Why Turkey Is Imperiling NATO Enlargement
Jun 6, 2022 Sinan Ülgen
Turkey’s current negative stance toward Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership applications should not be seen as a categorical decision to block the two Nordic countries’ accession. But political leaders in Helsinki, Stockholm, and Ankara must now prepare their respective publics for an inevitably flawed agreement.
ISTANBUL – One of the key geopolitical consequences of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine has been the return of hard security concerns to mainstream European politics. In some European countries, like Germany, Putin’s invasion has triggered a commitment to increase defense expenditures. In traditionally neutral Finland and Sweden, a surge in public support for NATO membership was followed by applications to join the alliance. NATO’s Madrid summit at the end of June has thus quickly been transformed into a milestone event heralding the alliance’s further enlargement.
But NATO enlargement requires the consent of all member countries, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that his country is “not of a favorable opinion” regarding the Swedish and Finnish applications. Erdoğan’s negative stance, which he justified on the grounds that the two countries are harboring Kurdish terrorists, is imperiling further NATO enlargement at a time of great geopolitical uncertainty. On the other hand, Turkey has traditionally supported NATO’s open-door policy toward potential new members, and Erdoğan’s statement should not be read as a categorical decision to block the two Nordic countries’ accession. In fact, it advances two other objectives. First, Erdoğan’s position reflects Turkey’s accumulated grievances concerning Sweden’s stance toward the Kurdish question in general and the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in particular. Turkey is dissatisfied with the Swedish authorities’ unresponsiveness regarding the activities of the PKK – an entity designated by the European Union, the United States, and Turkey as a terrorist organization – and its organic offshoots in Sweden. Turkey’s demands that the Swedish authorities clamp down on this network’s fundraising and recruitment activities have remained largely unaddressed. Sweden has also harbored some political refugees whom the Turkish authorities believe are linked to the July 2016 coup attempt in Turkey. Moreover, Finland and Sweden previously imposed an arms embargo on Turkey because of its cross-border military operations in Iraq and Syria. The Turkish public is well aware of its government’s demands, and there is broad cross-party support for Erdoğan’s stance. That brings us to the second reason for Erdoğan’s grandstanding. By going public with his opposition to the Finnish and Swedish bids, rather than opting for quiet diplomacy, Erdoğan hopes that the issue will help to consolidate his public support. His poll ratings have recently slipped significantly and, with the next presidential election just a year away, he wants to nurture his image as a strong leader with a key role in international politics.
Involving public opinion in matters of international diplomacy may serve the goal of transparency. But it also complicates the quest for consensus by tying governments to their stated public positions and hindering the potential for concessions and compromises. That is why it is too optimistic to expect the disagreement to be overcome by the time of NATO’s Madrid summit. Make no mistake: the standoff implies growing risks for the integrity of the alliance and for Turkey’s relations with the West. Despite the flurry of diplomatic activity that followed Erdoğan’s initial remarks, little progress seems to have been achieved so far. It is unclear that Finland and Sweden can actually meet all of Turkey’s demands. They should be able to provide the requested guarantees to implement domestic anti-terror legislation rigorously, thereby curtailing designated terrorist entities’ fundraising and recruitment activities. Ending the arms embargo should be achievable, too. In fact, the Swedish government recently announced that there were no impediments to arms exports to Turkey. But for some of Turkey’s other demands, like its extradition requests, Finland and Sweden may not be able to offer a firm commitment. In a constitutional order characterized by a strong separation of powers, governments cannot decide in lieu of judicial agencies. At best, Turkey and the two Nordic countries can agree to establish a more regular dialogue whereby these requests can be handled in a more constructive way. Turkey would also significantly strengthen its diplomatic position by visibly bolstering the rule of law at home, starting with implementing the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
There is a diplomatic “grace period” until NATO’s Madrid summit. But once the gathering is over, the position of other NATO members and particularly the US may start to harden against Turkey. Accusations that Turkey is blocking enlargement at a critical juncture for European security, and thus helping Russia, could gain traction. Such an outcome would be inimical to the purpose of the alliance and, by isolating Turkey, could reinforce Erdoğan’s resistance. Avoiding this scenario will require Finland and Sweden to commit to what is politically feasible and morally necessary in a common struggle against terrorism. It will also require Turkey to accept what is likely to be an imperfect deal. Political leaders in Stockholm, Helsinki, and Ankara must now prepare their respective publics for an inevitably flawed agreement.
Sinan Ülgen, a former Turkish diplomat, is Director of the Istanbul-based EDAM think tank and a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe.
FOCUS WORDS
| stance | позиция, установка |
| surge | повышение, быстрый рост, резкий скачок |
| clamp down | подавлять, прекращать, запретить |
| nurture | вынашивать, воспитывать, лелеять; питать |
| standoff | тупик, ничья, безвыходное положение |
| curtail | сокращать, урезать, уменьшать |
| inimical | враждебный, недружелюбный, неблагоприятный, вредный |
| flawed | бракованный; дефектный, ошибочный |
| imperil | подвергать опасности; рисковать |
| imply | означать, подразумевать, предполагать, значить |
PREPOSITIONS
- stance toward
- surge in
- support for
- transform into
- on the grounds
- in particular
- in general
- clamp down on
- impose on
- at a juncture
FLASHCARDS
SYNONYMS
VOCABULARY TEST
MATCH THE WORD WITH ITS TRANSLATION
| stance | бракованный; дефектный, ошибочный |
| surge | вынашивать, воспитывать, лелеять; питать |
| clamp down | враждебный, недружелюбный, неблагоприятный, вредный |
| nurture | означать, подразумевать, предполагать, значить |
| standoff | тупик, ничья, безвыходное положение |
| curtail | повышение, быстрый рост, резкий скачок |
| inimical | позиция, установка |
| flawed | сокращать, урезать, уменьшать |
| imperil | подавлять, прекращать, запретить |
| imply | подвергать опасности; рисковать |
MATCH THE WORD WITH ITS DEFINITION
| stance | to cut short; reduce |
| surge | to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated; to involve as a necessary circumstance; presuppose |
| clamp down | to behave repressively; attempt to repress something regarded as undesirable |
| nurture | harmful; causing injury; unfriendly; hostile |
| standoff | a mental or emotional position or opinion taken with respect to smth |
| curtail | standing apart; aloofness, smth that counterbalances |
| inimical | characterised by defects, blemish; having imperfections |
| flawed | a strong, forward movement, a sudden rush or burst |
| imperil | to put in danger; endanger; pose a threat |
| imply | to encourage or provide moral support, to bring up; train; educate |
MATCH THE WORD WITH ITS SYNONYMS
| stance | restrict, confine, decrease, diminish |
| surge | rise, increase, soar |
| clamp down | encourage, foster, bolster, boost, support, inspire, motivate, mentor, guide |
| nurture | indicate, suggest, signify, involve, mean, entail, contain, denote |
| standoff | antagonistic, hostile, noxious, hazardous, detrimental |
| curtail | attitude, position, opinion, viewpoint, standpoint, perspective, angle |
| inimical | defect, faulty, imperfect, with pitfalls, with drawbacks |
| flawed | jeopardise, endanger, put at risk |
| imperil | restrict, restrain, curb, limit, hamper |
| imply | stalemate, deadlock, draw, halt, stoppage |
MATCH THE WORD WITH ITS COLLOCATIONS
| stance | break/ escalate/ intensify/ resolve |
| surge | policies/ component, part, logic, argument |
| clamp down | against [corruption, the war]/ on the issue |
| nurture | to humanity/ state/ interests/ public well-being/ nation/ safety |
| standoff | talent, growth, natural ability, business |
| curtail | data, experiment |
| inimical | in [production, prices, profits]; of [embarrassment, excitement, anger] |
| flawed | the ecosystem/ economic growth/ democratic institutions/ fundamentals/ system/ plan |
| imperil | inflation, unemployment, number, power, spread |
| imply | on [fraud, domestic violence, racism] |
PREPOSITIONS
- stance ___
- surge ___
- support ___
- transform ___
- ___ the grounds
- ___ particular
- ___ general
- clamp down ___
- impose ___
- ___ a juncture
VOCABULARY NOTES
| stance позиция, установка | definition a mental or emotional position or opinion taken with respect to smth synonyms attitude, position, opinion, viewpoint, standpoint, perspective, angle collocations take a stance on the issue, the [government’s, celebrity’s, politician’s] stance on, a stance against [corruption, the war] |
| surge повышение, быстрый рост, резкий скачок | definition a strong, forward movement, a sudden rush or burst synonyms rise, increase, soar collocations a surge in [production, prices, profits] a sudden surge of [embarrassment, excitement, anger] |
| clamp down подавлять, прекращать, запретить | definition to behave repressively; attempt to repress something regarded as undesirable synonyms restrict, restrain, curb, limit, hamper collocations clamp down on [fraud, domestic violence, racism][bids, efforts, plans, laws] to clamp down on [fraud] |
| nurture вынашивать, воспитывать, лелеять; питать | definition to encourage or provide moral support, to bring up; train; educate synonyms encourage, foster, bolster, boost, support, inspire, motivate, mentor, guide collocations nurture your [talent, growth, natural ability, business] |
| standoff тупик, ничья, безвыходное положение | definition standing apart; aloofness, smth that counterbalances synonyms stalemate, deadlock, draw, halt, stoppage collocations silent/ shocked/ new/ polite/ tense/ geopolitical standoff break/ escalate/ intensify/ resolve the standoff unaware of the standoff |
| curtail сокращать, урезать, уменьшать | definition to cut short; reduce synonyms restrict, confine, decrease, diminish collocations an attempt to curtail [inflation, unemployment] curtailed the [number, power, spread] of [drastically, sharply, significantly, further] curtail |
| inimical враждебный, недружелюбный, неблагоприятный, вредный | definition harmful; causing injury; unfriendly; hostile synonyms antagonistic, hostile, noxious, hazardous, detrimental collocations inimical to humanity/ state/ interests/ public well-being/ nation/ safety |
| flawed бракованный; дефектный, ошибочный | definition characterised by defects, blemish; having imperfections synonyms defect, faulty, imperfect, with pitfalls, with drawbacks collocations a flawed [component, part, logic, argument] flawed [social, economic, foreign, security] policies |
| imperil подвергать опасности; рисковать | definition to put in danger; endanger; pose a threat synonyms jeopardise, endanger, put at risk collocations imperil the ecosystem/ economic growth/ democratic institutions/ fundamentals/ system/ plan |
| imply означать, подразумевать, предполагать, значить | definition to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated; to involve as a necessary circumstance; presuppose synonyms indicate, suggest, signify, involve, mean, entail, contain, denote collocations the [data, experiment] implied that implied [the beginning of, an end to] the [fact, thought, idea] was implied by |
How to Boost NATO-EU Cooperation
Aug 19, 2022 Ian Bond and Luigi Scazzieri
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shown that Europe can no longer afford to treat quasi-theological arguments over EU and NATO primacy as more important than its own security. While the Alliance clearly remains indispensable to deterring Russia, the EU has a crucial complementary role to play.
LONDON – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February was a watershed moment for European security. But relations between NATO and the European Union remain marred by mutual suspicion, institutional rivalry, and a lack of effective cooperation. The two organizations must set aside their differences and work together. Russia once again poses a long-term threat to European security. At the same time, the economic spillover from the war in Ukraine will intensify security challenges along Europe’s southern flank. And, as the current crisis involving Taiwan has shown, China’s increasing assertiveness will loom progressively larger in America’s strategic thinking. The key European security challenge in the coming years will be to strengthen deterrence against Russia while retaining the ability to tackle other threats. When it comes to deterring Russia, NATO is clearly the