Turkey does not know when and in what order it will ratify the membership of Finland and Sweden. Finland must learn to be creative with the unpredictable Erdoğan, writes NATO special reporter Mika Hentunen.
Prime Minister of Sweden by Ulf Kristersson visiting Ankara last week was both hopeful and depressing. Kristersson and the President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appeared to be agreeable, but their press conference left a hollow feeling.
In the actual issue, i.e. the ratification of Sweden’s and Finland’s NATO membership, they did not progress anywhere. Turkey demands the extradition of the Kurds it considers terrorists from the Nordic countries. Erdoğan even named one of them in a press conference.
Kristersson assured that Sweden understands Turkey’s concern about terrorism. Last weekend, six people died and more than 80 were injured in an explosion on a shopping street in Istanbul. Erdoğan blamed the attack on the Kurdish PKK.
However, the Swedish judiciary does not agree to the extradition of people who apply for asylum or who have already received it. Turkey is a politically unstable society. Who is a terrorist and who is a victim of terrorism is in many cases open to interpretation.
Erdoğan has also demanded the president in vain Joe Biden to extradite someone living in exile in the United States by Fethullah Gülenwho is blamed for the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey.
NATO negotiations with Turkey continue at official level at the turn of December. There is no quick solution in sight.
The Finnish government is prepared for everything. The government prepared a draft motion on NATO membership in case Turkey ratifies the membership before the beginning of March, when the MPs go to the polls. Parliamentary elections will be held in April.
Ratification at the beginning of the year seems unlikely, even though Erdoğan is unpredictable in his movements. Ratification is decided by the Turkish parliament, but practically everything is at the president’s fingertips. Erdoğan will present the matter to the parliament at a time he deems appropriate.
The press conference with Kristersson was shown on Turkish television, and the visit was widely reported in the country’s mainstream media.
It says that Erdoğan has made Sweden and Finland his theme in the summer elections in Turkey. This would indicate that ratification is most likely only after the elections have been decided, i.e. in June-July at the earliest.
The Finnish government’s proposal for NATO membership also serves another purpose. It is the basis for Finland’s presentations at the meeting of defense ministers to be held in Brussels in February.
At that meeting, the obligations of the member countries of the alliance will be decided. Finland and Sweden are participating countries.
The meeting in Brussels is just as important for Finland’s NATO path as last summer’s summit in Madrid, where Finland was accepted as an applicant.
In Brussels, Finland and Sweden have to present their views on what kind of NATO countries they intend to be: what are their goals in NATO, which alliance activities will they participate in and how.
NATO deals with Finland and Sweden in the same package. Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg said in my interview last month that the military alliance welcomes Finland and Sweden as members together.
Also, most of the experts I spoke to at home and abroad are of the opinion that Finland’s going solo would not benefit anyone if Turkey happened to ratify only Finland’s membership.
The Nordic countries are seen in NATO as a defense strategic entity. Sweden would become an awkward gap in the air and land space of Northern Europe if it remained outside, but Finland joined NATO.
In NATO, all decisions must be made unanimously. One expert asked the question: If Finland and Sweden can’t be creative with Turkey as applicants, how could they as members?
Finland’s international brand would be tarnished if it joined NATO without its western neighbor. It would signal to the world that Finland is sloppy in any direction just for its own interest.
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iceland Þórdís Kolbrún R. Gylfadóttir hoped for strong Nordic cooperation in NATO in my interview. It wouldn’t exist if Finland joined NATO without Sweden.
Norway, Denmark and Iceland could push Finland into the Baltic, Central and Southern European groups when NATO’s command structures are reformed in the next few years. Finland would be NATO’s Eastern Flank in the truest sense of the word.
President Sauli Niinistö said in his policy speech at the embassies (you will switch to another service)that Finland intends to be an active player in NATO. The starting points for this would be weak if Finland deviated from the path agreed with Sweden and NATO.
A completely different question then is this: What if Turkey ratifies Sweden’s membership, but not Finland’s?
It would not be an unusual political game from Erdoğan either.
Turkey seems to have more problems with Sweden than with Finland. Achieving a spectacular agreement with Sweden and leaving Finland as a lever could serve Erdoğan’s own interests as the elections approach.
Erdoğan is fighting for his position of power in a country that is not only politically, also in a financially troubled state (you switch to another service). The Turkish Lira is a weak currency. Inflation has shot up to 80 percent this year.
After relinquishing power, Erdoğan may find himself at the mercy of his political enemies.
Several observers believe that he strives for the same as (you switch to another service) Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping that is, to make itself a constitution by changing the president for life. Then you should be creative with him for years to come.
You can discuss the topic on 16.11. until 11 p.m.
What kind of NATO country can we expect from Finland? The topic was discussed in October 2022 in the A-studio:
More on the topic:
Northern European air supremacy will soon be in the hands of NATO, and even Finnish pilots will be able to monitor it in the rain-swept corner of Iceland
Landing on the coast of Finland
Analysis: Sweden’s NATO line changed after the change of power to the right-wing government