Turkey has gone from being a valued mediator between Ukraine and Russia to being a disruptive factor in the western alliance. With the blockade of NATO’s northern expansion, the stumbling Recep Tayyip Erdogan is pursuing an egotistical calculation that could end up blundering, says Beate Apelt, project manager for Turkey at the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in Istanbul.
When Sweden and Finland expressed their desire to join NATO in mid-May, under the impression of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, it seemed only a matter of weeks before the Scandinavians were finally accepted into the western alliance. Surprisingly, however, Turkey stopped the seemingly certain accession with its veto. After all, all 30 member states must agree to NATO expansion.
Ankara is now setting conditions for this. According to Turkish interpretation, Finland and Sweden should stop their support for the PKK and groups associated with it, in particular the YPG in Syria, extradite a number of people accused of terrorism in Turkey and lift their arms export restrictions against Turkey.
The visit of a Swedish-Finnish delegation to Ankara on May 25 was unsuccessful. The Turkish side only submitted their demands in writing. President Erdogan subsequently expressed his dissatisfaction with the course of the talks and sharply criticized the fact that a high-ranking representative of the Syrian-Kurdish party PYD was allowed to appear on Swedish state television on the same day. Erdogan rejected an offer by NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg to discuss Turkey’s security concerns in Brussels. First of all, they are waiting for a written reply from the Swedes and Finns.
Now save articles for later in “Pocket”.
Turkey has thus once again turned from the valued mediator between Ukraine and Russia into a disruptive factor in the Western alliance. At the same time, no one seriously believes that it has anything against northern expansion in principle. Ankara is using the opportunity to present long-held security concerns and to demand that the Nordic countries give in. In fact, no other NATO member country has been the target of terrorist attacks as often as Turkey, as Stoltenberg also emphasized in recognition of Turkey’s security needs.
Of course, opinions differ on the concrete assessment of various Kurdish groups and the Western, especially Swedish cooperation with some of them. While in Sweden and Finland only the PKK itself is classified as a terrorist organization, Turkey puts all organizations with actual or potential PKK links on the same level. This applies in particular to the YPG, which dominates north-western Syria and was a local partner of the USA in the fight against IS. It is also difficult to reconcile the ideas about the legality of the Turkish extradition requests.
In view of the fact that the Turkish leadership is now using terror allegations in an inflationary manner – between 2016 and 2020 alone there were 1.6 million such allegations – and the rule of law is largely undermined, Sweden and Finland can hardly comply with the requests from Ankara. There is still enough room for negotiation. However, it is possible that it is not just about Sweden and Finland. In Ankara, there are hopes that the western allies will make completely different concessions.
Crisis Turkey: Erdoğan and the end of democracy on the Bosporus
Relations with the USA have been severely strained by the Turkish purchase of the Russian S400 missile defense system and the subsequent US arms embargo. Since Joe Biden took office, the presidents of both countries have only met on the sidelines of NATO and G20 summits.
After all, Erdogan’s robust demeanor to the outside world is also likely to be fueled by his uncomfortable domestic political situation. Turkey is visibly preparing for the next parliamentary and presidential elections. Although these will not take place until June 2023, rumors of early elections persist. The country is mired in a severe, mostly homemade inflationary crisis, and the coalition of the AKP and the far-right MHP now gets less than 40 percent of the votes in polls.
The fueling of anti-Western sentiments and the robust approach to terrorist threats could therefore also aim to secure nationalist votes.
Whatever the calculations in Ankara, in the coming weeks there will be intensive negotiations, especially behind the scenes. Turkey has a chance to get concessions on its serious security needs, perhaps also in other negotiating areas. If she gambles too high, she could easily lose the growing recognition for her mediating role in Russia’s war against Ukraine and permanently damage her relationship with the NATO allies. By the time of the NATO summit in Madrid at the end of June, it should be clear where the journey is headed.
