Why is NATO's Article 5 not enforced in favor of Turkey?
Columnist ABDULHAMIT BILICI - Todays Zaman (Turkey) 20 October 2007
www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=125027

Any country could criticize the operation Turkey is considering carrying out
against the terrorist organization based in Iraq that martyrs our soldiers
everyday. But that the ranks of such critics should include NATO members
with whom we have shared our destiny for the last 55 years -- and
particularly the United States, our closest ally -- strikes us as extremely
odd.

Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty indicates that an attack on any one of
the allies should be considered an attack on all of them and also enjoins
collective defense. The famous article of the treaty, to which we officially
became a party in 1952, reads as follows:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them,
in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized
by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or
Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with
the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of
armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic
area."

Even if such an article did not exist, NATO is a defense organization and it
would be expected of the members to support one another against any threats
and to, at the very least, not hamper the efforts of an attacked NATO-member
country. When NATO was founded, the chief threats were the Soviet Union and
the Eastern Bloc over which it presided. Therefore, this article intimated a
threat that could be posed by the Soviets. However, the Eastern Bloc
disbanded without a single bullet fired and without needing to exercise the
rights granted by this article. Thus ended the Cold War era.

More importantly, in this new era we witnessed how this article that had not
been used against the Soviets was used in relation to the issue of
terrorism. As a matter of fact, Article 5 was implemented only once. The
legal basis was terrorism. When terrorism hit Washington and New York on
Sept. 11, 2001, even
countries like France, known for its strong anti-Americanism, showed a firm
solidarity with the United States. Because of this unity, NATO implemented
Article 5 in response to this attack perpetrated against one of its allies.

Today, if NATO forces -- including Turkish troops -- are deployed in
Afghanistan and help the US, it is because of Article 5. If the logistical
and intelligence tools of NATO are mobilized against Al-Qaeda terrorism,
this is happening through the solidarity brought about by Article 5.

It is exactly at this point that questions arise. Why does Al-Qaeda
terrorism that targets the United States inspire such solidarity while PKK
terrorism that targets Turkey does not? Beyond not showing solidarity, NATO
members want to prevent an operation that Turkey is proposing to carry out
using its own means, a completely legitimate proposal according to
international law as it is a clear case of self-defense. The problem
obviously doesn't stem from a discussion on whether or not the PKK
constitutes a terrorist group. Both the EU and the US have officially
declared that the PKK is a terrorist organization.

The second question is: Is it that Turkey doesn't want NATO to get involved?
The reason for such apprehension can't be the fear that the problem could
erupt into an international issue. Hasn't this matter already reached an
international level? If it has not, why have we been discussing this matter
with the United States for the last two to three years and signing
agreements with the Iraqi administration? What sort of drawbacks could
involving NATO countries by invoking Article 5 and utilizing NATO's military
capabilities produce?

In fact, we learned interesting details last week from Rear Admiral Sinan
Ertugrul, the Turkish commander of the Standing NATO Maritime Group-2
(SNMG-2) which has anchored off the Antalya coast. The Group is taking part
in the Active Effort Operation formed in the framework of Article 5, which
NATO enforced for the first time after the Sept. 11 attacks. A total of 1200
personnel are part of the operation. The journalists who found out about
this rightly asked the Turkish commander whether Article 5 could be enforced
in favor of Turkey or not: "If NATO makes a ruling that Turkey is attacked
by a terrorist group, we can do what is incumbent on us in accordance with
Article 5," Rear Admiral Ertugrul said.

In this case, it is an obligation for the allies to remember Article 5 for
Turkey, and for the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the General Staff to make a
statement on why they have not been appealing to NATO in line with Rear
Admiral Sinan Ertugrul's remarks about Article 5.