Frankfurt (3/12 – 12)

The relatively rapid cohesion of disparate nations, historically competitive or even at war with one another, into the European Union came about in part because of the ongoing threat from the Soviet Union. The specter of a tank invasion from Warsaw Pact nations, today forgotten, was such a reality that the German government kept a major portion of its gold bullion across the Atlantic.

The USSR, an ally in World War II after being double-crossed by Hitler – remember the “Non-Aggression Pact signed in Moscow by von Ribbentrop and Molotov – was soon appraised as a danger in itself when, at the conclusion of hostilities, it ringed itself with unwilling “satellites”. After having suffered under brutal Nazi rule, Poland, Czechoslovakia and others found themselves subservient to Moscow, often occupied by Russian troops.

Thus in 1949 NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was established as an intergovernmental military alliance, encompassing 29 European countries and two North American ones. In fact it was an American creation and continues until today under US domination. Its primary purpose was stated as follows: “to safeguard the security of its members and promote peace and stability in Europe.”

A wry summary of the purpose of NATO is “…to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out”; this is often attributed to Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, the first NATO Secretary General. The quote has since become a common way to describe the dynamics of NATO. The Federal Republic of Germany continues to host American military bases, nearly 40,000 American troops and nuclear weapons, just as it did during Post-WW II Occupation.

The common belief of military strategists is that a paranoid, expansionist USSR, under the tyranny of Joseph Stalin, would inevitably be at war with the democratic nations of the west. Some Soviet leaders and military may have assumed the same, although it never came to pass. The politicians talk tough, but those in charge of the weapons of mass destruction are justifiably terrified of them.

American nuclear weapons were stationed in Europe, pointed at the Soviets, in case of a sneak attack; the French, having decided to refrain from joining NATO, since President Charles de Gaulle considered it too much of an American-dominated organization, had their own, a “Force de Frappe”, part of a triad of air-, sea- and land-based nuclear weapons intended for “dissuasion”, the French term for “deterrence”.

With the exception of some strongly-anti-Communist military men, nuclear war was generally considered to be impractical, as even a small number of detonations could effectively paralyze any nation, and airtight defense against nuclear attack was simply impossible, once ICBMs proliferated. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, General Curtis LeMay urged President Kennedy to launch an all-out attack on the Soviets; Kennedy mused, out loud, “Can I afford to lose twenty million voters?” that being a conservative estimate of the deaths that would result from a Russian retaliatory attack on the US mainland.

Following the totally unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, notable as a colossal failure on the part of western intelligence organizations to anticipate, NATO was faced with finding a new raison d’etre to justify its enormous budget – mostly born by the Americans, whose military-industrial complex is the single greatest support for a deindustrialized economy, once manufacturing was offshored to the People’s Republic of China, Korea, Vietnam and other cheap-labor countries.

The much-abused Finland joined NATO in April 2023, in part because of the conflict in Ukraine. The clever Europeans, offering tempting goodies including economic benefits and modern weaponry, have managed to lure in former Soviet satellites Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary (members since 1999), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria (all joining in 2004). It is clearly a valiant attempt at a historical “containment” of Russia – including the “oddball member” of Türkiye, a ferociously Islamist republic dedicated to the conquest of an infidel Europe, not to mention a diehard enemy of fellow NATO member Greece.

The clearly-stated American objective, in the words of a Pentagon document, is “total spectrum dominance”, with the USA as the single superpower on the face of the planet. Russia, possessing some 6000 nuclear weapons on land and at sea, is an inconvenient obstacle to the achievement of this goal; the unexpected rise of the People’s Republic of China as a military and naval force, financed by the profits from export sales across the globe, adds another challenge to American dominance. China never had a blue-water navy; it has a respectable one now, thanks in part to the Russians, as NATO has unexpectedly pushed the two legacy adversaries into a marriage of convenience.

The “Special Military Operation” of the Russian Federation in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, in response to reported repression and slaughter of Russian speakers in the Donbass from 2014, has been a godsend to both NATO and the western military-industrial complex, with a ready market for its tanks, helicopters, 155mm shells and other armaments. The trigger for the Russian invasion was the clearly-stated stance of Ukraine to become a member of NATO, which Russia considers an existential threat: no way will they countenance nuclear missiles three minutes’ flight from the Kremlin. While the Americans are cheering Ukraine on (while sending no soldiers to fight there), the Europeans, perhaps with a memory of what it was like to be bombed, are less enthusiastic about approving Ukrainian membership: Article 5 of the Mutual Defense Agreement states that an attack on any NATO member will require all the rest to pile in and retaliate. Europe does not fancy turning into a radioactive ashtray. The United States of America simply cannot imagine it, never having been bombed to bits.

“’Equipment that defends America and is made in America. Patriot missiles for air defense batteries, made in Arizona. Artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas. And so much more,’ the politician stated. ‘You know, just as in World War II, today patriotic American workers are building the arsenal of democracy and serving the cause of freedom.’

“Ukraine has been striking Russian logistics hubs using Lockheed Martin’s Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, or GMLRS, that are partially made in Lufkin, Texas — a city of 34,000 people that saw its paper mill and foundry close over the last two decades.” [case study in deindustrialization.]

“It is represented by Republican Rep. Pete Sessions, a Ukraine aid supporter, who said Friday that the U.S. has an obligation to protect Ukraine under its post-Cold War security commitments.

“The U.S. has awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers that fire GMLRS and are made in Camden, Ark., a town of about 10,000 people that is 100 miles south of Little Rock.

“Republican Rep. Bruce Westerman, who represents Camden, said critics of government spending can be surprised to know some of that spending is going back to communities like his.”

In the opinion of many of these fine folks, killing Russians is a great idea, particularly when it is such a profitable one. That Russia will escalate with nuclear weapons, obliging NATO to do the same, is dismissed as ridiculous.

As ever, to understand the deep dynamics of the situation, simply “follow the money”.

The post The Relevance of NATO in the 21st Century appeared first on Ankara Haftalik.

As can be seen in the photos published by Evros News, the people had written with red spray paint the words “Erdoğan” and “Tourkai” around the Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Demetrius, in a shop that has been closed for years, at a bus stop and in other places of the village.

For now, the perpetrators and their motives remain unknown while the police are conducting an investigation into the case.

It is noted that the majority of residents living in the village are elderly , although there are also some young Muslims. But because Christians and Muslims have been living harmoniously in Savra for many decades, obviously all possibilities are being considered.

Source: Greek City Times

The post Thrace: Pro-Turkey and Erdoğan graffiti in the village of Savra appeared first on Ankara Haftalik.

“Our position is clear, no 12 miles, we will not allow for territorial waters to be expanded by even a mile in the Aegean,” Çavuşoğlu said during an end-of-year press briefing in Ankara, commenting on reports that Athens plans to extend territorial waters around the island of Crete.

“Don’t get into sham heroism by trusting those who might have your back. Don’t seek adventurism,” he added. “It won’t end well for you!”

International maritime law allows Greece to extend its territorial waters up to 12 nautical miles. But in a parliamentary declaration from 1995, Turkey said such an extension in the Aegean would be seen as a cause of war, because much of its coast would be deprived of access to the sea. The threat is still in effect, Çavuşoğlu said.

“The Greek government conducts itself with international law and its national interest as its only determinants,” Greek government spokesperson Giannis Oikonomou said in a statement.

Despite being NATO allies, Athens and Ankara have been at odds for decades over a number of bilateral disputes, including maritime boundaries, overlapping claims to their continental shelves, and the long-running Cyprus dispute.

Turkey has stepped up its rhetoric against Greece in recent months, with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan even warning that a missile could hit the Greek capital unless “you stay calm.” Both countries will hold national elections by next summer.

Back in October, Greek foreign ministry officials told POLITICO that the technical work needed to extend territorial waters to 12 nautical miles south and east of Crete could be ready within weeks. This means Athens could pull the trigger on the decision before its legislative election in July.

Source: POLITICO

The post Turkey renews threat of war over Greek territorial sea dispute appeared first on Ankara Haftalik.

That’s not to say Greeks wouldn’t be happy to see the back of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has proved a bête noire. Erdoğan has not only engaged Greek jet fighters in dangerous brinkmanship over the Aegean Sea but has hinted he could snatch a Greek island overnight and even threatened Athens with a missile. His decision in 2020 to reconvert Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia — once Greek-speaking Constantinople’s greatest church — from a museum back into a mosque, as it had been in Ottoman times, delivered a particularly grave cultural wound to Greeks.

Opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, a soft-spoken 74-year-old former bureaucrat, would certainly prove an easier diplomatic partner, but many note that he could well offer a change in style rather than substance. When it comes to the big regional tussles — marine boundaries, energy resources in the East Mediterranean and Cyprus — Turkey’s key strategic priorities are likely to remain inflexible.

Greece’s relations with Turkey have improved in recent months, with Erdoğan striking a more emollient tone after Athens quickly pledged its support in relief efforts for massive earthquakes in February. It’s uncertain, however, how long such a thaw will last. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Erdoğan has in recent days pledged to continue to “annoy” Greece with Turkey’s lavish defense spending.

When asked about the Turkish election, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis held out little prospect of wholesale change. “I welcome the relative improvement in the climate following the devastating earthquakes in Turkey, but I have no illusions. Turkish policy is not going to change overnight,” he told OPEN TV.

He particularly complained about Turkey’s mavi vatan or ‘blue homeland” strategy, through which Ankara is seeking to project Turkish naval supremacy in the Eastern Mediterranean. “The ‘blue homeland’ has been a building block of Turkish expansionism in recent years, posing a potential threat to our homeland,” Mitsotakis said.

All about the islands

Constantinos Filis, director of the Institute of Global Affairs and a professor of international relations at the American College of Greece, argued there was a marked difference in style between the rivals in Turkey’s election, but cautioned their positions were unlikely to prove too different on the core issue of Aegean security.

“The ‘blue homeland’ doctrine was an invention of the Kemalists [Kılıçdaroğlu hails from the party founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk] and so is the issue of demilitarization of the Greek islands,” he said. Turkey’s official position is to demand Athens demilitarize eastern Aegean islands, while many Greeks fear Turkey has territorial ambitions on them. “I don’t know how easy it will be for Kılıçdaroğlu to change the rhetoric, when Erdoğan has raised the bar so high,” Filis added.

Cyprus’ President Nikos Christodoulides predicted a revival of talks on reunifying the divided island after the Turkish election in a recent interview with POLITICO, but also observed that he did not think Erdoğan and Kılıçdaroğlu would diverge greatly on their approach to Cyprus. “Turkey’s attitude and approach over time to the Cyprus problem is not affected by changes of government in the country,” he said.

“If Erdoğan secures re-election, Turkey’s approach to long-running disputes with Greece would be highly unlikely to change,” said Emre Peker, a Turkey and EU expert at risk analysis firm Eurasia Group, adding that Erdogan would be open to dialogue but also quick to assume an aggressive stance if talks run into trouble. “If Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, wins, Ankara’s approach to Athens would be a lot more amicable — even if Turkey’s red lines don’t move.”

Ripe time for diplomacy

Soner Çağaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute, said the difference between the two rivals in the Turkish election was far more binary for Greek security.

“Either Erdoğan will lose, and 20 years of Erdoğan will come to an end, or he will win and Turkey will become a complete autocracy. So, for Greece, it’s a choice between having a democracy or autocracy next door for the foreseeable future,” he said. He added autocrats usually use foreign policy to distract public attention away from their troubles, while Kılıçdaroğlu would seek to deepen ties with Europe and its trade relations through the EU-Ankara customs union — a free trade arrangement in place since 1995.

Çağaptay also said energy could provide grounds for cooperation rather than confrontation because Greece would be the main entry point into the EU for Central Asian and Caucasian gas that Turkey would pipe west.

Unsurprisingly, top diplomats are insisting it is high time to set relations back on track. With Greece facing its own elections on May 21, there is an opportunity for a reset. Many political analysts predict that even a victorious Erdoğan will be in such dire straits economically after the election that he will need to concentrate on major reforms and attracting foreign investment, rather than picking more fights with Greece.

“By the end of this year, in the second half, there will be a newly elected and mandated government in Greece, Turkey and Cyprus,” the German chancellor’s top foreign adviser Jens Plötner told the Delphi Economic Forum on April 26. “It is a good situation for a new positive push to bring more stability to this region because bottom line is all stand to gain if there is good understanding and stability in this region.”

“There is a desire on both sides of the Aegean to seek peace and to compromise,” agreed U.S. Ambassador to Greece George Tsunis, speaking at the same forum the next day.

Tsunis said the U.S. would help if asked, but said it was not Washington’s role to dictate what needs to be done. He added that when there are tensions between Greece and Turkey “we do have a level of concern but we encourage both our NATO allies to work out their issues through diplomatic means in accordance with international law.”

“People say: ‘Ambassador, that’s not enough.’ I’m sorry, what other answer would you like anyone to give: ‘Go to war? Let’s have body bags coming?’ This is ridiculous, the issues that have challenged the relationship between Greece and Turkey can be worked out.”

Filis said Greece should not wait for proposals from Western allies, but should prepare its own roadmap, presenting to Turkey and the West how it perceives the future of the region and how meaningful negotiations with Turkey can take place.

“Talks on the [EU-Turkey] customs union will restart soon and it is up to Greece to convince the French and Germans that Europe will gain in stability and restoring order in a region that it has many reasons to care: Migration, energy or the future of failed states like Libya,” he added.

Source: POLITICO

The post Turkey’s election gives Greece a migraine appeared first on Ankara Haftalik.

Ünal Çeviköz, chief foreign policy adviser to the leading opposition candidate Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu in the May 14 elections, also said that a new government would seek to repair Turkey’s tarnished record on human rights.

Crucially, he pledged the opposition would implement European Court of Human Rights decisions calling for the release of two of Erdoğan’s best-known opponents who are currently in jail: the co-leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party Selahattin Demirtaş and human rights defender Osman Kavala.

The May presidential and parliamentary elections are expected to be the closest race in Erdoğan’s two-decade rule, and observers are watching closely to determine whether a new government could chart a more westward political trajectory. EU accession talks have been at a standstill since 2018 over the country’s democratic backsliding and the politicization of its judiciary.

Earlier this month, the country’s six-party opposition coalition announced its joint presidential candidate to oppose Erdoğan, throwing their support behind main opposition leader Kılıçdaroğlu from the center-left Republican People’s Party. While Erdoğan is unusually vulnerable this year due to raging inflation and Ankara’s sometimes sluggish response to last month’s earthquakes that killed tens of thousands, he will still be hard to beat thanks to his ability to appeal to a core electorate with religious conservatism, welfare schemes and landmark building projects.

“We are going to start with the normalization process in domestic politics,” Çeviköz, a retired diplomat who served as ambassador to Baku, Baghdad and London, told POLITICO in an interview. “This will simply give the message to all our allies, and all the European countries, that Turkey is back on track to democracy, and that certainly will create a very serious change in the perception about Turkey’s position.”

When asked about EU countries that have traditionally been hostile toward Turkey’s EU accession — such as France and Austria — Çeviköz stressed the importance of resuming the diplomatic process to draw a line under Erdoğan’s confrontationalism with Europe.

“This does not mean that Turkey will become an immediate member, however, it’s a matter of process, and it is the process that counts. Because we want our country to become a democratic country, as a member of the community of the civilized nations.”

Çeviköz also said that the opposition alliance wouldn’t block Sweden and Finland’s NATO accession process as Erdoğan has been doing.

“If you carry your bilateral problems into a multilateral organization, such as NATO, then you are creating a kind of polarization with all the other NATO members with your country,” he noted. “I think a membership of Sweden and Finland will increase and strengthen the security of a collective defense organization, such as NATO.”

Çeviköz added that under Kılıçdaroğlu’s leadership, Turkey would be willing to continue to act as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine and to extend the Black Sea grain deal.

“Currently, relations between Turkey and Russia are rather asymmetrical because Turkey is very much dependent on energy imports from Russia,” he said. “We will simply emphasize the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO, and in our discussions with Russia, we will certainly look for a relationship among equals, but we will also remind Russia that Turkey is a member of NATO.”

Finally, on the recent escalation of tensions with neighboring Greece, Çeviköz said that Greece’s reaction to last month’s devastating earthquakes in Turkey “has given an opportunity and created a new setting.”

“Both countries are going to have elections, and probably they will have the elections on the same day,” he added. “So, this will open a new horizon in front of both countries.”

Source: POLITICO

The post Turkey’s anti-Erdoğan opposition vows a reset on EU and NATO appeared first on Ankara Haftalik.

During Erdoğan’s 20 years as the leader of Turkey, his government has consolidated power and imprisoned critics. His government has also persecuted and disenfranchised the country’s Kurdish minority by overturning the results of local elections won by pro-Kurdish parties, killing hundreds of Kurdish civilians in the city of Cizre in 2016, and imprisoning and beating pro-Kurdish members of parliament. 

Turkey has been in an economic crisis since 2018 that is largely the result of Erdoğan’s unorthodox policies. He has refused to raise interest rates to rein in inflation, leading the Turkish lira to lose 44 per cent of its value in 2021.

Inflation surged to over 85 per cent last year while rents in some cities rose more than 100 per cent. Poor construction practices and a lack of government oversight amid a building boom worsened the devastation of the February earthquakes that killed 50,000. Georgia and Armenia now have higher per capita incomes than neighbouring provinces of Turkey and could surpass the Turkish average within five years. 

When it comes to foreign policy, Erdoğan has pursued an interventionist approach, making Turkey a key actor in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Kosovo, Ukraine, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Even as he causes headaches for Brussels, Turkey remains an indispensable partner for NATO.  

The EU and NATO 

Turkey applied to join the then European Economic Community in 1987, and the European Council granted European Union candidate status to Turkey in 1999. Accession negotiations began in 2005, but in 2018, the Council said they had reached a standstill in light of “continuing and deeply worrying backsliding on the rule of law and on fundamental rights” under Erdoğan.

Unlike other EU candidates, Turkey was never granted visa liberalisation with the Schengen Area—a source of continued frustration within the country. Kılıçdaroğlu campaigned on securing visa-free travel for Turkish citizens.  

Relations with Turkey remain vital for the EU, however, as two member states (Greece and Bulgaria) share borders with Turkey. Turkey hosts 3.6 million Syrian refugees and largely controls the flow of many refugees and migrants from the Middle East to the EU.  

Most of the EU is also an ally of Turkey in NATO, and Turkey has the second largest armed forces in the alliance after only the United States. However, in recent years, major schisms have emerged within the alliance as Erdoğan has broken with the rest of the bloc over admitting new members and military interventions. 

The US and many other NATO members support a coalition of ethnic militias known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). The SDF played a major role in defeating the Islamic State (IS) and a component Kurdish militia (YPG) helped save Yezidis in Iraq from genocide by IS. 

Turkey, however, claims the YPG, and thus the SDF, is linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is classifies as a terrorist organisation. Erdoğan has supported the Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamist rebel groups sanctioned by the US for war crimes as proxies in Syria. The Turkish military and its proxies have launched incursions into the AANES that have allegedly seen widespread war crimes and the ethnic cleansing of Kurds and other minorities. Turkish airstrikes on the SDF in Syria have come within 300 metres of US troops, and the US and other NATO members have condemned the incursions and warned they threaten the ability of the SDF to keep 10,000 captured IS fighters in detention. 

After Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, EU members Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO. Erdoğan, however, stonewalled the accession of both countries over demands that they stop Quran burnings and deport Kurdish rights activists with ties to the YPG, including those who are Swedish citizens and asylum seekers.  

Officials in Helsinki and Stockholm have said the deportation of their citizens and asylum-seekers violate their laws and that Quran burning is protected as free speech. Erdoğan eventually let Finland join the alliance after he said it addressed Turkey’s concerns about Kurdish groups, but he has still refused to allow Sweden to join.  

Turkey’s actions in Syria spawned calls to boot it from NATO, and its refusal to allow Sweden to enter has generated even more calls to eject Ankara unless it changes its tune. 

Ukraine 

In Ukraine, the same Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones used by the Turkish government to kill Kurds are celebrated for their role helping to repel Russian forces. Baykar Defence, the Turkish defence contractor led by Erdoğan’s son-in-law, donated drones to Ukraine that have subsequently become the subject of songs and memes as a symbol of resistance.  

Erdoğan has voiced support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the rights of Crimean Tatars—a Muslim Turkic indigenous group in Crimea that has faced discrimination since Russia illegally annexed the peninsula. Turkey, however, maintains better relations with Moscow than most of NATO and has continued to welcome Russian business even as the rest of the bloc sanctioned it. Turkey used its relative neutrality to secure a deal that allowed Ukraine to export its grain.  

Despite its rights violations and the headaches it gives even its closest allies, it is unlikely to withdraw from NATO anytime soon. Erdoğan will continue to project Turkish power to maintain his country’s status as a regional power with sway around the Mediterranean and Eurasia in hopes of securing concessions from the EU on visa liberalisation and from NATO on the sale of coveted F-16 fighter aircraft from Washington.

Erdoğan is likely to eventually allow Sweden to join NATO in exchange for more good behaviour in Ukraine and F-16s, which will almost certainly be used by Turkey to strike Kurdish areas of Syria and Iraq. Brussels and Ankara will continue to see what concessions may be extracted from each other as new challenges arise during Erdoğan’s next term.  

Source: Emerging Europe

The post What Erdoğan’s re-election means for NATO and Ukraine appeared first on Ankara Haftalik.

As Ankara continues to stick to its guns on the Nordic nation’s bid to join the Atlantic alliance, it’s unclear whether Sweden will become a NATO member in line with Washington’s and the majority of the bloc’s members’ expectations before the alliance’s annual summit in the Lithuanian capital on July 11-12.

Neutral in world affairs since 1815, Sweden applied to join NATO along with its eastern neighbor, Finland, in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. Before Stockholm and Helsinki filed their applications in May 2022, many observers expected that the two nations would see a swift acceptance into the alliance. However, there was opposition from Turkey. Ankara has claimed that the two countries — particularly Sweden — are harboring members, recruiters and fundraisers of what it deems terror groups. In addition to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which remains on the terror lists of many European countries and the United States, these groups include the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Unity Party (PYD), the main US ally in the anti-Islamic State coalition in Syria, as well as the followers of the US-based Sunni preacher Fethullah Gulen. Gulen is accused of masterminding the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey.

After lifting a de facto defense sales embargo against the country — one of a series of demands tabled by Ankara in return for the Nordic expansion of the alliance — Finland became a member in early April. However, Hungary and Turkey are still dragging their feet in a process that requires consensus among all NATO member states.

The Swedish side finds Turkey’s expectations impossible to meet and feels they go beyond a deal that Sweden and Finland had made with Turkey at NATO’s Madrid summit last year under which the Nordic nations pledged to address Ankara’s security concerns. In line with the deal, Sweden passed a new counterterrorism law and amended its constitution and recently cut off its aid to the PYD. 

Erdogan and his government, in turn, deem demonstrations in Sweden by Kurdish activists as support for the Kurdish groups. Ankara also expects that Sweden should extradite PKK members and Gulenists to Turkey, an unlikely prospect given the state of Turkish rule of law.

According to Paul Levin, the director of the Stockholm University Institute for Turkish Studies, the prospects of Sweden joining the alliance before the annual summit are dim. “The chances of a Swedish membership by Vilnius just got a lot smaller with Erdogan’s recent statement. Sweden is unlikely to change its long tradition of liberal freedom of speech protections,” Levin told Al-Monitor. “So my guess is that it is now largely a question of whether negotiations over F-16s between Ankara and the US Congress can reach a successful conclusion. Congress wants Turkey to ratify Sweden’s NATO membership before approving the sales. Ankara wants the jets before letting Sweden in.”

The United States barred Turkey from the F-35 fighter jet program in response to its acquisition of the Russian-made S-400 defense system. In a bid to maintain Turkish air force operations, Turkey announced its intention to use the $1.4 billion Turkey that had given to the United States for the F-35s to purchase upgraded models of F-16s in late 2021. When the issue of Swedish membership in NATO came up in 2022, Congress added Turkey’s approval of Sweden’s bid as a condition for the sale of the F-16s.

The Turkish side finds the precondition unacceptable. A senior official in the Turkish foreign and security policy bureaucracy, who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, reiterated Ankara’s argument that Stockholm did not fulfilled the promises it had made at NATO’s Madrid summit last year including extraditions of alleged PKK members and Gulenists and restriction of their activities in Sweden.

“Linking Sweden’s NATO bid with the success of the Vilnius Summit or Turkey’s bid for F-16s is both unfair and irrelevant,” said the official, adding that despite public impressions, Ankara wishes to see Sweden as a NATO ally sooner rather than later. “We do not agree with the conviction that Sweden has already done what it must. They are making progress. They are on the right track. But they are not there yet. This is not a simple issue of some demonstrators with flags on the streets of Stockholm.”

All three parties have a good reason to hold their positions. 

For the Swedes, there is clearly a point beyond which they could not accommodate the Turks without compromising their own democratic and legal values. The Swedish authorities can’t also afford to risk the country’s domestic security by going after the members of the PYD, the PKK or Gulenists. 

Furthermore, given how the war against Ukraine has weakened Russia and how Finland has already assumed the role of bulwark against Moscow by joining the alliance, Sweden’s sense of urgency to join may dissipate.

For the Turkish side, ratifying Sweden’s application will not a guaranteed way to prevent the US Congress from imposing new conditions regarding the F-16 sale.  Some members of Congress are already pressing for more by demanding Ankara restrict its military activities in the Aegean Sea over contested territorial claims between Turkey and Greece. There is an additional risk of the US Congress imposing new sanctions on Turkey even after the approval of the sale.

For the US side, the concern is what would happen if the administration and Congress approve the F-16 sales to Turkey but Ankara fails to approve Swedish accession. 

Yet the wars in Ukraine and Syria have proven one thing: Having Turkey on one’s side — even if only partially — is much better than facing off against it.

Source: AL-MONITOR

The post NATO expansion reaches 3-way standoff between Sweden, Turkey, US appeared first on Ankara Haftalik.

After a six-hour-long debate, parliament approved Sweden’s NATO future membership with 269 in favour and 37 against – marking the official end to Sweden’s 200 years of non-alignment in foreign policy. For Sweden to officially join, Turkish and Hungarian approval is still needed.

“It goes without saying that we will be able to join in Vilnius,” said Billström about the NATO summit on 11-12 July in a debate before the vote.

Sweden’s NATO membership has already been ratified by 28 of 30 NATO states, and Sweden has strong support from the US, said the minister. “This strength that we have behind us is so significant that it is possible to make such an assessment,” he added.

If Sweden does not become a member by summer, it would call into question NATO’s open door policy, according to which all countries in Europe that meet NATO’s conditions and contribute to strengthening the defence alliance can become members, the foreign minister said.

It is unclear if and when Turkey will ratify Sweden’s membership as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared earlier in February that he would not accept Sweden’s application if Stockholm does not ban Quran burnings – something the Swedish government has so far refused to do.

Hungary’s parliament, for its part, is expected to vote on Finland’s NATO membership bid on Monday but will hold off on Sweden. Billström said he had received no explanation from Budapest about why it is treating the countries separately.

“If this were to become a reality, I think an explanation from the Hungarian side is required.”, he said.

No from the Left party and the Greens

Of the eight parties in the Swedish parliament, only the Left Party (Vänsterpartiet) and the Green Party (Miljöpartiet) voted against joining the alliance.

“It is problematic to enter into a military alliance with countries that are not democracies and where we see democracy shrinking on a daily basis,” said Håkan Svenneling from the Left party, referring to Turkey and Hungary.

“They are now trying to use our application to silence our voice for democracy and human rights,” said Svenneling, adding that both countries stalling ratification for Sweden is unsurprising.

Swedish NATO membership also increases the risk of being drawn into wars and conflicts that the country has not chosen, he added. “Swedish foreign and security policy should be decided in Sweden, not at NATO headquarters in Brussels, not in Washington by the US President or in Ankara by the Turkish President,” Svenneling declared.

But for Foreign Minister Billström, “NATO membership is the best way to safeguard Sweden’s security” in light of Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

However, both opposition parties are also critical of Sweden’s inclusion in the NATO nuclear umbrella.

“NATO is said to be built on using nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Our MPs do not believe in this doctrine and believe, on the contrary, that it can lead to more conflict,” said Green MP Jacob Risberg, adding that “The government has abandoned the view that nuclear weapons make us more insecure.”

Sweden’s NATO application has been submitted without reservations, though the government’s NATO proposal states that there are “no reasons to have nuclear weapons or permanent bases on Swedish territory in peacetime”.

“I feel completely secure with the wording that has now been made. There is no movement anywhere to impose either bases or nuclear weapons on Sweden,” said Morgan Johansson, Social Democrats’ foreign policy spokesperson and former Justice minister when Sweden submitted its NATO application.

If the issue of deploying nuclear weapons in Sweden were to arise, it would have to be raised in Parliament, he added.

“But as long as we Social Democrats have something to say about it, I want to say that we will not go there,” Johansson concluded.

Source: euractiv

The post NATO joins Sweden appeared first on Ankara Haftalik.