Joining the programme is Marcus Papadopoulos, editor of the UK political magazine Politics First, and Dr. Moritz Pieper, lecturer in International relations at the University of Salford. Here are some of the themes discussed in brief.
What is the effect of Turkey’s Coup on Turkey’s membership of NATO?
Dr. Pieper: “…None. Turkey is very important for the alliance, and NATO counts on its continuing membership, just as Turkey relies on the continuing membership of NATO.”
Marcus Papadopoulos: “… There is no direct link between the coup and Turkey-US relations, which are at their worst point since Turkey joined NATO in 1962, but this affects bilateral relations, not necessarily relations between Turkey and NATO.
Can a NATO member develop its own foreign policies without the agreement of other NATO members?
Marcus Papadopoulos: “Yes, they can. We mustn't get carried away with the talk that Turkey is going to break its relationship with America, with the West in general, and with NATO. That sort of talk reflects ignorance and naivety. Turkey is a willing partner of America and the West in general and of NATO. Turkey depends on the West tremendously, economically, militarily, and is a staunch ally of the United States. If we have a look at Turkish foreign policy in decades gone by, Turkey has been allowed to do things that other countries can’t get away with. Because America has given Turkey a blank check. So Turkey today has sent its army into Northern Syria, with America's blessings, that is a violation of Syria’s independence and sovereignty. Turkey, ever since the end of the first Gulf War has been crossing into North Iraq to fight the Kurds, again, that is a violation of Iraq’s independence and sovereignty, also in July 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus, partitioned parts of the island, destroyed churches, graveyards, monasteries etc, and it has been allowed to get away with all of that.”
Does a Russian-Turkish rapprochement have important geopolitical implications?
Dr. Pieper: “Improving relations with Russia makes a lot of sense for Turkey; it can start to export food again to Russia and welcome Russian tourists. But we hear that Turkey is entering the Syrian arena with implications that this will run counter to the efforts of Russia and Iran…”
Marcus Papadopoulos: “Let us not exaggerate the significance of the rapprochement between Turkey and Russia. First of all, historically speaking relations between Russia and Turkey have been difficult. Whilst Erdogan’s position has been bolstered by the purges following the failed coup, he does feel a little bit encircled. I think he feels that in Syria, the conflict is probably going to be won by the Syrian government, and then he has antagonized Iran and of course he has antagonized Russia. So he feels weakened… and so he is trying to strengthen his position in the region by making amends with Russia and Iran and possibly reaching out to Damascus. So the relationship between Russia and Turkey is not a genuine friendship, it is a business association. It is quite telling that it was Erdogan who went to Putin, not the other way round… For the sake, probably not of Turkey so much, but of Erdogan. I believe that Erdogan considers himself to be Turkey and Turkey to be himself… He is just thinking about his survival as a leader.”
Is Erdogan just a really smart showman and is playing off one side against the other?
Dr. Pieper: ‘Foreign policy is always a complex area, especially for a country in such a vital location like Turkey that is facing problems on all sides that may create a foreign policy that seems ambiguous.’
Marcus Papadopoulos: “There is absolutely no chance of Turkey leaving NATO….When Erdogan accused America of taking part in plotting the coup, he said that in public. He has to satisfy a core section of his support, but if he really meant that, I would say this to him: leave. Turkey is allowed to break international law, to violate the UN charter because of its close strategic relationship with America and with NATO.”
Isn’t NATO compromising its core values by continuing to support Turkey? Isn’t democracy one of the core values of NATO?
Dr. Pieper: “…we still have to redefine the structural nature of NATO 25 years after the end of the Cold War. The role of NATO is changing, and as we have seen recently in the latest NATO warsaw summit in July. There have been many conflicts of interest. For example, the ‘Leading from Behind’ campaign in Libya. However NATO members decide what NATO policy should be.”
Marcus Papadopoulos: “Anyone who actually believes that NATO is committed to democracy, to human rights, to international law is living in cloud cuckoo land. When has NATO respected public opinion in members’ states? Let's go back to the 1990s when NATO bombed the then Yugoslavia without public approval, without approval of the UN Security Council. There was a NATO led invasion of Iraq once again without U.S. Security Council approval. In Libya they overstepped their mandate by bombing the forces of the Libyan government, now in Syria we see NATO countries, principally America, Britain and France assisting terrorist groups operating in Syria. This is a clear violation of Syria’s independence and sovereignty. We have today a Turkish incursion into Northern Syria which is not been invited by Damascus. NATO is major force unto itself. It is there to ensure America's global hegemony; it is there to stop any country around the world holding an independent foreign policy against America that is the reality of NATO…”
