Why NATO Won’t Go To War Over Syria Shooting Down Turkish Jet

[tabatha]

.....

So, aircraft are specifically included as a potential trigger. And the area surrounding Turkey is included as well--added as an amendment to the original treaty by a 1951 Protocol on the accession of Greece and Turkey. Indeed, there would have been little benefit to Turkey in joining NATO if it weren't included under the Article 5 umbrella, the most fundamental Alliance commitment.

Instead, the operative word that almost certainly disqualifies this incident from an Article 5 response is "attack." Turkey was engaged in aggressive action along its border with Syria during a particularly tense situation and flew into Syrian airspace. While shooting down the plane was almost certainly an overreaction--the Assad government has said as much--it's hardly an "attack."

Ultimately, like the "high crimes and misdemeanor" threshold for impeachment set forth by the US Constitution, it's a judgment call. In the former case, the House of Representatives makes the call; in the latter, it's the North Atlantic Council.

But it's virtually inconceivable that the NAC would deem this to be a qualifying "attack." First, Article 5 couches the response in terms of "the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." An overly aggressive defensive action by Syria--especially a one-off--would not seem to qualify. While the Turkish pilot would certainly have been within his rights to use deadly force to protect himself, a retaliatory strike at this juncture by Turkey--much less its NATO allies--would be in violation of the UN Charter. Second, borrowing language from Article 51, Article 5 specifies the rationale for the use of force as "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Given that the incident is already contained--that is, not likely to be followed by any sort of follow-on action by Syria absent further provocation--said security already exists.

http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/why-nato-wont-go-war-over-syria-shooting-down-turkish-jet

[Posteritatis]

1. Nice to see someone reacting in a sane manner to this. (nt)

[Alamuti Lotus]

2. the Turkish military's invasion of sovereign airspace might be the more pressing concern

in addition to their hosting of terrorist leader Riyad al-Asaad and other armed factions. Is there a NATO Article regarding that sort of thing?

[tabatha]

3. It is still NOT an attack.

This provision has been invoked only ONCE - after 9/11.

And Riyad al-Asaad is not a terrorist.

[Aerows]

4. The US has it's hands full

With Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other countries we are fighting in. The Arab League is more than sufficient to deal with Syria via economic means and the arming of the rebels. As I understand it, Saudi Arabia is putting the squeeze on them.

The US and NATO don't need to involve themselves in every damn conflict in the world, and even if Turkey wanted to respond, they could wipe Syria off of the map in about ten seconds. They have an extremely strong, battle hardened military.

[tabatha]

5. That is why the US has avoided doing anything.

Besides, that area is a tinder-box and would not be simple or cheap.

[Aerows]

6. I have the utmost faith in Turkey in dealing with this

They are more than capable, whether they choose diplomatic or militaristic means.

[roamer65]

7. I agree as well.

Normal procedure for such an incident is to give the plane a warning to leave the particular country's airspace. The Syrians just shot it down, no warning. I'd have no problem with the Turks going in and taking out a few SAM batteries in retaliation.

Maybe that would rattle Tehran's cage as well in nuclear talks.

[Aerows]

8. Precisely

No one is alarmed, least of all Turks, of a Syrian attack. Syrians are probably crapping their pants, as they should be for this breach. Anyone that thinks this makes Iran bold has no idea of the military power in this region, and Iran can only posture. I do not relish war with Iran; to the contrary, I hope for peace. But if Syria thinks they will win allies in the region by gunning down a NATO Turkish plane, they are out of their minds.

[roamer65]

9. Here's my humble 2 cents.

Last edited Sun Jun 24, 2012, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)

NATO is going to give the Turks a "green light" for a retaliatory attack on Syrian SAM batteries and military targets. I'd expect it will happen within the next 2 weeks or so. We'll hear some sabre rattling from the Iranians and Russians, but that will be about it.

The Iranian foreign minister already called his Turkish counterpart to tell him to "exercise restraint". I would have told him to go fuck himself.