Special Guest Report: Turkey-Greece Rift Threatens Alliance
Irena Sowinska / Ayhan Altun
Greece and Turkey nearly exchanged fire over drilling rights in the disputed non-official Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ. As the conflict comes to a rolling boil, the fate of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and all future agreements modeled from it, hangs in the balance.
“It is obvious that a military confrontation between Greece and Turkey would have tremendous consequences for NATO cohesion,” said Professor Konstantinos Grivas at the Hellenic Military Academy, “Whether NATO would survive such a challenge is difficult to answer. I believe that in the past the situation would have been easier given the omnipotence of the United States. Washington, on the one hand, would not allow the conflict to escalate over time, on the other hand, she would have the necessary specific weight to control the situation.”
The precise degree of impact NATO will suffer in the wake of the Greek-Turkish standoff is difficult to gauge. On Sunday, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was reported by Al Jazeera to have “raised the stakes” in the rhetoric regarding the drilling rights standoff. Whilst NATO stands as a current go-between in the standoff, the tension pressures increase at rapid-fire speed. Erdoğan warns of “painful consequences” if Greece does not enter into the terms of his proposed talks.
A significant shift in Western influence
The question remains what the Western interference in these stakes will look like. Professor Grivas stated that the strong presence of the United States in foreign policy in previous decades prevented former conflicts from escalating to a critical point. In 2020, U.S. influence and the grasp of NATO has significantly changed. This downgrading of NATO has even led to some questioning whether downsizing or dissolution should be considered. As U.S. foreign policy teeters on the knife-tip of U.S. political turmoil, and the overall narrative of low confidence in NATO’s future, the question of U.S. strength in its forward-thinking Gulf-Med presence remains open-ended. The U.S. will need to restructure and freshly strategize its position in the post-NATO Gulf-Med to find new avenues of ensuring continued influence.
“The United States has lost much of her influence in the West, and it is unclear what the Americans want to do with NATO. Also, the Greek-Turkish conflict is only part of the problem. Even without the conflict with Greece, Turkey operates as an ambitious autonomous power of a multi-polar world and this transforms her to an alien body for the Alliance, as she has her own agenda,” also said Professor Grivas.
Turkish “triumphalism” and NATO policy
Turkey bolsters its foreign policy status. Turkey moves toward establishing a hegemony, as a major sovereign power in the region. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace refers to the Turkish policy in the region as “triumphalism.” This was highlighted by the recent conversion of the Hagia Sophia museum in Istanbul into an Islamic worship center. Hagia Sophia was historically a museum of Christian relics. By re-designating its status, Erdoğan is improving upon the Islamic sovereignty that characterizes his regime. As Turkey emboldens triumphalism, and NATO relinquishes its former grip of control, the scenario prognosis increases its negative trends.
“It is not only NATO but also the European Union that will suffer in such a case. I think E.U. has the biggest problem. If two member states (Greece and the Republic of Cyprus) are attacked by a country outside the European Union and the latter is limited to some wishes for peace, then the end of the European Union will be ante portas,” said Professor Grivas.
The complex inter-connective conflicts struggle in the Mediterranean region has increased the stakes of the Turkish-Greek escalations. The conflict between the Turkish-Greek states is driven by energy. Conflict in the region is driven by energy rights, a situation that has continued to brew across the neighboring states of the region in summer 2020.
Even though NATO influence is struggling to keep its clasp on the situation, the NATO alliance still stands like a plug in the dam, holding back other surrounding conflicts from bleeding over into the Turkish-Greek escalation.
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary-General, stated that, as of his communications between Turkey and Greece on September 3, the two nations had agreed to begin technical talks. These talks commence as he likewise spearheads talks amid the region’s neighboring states to pacify their simultaneous conflicts.
“The two Allies have agreed to enter into technical talks at NATO to establish deconfliction mechanisms and reduce the risk of incidents & accidents in the East Med,” said Stoltenberg the morning of September 3.
Stoltenberg has also made arrangements to lead regional discussion further, in the days that immediately followed his communications with Turkey and Greece.
NATO strengthens ties in nearby regions
On September 7, NATO announced that Stolenberg would meet with Avdullah Hoti, the Finance Minister of Kosovo. Kosovo is a Balkan republic that has been engaged in conflict with Serbia. It has recently reached a place of normalization talks. It’s political security, or volatility acts as a potential tipping point for the NATO enforcement power of this region.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addressed the changing atmosphere of Kosovo, stating “Great meeting with Kosovo's Prime Minister Hoti yesterday in Washington. The U.S. stands with Kosovo in its efforts to advance economic prosperity, strengthen the rule of law, and fight corruption,” on September 5. The State Secretary met with Minister Hoti on September 4.
The Stoltenberg-Hoti meeting will commence on September 8 at the current NATO Headquarters. Kosovo’s position in the waters between Greece and Turkey increases the proximity of NATO, even indirectly, for influence and response in the maritime relations of this region.
Kosovo and Serbia have likewise come under the critical eye of Turkey in recent events, due to the move of their Israel embassies to Jerusalem, see The Jerusalem Post. The Balkans region thus now has the greatest need of a strong foreign alliance to mediate the fall out of any perceived indiscretion between itself and the Turkish nation. Without a foreign influence to mediate, Turkish triumphalism will seize upon the indiscretion the nation perceives, and the results will push moves and countermoves in the Gulf-Med.
As the U.S. and NATO together move to mitigate the normalcy of relations with Kosovo, another indirect influence is formed. North Macedonia became the newest member of the NATO alliance. Simultaneously, Zoran Zaev, North Macedonia’s prime minister, was able to form a new government.
This marks a strong stride in NATO’s presence in the Gulf-Med region, due to Macedonia's proximity to the northern border of Greece. This stride forward likewise gives NATO a foothold in the region to brace for all further escalations between Turkey and Greece, including any potential for the two nations to withdraw as NATO members.
Yet, as NATO leadership continues to play its cards where it can in strengthening and shifting its position in the region, the alliance faces a domestic core issue. The current U.S. President’s position on NATO in his second term is a question of public scrutiny. Whether this scrutiny is founded in the facts, or whether it is conjecture is not clear. This is because President Trump’s rhetoric on NATO policy has followed in the same brand of transactional policy that has characterized his presidency.
Media questions Trump NATO stance
As The New York Times states, allies and former members of NATO fear that Trump will announce a U.S. departure from the organization if he secures a second term as president.
Foreign Policy likewise published a narrative that suggests President Trump will ignore the NATO Balkans talks and relations with strategically critical Kosovo.
Whether Trump will consider a departure from the alliance has not been confirmed officially, yet the narrative of uncertainty from media publications suggests a negative Trump leadership of NATO.
This narrative creates disadvantages, namely in the vein of reputational management for the alliance. These communications cast a shadow of doubt on the strategic countermoves and indirect, disengaged but present influence of NATO in the volatile region. Should confidence erode entirely, the blow to NATO will be sizable. The ripple effects of a disenfranchised NATO presence open the door to a new brand of conflict in the Gulf-Med and Balkans regions.
-Rachel Brooks is a freelance journalist-
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Modern Treatise.