Turkey's less-than-democratic President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced opposition to NATO membership for Sweden and Finland. Since NATO solely acts by unanimous consent, his opposition is likely to force conflict within the alliance.
“We are following developments concerning Sweden and Finland, but we are not of a favorable opinion,” Erdogan told reporters.
The Turkish leader explained his opposition by citing Sweden and other Scandinavian countries’ alleged support for Kurdish militants and others whom Turkey considers to be terrorists.
Both Sweden and Finland refuse to view Kurdish independence advocates and followers of Fethullah Gulen as terrorists. Most NATO members agree, for instance Fethullah Gulen resides in the U.S.
Erdogan views these two movements as enemies of his government. He can't do anything about nations already NATO members but he can, if he chooses, bar new members who disagree with his views.
There have been serious questions about whether Turkey should be allowed to continue to be a NATO member. These have arisen as Erdogan has eroded representative government in Turkey. He famously said of democracy:
Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off.
I read that as "when you get to where you want to be, you don't need it any longer." Erdogan isn't the first quasi-autocrat to have that idea.
Given the desire of most members to add Sweden and Finland to NATO, the geographic logic of their joining, and the skepticism with which Erdogan's regime in Turkey is viewed, there may be upheaval in NATO.
I imagine an unlikely scenario in which all NATO members except Turkey resign and form a new alliance that includes Finland and Sweden while excluding Turkey. Maybe call it NATO 2.0. Under those circumstances I suppose Turkey would become a Russian ally.
