Turkey's Sweden decision: 'We were forced to eat our words'

12punto UK Representative Taner Bildik wrote about the reflections of Turkey's decision in the world press. Bildik stated that the international media pointed out that Turkey's decision to delay the vote and subsequently pass it through the committee did not meet the expectations underlying its resistance. Bildik wrote the following:

"Now we need to look at how the process will proceed. For the protocol to enter into force, it must also be approved by the General Assembly of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM).

At this very stage, when we look back, both past rhetoric and the failure to utilize this leverage have been viewed as a step back by the Turkish government.

The New York Times, in a commentary piece by Istanbul bureau chief Ben Hubbard, devoted significant space to the issue. The article underscored that Turkey's expectations underlying its resistance to Sweden's NATO membership have not been met.

Hubbard wrote that many NATO leaders believe Sweden has done everything necessary for accession, but Turkey's repeated delays in approving Sweden's entry have led them to view Turkey as a country that strengthens its position for its own domestic interests.

So, is this assessment correct? Was Turkey able to achieve this?

The British newspaper The Guardian highlighted that the passage of the Sweden NATO accession protocol through the committee paves the way for a full vote in parliament, where Erdoğan's ruling coalition holds a majority of the seats.

In other words, when the protocol comes to the Parliament, the AKP government will be able to approve Sweden's NATO membership!

The newspaper also included the assessment of Özgür Ünlühisarcıklı, Director of the Ankara Office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, who stated, "Sweden's NATO membership and the sale of F-16s to Turkey will be carried out in a somewhat coordinated manner... because unfortunately, no country trusts the other."

Right here, there is an interesting point that has even appeared in the German press: the fact that the weapons and equipment used by the PKK terrorist organization, which martyred 12 of our soldiers in the Pençe-Kilit operation zone in northern Iraq, are Swedish-made...

Zeit, one of Germany's leading newspapers, wrote that Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Burak Akçapar announced that Sweden has taken steps to meet Turkey's demands. The question of what kind of step Sweden took, however, remains a mystery!

When did all these developments take place? Before the blood of our 12 martyrs had even dried. Moreover, as soon as it emerged that the weapons that took lives were Swedish-made! Could the committee not have postponed this meeting in light of all these heated developments?

Could a campaign that would resonate with the world public not have been conducted, saying "Do you see why we oppose Sweden's NATO membership?"

Instead of fighting over who signed the condemnation declaration in Parliament, could a common sense approach not have been exercised regarding our sanctions within NATO?

Another striking analysis in The New York Times article draws attention. Something they see, but we cannot...

The article states, "Turkey is seeking a $20 billion package of American-made F-16 fighter jets and upgrade kits for the jets it already owns. The Biden administration has said it supports the sale, but members of Congress have objected, citing Turkey's human rights record and its stance toward Sweden. Mr. Erdogan has also tried to use Sweden's NATO bid to pressure another NATO member, Canada, which has imposed export restrictions on optical equipment Turkey uses in its drones."

Everything up to this point is normal. Of course, these demands of ours can be brought to the table as a subject of political bargaining. However, it is incomprehensible how this decision passed through the committee instead of taking a step regarding the process with our national interests in mind in such a fresh incident. And with the votes of the AKP, CHP, and MHP, no less...

The IYI Party and the Felicity Party (Saadet Partisi) voted "no." The DEM Party, known for its stance against NATO, did not even participate in the vote.

In the political arena, we have once again shouted in vain and were forced to eat our words. The issue in world politics is not to posture in front of cameras, but to leave the table having achieved what you wanted with the right move at the right time. Unfortunately, foreign policy does not work with simple moves like domestic politics...

If our perspective on foreign policy does not change, Sweden will become a NATO member, and it will continue to sell weapons to the PKK. Canada will not take a step back on sanctions, and Biden will continue to tell you to keep dreaming about the F-16s...

News Source: 12punto