The war in Ukraine challenged conventional wisdom about the rules-based international order, great power competition and Euro-Atlantic security. The most recent developments also breathed new life into NATO, arguably the greatest military alliance in history.
Turkey has been a proud and indispensable NATO ally for 70 years. Our country joined the alliance in 1952, having sent troops to Korea in defence of democracy and freedom. During the cold war and in its aftermath, Turkey has been a stabilising power and a force for good in the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Black Sea regions. Turkish troops, too, have deployed to many parts of the world, from Kosovo to Afghanistan, as part of NATO missions.
At the same time, our country invested billions of dollars in its defence industry, bolstering its defensive capacity. That additional capacity resulted in the development of military products that have made their impact in various theatres of war, including Ukraine.
Indeed, Turkey’s increased capacity has also contributed to NATO’s resilience and strength. Whereas our partners have always appreciated Turkish contributions to NATO’s collective security mission, they quickly forgot about them when there were no threats to their national security. Our partners who only remember Turkey’s importance in turbulent times, such as the crisis in the Balkans, mistakenly thought that long-term stability could be achieved without Turkey. Thus, after the elimination of the immediate threat, they disregarded geopolitical realities and the potential threats that might emerge in the region. Needless to say, such pipe dreams turned out to be short-lived as a result of international crises.
The threats against international peace and security changed in recent years and that led many to believe that NATO was an “obsolete” organisation that ceased to serve its purpose. Emmanuel Macron even said in 2019 that the alliance was experiencing “brain death”. The same folks questioned Turkey’s role within NATO. That blend of extraordinary wishful thinking and extreme strategic myopia cost the alliance many years.
Nonetheless, Turkey refused to believe that the shortsighted and occasionally reckless attitudes of certain member states reflected the position of NATO as a whole. Quite the contrary, we stressed NATO’s importance and called on member states to take necessary steps, that included updating NATO’s missions to cover emerging threats and making the organisation more relevant for new geopolitical and global challenges. That call was in line with our nation’s response to the international system’s deepening instability, too.
In this sense, Turkey argued that NATO—like all other international organisations—had to implement certain reforms to cope with emerging security threats. Specifically on terrorism, the lack of collective action, in spite of direct attacks against many member states, undermined security co-operation and fuelled deep distrust among the citizens of NATO countries about the organisation. Turkey highlighted that trend at all NATO summits and maintained that international co-operation was vital for transforming the fight against terrorism. We wanted NATO to co-operate better on intelligence and military issues when dealing with terror organisations, not only to prevent terrorist attacks but also to curb terrorist financing and recruitment within NATO borders. We remain committed to that position.
Likewise, we made legitimate and necessary demands upon NATO, as multiple civil wars broke out in Turkey’s neighbourhood, to ensure the security of our borders and airspace as well as human security, as the largest refugee wave since World War II had emerged in the region. Largely abandoned, our country dealt with all those crises by itself and paid a high price during that effort. Ironically, any steps taken under the NATO umbrella would have prepared the alliance for future conflicts and crises at its borders.
The new state of affairs, which emerged out of the war in Ukraine, proves that Turkey’s expectations and calls were accurate. Certain member states, which suddenly appreciated Turkey’s geopolitical positioning as that conflict caused widespread disruption, saw that our nation had been right to take certain steps in the past. Turkey was right to ask NATO members to prepare for coming geopolitical challenges and, in spite of those who argued that NATO was irrelevant, Turkey was absolutely right to state that the organisation would be increasingly important.
As all NATO allies accept Turkey’s critical importance to the alliance, it is unfortunate that some members fail fully to appreciate certain threats to our country. Turkey maintains that the admission of Sweden and Finland entails risks for its own security and the organisation’s future. We have every right to expect those countries, which will expect NATO’s second-largest army to come to their defence under Article 5, to prevent the recruitment, fundraising and propaganda activities of the PKK, which the European Union and America consider a terrorist entity.
Turkey wants the candidate countries to curb the activities of all terrorist organisations and extradite the members of these organisations. We provided clear evidence to the authorities in these countries and waited for action from them. Also Turkey wants these countries to support the anti-terror operations of NATO members. Terrorism is a threat for all members and the candidate countries should recognise this reality before joining. Unless they take necessary steps, Turkey will not change its position on this issue.
Furthermore, Turkey stresses that all forms of arms embargoes—such as the one Sweden has imposed on my country—are incompatible with the spirit of military partnership under the NATO umbrella. Such restrictions not only undermine our national security but also damage NATO’s own identity. Sweden’s and Finland’s uncompromising insistence on joining the alliance has added an unnecessary item to NATO’s agenda.
Turkey’s objection to the admission of Sweden and Finland, which remained neutral up until the most recent developments, represents a decisive step taken on behalf of all nations that have been targeted by terrorist organisations to date. At the end of the day, terrorism has no religion, nation or colour. That each member state decisively stands up to any organisation that aims to harm the civilian population is one of NATO’s core aims. No country enjoys any privilege in that regard.
When it comes to solving problems and promoting global peace and security, there may not always be shortcuts. Yet the path to success could be shortened by taking bold and necessary steps along the way. Where Sweden and Finland stand on the national security concerns and considerations of other countries, with which they would like to be allies, will determine to what extent Turkey would like to be allies with those states.
The ignorance and obtrusiveness of those who dare to question the relationship between Turkey, which has adopted a positive and constructive approach regarding the alliance’s expansion in the past, and NATO does not change our stance. Our country, which is open to all forms of diplomacy and dialogue, strongly recommends that such focus be directed instead to persuading the candidates to change their positions. There is no authority in Ankara that can be told what to do by any country that is unwilling to fight terrorism. We believe that the reputation and the credibility of the alliance will be at risk, NATO members follow double standards in regard to the fight against terrorism.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan is Turkey’s president.