NATO 2030: New Strategic Concept

Turkey's Removal of the Membership Barrier:

Another NATO meeting has come to an end, dear readers. The suspension of the entry of Sweden and Finland, the two Nordic countries that applied to NATO, with Turkey's veto card, had already placed Turkey on the world agenda at the beginning of the NATO Leaders Summit. However, this suspension process, the positive atmosphere that occurred after President Erdogan, the Swedish, Finnish prime ministers and the NATO Secretary General came together and agreed six hours later, eased the tense atmosphere at once, and relieved it as well.

In this way, many possible diplomatic crises that would cause headaches were avoided. This has also contributed significantly to NATO's "Alliance Based on Insecurity" spirit, which has now become more evident. In other words, this situation has also revealed a new phase in which the distrust created by Greece, especially by Greece, has faltered and evolved into trust within NATO.

PESCO Detail in the Tripartite Consensus:

In addition, another issue that I care about the most is that Turkey, a European country, takes the opportunity to show that, apart from NATO, the defense and security of Continental Europe is also the dominant building block in the "Common Security and Defense Architecture of the European Union" (OGSM) on almost every occasion. also caught. With a smart start, Turkey has managed to include the support clause for the European Union's participation in the 'OGSM and Policy' in the text of the "Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding" signed as a result of the "Quadruple Mini Summit".

In other words, while supporting the NATO membership of these countries, he also knew how to say "You also support my participation in the EU defense system". The EU has started to implement the common security and defense issue with the "Permanent Structured Cooperation" called PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), which it started in 2009 and accelerated since 2017. If the most experienced force, both qualitatively and quantitatively, which should be in the establishment of PESCO, European Corps or Army can be accepted to the EU with a sound evaluation, the reality of 'Turkey' has been successfully revealed. As it is known, Turkey has undertaken the largest force structure and force multipliers in NATO to a large extent. However, Turkey's request to participate in this PESCO cooperation process has not received a positive response so far. While Madrid enabled Turkey to have a say in the future of NATO, on the other hand, by wanting to be in OGSM outside of NATO, it also opened the door to a new era in this regard.

Yes, by the way, let's talk about it. Didn't the "Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding", signed as a result of this "Mini Summit of Four" held before the NATO leaders' summit, brought discussions with it? Of course yes. So much so that, while the discussions on the text that emerged as a result of the "Quad Mini Summit" continue at opposite poles, Turkey's stance in Madrid; Success or failure, victory or even a defeat? brought up to. In order not to be biased on this issue, I should say that before we get into the discussion of this issue, let's say at the beginning that we will say the last thing, Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, titled “pacta sunt servanda” (ahde vefa) margin: “Every treaty in force binds the parties and the parties agree to the agreement. It must be done with intent.” attached in the format. The text signed between the states, whether it is a treaty, agreement or memorandum, is the fact that the main thing between the parties is sincerity. After all, all these are aimed at establishing sincere goodwill relations rather than a legal sanction.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides a roadmap for what needs to be done until it passes the parliaments of the 3 countries. In addition, it should be said in advance that although the agreement is not a binding agreement, it gives Ankara a chance to put pressure on it. In every step to be taken on the NATO ground, the veto card can always come into play. Despite the differences in interpretation regarding the text, Ankara clearly demonstrates that it can use this agreement against two Nordic countries like the Sword of Damocles. It is also evaluated that the demands that Turkey has reflected in the memorandum of understanding, especially on terrorism, may bring the internal institutions of these countries, especially the legislature and the judiciary, against each other. The government, which was able to get the vote of confidence thanks to the vote of the Kurdish-origin independent deputy Amineh Kakabaveh in Sweden, is now invited to the Parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee to clarify the agreement. In this case, it is foreseen that the government may fall in the first vote of confidence to be held in the Swedish Parliament. (one)

New Concept

Now let's come to our main topic "NATO 2030": The New Strategic Concept. At the NATO Lisbon Summit in 2010, the "Collective Defense, Cooperation and Crisis Management" expansions were put forward in the Strategic Concept that will shape the future of NATO. Indeed, when we look at the developments after 2010, it has been seen that NATO has made an effort to be effective in intervening in crisis areas, especially in the Arab Spring process. As in the case of Yugoslavia before, NATO showed that it was active in the region with its air forces in the motivated Libyan crisis and gave the message that it could intervene if necessary. However, it has been seen that NATO interventions did not make Europe a safer region, contrary to the purpose of its establishment and operation, on the contrary, it left Europe alone with the influx of refugees. NATO did not take an active initiative against the migration waves that emerged after the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. No matter what the name of the residue left is “refugee” or “temporary asylum seeker”; Turkey has been the country most affected by this issue.

The document "NATO 2030: Togetherness for a New Age", which will replace the strategic concept adopted at the 2010 Lisbon Summit, once again confirms the importance of the principles of unity and solidarity that form the basis of NATO. First of all, it should be noted that the strategic concept, which is reviewed every ten years, contains important details about the roadmap to be followed by NATO. While the text naturally focuses on Russia due to the Ukraine war, it also pays special attention to China's participation in the caravan of marginalization.

How is China and Russia Mentioned in the Concept?

At the NATO summit held in London on 3-4 December 2019, China was defined for the first time as a "strategic challenge". At the summit held in 2020, China was portrayed as a global security problem and it was stated that there was a shift in NATO's threat perception towards Asia. Again, in the statement published at the end of the summit held in 2020, China was defined as a "systemic challenge" as it is today. In order to highlight China's visibility more, it has been evaluated as "systemic" because its numerical and economic issues are looked at within the framework of certain systems.

In an important report that contributes to the strategic concept of "NATO 2030", it is emphasized that China will become more important in a "systemic" sense towards 2030 and in this context, the necessity of NATO to develop a "politically intensive strategy". (2) In the document, it was claimed that China's ambitions and policies harmed the security, interests and values ​​of the alliance, and a special effort was made to bring China to the highest level of threat perception. Moreover, it is claimed that China uses hybrid methods and develops itself in the cyber field, and uses economic dependence as a weapon. Undoubtedly, it was considered extremely important that the Pentagon aimed to transfer the center of gravity to the Pacific in line with the goals of the USA rather than NATO's security defense of Europe.

After the deepening strategic partnership between China and Russia is revealed in the document as those who confuse the world, it is evaluated that NATO, China and Russia are in a joint attempt to disrupt the rules-based international order and this is against the interests of the alliance.

Conclusion:

In short, in the “NATO 2030 Strategic Concept Document”, China, as the power that challenges the interests, security and values ​​of NATO partners, is placed at the center of the chessboard in the strategy of the next 10 years. The document, which is clearly prepared by the USA, which does not want to share its global leadership with anyone, has been written in such a clever way that, what can we say, it has been slandered, the PRC and the RF have been shown as a power that wants to end the USA's unipolar world vision, dear readers.

Footnotes:

(1) Fehim Taştekin, “NATO çirkin, sen çok güzelsin!”, Gazete Duvar, 30 Haziran 2022; https://www.gazeteduvar.com.tr/nato-cirkin-sen-cok-guzelsin-makale-1571511/Erişim Tarihi:03.07.2022/

(2) Hüseyin KORKMAZ, “NATO’nun Stratejik Yolu ve Çin” TASAM, 01 Temmuz 2022; https://tasam.org/tr-TR/Icerik/70110/natonun_stratejik_yolu_ve_cin/Erişim Tarihi:03.07.2022/