NATO democracies give in to the demands of an authoritarian Turkey

The signing of the accession protocols of Sweden and Finland by NATO allies drew curtains on the thriller climax written, directed and scripted by President Erdogan. With this, the collective strength of NATO reaches 32. The new members can now attend the NATO meetings but can’t vote. The Nordic countries’ accession must be ratified by the parliaments of NATO allies before the countries can avail protection under the mutual defence pact. The Ukraine war has spurred the Nordic countries to shed their neutrality and join NATO.

While the accession marks the confirmation of unanimous support, Turkey has yet again warned Sweden of blocking its ratification, if Kurdish leaders aren’t extradited. This comes in the wake of a Sweden legislator challenging the legality of the “Turkish-Swedish-Finnish Memo” or the “10-point trilateral memorandum” signed at Madrid¹. Sweden and Finland have agreed to designate Fetullah Gulen’s FETO (Fetullah Terrorist Organisation) and PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) as terrorist organisations and prevent activities of these organisations in their territories, as part of Turkey’s fight against terrorism. Consented to lift arms embargoes imposed on Turkey following its 2019 military operation in Syria, enhance cooperation in counter-terrorism, expeditiously clear the pending deportation requests (including the current pledge of extraditing 73 terrorists by Sweden), fight disinformation, interdict terror financing and amend the domestic laws to facilitate the same. Additionally, a Permanent Joint Mechanism will be established to implement this memorandum².

Turkey has explicitly indicated that ratification of accession of Nordic countries will be subject to swift extradition of Kurdish leaders. Obliterating any trace of opposition, Erdogan has already crushed all the dissenters, jailed journalists and now with this memorandum he is tracking down political enemies by designating them as terrorists. Erdogan attributes the 2016 coup to FETO and considers the Kurdish dissenters of PKK terrorists.

Towing Turkey’s line, the US, the UK, and the EU have already labelled PKK as a terrorist organisation and to avail the security shield amid Russian aggression Finland and Sweden disinterestedly acceded to Turkey’s concessions. With this, Turkey has accomplished a phenomenal feat of weaponizing its geographic location and its military strength against NATO allies to fall in line. Turkey has the second-largest military force in NATO.

The Western analysts summed up the whole exercise as a positive turn of events. Unbeknownst, given Erdogan’s preponderance to leverage every small victory for domestic dividends, an ostentatious flaunting of the unceremonious extraction of concessions might cast a shadow on the value system the Nordic countries are identified with. Turkey’s Madrid mission was accomplished. But the abject surrender of the democratic countries to the whims of an authoritarian Erdogan is a new low for countries that resolutely commit to defending human rights and freedom for all.

Given Erdogan’s tough ask, the Nordic countries will never forget this difficult experience. In response to Turkey’s lifting of the opposition, the Biden administration has backed Turkey’s F-16 jet request.  This major turnaround is no less than a ‘diplomatic coup’ considering the fact that the Trump administration has imposed CAATSA on Turkey for purchasing Russia’s S-400 defence system and removed it from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Partnership.

Turkey has close defence and economic ties with Russia and relies on its natural gas and Russian tourists. Ankara has appeased Moscow disregarding its long-term alliance commitment with NATO but detested Russian assistance to Bashar Assad’s regime.

In October 2021, Turkey made a request to the US to buy 40 F-16s and 80 modernisation kits and threatened to buy Russian jets if the US freezes F-16 sales. But the US didn’t respond. In March, Turkey lawmaker, wrote to the US expressing support for Ukraine and stating that its defence ties with Ukraine are an “important deterrent to malign influence in the region”³.  Turkey which shares a maritime border with Russia and Ukraine can control access to the key straits of the Black Sea- Bosphorous and Dardanelles Straits and by extension movement of vessels from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea via the Sea of Marmara and the Aegean Sea. As per the 1936 Montreaux convention, the International Straits Commission bestowed control over the straits to Turkey lending it huge maritime power⁴. In practical terms, it is as crucial as airspace blockade. 

Given, Ankara’s close ties with Ukraine and Russia, it hosted a round of peace talks. Carefully balancing its position, while supporting Ukraine and supplying drones, it has opposed punitive sanctions against Russia. Before Russian aggression against Ukraine, US Congress arrived at a bipartisan agreement to reject the sale of F-16s to Turkey due to Ankara’s lack of commitment and “vast human rights abuses”.

During peacetime, while Turkey guarantees free passage to civilian and commercial vessels, in case of war that doesn’t involve Turkey, it can prevent the vessels of belligerent parties from entering the sea except to return to their bases in the Black Sea. With war showing no signs of abatement, Turkey’s special powers are of immense significance in terms of power projection abilities.

Recognising the huge strategic potential of Ankara, the US slowly softened its stance. Just before the NATO summit, Biden agreed to discuss the sale of F-16s with Erdogan and after the signing of the “accession protocol” Biden officially backed Turkey’s request. For long, Turkey has expressly flirted with Russia to have its way with the US. Now with its cynical blocking tactics, similar to Pakistan in the sub-continent, Erdogan has successfully blunted the institutional checks wielded by the West on his authoritarian rule.

Notwithstanding the surging inflation and a crippling economy, Turkey threatened to single-handedly torpedo the membership of Sweden and Finland. Exacting some tough promises, in return for its ‘no objection’, Turkey has arm-twisted the Nordic countries, champions of human rights to surrender to its demands. While the parlous nature of the Turkish economy is believed to bestow NATO countries enough leverage to exert brakes on Erdogan’s upmanship, the strategic geographic location especially in the face of the Ukraine war has given Turkey an overriding advantage. Erdogan has seized this opportunity with both hands.

The exasperating pre-conditions imposed by Turkey for its no opposition to the Nordic countries are now raising serious concerns about Ankara’s behaviour in future crises. Since Article 5 of NATO for mutual defence guarantee can be triggered by a unanimous vote.

Incredibly the Western commentariat which is at the forefront in pontificating the developing countries of values had bent over backwards to appease Turkey for accommodating two Nordic countries into NATO. Meanwhile, underscoring its indispensability to NATO, Turkey has impounded a Russian vessel suspected of smuggling Ukrainian grain.

Though Turkey can be expelled legally, with the odds favouring Ankara in terms of its strategic location as the gatekeeper of the Black Sea and huge presence in Syria including hosting 3.7 million Syrian refugees, NATO has bitten the bullet. Despite, Turkey’s repeated threats to Greece, given Erdogan’s dexterity to quickly change its stance, NATO chose to ditch values in lieu of its strategic interests.

Another feature of this edition of NATO has been the adoption of a Strategic Concept. The last one was adopted at the 2010 Lisbon Summit. It highlighted the challenges posed by authoritarian actors to NATO’s interests, values and democratic way of life. For the first time, calling China a ‘Strategic Challenge’, NATO stated, “The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values. The PRC employs a broad range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global footprint and project power, while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up. The PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security. The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains. It uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence. It strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains. The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests”⁵.

Additionally, the Strategic Concept referred to Indo-Pacific as well, “The Indo-Pacific is important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security. We will strengthen dialogue and cooperation with new and existing partners in the Indo-Pacific to tackle cross-regional challenges and shared security interests”. Ostensibly, Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific are major geopolitical fronts. Espousing an “interest-driven approach”, NATO ironically reaffirmed to stand together-“to defend our security, values, and democratic way of life”.

Eschewing their values, NATO appeased an authoritarian regime that destabilised Syria, attacked Iraq, sheltered terrorists and caused chaos in Libya. So, will it even behove NATO to sit in judgement of Indian democracy?

@ Copyrights reserved.