The decision to host a NATO summit in Ankara has been described as absurd and insulting, with the city characterized not as a bastion of freedom and peace, but as the capital of an "aggressive despotism." This assessment comes from Peter Hitchens, who argues that Turkey's current political climate stands in stark contrast to NATO's purported values.
Hitchens posits that Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, represents a significant departure from democratic principles. He draws parallels between Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin, citing Turkey's military presence in Northern Cyprus and its interventions in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Azerbaijan. The author also notes Turkey's acquisition of advanced Russian military equipment, which has drawn objections from the United States.
Suppression of Dissent and Media Freedom
Concerns have been raised by pro-freedom campaign groups regarding attempts to suppress dissent in Turkey leading up to the NATO summit. These groups report instances of journalists being placed under house arrest, receiving suspended sentences, or undergoing prolonged trials for online commentary critical of the government. Reporters Without Borders has accused Turkey of employing various methods to undermine its critics, placing the country 163rd out of 180 nations on its world press freedom index. The media landscape in Turkey, once characterized by diversity, is now largely under direct or indirect government control.
The suppression of opposition extends beyond media outlets, with Hitchens suggesting that opposition itself is unwelcome in Erdogan's Turkey, potentially leading to imprisonment. The prosecution of Ekrem Imamoglu, the mayor of Istanbul and a significant political rival to Erdogan, is highlighted as an example. Imamoglu faces charges of corruption and espionage, with prosecutors seeking a prison sentence of over 2,000 years.
NATO's Evolving Identity
Hitchens questions the fundamental identity and purpose of NATO, particularly in light of its inclusion and engagement with Turkey. He notes that NATO has historically included non-democratic states, citing the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal and the Greek colonels' regime. The author points out that membership entry is effectively controlled by the U.S. and that NATO lacks a formal procedure for expelling member states.
Furthermore, the article probes whether NATO remains a purely defensive alliance. Operations such as the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia and the 2011 intervention in Libya are questioned for their legality and defensive nature. The extended deployment in Afghanistan is also presented as a departure from the alliance's core geographical focus.
The article also touches upon the collective defense commitment under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, suggesting that its language is not strictly binding. The decision to commit armed force in defense of another member ultimately relies on the willingness of individual nations, particularly the U.S. and other nuclear powers, to risk retaliation. Hitchens concludes by questioning the relevance and effectiveness of the alliance in its current form.