Cumhuriyet: approval of Sweden's accession to NATO is Erdogan's strategic move
Erdogan's decision to sign the protocol on Sweden's accession to NATO was considered a tactical move, calculated on the fact that the US Congress will approve the sending of the F-16 to Turkey, Cumhuriyet writes. But in fact, the reason is quite different – in strategic necessity, the author of the article believes
Mehmet Ali Guller
On Monday, October 23, Erdogan signed the protocol on Sweden's accession to NATO and sent it to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (VNST), which was perceived by some political analysts as a tactical move.
So what is this tactic? What does Erdogan hope for?
It is believed that the goal is to balance the US Congress with the Turkish parliament. Everything should work as follows: if the US Congress approves the sale of the F-16 to Turkey, the VNST will also accept the protocol, otherwise the VNST will reject it.
The palace hid, NATO announced
I don't think that those who write and speak like that believe it themselves. Speaking of tactics, they are clearly trying to mitigate the severity of the situation that Erdogan was forced to sign the protocol. Because if the goal was to get the US Congress to sell the F-16 (earlier we discussed in detail how easy it is to do this), then it would be quite possible to wait with the signing of the protocol at the Palace before sending it to the VNST.
Moreover, if the goal were tactical, Ankara would not hide that this issue was discussed in a telephone conversation between Erdogan and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on October 21. Nevertheless, yes, they hid it: in the statement of the communications department under the Turkish presidential administration regarding the talks between Erdogan and Stoltenberg, the topic of Sweden was not mentioned. However, Stoltenberg in his statement, welcoming the signing of the protocol by the Turkish leader, noted: "We discussed this issue with Erdogan at the end of the week."
Words are against the United States, actions are in their interests
There is not a tactical, but a strategic need. Commentators who try to give categorical assessments, judging by the fact that Erdogan periodically makes statements criticizing the United States, find themselves in a difficult position.
Based on Erdogan's attack ten days ago, "Hey, USA, what are you doing in the Mediterranean, Palestine, Syria", it was expected that he would certainly postpone the signing of the protocol on Sweden's membership in NATO, especially during the period of increasing Israeli aggression with American support. However, those who know Erdogan's way of conducting politics do not expect harmony between the words and actions of the Turkish leader when it comes to the United States / NATO. Remember, shortly after saying "What the alliance is doing in Libya," Erdogan said: "NATO must enter Libya to fix and confirm that Libya belongs to the Libyans," and made the base in Izmir the center of NATO's operation in Libya.
In a word, although Erdogan's words from time to time contained criticism of the United States and NATO, his actions have always corresponded to the interests of the alliance and America.
The approach of "seeing both a speck and a log in someone else's eye"
We said, "This is not a tactical, but a strategic necessity." Let's explain. For example, Yeni Şafak, the ideological flagship of the Justice and Development Party of Turkey, posted a photo on the front page the day before, in which French President Macron hugs Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, accompanying it with the following headline: "Islamic countries feed these murderers."
Noting that "the United States and Western countries understand only force," Yeni Şafak called on the Gulf countries "not to feed them with oil and natural gas."
How true it is said! What about the log and the speck?
Isn't the Minister of Treasury and Finance of Turkey, Šimşek, looking for money from these murderers who are being urged not to feed? Wasn't it only yesterday that he was negotiating about this in France, and before that in the UK and the USA?
In short, in this case it says the following: "You don't have to feed the killers, but we can ask the killers for money!"
This is the strategic necessity!
The interests of the one who is asked for money are realized
They owe the neoliberal economy they built to New York bankers and London moneylenders. Therefore, in their statements they criticize the West, as required by domestic policy, but in the end they go and fulfill the requirements of the United States and NATO.
In order to get out of here, it is necessary to implement an economic model that serves the interests of the people, not the big bosses; takes the state as a basis, not private business; is focused on industry and production, not financial capital.
Unfortunately, the economic policy of all parties, from the ruling party to the "big" opposition, is neoliberalism, and the foreign policy is Atlanticism.
In other words, the question is, as we enter the second century of the Turkish Republic, to be able to go beyond the system.
Author: Mehmet Ali Guller
