Syria Shoots Down Turkish Jet, Turkish Navy Massing, Article 4 NATO Treaty Invoked...

reply to post by EvanB


I think N.A.T.O is sending military officials to try and pick out where to strike first and what propaganda methods they will use against the Syrians. If Turkey alone attacked it would be a very costly war.

We will start to see a massive increase in war propaganda and calls for 'humanitarian corridors' or 'No Fly- Zones'.


I think they are going to wait until Merkel's 'United States of Europe' has its own European Army so it can bring the full power of the Old World to bear on the Middle East.

reply to post by EvanB


It's consultations, because they need assurances that *IF* Article 5 is invoked, NATO will have the equipment and the will to honor the treaty, and have their back. You don't just yell "ARTICLE 5" and expect everyone to run to your aid. The consultations will give everyone an idea of what equipment will be brought *IF* necessary, and who will do what.

Even if equipment IS on the move, none of this automatically means that they're going to war. This is a minor incident, even if the pilots were killed. Turkey has a lot on its plate right now. Consultations do NOT mean war is inevitable.

“Turkey already has discussed with NATO, during our ministerial meetings over the last two days, the burden of Syrian refugees on Turkey, the outrageous shelling across the border from Syria into Turkey a week ago, and that Turkey is considering formally invoking Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty,” said Clinton on Thursday, during a ministerial meeting of the “Friends of Syria” group. The minutes of the meeting are posted on the website of the State Department. The “Friends of Syria” group brings together the US, European and Arab nations as well as Turkey, which seek the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Article 4 of the NATO charter says that the Allies “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.”

Two Turkish nationals and two Syrians were injured in a refugee camp in Kilis province when Syrian forces fired across the border during clashes with opposition fighters, who reportedly had attempted to seize control of the border gate and then fled to Turkey earlier this month. Erdoğan called the incident a border violation and said Turkey would pursue measures under international law in response, raising prospects of military retaliation.

On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said during a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels that Turkey has not yet asked for NATO help in regards to the border incident.

Earlier, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said “NATO has responsibilities to protect the Turkish border according to Article 5,” referring to the border incident. Article 5, known as the collective defense clause, commits NATO states to defend a member state when it comes under an attack.

But Leon Panetta, the US defense secretary, cast doubts on the prospects of a NATO intervention in the Turkish-Syrian border tensions under Article 5, saying in a speech at a US congressional committee that it would be a far-fetched measure.

Panetta, during his address to the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives on Thursday said resorting to NATO collective defense in regard to the tension along the Turkish-Syrian border would be “going beyond” Article 5 according to a report by the Anatolia news agency on Thursday.

“It should be laid bare that there was a direct threat from Syria on Turkey. Under present conditions it [invoking Article 5] would go beyond the norms of the article,” Panetta was quoted as saying by Anatolia.

Turkey invokes Article 4

Let's look at Article 4.

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

www.nato.int...

So all they've done is ask to TALK to NATO members, because they feel their territorial integrity is threatened. And how exactly is it NOT threatened? Syria has shelled across the border into Turkey, wounded Turkish troops, killed Turkish troops, supposedly Syrian rebels tried to seize a Turkish border crossing..... How does this NOT threaten their integrity?

Article 4 does NOT mean "it's on" or "it's coming". It means NATO members are going to TALK about a POSSIBLE response to what's going on.

reply to post by paraphi


If it was shot down 8 miles off shore, leaving Syrian airspace, why was it found 6 miles out?

But of course it's contradictory, it's like with any incident, the information changes rapidly. That's why they call it "the fog of war".

Even if Article V *IS* invoked, an aircraft being shot down is WELL beyond the scope of the article.

Article V and Article VI:

Article 5

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 .
Article 6 (1)

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.

www.nato.int...

Taken directly from the NATO charter. This does NOT qualify as an Article V incident.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Even if Article V *IS* invoked, an aircraft being shot down is WELL beyond the scope of the article.

Article V and Article VI:

Article 5

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 .
Article 6 (1)

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.

www.nato.int...

Taken directly from the NATO charter. This does NOT qualify as an Article V incident.

This plus the cross border shelling does.. This however is the last straw after months of cross border incidents..

reply to post by Zaphod58

on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties,

Did you miss this bit?

It was Turkish aircraft that was shot down so it counts as an attack on their territory.

This is as good a reason as any to remove Assad violently.

reply to post by EvanB


If Turkey tries to invoke Article V because of the cross border shelling, NATO won't rush to their aid. They are more guilty of cross border shelling into other countries than Syria will EVER be. And there have been cross border attacks into Turkey long before this by Kurds, yet Turkey didn't ask for help then. The most Turkey will probably get is some assurances, and POSSIBLY some logistical support.

Originally posted by Trajan
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties,

Did you miss this bit?

Obviously you missed the REST of it. Here's the NON-CROPPED bit that you left out.

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.

When did Turkey send occupation forces into Syria?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Now you are talking symantics. Was the downing of the plane over the med sea, or in Syrian airspace? This is where the quandry lies. Turkey has said it knows where the plane was, where it went, when it was engaged.

The question is, would Turkey request article 4 of the NATO charter, if indeed it's jet was tresspassing on Syrian sovreigninity?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well according to Turkey they were flying over International Waters.
Since International waters don't belong to any single nation, an attack on there is the same as attacking them on their sovereign territory.

reply to post by Trajan


Not according to Article VI of the NATO treaty. Not unless Turkey has occupational troops in Syria on the date the treaty is invoked.

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.

www.nato.int...

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Because all Article IV is, is to consult with the allies. An attack on a single plane over international waters does NOT constitute an actionable attack per the NATO treaty. ALL Article IV does is request consultations. They could simply be looking for assurances that if it does blow up, NATO isn't going to say they're on their own and leave them hanging.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yes it does. Read article 5 again. An attack in Med sea is mentioned specifically. However, Turkey is being rightfully careful, and has only requested article 4 (which is for when a NATO member feels 'threat' from another party) atm, until it knows what other NATO members think.

Syria may just have legitimised an attack upon itself, when alot of nations were looking for a reason. Did Turkey do this intentionally? Probably, but that is not up for discussion really, because it will just be plaussibly denied. The fact remains that Syria shot down a NATO members aircraft, then admitted it by helping in the search and rescue operation. A very serious faux pas. They should have denied any knowledge of the attack, instead they hang themselves.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

Because all Article IV is, is to consult with the allies. An attack on a single plane over international waters does NOT constitute an actionable attack per the NATO treaty. ALL Article IV does is request consultations. They could simply be looking for assurances that if it does blow up, NATO isn't going to say they're on their own and leave them hanging.

Its not just about the plane!! Its about the compromise of their border too.. I think Turkey will create a buffer zone a few miles into Syria.. From here we can only speculate and hope for the best..

The dirty NATO bastards are trying to use every trick in the book to get to war with Syria and replace Assad with a terrorist regime or Jihadist government.

This reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Thirdly even if it was in international waters accidents do happen especially at a heightened state of alert that it is currently and with all the warmongering that NATO is wanting.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
The dirty NATO bastards are trying to use every trick in the book to get to war with Syria and replace Assad with a terrorist regime or Jihadist government.

This reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Thirdly even if it was in international waters accidents do happen especially at a heightened state of alert that it is currently and with all the warmongering that NATO is wanting.

Please explain why NATO would wan't a jihadist government?? I have heard this before but not a good reason for it.. Not having a crack mate.. Genuinely interested..

reply to post by EvanB


The border crossing incident is no longer a valid reason to invoke Article V and go to war with NATO. It happened over a MONTH ago! You can't wait a month or longer, then suddenly scream that they are violating their territory and NATO needs to help!

reply to post by Zaphod58


I see no mention of any time scales in article 5 of the NATO charter. so contrary to what anybody thinks (I am of the same opinion that a month is too long to wait) legalistically, they could, if they so please do exactly that.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Under a technical legal argument yes they could. But NATO could also refuse to invoke the article, or find a diplomatic solution before just jumping in and going to war.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Indeed they could refuse to act upon it, due to the time scale of the incidient. But....this is NATO we are talking about right? This is a matter of alot of NATO members wanting an end to Assad and his cronies right? What do you think they will do, regardless of wether you or I , think it is right or not?

I don't mean to try and be pedantic, but when it comes to matters of war, right and wrong doesn't come into it. Just hard cold facts.