It is no secret that NATO has been living for nearly two decades on an identity crisis related to its role and goals in the post-Cold War era, and NATO countries have studied this crisis for a long time, especially during the fiftieth anniversary of the alliance in 1999, and sought to get out of it by developing the alliance's work programs and goals in the twenty-first century to include fighting terrorism and extremism, building a space force, cyber wars, etc But the feeling of this crisis still hangs over the alliance, particularly since the statements of French President Emmanuel Macron in which he said that the alliance is in a “clinical death”, as these statements opened the door to discussing the role of the alliance after a question from President Macron in which he said, “What does Article Five of the NATO Charter mean in the future?”, referring to the basic commitment of NATO that all allies defend any member under attack, adding, “We must reassess the reality that NATO is experiencing in light of the commitment of the United States to it.” These statements were received with reservations by some members of the alliance and rejected by others, as the US ambassador to NATO said that his country “strongly” disagrees with this assessment, while Polish Prime Minister Matthews Moravsky said that “It is ‘dangerous’ to question the article on joint defense of NATO members”, and he told the Financial Times that Macron “does not feel the warm breath of the Russian bear to his neck.”

What concerns us here is the reality of the case, which says that the alliance could not control the behavior of Turkey, one of the member States of the alliance, whether in Syria or concerning its import of the Russian S-400 missile defense system, not to mention the alliance's inability to stop the Turkish repression of freedoms in the aftermath of the so-called 2016 coup, and the deteriorating political relations between Turkey and the European alliance countries in particular.

The latest episode of the odd behavior on the Turkish side towards NATO is the “hostile acts” carried out recently by Turkish boats against French ships that were participating in a NATO mission in the Mediterranean, an act described by the French Ministry of Armies as “a very aggressive act that cannot be done by an ally towards a ship belonging to the NATO”, and considered that “this issue is very serious in our view (...) We cannot accept that an ally behaves in this manner and to do what it did against a ship under NATO command in a mission for NATO.”

The French-Turkish dispute developed into mutual statements between the leaderships of the two countries against the backdrop of direct Turkish military intervention in Libya, and Ankara's violation of its obligations at the Berlin Conference on the Libyan crisis, where French President Emmanuel Macron held Turkey as having “a historical and criminal responsibility in the Libyan conflict as a country claiming to be a member of NATO.” The French Ministry of Defense accused Turkish ships of transporting fighters to Libya, and Turkish ships to prevent a French frigate from inspecting them at sea. The matter ended with France’s withdrawal from a NATO maritime security operation in the Mediterranean because of its differences with Turkey, and the official French statement said, targeting the Turkish side specifically, “It does not seem right to us to maintain means in an operation supposed to include among its many tasks the controlling of the embargo with allies who do not respect it.”

This crisis is not the only challenge facing NATO; there are American and European differences, and this is embodied recently in President Donald Trump's approval of a plan to withdraw 9500 American soldiers currently stationed in Germany, provided that this plan is presented “in the coming weeks” to the Congress and then to Allies in NATO, which translates President Trump's statements in which he accused Germany of financially benefiting from the US military presence in Europe.

What concerns us in this issue is that the alliance that is actually facing several crises may have to resolve its position regarding Turkey’s membership and the extent of its commitment to its responsibilities and duties towards membership of NATO, as this issue has become one of the most important challenges facing the Alliance’s international role and responsibilities in the coming stage; Indeed, the facts say that Turkey is working against the strategic interests of NATO countries, and has become one of the shovels of destroying the security of the European member States of the Alliance, whether through its continuous blackmail of these countries by brandishing the Syrian refugee card, or through its direct military intervention in Libya, which means the risk of an influx of illegal migrants across the coast of the Mediterranean to the shores of NATO countries. Turkey is also threatening the interests of NATO countries in the waters of the Mediterranean and the Syrian file, continuing its quest in search for a regional and international role and influence, which runs counter to the Alliance’s agenda and the interests of its member States.