-4

Several days ago, some 27 US senators expressed their concern against the Turkish drone program.

Nowadays, a lot of nations have manufactured and sold drones including China.

So, why is the USA particularly concerned about Turkish drones?

Is the USA concerned because Turkey is an official NATO ally but selling drones against NATO interest, or, is it because Turkey is slowly possessing the drone market and hurting the US sales?

Would it be okay for the USA if Turkey stops manufacturing and selling drones but China, Russia continue to do the same? Why is that?

Is there any similar example of the USA taking measures against a country for a similar reason?

1
  • I voted to close this because it appears to be asking multiple questions to me. Please edit your question to make it only ask one question. Nov 15 at 14:08
5

You answered your own question: this is a NATO member selling drones to anti-NATO countries. Turkey's civil rights record is also bad. All that and more is in this article. As for your question about "...measures against a country for a similar reason" the answer is "no". There are no other NATO countries selling drones to anti-NATO countries and having bad civil rights record.

4
  • 1
    I didn't see the problem is truly focused on Turkey's sale of drones outside of the NATO alliance but the continued "finding fault" on a traditional partner, with whom the relationship has soured because of U.S. support of the YPG in Syria has become one of the stumbling blocks in bilateral ties between the two NATO allies. Didn't the US ever sell weapons to arm Pakistan, which has a closer relationship to China and Russia than to NATO?
    – r13
    Nov 15 at 16:36
  • 1
    On a larger scale, do you think the US has stayed as the world's largest arm's dealer by selling to the allies only? Not to be so naive, it has supported so many dictatorships until collapse. The US's record on human rights wasn't as great as advertised.
    – r13
    Nov 15 at 16:59
  • 1
    No, just to point out there are double talks/standards in this episode, all because of the strained relationship (political/politics) and greed (money/market grabbing). It's not a moral issue as shown on the surface.
    – r13
    Nov 15 at 17:27
  • As I said, it's the reason on the surface. Your answer just echoes the letter but the truth behind it. To a lesser extent, the Franch's objection to the US-UK sales to Australia is somewhat similar.
    – r13
    Nov 15 at 17:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .