Page 5«..4567..1020..»

Category Archives: NATO

Opinion | How the E.U. and NATO should respond to Hungarys authoritarian Orban – The Washington Post

Posted: February 3, 2024 at 1:13 pm

Enlarging the European Union and NATO after the Cold War raised hopes it would unleash an important advance for freedom in a part of the world that had enjoyed little. Integrating former Eastern Bloc countries into keystone Western institutions and requiring democratic and market-oriented reforms for them to join exclusive clubs of wealthy nations would discourage anti-Western nationalism and intolerance. For the most part, this strategy has worked, with countries that once suffered behind the Iron Curtain now vibrant democracies.

Yet the strategy came with risks, chiefly that countries would regress after joining the Western order and undermine from within the Wests commitment to promoting freedom and democracy. So it is with Hungary, whose nationalist and authoritarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, has built what he calls an illiberal state and has spoiled European efforts to advance democracy in Ukraine. European leaders meet Thursday to discuss what to do; anything but determination to curb Mr. Orban would signal European weakness at a time when strength is essential for global security.

The E.U., which Hungary entered in 2004, is devoted to building societies in which pluralism, nondiscrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. NATO, which Hungary joined in 1999, seeks to create a lasting peace in Europe based on members common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Mr. Orban has sabotaged both.

The latest example is his foot-dragging on Swedens admission to NATO, a proposed enlargement of the alliance spurred by Russias aggression in Ukraine. Mr. Orban has pledged that Hungary will approve but has stood by as the parliament he controls has delayed action. Hungary now is the last holdout in the alliance. On Jan. 23, Mr. Orban invited Swedens prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, to Budapest to negotiate on Swedens ascension, an unseemly extension of his hand for an undeserved reward.

Mr. Orbans behavior in the E.U. is equally as troubling. In December, he abstained from a vote on allowing Ukraine to begin the process of membership, stepping out of the room as the other 26 members of the bloc voted a green light. But at the same summit, Mr. Orban directly blocked a $55 billion E.U. aid package for Ukraine and vowed to fight it well into the future, saying there are about 75 occasions when the Hungarian government can stop this process.

Thus, the E.U.'s consensus-based process enables Mr. Orban to serve Russian President Vladimir Putin, who would like nothing better than to paralyze the European Union as he seeks to destroy Ukraine. It was Ukraines strong desire to join the European club, and not be under Mr. Putins thumb, that led to Mr. Putins invasions of Ukraine, in 2014 and 2022. Should Mr. Orban continue to block Ukraine aid, E.U. members can use bilateral channels to send help, effectively bypassing Hungary, but this could take longer and would be more unwieldy.

When it began, Hungarys Fidesz party was made up of young people committed to progressive values. But under Mr. Orbans leadership in the 1990s it shifted to a conservative right-wing outlook, and after a landslide election victory in 2010, he neutered the constitutional court and drafted a new constitution that reflected a collectivist, nationalist worldview, no longer basing its system of fundamental rights on the individual, according to Zsuzsanna Szelnyi, author of Tainted Democracy, a 2022 book about Mr. Orban. Mr. Orban nationalized much of the economy, undercut free and fair elections and human rights, and enabled allies to take over most of the national media. His rhetoric bristles with hostility to immigrants, LGBTQ+ people and the European Union.

There is no E.U. mechanism to suspend or expel a member, but the bloc can withhold funds and suspend voting rights. Largely out of concern over Mr. Orbans poor rule-of-law record, the European Commission had withheld funds for Hungary; but in December, at the time of the Ukraine discussion, the commission released approximately $11 billion, saying that Hungary had met conditions for judicial independence. The commission continues to lock up about $23 billion. Continued financial pressure is critical to deliver the message that a member cannot corrode the blocs values.

Members of the European Parliament and some others have called for exploring a more severe option: suspending Hungarys voting rights. Doing so risks diminishing the bloc in the future, should populists take power in other E.U. nations. A better option is to make the E.U. less vulnerable to Orban-like manipulation, reforming voting rules so that fewer decisions require unanimity. Majority or supermajority rule would suit a bloc devoted to democracy and curb the likes of Mr. Orban from destroying from within one of the Wests most successful institutions.

Original post:
Opinion | How the E.U. and NATO should respond to Hungarys authoritarian Orban - The Washington Post

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Opinion | How the E.U. and NATO should respond to Hungarys authoritarian Orban – The Washington Post

ARTHUR CYR: NATO The Enduring Alliance | Opinion | henryherald.com – Henry Herald

Posted: at 1:12 pm

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

View original post here:
ARTHUR CYR: NATO The Enduring Alliance | Opinion | henryherald.com - Henry Herald

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on ARTHUR CYR: NATO The Enduring Alliance | Opinion | henryherald.com – Henry Herald

NATO chief talks up alliance role in advancing US interests at think tank favored by Trump – Stars and Stripes

Posted: at 1:12 pm

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg speaks at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, in Washington D.C., Jan. 31, 2024. (NATO)

NATOs top official mounted a defense of the U.S.-led alliance Wednesday at the headquarters of a conservative Washington think tank known for its ties to NATO skeptic Donald Trump.

Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who was in Washington this week to galvanize Western support for Ukraine, took the stage at the Heritage Foundation to talk up NATO before a pro-Trump audience.

In these dangerous times, we must stand strong against any regime that seeks to undermine us, Stoltenberg said. Any sign of wavering or weakening on our part will invite challenges from those who wish us harm.

Stoltenberg added that NATO is a vehicle for projecting Americas agenda from Europe to the Pacific. Meanwhile, European militaries are a rich market for U.S. weapons makers, who have reaped some $120 billion in sales to allies over the past two years, generating jobs in America, he said.

NATO is an incredibly powerful idea that advances U.S. interests and multiplies American power China and Russia have nothing like NATO, Stoltenberg said. That is why they are always trying to undermine our unity.

During the Trump administration, Stoltenberg guided the alliance through a tumultuous period that included intense criticism of NATO by the former president.

While Stoltenberg was dubbed by some NATO watchers as the Trump whisperer for his ability to manage that relationship, the former Norwegian prime ministers stint at the helm of NATO is slated to end later this year.

With Trump leading the race for the Republican nomination and polls indicating a toss-up in a 2024 rematch with President Joe Biden, political officials in Europe have been contemplating the implications of a Trump return for NATO.

Trump has reiterated his long-held ambivalence about the alliance, saying during a recent town hall meeting that his support for NATO depends on if they (Europeans) treat us properly.

NATO has taken advantage of our country, Trump said during the Jan. 10 Fox News broadcast. The European countries took advantage.

Heritage President Kevin Roberts, as he introduced Stoltenberg, also called out European allies for falling short on defense spending. He added that the conservative group was unwilling to back more support for Ukraine so long as the U.S. border crisis remained unresolved.

Stoltenberg, however, said allies have turned the corner on defense spending.

Much of Trumps criticism about NATO has centered on how a majority of the alliances 31 members fall short on defense spending benchmarks that call for all allies to dedicate 2% of their gross domestic product to defense.

Allies have improved in that area, with expenditures steadily rising every year since 2014. Still, some of the largest percentage increases have been made by smaller nations, such as the Baltic states, which have ramped up spending over concerns about Russia.

The major European power, Germany, still falls well short of the 2% mark, and its not clear when Berlin will reach the threshold.

U.S. presidents going back decades have had similar criticisms of European defense spending, but stated them in more diplomatic terms and while supporting the idea of the alliance as a critical aspect of global security.

Biden in December signed bipartisan legislation that would prevent a U.S. president from withdrawing from NATO without congressional approval.

The uncertainty about the future course of Washingtons commitment to shared defense comes at a time when concerns about Russian aggression in Europe are growing.

While Russia has suffered extensive casualties in its war in Ukraine, several military leaders in Europe in recent weeks have warned that Moscow could rebuild its forces within the next five years.

Adm. Rob Bauer, the Dutch chairman of the NATO military committee, following a meeting of NATO defense chiefs, said that allies must prepare for the possibility of conflict with Russia.

Im not saying it is going wrong tomorrow, but we have to realize its not a given that we are in peace, Bauer said Jan. 18.

While Biden has emphasized repeatedly that the U.S. is prepared to defend every inch of NATO territory, Trumps more vague position on collective defense could increase the angst in Europe.

During his tenure in office, Trump was more blunt behind closed doors than in public, according to European officials.

You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you, Trump reportedly told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020.

That statement was brought to light earlier this month by French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was present at a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the encounter was reported to have happened.

By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO, according to Bretons account of what Trump said.

Read more:
NATO chief talks up alliance role in advancing US interests at think tank favored by Trump - Stars and Stripes

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO chief talks up alliance role in advancing US interests at think tank favored by Trump – Stars and Stripes

Diplomacy Watch: NATO membership still on the table? – Responsible Statecraft

Posted: at 1:12 pm

Diplomacy Watch: NATO membership still on the table?  Responsible Statecraft

See the original post here:
Diplomacy Watch: NATO membership still on the table? - Responsible Statecraft

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Diplomacy Watch: NATO membership still on the table? – Responsible Statecraft

When will Sweden join NATO? | Opinion – Deseret News

Posted: at 1:12 pm

When will Sweden join NATO? | Opinion  Deseret News

More:
When will Sweden join NATO? | Opinion - Deseret News

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on When will Sweden join NATO? | Opinion – Deseret News

Trump hates NATO: Would he leave Canada out in the cold? – GZERO Media

Posted: at 1:12 pm

Trump hates NATO: Would he leave Canada out in the cold?  GZERO Media

Visit link:
Trump hates NATO: Would he leave Canada out in the cold? - GZERO Media

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Trump hates NATO: Would he leave Canada out in the cold? – GZERO Media

China will learn that using force works if Russia prevails: NATO chief – Business Insider

Posted: at 1:12 pm

China will learn that using force works if Russia prevails: NATO chief  Business Insider

Excerpt from:
China will learn that using force works if Russia prevails: NATO chief - Business Insider

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on China will learn that using force works if Russia prevails: NATO chief – Business Insider

NATO newcomer Finland’s presidential election is headed for a runoff – NPR

Posted: at 1:12 pm

A woman casts her ballot at a polling station during presidential election in Helsinki, Finland, Sunday, Jan. 28, 2024. Sergei Grits/AP hide caption

A woman casts her ballot at a polling station during presidential election in Helsinki, Finland, Sunday, Jan. 28, 2024.

HELSINKI Ex-Prime Minister Alexander Stubb was projected to win the first round of Finland's presidential election on Sunday and face runner-up Pekka Haavisto in a runoff next month.

Finnish public broadcaster YLE projected that Stubb won the first round of the presidential election with 27.3% of the votes, while Haavisto, an ex-foreign minister, took second place with 25.8%. Parliamentary Speaker Jussi Halla-aho came in third place with 18.6%

The projected result will push the race into a runoff on Feb. 11 between Stubb and Haavisto as none of the candidates received more than half of the votes.

YLE's prediction, highly accurate in previous elections, is a mathematical model calculated on the basis of advance votes and a certain number of Sunday's votes under official data provided by the Legal Register Centre. Exit polls aren't generally used in Finland.

Stubb, 55, who represents the conservative National Coalition Party and headed the Finnish government in 2014-2015, and Haavisto, 65, who is making his third run for the office, were the main contenders in the election where about 4.5 million eligible voters picked a successor to hugely popular President Sauli Niinist, whose second six-year term expires in March. He wasn't eligible for reelection.

Unlike in most European countries, the president of Finland holds executive power in formulating foreign and security policy, particularly when dealing with countries outside the European Union like the United States, Russia and China.

The president also acts as the supreme commander of the Finnish military, a particularly important duty in Europe's current security environment.

Polls across the country closed at 8 p.m. About 4.5 million citizens were eligible to vote for Finland's new head of state from an array of nine candidates six men and three women.

"I expect strong leadership in the current global situation," said Eve Kinnunen, who voted in a polling station in the center of the capital, Helsinki.

Finland's new head of state will start a six-year term in March in a markedly different geopolitical and security situation in Europe than did incumbent Niinist after the 2018 election.

Abandoning decades of military nonalignment in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Finland became NATO's 31st member in April, much to the annoyance of President Vladimir Putin of Russia, which shares a 832-mile border with the Nordic nation.

NATO membership, which has made Finland the Western military alliance's front-line country toward Russia, and the war raging in Ukraine a mere 600 miles away from Finland's border have boosted the president's status as a security policy leader.

In line with consensus-prone Finnish politics, months of campaigning have proceeded smoothly among the candidates. They all agree on major foreign policy issues like Finland's future policies toward Russia, enhancing security cooperation with the United States and the need to continue helping Ukraine both militarily and with humanitarian assistance.

Membership in the military alliance "also means that NATO should have a new Arctic dimension, because NATO is then stronger in the Arctic area when both Finland and Sweden are members," Haavisto told The Associated Press during his last campaign event at a music bar just outside Helsinki late Saturday.

As foreign minister, Haavisto, a Green League member who is running as an independent candidate, signed Finland's historic accession treaty to NATO last year and played a key role in the membership process.

Western neighbor Sweden is set to join NATO in the near future as the final holdout, Hungary, is expected to ratify Stockholm's bid by the end of February.

More:
NATO newcomer Finland's presidential election is headed for a runoff - NPR

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO newcomer Finland’s presidential election is headed for a runoff – NPR

Letter | The US and NATO let ‘never again’ happen again in Ukraine – The Daily Progress

Posted: at 1:12 pm

When Mr. Chimp and Mr. Gorilla meet on the jungle path, who yields right-of-way? You got it. Law of the jungle. Sadly, the U.S. and NATO fail to understand that this is the law that Vladimir Putin operates by. Had they, instead of a war in Ukraine, we would have witnessed a bloodless victory for democracy in Europe. Putin (Mr. Chimp) may be a murderous dictator, but he is no fool. The 200-pound chump would never have challenged the 800-pound gorilla (the U.S. and NATO) had Mr. G told the chump that if he invaded Ukraine he would be met by Ukrainian and NATO forces. Mr. G could have offered to negotiate on disputed territories in eastern Ukraine as a face-saving gesture for Putin to further encourage Mr. C to make the right decision.

The best and the brightest have done it again. The U.S. State Department, which carries major sway in NATO decisions, has committed another major foreign policy blunder. By its "politically correct" act of omission, we now witness and are responsible in large part for the needless deaths, destruction, unfathomable human suffering, waste of taxpayer dollars and irreparable environmental degradation that continues to take place in Ukraine. Shame on the U.S. and NATO for standing by and not preventing this easily preventable war, and allowing "never again" to happen again.

Dan Falwell

Albemarle County

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read more here:
Letter | The US and NATO let 'never again' happen again in Ukraine - The Daily Progress

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Letter | The US and NATO let ‘never again’ happen again in Ukraine – The Daily Progress

Why Turkey Waited to Approve Sweden’s NATO Membership – Foreign Policy

Posted: at 1:12 pm

This week, Turkeys parliament finally approved Swedens bid for NATO membership, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan swiftly ratified the measure.

Swedens NATO accession has dragged on for more than a year. While every other NATO member aside from Hungary supported Stockholms accession, Turkish leaders accused the Scandinavian country of harboring Kurdish terrorists. They demanded that Sweden tighten its anti-terrorism laws, extradite people accused of terrorist activities in Turkey, and resume arms sales to Turkey. The United States seems to have linked approval of Swedens NATO membership to future U.S. sales of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey.

As Swedens membership process stalled, analysts warned of the alliances decline and offered a range of proposed carrots and sticks to rein in Ankara. Some went so far as to suggest that Turkey be expelled from NATO, despite such an action being nearly impossible under its charter.

These concerns and threats come at a time when it has become common for U.S. experts to describe Turkish foreign policy as transactionalmeaning that Turkish national interests override NATOs common values. Once a reliable, Western-oriented U.S. ally, they argue, Turkey is now pursuing its own interests, which often run counter to those of the United States and European countries.

It is worth looking to history to understand Turkeys posture. The country waited nearly four years before it was finally allowed to join NATO in 1952. The experience convinced Turkish policymakers that relations with the United States, NATO, and Western countries always involve a degree of bargaining. Turkish-NATO relations in the seven decades that followed have often reinforced this view, sometimes in Turkeys favor and sometimes to its detriment.

American NATO official Charles M. Spofford signs the protocol to admit Greece and Turkey into NATO in London in 1952.Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

Turkeys efforts to join NATO and other U.S.-dominated postwar institutions occurred under conditions of extreme insecurity for the country. Turkish leaders kept their country neutral during World War II, accepting aid from Britain and France without committing themselves as belligerents and selling war materials to Germany. At the conflicts end, Turkey found itself with few friends among the Allied victors. And it was surrounded on several sides by communist-controlled regimes: Bulgaria in the west, and the Georgian, Armenian, and Azerbaijani Soviet republics in the northeast.

In neighboring Iran, the Soviet Union and Britain occupied the north and south of the country, respectively. The Soviets supported the autonomy of the regions Azeri and Kurdish ethnic groups; Turkish leaders have long opposed the latter separatist movement. Soviet officials also pressured Turkish leaders to renegotiate treaties regulating transit through the Bosporus and Dardanellesstraits and cede control of several northeastern border provinces. To Ankara, the Soviet threat seemed existential.

Rather than comply with Soviet demands, Turkey turned to Britain and the United States. With London unable to maintain its expansive role in the eastern Mediterranean, Washington increased its commitments to Turkey and Greece, directing aid to both countries via the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan.

But U.S. and Western European leaders stopped short of including Turkey in NATO. Ankara first inquired about membership in 1948, when the alliance was taking shape, but it was rebuffed. Turkey tried again in 1950 but was offered only associate status. Western leaders objections to full Turkish membership were not based on the ideals of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law enshrined in the NATO charter; the military alliance included Portugals dictatorship. Rather, their reasoning was strategicnot wanting to extend NATOs political and military commitments so far east.

Turkey did not gain firm U.S. support for its NATO membership until after 1950 and 1951, when Ankara sent thousands of Turkish soldiers to fight alongside the United States in some of the most brutal months of the Korean War. Washington proposed Turkeys accession in May 1951, and support from and the whole NATO Council followed. Turkey was admitted in 1952, along with Greece.

From the beginning, Turkeys relationship with NATO was transactional. By demonstrating their willingness to place Turkish citizens in harms way to contain communist expansion in Korea, Turkish leaders convinced their Western peers that Ankara had strategic value. Turkeys geographic position between Europe and Asiaand on major waterwaysseemed beneficial to the Western alliance in the event of war with the Soviet Union. So did Ankaras large army.

Greek Cypriots participate in a communist-backed demonstration in Nicosia against the plan to enlarge the NATO peace force in Cyprus in 1964. Central Press/Getty Images

Though Turkey was often able to extract benefits from NATO, the country was not always on equal footing with its Western counterparts. Turkish leaders felt their national interests were subordinated to those of the United States and other allies. Washingtons willingness to bargain with the Soviet Union over U.S. nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey during the Cuban missile crisis was one example of this dynamic. But the main source of frustration was Cyprus.

Cyprus won independence from Britain in 1960 with a power-sharing agreement between its Greek majority and Turkish minority. When the deal broke down in 1963, Turkey began preparations to invade the island to protect its Turkish population.

But then-U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson informed the Turkish government that it could not count on NATO support should an invasion lead to Soviet intervention in Cyprus. Johnsons letter to Ankara stoked anti-U.S. sentiment in Turkey, putting Turkish leaders who supported the allianceand its various financial and security benefitsin a tough spot.

A decade later, when Turkey did intervene in Cyprus, NATO membership worked to its advantage. In 1974, Greeces military regimewhich had come to power in 1967supported a coup in Cyprus. Turkey responded by taking control of a third of the island, which remains divided to this day.

Then-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saw Turkey as more important than Greece and worried that pushing Ankara could result in a left-wing regime taking power. Unconvinced, Democrats in the U.S. Congress voted to halt weapons sales to Turkey. The Ford administration responded to the embargo, which would not fully end until 1978, by convincing West Germany and other NATO allies to increase weapons exports to Ankara.

The government in Ankara responded to the embargo by allowing several additional Soviet aircraft carriers to pass from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean and ending unilateral U.S. access to bases in Turkey. On the eve of NATOs annual summit in May 1978, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit refused to sign on to a joint declaration and told reporters that he saw no threat to Turkey from the USSR. He added that a continued U.S. embargo was likely to reduce Turkeys contribution to NATO.

Two months later, the U.S. Senate voted to lift Turkeys arms embargo. By bargaining with NATO, Turkeys leaders satisfied short-term public anger with the United States without wholly undermining their countrys long-term strategic relationships. Transactional diplomacy had paid off.

Then-Turkish National Security Council chair Kenan Evren walks with other officials a few months after a military coup in Ankara, Turkey, on Nov. 10, 1980. Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

After Turkeys 1980 coup, NATO membership again became useful for the country. Military leaders emphasized their determination to honor NATO commitments. They also made conciliatory moves, offering potential territorial concessions in Cyprus (although they never followed through) and supporting the reintegration of rival Greece into NATOs command structure following its withdrawal during the 1974 crisis.

These gestures came as the Iranian Revolution, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War again placed Turkey at the center stage of U.S. strategyand gave Turkeys military rulers more room to maneuver. The United States increased its aid to Ankara even amid reports of torture, investigated by Amnesty International, which prompted countries such as Denmark and Norway to freeze their financial support. By 1991, only Israel and Egypt received more U.S. military aid than Turkey.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the USSR between 1989 and 1991 threatened to make NATO irrelevantand diminish Turkeys importance to its Western allies. In part to reassert Turkeys centrality to Western interests, then-Turkish President Turgut Ozal gave his support to the U.S.-led campaign against Iraq following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He also liberalized Turkeys economy to encourage foreign investment. In return, Ozal hoped to secure concessions from the United States and other allies in Europe, such as increased access for Turkish textiles in the U.S. market.

NATO began to expand its ambitions in ways that suited Turkish interests. The alliance provided Turkey with additional aircraft during the Gulf War to deter Iraqi attacks. It chose to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo, where Turkey was concerned about Serbian attacks against Muslims. There was even talk of an enhanced partnership between Ankara and Washington. The United States and other NATO allies played crucial roles in the 1999 capture of a key Kurdish separatist leader. That same year, the European Union formally acknowledged Turkeys candidacy for membership.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is surrounded by security on the eve of the NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on July 10, 2023. Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Despite these developments, Turkey in the 1990s was rocked by economic crises, violence, and political instability. The chaos of these years helped discredit established parties and bring Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) to power in 2003.

Initially, the AKP intensified Turkeys efforts to engage with Western allies. But there were multiple setbacks. Turkeys European Union membership talks stalled following Cypruss admission to the bloc and the elections of European leaders such as Germanys Angela Merkel and Frances Nicolas Sarkozy, both of whom opposed Ankaras EU membership.

As the AKP lost the support of Western-oriented groups in its coalitionincluding liberals and the Gulen religious movementErdogan became reliant on political factions that advocated for a Eurasianist foreign policy that was less Western and more engaged with Russia and Central Asia.

Of all the conflicts between Turkey and its NATO allies in the post-Cold War era, the most central has been over relations with Kurdish nationalist groups. Washington has repeatedly looked to Kurdish groups to act as local partners in military operationsfirst against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and later against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

Meanwhile, anti-Kurdish measures taken by governments in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran have helped create a sizable, politically active Kurdish diaspora in Europe. Sweden is one of the most notable examples. There, a closely divided parliament in 2021 allowed a legislator who had fought with Iranian-Kurdish guerrillas in her youth to cast the deciding vote securing additional support for Kurdish groups in Syria.

But the actions of a single legislator were not at the root of Turkeys unwillingness to grant Sweden a quick NATO accession. In fact, Sweden itself is not the issue. Sweden was the first country after Turkey to designate the PKKthe Kurdistan Workers Partyas a terrorist organization in 1984, and other NATO member countries, such as Germany, also have influential Kurdish diasporas.

Rather, Turkeys leaders decided to pick a fight within NATO because the alliance remains one of the few venues where they can exert pressure on Western peers. Through NATO, Ankara can draw attention to its security concernsand gain importantconcessions along the way.

Visit link:
Why Turkey Waited to Approve Sweden's NATO Membership - Foreign Policy

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Why Turkey Waited to Approve Sweden’s NATO Membership – Foreign Policy

Page 5«..4567..1020..»