Filenews 6 February 2023
By Andreas Kluth
It takes a clinical case of solipsism to behave as irresponsibly as Turkey's President Tayyip Erdoğan. On the other hand, of course, perhaps he is doing it on purpose. Erdogan faces an election in May - which, despite his machinations as an authoritarian leader, he could theoretically lose. Along the way, apparently, he is trying to activate his hardline and Islamist bases. For him, this seems to mean acting like a geopolitical "orc".
Officially, his country is one of 30 NATO member states and, on paper, even today a candidate for membership of the European Union - once. In fact, it more often undermines rather than strengthens the Western alliance and the EU, as part of its anti-Western and neo-Ottoman 'offensive'. This even includes threats of war against Greece, its NATO ally. But it mainly means blocking the accession to the Alliance of two former neutral EU countries, Finland and Sweden.
Eight months after northern Europeans applied to join the alliance, only Hungary and Turkey have yet to ratify their accession, which is supposed to be finalised at the NATO summit in Vilnius in July. Hungary has now signalled that it will not stand in the way. This leaves Turkey alone - that is, Erdoğan.
Fission
The head of the Turkish state recently hinted that he may be fine with the accession of the Finns, but that he is in no mood to 'swallow' the Swedes. And this poses a new dilemma, both for the two Northern European countries and for the Alliance. Should the Finns go ahead and join without the Swedes?
Geographically, culturally, historically, politically and strategically, Sweden and Finland today consider themselves not as a union, but as a couple. The Finns, who share a 1,300-kilometre border with Russia, are militarily strong on land, the Swedes at sea and in the air. Together, they could secure - for each other and for NATO as a whole - the Baltic Sea against a Russian attack and help defend Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. For all these reasons, the two countries applied to NATO jointly. In turn, most of the allies enthusiastically embraced them as the "dynamic duo" in the North.
With the accession of Sweden and Finland, the Baltic could become a 'NATO lake'
Not Erdoğan. He spotted an opportunity to blackmail the entire alliance. The Swedes, by his logic, have been very lenient towards the Kurdish groups which he considers to be terrorists. Moreover, they did not sell Turkey the weapons it would have liked. So Ankara sent a list of requests to Stockholm.
The Swedes have complied with almost all Turkish requirements. They have cracked down on Kurdish groups and given concrete signs that they will ease restrictions on arms exports so that Turkey can buy from their trading arsenal. "Shockingly," however, they still believe in the rule of law and freedom of speech. That is why they cannot facilitate Erdoğan on two specific points.
Firstly, they cannot simply extradite to Turkey whoever Erdoğan would like to imprison. This includes Bulent Kenes, a journalist who has absolutely nothing to do with Kurdish terrorists. Erdogan claims Kenes has ties to Fethullah Gulen, an Islamist preacher whom Erdogan accuses of attempting a coup in Turkey in 2016. Kenes denies any involvement. Nor has he committed anything that amounts to a crime in Sweden. In fact, he would be a political prisoner in Turkey. So the Swedish high court blocked extradition. In a country with an independent judiciary, this is the end of history, as the Turks could - sadly - see.
Then there is a truly regrettable incident of unforeseen stupidity which is nevertheless considered legitimate in Sweden on grounds of freedom of speech. The other day, Rasmus Paludan, a far-right troublemaker with a Danish and Swedish passport who has been convicted in Denmark of racism and libel, burned a copy of the Qur'an near the Turkish embassy in Stockholm. This was stupid and insulting. But in a free country, you are allowed to be an insulting fool. The Swedes apologized. Erdoğan pretended not to understand such "hypocrisy" and declared their bid to join NATO dead.
Scandalous attitude
What makes Erdoğan's manoeuvres so scandalous is the geopolitical context. Here is the only thing that matters: Russian President Vladimir Putin is waging a genocidal war of imperialist aggression against Ukraine and does not miss an opportunity to tell the Russians that he considers Ukraine a mere "proxy" of NATO and the West.
However, instead of understanding this shift as Zeitenwende and rallying in the ranks of his allies, Erdogan continues to play with both sides, NATO and Moscow. It even uses a Russian anti-missile system, the S-400, which overturns NATO's defence infrastructure. Here is an open and fair question: if Putin attacked a NATO member country, would Erdogan be involved in defending that ally?
So what should the Finns, Swedes and NATO do about this chaos? Firstly, they will have to wait for the elections in Turkey in May. Erdoğan could be defeated in elections for the Presidency or his political bloc could lose a majority in parliament or both. A new Turkish leader or legislature may well turn out to be wiser. And even if Erdoğan remains in power, he can regain his sanity once the campaign is over. Either way, there is still hope that NATO will officially welcome both Sweden and Finland to Vilnius in July.
If, on the other hand, Erdoğan holds his office and continues to "throw fires", Finland will have to go it alone - with Sweden's blessing - and become a member of NATO. At the same time, Sweden, which already has deep logistical ties with NATO and bilateral agreements with the US and other Western powers, should continue to integrate into the alliance as if it were a member, with a view to formalising its membership as soon as possible. What matters is that Putin has no doubt that an attack, whether on Sweden, Finland, or any NATO country, will be answered by the entire bloc. In short, Putin should know that, in such a case, he would lose.
In addition to all this, while gathering in Vilnius, the allies will also have to run to settle some long-standing problems of their "house". Like the EU, but unlike almost every other international club - from the United Nations to the Council of Europe - NATO has no mechanism through which it can oust a misguided member who turns into a saboteur.
It is time to introduce such a clause. It will not be addressed to any member in particular. It would simply clarify that the alliance will be able to defend itself even when the enemy is internal.
