Turkey's actions after Sweden and Finland finally applied to join NATO prove my thesis that the alliance is getting less relevant each passing year.
I’ve long been a NATO-skeptic on the grounds that the alliance is vestigial, a pillar of the cold war which has no purpose now that the Soviet Union is gone. Politicians and voters in Helsinki and Stockholm obviously disagree with the notion that NATO is useless, but even though my side may have lost the political battle over whether or not Sweden should apply I strongly feel that the conflict Turkey stirred up by vetoing the new members indicates that I was right about NATO. The fact that Turkey feels that it can hold up the accession process for Sweden and Finland purely for its own political gain shows that Turkey is not nearly as concerned about Russia, the state NATO is ostensibly supposed to be a coalition meant to counter, as eastern and northern European members are.
Turkey’s official reason for holding up Sweden and Finland’s applications is that both countries host members of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), a terrorist group, and followers of Fetullah Gülen, a Turkish preacher the Turkish government accuses of a coup attempt in 2016. Denying states entry into a military alliance due to them supporting terrorists would be a reasonable stance, but calling Sweden and Finland “a complete hotbed of terrorism” is obviously disingenious.Doubly so given that Gülen has lived in the US since the turn of the millennium, but they’re not considered supporters of terrorism by the Turks. From all that I’ve heard and read about the NATO applications the consensus view in Swedish and Anglophone media seems to be that Turkey is using its veto for political leverage vis-à-vis the US rather than out of a deeply held conviction that the two applicant states are genuinely intent on spreading terrorism. To me, this shows how little Turkey cares about the alliance. Much hay is made about NATO’s article 5 which is a legal obligation for members to respond to an attack on a member state to “assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” It’s true that most states follow most international laws most of the time, but any party in an alliance could decide not to honour the alliance should they wish not to so any military alliance is built on trust. Turkey’s willingness to so transparently use the accession process to posture politically undermines trust for every member in the alliance, especially Sweden and Finland, as one Turkey proves itself not to be overly committed to the alliance.
Successful military alliances are at their most basic level built on perceived unity rather than military strength. NATO isn’t a successful alliance despite never having fought a defensive war but because it hasn’t had to fight. NATO’s enemies have seen how cohesive the alliance was and have thus been deterred from provoking the member states enough for the situation to escalate into war. In the leadup to Sweden and Finland’s applications to join it has seemed like most saw the pair joining as a win for NATO, but the fact that there is such a public fight over two states wanting to join undermines the alliance’s foundation; which as I have argued was already aimless after the Soviet Union fell. I’m not saying that NATO is going to end in a crash tomorrow, but it is quite clearly struggling. It’s impossible to tell how strong an alliance is until it is tested, and by its nature all parties in the alliance have an incentive to make the alliance seem more harmonious than it is, so take my warnings with a pinch of salt, but NATO isn’t as strong as the pro-NATO side thinks. If people feel safer in NATO than outside it, then joining was the right call, but don’t believe the hype about NATO being a crack team of democracies standing strong together against autocracy; its glory days are long past. The combination of too many parties, too varied interests, and no common enemy makes NATO a weak institution even with two new members. My side may have lost the political battle over whether or not Sweden should apply but my arguments have only gotten more stronger.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about the Terra/Luna crypto crash here, or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Cover photo by Rik Schots from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Kommentarer