Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be the president of Turkey, but these days, he also seems to have taken on a new role: the de facto king of NATO. How did Erdogan merit this quasi-imperial position? Obstructionism.
Last May, in the aftermath of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden altered their long-standing position of nonalignment and applied for NATO membership. The two Nordic nations have been eagerly waiting to join ever since because ascension to the bloc requires unanimous consent of existing members, and NATO’s two most illiberal leaders, Erdogan and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, did not give their approval. To his credit, Orbán eventually stood down and gave Finland and Sweden his blessing, and previously it looked as if Turkey had agreed to Sweden’s and Finland’s bids too, but formal approval has been held up, and the delay continues to benefit Moscow.
Initially, Ankara’s stated reason for the postponement was due to Stockholm’s refusal to extradite members of the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Turkey regards as a terrorist organization. Finland and Sweden have vowed to proceed with their applications in tandem, so Turkish intransigence has spelled doom for Helsinki’s bid, too.
Sweden did its utmost to appease Erdogan, who’s trying to exact as many concessions as possible, by stiffening its anti-terror laws and lifting a ban on selling military equipment to Turkey. These efforts were scuttled when Kurdish groups hanged an effigy of Erdogan and a Danish politician burned a Quran outside in two separate incidents near the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm in January. Finland claims that Russia was behind the activists who staged the latter protest. Turkey has subsequently canceled the Swedish defense minister’s visit to Ankara, which was aimed at resolving Turkey’s objections to Sweden’s NATO bid. Erdogan recently said he’s willing to entertain Finland’s ascension without Sweden.
All of this back-and-forth between Ankara and Stockholm raises an important question: Who put Erdogan in charge of NATO membership? The man is a petty tyrant who’s managed to run the scion of one of world history’s mightiest empires into a second-rate autocracy in just two decades, less than a century after Atatürk breathed new life into this once-great civilization. With Turkish elections looming in late spring, Erdogan is looking to distract from his domestic failures, and he thinks he’s found a punching bag in the Baltic region. In the process, he’s turned the greatest military alliance in history into his own personal sultanate.
This madness must end. Turkey is a lousy ally and deserves to be booted from NATO. Erdogan can no longer be permitted to hamstring the West while empowering the Kremlin. Kevin Williamson said it best: “A NATO that includes Sweden and Finland but excludes Turkey is preferable to one that includes Turkey but excludes Sweden and Finland.”