Mahmoud Fazeli, Analyst of International Affairs
Immediate demands of Turkey in order to show her green light for joining of Sweden and Finland to NATO were to “recognize YPK as a terrorist organization, putting an end to PKK/YPG activities, admitting the very same demand by Sweden and Finland, and if possible, to generalize the demand to NATO level, extradition of a number of terrorists whose names had already been given to the said countries and ultimately, lifting arms embargo of the said countries against Turkey”.
From Turkey’s point of view, “NATO should end its rising opposition against Turkey, which has been increased with strengthening relations between the U.S. and Greece. Achieving a fair and just solution on militarized island of Aegean Sea, delivering of F-16 fighters to Turkey and considering security concerns of Turkey in its probable operations in Syria” should also be taken into consideration.
While before leaving for Madrid to attend in NATO Summit meeting, Erdogan was not showing any willingness to lift his veto on admission of Sweden and Finland, but a few hours after his arrival to Madrid he confirmed the membership of the two countries. Turkey reminded the two countries of the conditions to be met. Only after taking promises from Sweden and Finland to assist fighting against Kurd groups, Erdogan accepted that the two countries become NATO members. Turkey’s measure to agree the membership of the two countries in NATO was a big surprise to all.
With signing a trilateral agreement among Turkey, Sweden and Finland, Ankara dropped her opposition on the membership of the two Nordic countries in NATO, instead, Finland and Sweden will address to Turkey’s concerns in connection with terrorism.
The two countries pledged not to assist YPD/YPG terrorist groups as well as Gulen. Likewise, there will be no arms embargo applied to Turkey, Sweden and Finland. Sweden promised to adjust its national stances concerning arms export to NATO allies. Article 9 is one of the important points of the agreement according to which a Permanent Joint Mechanism will be established to monitor the aforementioned issues. Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Justice Ministers as well as intelligent services will jointly be active in the said mechanism and will monitor their performance. Other NATO member countries as well as the EU members may also attend in the joint mechanism.
In line with this, and with the beginning of a new approach from the U.S., the UK, France, Belgium and Germany, along with other NATO and the EU members, Turkey will invite them to attend in the Permanent Joint Mechanism. After the participation of the said countries, Western countries will no longer be a secure place for PKK/YPG and Gulen.
According to Erdogan, “if they deliver their promises, we will send the agreement to Turkish Parliament to be approved, but if they fail to do so, it will be impossible to send it to the Parliament. As spelled out in the written documents, they will extradite the terrorists. They will deliver their promises”. If Erdogan had not taken the measure, Turkey would not have been managed to draw the world attention to PKK issue in NATO to this extent.
It seems that Turkey has included her demands and sensitivities into the text in principle. Although phrases on YPG and Fethullah Gulen has clearly been used in the text, but it is certain that addressee countries do not recognize the two groups as terrorist organizations. If the commitments predicted in the text were published as NATO Statement, then there was also a greater possibility to take more comprehensive mutual steps against PKK/YPG as well as Fethullah Gulen.
Turkey claims that in the light of her stances, she both achieved whatever she demanded and strengthened her position in NATO. With signing the agreement, Turkey has taken an important step to fight against terrorism that can be used as a reference for other European countries in future. PKK that used to travel, collect money and recruit personnel easily in European countries, will not be able to move freely in these countries as in the past. Fethullah Gulen group was recognized as coup agent of July 15, 2016 and YPD/YPG groups were registered as “terrorist organizations” in an internationally accepted text.
Within the past 70 years, NATO and the U.S. did not attach any special concession to Turkey except a security umbrella vis-à-vis the (former) Soviet Union. On the contrary, they supported the failed coup attempt and imposed arms embargo. Turkey did not manage to acquire her demands to the same high level as Erdogan expected. This can be easily observed in the public opinion. The public opinion is disappointed and tired of Erdogan’s ambitious remarks and his immediate U-turn at later stage. Turkey is unable to acquire her demands completely.
As the important and strategic part of the NATO Summit, the meeting between Turkish President Erdogan and the U.S. President Joe Biden was held only after Turkey lifted her veto on Sweden and Finland membership in NATO. But except Biden’s express of satisfaction on the Agreement and his message that “I would make effort that F-16 fighters issue would get the seal of the Congress’ endorsement” no other considerable development about the meeting was conveyed to the public opinion. Although, the U.S. claims that parties’ problems will be sorted out through dialog, but she keeps her present position on PKK/PYD/YPG, and considers the group as an important ally. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the U.S. will take any measure to meet the Turkey’s demands which were raised before the Summit.
On the other hand, Swedish Premier used the wording as “we did not give up” and “we may not be able to extradite all persons whose names are included in the list, but we are committed to the Agreement”. However, with supplementary document, Sweden has promised to extradite 73 persons who were warranted by Turkey. One should wait and see if the demand will be realized or not? If Sweden will not extradite the warranted persons until its membership in NATO, there will be a question whether Erdogan will refuse to raise the issue of Sweden’s membership at the House of Representatives on the verge of the next election in February – March 2023? Or leave the decision in this respect to the aftermath of the election?