Anti-NATO sentiment in Turkey

Whether discussing domestic or foreign policy in Turkey, the subject inevitably turns to NATO membership. When relations with the US are at stake, NATO membership is discussed. When it comes to NATO needing a "new enemy" to maintain its existence and legitimacy after the Cold War, NATO membership is discussed.

When the Turkish Armed Forces (Mehmetçik) serve under the NATO umbrella and suffer casualties, NATO membership is discussed. When the US support for the PKK – PYD – YPG and FETÖ terrorist organizations, its recognition of alleged genocide claims, and its anti-Turkey steps from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Black Sea, and from Karabakh to Syria come to the agenda, NATO membership is discussed.

The list is long...

Those who defend Turkey's NATO membership refer to the years of World War II and its aftermath, as well as the Cold War era. They argue that NATO membership is not a choice but a necessity. They point to the Soviet threat and Soviet demands on Turkey. They claim that decisions in NATO are taken by consensus, and therefore, a decision that Turkey opposes cannot pass. They state that if Turkey were to leave NATO, Greece's hand would be strengthened, the Greek Cypriot Administration would be made a NATO member, and the balance in the Aegean and Mediterranean would be disrupted to Turkey's disadvantage.

Those who oppose Turkey's NATO membership, on the other hand, underline that NATO is primarily an instrument of attack and occupation for US imperialism. They state that NATO is not just a defense and security organization, but far beyond that, an organization that interferes in the internal affairs of countries and establishes influence over their bureaucracy, politics, business world, academia, cultural institutions, and media.

They emphasize that the US, through NATO, shapes and keeps alliance members in line with US interests. They recall the US support for coups and terrorist organizations in Turkey, the Johnson Letter, the arms embargo imposed on Turkey after the Cyprus Peace Operation, the events following the March 1st memorandum, the incident where a sack was placed over the heads of Turkish soldiers in Sulaymaniyah, and in short, various problems experienced with the US. They say that the threat of division against Turkey comes from the US.

WHO IS AGAINST NATO?

In Turkey, the clearest and most determined stance against NATO has been put forward by the socialist left and the Kemalist left. Anti-NATO sentiment has never diminished in these circles. Loyalty to NATO is strong on the center-right and center-left. In nationalist, conservative, and Islamist lines, criticisms of NATO are seen in parallel with the tensions experienced with the US. However, leaving NATO is not brought to the agenda. NATO membership is not questioned. In these circles, anti-Zionist rhetoric is highlighted. However, there is no consistent, holistic critique of imperialism and capitalism.

The socialist left, which has opposed Turkey's NATO membership from the beginning, has grounded this stance not only on an ideological and political level but also on a social, class, and cultural level. Against the claims coming from almost all shades of the right in political debates that accused socialists of being "pro-USSR," the socialist left has also accused the right of being "pro-NATO and pro-US, and collaborators of imperialism." In all their political work, they have persistently emphasized opposition to NATO, the US, and imperialism.

According to socialists and left-wing Kemalists; the dependence on the US, which has been further consolidated by Turkey's NATO membership, has hindered our country's democratization. It has strengthened oppressive and reactionary mindsets. It has paved the way for gang formations and the mafia. It has prepared the ground for the large-scale liquidation of the Republican Revolution, especially regarding full independence, national sovereignty, and secularism. In foreign policy, it has paved the way for a break from the principles of neutrality and non-alignment, which were carefully tried to be protected after the proclamation of the Republic. On an ideological level, it has resulted in Turkey refusing to be one of the leading countries of oppressed nations and the third world. It has damaged Turkey's relations with the USSR. It has shaped Turkish political culture according to the perception of a "Soviet threat" and "communist threat."

Turkey has mobilized its resources, energy, savings, and time for the needs of the US and NATO. It has observed the priorities of NATO and the US, not its own. Indeed, it is noteworthy what Democrat Party Foreign Minister Fatin Rüştü Zorlu said to journalist Çetin Altan in 1953, during his tenure as Turkey's permanent representative to NATO: "I will give you a state secret. Do not write it down or tell anyone. I have tied 95 percent of the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) to NATO. We thus got rid of a great burden on the budget. Neither the Parliament nor İsmet Paşa knows about this." (Çetin Altan, "Can a NATO Army Make 3 Coups on Its Own?", Sabah, 15. 09. 2000).

OF WHICH CONDITIONS IS NATO A PRODUCT?

NATO, no matter what anyone says, was primarily established for the interests of the US. It is a product of the early years of the Cold War. Turkey's invitation in 1951, along with Greece, to the pact established in 1949—after having applied for membership twice in 1950 and being rejected—is a necessity of the US policies towards our region. In the end, the NATO membership agreement was signed in October 1951 and passed the approval of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) in February 1952. The real development that paved the way for Turkey's NATO membership was the Democrat Party government sending Turkish soldiers to Korea to fight alongside the US in 1950, without even needing to obtain TBMM approval.

After the USSR dissolved, the Berlin Wall fell, the Warsaw Pact collapsed, and the Cold War ended, an enemy was practically sought for NATO to maintain, ground, and justify its existence and legitimacy. During this period, NATO turned to out-of-area operations in line with US goals. In this context, interventions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Afghanistan are the first that come to mind. NATO's expansion in Europe and the Balkans, making Bulgaria and Romania—which have coasts on the Black Sea—members, and wanting to make Ukraine and Georgia members can also be explained by US interests.

As a result, NATO is a major security problem for Turkey. It is necessary to leave as soon as possible. However, there is no common will, national consensus, bureaucratic preparation, or academic debate in this direction in Turkey. Moreover, NATO has taken such deep root in Turkey that if Turkey were to leave NATO today, it would take at least 25 years to clean up the alliance's effects on domestic and foreign policy.