Turkey has called on a
meeting of the NATO member states on the coming Tuesday, to discuss its response to the
shooting down of one of its warplanes by Syrian forces over the Mediterranean. Ankara
has invoked the Article IV of the Atlantic charter that stipulates: “The
parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the
territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties
is threatened”. This may be a first step of invoking article V of the Atlantic
Charter that calls for a collective self-defense as enshrined in the article 51
of the UN Charter. This may pave the way for a long-standing demand of some of
the Western countries to militarily intervene in Syria. Considering the precarious
security situation in the Middle-East and North Africa, a military intervention
in Syria may destabilize the already volatile region. Libya is still coping
with a civil war and a government that fails to exercise effective control over
its territories. The role of NATO - which is a defensive military alliance -
has already been widely criticized due to its offensive role in Libya. Military
intervention in Syria may also result in the rise of Islamists in addition to a
protracted civil war.
The international community
is facing a dilemma: on one hand they are blamed for their inaction to protect
the civilians from the massacre at the hands of the Assad regime; and on the
other hand they are afraid that Syria may follow the course of Libya; a
protracted civil war; mass-migration; and no effective government. This is indeed
a tough call for the NATO members. The invocation of Article V of the Atlantic
treaty along with the article 51 (Self-defense) of the UN charter gives a way-out
to the WEST to intervene without a Chapter VII resolution of the UN Security
Council. Keeping in mind the Russia’s unconditional support to the Assad’s
regime and the failure of the Annan plan, this scenario could provide the
only possible legal option for a military intervention in Syria. Despite the
legality of military intervention, the repercussions of the intervention are
not very bright, which might impede a quick decision. Sooner or later, a military
intervention in Syria is inevitable.
The transforming role of Turkey
is also very important. Turkey restrained from using force last years when nine
of its citizens were killed by the Israeli military forces during the flotilla
incident. Turkey also refused to provide passage to the US, during the
occupation of Iraq. In case of Syria, Turkey has been a very vocal critique of
the Assad regime; Turkey was the first country to organize a meeting of the
Syrian opposition in Istanbul. Public opinion in favor of a military intervention is increasing with the rising death toll of the Syrian population. The recent statement by the French President François Hollande – that he
will not rule out a possibility of a military intervention in Syria – also shows
the increasing willingness of the international community to intervene in Syria
on humanitarian grounds. With the strong opposition of Russia and China the
invocation of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is least likely to be possible.
Hence the recent incident gives an opportunity to militarily intervene without
a UNSC resolution under chapter VII. Whatever the NATO member states decide in their
meeting on the coming Tuesday, will determine the pace of political change in Middle-East;
and it will not be an easy decision.
