Why Turkey is stalling on Finland and Sweden’s NATO bids

This July, NATO will meet for a major summit in Lithuania, an opportunity to bring together leaders and showcase the alliance’s strength and renewed purpose against the backdrop of Russia’s war against Ukraine. And NATO wants to do this in a very specific way: by welcoming two long-standing prisoners, Sweden and Finland, into NATO.

Except now, Turkish President Recep Erdoğan is threatening to destroy everything.

Erdoğan, in particular, added new objections to the rise of Finland and especially Sweden over what Turkey considers to be lax policies on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and other groups that Turkey considers terrorist organizations. More recently, Erdoğan has used a right-wing politician burning a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm to harden his opposition to Sweden’s NATO bid.

All NATO members must approve the new one, so Erdoğan’s opposition is effectively a veto. The Turkish president has not only withheld support – Hungary’s Viktor Orbán is also withholding it, for now – but Erdoğan is seen as a more legitimate roadblock. Erdoğan is strengthening his foreign policy power and influence, and is seeking to improve his domestic political position, especially ahead of the difficult elections this May.

“Erdoğan thinks Turkey has influence. Erdoğan thinks Turkey has valid complaints about Sweden’s policies. Erdoğan thinks he has the opportunity to use that influence to resolve those complaints in a way that is good for Turkey’s national interests. And, besides everything, the problem is all good for Erdoğan is political,” said Nicholas Danforth, editor at War on the Rocks and nonresident senior researcher at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy.

Because of all this, it is not surprising that the NATO membership of the Nordic countries has dragged on. But this is also not according to the script – at least according to most of NATO.

What Turkey said is objecting to and why

Sweden and Finland announced last year that they would seek to join NATO, a historic reversal for two countries that remain militarily non-aligned. The Russian invasion of Ukraine changed the calculus, especially in Finland, which borders Russia and has the memory of its own invasion by that country. Both are strong European democracies, and both have modern militaries that already cooperate closely with NATO, so the increase is expected to be relatively uncontroversial and swift, unlike some other recent deals, which have led to further criticism of the risks of expansion. NATO. Perhaps most importantly, the timing of the application represents a strategic and symbolic victory for a spirited and united alliance against Russian aggression.

But Turkey was quick to complicate matters, with Erdoğan saying the country would not support Finland’s and Sweden’s bids. Turkey denies what is seen as two countries’ – but especially Sweden – support or its role as a safe haven for the PKK, and other Turkish networks have been considered terrorist groups. Sweden has traditionally taken in many Kurdish refugees, but Turkey sees Sweden as providing shelter to organize and finance anti-Turkish activities. The PKK has carried out terrorist attacks in Turkey (designated as a terrorist organization by the US and the European Union), but Erdoğan has also arbitrarily attacked Kurdish groups and other opposition members of civil society. Erdoğan also objected to the countries’ arms embargo on Turkey, which was imposed after Turkey invaded Syria in 2019.

“Turkey has several complaints about the weakness of Sweden’s response to combating the influence of terror-related entities, such as the PKK, fundraising, public manifestations, etc.,” said Sinan Ülgen, a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe. . “For a long time, the Swedish authorities remained insensitive to Turkey’s request to do more about this. So when Sweden decided to apply for [NATO] member, Turkey taken influence. And now have, and use, this influence.

In June, Sweden, Finland, and Turkey reached a memorandum of understanding to try to ease some of Erdoğan’s concerns. Sweden and Finland lifted the arms embargo and agreed to a series of measures to cooperate with Turkey on the issue of terrorism.

But Erdoğan is pressing for more concessions, especially from Sweden. Some of these demands are unrealistic, such as the request to extradite 130 deemed “terrorists” to Turkey. As experts pointed out, Turkey operates on a pretty shaky definition of terrorism, and the things that Erdoğan can consider terrorism look more like freedom of speech in Sweden. Moreover, even in terms of extradition, Sweden and Finland cannot arrest people arbitrarily; it must go through the judicial system, and the accused have due process.

Then, the recent anti-Turkish protests in Stockholm and the burning of the Koran by one of the far-right protesters have disrupted further talks. Turkey condemned the fire as “anti-Islam,” with Turkey’s Foreign Minister saying that allowing such actions “under the guise of freedom of expression is completely unacceptable.” Turkey then canceled talks with Swedish officials.

Sweden also condemned the action and the protest (which was actually an anti-NATO protest). “These actions play directly into the hands of Russia and destroy our country, and it is happening during the most serious security situation since World War II,” he said. Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billström. (The book burner is reportedly funded by journalists with Kremlin ties.) But, at the same time, Sweden said, everything is not true against Swedish law, even if they are angry about it, too.

And that’s about where the standoff is now. Sweden and Finland are still trying to crack down, with Sweden introducing legislation Thursday that would ban certain activities that could support terrorist organizations. Washington and Brussels are increasingly irritated, as some leaders are quite vocal about Turkey’s disloyalty. Congress has said that Ankara will not get American-made F-16s (more on that later) unless it approves the NATP offer. More people also say that NATO should just get rid of Turkey (no more because, although important politicians are even talking about it, experts say that it is not realistic and the mechanism for doing so is quite vague). Turkey, meanwhile, has basically said that the talks are useless in the current climate, although it floated the possibility of Finland’s backing for NATO, just not Sweden – something that Finland immediately refused, as the two Nordic countries are very close, and they deliberately seek to join. offer.

And the standoff could stay that way, at least until May – which is when Erdoğan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AK) face tough elections. The economy is very, very bad, and has been for some time, with incredibly high inflation. Erdoğan has been in power for a long time, and opinion polls – even in an environment where Erdoğan controls much of the media – show some opposition leaders edging him out.

But the thing that Sweden is not in NATO? That plays. Erdoğan has long complained that NATO partners do not take Turkey’s security seriously, especially around the PKK. It’s an argument that hits home – not just with his base, but with much of the population. “It’s just an issue that they want to turn on because it plays well, along with other elements of the foreign policy arena, which, I think, they’re weaponizing,” said Sinan Ciddi, a professor of National Security Studies at the Marine Corps. University. “It got the crowd fired up and gave them an extra reason to vote for him.” And if the goal remains an electoral issue, then it doesn’t matter what Sweden or Finland or other NATO countries offer.

And Erdoğan’s efforts to derail the plans of Washington and other Western powers in NATO may be causing a stir internally. As experts say, this corresponds to how Erdoğan sees himself – and Turkey – as a player and power in a multipolar world. “They see an opportunity to demonstrate that this is a Turkey that is willing and able to engage in brinkmanship to get what they want,” said Howard Eissenstat, a Turkey expert at the University of St. Lawrence and nonresident fellows at the Middle East Institute. “This is Turkey that can say ‘no.’ This is a Turkey that expects its interests to be taken seriously – and not its allies to assume that they will just go along because they say so.

The rest of NATO is getting angry, which could make Erdoğan’s move more risky in the long run

Turkey sees NATO as an instrument of foreign policy, a way to get Turkey a seat at the table, and wrangle what they want from the great powers also sitting there. Now, the rise of NATO is the way to do it.

“They understand the importance of NATO expansion to the country [Sweden and Finland]for the United States, for Europe, so they want to get a lot from the country,” said Gönül Tol, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and author Erdoğan’s War: The Struggle of the Strong at Home and in Syria.

But Erdoğan’s stubbornness is causing real frustration in Washington and across European capitals. This is not exactly new; even before Erdoğan, Turkey has always been something of a NATO misfit – incredibly useful for the alliance because of its unique position, but also a power whose interests and perspectives are not always aligned with the rest of the alliance members.

This has been fully demonstrated during the Ukrainian war. Erdoğan is the rare leader in NATO who has open lines to Moscow – but also to Kyiv. Turkey has repeatedly tried and repeatedly offered to broker negotiations, and Turkey helped make a deal that got wheat from the Black Sea. Erdoğan maintains ties with Vladimir Putin, and he buys a lot of Russian goods, despite sanctions. At the same time, he is still talking to Volodymyr Zelenskyy and selling Ukraine critical weapons, especially drones, which have a huge impact on the battlefield. Turkey also condemned the war and closed the Black Sea route, which eventually made it difficult for Russian warships to pass through. This is all that Washington and Brussels want to keep in place, and that has helped Erdoğan win some leeway from other NATO allies.

But Erdoğan’s continued brinkmanship can destroy it. As Tol said, Turkey’s current leadership may be overplaying its hand. “By dragging their feet in Finland and Sweden, I think they’ve lost that momentum and they’ve lost the goodwill they’ve built up,” he said.

The rest of NATO is trying to be patient with Erdoğan, taking a wait-and-see approach with the election in the hope that if Erdogan wins, he may not have the electoral motivation to continue blocking. But Washington has leverage: specifically, the F-16 fighter jets, which Turkey also wants. Turkey is there It was kicked out of the program after buying weapons systems from Moscow, and Erdoğan has always wanted to return. Right now, lawmakers in Congress remain incredibly opposed — specifically because of Erdoğan’s antics — and the Biden administration is unlikely to get around Congress. That means Turkey won’t get anywhere near the weapons it wants if it continues to disrupt NATO big time.

Most officials seem confident that Turkey will, in the end, fall into line. But the longer he pushes for maximum demands, the more likely Erdogan is to deny NATO’s ability to quickly accommodate Finland and Sweden. And the longer Erdogan drags this out, the harder it is to undo the damage among allies. “Erdogan is using his influence, we’ll see how effective it is,” Danforth said. “But in the long run, this really casts deeper doubt on Turkey’s real value in NATO.”