In the discussions of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, appreciation for Finland and Sweden was highlighted, but also dissatisfaction with Turkey, writes ‘s US correspondent Iida Tikka.
WASHINGTON On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO membership. The committee was represented by the United States Secretary of Defense for International Affairs Celeste Wallander and Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Europe and Eurasia Karen Donfried.
These three issues were highlighted during the consultation.
1. The United States remains in the background in the negotiations between Finland, Sweden and Turkey. However, the Senate’s patience has begun to crack.
The most interesting of all in the hearings for Finland was the senators’ attitude to the role of the United States during the talks with Turkey. It became clear at the beginning of the hearings that the Republican Senator became clear James Rischin in the opening remarks.
– I think it’s best to leave them at the moment [neuvottelut] Between Finland, Sweden and Turkey without us, but I emphasize this [maiden Nato-jäsenyyden] is going to happen, this is so important that it is going to happen.
In practice, therefore, the United States will remain in the background and act as a negotiator – for the time being. Still, during the hearing, it became clear that frustration with Turkey is growing in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
Most of all, it was seen as a Democrat senator Chris Van Hollen interrogated Deputy Foreign Minister Donfried. Mr Van Hollen emphasized that, although he hoped for constructive discussions with Turkey, he considered the situation to be distorted.
– Amen, I want to support the ongoing discussions, but we have to recognize that the positions of Finland and Sweden are largely the same as the United States when it comes to the KDF forces in the SDF or the very important fight against the Fathers and terrorism, Van Hollen said.
After Van Hollen, also chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Robert Menendez stated that it considered it hypothetical that the United States was urging all parties to seek a solution on an equal footing when not all parties were equally responsible for the conflict.
However, Menendez said that if the United States participates in the negotiations, Turkey would try to get something from the United States as well, and he does not want that.
Democrat senator Chris Coons immediately after the consultations, he assesses that it is difficult to see what Turkey can ask Sweden and Finland to do. Still, Coons sees U.S. involvement as a bad idea. According to him, the nicotity of Turkey is in danger of significantly weakening relations between Turkey and the United States.
2. Russia’s reaction to NATO enlargement does not seem overly worrying.
Russia was often mentioned during the hearing, but mainly when senators condemned Russia’s actions or talked about the change in European security policy they caused.
Instead, the debate on Russia’s reaction to NATO enlargement was narrow.
Democrat senator Ben Cardin asked representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs how they believe that Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO membership will affect Russia’s goals under Vladimir Putin.
Deputy Defense Minister Celeste Wallander replied that Sweden’s and Finland’s membership would make it significantly more difficult for Russia to plan any military operations against NATO and would strengthen the military alliance, especially in the Baltic and Arctic regions.
Deputy Defense Secretary Karen Donfried pointed out that while the United States is concerned about the security of Finland and Sweden during NATO talks, the State Department believes the United States and its allies will be able to help secure the countries.
Ignoring Russia with brief comments is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the United States appears to be relying on current security arrangements.
Secondly, with the start of the war of aggression, Russia’s position on NATO enlargement is irrelevant to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The contrast to the NATO negotiations in the 1990s is significant, as there were many discussions with Russia at the time about the military alliance’s intentions.
3. Gravel voices were missing – The U.S. security policy line is one of the last strongholds of a unified view of reality.
Even before the hearing, it was clear that the Committee on Foreign Affairs was very much in favor of Finland’s and Sweden’s membership of NATO. In early June, the committee voted in favor of speeding up the membership process without objection.
Gravel voices were not heard at Wednesday’s hearings either. The only more critical question was about defense spending in Finland and Sweden, but the answer was simple. Finland already uses more than 2 percent of NATO’s GDP for defense. Sweden, on the other hand, meets NATO’s requirement that 20 percent of defense spending be directed to new procurement.
Unanimity is a confusing sight in today’s United States, and the contrast to domestic politics is clear right now.
That same week, Congress held hearings related to the former president Donald Trumpin coup attempt after the last presidential election. However, the consultations are not believed to unify the understanding between the parties.
On the other hand, security policy has returned to its grooves and NATO-related differences of opinion between parties are small.