Recep Tayyip Erdogan on NATO expansion
The Turkish president explained why his country blocked the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, writes The Economist. He believes that the reputation of the alliance will be at risk if its members practice double standards in the fight against terrorism.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
The conflict in Ukraine has challenged established notions of a rules-based international order, great Power rivalry, and Euro-Atlantic security. In addition, recent events have breathed new life into NATO, perhaps the greatest military alliance in history.
Turkey has been a proud and irreplaceable NATO ally for 70 years. Our country joined the alliance in 1952, sending troops to Korea in defense of democracy and freedom. During the Cold War and after it, Turkey brought stability and was a force for good in the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Black Sea region. As part of NATO missions, Turkish troops were present in many parts of the world – from Kosovo to Afghanistan.
At the same time, our country invested billions of dollars in its military-industrial complex and strengthened its defense capability. Thanks to these capacities, military products have appeared, which have proven themselves in various theaters of military operations, including in Ukraine.
There is no doubt that the growth of Turkey's potential has also strengthened NATO, giving the alliance stability. Although our partners have always appreciated Turkey's contribution to the collective security of NATO, they completely forgot about it as soon as direct threats disappeared. Those of our partners who remember the importance of Turkey only in times of unrest, such as the Balkan crisis, mistakenly concluded that long–term stability could be achieved without it. Thus, after eliminating the immediate threat, they forgot about the geopolitical realities of the region and potential threats. Needless to say, the international crises have proved all the unreality of these dreams.
Threats to international peace and security have changed in recent years, and many have considered that NATO as an organization is "outdated" and has ceased to serve its purpose. Emmanuel Macron even stated in 2019 that the alliance had "brain death". The same people questioned the role of Turkey. This mixture of unprecedented self-deception and incredible strategic short-sightedness set the alliance back many years.
And yet Turkey refused to believe that the short-sighted and sometimes even reckless attitude of a number of states reflects the position of the alliance as a whole. On the contrary, we strongly emphasized the importance of NATO and called on its members to take all necessary steps, including updating its missions to combat emerging threats and make the organization relevant in the face of new geopolitical and global challenges. In addition, this call is combined with our country's reaction to the growing instability of the international system.
In this regard, Turkey argues that NATO, along with other international organizations, should carry out certain reforms in order to better cope with modern security threats. Thus, the refusal to take collective action to combat terrorism, despite direct attacks on a number of alliance members, undermined security cooperation and deepened citizens' distrust. Turkey has stressed this dangerous turn of affairs at all NATO summits and has emphasized that international cooperation is vital for the further fight against terrorism. We want NATO to cooperate more closely in intelligence and military matters in the fight against terrorist organizations in order not only to prevent terrorist attacks, but also to stop the financing and recruitment of terrorists within its borders. And we remain firmly in this position.
In the same way, we made legitimate and reasonable demands to the alliance, since numerous civil wars broke out in the vicinity of Turkey. We demanded to ensure the security of our borders, airspace and citizens against the backdrop of the largest wave of refugees since the Second World War. Essentially left to its own devices, our country has coped with all these crises on its own, albeit at a high price. Ironically, any steps under the auspices of NATO would prepare the alliance for future conflicts and crises at its borders.
The new state of affairs that has developed as a result of the conflict in Ukraine proves that Turkey's forecasts and appeals have turned out to be very accurate. Some members of the alliance, suddenly assessing the geopolitical situation of Turkey against the backdrop of widespread destruction, realized the rightness of our steps in the past. Turkey was right to call on NATO members to prepare for the upcoming geopolitical challenges, and, contrary to everyone who considered the alliance inappropriate, Turkey correctly foresaw its growing importance.
Since all NATO allies recognize the exceptional importance of Turkey, it is a pity that some of them are still not fully aware of certain challenges for our country. Turkey claims that the admission of Sweden and Finland will entail risks for its security and the future of the entire organization. We rightfully believe that if these countries want the alliance's second largest army to come to their aid in accordance with Article 5, they will prohibit the recruitment, fundraising and propaganda activities of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which the European Union and America have listed as terrorist organizations.
Turkey wants the candidate countries to stop the activities of all terrorist organizations and expel their members. We have provided the authorities of these countries with convincing evidence and are waiting for them to take concrete action. In addition, Turkey wants them to support the anti-terrorist operations of NATO countries. Terrorism is a threat to all members of the alliance, and the candidate countries must clearly grasp this reality. If they do not take the necessary steps, Turkey will not change its position on this issue.
In addition, Turkey stresses that any kind of arms embargo – for example, by Sweden against our country – is incompatible with the spirit of military partnership under the auspices of NATO. Such restrictions not only undermine our national security, but also harm the identity of NATO. The uncompromising commitment of Sweden and Finland to membership has only complicated the alliance's agenda.
Ankara's objection to the admission of Sweden and Finland, neutral until recent events, is a decisive step on behalf of all countries that have become targets for terrorist organizations. After all, terrorism has no religion, no citizenship, no skin color. Resolute opposition of all members of the alliance to any organizations that are plotting evil against civilians is one of the fundamental goals of NATO. No country has and cannot have any privileges in this regard.
There is not always a shortcut to solving problems and promoting global peace and security. But the path to success can be shortened by taking bold and necessary steps in this direction. Whether Turkey needs such allies or not will depend on how Sweden and Finland react to its considerations and national security interests.
The ignorance and obsession of those who dared to doubt the relations between NATO and Turkey with its positive and constructive approach to the expansion of the alliance does not change our position. Our country is open to all kinds of diplomacy and dialogue and strongly recommends focusing on persuading candidates to change their position. Countries that do not want to fight terrorism cannot dictate to Ankara what to do. We believe that the reputation and authority of the alliance will be at risk if its members begin to practice double standards in the fight against terrorism.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan – President of Turkey
