There is great benefit in analyzing the controversy that arose in the capitals of Sweden and Denmark after a provocateur burned the Holy Quran in front of the Turkish embassy. It is necessary to separate and evaluate the different dimensions of the issue.
In the wake of the protest, which was carried out under police protection and caused great outrage, Ankara announced that it has postponed the tripartite negotiation process with the two countries indefinitely. The Western press continues to exert psychological pressure on Türkiye, which it accuses of blocking NATO enlargement. Meanwhile, in the Western media, Türkiye’s objections to Sweden’s delay in its NATO accession agreement (since Ankara does not seem to have much objection to Finland’s entry into NATO) are tried to be shown as if it was due to this incident…
MAIN ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM
So, what is the root of the problem and how did we get to this point? Maybe I’m to blame for all this. Don’t laugh; because in the days immediately after the start of the hot conflicts in Ukraine, when Sweden and Finland started their discussions about joining NATO, on February 28, 2022, I shared a message on my social media account explaining that these two countries started to talk about NATO membership in their own public opinion, and if this application became reality, we should ask for important concessions from them, especially on Sweden-PKK/PYD matter. I was the first to raise the issue in Türkiye and as the case of application became clearer in the following weeks and months, I shared detailed information in this regard. The interesting thing was that the state turned the issue into a policy that was quite parallel to what I had written.
To summarize, Türkiye, as one of the oldest and most prestigious members of NATO, could have made demands on the PKK/PYD/YPG from Sweden and Finland, which want to join the Alliance. Anyone who followed the news, like me, knew and were aware of that these organizations, whose goal is to endanger the territorial integrity of Türkiye, operated effortlessly especially in Sweden, collected money, and organized, and that the Swedish government provided financial support to the PYD/YPG in Syria. In addition, remembering our veto card in NATO and reminding everyone from time to time could be quite good in many ways, especially in a world that is rapidly evolving into multipolarity.
Türkiye’s consistent and determined policy was successful with the signing of the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding on June 28, 2022. Namely, with this Memorandum, Finland and Sweden have undertaken obligations to fulfill Ankara’s demands against the PKK and PYD/YPG which they regard as terrorist organizations, and ‘against the terrorist organization FETÖ as defined in Türkiye.’ They pledged to distance themselves from these organizations, not to allow them to operate on their territory, and to extradite the ones to Türkiye, who are wanted for their membership. On the day of signing this Memorandum, Türkiye announced that the ratification process for Sweden and Finland’s NATO accession agreements would depend on their fulfillment of their commitments, meaning that if these countries failed to do so, the Turkish Parliament would not approve their NATO accession agreements. It was a very appropriate mechanism.
SWEDEN BROKE ITS PROMISES
But Sweden has not kept its promises. It probably had no intention of doing so from the beginning. Stockholm would put American pressure on Türkiye to get this agreement passed by the Parliament, and perhaps even use the F-16 sales to Türkiye as a trump card and put Ankara in a difficult position, as some American officials have begun to say these days. The Swedish government, which had established close relations with the PYD/YPG in Syria in previous years and provided serious financial support to these terrorist organizations, lost the elections and the right-wing government made statements that they would be more willing and diligent to fulfill these obligations and even the new Prime Minister paid a visit to Ankara and declared his intention on these issues. But in the end, nothing came of it. The Swedish judiciary did not take the same or similar stance on extraditions, even if the government’s intentions were genuine. After the PKK’s successive acts of provocation, the burning of the Quran took place and Ankara’s harsh reactions deteriorated the Ankara-Stockholm relationship and has brought us to the point we are at today.
ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND SUGGESTIONS
Ankara’s emphasis that Sweden cannot become a member of NATO without fulfilling its obligations under the Memorandum cannot be open to criticism. There are some who say ‘let’s not be seen as vetoing NATO’s enlargement, after all, we are a member of the Western Alliance. Let’s ratify the accession agreement, but let’s maintain our position on Sweden independently of it.’ is not something to be taken seriously. We know that Greece conditioned the Republic of Macedonia’s NATO membership on significant changes to the country’s constitution, flag, national symbols and, in particular, its name, it refused to allow Macedonia to become a member for more than a decade, despite having achieved results on all other issues except the name, and only after the country’s name was changed to the Republic of North Macedonia. Let us also recall that Athens used a similar blackmail in the process of the European Union’s enlargement to Eastern Europe, saying that in order for Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic states to be admitted to the EU, the membership application of the South Cyprus, which defines itself as the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ and claims sovereignty over the whole island, must also be considered, otherwise it would veto the entire EU enlargement process, and it got results.
Therefore, continuing to oppose Sweden’s membership for failing to meet its Memorandum obligations seems to be the best option. In a world that is evolving towards multipolarity, one should not be afraid of the connection that some American officials are trying to make between the sale of F-16s and the accession of these two countries to NATO.
However, making too many connections between the acts of Quran burning and the holding up or vetoing Sweden’s NATO membership may draw us into some debates that we would never want, which is perhaps what many European countries, especially Sweden, are currently aiming at with their psychological campaign, especially through the media. Such a debate, which will be built on theses such as that they do not approve of the burning of Quran, that such marginalized people can burn other holy books, including the Bible (although the attempt to burn the Torah was prohibited under intense pressure from Israel) or that they can organize demonstrations against the church, that all this is part of their understanding of democracy and that they disagree because of the deficiencies in Türkiye’s democracy and especially because of the elements that restrict freedom of expression, is a dead end and plays into the hands of the opposing sides. It could lead to a widespread media debate about Türkiye’s presence in NATO, despite the fact that it is not democratic enough.
In order not to fall into this trap, the best response to the Quran burnings while opposing the participation of Sweden through the Memorandum would be to organize a Peace and Civilization Dinner in Ankara and even to work on a project in this regard. A dinner to be held at the Presidential Complex with the participation of the religious leaders of the Jewish Community, Greek and Armenian Communities and Assyrians in Türkiye, and at this dinner, stating that in our religious culture, history and current secular understanding, there is no disrespect for other religions, that burning the holy books of other religions or attacking their holy symbols is out of the question, and that these excessive behaviors seen in European countries reflect the medieval understanding, and closing the issue there or continuing by organizing similar activities and projects on these issues can help to get rid of this spiral. Counter statements and demonstrations before the diplomatic missions of the countries in question will not help Türkiye’s goals, even if they are ultimately a manifestation of righteous indignation.
