On June 28, Turkey signed a memorandum of understanding with Sweden and Finland, after a meeting of the heads of the three countries at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Madrid under the auspices of its Secretary-General. .

Turkey terms

Ankara, after Sweden and Finland announced their desire to join the alliance against the backdrop of the Russian-Ukrainian war, had officially announced by President Erdogan that it did not agree to this before they responded to its demands related to its national security.

The Turkish President said that NATO is a military and security alliance in the first place, and therefore it is obvious that one of its first tasks is to combat terrorism and terrorist organizations, and that one of the first tasks of the member states is to cooperate in this field, not to turn a blind eye to terrorist organizations that harm other member states, as well as to provide support and protection to her.

In more than one interview, Erdogan stressed his country's insistence on its position, to the extent that he advised the delegations of the two countries, which were intending to visit Ankara to talk about the matter, to "not bother traveling" if they were not ready to respond practically and surely to the Turkish demands.

At the forefront of the repercussions of the Russian-Ukrainian war came Sweden and Finland’s abandonment of the policy of neutrality and their submission of an official request to join the alliance, as well as the desire of the alliance and the United States to speed up the issue of accession, giving Turkey an upper hand in this context, but on the other hand it was also suggesting that it could not stand in the way of membership. until the end of the half.

Originally, Ankara was always with the policy of expanding the alliance, as Erdogan presented it in more than one previous speech in the context of “maintaining peace and stability in the world.” Therefore, the Turkish objection was reasoned, not principled, and this means that Turkey implicitly supported the expansion of NATO and the annexation of the two countries, but after their demands were met.

The understanding that Turkey reached with Finland and Sweden was not surprising, nor was its provisions beyond expectations.

Turkey was not against the two countries' joining NATO at all. Rather, it made demands before agreeing to that, and the two countries view NATO membership as a vital and necessary step to avoid any Russian step towards them.

However, Ankara implicitly resisted the pressures exerted on it, and presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin confirmed that his country is not in a hurry, and that the matter will not necessarily be resolved "before the Madrid summit," as demanded by more than one official in the coalition.

The Turkish conditions related to what it considered Sweden and Finland’s support for terrorist organizations (specifically the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and its related organizations, as well as the Gülen group), embracing supportive institutions, allowing them to finance, propaganda, and mobilize supporters, as well as not cooperating with Ankara in the extradition of wanted persons in terrorism-related cases. And the continuation of the arms embargo against the backdrop of its military operations in northern Syria against the Syrian extension of Kurdistan.

Memorandum of Understanding

Delegations from the two countries visited Turkey, and a path of negotiation began, and the official Turkish statements were not optimistic at first, and therefore the Madrid summit was an important station in this path, especially after its Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced the approval of the heads of the three countries to the meeting he called on the sidelines The summit, which raised the ceiling of expectations that an understanding could be reached.

The understanding that Turkey reached with Finland and Sweden was not surprising, nor was its provisions beyond expectations.

Turkey was not against the two countries' joining NATO at all, but made demands before agreeing to that, and the two countries view NATO membership as a vital and necessary step to avoid any Russian step towards them.

Therefore, from the beginning, the matter was a negotiating issue between the two sides, and it was expected that Turkey would agree to the accession step after they responded to its demands.

But the question revolved around: Which demands will the countries agree to?

And what ceiling?

And what mechanism?

And what tools?..etc.

The memorandum of understanding reached by the parties under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the Alliance stipulated that “Sweden and Finland, as future members of NATO, fully support Turkey in facing all threats to its national security,” and in this context, “they do not provide any support to the YPG/PYD (PYD/YPG). ) and what is known in Turkey as FETO or the influential leadership of the Gülen group.

The two countries undertake - in accordance with the memorandum of understanding - to prevent the activities of the Kurdistan Workers' Party and all other terrorist organizations and their extensions, persons in their associated institutions and front organizations, and persons associated with these terrorist organizations.

The two countries will investigate and prohibit fundraising and fan-gathering activities by these organizations. The three countries also agreed to raise the level of dialogue and cooperation between them to prevent the activities of these terrorist organizations, and to take "practical steps" in the near future in this context.

The memorandum referred to the legal and legislative path that the two countries will adopt. Finland has finally approved an amendment to the Penal Code, while Sweden will start implementing the Terror Crimes Law on July 1, and the three countries confirm "there is no kind of arms embargo between them." .

The memorandum stipulated that the two countries interact "quickly and in all dimensions" with Turkey's demands related to deportation and return of suspects in terrorism cases, "in light of the information and evidence that Turkey will provide and in accordance with the European Convention on the extradition of criminals."

Reasons for approval

Immediately after the signing of the memorandum of understanding, sources in Sweden and Finland said that the way was paved for their accession to NATO, while Stoltenberg said he hoped for a rapid transition period to achieve "the fastest accession in the history of the alliance," and a statement of the Turkish presidency stated that "Turkey got what it wanted from conversations."

On the surface, it may seem that Ankara has retreated from its hard-line position in favor of giving a green light to the two states' accession, but a deeper look at what happened does not say that.

In the first place, the Turkish refusal to become a member of the two countries was not principled, categorical and final, but rather conditional and reasoned with a commitment to agree if the two countries responded to the demands.

Second, and in this context, it can be said that Sweden and Finland have responded - according to the terms of the memorandum - to most if not all of the announced Turkish conditions, which prompted Ankara to celebrate what it considered a diplomatic victory for it.

Third, the Turkish position and the announced conditions contributed to opening or accelerating negotiations with the United States of America regarding the outstanding issues, especially the armaments file.

Perhaps it is possible to expect progress behind closed doors between Ankara and Washington, as it is no coincidence that Turkey concluded the agreement on the first day of the Madrid summit and before Erdogan's meeting with the US president.

It is also no coincidence that Washington announced its support for plans to "modernize Turkey's fleet of F-16 fighters" hours after signing the memorandum of understanding and affirming that "Turkey's security is part of NATO's security," according to Celeste Wallander, the adviser responsible for international security affairs in the US Department of Defense. .

It should also not be lost sight of the assessment that despite the remarkable rapprochement between Turkey and Russia in the past years, Moscow is still a traditional opponent of Ankara, as they have different and sometimes contradictory visions regarding all regional issues.

Ankara’s sense of the strategic danger from Moscow increased after the direct Russian military intervention in Syria in 2015, as Russia became on its southern borders, and deepened after the Russian-Ukrainian war, which threatens to undermine the existing balance in the Black Sea basin in favor of Moscow.

Finally, the decision to give a green light to the membership of the two countries does not seem to have a direct negative impact on Turkey’s relations with Russia, as Russia shifted some time ago from threatening to react if the two countries accepted membership to threatening to retaliate in the event that NATO deploys specific military systems on their lands, with the assertion that mere membership Not necessarily a threat to it.

In conclusion, the act will be the most important test for the memorandum of understanding signed between Turkey on the one hand and Sweden and Finland on the other, and there are Turkish fears that the two countries will later renege on their commitments, as Ankara has negative experiences in this regard.

However, the importance of the transitional period for the two countries, and the need for Ankara to agree to some important decisions for them in the future, reduce the possibility of disavowal, although some items are open to more than one interpretation in practical application.

But in any case, Ankara does not exaggerate when it considers what happened a victory for it. It has proven that it was right in its demands, and has proven its narrative. The memorandum’s provisions stipulated the Syrian extensions of the PKK as it wanted, which will strengthen its position towards other countries that adopt the same previous approach to Sweden. and Finland, a point that needs more detail in a future article.