances, particularly in East Asia, where Beijing has proven itself a dedicated enemy of democracy. The best barriers should not have cracks in them; cracks that only expand and eventually take down said barrier. Turkey, in its quest for self-reliance, is poised to take down NATO, and as a result, itself.
-Aidan Gouley (Regis '23)