After months of blockage and tensions with members of the Atlantic Alliance, Ankara is on the verge of lifting its veto on Sweden’s entry into NATO. A strategic player in the organization, Turkey however has many differences with its partners.
Published on :
7 mins
The suspense, which had lasted for 19 months, is lifted. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Turkish parliament gave the green light on Wednesday December 27 for Sweden to join NATO. This text must still be ratified soon by the Plenary Assembly. Turkey was the last member of the Atlantic Alliance with Hungary to block Sweden’s entry into NATO.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has agreed to lift his veto in exchange for a possible American commitment on the delivery of F-16 planes to Turkey. The Turkish head of state had a telephone conversation in mid-December with his American counterpart, Joe Biden.
The latter is visibly “agreeing to take a step towards Turkey and to deliver these planes and the F-16 modernization kits that the Turkish army already has, in return for the Turks’ agreement to Sweden’s entry into NATO. But the sale must be approved by the American Congress, within which the balance of power is fluctuating, explains Didier Billion, deputy director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Iris). . It’s a complex game where no one knows the outcome.”
Historical disputes between Ankara and Athens
Sweden had applied at the same time as neighboring Finland, which was admitted in April, after the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Turkish veto on the entry of these Scandinavian countries into NATO has aggravated tensions between Ankara and the Atlantic Alliance.
Read alsoSweden’s membership of NATO: what did Erdogan get?
Since the start of the accession process, Turkey has objected to Stockholm’s supposed leniency towards certain Kurdish groups considered terrorist by Ankara, such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK in Turkish). But Sweden’s position has evolved in recent months. “The country began to take sanctions against a certain number of PKK activists, or even to send some back to Turkey,” explains Aurélien Denizeau, doctor in political science at the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations and researcher in relations. international.
This is not the only bone of contention between Turkey and NATO. The old historical disputes between Ankara and Athens, both members of the Atlantic Alliance, also give rise to tensions within the organization. Disagreements over the status of maritime territories, such as that of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea, are at the origin of the conflict between Turkey and Greece.
The two countries do not agree on the delineation of their maritime and air borders in this area. “This destabilizes NATO because it is a confrontation between two member states. But also because this conflict has shown that all the countries of the Atlantic Alliance do not have a uniform approach on the subject. France supports Greece while Germany is more reserved. Hungary and Poland are close to the Turks, while the Americans criticize them without concretely defending Greek interests,” explains Aurélien Denizeau.
During a historic visit by President Erdogan to Athens on December 7, the first since 2017, Greece and Turkey agreed to warm up their diplomatic relations. Among the commitments made, increasing trade volumes and working on the thorny issue of the Aegean Sea.
Read alsoReconciliation operation between Greece and Turkey during a visit by Erdogan
Turkey does not impose sanctions on Russia
Turkey’s refusal to impose sanctions on Russia is also raising tensions within the Atlantic Alliance, even though Ankara supports Ukraine, notably by providing it with Bayraktar TB2 attack drones. Ankara also closed the Bosphorus Strait to ships from the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
“It is commentators in NATO countries who criticize Turkey for not having taken sanctions against Russia. The governments are aware that the country cannot afford it. Ankara depends very largely on Moscow for its energy supply and cannot take the risk of an economic crisis”, analyzes Aurélien Denizeau. Moreover, recalls the researcher, Turkey maintains good relations with the countries of Eastern Europe, members of NATO, such as Poland. However, the latter “are viscerally hostile to Russia. But from their point of view, the Turks’ discussions with the Russians are not a problem.”
On the other hand, the purchase announced in 2017 by Turkey of S-400 anti-aircraft defense missiles from Russia raises many concerns within the Atlantic Alliance. For the moment, these weapons have not yet been activated. NATO demands that Turkey send them back to Moscow. The issue is security. “By integrating technological data into these missiles, Russia could access certain sensitive data from NATO countries. Activating these missiles amounts to integrating weapons with Russian components within the Atlantic Alliance,” says Aurélien Denizeau. . From an organizational point of view, this represents a form of penetration of Russian high technology into the defense system of the Atlantic Alliance.”
The war in Gaza, a burning issue
The return of war to the Middle East also gives rise to differences between Turkey and other NATO member countries. The Turkish president champions the Palestinian cause. Some of his statements are very far from the positions of the majority of Member State governments.
Turkey does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization, unlike the United States, Canada, or the European Union. “Hamas is not a terrorist group, it is a group of liberators who protect their land,” the Turkish president said on October 25. Recep Tayyip Erdogan went so far as to describe Israel as a “terrorist state” in front of members of his party gathered in the Turkish Parliament on November 15.
Observers noted a change in tone from the Turkish president after the October 17 explosion at Gaza’s al-Ahli hospital, which could have been caused by a falling rocket fired by a Palestinian group, according to reports. independent investigations.
“After October 7, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in the position of mediator. But after the explosion at al-Ahli hospital, he completely radicalized his speech by sharply attacking Israel, says Didier Billion. He knows that part of of public opinion agrees with him. And at the regional level, this speech is appreciated by the people of the Middle East. Western powers know that his muscular and radical declarations serve the fundamental interests of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, even if This creates tensions with NATO countries.”
But these tensions will not go as far as divorce. Washington considers that NATO needs Turkey, a country that it sees as a “fortress on the southeastern flank of the alliance. And a very useful base of action for acting in the region,” explains Aurélien. Denizeau. For his part, “the Turkish president considers that the Atlantic Alliance is Turkey’s true security insurance. Neither Russia nor China can play this role,” said Didier Billion.
