The language of the Swedish-Finnish NATO agreement goes directly under the skin. I feel a strong discomfort when I start reading the agreement in Turkish. It is full of words, concepts and formulations taken directly from the Turkish terrorism legislation and from the legal proceedings against the more than 38,000 political prisoners who are in Turkish prisons for terrorist crimes.
According to the Turkish government, NATO had a draft agreement which Erdogan rejected. Instead, Turkey produced its own proposal, which after a couple of reservations from Sweden and Finland also became the final text of the agreement at the NATO summit at the end of June.
The most feared paragraph in terrorism legislation is probably the one who says that a defendant who has the same views as a terrorist organization should be punished for membership in the same organization, even if he is not a member.
This means that any prosecutor can bundle anyone, for any opinion, with any terrorist organization. Thousands of elected opposition politicians, academics, lawyers and journalists have been brought to justice and sentenced to long prison terms with the help of this section.
Clause 5 of the NATO Agreement concludes with a reference to the same section. It says that Sweden and Finland reject the terrorist organizations’ (unclear which) “target” (unclear which).
The agreement points that say that Sweden and Finland undertake to ban or prevent activities from individuals, groups and networks that are “inspired” by or have links with terrorist organizations are also frighteningly similar to the wording from the terrorist legislation and from the political processes in Turkey.
President Erdogan’s purpose of the agreement is to silence the opposition, both at home and abroad. As for the Swedish government and Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, he must be more than happy. In Swedish Radio Good Morning World (3/7), the Prime Minister could not answer the questions of whether Turkey is a functioning democracy or not, whether the Syrian Kurds who fought against IS were terrorists or freedom fighters and whether the Turkish Kurds are oppressed or not. The deafeningly long pauses in the interview said it all.
The majority of the parliamentary parties give their tacit consent to the rule of law Sweden taking time out in its relations with Turkey to join NATO. Some argue that it may also be in Turkey’s best interests. As a member of NATO, Sweden has greater opportunities to influence the country.
The crux is that it is not at all obvious who influences who in the relationship between Turkey, the EU and NATO countries. For example, every time the EU has demanded that Erdogan reform his terrorist laws, he has said that there is nothing wrong with them, it is the EU countries that should change their laws.
Something that has sometimes been joked that it may be the EU that will join Turkey instead. But now it’s not fun anymore. The NATO agreement states in black and white that Sweden and Finland will tighten their respective legislation to meet Turkey’s requirements.
Swedish values and the rule of law in free fall – is that what we see?