This document is a recent publication from Sallux. Sallux ( is a recognized and registered European political foundation. They are formally linked to the European Christian Political Movement, and serve as a platform of like-minded thinktanks all over Europe. They are focused on dealing with the Turkish aggression, and have been involved in the situation of Northern Iraq and NE Syria since 2014, working with the relevant parties on the ground to establish connections between them and relevant policy makers and influencers in the western world. This recent publication (which you will find attached in the email), entitled “European Security, Turkish Foreign Policy, and Article 5 of the NATO Treaty,” may be of interest to you. A brief summary of the document is provided below.

Download PDF of the publication here: European security Turkish aggression and Article 5 NATO – Sallux

European security Turkish aggression and Article 5 NATO - Sallux


In recent years, Turkey’s regime has become increasingly engaged in military interventions throughout the region, from the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria, to Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh, in large part utilizing the jihadist mercenaries from Syria under their control. In so doing, Turkey risks undermining the stability of the region as a whole, posing a significant threat to European interests and security. A number of proposals have been forwarded for how this threat can be dealt with, from lobbying for sanctions on behalf of global powers against Turkey, to the creation of a mechanism to expel Turkey from NATO. This paper forwards a different alternative; to lobby parliamentarians of the NATO powers to pass resolutions that they will not support the deployment of armed forces to support Turkey in the event that they are attacked until Turkey ceases its foreign interventions and occupations.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which holds member states of the alliance must support one another in event of warfare on their own soil, is worded is a very particular way; it states countries must support one another, but does not specify that this support must be in the form of military assistance. This is to say, it is up to the discretion of the remaining NATO countries whether or not to militarily support a particular NATO country if they are attacked. As the paper explains, Article 5 was worded this way intentionally, to provide for precisely this possibility. There are a number of benefits to this proposal; first, it circumvents the executive or state departments of each country, who have proven to be more reluctant to act against Turkey, by focusing on the legislative or parliamentary bodies, who have the capacity to pass such a resolution, and additionally have shown to be more potentially willing to take actions against Turkey. Furthermore, this proposed action would be of no cost to the countries passing the motion, would be a substantial demonstration of force to which Turkey would be forced to respond, and does not require the creation of new mechanisms or sacrifice the potential for alliance with Turkey in the future, as would the proposal to expel Turkey from NATO.