This article originally appeared in The Hamilton Spectator.
By Isabelle Terranova, July 9, 2026
Ankara, Turkey is hosting the 2026 NATO Summit this week.
The meeting comes at a critical time for NATO, with conflict in the Middle East and U.S. President Donald Trump’s criticism of European member countries dominating conversation about the state of the alliance.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has “presented Turkey as a mediator” in regional conflicts, but this should not be mistaken for alignment with NATO’s interests in such negotiations.
On the contrary, Turkey’s trend of democratic backsliding and increased collaboration with authoritarian regimes over the past decade raises serious concerns regarding its membership in NATO altogether.
An alliance dedicated to safeguarding the peace and security of its members through collective defence, and grounded in democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law cannot afford to tolerate such decline from one of its own members. Yet, it is apparent that Turkey’s conduct in recent years, both in regard to internal repression and external conduct, has become ever more inconsistent with these foundational values.
For example, countless credible reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Freedom House and the UN Committee Against Torture, among others, document Turkey’s declining human rights standards, including restrictions on fundamental freedoms, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, and extrajudicial killings. Certainly, such conduct is irreconcilable with NATO’s value.
The Turkish government has pursued destabilizing actions beyond its sovereign territory, threatening the security of its allies and international rule of law more broadly. For example, Turkey has been accused of providing financial and material assistance to organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.
At the same time, it has aligned itself with authoritarian states, primarily Russia and China but also smaller regimes in Africa, including by seeking membership in intergovernmental organizations under their stewardship, such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Partnership with authoritarian regimes with anti-West agendas clearly runs counter to the goal of preserving the peace and security of the North Atlantic Area.
Nonetheless, Turkey has been permitted to continue on this trajectory for more than a decade without consequence. Tolerance by NATO is both inadvisable and unnecessary. Inaction by NATO allies sends Turkey, as well as other potential bad actors, the message that they can act against the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty with impunity, diminishing the value of the agreement altogether.
However, as noted, resignation is not the only option. While the North Atlantic Treaty doesn’t specifically outline the rules for suspending or expelling members, such enforcement is still legally feasible.
Under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is widely recognized as customary international law, a material breach of a multilateral treaty allows the other states to suspend the operation of the treaty in relation to the breaching state by unanimous agreement. The convention elaborates that “the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty” constitutes a material breach enabling such a suspension.
Without doubt, the “principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law” and the mission of “preserv(ing) peace and security” outlined in the preamble of the North Atlantic Treaty are central to its object and purpose. If one NATO member acts in a way that threatens the security of the alliance or otherwise severely undermines the values of democracy, individual liberty, or the rule of law, then the other members may, by unanimous agreement, suspend the operation of the treaty between themselves and the offending member. Turkey has acted in such a way.
The allies must carefully consider the option of suspending Turkey from NATO. Doing so would hold it to account and put other states on notice regarding the consequences of violating the core principles of the alliance while simultaneously maintaining strategic relations with the country pending reinstatement of full membership upon remedy of these breaches, unlike complete expulsion.
The NATO summit in Ankara presents a critical opportunity to ask whether Turkey has forfeited its place in an alliance whose security, unity and values it increasingly jeopardizes.
