NATO is the most extensive military organisation in human history. The alliance, however, is based on a common enemy which generally ties the importance and the level of unity of it to the actual level of threat. These days, on the one hand some prominent members state their concern on the future of NATO, and on the other hand some countries known for their neutrality are willing to make sacrifices to join the alliance.
The Russian aggression towards Ukraine, which keeps on for well over 2 months, is pushing some countries to rethink their future. Even though this conflict is not the first of its kind in that region, nor the first Russian aggression, it is undeniable that the peoples of Europe had not felt the repercussions of war in such a profound way for a long time.
After the world had conceded that the inevitable was happening, many countries have taken a swift position against Russia, threatening that keeping on would lead to grave consequences for the Russian economy. The economy card, however, was thought to be far more effective; at least enough to kneel down Russia before any considerable gains would have been achieved. It is undeniable that the Russian economy has suffered from many aspects, yet the rouble is still the best performing currency of 2022. (Santana, 2022).
The impact of this aggression has pushed Sweden and Finland to reconsider joining NATO in order to avoid a fate like that of Ukraine. These traditionally neutral countries had counted on a quick entry; however, things did not work out that smooth. For a new member to join to the alliance, a consensus must be reached among the members, and Turkey has declared that they were “not looking positively” to such an adhesion. Some reasons for this opposition are obvious, while some are more latent and go back in time.
Firstly, Sweden has been imposing an arms export ban to Turkey for almost 3 years, which has started right after the Turkish incursion to northern Syria. Turkey believes that such sanctions are against the “spirit of alliance” (Murphy, 2022). Secondly, both countries are hosting many members of PKK, a terrorist organisation officially designated as such by the US, the EU, and many other countries. Both countries have rejected to extradite the members of PKK to Turkey, sometimes with the fear that in case extradited, the members would be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment[1].
Another important element that pushes Turkey to be hesitant is the “past mistakes”. Turkey had accepted Greece’s return to NATO only a couple of years after they have been through a major conflict over Cyprus in 1974. Considering their tense relationship ever since, it is no surprise that Turkey wants to be pickier in accepting new members to the alliance. That has become even more evident after the speech of the Greek Prime Minister in the US Congress on the 17th of May 2022, in which he underlined his discomfort on Turkey’s policy on Greece and Cyprus, without explicitly pronouncing the name (Mitsotakis, 2022).
Despite all these, prominent actors of international politics believe that these are problems that soon will be overcome, and eventually Turkey will give a green light to the accession.
As a final point, arguably the current war has benefitted the NATO, which was struggling with some existential problems in the past years. These problems peaked in 2019 when President Macron described NATO as “brain-dead” (BBC, 2019). Moreover, the political context of today is hardly compatible with the structure of the 30-member alliance of which members experience conflicts of interest in a variety of matters, and sometimes even impose sanctions on each other. It is important to remember that an attack towards any NATO country is considered as an attack to all. Under these circumstances, it is doubtful if certain countries will risk war for those with which they have poor relations.
To conclude, today, even though some mild divergencies are undeniable among the members, the open-door policy of the alliance seems to have achieved its goal, and NATO stands as the most effective and deterrent instrument against the aggressive behaviour of a great nuclear power. Whether its effectiveness against Russia is as solid as its deterrence, however, can only be learnt the hard way.
Bibliography
Santana, D. (2022, 5 11). Ruble Surpasses Brazil’s Real as Year’s Best-Performing Currency.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-11/russian-ruble-surpasses-brazilian-real-as-world-s-best-currency adresinden alındı
Murphy, Y. L. (2022, 5 18). Turkey threatens to block Finland and Sweden Nato bids. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61472021 adresinden alındı
Mitsotakis, K. (2022, 5 17). Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ address to the Joint Session of the U.S. Congress. https://primeminister.gr/en/2022/05/17/29339 adresinden alındı
BBC. (2019, 11 07). Nato alliance experiencing brain death, says Macron. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50335257 adresinden alındı
[1] Citing Aksoy v. Turkey (21987/93) 18 December 1996
コメント