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

Following yesterday's shoot-down of a Turkish F-5 by Syria has once again raised the specter of NATO action under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It's not going to happen.

Yesterday’s shoot-down of a Turkish F-4 by Syria has once again raised the specter of NATO action under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It’s not going to happen.

Article 5, while relatively short, is much more complicated than commonly understood:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

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.

Some commentators on Twitter have argued that Article 5 is not triggered because the incident didn’t take place in Europe or North America and was aimed at an aircraft, not the territory of a NATO member. But Article 6 dispels both of those issues:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

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. Indeed, a NATO or Turkish response would make the area less, not more, secure.

A second misconception is that an attack under Article 5 will automatically be met by unified military action by all NATO states. Instead, a declaration by the NAC that Article 5 has been triggered is but a first step; decisions as to what response to take must follow. Not all attacks are equal. Even outside the politics of an alliance, states weigh incidents in terms of severity, the existing relationship with the attacking state, the international environment, and the likely fall-out effects of various response options.

Article 5 has been operative since the North Atlantic Treaty went into effect since 1949. It has been invoked and acted upon precisely once, following the al Qaeda terrorist attack on the United States launched from Afghanistan. Even then, the Alliance response was cautious:

Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.

Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to ”to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.

If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.

Ultimately, of course, NATO decided to join the United States in its fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That some Allies joined with more vigor and usefulness than others has been well documented and need not be rehashed here. But that statement of September 12 outlines the nature of the Article 5 obligation nicely: the NAC may recommend action but it’s ultimately up to the individual Allies to decide whether and how to respond.

In the case of Syria, of course, the incident hardly comes out of the blue. Tensions have been escalating for well over a year, with a series of international condemnations and resolutions from the UN and many if not most NATO states. At the same time, the Security Council has, through the veto power of Russia and China, declined to act. And NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has repeatedly and vehemently declared from the outset that NATO has no intention of repeating its intervention in Libya with one in Syria.

Granting that I oppose Western intervention into Syria just as I did into Libya, it’s difficult to see how yesterday’s incident changes anything. Surely, the killing of some 20,000 Syrians, most innocent civilians, is a greater cause for action than the downing of a single fighter jet flying where it wasn’t supposed to? And the facts on the ground haven’t changed one iota: Bashar al-Assad still has a powerful, loyal military and the opposition is a fractured mess. So, NATO military action is no more appealing now than it was Friday morning.

Additionally, Assad has handled the aftermath of this incident deftly. He swiftly expressed remorse for the loss of life caused by the shooting down of Turkey’s jet–almost surely the decision of a relative low level operator making a rapid decision under extreme stress rather than a considered policy judgment of the central government–and promptly not only gave Turkey permission to begin a recovery operation in Syrian space but joined in. While he’s a vicious thug willing to do just about anything to stay in power, he’s rather clearly not angling for war with NATO, much less Turkey.

It’s inconceivable that NATO will decide to start yet another war under these circumstances.

FILED UNDER: General,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Carson says:

    “Release the Kraken!”

  2. justice for israel says:

    Wrong conclusion,NATO is going to war over the russians shooting down a jet which has just been confined trough surveillance intel,russia has miscalculated the nato vote for article V is unanimous,now lets see puny little Russia,lose its air force and what left of its pathetic navy,from your old friends of Putin,,,The neo cons goodbye russia

  3. Ben Wolf says:

    @James Joyner:

    Not all attacks are equal. Even outside the politics of an alliance, states weigh incidents in terms of severity, the existing relationship with the attacking state, the international environment, and the likely fall-out effects of various response options.

    That pretty much says it all. NATO isn’t going to action in defense of a signatory unless it faces an existential threat. One fighter doesn’t come anywhere close.

  4. Dave Schuler says:

    Importantly, Turkey has not requested help under Article 5. Where the wheel hits the road is what will happen if it does.

    It’s not beyond the realm of possibility. Turkey suggested that it might after a similar incident a month or so ago.

  5. Tsar Nicholas says:

    The U.S. for all practical purposes is NATO. The U.S. has no intention of getting involved in Syria. Ergo NATO won’t be getting involved in Syria.

    Libya and Syria are apples and oranges. Libya is teeming with oil. Syria is not.

    The European member states of NATO are facing a fiscal and economic conflagration of epic proportions. Right now they’re a lot more worried about butter than guns.

  6. Felicity Arbuthnot says:

    “Some commentators on Twitter have argued that Article 5 is not triggered because the incident occurred in North Africa, not Europe, and was aimed at an aircraft, not the territory of a NATO member. But Article 6 dispels both of those issues …”

    Happened in North Africa?? What?? Syria is in the Middle East. Turkey is regarded as straddling Europe and the Middle East, hence, historically: “Gateway to the Orient.” Sorry, writer, wrong continent.

    As for: ” (Article 5) has been invoked and acted upon precisely once, following the al Qaeda terrorist attack on the United States launched from Afghanistan. Even then, the Alliance response was cautious …”

    Well no, the attack on the States was launched from within the States. It may or may not have been planned from Afghanistan. The world has been told it was but there have been no trials to prove it. Just invasion and murder – as Iraq. And two countries near destroyed, one definitely illegal invasion and one very legally questionable one and possibly nearing 2 million dead is hardly “cautious.”

  7. RM says:

    I believe it was an F4 not an F5

  8. Ah Huh says:

    couldn’t have put it better myself, well done Felicity.

  9. gorwell says:

    Re Article 5, you can flip that coin and argue an attack from one or more Nato members is an attack by all. Sending warplanes accross another sovereigns airspace would at least amount to aggressive action, perhaps even a de facto declaration of war.

    Your text is obviously correct, there is no reason to follow up on this case less it was engineered to do exactly that, provide reasons for a Nato response. The longer it takes untill the powers that be comes to a conclusion, the more likely they are trying to engineer spin and newspeak to facilitate an attack.

    I do belive it was a FU from the pilot`s side as it was from the low level operators side. You don`t accidentaly stray into territoral areas in a high-tense area like Syria. Definitely not with a US warplane (though colors were turkish). And you don`t shoot down you neighbour even if Protocol so allows.

    So why was the warplane there in the first place?

    Nato (likely on behalf of the US) testing syrian reaction patterns, hardware capabilities, defence resolve?

    Let`s await the turkish reaction. A general that sent the warplane without the government`s say so may have to take a reprimande or find himself without a job.

    gorwell

  10. gorwell says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/nato-discuss-downing-turkish-plane-syria-135035998.html

    On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized Syria for downing the Turkish plane, which Turkey’s Foreign Ministry called an “open and grave violation of international law” that would justify retaliation.

    Nato will hold emergency talks tuesday.

    Clinton said Washington will maintain close contact with Turkish officials as they determine their response, including via the U.N. Security Council. “We will work with Turkey and other partners to hold the Assad regime accountable,” she said.

    It took so long engineering the statement (getting the stakeholders to agree to follow suggested US procedure) that the outcome was downright obvious.

    What a beach, excuse my french!

    gorwell

  11. The reason NATO won’t go to war over this incident can be summed up in three simple words: “Cannot afford it.”

    Beside that, all provocations fail.

  12. James Joyner says:

    @Donald Sensing: There’s little doubt that NATO is strapped financially. But if, say, Syria had invaded Turkey in the was Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, there’s zero doubt in my mind that NATO would act in unison to secure Turkish sovereignty.