No one can understand why the US suddenly decided to leave Syria and leave its ally the Kurds to face their main enemy, NATO member Turkey. Instead, many were interested in the contradictions between Turkey and the US, as well as other NATO members. And, as you can see, US actions are related to Turkey rather than the Kurds. The latter appeared only in the role of chess soldiers in international discussions.
Conditions were created for the Turks to suppress the Kurdish forces in Syria, which he took advantage of without delay. But everything important started after that. NATO members condemned Turkey and called on it to abandon its plans to invade Syria. Key European countries decided to refuse to supply arms to their ally. The USA decided to impose serious sanctions on Turkey. United States Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced on Monday, October 21, that “US President Donald Trump is “ready by all means” to use military force against Turkey… in the event of events requiring such action.”
What kind of events did the United States expect? It is not about using weapons against its main NATO ally. What would have to happen in the world (at the regional level) for him to take such a step?
Probably, Turkey itself could not understand this and decided to remove the threat with the help of Russia. The situation was cooled by the cunning diplomatic entanglement of the Russian-Turkish memorandum of October 22. In other words, the main adversary of NATO managed to settle the problems related to the NATO member country. Let’s say, we should not forget that the US president himself proposed to any power to settle the problem of the Kurds, Turkey and Syria. In any case, “events requiring such actions (the use of weapons by the US against Turkey)” do not seem to have emerged so far. The US president promised to lift sanctions from Turkey, but in that case, unless “something goes wrong”.
However, in this case, we are interested in another question. why was the settlement of the issue related to the NATO member proposed to the non-states? After all, it could only happen if there was no possibility to independently settle the issue within the bloc. Therefore, it can be assumed that the problem concerns NATO itself. Therefore, it must be admitted that NATO is entering a deep crisis, and it is not only Turkey that is at issue here.
It is worth going to the main idea of this article here. We are dealing with a broader issue than the relationship between NATO members. It is obvious that the crisis is expressed in all international institutions created after the Second World War. So things are no better in the European Union (EU). The contradictions of the EU member states on the issue of immigration, the noisy process of the withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU, the movement for the independence of Catalonia, the complications related to the admission of new countries into the Union create great obstacles to making decisions through consensus. on the way. It is no coincidence that Euroscepticism, as a lack of trust in the prospect of a united Europe, is growing among the continent’s political forces. It means that we can become witnesses of the harshest forms of manifestation of crisis phenomena in that institution. And the problem here is not only the decline of his work efficiency. The opinion that the new times require giving up something important, which was once perceived as an unquestionable value, seems more convincing. Something is already seriously hindering the work of the Union. If this is not done, any institution turns into atavism, degeneration. It’s not for nothing that Great Britain decided to change his life conditions on his own. One understands the imperative of the new times, the other does not.
But time counts for nothing. Radical technological advances are dramatically changing the balance of power in the world. It calls for a review of international policy. And such trends have been noted for a long time. In 2011, the OSCE experienced the first deep crisis in the relations between its members. At the Astana summit. At that time, that organization did not manage to reach a consensus due to the intractable problems in the post-Soviet space. As a result, the ten-year action plan failed to be adopted. For the OSCE, this unprecedented situation meant the actual end of its existence. And only the unilateral declaration of the member states of the European Union that they support the values and principles of the final document of Helsinki allowed the OSCE to formally continue its work. But that statement was a vague basis for ensuring the normal work of the organization. 1975 The Helsinki Final Act of the Council on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was already violated in 2008 as a result of unilateral recognition of Kosovo by Western countries.
In addition, the mechanical transfer of the principles of that document to the post-Soviet space in 1991 must have created many problems for a body with consultative status. Already in 1994, at the CSCE Budapest summit, insoluble contradictions arose between the CSCE and Russia regarding the mandate of the CSCE’s participation in peacekeeping operations. The reason was the failure of negotiations on Nagorno Karabakh in November 1994, which were held under the auspices of the Russian Foreign Ministry. But at that time, through radical revisions of the fundamental documents, the solution to the contradictions was found – a decision was made to formulate a new one mandate and Consultation to reformat the Organization – OSCE. And the OSCE Minsk Group received dual co-chairmanship (with Russia’s permanent co-chairmanship), which allowed the Nagorno Karabakh negotiation process to return to the framework of the Minsk process.
The described experience of the transformation of the CSCE shows how difficult the work of international institutions that were formed during the period of stability and that used consensus as a decision-making method. In the case of the growth of problems not regulated by the charter in these organizations, the structure is simply paralyzed due to the impossibility of reaching a consensus. All organizations created after the Second World War (during the “Cold War”) faced a similar situation from the beginning of the 1990s.
Not only international institutions entered the line of crises. The most important bilateral agreements ensuring lasting stability in the world are in the same situation. An example of this could be the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Treaty on the Limitation of Intermediate-Range Missiles. And the problem is not at all the complication of the relations between the USA and Russia. The problem is the change in international conditions, where such agreements lose their effectiveness as a result of the appearance of new military-political factors of global significance, for example, China. Superpowers find other security priorities where conventions become impediments or, simply, atavisms. It can already be argued that the international organizations themselves also become atavisms during the “Cold War” period.
Rather, the world will face the search for truly functioning international platforms. Only through its Security Council is the United Nations able to maintain minimal effectiveness for the time being. But the US’s regular disregard for it drastically reduces the effectiveness of the organization’s decisions.
Currently, international coalitions formed on specific issues are more effective. And, although the actions of such coalitions often cause destruction for many countries, they ensure the inadmissibility of the emergence of countervailing global alliances that increase the risk of large-scale wars.
It is difficult to say how the relations between the countries will be built in the future. It is only hoped that the principles of the Westphalian peace that existed in the 17th century will not be rejected in the 21st century.
Manvel Sargsyan