Why Erdogan is blocking Finland, Sweden's NATO path

The war in Ukraine challenged conventional wisdom for international rule-based order, competition of major powers and Euro-Atlantic security. The latest developments also enlivened NATO, possibly the largest military alliance in history.

Turkey has been a necessary ally NATO for 70 years. Our country joined the alliance in 1952 after sending troops to Korea in defense of democracy and freedom. During the Cold War and after that, Turkey has been a stabilising power and a force that has served for good in the Middle East, Caucasus and Black Sea regions. Turkish troops have also been deployed in many parts of the world, from Kosovo to Afghanistan, as part of NATO missions.

At the same time, our country invested billions of dollars in its defence industry, strengthening its defence capacity. This additional capacity resulted in the development of military products that have contributed to the change of war, including Ukraine, reports abcnews.al.

Indeed, Turkey's increased capacity has also contributed to NATO's stability and strength. While our partners have always praised the Turkish contribution to NATO's collective security mission, they forgot very soon when there was no threat to their national security.

Our partners who remember Turkey's importance only in turbulent times, such as the Balkan crisis, wrongly thought that long-term stability could be achieved without Turkey. Thus, after eliminating the immediate threat, they ignored geopolitical realities and possible threats that could appear in the region.

It is unnecessary to say that such pipeline dreams resulted in short-lived crises. In this respect, Turkey argued that NATO as all other international organisations should implement some reforms to cope with security threats.

Particularly for terrorism, the lack of collective action, despite direct attacks on many member states, undermined security co-operation and fostered distrust among the citizens of NATO countries for the organisation.

Turkey stressed this trend in all NATO summits and confirmed that international co-operation was vital to transforming the fight against terrorism. We wanted NATO to have better co-operation on intelligence and military issues regarding terrorist organisations, not only to prevent terrorist attacks, but also to curb financing and recruiting of terrorism within NATO borders.

We remain committed to that attitude.

Likewise, we made legitimate and necessary demands on NATO, as numerous civil wars broke out in Turkey's neighbourhood, to ensure the security of our borders and airspace, as well as human security, as the largest refugee wave since World War II in the region.

Largely abandoned, our country faced all those crises on its own and paid a high price during that effort. Ironically, any step taken under the NATO umbrella would have prepared the alliance for conflicts and future crises at its borders.

The new situation resulted from the war in Ukraine, evidence that Turkey's expectations and calls were correct. Some member states, which suddenly praised Turkey's geopolitical position after that conflict caused widespread divisions, noted that our nation had the right to take some steps in the past.

Turkey was right to ask NATO members to prepare for future geopolitical challenges, and, despite those who argued NATO was insignificant, Turkey had absolutely the right to declare that the organisation would be increasingly important.

While all NATO allies acknowledge Turkey's critical importance to the alliance, it is unfortunate that some members fail to fully assess some threats to our country.

Turkey claims that Sweden and Finland's membership brings risks to its security and the future of the organisation. We have the right to expect from those countries, which will expect NATO's second largest army to stand up for them according to Article 5, to prevent recruiting, collecting funds and propagandistic activities of the GDP, which the European Union and America consider a terrorist entity.

Turkey wants candidate countries to extradite members of these organisations. We gave clear evidence to authorities in these countries and waited for their actions. Turkey also wants these countries to support the anti-terror operations of NATO members.

Terrorism is a threat to all members, and candidate countries must recognise this reality before membership. Unless they take the necessary steps, Turkey will not change its position on the issue.

Furthermore, Turkey stresses that all forms of arms embargoes like what Sweden has imposed on my country are incompatible with the spirit of military partnership under NATO umbrella.

Such restrictions not only undermine our national security but also undermine NATO's own identity.

Sweden and Finland's insistence on joining the alliance has added an unnecessary point to NATO's agenda. Turkey's opposition to Swedish and Finland's membership, which remained neutral until the latest developments, represents a decisive step to take on behalf of all nations targeted by terrorist organisations to date.

After all, terrorism has no religion, nation, or color. That every member state has stood firm against any organisation intended to harm the civilian population is one of NATO's core goals. No country enjoys any privileges in this regard.

When it comes to solving problems and promoting global peace and security, there may not always be short distances. However, the road to success can become shorter by taking bold and necessary steps along the way.

Where Sweden and Finland stand in terms of national security concerns and considerations of other countries, with which they would like to be allies, will determine to what extent Turkey would like to be allied with those states.

The ignorance and obstacle of those who dare to question relations between Turkey, which has adopted a positive and constructive approach regarding the expansion of the alliance in the past, and NATO does not change our position. Our country, which is open to all forms of diplomacy and dialogue, strongly recommends that such a focus be applied instead of convincing candidates to change their positions.

We believe that the alliance's reputation and credibility will be jeopardised if NATO members follow double standards regarding the fight against terrorism./Abcnews. al