No-one wants to have to choose between having Turkey in Nato or Finland and Sweden, but it is up to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to ensure that that doesn’t have to happen. That’s the view of ex-supreme allied commander of Nato James Stavridis, who, writing for Bloomberg on January 22, looks at how Turkey is taking the “counterproductive stance” of standing in the way of the Nordic nations joining the military alliance over what Ankara sees as their “support for terrorist groups among Turkey’s Kurdish minority, in particular, their refusal to extradite dozens of Kurds wanted by the government”.
Stavridis, asserting that “the great challenge to the alliance isnt terrorism: It is the unconscionable invasion of Ukraine by Russia”, writes: “At some point soon, some NATO members are going to begin asking, ‘If it is a choice between Sweden/Finland and Turkey, maybe we should look at our options.’ That would be a mistake. Turkey boasts the second-largest army in NATO, has important facilities including Incirlik Air Base, and hosts NATOs overall land-warfare command in Izmir.
“NATO needs Turkey to continue being an active and positive member. It also needs to add Finland and Sweden. No one wants to have to choose between them.”
The prospect of Turkey relenting and moving to ratify the Swedish and Finnish applications to join the defence bloc grew even more remote over the weekend when a far-right politician, Rasmus Paludan, gave an hour-long speech against Islam and immigration outside the Turkish embassy in Stockholm before setting fire to a copy of the Qur’an.
The previous day, Turkey’s foreign ministry summoned Sweden’s ambassador over the permission granted to Paludan’s protest. It was the second time Sweden’s ambassador to Ankara has been summoned this month. Previously, the envoy had to offer explanations when on January 12 a Kurdish group was able to hang an effigy of Erdogan, outside Stockholm city hall.
On January 21, ahead of Paludan’s stunt, Ankara cancelled a January 27 visit by Sweden’s defence minister, Pal Jonson, intended to be a discussion about Turkey’s refusal to ratify Sweden’s Nato accession. Turkey’s defence minister, Hulusi Akar, said the meeting was cancelled because it “has lost its significance and meaning”.
“The burning of the Holy Qur’an in Stockholm is a clear crime of hatred and humanity,” Ibrahim Kalin, chief adviser to Erdogan, tweeted. “We vehemently condemn this. Allowing this action despite all our warnings is encouraging hate crimes and Islamophobia. The attack on sacred values is not freedom but modern barbarism.”
Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom said that Islamophobic provocations were appalling. “Sweden has a far-reaching freedom of expression, but it does not imply that the Swedish Government, or myself, support the opinions expressed,” Billstrom said on Twitter.
Another factor that makes it unlikely that Erdogan will back down over his blocking of Finland and Sweden’s accession into Nato is the Turkish national elections set for May 14. Erdogan’s core vote will expect him to keep up a tough line in this foreign policy matter.
NATO’s relationship with Turkey has become increasingly strained in recent years. Turkey’s military operations against Kurdish forces in Syria, acquisition of Russian S-400 missiles, and human rights abuses have raised alarms among other NATO members. This has prompted discussion of whether Turkey could potentially be suspended or expelled from the alliance. However, the North Atlantic Treaty contains no formal mechanism for suspension or expulsion of members. This article explores the legal options available to NATO if relations with Turkey continue to deteriorate.
Background on Turkey’s Membership in NATO
-
Turkey joined NATO in 1952 and maintains the second largest military in the alliance after the United States. It occupies a strategically important location and controls access to the Black Sea.
-
Turkey has clashed with NATO allies over its military operations against Kurdish groups in Syria, which it views as terrorist organizations but the West sees as key partners in fighting ISIS.
-
In 2017, Turkey agreed to purchase advanced S-400 air defense systems from Russia despite objections from the US and other NATO members. This led to Turkey’s expulsion from the F-35 fighter jet program.
-
Under President Erdogan, Turkey has experienced democratic backsliding including expanded presidential powers, restrictions on free speech and press, and mass arrests after the 2016 failed coup attempt.
Why Kicking Out Turkey Poses Challenges for NATO
-
Turkey is a longtime member and maintains NATO’s second largest military with over 400,000 active personnel. Its strategic location makes it a critical component of NATO’s southern flank.
-
Expelling any member requires unanimous consent from all other members. States like Hungary have grown closer to Turkey and may block its ouster.
-
Turkey could retaliate by restricting allied access to Incirlik Air Base, which has been used by the US and NATO since the 1950s.
-
President Erdogan remains popular domestically. Removing Turkey may play into narratives that the West is seeking to undermine Turkey’s regional influence.
-
Legal scholars argue expulsion should only be considered after other options to resolve tensions have failed. Suspending cooperation agreements may be more prudent initial steps.
Examining NATO’s Legal Options to Suspend or Expel Turkey
-
The North Atlantic Treaty lacks explicit procedures for suspending or expelling members. Withdrawal is voluntary under Article 13.
-
Article 60 of the Vienna Convention allows suspending or terminating treaties following material breaches But defining Turkey’s actions as such would be complex
-
Turkey’s Syria invasion arguably breached international law on use of force. But connection to the North Atlantic Treaty is unclear.
-
Restricting refugee flows to Europe could be viewed as violating NATO solidarity. But the threat itself has not been executed.
-
NATO could unanimously agree Turkey violated principles of democracy and human rights enshrined in the treaty preamble and Article 2 But the extent required for material breach is debatable
-
In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson argued the preamble implies implicit grounds for separation if values like democracy are abandoned. But this view has not been tested.
-
Ultimately, other NATO states must weigh if Turkey’s actions constitute a material breach and decide whether to invoke the Vienna Convention The path forward involves more political determination than legal clarity
Instead of Expulsion, Intermediate Options May be More Realistic
-
Rather than pursuing Turkey’s full suspension or expulsion, NATO could scale back cooperation as an intermediate step.
-
France, Germany and other states have restricted arms sales over Syria concerns. The US removed Turkey from the F-35 program.
-
Access to NATO exercises and summits could be limited. Partnership roles in NATO missions could also be reduced.
-
A temporary freeze on high-level bilateral relations may be a moderate alternative to full suspension of membership rights.
-
Pursuing immediate expulsion of Turkey could backfire by reinforcing anti-NATO narratives and prompting retaliatory measures. More incremental steps may cool tensions.
-
NATO should incentivize positive changes in Turkey’s behavior before pursuing extremes like suspension or ouster. Prioritizing engagement over exclusion may prove more pragmatic.
While frustrations with Turkey are growing within NATO, permanently removing it from the alliance would carry significant political and strategic risks. The legal options available lack precedent and clarity. Unless Turkey’s conduct markedly worsens, a more feasible approach may be curtailing cooperation and pressuring for positive change. But if such efforts fail, Turkey’s NATO membership could become unsustainable. The coming years will severely test the resilience of the alliance.
Ukraine could be swiping right on Russians in an attempt to gain intelligence that could help Kyiv’s war effort, Moscow has said.
Register here to continue reading this article and 8 more for free or purchase 12 months full website access
Register to read the bne monthly magazine for free: Subscribe to e-magazine Subscribe to podcasts
Password could contain only a-z0-9+*?[^]$(){}=!<>|:-_ characters and have 8-20 symbols length.
Please complete your registration by confirming your email address.
A confirmation email has been sent to the email address you provided.
Email field cant be empty.
No user with this email address.
A confirmation email has been sent to the email address you provided.
Access recovery request has expired, or you are using the wrong recovery token. Please, try again.
Access recover request has expired. Please, try again.
To continue viewing our content you need to complete the registration process.
Please look for an email that was sent to with the subject line “Confirmation bne IntelliNews access”. This email will have instructions on how to complete registration process. Please check in your “Junk” folder in case this communication was misdirected in your email system.
If you have any questions please contact us at [email protected]
Sorry, but you have used all your free articles fro this month for bne IntelliNews. Subscribe to continue reading for only $119 per year.
Your subscription includes:
- Full access to the bne daily content on the bne website
- Digital subscription to our monthly bne IntelliNews flagship magazine, delivered to your inbox
- Digital subscription to the “editors picks” emails three times a week highlighting our best articles
- Full access to 10 years of bne archived articles
Could NATO Kick Out Turkey (to let in Sweden & Finland) – TLDR News
FAQ
How powerful is Turkey in NATO?
Has Turkey been kicked out of NATO?
Is Turkey protected by NATO?
Can countries get out of NATO?