Western officials often explain that Turkey occupies a critical geostrategic location between East and West and is the energy hub for Europe. In addition, Turkey hosts NATO’s long-range missile systems and US military forces at Incirlik Air Base. 

It’s hard to reconcile these explanations, however meritorious, with Erdogan’s egregious human rights violations and abrogation of Western values. To change his behavior, it’s essential to first assess the litany of his egregious domestic and foreign transgressions and take the necessary measures corresponding to the scope of his transgression. 

Erdogan’s human rights violations

Widespread human rights violations have continued since the failed 2016 coup, which includes arbitrary detentions, infringements of freedom of association and expression, violations of the right to work, and freedom of movement.

In addition, he fired 150,000 people, including public servants and teachers, falsely accusing them of affiliation with the Gülen movement, which Turkey alone considers a terrorist group. 

He also sought the extradition of Turkish citizens from other countries who are allegedly affiliated with the movement. Torture and ill-treatment became routine in police custody and prisons, which included severe beatings, sexual assault, and deprivation of sleep. To make matters worse, he detained human rights defenders and activists, intended to exert pressure on civil society groups and NGOs critical of him. 

Furthermore, he removed thousands of judges and prosecutors and replaced them with lackeys to do his bidding, and led a witch-hunt throughout the Turkish Air Force, accusing many officers of being Gülenists behind the coup.

He regularly bypasses legal procedures and engages in enforced disappearances and illegal transfers. 

Erdogan aggressively pursued critical journalists while blocking websites, media outlets, and general restrictions on the Internet, with over 100,000 websites blocked. Erdogan targeted the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), which predominantly represents the Kurdish community, by shutting down the party and attacking the rights of millions of Kurdish voters, deliberately subverting parliamentary democracy. He has also used excessive force, torture, and violence against Kurdish women while destroying their housing and cultural heritage, which has become standard under his reign of terror.

Erdogan’s defiance of his Western allies

Since 2016, many contentious issues have strained the relationship between Turkey, NATO, and the United States, and there seems to be no sign that any of these conflicting issues can be mitigated as long as Erdogan is allowed to leverage Turkey’s geostrategic importance to the West.

Erdogan’s human rights abuses, democratic backsliding, and erosion of the rule of law in Turkey remain significant causes of friction. Erdogan has also initiated foreign policies contrary to NATO’s military and political interests – primarily Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense system. This led to US sanctions as it was incompatible with Turkey’s commitments as a NATO ally.

In addition, Turkey’s military interventions in Syria have been at odds with US support for Kurdish forces in Syria, which is seen as vital in the fight against ISIS; Erdogan views the Kurdish YPG militia as a terrorist group linked to the PKK. Turkey’s growing relationship with Russia and its cautious stance toward China, particularly regarding the Uighurs and cooperation in Syria, has been another source of constant friction. 

Furthermore, Erdogan’s threats to invade NATO member Greece and annex parts of EU member Cyprus over territorial disputes, particularly related to natural gas drilling rights, are seen as undermining the safety and security of the region. These issues are compounded by Turkey’s military exercises, which Greece and Cyprus view as violating their sovereignty. 

Erdogan’s objection to NATO membership of Sweden and Finland left the alliance troubled over how to deal with Erdogan’s voracious thirst to impose his will. Erdogan blackmailed Sweden to take a firmer stance against groups it considers terrorist organizations, such as the PKK. It wasn’t until Sweden addressed Turkey’s concerns that he finally conceded and allowed Sweden accession to NATO. 

There are other contentious issues, including Erdogan’s repeated demand that the US extradite Fethullah Gülen (which it refuses), whom he blames for the 2016 coup attempt, and the US and French recognition of the 1915 Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire, which Erdogan fervently denies.

More recently, Erdogan has openly expressed support for Hamas, describing them not as terrorists but as “liberators” who are defending their land. Erdogan’s refusal to label it as a terrorist organization highlights his complicated relationship with regional powers and his efforts to position himself as a key player in Middle Eastern affairs. 

Erdogan refused to condemn Hamas’s savage attack that butchered 1,200 Israelis but accused Israel of behaving like a “war criminal” and committing “massacres” in Gaza and called for Israeli leaders to be tried for war crimes. 

NATO’s share of the blame

There is no doubt that Erdogan might have behaved differently had he been confronted by NATO and credibly been threatened with severe consequences if he had not changed course and complied with NATO’s core requirements.

NATO’s failure to stand up to Erdogan and demand that all member states adhere to its values and its leniency in letting him violate its charter without penalties has only encouraged Erdogan to become ever more ruthless and defiant.

While it’s hard to take a stand against Turkey due to the above points, allowing it to continue uncritically is nothing but a slippery slope that will destroy the moral foundation and the military cohesiveness of NATO. 

Indeed, if NATO wants to maintain its cohesion and effectiveness, it cannot afford to allow any of its members to fan the flames. Thus, it’s time for NATO to take several punitive measures against Erdogan. 

Punitive measures

Although the NATO Charter doesn’t provide a mechanism to expel a member state, it’s time for NATO to stop relying solely on political and diplomatic channels to address disagreements with Erdogan, which have been elusive, and instead resort to broad and transparent punitive measures.

These measures compounded by the massive losses of the AKP in municipal elections on March 31, especially in Istanbul, could potentially spell the beginning of the end of Erdogan’s political demise.

1. Imposing economic sanctions on Turkey, whether individual countries or groups of countries, such as the European Union. These could range from sanctions targeting specific individuals or sectors to more comprehensive economic measures. Turkey’s removal from the US F-35 program because of Erdogan’s military operation in Syria and his purchase of the S-400 system from Russia offers one good example.  

2. Limiting Turkey’s cooperation and participation in NATO activities by member states could exclude Turkey from certain joint activities. These include stopping sharing sensitive intelligence and excluding Turkey from NATO’s decision-making processes.  

3. Freezing or terminating bilateral or multilateral agreements between Turkey and other countries, or between Turkey and international organizations.  This includes not receiving Turkish attachés, finding an alternative to the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey once the turmoil in Europe and the Middle East subsides, which Erdogan has been using as leverage, and suspending collaboration on particular defense-related projects.  

4. Many countries and international organizations can exert diplomatic pressure on Turkey by publicly expressing disapproval of specific actions through formal condemnations, public statements, and high-level diplomatic talks. Finally, international legal mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court can address and investigate allegations of human rights abuses.

Notwithstanding Turkey’s geostrategic importance, NATO should weigh Turkey’s contribution to the alliance against Erdogan’s defiance and make some concessions to accommodate him. Still, NATO cannot compromise its core values that sustain it as a viable and powerful military alliance.

The writer is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.