According to political scientist Johanna Vuorelma, Turkey is strictly pursuing its own interests in NATO.
Turkey has prominently stated its opposition to Finland’s and Sweden’s membership of NATO.
However, if Turkey does not accept Finland’s NATO membership, it could lose a lot. Indeed, Turkey’s opposition could further worsen its ties with the United States and jeopardize relations with other Western countries.
In this story, we look at the implications of Turkey’s actions for NATO and the consequences for NATO of NATO. A political scientist at the University of Helsinki answered the questions Johanna Vuorelma.
Impact of Turkish action
Is NATO in crisis because of Turkey’s actions?
I do not see that NATO is still in crisis at this stage, but the danger of a crisis exists if the situation continues.
NATO was in a much bigger crisis Donald Trumpin during the presidency. The President of France Emmanuel Macron said in 2019 his famous commentary on NATO’s brain death. At the time, one scenario was considered that NATO could disintegrate.
NATO members are now working to find a negotiated solution with Turkey. This is not the first time that Turkey has been making demands.
What are the implications of Turkey pulling backwards?
NATO’s internal cohesion may suffer because Turkey is not a marginal player within NATO. Turkey has the second largest army in NATO and has played a very central role in controversial international politics.
What good is it for Turkey to pull backwards?
Turkey is seeking concessions in NATO and is strongly promoting its own political interests. It has also used this in the past in the direction of NATO. When the former Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen elected Secretary-General, Turkey settled in cross-country and received concessions.
Consequences for Turkey
How could U.S. and European leaders make it clear that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan behavior undermines NATO’s collective security?
NATO members should have a similar perspective on security concerns. This is not currently the case.
The security of the Baltic Sea is not relevant to Turkey, but the situation in the Middle East. It is unrealistic to think that Turkey would start changing its own security strategy.
What consequences could be imposed on Turkey if Turkey continues to operate?
NATO has little sanctioning methods in the toolbox. If we look at the sanctions that have been imposed on Turkey in the past, they have been done outside NATO. They have been imposed separately by the states – as Finland and Sweden have now imposed an arms embargo since the Syrian invasion, the removal of which is now on Turkey’s list of demands. Similarly, the United States kicked Turkey out of the fighter program earlier.
NATO rules
NATO makes its decisions unanimously. Has NATO thought that the principle of unanimity would be changed or abandoned?
I do not see that the principle of unanimity is being abandoned. NATO is set in motion to defend territorial integrity. All security policy solutions are always moving in that area. It is also really difficult to see that the state would be willing to relinquish part of its state sovereignty on these issues.
Is it even theoretically possible for Turkey to be separated from NATO?
There really is no such possibility. Turkey is a long-standing member of NATO, with the second largest army and a very central member of NATO. Even if a technical solution were found to suspend membership, it would require a unanimous decision by the other member states.
Could the rules be re-examined in NATO?
It is a long way to go, but it is entirely possible. Changing the rules always requires unanimity. There is now an acute situation with Finland and Sweden, and in that time it would hardly be time to change the rules.
Has the introduction of majority voting been considered in NATO?
No. Unanimous decision-making is a key part of NATO’s operational logic.
US distance to Turkey
Proposals can always be made, and that is the right of the Member States. I see this as a long way to go, and this is not the answer to an acute crisis. Of course, a debate could be launched for the future.
Is the issue of Finland’s and Sweden’s membership so important in other member states, such as the United States, that the strategically important United States would be willing to risk its distance to Turkey because of it?
If Turkey succeeded in blocking the membership of Finland and Sweden, it would be a loss of prestige for the United States. It is of great strategic importance for the security of the Baltic Sea, European security and Russian politics that Finland and Sweden be members of NATO. It is a matter of strengthening security.
The United States may have a couple of years to get a different type of president than that Joe Biden, and it makes you think. NATO crashed badly during Trump’s presidency. At the time, it was a matter of shifting attention from Europe to Asia. At present, Biden’s administration has a very strong commitment to supporting the membership of Finland and Sweden.
Turkey’s concerns about NATO consultations?
How do you feel that, in the event of an escalation of the security situation in Syria, for example, can Turkey request an Article 4 consultation, ie call on the NATO Security Council to discuss its security threats?
Yes, I see it as possible. Turkey has requested it many times before, as have many other NATO countries.
What would this mean?
It is difficult to anticipate the solutions to the consultation round of what might come there. The problem is that NATO countries have conflicting interests represented on Syria. It is very difficult politically.
You can discuss the topic on June 14th. until 11 p.m.