We have seen this happening repeatedly in recent decades. Thanks to its neutered diplomatic corpse by its own government, Turkey is coming to every negotiation table with the zero sum approach which is unacceptable in diplomacy. And we all know the score.
You can not demand everything from everybody on every occasion, every time. The Turkish government demanded again so much that other parties had to leave the table. That’s where Turkey keeps on failing.
Saying that, I will move on to a particular case of Sweden.
The Swedish government needs to understand that this is a ‘security club’ and its members hold ‘exclusive’ rights. Free door policy and private invitations won’t hold water unless it meets the safety and security concerns of one or some of its members. After all, it is a security alliance. It is per se withholding its membership: the Swedish government creating a safe haven for an internationally recognized terrorist organization and its offshoot sub organizations which only aims to create a free state of its own at the expense of sovereign Turkish territory and to achieve this end has not hesitated to kill civilians in thousands from various ethnic backgrounds over the years.
This, regardless of upholding the Swedish constitution or any academic debate on universally accepted definition of freedom and democracy, is the sole reason behind being vetoed by Turkey. You can not nestle any harm doers that breaches and paralyzes the security and safety of a member.
I like to show just a small example to all our members and readers here the sincerity of the Turkish government(s) against terrorism.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68372.htm
This is the link to the Centres of Excellence (COEs) spread all over NATO with specific missions. These centers are mainly sponsored by member nations and there are 28 of these COEs right now. Guess where COE Defense Against Terrorism is located? Ankara, Turkey. It’s accredited in 2006 and back in the day there were three centers but now Ankara remains the sole center of defense against terrorism within NATO. This, alone, can give some hint to any outsider how Turkey is committed against terrorism and its strict stance against any candidate nation harboring such organizations within the organization.
Such conflicting security - or even in some cases purely political - interests have arisen before and resulted in a candidate's application being withheld. But always resolved at the satisfaction of the member state. Not on domestic laws of involved parties or international laws even where they were applicable.
I am not expecting Sweden to change its constitution or give up any bit of its freedom and democracy. It’s nobody’s but Swedes’ business. But I surely expect that the Swedish government must satisfy Turkey’s exclusive security and safety rights as a current member of the organization.
You can not demand everything from everybody on every occasion, every time. The Turkish government demanded again so much that other parties had to leave the table. That’s where Turkey keeps on failing.
Saying that, I will move on to a particular case of Sweden.
The Swedish government needs to understand that this is a ‘security club’ and its members hold ‘exclusive’ rights. Free door policy and private invitations won’t hold water unless it meets the safety and security concerns of one or some of its members. After all, it is a security alliance. It is per se withholding its membership: the Swedish government creating a safe haven for an internationally recognized terrorist organization and its offshoot sub organizations which only aims to create a free state of its own at the expense of sovereign Turkish territory and to achieve this end has not hesitated to kill civilians in thousands from various ethnic backgrounds over the years.
This, regardless of upholding the Swedish constitution or any academic debate on universally accepted definition of freedom and democracy, is the sole reason behind being vetoed by Turkey. You can not nestle any harm doers that breaches and paralyzes the security and safety of a member.
I like to show just a small example to all our members and readers here the sincerity of the Turkish government(s) against terrorism.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68372.htm
This is the link to the Centres of Excellence (COEs) spread all over NATO with specific missions. These centers are mainly sponsored by member nations and there are 28 of these COEs right now. Guess where COE Defense Against Terrorism is located? Ankara, Turkey. It’s accredited in 2006 and back in the day there were three centers but now Ankara remains the sole center of defense against terrorism within NATO. This, alone, can give some hint to any outsider how Turkey is committed against terrorism and its strict stance against any candidate nation harboring such organizations within the organization.
Such conflicting security - or even in some cases purely political - interests have arisen before and resulted in a candidate's application being withheld. But always resolved at the satisfaction of the member state. Not on domestic laws of involved parties or international laws even where they were applicable.
I am not expecting Sweden to change its constitution or give up any bit of its freedom and democracy. It’s nobody’s but Swedes’ business. But I surely expect that the Swedish government must satisfy Turkey’s exclusive security and safety rights as a current member of the organization.