Membership veto on Sweden and Finland

Sweden and Finland's NATO Membership Process Accelerating:

When the Ukraine-Russia war broke out, that is, in an article I shared about 3 months ago, I mentioned that the NATO membership process of Sweden and Finland would accelerate, and it was so, these two countries officially applied to NATO for candidacy.

The two hegemonies of the west, the USA and England, which delayed in protecting Ukraine, promised to provide the necessary support against a possible Russian attack on the two countries. The Western alliance seems to understand what the delay was causing in Ukraine and is fortifying its defenses in the Scandinavian region.

While it was thought that there would be full support from within the alliance for these two Scandinavian countries, who could not decide on membership for a long time, to become members of NATO, Turkey's objection from the highest level changed the situation. In their speeches, the leaders of both countries stated that they thought that Turkey would support membership, that they were told this way, and that the current objection confused them.

Turkey's Objection:

Turkey has declared that it will not approve of top-level memberships. There may be two reasons for this turn. The first is to announce Turkey's concerns about terrorism to the entire alliance, and the second is to declare Turkey's difference in relations with Russia compared to other NATO countries.

Well, can Turkey put this objection into practice or can it continue?

It looks difficult.

In NATO, all decisions are taken by consensus, which means that every member state has a veto. For a country to join NATO, unanimity is required. That is, the approval of all 30 member states is required.

In his speech at the AKP Parliamentary Group Meeting, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said, "NATO's enlargement is meaningful for us to the extent that it respects our sensitivities." In addition, in an interview with young people on May 19, 2022, Erdoğan said, “NATO is a security organization. We cannot accept the existence of terrorist organizations in such an organization. In the past, France and Greece went in and out. Unfortunately, the Turkish administration of that period paved the way for them. We will say no to the entry of these two countries into NATO.” said. The continuation of this policy means that Finland and Sweden cannot become members. It is not easy for Turkey to object for a long time on a matter that all other member states want.

Turkey had given approval to the countries that entered the alliance twice before. Our neighbor, Greece, is the first country that Erdogan criticized the administrations of that day, saying, "Unfortunately."

Due to the 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation, Greece decided to leave the military wing of NATO. Afterwards, Greece wanted to re-enter NATO, but due to Turkey's veto, she could not return to NATO, which she had left between 1974-1980, during the prime ministerships of Demirel and Ecevit.

After the 12 September 1980 military coup in Turkey, the changing administration officially approved the return of Greece to NATO's military wing on 20 October 1980.

The second exiting country is France.

France, led by De Gaulle, announced on 7 March 1966 that it was leaving the military wing of NATO and decided to withdraw all NATO bases and facilities, including the NATO Commander-in-Chief, from French territory. NATO's headquarters in Paris was moved to Belgium for this reason.

In 2009, France returned to the military wing of NATO, which it left in 1966, with the consent of all countries, including Turkey. In the joint statement released by the alliance, it was stated that the doors are open to new candidates. The Prime Minister at the head of the government, which gave this approval in 2009, was President Erdogan, who made today's objection.

NATO's General Approach to Two-Country Membership:

Let's get back to how NATO looks at these new membership applications.

NATO Secretary General accepting the official application of both countries

Jens Stoltenberg said that the two countries welcome the decision.

Stoltenberg said that NATO members are determined to take decisions quickly, and that Finland and Sweden's membership has received strong support from other allies. For some reason, he disabled Turkey's sensitivities and the statements given at the highest level. It seems that NATO thinks that it will somehow convince Turkey.

Obviously, Turkey wants to use its power. He is trying to explain the wrongs they have done to the countries associated with terrorism. "Girl, I'm telling you, bride, you understand style" While objecting to Sweden and Finland, he is rightfully reproaching his allies, who are in the same mistakes. It is trying to show that support for terrorism is a hindrance to the state order.

These objections of Turkey will continue for a while, but eventually Turkey will lift its veto and give approval to these two countries.

As with the Pastor Brunson crisis, a political turnaround is inevitable.

The important thing is the size of the gains that can be taken against this support and that it is in the interests of the country. Turkey should express its justified grievances and security reasons regarding terrorism, and the political mistakes of not only these two new candidate countries, but also of all other allied countries that support terrorism, should be expressed, and it should be emphasized on every platform that this mistake should be abandoned.

Meanwhile, persistently and for a long time objecting to an issue that no other NATO member has objected to may do more harm than good to Turkey after a certain period of time.

Instead of clear objectionable political statements that will be abandoned later, conditional approval is the more correct way for the future of relations.

Let's add that the person who is most happy with Turkey's exit is Putin.