The recent NATO summit in Ankara, Türkiye, has been debated from various angles, from increased military spending to transatlantic relations. Prof. Erdem Ilker Mutlu takes a different approach. Mutlu is an expert on international law at the Hacettepe University in Ankara. His main thesis: In order to maintain its raison d’etre, NATO exceeds institutional competences and pretends to take over the role of the UN Security Council.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, is on the paper a defense organization. It’s founding agreement, the North Atlantic Treaty, clearly submits the organization to the UN and specifically the UN Security Council.
In the preamble, the parties “reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. In article 1, the parties promise “refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” The famous article 5 about collective defense states the obligation to report to the UN Security Council and stop response once the Council has responded: “Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
How far that has been accomplished during the Cold War, is uncertain, but during the recent decades, there are clear cases of NATO sometimes trying to convince the UNSC and sometimes overstepping UN Charter and international law, says Mutlu.
“The organization’s position during the Yugoslavia war, later in Iraq and Afghanistan were clear cases of overstepping its initial mandate of a defense treaty. By that, they left the legal framework of the UN Charter. This resulted in a chaos in their threat definition. For instance, the resolution 1973 regarding Libya is ridiculous: In order to justify a military intervention into the country’s domestic affairs, they argued that international peace and order were endangered.”
Mutlu presents more examples: “The NATO bombing of Serbia 1999 did not follow and decision within the UN system. NATO, which according to international and its own treaty, could only pursue defensive actions, has provided itself with a new mission.”
According to the expert, this is part of the existential crisis NATO has entered after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
“The issue was to achieve the continuity of the organization. Beginning from the 2000s, they started defining countries by name as threats. Russia and China were explicitly defined as threats. This definition had to be objective, provable, in order to be accepted by all members. Proven also by facts, that, for instance, Russia had the intention to cross river X and advance towards Berlin etc. There is not even talk of that, hence, the definition remained based on vague expressions.”
The need for creating threats and enemies comes from international law, he adds. “According to UN law, collective defense agreements can only exist in response to a threat. If they cannot present the threat, defense makes no sense. Therefore, they need to create enemies and threats.”
International law experts remained silent on NATO statements, says Mutlu, and that for reason.
“International law experts do not get involved at all in these statements, interestingly. They stay completely silent. There is no place in classical international law for the NATO to assume the role of a global policeman, stealing the role of the UN.”
The most recent example is NATO’s final declaration on the Ankara Summit, regarding prohibiting Iran from having nuclear weapons.
“There is no point about that in NATO’s mission statement. It may declare a mission for itself, but regarding international law, international organizations’ law, UN Charter, this is not NATO business. This is an issue of international security, and the only institution entitled to save that is the UN in accordance with charter, art. 7.”
Individual state positions and policies regarding nuclear armament are to be separated from that, says Mutlu, and adds that regulation of the Strait of Hormuz constitutes a similar case.
“Countries may state they do not approve of Iran having nuclear weapons. But that is only a statement. Similarly, the regime regulating the Strait of Hormuz. This is another issue that does not concern NATO’s mission. With their statement, they are clearly stepping out of their competence.”