Will Turkey's blockade running mean NATO's end?

I argued long ago that NATO long ago outlived its usefulness to the United States ("What has NATO done for us?").

NATO was founded to form a bulwark against Soviet invasion of western Europe in 1949. As the charter's Article 5 states,

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 and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith ... such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

So just what does this mean today? Pretty much nothing. Strictly interpreted, Article 5's provisions are not tripped by an attack on United States' interests outside North America. One must wonder whether an attack by someone against Guam, a non-North American, American territory, would trigger Article 5, but the question is actually moot since there is no imaginable threat to mount such an attack.

So: Who is there to attack either North America or Europe? There are really only two threats reasonably imaginable - Russia and Islamist terrorists.

Now NATO member Turkey is aligning itself with Islamist terrorists, namely Hamas and Hamas' state sponsor, Iran. Israel has enforced a sea blockade of Gaza for most of the time since Israel completely vacated Gaza in 2005. International-law experts agree that this blockade is legal. Turkey's anti-Israel, pro-Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has vowed to break the blockade, even saying he would be aboard a vessel attempting to force it. Iran's Revolutionary Guard says it will join the effort and Iran's Red Crescent (its Red Cross) says it will send two ships to Gaza this week. Finally (same link) prominent Israelis are saying that if Turkish warships accompany the next flotilla (as Turkey has indicated) then Israel must consider it an act of war.

But who would be making war against whom? That is, which country would be the aggressor? If Turkey and NATO come to blows, could Turkey invoke Article 5 and if so would NATO members, including the United States, be obligated to commit military force against Israel?

In my mind these are not difficult questions but you can bet that bureaucrats in Brussels are already writing position papers on the topic. One key is that the charter establishes a defensive alliance. Hence, naming the aggressor party is crucial to whether Turkey can justly invoke the charter.

And the answer is no.

Israel has committed no act of aggression against Turkey. Its Gaza blockade has always been recognized as valid by national governments (as opposed to anti-Israel "activists). The governing document for matters relating to blockades is the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea." Blockades are covered in Section III, which is fairly short. Three paragraphs of note:

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

Note that once a state establishes a blockade it does not have the option to partially enforce it or enforce it only once in awhile. Legally, a blockade must be a 24/7, no exceptions operation. Elsewhere the San Remo Manual authorizes the blockading power to set rules for passage or diversion of vessels and materiel, including humanitarian supplies. This is what Israel has done by insisting that vessels dock at an Israeli port for inspection of cargo followed by overland transport to Gaza of non-contraband.

Here is the key point: Israel's enforcement of its blockade is an act of war - but against only Gaza, not against third parties. Vessels, whether Gazan or not, that attempt to force the blockade make themselves belligerents and the Manual not merely permits but actually requires the blockading power to act against forcing vessels. This not not mean all guns blazing, the blockading power may certainly use its discretion in response. But if Israel does not attempt to enforce the blockade against the Turkish or Iranian vessels that prospectively will tryb to force the blockade, then Israel will give national governments the loophole to declare the blockade ineffective, hence broken and no longer cognizable.

But if Israel and Turkey come to shots on the sea, it is Turkey that will be the aggressor. Might this fatally weaken NATO? The alliance never foresaw that collective "defense" would include assisting other members in starting a war of aggression. But that is what Turkey is apparently about to do.

Perhaps NATO could survive such a conflict. It may depend heavily on how long the shooting lasts. But NATO's reputation as an alliance of self-protection will be shattered. Unless NATO's nations can rein in Turkey, the alliance's toothlessness will become even more evident.

If Turkish warships sail toward Gaza, what to do to preserve NATO, if NATO is to be preserved? To be clear, I still think that the US should resign from the military entanglements of the NATO treaty's collective defense, while preserving the elements of collective security (not the same thing) and political engagement on the continent. But conflict caused by a NATO member is not the way for NATO to dissolve, even if dissolution is a logical step.

1. NATO's members must make it clear that they will not assist Turkey in a conflict with Israel even if Turkey attempts to invoke Article 5. They should also make it clear that Turkey will be evicted from the alliance if it attempts to force the blockade.

2. The United States should first notify US citizens in Turkey to leave. We should tell Turkey that we will impose unilateral sanctions against it if it attempts to force the blockade, including freezing of Turkish financial accounts and of individual Turks in the US, eviction of Turkish embassy staff except for the ambassador and a skeleton staff and revocation of visas for Turks inside the United States. (You may be surprised to know that these measures are very close to those enforced by President Carter against Iran after the US embassy in Iran was seized in 1979.)

However, I see almost no chance of this happening. None of the other NATO countries want to fight anyone, Israel included. But I suspect that NATO's European countries will maintain a studied neutrality as conflict looms, except perhaps Britain and France. Germany's Chancellor Merkel will want to be more forceful than she can afford to be since Germany's economy relies heavily on Turkish guest workers.

As for decisive and effective action by the Obama administration? Expecting that would be the triumph of wishful thinking over experience.

Someone will no doubt say that the US Navy should establish a presence between Turkish ships and Israeli ships if they start to come to proximity. I demur. Unless US warships would be ready to fire then such a patrol would do more harm then good to US interests. We are certainly not going to war against Turkey over this issue; the US public will not support it and this Congress will never authorize it, anyway. And the blockade is Israel's problem, not ours. But the US should be ready to render materiel and intelligence assistance to Israel quickly. We should also be clear to Turkey that if shooting does break out, we will unilaterally dissolve our NATO alliance with it, regardless of what other NATO members do, and will actually seize, as opposed to freeze, Turkey's assets inside the US.

Update: Here's what our president is focusing on:

Comments on