It’s time to hold Erdogan accountable

The scope of disagreement between NATO and Turkey regarding Cyprus and Greece primarily involves territorial disputes and military tensions. Turkey's military presence in Northern Cyprus since 1974 and its maritime boundary disputes with Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean have led to heightened tensions. His threats to invade NATO member Greece and annex parts of EU member Cyprus over territorial disputes, particularly related to natural gas drilling rights, have been seen as undermining the safety and security of the region. These issues are compounded by Turkey's military exercises, which Greece and Cyprus view as violating their sovereignty and challenging the alliance's cohesion while complicating diplomatic relations within the region.

Erdogan's objection to NATO membership of Sweden and Finland left the alliance troubled with essential points of dispute, including how to deal with Erdogan's voracious thirst to impose his will and how that might play out in any future disagreement. Erdogan blackmailed Sweden, in particular, to take a firmer stance against groups it considers terrorist organizations, such as the PKK. It was not until Sweden addressed Turkey's concerns, which included lifting an arms embargo against Turkey and enhancing anti-terrorism laws, that he finally conceded and allowed Sweden accession to NATO.

There are other contentious issues between the US and Erdogan, including Erdogan's repeated demand to extradite Fethullah Gülen, whom he blames for the 2016 coup attempt. The US refused to comply, citing a lack of evidence. Another quarrelsome issue is the US and French recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire, which Erdogan fervently denies.

More recently, Erdogan has openly expressed support for Hamas, describing them not as terrorists but as "liberators" who are defending their land. Erdogan's statements highlight a significant divergence from Western perspectives, which classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. Erdogan's refusal to label it as such highlights his complicated relationship with regional powers and his efforts to position himself as a key player in Middle Eastern affairs. Erdogan's hypocrisy was in full display when he refused to condemn Hamas' savage attack that butchered 1,200 Israelis but accused Israel of behaving like a "war criminal" and committing "massacres" in Gaza and called for Israeli leaders to be tried for war crimes. Erdogan in the past has even gone as far as offering Turkish citizenship to Hamas officials, and has for years provided them with shelter.

NATO's share of the blame

There is no doubt that Erdogan might have behaved differently had he been confronted by NATO and credibly been threatened with severe consequences if he did not change course and comply with NATO's core requirements. NATO's failure to stand up to Erdogan, and its permissiveness in letting him violate its charter without penalties, has only encouraged Erdogan to become ever more ruthless and defiant, knowing he can do so with impunity. That is, NATO's failure to demand that all member states adhere to its values erodes the foundation of the organization. And while it is difficult to take a stand against Turkey due to its contributions and immensely important strategic location, to allow it to continue uncritically is nothing but a slippery slope that will destroy the moral foundation of NATO. Another renegade is Hungary's President Orban, who became a de facto dictator and systematically violated human rights and freedom of the press and has not been called to task by NATO, which is only compounding the Organization's malaise.

Indeed, if NATO wants to maintain its cohesiveness and effectiveness as the military powerhouse that safeguards European security, especially at this juncture when the Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war are raging, NATO cannot afford to allow any of its members to fan the flames. Thus, the time is overdue for NATO to take several punitive measures against Erdogan.

Punitive measures

Although the NATO Charter doesn't provide a mechanism to expel a member state, it is time for NATO to stop relying solely on political and diplomatic channels to address disagreements with Erdogan, which have been elusive on many levels, and instead resort to broad and transparent punitive measures. In taking such measures against a head of state like Erdogan for human rights violations or actions that defy NATO agreements, these measures must be considered in the context of the complexity of international law, diplomacy, and geopolitical relationships. These measures include:

Imposing economic sanctions on Turkey, whether individual countries or groups of countries, such as those within the European Union. These could range from targeted sanctions affecting specific individuals or sectors to more comprehensive economic measures. The imposition of more sanctions, such as Turkey's removal from the US F-35 program because of Erdogan's military operation in Syria and his purchase of the S-400 system from Russia, offers one good example.Limiting cooperation and participation in NATO activities by member states, which could limit military cooperation or exclude Turkey from certain joint activities.

These include disallowing Turkey from participating in specific NATO military exercises, stopping sharing sensitive intelligence, and excluding Turkey from NATO's decision-making processes.Freezing or terminating bilateral or multilateral agreements between Turkey and other countries, or between Turkey and international organizations. This includes not receiving Turkish attaches, finding an alternative to the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey once the turmoil in Europe and the Middle East subsides, which Erdogan has been using as leverage, and suspending collaboration on particular projects, especially on defense cooperation.

Many countries and international organizations can exert diplomatic pressure on Turkey by publicly expressing disapproval of specific actions through formal condemnations, public statements, and high-level diplomatic talks. And finally, international legal mechanisms can address human rights violations. Bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) can investigate allegations of human rights abuses and expose Erdogan for what he is.Notwithstanding Turkey's geostrategic importance,

NATO should weigh Turkey's contribution to the alliance against Erdogan's consistent defiance of what NATO stands for. NATO can make some concessions to accommodate a particular member state like Turkey. Still, it cannot compromise its core values, the foundation that sustains it as a viable and powerful military alliance.