Ünal Çeviköz: What is and is not NATO?

International relations is the field of activity for the relations and interactions of the actors in the international community, primarily the states. Foreign policy is an undertaking to regulate the planning, strategies, and activities of the international relations of states.

The first notion that comes into mind as far as foreign policy is concerned is the 'bilateral' relations of states. However, foreign policy is not solely concerned with bilateral relations. Relations with international organisations, which are other actors in international relations, form the "multilateral" relations of states rather than bilateral.

States may maintain multilateral relations with international organisations of which they are members as well as those of which they are not but with which they have certain contacts. For example, Turkey is a member of many international organisations such as the UN, OSCE, and NATO. Some organisations with which it has relations without being a member are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Arab League, and the African Union.

Of course, the priority of states in foreign policy is to look after, protect and defend their own national interests. The same is true in multilateral relations. For example, at the UN, Turkey follows policies that defend its own national interests and priorities, explain these to other countries, and create awareness and sensitivity about its own priorities as much as possible.

Not all international organisations are like this. For example, the EU is a supranational organization. In the EU, member states delegate some of their powers to a joint representation. NATO, on the other hand, is an entirely different organization. It is a collective defence organization where the member states strengthen their national security policies by becoming NATO members but also aim to reinforce the organisation's common security policies.

Through its NATO membership, Turkey, like all other members, aims to ensure that NATO's joint defence strategy and planning assures its own national security. It also contributes to the determination of NATO's common defence strategy and planning in a way that strengthens the organisation.

Turkey has a serious problem with the terrorist organisation PKK, which it continues to fight. In fact, terrorism is an international problem in today's conditions. States contribute to international counter-terrorism activities and show solidarity within their own circumstances. Turkey needs to defend its rights against states that do not help it in addressing the problem of terrorism, which it perceives as a great threat, but on the contrary, stand close to the terrorist organisations against Turkey.

Other states would do the same. For example, Egypt deems the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation and regards Turkey's support of this organisation as an obstacle to normalising its relations with Turkey, constantly demands in negotiations that Turkey renounce this support as a prerequisite for normalisation. Something similar can be said of Israel. Israel regards Turkey's support of Hamas, which it designates as a terrorist organisation, as an obstacle to the normalisation of Turkey-Israel relations, making this as a prerequisite for normalisation, like Egypt.

Israel and Egypt regard Turkey's relations with the organisations they consider to be terrorist groups as a "bilateral" issue between them and Turkey, dealing with this issue in the context of bilateral relations between the two countries.

It only makes sense that Turkey should also build its foreign policy with this in mind, raise these matters with states that it thinks have close relations with elements that it deems hostile in its fight against terrorism in "bilateral" relations with these states, have necessary sanctions imposed, and make these matters one of the fundamental issues of its foreign policy vis-à-vis such countries.

In Europe, there is a search for a new balance in security following Russia's attack on Ukraine. Sweden and Finland, which did not consider NATO membership until today, and did not perceive a significant threat to their security from Russia, in an understanding of trust between Europe and Russia, began to see Russia as a threat after what happened to Ukraine.

There is now a search for a new security balance between Russia and Europe. Russia has lost Europe's confidence. Sweden and Finland also wish to consolidate their national security strategies against Russia with NATO membership and to benefit the famous "article 5" assurance. The membership of these two countries would enhance NATO's strength and common defence capabilities, and the new balance would create increased confidence for NATO.

Sweden and Finland are among the countries that support Turkey's EU membership. However, they are not sensitive to Turkey's fight against terrorism. Hence, it is expected that Turkey will express its tribulations on this issue at the "bilateral" level in its relations with these two countries, and that it will certainly make them pay for this distress caused on the part of Turkey. Just as Egypt and Israel do in their relations with Turkey.

NATO is preparing a new strategic concept and a new security strategy. The membership bids of Sweden and Finland, which emerged while this new concept was being prepared, create an important opportunity for Turkey. If Russia is now seen as an aggressor and an adversary creating security risks that created an imbalance in the European security structures, it is now of great importance to develop the new strategic concept accordingly. In addition to the central and southern flanks, the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland will strengthen the northern flank between NATO and Russia, which Norway currently defends alone, and will provide an important strategic advantage in terms of balancing power with Russia. Of course, this is also of great importance for Turkey's security.

Furthermore, NATO deems PKK a terrorist organization. However, there is not sufficient support within the strategic concept for Turkey's fight against terrorism to indicate that NATO has internalized this sensitivity Turkey has.

The fact that Sweden and Finland's memberships are on the agenda could be used as an important leverage for Turkey to ask NATO for an assurance in line with its expectations regarding the fight against terrorism within the new strategic concept. It is extremely important that this is seriously negotiated and that the membership of Sweden and Finland is associated with this condition. Likewise, while significant progress has been made in terms of central and Black Sea security in recent years within the NATO security strategy and planning, sufficient reinforcement has not been achieved in the southern flank, which is important for Turkey. Turkey can and should ask that the new strategic concept identify a stronger strategy in this regard as well.

While there are all these advantages that Turkey, as a NATO member, can ask of NATO and obtain, raising 'bilateral' issues with Sweden and Finland as an obstacle to their NATO membership is a clear tactical mistake in foreign policy and draws strong reactions from all NATO members.