Can NATO survive without the US?

Please excuse me, I did not intend to express the United States in such a simple way in the title of the article. In fact, I cannot characterise the United States without putting an adjective in front of it. Then, if you like, let me rephrase my question as follows: "Is it possible to establish a NATO without the United States?" Let us answer this question immediately, without pausing for breath. Yes, I think it is very likely. 

There is no need to find striking justifications for this, as it is known that NATO, which was puffed up as the winner of the Cold War, has become a monument of dysfunction. So much so that, aside from dysfunction, it has also been constantly used as an instrument that paves the way for the USA in the world. Now, let's not immediately think of French President Macron, who spoke at the top of his voice against US President Trump, claiming to be the voice of Europe. Let us all remember together, what did Macron say? "NATO is brain dead". Is it true or not, I think it is one hundred per cent true. France does not make empty statements on this issue. As it has always done, France has assumed the leadership of Europe's reflex to fight back. In order to reap the rewards in advance. And in a loud and boisterous way. In fact, this is not a prediction of Macron, the leader of France, an African coloniser with a bloody knife in his hand, but nothing but the manifestation of the obvious. 

First of all, let us admit in advance that it is almost universally recognised that "NATO", which was founded after World War II, guided by the supremacist, imposing USA, which closed the American continent to the colonialism of the old world island after the "Monreo Doctrine of 1815", has indeed completed its biological life. Undoubtedly, the obvious is not a guide. There is no need to talk about this issue behind closed doors. This situation, which is accepted by everyone, has been expressed in a similar manner by President Erdoğan from time to time. Now, let us summarise all of this and immediately state that Erdoğan has clearly stated and has been clearly stating on various occasions the role and importance of Turkey and the Turkish Armed Forces in the European security and defence architecture in the rebuilding of Europe's defence and security architecture. At the recent G20 summit in New Delhi, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu emphasised the need for structural reforms, starting with the UN. Turkey continues to be active in foreign policy. 

However, it is regrettably perceived that Turkey has had to draw a low profile as if it has distanced itself from these affairs because of the "Great Catastrophe" of the century due to the twin earthquakes centred in Kahramanmaraş and the earth tremors in the Defne and Samandağ districts of Hatay, which shook the south-eastern region of our country. This is wrong.  Turkey continues to function on a steady pace. However, when overcoming the difficult conditions brought about by the earthquake made it necessary to focus more on turning inwards, these issues, which Turkey has long been undertaking and championing, are being voiced by the friendly and brotherly Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev in the east and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the west. 

To put it more accurately, they have necessarily undertaken the spokesperson of the world public opinion against the current representatives of the expansionist and colonialist order of the past, who hold the veto card in the UN. In other words, it is recognised by everyone that this situation is not a challenge, but a declaration of what should be. For example, President Ilham Aliyev, speaking at the "Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement Covid 19 Contact Group" held in Baku on 2 March 2023, said that the tendency towards neo-colonialism is increasing in the world, and his statement "The territories controlled by France outside Europe are the horrible remnants of the French colonial empire." (1) is directly related to the position France has assumed and is trying to assume. 

In his opening speech at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Baku, Aliyev reacted harshly to France and said: "We call on France to apologise and accept its responsibility for its bloody colonial crimes and acts of genocide in Africa, Southeast Asia and other regions." (2) 

Naturally, as we have entered the 21st century, the "Non-Aligned Movement", which emerged as a result of the decolonisation process, should unite its efforts to completely eradicate this truly disgraceful chapter of humanity. As a clear indication of this situation, French President Emmanuel Macron announced on 1 March 2023 in Libreville, the capital of Gabon, the first leg of his African tour, that France's "project of intervention in Africa, FranceAfrique" was over. From this point of view, Ilham Aliyev also stated that "the number of permanent members of the UNSC should be expanded to include more countries and be geographically fairer." 

Similarly, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu also mentioned this structural reform at the G20 summit. Aliyev crowned this tendency with a permanent suggestion: "The Non-Aligned Movement should be given a permanent seat and the country holding the rotating presidency should have this seat".  

The proposal on NATO put forward by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who sided with Turkey in the process of Sweden and Finland's accession to NATO - which should have been the case in the first place - is a resemblance of the past. Orban's proposal: 

"As an alternative to NATO, a NATO without the US in Europe." (3)

Orban, who claims to be the defender of Hungarian national sovereignty and is in constant tension with George Soros, a US Jewish financial speculator of Hungarian origin, invites EU countries to form an alliance without the US as an alternative to NATO, which is an important step in today's Europe. Turkey is undoubtedly one of the countries most concerned about this issue. There is no need to go back too far. As always, the US State Department's 2021 Country Report on Terrorism continues to distort Turkey's fight against terrorist organisations that pose a direct threat to Turkey's security. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tanju Bilgiç's statement that the report's mention of the so-called SDF, an extension of the PeKaKa terrorist organisation, as a partner of the United States in its fight against ISIS "reveals that the US authorities still cannot comprehend the fallacy of using another terrorist organisation in the fight against one terrorist organisation" is the most typical example of this understanding. The US has now encircled Turkey, a loyal member of NATO, as a threat with Greece, GKRK and Syrian PeKaKaKaKa. 

(3) Orban, who gave an interview to Die Weltfoche magazine published in Switzerland (3), proposed to establish an alternative to NATO in Europe, which is a summary of the Brussels Treaty, the Western European Union (WEU), the European Defence Community (EDF), initiatives such as the Fouchet Plan and the efforts to build a "European Army" starting from the Second World War. Orban, who expressed his belief that a European NATO, which was once voiced in our country in the form of an Islamic NATO, would be a solution, reminded that he had also made this proposal in 2012. Not content with this, Orban also underlined that European countries themselves should be ready to protect Europe. On the other hand, the same Orban also decided to move his embassy to Jerusalem. As if confirming the recent bloody conflicts in Palestine with a pro-Israeli stance. According to the Times of Israel, Hungary's decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was interpreted as a show of goodwill by Prime Minister Viktor Orban to his Israeli counterpart Binyamin Netenyahu. According to the news, the parties have recently agreed to move the Hungarian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Hungarian Embassy in Jerusalem, which is expected to be inaugurated a month later, will be the first embassy in Europe to be moved. However, European Union member states refuse to move their embassies to Jerusalem without a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine. (4) 

Is this a rational and correct decision? In a word, yes. On the other hand, various officials of the European Union have already claimed that Orban's authoritarian tendencies are similar to those of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Undoubtedly, Hungary's policy, which is in favour of Turkey's NATO initiatives, can only be explained by the concept of compartmentalised diplomacy. The train of international relations, which is a means to an end, consists of different compartments. It is not possible to have good relations with a country on almost every issue. What is essential in inter-state relations is to take the evolutionary train to its destination. This situation cannot be explained by running westwards on a ship travelling eastwards. Disputes and their solutions are compartmentalised and compartmentalised separately. A friendly country can be in favourable relations with a friendly country, or it can be in disagreement with it. This is somehow not the diplomacy of Ancient Greece, Rome, Ancient Egypt and the Hittites, or the diplomacy (5), as it is popularly described, which is managed by Ad-hoc on lies, deceit and cunning.  After all, is not the essence of diplomacy or diplomatic activities the art of making the impossible possible?

As is well known, the perception that the defence and security of a devastated Europe, which emerged from the Second World War with heavy casualties against Soviet expansionism, was directly entrusted to the United States has become a dominant view. However, even when Europe was at its weakest, initiatives on collective defence and security in Europe date back to the post-World War II period. Faced with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the threat of communism, Western European countries' initiatives such as the Brussels Treaty, the Western European Union (WEU), the European Defence Community (EDF) and the Fouchet Plan formed the basis of the steps taken in this direction. These steps, which were taken during the Cold War period when the bipolar world order was dominant, but which failed to change the dependence of continental Europe on NATO and especially on the USA in the field of defence, can be considered as infancy efforts, but the steps taken are important steps. However, the opposition and objections of the USA have made it difficult to establish an autonomous organisation. However, the tensions between the EU members, especially during the Kosovo Crisis, led to significant changes in the attitudes of both sides and paved the way for the St. Malo Summit of 1998, which is considered as a turning point in the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). 

This new structure, which was put into practice with the decision taken at the St. Malo Summit and shaped by the subsequent EU Summits, did not pose a threat to the existence of NATO at first; on the contrary, care was taken to establish a complementary link between the two organisations. In this framework, the "EU-NATO Declaration on CSDP" (6), adopted at the first joint meeting between the institutions on 16 December 2002, formed the basis for the first principled position. 

However, the link between the two organisations with different objectives remained largely on paper and no effective cooperation between the two organisations has been possible in practice. After the establishment of NATO, West Germany's demilitarised status and its exclusion from NATO and the Western European security architecture in general constituted the most important problem discussed among European countries. After the establishment of NATO, the EC and the EU, which constitute the cornerstones of the Western European security architecture, the European and Atlanticist divide that emerged among European countries in the period until the end of the Cold War has always been marked. While the Europeanist movement, led by France, favoured Europe's self-security and distanced relations with the US and NATO, the Atlanticist movement, led by the UK, emphasised close cooperation with the US and NATO. 

Since the implementation of the ESDP, the concerns arising from this dilemma could not be overcome and the most important leverage Turkey, which is not a member of the EU, had was the possibility to veto the EU's automatic access to NATO capabilities based on its voting rights in the North Atlantic Council. Although the main obstacle to NATO-EU relations has been portrayed as the double veto problem arising from Turkey and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, in fact the problems arising from the divergence still exist. What needs to be done for the time being is to establish a NATO in Europe without the US as an alternative to NATO in the transition period. What should happen here is the activation of the European NATO, so to speak. 

If nationalism is essential in the defence and security architecture of all countries, Europe's defence and security can only be possible within an alliance that does not include the US. In other words, the "Paper Tiger USA", as the Chinese leader Mao called it, which has largely turned its direction towards the Pacific, has set as a major goal to make the European Union states dependent on US war industry products rather than supporting Europe with its own forces in terms of security and defence, and has pursued and is pursuing an attitude that will not allow even consortiums that may form in this regard, dear readers.

Footnotes 

(1) Milat Gazetesi Dünya, "France Established a Colonial Kingdom", 03 March 2023, p.6

(2) Milat Gazetesi Politika, "Aliyev: France should apologise for acts of genocide", 04 March 2023; ca

(3) Yeni Birlik Newspaper Dünya, "Let's establish a NATO without the US in Europe", 03 March 2023, p.6

(4) Diriliş Postası Dünya Gündemi, "Hungary is moving its embassy to Jerusalem", 04 March 2023, p. 11

(5) Elvin Abdurahmanlı, Egemen Bağış, Definition of Diplomacy and Types of Diplomacy Existing in the International Conjuncture, Anadolu Akademi Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 3 Issue 1, 2021, p. 143

(6) Sinem Akgül Açıkmeşe and Cihan Dizdaroğlu, Cooperation and Conflict Dynamics in NATO-EU Relations, Journal of International Relations, Ankara, Vol. 10, No. 40 (Winter 2014), pp. 132-133